Draft Final WWTP Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) May_2024

Exactly as extracted, unformatted — for checking against the original. The readable version is easier to read.

Centreville Wastewater Treatment Plant
ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Town of Centreville
Centreville, MD
May 2024
FINAL
Preliminary Engineering Report

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
FINAL Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................. v
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................... vii
1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Summary of Evaluations .............................................................................................................................7
1.2 Summary of Improvements.........................................................................................................................7
2 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Existing Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Objective .................................................................................................................................................. 16
2.3.1 Treatment Quality Goals ...................................................................................................................... 16
3 Project Planning ............................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Cost and Effectiveness Analysis ............................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Environmental Resources........................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.1 Desktop Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.2 Waters of the U.S. (Including Wetlands) Delineation .......................................................................... 19
3.2.3 Terrestrial Habitat ................................................................................................................................ 19
3.2.4 Coast Smart Climate Ready Action Boundary (CS-CRAB) ................................................................. 19
3.3 Location ................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Population Trends .................................................................................................................................... 22
4 Existing Performance, Facilities, and Conditions ............................................................................................. 23
4.1 Location Map ........................................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 History ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Financial Status ....................................................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Current Influent Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 25
4.5 Existing Plant Performance ..................................................................................................................... 25
4.6 Condition of Existing Facilities ................................................................................................................. 36
4.6.1 Treatment Process Overview .............................................................................................................. 36
4.6.2 Process/Equipment Assessment ......................................................................................................... 38
4.6.2.1 Influent Screening ........................................................................................................................ 38
4.6.2.2 Sequencing Batch Reactor .......................................................................................................... 38
4.6.2.3 Post Equalization Tank ................................................................................................................ 39
Page i

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
FINAL Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
4.6.2.4 Sludge Holding Tank ................................................................................................................... 40
4.6.2.5 Cloth Media Filtration ................................................................................................................... 40
4.6.2.6 UV Light Disinfection ................................................................................................................... 41
4.6.2.7 Effluent Pump Station .................................................................................................................. 42
4.6.2.8 Chlorine Contact Tank ................................................................................................................. 42
4.6.2.9 Chemical Addition ........................................................................................................................ 42
4.6.2.10 Existing Electrical System ........................................................................................................ 42
4.6.2.11 Existing Controls System ......................................................................................................... 43
4.6.2.12 Existing Spray Irrigation Effluent Disposal ............................................................................... 43
4.7 Water and Energy Audits ......................................................................................................................... 44
5 Need for Project................................................................................................................................................ 46
5.1 Health, Sanitation and Security ............................................................................................................... 46
5.2 Aging Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................. 46
5.3 Reasonable Growth ................................................................................................................................. 47
6 Upgrade and Expansion Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 48
6.1 Common Upgrades .................................................................................................................................. 49
6.1.1 Influent Screening ................................................................................................................................ 49
6.1.2 Influent Flow Equalization Tank ........................................................................................................... 50
6.1.3 UV Disinfection .................................................................................................................................... 50
6.1.4 Chemical Dosing .................................................................................................................................. 51
6.1.5 Review of Effluent Disposal Options ................................................................................................... 51
6.1.5.1 Year Round Stream Discharge .................................................................................................... 52
6.1.6 Biosolids Handling ............................................................................................................................... 52
6.1.7 Non-Potable Water System ................................................................................................................. 55
6.1.8 Laboratory and Administration Building ............................................................................................... 56
6.1.9 Filter and Blower Building .................................................................................................................... 56
6.1.10 Control Building ................................................................................................................................... 57
6.1.11 Electrical System Upgrades................................................................................................................. 58
6.1.11.1 Filter and Blower Building ........................................................................................................ 58
6.1.11.2 Lab Building ............................................................................................................................. 58
6.1.11.3 Pump Building (Old Control/Admin Building) ........................................................................... 58
6.1.11.4 Replacement Influent Screening.............................................................................................. 58
6.1.11.5 New Dewatering Facility .......................................................................................................... 58
6.1.11.6 New MBR Process Building ..................................................................................................... 59
6.1.11.7 General Site Electrical ............................................................................................................. 59
6.1.12 Control System Upgrades .................................................................................................................... 59
Page ii

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
FINAL Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
6.2 Treatment Alternative Upgrades .............................................................................................................. 60
6.2.1 Alternative 1 – Expand the Sequencing Batch Reactor ...................................................................... 60
6.2.1.1 SBR Process ............................................................................................................................... 60
6.2.1.2 SBR with Aerobic Granular Sludge ............................................................................................. 61
6.2.1.3 Effluent Filtering ........................................................................................................................... 61
6.2.1.4 Post Equalization Tank ................................................................................................................ 63
6.2.2 Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge.................................................................................... 63
6.2.2.1 Activated Sludge Process ............................................................................................................ 63
6.2.2.2 Effluent Filtering ........................................................................................................................... 66
6.2.3 Alternative 3 – Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Activated Sludge .......................................................... 66
6.2.3.1 MBR Process ............................................................................................................................... 66
6.3 Site Plans and Schematics ...................................................................................................................... 69
6.4 Environmental Impact .............................................................................................................................. 73
6.4.1 Alternative 1 – Expand the Sequencing Batch Reactor ...................................................................... 73
6.4.2 Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge.................................................................................... 73
6.4.3 Alternative 3 – Membrane Bioreactor .................................................................................................. 73
6.5 Sustainability Considerations .................................................................................................................. 73
6.5.1 Water, Chemical and Energy Efficiency .............................................................................................. 74
6.5.2 Green Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 74
6.5.3 Climate Related Considerations .......................................................................................................... 74
6.6 Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................................................... 75
6.7 Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 77
6.8 Land Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 78
6.9 Potential Construction Issues .................................................................................................................. 78
7 Alternative Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 80
7.1 Effluent Water Quality Comparison ......................................................................................................... 80
7.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 82
7.3 Non-Monetary Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 83
8 Recommended Upgrades and Expansion ....................................................................................................... 87
8.1 Preliminary Project Design ...................................................................................................................... 87
8.2 Permit Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 88
8.3 Sustainability Considerations .................................................................................................................. 88
8.3.1 Water and Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................... 88
8.3.2 Green Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 89
8.3.3 Climate Related Considerations .......................................................................................................... 89
8.4 Construction Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................................... 89
Page iii

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
FINAL Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
8.5 Annual Operating Budget ........................................................................................................................ 90
8.5.1 Income ................................................................................................................................................. 90
8.5.2 Annual O&M Costs .............................................................................................................................. 91
8.5.3 Debt Repayments ................................................................................................................................ 91
8.5.4 Reserves .............................................................................................................................................. 91
8.6 Project Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................................ 91
9 Project Asset Management .............................................................................................................................. 95
9.1 Inventory of Critical Assets ...................................................................................................................... 95
9.2 Condition of Critical Assets ...................................................................................................................... 95
9.3 Critical Asset Maintenance and Replacement Plan ................................................................................ 96
9.4 Critical Asset Energy and Water Efficiency Plan ..................................................................................... 96
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Upgrade and Expansion of Facilities .........................................................................................................2
Table 1.2: Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate – Alternative 3 (MBR Activated Sludge) ....................................9
Table 3.1: Centreville Population Data .................................................................................................................... 22
Table 4.1: Recent Water and Sewer Income and Expenses................................................................................... 24
Table 4.2: Budgeted Water and Sewer Income and Expenses .............................................................................. 24
Table 4.3: Existing Debt Service ............................................................................................................................. 24
Table 4.4: Existing Influent Conditions at Centreville WWTP.................................................................................. 25
Table 4.5: Centreville WWTP Stream and Spray Effluent Flows ............................................................................ 25
Table 4.6: Centreville WWTP Stream Effluent BOD, TSS, TKN, and Ammonia Concentrations ........................... 26
Table 4.7: Centreville WWTP Stream Effluent Total NO + NO , TN, TP, and E. Coli Concentrations .................. 26
2 3
Table 4.8: Centreville WWTP Spray Effluent BOD, TSS, TKN, and Ammonia Concentrations .............................. 26
Table 4.9: Centreville WWTP Spray Effluent Total NO + NO , TN, TP, and E. Coli Concentrations .................... 27
2 3
Table 4.10: Existing SBR Tanks .............................................................................................................................. 39
Table 4.11: Existing Post Equalization Tank ........................................................................................................... 39
Table 4.12: Existing Sludge Holding Tank .............................................................................................................. 40
Table 4.13: Existing UV Disinfection ....................................................................................................................... 41
Table 4.14: Existing Significant Water Uses ........................................................................................................... 44
Table 4.15: Existing Major Electrical Demands ....................................................................................................... 44
Table 4.16: Recent Electrical Usage ....................................................................................................................... 45
Table 5.1: Historical Centreville Effluent Flow ......................................................................................................... 46
Table 6.1: Influent Mechanical Screen Design Basis – Alternatives 1 and 2 .......................................................... 49
Table 6.2: Influent Mechanical Screen Design Basis – Alternative 3 ...................................................................... 50
Table 6.3: UV Disinfection Replacement System Design Basis ............................................................................. 51
Page iv

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
FINAL Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
Table 6.4: Aerobic Digester Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 52
Table 6.5: SBR Design Basis .................................................................................................................................. 61
Table 6.6: Denitrifying Filter Design Basis .............................................................................................................. 63
Table 6.7: 5-Stage Activated Sludge Basin Design Basis ....................................................................................... 65
Table 6.8: Secondary Clarifier Design Basis ........................................................................................................... 66
Table 6.9: 5-Stage Activated Sludge Basin with MBR Design Basis ...................................................................... 68
Table 6.10: Environmental Impacts by Design Alternative for Centreville WWTP Site ........................................... 73
Table 6.11: Conceptual Construction Cost Estimates for Treatment Alternatives .................................................. 76
Table 6.12: Influent Basis of Design ........................................................................................................................ 77
Table 6.13: Effluent Basis of Design ....................................................................................................................... 78
Table 6.14: Summary of Potential Construction Issues .......................................................................................... 79
Table 7.1: BioWin® Model Influent Conditions ........................................................................................................ 80
Table 7.2: Target Secondary Effluent Water Quality Parameters ........................................................................... 81
Table 7.3: Secondary Effluent Water Quality BioWin Modeling Results – Average Conditions ............................. 81
Table 7.4: Secondary Effluent Water Quality BioWin Modeling Results – Maximum Monthly Conditions ............. 82
Table 7.5: Life Cycle Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 83
Table 7.6: Non-Monetary Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives ............................................................................. 85
Table 8.1: Preliminary Project Design – Alt 3 MBR Activated Sludge ..................................................................... 87
Table 8.2: Permit Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 88
Table 8.3: Scope and Construction Cost Estimate – Alternative 3 (MBR Activated Sludge) .................................. 90
Table 8.4: Sewer System Income ............................................................................................................................ 91
Table 8.5: Annual Sewer System O&M Costs ......................................................................................................... 91
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Alternative 1 Proposed Process Flow Diagram........................................................................................4
Figure 1.2: Alternative 2 Proposed Process Flow Diagram........................................................................................5
Figure 1.3: Alternative 3 Proposed Process Flow Diagram........................................................................................6
Figure 1.4: Site Plan of ENR Upgrades and Expansion – Alternative 3 MBR Activated Sludge ...............................8
Figure 1.5: Upgrade and Expansion Schedule ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2.1: Centreville WWTP SBR ......................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.2: Centreville WWTP Existing Process Flow Diagram .............................................................................. 14
Figure 2.3: Existing Treatment Facilities (Credit: Google Earth) ............................................................................. 15
Figure 2.4: Further Existing Facilities (Credit: Google Earth) .................................................................................. 16
Figure 3.1: Environmental Resources Map ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 3.2: Centreville Population ........................................................................................................................... 22
Page v

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
FINAL Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
Figure 4.1: Location Map (Credit: Google Earth) .................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4.2: Stream Effluent Total Flow .................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.3: Spray Effluent Total Flow ...................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4.4: Stream Effluent BOD Concentration ..................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4.5: Spray Effluent BOD Concentration ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.6: Stream Effluent TSS Concentration ...................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.7: Spray Effluent TSS Concentration ........................................................................................................ 30
Figure 4.8: Stream Effluent TKN Concentration ...................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.9: Spray Effluent TKN Concentration ........................................................................................................ 31
Figure 4.10: Stream Effluent Ammonia Concentration ............................................................................................ 31
Figure 4.11: Spray Effluent Ammonia Concentration .............................................................................................. 32
Figure 4.12: Stream Effluent NO + NO Concentration ......................................................................................... 32
3 2
Figure 4.13: Spray Effluent NO + NO Concentration ............................................................................................ 33
3 2
Figure 4.14: Stream Effluent Total Nitrogen Concentration .................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.15: Spray Effluent Total Nitrogen Concentration....................................................................................... 34
Figure 4.16: Stream Effluent Total Phosphorus Concentration ............................................................................... 34
Figure 4.17: Spray Effluent Total Phosphorus Concentration ................................................................................. 35
Figure 4.18: Stream Effluent Geomean E. Coli Concentration................................................................................ 35
Figure 4.19: Spray Effluent Geomean E. Coli Concentration .................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.20: Sequencing Batch Reactor Sequence of Operation (Source: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.) .............. 37
Figure 4.21: SBR Tank w/Surface Mixer/Aerator and Decant Device (Credit: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.) ......... 38
Figure 4.22: Cloth Media Filter Components (Credit: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.) ............................................... 41
Figure 4.23: UV Disinfection Unit Isometric View (Credit: Enaqua) ........................................................................ 41
Figure 6.1: Belt Filter Press (Credit: Andritz) ........................................................................................................... 54
Figure 6.2: Volute Dewatering Press (Credit: Process Wastewater Technologies, LLC) ....................................... 54
Figure 6.3: Screw Press (Credit: Schwing Bioset, Inc.) ........................................................................................... 55
Figure 6.4: Existing Lab Building ............................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 6.5: Existing Filter and Blower Building ........................................................................................................ 57
Figure 6.6: Existing Control Building ....................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 6.7: Schematic of 5-Stage Process (Credit: EPA)........................................................................................ 64
Figure 6.8: Alternative 1 Proposed Site Layout ....................................................................................................... 70
Figure 6.9: Alternative 2 Proposed Site Layout ....................................................................................................... 71
Figure 6.10: Alternative 3 Proposed Site Layout ..................................................................................................... 72
Figure 8.1: Project Implementation Schedule ......................................................................................................... 92
Page vi

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
FINAL Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
Appendices
Appendix A Cost Estimate Line Items .................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix B Existing NPDES Stream and Spray Discharge Permits ..................................................................... 99
Appendix C Influent Sampling Data and 9-Year Effluent Operating Data ............................................................ 100
Appendix D Major Process Equipment Catalog Information ................................................................................ 101
Appendix E Preliminary Hydraulic Profiles ........................................................................................................... 102
Appendix F Electrical Service Sizing and Single-Line Diagrams ......................................................................... 103
Page vii

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
1 Executive Summary
The Town of Centreville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is owned and operated by the Town of Centreville
and treats flows from the entire town. The Centreville WWTP was most recently upgraded and expanded in 2003,
including an upgrade of the facility to achieve biological nutrient removal (BNR) levels of treatment. The nutrient
removal process at the Centreville WWTP consists of a two-tank sequencing batch reactor (SBR) with chemical
addition for phosphorous precipitation and cloth media filtration. The WWTP is treating wastewater as designed
and is meeting all the NPDES permit limits.
The facility has a permitted treatment capacity of 0.542 million gallons per day (MGD). The annual average daily
flow (AAF) of the plant for the period 2014 through 2022 is 0.40 MGD. The most recent three calendar years,
2020-2022, averaged 0.45 MGD AAF, which is 83% of permitted capacity. The Town anticipates continued
growth in the service area and may consider annexation of areas into the service area. Under the plant’s current
NPDES discharge permits, treated effluent is disposed into Gravel Run, a tributary to Corsica River, during the
winter months and sprayed onto off-site irrigation fields during the warmer months.
The overall objective for this project is to expand the liquid and solids treatment and effluent disposal capacity to
meet the needs of the anticipated growth, as well as meet enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) levels of treatment
and continue compliance with the NPDES discharge permit. In concert with the treatment capacity expansion, the
auxiliary systems, including the laboratory, office space, influent screening, and disinfection facilities will be
upgraded and modernized. In addition, sludge handling, biosolids treatment and dewatering facilities will be
included. A non-potable water system will be added to the facility to allow for the use of treated effluent for on-site
uses.
The condition and performance of the existing facilities were evaluated. Almost all the facilities were found to be in
good operating condition. The tertiary cloth media filter has been reported as having insufficient hydraulic
throughput for wet weather flows. The cloth media was replaced, and the filter has been reviewed by a
manufacturer’s representative. In the evaluation of treatment alternatives, the cloth media filter would be replaced
by a deep bed denitrifying (sand) filter that will both remove particulate as well as remove nitrogen.
This Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) considers three treatment alternatives to expand the design capacity
of the WWTP to 1.0 MGD as well as meet ENR treatment levels:
• Alternative 1 – SBR: Expand the existing SBR process, followed by tertiary denitrification filters,
• Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge: Replace the existing SBR system with a 5-stage ENR
activated sludge process, followed by tertiary filters (with denitrification capability),
• Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge: Replace the existing SBR system with a 5-stage ENR Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR) activated sludge process.
Each alternative will require modifications to most of the existing treatment facilities, including sludge handling
and expansion of the effluent disposal facilities. The expansion of the facilities capacity and upgrades to
equipment will require enhancements to control and monitoring systems throughout the plant process areas. The
addition of a centralized Plant Control System for monitoring and control will reduce overall operator and facilitate
collection of process data. The identification and study of the effluent disposal expansion options will be
conducted separately from this PER. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the proposed modifications for Alternatives
1, 2, and 3. Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 show the proposed process flow diagrams for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3,
respectively.
Based on the evaluations in this PER, Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge is recommended for the upgrade and
expansion of the Centreville WWTP.
Page 1

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 1.1: Upgrade and Expansion of Facilities
Facility Alternative 1 – 4 SBRs Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge
Replace existing mechanical screen with similar
Upgrade screening to mechanically cleaned bar
larger model rated at 4.0 MGD (peak hydraulic
Influent Screening Same as Alternative 1 rack followed by two (2) redundant 2-mm
flow), modify existing concrete channel to
opening center feed band screens.
accommodate.
Not required for operation but requested by the
Not required for operation but requested by the
Town. Convert the existing SBR process tanks to
Town. Construct a new 500,000-gallon working
two (2) approximately 500,000-gallon working
Influent Flow capacity flow equalization tank with surface
capacity each flow equalization tanks with surface Same as Alternative 2 but required for operation.
Equalization Tank aerator/mixers. Submersible pumps will pump
aerator/mixers. Submersible pumps will pump
flow from the influent flow equalization tank to the
flow from the influent flow equalization tank to the
SBRs.
5-stage activated sludge basins.
Install two (2) additional SBR tanks. Install
surface mixers, removable fine bubble diffusers Not required. The existing SBR tanks will be
SBR Same as Alternative 2.
and decant arms. Four (4) total 50 HP blowers converted into influent flow equalization tanks.
added to Filter and Blower Building.
Install 2-train, 5-stage conventional activated
sludge process with membranes to separate
solids from treated effluent. Fine bubble diffusers
Install 2 train, 5-stage conventional activated to incorporate air from proposed high efficiency
sludge process. Fine bubble diffusers to blowers. Anoxic and swing zones will be agitated
incorporate air from proposed high efficiency with vertical mechanical mixers. Permeate
Expand the existing SBR tanks with additional
Biological Reactors blowers. Anoxic and swing zones will be agitated pumps will draw effluent through membranes.
SBR tankage
with vertical mechanical mixers. Low head Low head propeller pumps for internal recycle
propeller pumps for internal recycle will be and return activated sludge will be installed.
installed. Waste sludge pumps will pull mixed liquor from
the reactors and discharge into the aerobic
digesters. Chemical cleaning facilities will be
provided to clean the membranes.
Two (2) rectangular clarifiers with chain and flight
sludge collection and submersible return activated
Secondary Clarifiers Not required sludge (RAS) pumps installed in a sump. Sludge Not required
will be wasted from the RAS forcemain into the
aerobic digesters.
Provide double contained polyaluminum chloride
(PACl) tank located in Filter and Blower Building
Chemical Dosing for chemical phosphorus removal. Provide Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
methanol storage and dosing facility for external
carbon addition for enhanced denitrification.
Post Equalization Construct new 250,000-gallon post equalization
Not required Not required
Tank tank with surface agitators.
Page 2

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 1.1: Upgrade and Expansion of Facilities
Facility Alternative 1 – 4 SBRs Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge
Replace the existing cloth media filter with a
continuous backwash sand filter in concrete
tanks, sized to provide denitrification with the
Effluent Filter Same as Alternative 1 Not required
addition of external carbon. House filter
mechanical equipment and controls in a new
building. Include maintenance space in building.
Install two UV disinfection units to replace
UV Disinfection Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
existing.
To be further evaluated. Options include:
• Additional spray irrigation disposal with
storage lagoon,
Effluent Disposal • Relocation of the existing outfall and Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
expand stream discharge to year round,
and
• Planning for future beneficial water reuse.
Install non-potable water system within the Filter
and Blower Building that draws from the UV
Non-Potable Water effluent and pumps to an on-site distribution
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
System system for applications such as spray water for
influent screens, pump seal water, wash down, or
yard hydrants throughout the WWTP.
Retrofit existing SBR post equalization tank and
Install new aerobic digesters with ability to thicken
sludge holding tank to two aerobic digesters with
solids and decant liquid back to treatment
ability to thicken solids and decant liquid back to
Aerobic Digesters process. Digester tank will have center wall to Same as Alternative 2
treatment process. Existing process blowers will
allow half of the tank offline. New blowers will
supply air. Coarse air stainless steel diffusers will
supply air.
be mounted to the bottom slab.
Install new biosolids handling building for
Biosolids Dewatering
dewatering process. New covered sludge cake Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
System
storage area for treated biosolids.
Provide enhanced process controls with
centralized monitoring and control workstation for
Plant Control System Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
operator interface. Provide capabilities to provide
hub for Town wide SCADA system of utilities.
Reconfigure the Laboratory/Administration
Laboratory/ Building to better utilize the space for the
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Administration Space laboratory uses. Provide a dedicated space for
locker rooms and offices.
Page 3

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
1.1 Summary of Evaluations
To improve treatment to provide ENR level effluent water quality and to expand the treatment capacity for current
and projected influent wastewater flows, three (3) alternatives were developed and evaluated. A “do nothing”
alternative is not viable as the current average influent has exceeded 80% of the design treatment capacity and
the effluent water quality has occasionally been adversely affected. Additionally, influent flows are projected to
continue to increase in the future.
Preliminary sizing of the biological treatment process for each alternative to achieve the required effluent water
quality was completed using the BioWin® process simulator (by EnviroSim).
Evaluation and comparison of each alternative is based on life cycle cost and non-monetary criteria:
• Life Cycle Cost Analysis (capital and O&M costs)
• Non-Monetary Comparison
• Energy and Water Efficiency
• Environmental Impacts
The capital costs of the three alternatives are within 8% from the least expensive Alternative 1 – SBR ($33.0
million), and the most expensive Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge ($35.5 million). The O&M costs
were based on an assumed 20-year project life and resulted in life cycle costs of the three alternatives within 8%
of each other, ranging from $47.9 million to $51.9 million.
Given the complexity of each alternative and the variability introduced in projecting operating and maintenance
costs for a 20 year project life, the costs of the three alternatives are similar.
The non-monetary comparison indicated that Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge and Alternative 3 –
MBR Activated Sludge were similar and both preferred to Alternative 1 – SBR. The ability to evolve with future
regulations and technologies, and the use of the available space were key advantages for Alternatives 2 and 3,
with Alternative 3 scoring higher than Alternative 2.
The treated effluent water quality of all three alternatives will be sufficient to meet off-site Class III and IV
reclaimed water requirements for future consideration.
Given the smaller footprint of Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge compared to the other two alternatives, the
impact on the environment will be reduced. Alternative 3 will have greater flexibility to avoid the environmentally
sensitive areas of the available site and have a reduced impact overall.
Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge uses a permeable membrane to separate solids from the treated effluent
compared to the other two alternatives using conventional sand media filter, and will produce the highest effluent
quality in terms of suspended solids and turbidity.
Based on the evaluations, Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge is recommended for the upgrade and expansion
of the Centreville WWTP.
1.2 Summary of Improvements
A site plan of the locations of the facilities that will be affected by the ENR upgrade and expansion, and
approximate location of proposed facilities for the recommended Alternative 3 – MBR is shown in Figure 1.4.
Page 7

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Figure 1.4: Site Plan of ENR Upgrades and Expansion – Alternative 3 MBR Activated Sludge
The key scope items and rough order of magnitude (ROM) construction cost estimate for each improvement is
summarized in Table 1.2. Given the conceptual design stage, a minus 20 percent and a plus 50 percent cost
contingency are added to the estimate. Additional cost breakdown for Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge is
included in Appendix A.
Page 8

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 1.2: Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate – Alternative 3 (MBR Activated Sludge)
Item No. Category Cost
1 Interior Demolition (Lab, Control, and Filter and Blower Buildings) $95,000
2 Influent Screening Expansion $825,000
3 Converting Influent Flow Equalization Tanks, Aerated, with Pumping $2,019,000
4 Methanol Facility $618,000
5 UV Disinfection System $642,000
6 Non-Potable Water System $54,000
7 Dewatering Facility $2,413,000
8 Covered Cake Storage Facility $835,000
9 Lab, Control, and Filter and Blower Buildings Refurbishments $617,000
10 Existing Tank Modifications $643,000
11 Miscellaneous Process Piping and Equipment $784,000
12 MBR Process Building, MBR Equipment and Controls $5,789,000
13 Aerobic Digester Tank and Equipment $78,000
14 Electrical $4,169,000
15 Site Civil, including Yard Piping and Demolition (15% Items 1-12) $2,312,000
16 Site SCADA (5% Items 1-12) $771,000
Subtotal $22,664,000
Design Contingency (30% of Subtotal) $6,799,000
Escalation to December 2026 (4%/year) $3,678,000
Total $33,141,000
Total (Low Range -20%) $26,513,000
Total (High Range +50%) $49,712,000
The design and construction durations for the project were developed and presented in Figure 1.5.
Page 9

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 Centreville WWTP ENR 1655 days Mon Mon
Upgrade and Expansion 3/20/23 7/23/29
2 PER Development 255 days Mon 3/20/23Fri 3/8/24
3 Start PER Update 0 days Mon 3/20/23Mon 3/20/23 3/20
4 Advertise for M/WBE 4 wks Mon 3/27/23Fri 4/21/23
5 Town Assembles 4 wks Mon 3/27/23Fri 4/21/23
Requested Information
6 Develop ENR PER 2 wks Mon 4/24/23Fri 5/5/23
Amendment
7 Town Review PER 2 wks Mon 5/8/23 Fri 5/19/23
Amendment
8 Sub Agreements 2 wks Mon 5/22/23Fri 6/2/23
9 Develop Draft PER 4 wks Mon 6/5/23 Fri 6/30/23
10 Topo Survey 4 wks Mon 6/5/23 Fri 6/30/23
11 Develop Alternatives 16 wks Mon 3/20/23Fri 7/7/23
12 Subconsultant Field Work8 wks Mon 5/22/23Fri 7/14/23
13 Develop PER 22 wks Mon 7/17/23Fri 12/15/23
14 Draft PER to Town and 0 days Mon Mon 12/18
MDE 12/18/23 12/18/23
15 Review Draft PER 8 wks Mon 12/18/23Fri 2/9/24
16 Incorporate Comments 2 wks Mon 2/12/24Fri 2/23/24
17 Finalize PER 2 wks Mon 2/26/24Fri 3/8/24
18 Develop Design Proposal4 wks Mon 12/18/23Fri 1/12/24
19 Town Reviews Design 2 wks Mon 1/15/24Fri 1/26/24
Proposal
20 ENR Upgrade Design 390 days Mon 1/29/24Fri 7/25/25
21 Project Set Up 2 wks Mon 1/29/24Fri 2/9/24
22 Design Kick Off w Town 0 days Mon 2/12/24Mon 2/12/24 2/12
23 30% Design 8 wks Mon 2/12/24Fri 4/5/24
24 30% Design Internal QA 2 wks Mon 4/8/24 Fri 4/19/24
25 30% Design to Town 0 days Mon 4/22/24Mon 4/22/24 4/22
26 Town Reviews 30% Design2 wks Mon 4/22/24Fri 5/3/24
27 30% Design Comment 0 days Mon 5/6/24 Mon 5/6/24 5/6
Review Meeting
28 60% Design 10 wks Mon 5/6/24 Fri 7/12/24
29 60% Design Internal QA 2 wks Mon 7/15/24Fri 7/26/24
30 60% Design to Town 0 days Mon 7/29/24Mon 7/29/24 7/29
31 Town Reviews 60% Design2 wks Mon 7/29/24Fri 8/9/24
Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline
Project: Centreville WWTP ENR Split Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only Progress
Date: Mon 12/4/23
Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup External Tasks Manual Progress
Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone
Figure 1.5: UpgradeP aagned 1Expansion Schedule

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
32 60% Design Comment 0 days Mon 8/12/24Mon 8/12/24 8/12
Review Meeting
33 Pre-Final Design 10 wks Mon 8/12/24Fri 10/18/24
34 Pre-Final Design Internal2 wks Mon Fri 11/1/24
QA 10/21/24
35 Pre-Final Design to Town0 days Mon 11/4/24Mon 11/4/24 11/4
36 Town Reviews Pre-Final 2 wks Mon 11/4/24Fri 11/15/24
Design
37 Pre-Final Design 0 days Mon Mon 11/18
Comment Review 11/18/24 11/18/24
38 Design Review Meeting 2 wks Mon Fri 11/29/24
with MDE 11/18/24
39 MDE Review 8 wks Mon 12/2/24Fri 1/24/25
40 Permitting 12 wks Mon 1/27/25Fri 4/18/25
41 Develop Bid Ready 4 wks Mon 4/21/25Fri 5/16/25
Documents
42 Bid Ready Doc Internal QA2 wks Mon 5/19/25Fri 5/30/25
43 Bid Ready Docs to Town 0 days Mon 6/2/25 Mon 6/2/25 6/2
44 Town Finalizes Funding 8 wks Mon 6/2/25 Fri 7/25/25
45 ENR Upgrade and 130 days Mon Fri 1/23/26
Expansion Bidding 7/28/25
46 Town Prepares for 4 wks Mon 7/28/25Fri 8/22/25
Advertisement
47 Advertise 12 wks Mon 8/25/25Fri 11/14/25
48 Open Bids 0 days Mon 11/17/25Mon 11/17/25 11/17
49 Bid Review 2 wks Mon 11/17/25Fri 11/28/25
50 Bid Recommendation to 0 days Mon 12/1/25Mon 12/1/25 12/1
MDE
51 MDE Bid Review 4 wks Mon 12/1/25Fri 12/26/25
52 Construction NTP 4 wks Mon 12/29/25Fri 1/23/26
53 ENR Upgrade and Exp 910 days Mon Mon
Construction 1/26/26 7/23/29
54 Issue PO's 2 wks Mon 1/26/26Fri 2/6/26
55 Shop Drawing 16 wks Mon 2/9/26 Fri 5/29/26
Submittals and Review
56 Major Equipment Delivery36 wks Mon 6/1/26 Fri 2/5/27
57 Mobilize Site 0 days Mon 2/8/27 Mon 2/8/27 2/8
58 Construction 104 wks Mon 2/8/27 Fri 2/2/29
59 Substantial Completion 0 days Mon 2/5/29 Mon 2/5/29 2/5
Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline
Project: Centreville WWTP ENR Split Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only Progress
Date: Mon 12/4/23
Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup External Tasks Manual Progress
Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone
Figure 1.5: UpgradeP aagned 2Expansion Schedule

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
60 Operations Process 2 wks Mon 2/5/29 Fri 2/16/29
Training
61 Commissioning and 12 wks Mon 2/19/29Fri 5/11/29
Start Up
62 Process Testing 4 wks Mon 5/14/29Fri 6/8/29
63 Develop Punchlist 2 wks Mon 6/11/29Fri 6/22/29
64 Project Closeout 4 wks Mon 6/25/29Fri 7/20/29
65 Final Completion 0 days Mon 7/23/29Mon 7/23/29 7/23
Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline
Project: Centreville WWTP ENR Split Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only Progress
Date: Mon 12/4/23
Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup External Tasks Manual Progress
Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone
Figure 1.5: UpgradeP aagned 3Expansion Schedule

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
2 Background
2.1 Introduction
The Town of Centreville, established in 1782, is the county seat of Queen Anne’s County and is the County's
largest incorporated municipality with an estimated 2020 population of about 4,700 people. The Town, located on
Corsica River is situated in the center of Queen Anne's County and is geographically positioned in the middle of
Maryland's Eastern Shore.
The Town of Centreville Board of Commissioners owns the Centreville WWTP located at 116 Johnstown Lane,
Centreville, MD. The Centreville WWTP has a surface water discharge permit, state number 20-DP-0116 and
NPDES discharge permit number MD0020834, and a groundwater discharge permit, state number 20-DP-3323
and NPDES discharge permit number MD3323R05. Each permit allows 0.542 MGD annual average flow to be
discharged. The Centreville WWTP has had an average daily flow of 0.40 MGD for the calendar years 2014
through 2022. The Town has experienced steady growth over the past several years and has been approached
by multiple developers with plans to develop in the growth areas surrounding the current Town limits.
The Centreville WWTP was originally constructed in 1963, and major Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) funded
upgrades and expansion that was completed in 2005. The 2005 modifications included an upgrade of the facility
to achieve BNR levels of treatment included total effluent nitrogen concentration of 5.5 mg-N/L, and total effluent
phosphorus concentration of 1.0 mg-P/L. The nutrient removal process at the Centreville WWTP consists of a
two-tank SBR with chemical addition for phosphorous precipitation and cloth media filtration, as can be seen in
Figure 2.1. The facility effluent total nitrogen and total phosphorus monthly average permit concentrations when
discharging to surface waters are 5.5 and 1.0 mg/L, respectively.
Figure 2.1: Centreville WWTP SBR
2.2 Existing Facilities
The facility provides preliminary treatment, with an activated sludge process for secondary biological nutrient
removal, tertiary particulate filtration, followed by effluent disinfection with ultraviolet (UV) light, and final post
aeration. Final effluent from the plant can be discharged to the Gravel Run stream December 1 to March 31, and
groundwater application via spray irrigation from March 1 through December 15. A 20 million gallon (MG) working
volume effluent storage lagoon is located adjacent to the spray irrigation fields. Sludge generated in the treatment
process is stored in an aerated storage tank and applied and dried in reed beds. Periodically, the reed beds are
removed an disposed of by land application.
Figure 2.2 provides the existing process flow diagram (PFD).
Page 13

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Figure 2.3 provides an overview of the existing treatment process facilities at the Centreville WWTP.
Filter and
Blower Building,
including UV
Disinfection
Post
Equalization SBR Tank 2
SBR Tank 1
Tank
Effluent Pump
Station
Sludge Holding
Tank
Influent
Screening
Figure 2.3: Existing Treatment Facilities (Credit: Google Earth)
Figure 2.4 provides an overview of the existing sludge reed drying beds, chlorine contact tank, Laboratory and
Administration Building, and the influent screening.
Page 15

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Laboratory and
Chlorine Contact Tank Influent
Admin Building
Screening
Sludge Reed Drying
Beds
Figure 2.4: Further Existing Facilities (Credit: Google Earth)
2.3 Objective
The overall objective for the project is to expand the liquid and solids treatment and treated effluent disposal
capacity to both meet the needs of the anticipated growth within the service area, as well as meet ENR level
treatment and continue compliance with the NPDES discharge permit(s). In concert with the upgrade, the
supporting facilities, including the laboratory, office space, and backup power system, will be upgraded. An on-site
non-potable water system will be added to allow for the use of treated effluent for a variety of applications, which
will increase the efficiency of the plant.
2.3.1 Treatment Quality Goals
Under the plant’s current NPDES discharge permits, treated effluent is disposed into Gravel Run, a tributary to
Corsica River, during the period between December 1 through March 31. No stream discharge is permitted from
April 1 through November 30 and during this period effluent up to the permitted capacity is disposed of by offsite
spray irrigation to ground waters through a separate permit (both the stream permit and the ground water permit
are included in Appendix B).
Page 16

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
With the proposed treatment capacity expansion, the effluent disposal capacity will need to be expanded as well
and the Town envisions a combination of spray irrigation and year-round stream discharge. However, year-round
stream discharge will require a relocation of the current Gravel Run outfall to a new outfall location further
downstream and directly into Corsica River as identified in MDE’s Nutrient TMDL for Corsica River. As such, with
the capacity expansion, the Town intends to replace the current BNR treatment process with enhanced nutrient
removal (ENR) technology to meet TN and TP effluent levels of 3.0 mg/L and 0.3 mg/L, respectively.
Page 17

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
3 Project Planning
3.1 Cost and Effectiveness Analysis
The development of viable treatment alternatives considers and weights monetary and non-monetary factors to
deliver a project that meets the treatment objectives, is resilient, preserves natural resources, and is cost
effective. The Town of Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion project is similar to other WWTP upgrade
projects in Maryland that have implemented enhanced nutrient removal, and the alternatives propose to utilize
equipment and treatment processes that have been proven successful and cost effective elsewhere.
Components that do preserve natural resources and are cost effective are incorporated into the project wherever
practical. Examples include the inclusion of a treated effluent supplied non-potable water system for onsite
process water uses in place of potable water, and the use of slow speed sludge dewatering equipment that draws
less power than high rotational speed centrifuges.
Throughout the design process, there will be opportunities to select equipment that provides energy and water
efficiency. Examples include:
1.) Selecting influent screens that require less wash water,
2.) Specifying the latest generation of UV light disinfection equipment,
3.) Utilizing high efficiency process blowers,
4.) Incorporating process controls and instrumentation that automatically maintains the treatment
process and reduces energy use.
The alternatives selected will all meet the treatment goals. The non-monetary evaluation incorporates
components for considering the following:
1.) Reuse of existing assets,
2.) Compatibility with future upgrades to meet ever more stringent regulations,
3.) Water reuse and,
4.) Long term project maintainability.
The Town is interested in water reuse, including treated effluent water use onsite for processes where currently
potable water is used and non-potable water can be used instead, consideration for future Class III or IV
reclaimed water use off-site, and planning for potential future direct or indirect potable water reuse.
3.2 Environmental Resources
A desktop analysis was conducted to identify environmental resources within the project study area. These
resources include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory, the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Wetlands, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Wetlands
of State Special Concern (WSSC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain data, MDE Tier
II (High Quality) Waters, Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas (CBCA), Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Habitat,
MDNR Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (SSPRA), and Maryland Bird Conservation Partnership’s bald
eagle nest locations.
In addition to the desktop analysis, Coastal Resources, Inc. (CRI) conducted a site visit in July – August 2023 to
conduct a waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) delineation and to map forest resources and other habitats.
Wetlands were assessed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic Gulf and Coastal Plain Region, Version 2.0 (USACE 2010). All identified waters of
the U.S., including wetlands, were classified according to A Classification of Wetland and Deep-Water Habitats in
the United States (USFWS 1979).
Page 18

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Terrestrial habitats within the study area were broadly assessed to document their general physical condition and
quality. Forest stands were characterized by successional stage, dominant and codominant species, size class,
common understory and herbaceous species, percent canopy closure, prevalence of downed woody debris,
presence of invasive species, and basal area. CRI also identified specimen trees with a 30-inch diameter at
breast height (DBH) or higher, or that have a diameter which is 75% of the State Champion of that species,
including the location, species, size, and health of each specimen tree. A summary of the results of the site visit is
included below.
3.2.1 Desktop Analysis
Based on the desktop analysis, several environmental resources are present within the study area, including
CBCA, FIDS habitat, MDE Tier II (High Quality) Waters, 100-year floodplains, and wetlands mapped by the NWI
and DNR. No WSSC, SPRA, or bald eagle nests are mapped within the project study area. Mapped resources
are depicted in Figure 3.1. The CBCA is located throughout the project study area and classified as an Intensely
Developed Area (IDA). FIDS habitats are mapped in the forest areas surrounding the WWTP property. The entire
project study area is within the Gravel Run 1 Tier II (High Quality) catchment. A 100-year floodplain is present on
the northern portion of the study area associated with Gravel Run. A palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland was
mapped by the NWI on the northern portion of the project area. In addition to NWI, DNR mapped palustrine
forested (PFO) and estuarine intertidal emergent (E2EM) wetlands in the forested areas just north of the WWTP
site.
3.2.2 Waters of the U.S. (Including Wetlands) Delineation
The results of the wetland delineation indicate that there are three vegetated wetlands and two perennial streams
within the project study area (see Figure 3.1). Wetland 1 (WL1) is a small, isolated PEM wetland located in
drainage swale adjacent to the WWTP entrance road. Wetland 2 is a PFO floodplain depressions on the eastern
portion of the project study area associated with Gravel Run (WC1). Wetland 3 is also a PFO floodplain
depression associated with an and an unnamed tributary to Gravel Run (WC2). Watercourse 1 (WC1) is Gravel
Run, a lower perennial stream that flows northwest along the eastern boundary of the project study area.
Watercourse 2 (WC2) is an unnamed lower perennial tributary to Gravel Run on the north-central portion of the
project area that receives water from the treatment plant discharge.
3.2.3 Terrestrial Habitat
Terrestrial habitats include three forest stands on the northern portion of the study area (see Figure 3.1). Stand 1
consists of an early-mid succession ash-leaf maple (Acer negundo) – black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) forest
with abundant downed woody debris, high invasive plant cover, and fair structure. One specimen tree was
identified in Stand 1. This stand was considered poor due to high invasive cover, fair structure, and an abundance
of trash/rubble. Stand 2 consists of an early succession black willow (Salix nigra) – American elm (Ulmus
americana) wetland forest. Downed woody debris was abundant in this stand, with moderate invasive plant cover,
and poor structure. No specimen trees were identified in Stand 2. This stand was considered fair due to
moderate invasive cover, presence of trash, and poor structure. Stand 3 consists of a mid-late succession tulip
tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) – silver maple (A. saccharinum) forest with abundant downed woody debris and a
total of 12 specimen trees. Due to the high invasive plant cover, abundance of dead/dying trees, and presence of
trash/rubble, this stand was considered poor.
3.2.4 Coast Smart Climate Ready Action Boundary (CS-CRAB)
To determine the potential impact of sea level rise on the project area, the limits of the Coast Smart Climate
Ready Action Boundary (CRAB) were reviewed (Source: https://mdfloodmaps.net/CRAB/). The CRAB represents
the county-wide depth of flooding given a 3 foot (vertical and associated horizontal) increase in water surface
Page 19

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
elevation above the current effective 100-year floodplain. The CRAB boundaries include areas that may be
inundated from 0 to 1 foot, 1 to 2 feet, and greater than 2 feet. These layers are shown on Figure 3.1. Based on
the CRAB, inundation of 0 to 1 foot, 1 to 2 feet, and greater than 2 feet were identified on the northern and
eastern portion of the study area.
Page 20

A
D
L
WC1 -
Gravel Run
ID
A
WL3
002
009
Stand 3 005 003
008
013 WL1
WC2 007 006
004
010
Stand 2
WL2
ID
L A
D
A Stand 1
011
001
012
Jo
St h
n
L D
A
P o w
ell sto
w n
L a
±
Delineated Forest & Trees Coast Smart CRAB* NWI Wetland
Centreville Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion Project Specimen Tree 0 to 1 Foot CRAB Inundated DNR Wetland Water
1 to 2 Foot CRAB Inundated Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Forest Stand Treatment
Figure 3.1: Environmental Resources Map Greater than 2 Foot CRAB Inundated Forest Interior Dwelling Species
Delineated Wetlands & Waters Facility
Effective FEMA Floodplain Tier II Catchments 2021
Queen Anne's County, Maryland 25' Wetland Buffer 0 50 100
100 Year Floodplain (1% Chance) Assimilative Capacity Remaining
May 2024 Palustrine Emergent Wetland No Assimilative Capacity Remaining feet
Palustrine Forested Wetland 1 inch = 100 feet
Perennial Stream *Coast Smart Climate Ready Action Boundary (CRAB) represents the county-wide depth of flooding given
Map Center, NAD83
a 3 foot (vertical and associated horizontal) increase in water surface elevation above the current
Study Area
effective 100-year floodplain. 39.0486°, -76.0644° 1 inch = 2 miles
Source: Large-scale map: Maryland iMAP, DoIT. Imagery flown in 2022 (Eastern Shore) and 2020 (Western Shore). Received May 2024. Small-scale map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community. Received May 2024.

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
3.3 Location
The project is located on 116 Johnstown Lane, within the town limits of the Town of Centreville which is the
county seat of Queen Anne’s County on the eastern shore of Maryland. The project will be on parcels currently
owned by the Town Council of Centreville.
3.4 Population Trends
Population in the Town has grown from 2,018 in the 1980 census to 4,949 in the 2020 census, see Table 3.1 and
are expected to grow for at least several more years.
Table 3.1: Centreville Population Data
Year 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Population1 2,018 2,097 1,970 4,285 4,949
Growth Rate 8.9% 3.9% -6.1% 117.5% 1.5%
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-evaluation-estimates/2010s-
cities-and-towns-total.html
The data from Table 3.1 is also depicted in Figure 3.2.
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Figure 3.2: Centreville Population
According to the Queen Anne’s County 2011 Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan:
“The Growth Areas generally include parcels of land contiguous to the east and west sides of the current
Town boundaries. It is anticipated that growth pressures will occur, for the most part, on the Route 301 side
of Centreville, due to the multiple road connections. Present growth patterns in and near the Town support
this premise. The Town anticipates a phased approach to annexation.”
The Town of Centreville Community Plan, 2009, estimated total future wastewater demand of 1.62 MGD.
Page 22

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
4 Existing Performance, Facilities, and Conditions
4.1 Location Map
The Centreville WWTP is located within a residential area of the town. Figure 4.1 provides a location map to
show the relative distance between Centreville WWTP and the irrigation spray fields.
Spray Irrigation
Fields
Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Figure 4.1: Location Map (Credit: Google Earth)
4.2 History
The original portions of the Town’s sewer collection system were installed in 1934. A primary wastewater
treatment facility was constructed in the 1960’s. A major Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) upgrade was
completed in 2005 that installed influent screening, a two (2) tank SBR, cloth media particulate tertiary filters, UV
light disinfection, effluent pumping, treated effluent storage lagoons, spray irrigation fields, and reed drying beds.
The treatment was designed to provide treatment for 0.542 MGD of annual average flow with an effluent total
nitrogen of 5.5 mg/L, and effluent total phosphourus of 1.0 mg/L.
The receiving stream, Gravel Run, is a tributary of the Corsica River. At the time of the planning and design of the
2005 BNR upgrade and expansion, the total maximum daily loads for the Corsica River were being developed. To
accommodate the planned flows, the Town decided to forgo year-round discharge to Gravel Run and developed a
spray irrigation disposal system to provide 0.542 MGD of disposal capacity. Discharge to Gravel Run was
restricted to cold weather months.
Page 23

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
4.3 Financial Status
As described in Section 3.4, the Town has been experiencing growth within the existing water and sewer service
areas. As the largest town in Queen Anne’s County, it’s central location on the eastern shore, and its designation
as a Smart Growth area, the population is expected to continue to grow significantly for many years. The Queen
Anne’s County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan indicates future build out flows will reach 1.75 MGD of
sanitary flow.
The Town has invested significant funds into upgrading its water distribution and sanitary collection systems to
improve their integrity and position them for future flows.
The Town’s recent and budgeted water and sewer income and expenses are summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
Table 4.1: Recent Water and Sewer Income and Expenses
Water Sewer
Fiscal Year (FY) Income Expenses Income Expenses
FY20 $844,402 $1,115,148 $891,258 $1,156,565
FY21 $1,029,299 $1,122,767 $1,135,004 $1,073,320
FY22 $1,343,266 $1,298,048 $1,366,296 $1,206,366
FY23 (Through
$604,136 $543,029 $591,252 $850,908
3/28/2023)
Table 4.2: Budgeted Water and Sewer Income and Expenses
Water Sewer
Fiscal Year (FY) Income Expenses Income Expenses
FY24 $1,414,928 $1,616,603 $1,531,427 $1,510,483
FY25 $1,485,675 $1,697,433 $1,607,998 $1,586,007
FY26 $1,574,816 $1,782,305 $1,704,478 $1,665,307
FY27 $1,685,053 $1,871,420 $1,826,791 $1,781,878
FY28 $1,819,857 $1,964,991 $1,972,694 $1,870,972
The existing debt service held by the Town for the water and wastewater systems are summarized in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Existing Debt Service
Area Existing Debt (as of March 2023)
Water $5,075,189
Sewer $4,960,400
Page 24

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
4.4 Current Influent Conditions
Influent conditions are not measured on a regular basis at the Centreville WWTP. Operators are able to gather
composite samples of the influent when required. Composite influent sampling data from September/October
2017 and March 2023 was provided by the Town of Centreville for evaluations in this PER. Table 4.4 lists the
existing estimated average and maximum monthly influent conditions, based on the available sampling data.
Appendix C includes all data from influent sampling.
Table 4.4: Existing Influent Conditions at Centreville WWTP
Biochemical
Volatile Total Total Kjeldahl Total
Wastewater Oxygen
Flow Suspended Suspended Nitrogen Phosphorus
Condition Temperature Demand
Solids (VSS) Solids (TSS) (TKN) (TP)
(BOD)
(MGD) (Deg C) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Average 1.0 20 130 116 145 35 8
Maximum
1.2 12 156 139 174 42 8
Monthly
4.5 Existing Plant Performance
Operations collects samples for analysis at the plant effluent for annual quality reporting. The effluent quality data
from the monthly operating reports (MORs) that is relevant to the ENR upgrades was reviewed. The annual
average, maximum monthly, and peak daily effluent flows from both stream discharge and spray discharge are
summarized in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Centreville WWTP Stream and Spray Effluent Flows
Stream Effluent Flow (MGD) Spray Effluent Flow (MGD)
Maximum Maximum
Annual Annual
Year Monthly Peak Day Flow Monthly Peak Day Flow
Average Average
Average Average
2014 0.34 0.36 0.54 0.25 0.57 2.09
2015 0.38 0.44 0.90 0.25 0.62 2.44
2016 0.45 0.47 0.60 0.25 0.51 1.88
2017 0.38 0.39 0.71 0.21 0.56 2.17
2018 0.49 0.66 0.93 0.36 0.64 2.05
2019 0.59 0.66 0.87 0.37 0.66 1.97
2020 0.51 0.71 0.93 0.37 0.52 1.72
2021 0.59 0.70 1.02 0.45 0.57 0.68
2022 0.46 0.49 0.68 0.39 0.42 0.69
The annual average and maximum monthly average for calendar years 2014 through 2022 for the total effluent
flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentration, total suspended solids (TSS) concentration, total kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN) concentration, ammonia (NH ) concentration, nitrate + nitrite (NO + NO ) concentration, total
3 2 3
nitrogen (TN) concentration, total phosphorus (TP) concentration, and E. coli concentration are included in Tables
4.6 through 4.9. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 summarize the effluent quality of the stream discharge, which occurs during
the winter months (December to March). Tables 4.8 and 4.9 summarize the effluent quality of the spray
discharge, which occurs throughout the warmer months of the year (April to November). Appendix C includes all
available weekly average data for these categories.
Page 25

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 4.6: Centreville WWTP Stream Effluent BOD, TSS, TKN, and Ammonia Concentrations
Effluent Ammonia
Effluent BOD (mg/L) Effluent TSS (mg/L) Effluent TKN (mg/L)
(mg/L)
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Annual Annual Annual Annual
Year Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly
Average Average Average Average
Average Average Average Average
2014 4.19 5.75 3.53 4.38 1.20 1.93 0.50 1.07
2015 3.15 4.05 1.31 2.19 0.71 1.07 0.14 0.17
2016 2.15 2.62 1.21 1.38 0.45 0.55 0.17 0.21
2017 2.50 3.03 1.77 2.60 0.85 0.97 0.20 0.32
2018 3.44 4.21 2.80 3.83 1.13 1.49 0.37 0.62
2019 2.02 2.78 0.99 1.13 0.72 0.88 0.28 0.35
2020 1.87 2.43 0.79 1.00 1.34 3.38 0.41 0.52
2021 1.63 1.87 2.84 7.83 1.86 2.07 0.54 0.90
2022 2.40 3.89 2.08 3.00 1.74 2.21 0.63 0.81
Overall
2.76 1.77 0.91 0.29
Average
Table 4.7: Centreville WWTP Stream Effluent Total NO2 + NO3, TN, TP, and E. Coli Concentrations
Effluent Total NO2 +
Effluent TN (mg/L) Effluent TP (mg/L)
Effluent E. Coli
NO3 (mg/L) (MPN/100 mL)
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Annual Annual Annual Annual
Year Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly
Average Average Average Average
Average Average Average Average
2014 2.09 2.60 3.29 4.20 0.25 0.75 1.28 1.90
2015 1.89 2.24 2.61 2.88 0.18 0.26 4.52 12.4
2016 2.32 2.98 2.76 3.39 0.21 0.25 4.80 41.2
2017 1.46 1.70 2.32 2.67 0.46 0.64 1.22 9.98
2018 1.72 2.06 2.91 3.38 0.45 0.78 20.6 42.9
2019 1.83 2.65 2.55 3.39 0.66 1.12 31.3 91.6
2020 1.21 1.48 2.55 4.87 0.88 1.05 118 185
2021 1.63 2.54 3.15 3.55 0.68 0.95 461 1148
2022 1.39 2.42 2.82 3.31 1.16 2.14 2.40 538
Overall
1.79 2.71 0.44 25.93
Average
Table 4.8: Centreville WWTP Spray Effluent BOD, TSS, TKN, and Ammonia Concentrations
Effluent Ammonia
Effluent BOD (mg/L) Effluent TSS (mg/L) Effluent TKN (mg/L)
(mg/L)
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Annual Annual Annual Annual
Year Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly
Average Average Average Average
Average Average Average Average
2014 2.72 3.88 4.22 4.50 0.82 1.09 0.22 0.27
2015 3.87 6.26 3.03 6.08 0.85 1.20 0.18 0.27
2016 3.44 5.22 1.57 3.22 0.81 1.36 0.23 0.64
2017 3.17 4.08 1.52 3.00 0.90 1.30 0.16 0.30
2018 2.76 4.63 1.17 1.63 1.09 1.77 0.19 0.75
2019 1.27 1.64 0.67 0.94 0.98 1.14 0.18 0.28
2020 1.76 2.69 0.86 1.44 1.00 1.95 0.40 1.03
2021 2.41 3.70 1.89 3.00 1.96 3.48 0.57 2.22
2022 2.06 2.75 2.35 4.50 1.37 1.67 0.37 0.60
Overall
2.71 1.86 0.92 0.22
Average
Page 26

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 4.9: Centreville WWTP Spray Effluent Total NO2 + NO3, TN, TP, and E. Coli Concentrations
Effluent Total NO2 +
Effluent TN (mg/L) Effluent TP (mg/L)
Effluent E. Coli
NO3 (mg/L) (MPN/100 mL)
Maximum Maximum Maximum
Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual
Year Monthly Monthly Monthly
Average Average Average Average Average
Average Average Average
2014 2.28 2.28 3.10 3.46 0.79 1.18 3.54 11.5
2015 1.62 1.62 2.31 2.71 1.13 1.86 2.72 6.67
2016 1.58 1.58 2.39 2.88 2.02 3.15 2.57 6.37
2017 1.42 1.42 2.30 2.96 1.82 2.54 5.99 14.6
2018 1.58 1.58 2.63 3.17 1.68 2.56 3.69 7.59
2019 1.58 1.58 2.56 2.93 1.67 2.54 5.22 23.3
2020 1.50 1.50 2.46 3.16 1.84 2.63 7.64 30.2
2021 2.03 2.03 3.77 5.09 1.58 2.41 236.15 908
2022 1.83 3.47 2.71 4.54 2.43 3.64 234.03 1223
Overall
1.65 2.54 1.57 4.48
Average
Since January 2014, Centreville WWTP has had an average stream effluent total flow of 0.45 MGD and an
average spray effluent flow of 0.29 MGD. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show the monthly average stream and spray
effluent flows from January 2014 to December 2022.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent Flow
0.800
0.700
0.600
) D 0.500
G
M
0.400
(
w
o 0.300
lF
0.200
0.100
0.000
4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
Month
Figure 4.2: Stream Effluent Total Flow
Page 27

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent Flow
0.700
0.600
0.500
)
D
G 0.400
M
(
w 0.300
o
lF
0.200
0.100
0.000
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
- v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.3: Spray Effluent Total Flow
Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show the monthly averages of effluent BOD concentrations from January 2014 to December
2022. Since January 2014, the average stream effluent BOD concentration is 2.76 mg/L, and the average spray
effluent BOD concentration is 2.71 mg/L.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent BOD
7.00
6.00
)
L
/
g
m 5.00
(
n
o
it 4.00
a
r
t
n
e 3.00
c
n
o
C 2.00
D
O
B 1.00
0.00
4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
Month
Figure 4.4: Stream Effluent BOD Concentration
Page 28

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent BOD
7.00
6.00
)
L
/
g
m 5.00
(
n
o
it 4.00
a
r
t
n
e 3.00
c
n
o
C 2.00
D
O
B
1.00
0.00
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.5: Spray Effluent BOD Concentration
Since January 2014, the average stream and spray effluent TSS concentrations are 1.77 mg/L and 1.86 mg/L,
respectively. Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show the monthly averages of effluent TSS concentrations from January 2014
to December 2022.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent TSS
9.00
8.00
)
L / 7.00
g
m
( 6.00
n
o
it 5.00
a
r
t n 4.00
e
c
n 3.00
o
C
S 2.00
S
T
1.00
0.00
4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
Month
Figure 4.6: Stream Effluent TSS Concentration
Page 29

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent TSS
7.00
6.00
)
L
/
g m 5.00
(
n
o 4.00
it
a
r
t
n 3.00
e
c
n
o
C 2.00
S
S
T
1.00
0.00
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.7: Spray Effluent TSS Concentration
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 show the monthly average stream and spray effluent TKN since January 2014. From
January 2014 to December 2022, the average stream effluent TKN is 0.91 mg/L, and the average spray effluent
TKN is 0.92 mg/L.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent TKN
2.50
) L 2.00
/
g
m
(
n
o 1.50
it
a
r
t
n
e 1.00
c
n
o
C
N
K 0.50
T
0.00
4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
Month
Figure 4.8: Stream Effluent TKN Concentration
Page 30

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent TKN
4.00
3.50
)
L
/
g 3.00
m
(
n 2.50
o
it
a
r 2.00
t
n
e
c 1.50
n
o
C
N 1.00
K
T
0.50
0.00
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.9: Spray Effluent TKN Concentration
Figures 4.10 and 4.11 show the monthly average stream and spray effluent ammonia since January 2014. Since
January 2014, the average stream and spray effluent ammonia concentrations are 0.29 mg/L and 0.22 mg/L,
respectively.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent Ammonia
1.20
)
L
/
g 1.00
m
(
n
o 0.80
it
a
r
t
n
e 0.60
c
n
o
C
a
0.40
in
o
m 0.20
m
A
0.00
4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
- n
a J
- n
u J
- v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
Month
Figure 4.10: Stream Effluent Ammonia Concentration
Page 31

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent Ammonia
2.50
)
L
/
g
m 2.00
(
n
o
it
a 1.50
r
t
n
e
c
n
o 1.00
C
a
in
o 0.50
m
m
A
0.00
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.11: Spray Effluent Ammonia Concentration
Figures 4.12 and 4.13 show the monthly average nitrate plus nitrate (NO + NO ) concentrations in the stream
3 2
and spray effluent from January 2014 to December 2022. On average, the NO + NO concentrations in the
3 2
stream and spray effluent have been 1.79 mg/L and 1.65 mg/L, respectively, since January 2014.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent NO + NO
3 2
3.50
)
L
/ g 3.00
m
(
n 2.50
o
it
a
r t 2.00
n
e
c
n 1.50
o
C
O
21.00
N
+
30.50
O
N
0.00
4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
Month
Figure 4.12: Stream Effluent NO + NO Concentration
3 2
Page 32

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent NO + NO
3 2
4.00
)
L 3.50
/
g
m
( 3.00
n
o
it 2.50
a
r
t
n
e 2.00
c
n
o
C 1.50
2
O
N 1.00
+
3
O 0.50
N
0.00
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.13: Spray Effluent NO + NO Concentration
3 2
The monthly average TN concentrations in the stream and spray effluent from January 2014 to December 2022
are shown in Figures 4.14 and 4.15. The average TN concentration in the stream effluent is 2.71 mg/L, and the
average total nitrogen concentration in the spray effluent is 2.54 mg/L.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent Total Nitrogen
(TN)
6.00
)
L
/
g 5.00
m
(
n
o 4.00
it
a
r
t n 3.00
e
c
n
o 2.00
C
N
la 1.00
t
o
T
0.00
4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
Month
Figure 4.14: Stream Effluent Total Nitrogen Concentration
Page 33

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent Total Nitrogen (TN)
6.00
)
L
/ 5.00
g
m
(
n 4.00
o
it
a
r
t n 3.00
e
c
n
o 2.00
C
N
la
t 1.00
o
T
0.00
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.15: Spray Effluent Total Nitrogen Concentration
Figures 4.16 and 4.17 show the monthly average TP concentrations in the stream and spray effluent from
January 2014 to December 2022. The overall average TP concentration in the stream effluent is 0.44 mg/L, and
the overall average TP concentration in the spray effluent is 1.57 mg/L. The monthly average TP concentrations
have increased over the recent years, which is likely due to the increased flow through the WWTP.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent Total
Phosphorus (TP)
2.50
)
L
/
g 2.00
m
(
n
o
it 1.50
a
r
t
n
e
c n 1.00
o
C
P
la 0.50
t
o
T
0.00
4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
- n - y - p - n - y - p - n - y - p - n - y - p - n - y - p - n - y - p - n - y - p - n - y - p
a a e a a e a a e a a e a a e a a e a a e a a e
J M S J M S J M S J M S J M S J M S J M S J M S
Month
Figure 4.16: Stream Effluent Total Phosphorus Concentration
Page 34

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent Total Phosphorus
(TP)
4.00
) 3.50
L
/
g
m 3.00
(
n
o 2.50
it
a
r
t n 2.00
e
c
n 1.50
o
C
P 1.00
la
t
o T 0.50
0.00
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.17: Spray Effluent Total Phosphorus Concentration
Since January 2014, Centreville WWTP has had an average stream effluent E. coli concentration of 25.9
MPN/100 mL and an average spray effluent E. coli concentration of 4.48 MPN/100 mL. Figure 4.18 and Figure
4.19 show the monthly average stream and spray effluent E. coli concentrations from January 2014 to December
2022. E. coli concentrations have increased in the effluent in recent years due to the WWTP operating closer to
its design capacity.
Monthly Average Stream Effluent E. Coli
1400
)
L
m
1200
0
0
1 / 1000
N
P
M 800
(
n
o 600
it
a
r
t 400
n
e
c
n 200
o
C
ilo 0
C 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1
.E 1
- n
a J
1
- n
u J
1
-v
o N
1
- r
p A
1
- p
e S
1
- b
e F
1
- lu
J
1
- c
e D
1
- y
a M
1
- t
c O
1
- r
a M
1
- g
u A
1
- n
a J
1
- n
u J
1
-v
o N
2
- r
p A
2
- p
e S
2
- b
e F
2
- lu
J
2
- c
e D
Month
Figure 4.18: Stream Effluent Geomean E. Coli Concentration
Page 35

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Monthly Average Spray Effluent E. Coli
1400
)
L
m
1200
0
0
1
/ N 1000
P
M
(
n
800
o
it
a r 600
t
n
e
c
n 400
o
C
ilo
200
C
.E
0
4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
- n
a J
- n
u J
-v
o N
- r
p A
- p
e S
- b
e F
- lu
J
- c
e D
- y
a M
- t
c O
- r
a M
- g
u A
Month
Figure 4.19: Spray Effluent Geomean E. Coli Concentration
4.6 Condition of Existing Facilities
The Centreville WWTP is generally operating as intended without excessive maintenance and repair costs. The
WWTP was most recently upgraded in 2003; therefore, most of the equipment is approximately 20 years old.
Most mechanical equipment has a planned 20-year expected life.
4.6.1 Treatment Process Overview
The wastewater enters the WWTP via mostly force main, and some gravity pipelines, into a manhole, and then
flows by gravity through a screening facility. The screened flow continues to the SBR tanks. Flow is directed into
one (1) of the two (2) SBR tanks through two automated valves controlled by the SBR Control Panel.
The operation of an SBR is based on a fill-and-draw principle, which consists of five steps: fill, react, settle,
decant, and idle. These steps can be altered for different operational applications and the general sequence is
shown in Figure 4.20.
Page 36

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Figure 4.20: Sequencing Batch Reactor Sequence of Operation (Source: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.)
Fill
During the fill phase, the basin receives influent wastewater. Mixing and aeration can be varied during the
fill phase to create the different environments for the biomass analogous to the conditions in a traditional
activated sludge basin, anaerobic, oxic, and anoxic.
React
During this phase, no wastewater enters the basin, and the mechanical mixing and aeration units are on.
Most of the carbonaceous BOD removal occurs in the react phase. Further nitrification occurs by allowing
the mixing and aeration to continue. Because there are no additional volume and organic loadings, the
rate of organic removal increases dramatically.
Settle
During this phase, activated sludge can settle under quiescent conditions — no flow enters the basin and
no aeration and mixing takes place. The activated sludge tends to settle as a flocculent mass, forming a
distinctive interface with the clear supernatant. This phase is a critical part of the cycle, because if the
solids do not settle rapidly, some sludge can be drawn off during the subsequent decant phase and
thereby degrade effluent quality.
Decant
During this phase, a decanter is used to remove the clear supernatant effluent. The floating decanter
maintains the inlet orifice slightly below the water surface to minimize the removal of solids in the effluent
removed during the decant phase, an example is shown in Figure 4.21. Floating decanters offer the
operator flexibility to vary fill and draw volumes.
Idle
This step occurs between the decant and the fill phases. The time varies, based on the influent flow rate
and the operating strategy. During this phase, a small amount of activated sludge at the bottom of the
SBR basin is pumped out.
Page 37

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Figure 4.21: SBR Tank w/Surface Mixer/Aerator and Decant Device (Credit: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.)
Decant from the SBR flows into a post equalization tank, and waste sludge is pumped into an aerated sludge
digestion tank. Submersible pumps send the SBR decant to a cloth media filter. The filtered effluent flows by
gravity through a UV light disinfection channel, and then into the wet well of the Effluent Pump Station. Flow is
either pumped to the effluent storage lagoon or flows by gravity to the chlorine contact tank.
4.6.2 Process/Equipment Assessment
4.6.2.1 Influent Screening
The influent screening is rotating drum screen manufactured by Lakeside. The screen is reported to effectively
remove solids and is operating as intended. Operations also reported that this model of screen is no longer
manufactured by Lakeside, and the cost of spare parts have increased significantly, as has the lead time to obtain
parts. It is recommended to replace the screen, retrofitting the existing concrete channel as needed.
4.6.2.2 Sequencing Batch Reactor
The SBR provides treatment of the influent wastewater. BOD is removed and the influent TKN is nitrified to
ammonia. The SBR is also able to partially denitrify the ammonia to nitrogen gas, to provide BNR levels of
treatment, typically less than 5 mg/L of TN in the treatment plant effluent. Table 4.10 provides the physical
arrangement of the SBR’s two (2) rectangular tanks.
Page 38

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 4.10: Existing SBR Tanks
Parameter Value Units
Length, each 70.5 Ft
Width, each 53.2 Ft
Volume at Min. Side
0.402 Million Gallons
Water Depth, each
Volume at Avg. Side
0.464 Million Gallons
Water Depth, each
Volume at Max. Side
0.589 Million Gallons
Water Depth, each
The SBR process equipment in each of the two (2) SBR basins includes:
• One (1) Influent Actuated Valve
• One (1) Surface Mixer
• Five (5) Removable Fine Bubble Aeration Diffuser assemblies
• One (1) Decant Mechanism
• One (1) Submersible Sludge Transfer Pump
The equipment is in good shape and is operating as intended. Although the equipment is nearing its expected life,
it may have additional years of service left, in the range of 3-5 years with close attention to following factory
advised maintenance and rebuilds.
The air for the liquid treatment process, and the post equalization tank, is supplied by three (3) 50 Horsepower
(HP) blowers located in the Filter and Blower Building. Each blower has the design operating point of 525 SCFM,
at a pressure of 10.7 PSIG. The existing blowers are operating as intended and appear to have many years of
service life left with close attention and following the factory advised maintenance and rebuilds.
4.6.2.3 Post Equalization Tank
The decant from the SBR flows into the post equalization tank for aeration and to reduce the fluctuations in the
flow to the downstream processes. A summary of the physical arrangement of the post equalization tank is in
Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Existing Post Equalization Tank
Parameter Value Units
Length 52.9 Ft
Width 36.7 Ft
Min. Basin Volume 0.021 Million Gallons
Max. Basin Volume 0.146 Million Gallons
Working Volume 0.125 Million Gallons
Page 39

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Equipment in the post equalization tank includes:
• Fine Bubble Diffuser Assemblies
• Two (2) Submersible Centrifugal Filtration Feed Pumps
The equipment is in good shape and is operating as intended. Although the equipment is nearing its expected life,
it appears to have many additional years of service left with close attention to following the factory advised
maintenance and rebuilds.
4.6.2.4 Sludge Holding Tank
Sludge wasted from the SBR is pumped into the sludge holding tank for stabilization (i.e., reduction of volatile
solids). The sludge holding tank physical layout information is in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12: Existing Sludge Holding Tank
Parameter Value Units
Length 52.9 Ft
Width 32.3 Ft
Min. Basin Volume 0.138 Million Gallons
Max. Basin Volume 0.197 Million Gallons
Equipment in the sludge holding tank includes:
• One (1) 10 HP surface mixer
• Two (2) 30 HP floating aerators
• Supernate Pump
• Sludge Transfer Pump
The equipment is in good shape and is operating as intended. Although the equipment is nearing its expected life,
it may have many additional years of service left with close attention and following factory advised maintenance
and rebuilds.
4.6.2.5 Cloth Media Filtration
Treated wastewater from the post equalization tank is pumped to a cloth media filter for the removal of suspended
solids. The media filter is an AquaDisk unit manufactured by Aqua Aerobic Systems Inc., the same manufacturer
as the SBR. The filter is a packaged unit complete with controls and backwashing and solids wasting system, see
Figure 4.22 which shows the main components of a disk filter.
Page 40

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Figure 4.22: Cloth Media Filter Components (Credit: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.)
The media filter has been reported by operations to experience excessive head loss during typical wet weather
flows, causing bypassing of the filter, degrading the effluent quality. The filter has produced excellent quality
effluent during dry weather flows.
4.6.2.6 UV Light Disinfection
The filtered wastewater flows by gravity through a UV light disinfection channel. A total of twenty-four (24) low
pressure high output ultraviolet lamps. The intense UV light inactivates microorganisms by destroying nucleic
acids and disrupting their DNA. A typical unit can be seen in Figure 4.23.
Figure 4.23: UV Disinfection Unit Isometric View (Credit: Enaqua)
The UV unit design parameters are included in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Existing UV Disinfection
Parameter Value Units
Peak Hour Flow 0.75 MGD
Quantity of UV Reactors 1 -
Number of Total Lamps 24 -
UV Dose (Calculated) > 40 mJ/cm2
MPN/100 mL E.
Effluent Quality < 84
Coli
Page 41

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
The UV disinfection system was installed in 2016 and is operating as intended. Additional units will be needed for
the expansion to 1.0 MGD AAF. Additionally, Class III and Class IV Water Reuse will require more stringent Fecal
Coliform effluent quality.
4.6.2.7 Effluent Pump Station
Design information on the two (2) Goulds 20 HP effluent pumps was not available, but operations reports that the
pump station can get overwhelmed during wet weather flows. The pumps were installed as part of the 2003
upgrade.
4.6.2.8 Chlorine Contact Tank
When the WWTP is discharging to the stream, effluent flows by gravity from the Effluent Pump Station to the
chlorine contact tank, and then to the cascade steps aeration, and then the outfall.
The isolation gates in the chlorine contact tank are beyond their expected life and need replacement. The
concrete tank is in fair shape.
As a back up to the UV disinfection system, when flowing to the stream, sodium hypochlorite solution can be
added to the Effluent Pump Station, with subsequent dechlorination at the end of the chlorine contact tank.
4.6.2.9 Chemical Addition
In the past, polyaluminum chloride (PACl) solution was added to the SBR to precipitate ortho-phosphorus for
subsequent removal through settling, and in the cloth media filter. PACl dosing consisted of a dosing pump pulling
solution from a drum. PACl has not been used recently since the WWTP has been able to meet their target
effluent phosphorus levels by biological phosphorus (bio-P) uptake without the use of additional chemicals.
Sodium hypochlorite solution is used in cleaning the cloth media filter, and as a back up to the UV disinfection
process. Sodium hypochlorite dosing consists of a dosing pump pulling solution from a tote.
4.6.2.10 Existing Electrical System
The existing electrical service for Centreville Water Wastewater Treatment Plant is provided from Delmarva
Power (DP) company owned 500 kVA, 25 kV to 480/277-volt, 3 phase, 4 wire, pad mounted transformer. The
existing transformer secondary feeders installed underground to serve an 800-amp main distribution panel (MDP)
via an 800-amp enclosed circuit breaker and an 800-amp automatic transfer switch (ATS) with bypass located in
the existing electrical room of the Filter and Blower Building. A 500kW engine driven generator provides backup
power.
The existing MDP serves the existing WWTP buildings including the existing Panel DP in the electrical room, 600-
amp motor control centers (MCC) A and B in the Blower room and a 75 kVA transformer located outside of the
existing Lab Building. The existing Panel DP, 400 amp, 480/277 volt, 3 phase, 4 wire, serves the lighting, 3 phase
motors and a 30 kVA, 480-208/120 volt, 3 phase, 4 wire, dry type transformer mounted on the wall to serve the
existing Panel PA, 100-amp, 208/120 volt, 3 phase, 4 wire for the receptacles and miscellaneous loads.
The existing Lab Building Is served by a 75 kVA, 480-208/120-volt, 3 phase, 4 wire pad mounted dry type
transformer outside of the building. The existing transformer feeders enter the building via old CT cabinet to a
400-amp distribution panel which in turn serves the existing MCC, Panel PC and Panel PD. The existing MCC is
located in the existing Lab Building workroom and the Panel PD is located in the Pump Building (old Admin
Building).
Page 42

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
4.6.2.11 Existing Controls System
The plant currently has no centralized monitoring or control system for operation of the plant. Currently all
operations are performed manually by operators physically going to the process areas and starting and stopping
equipment as required. Operators must go to the different instruments throughout the plant to take readings and
manually collect process data.
The SBR system is provided with the manufacturer’s Programmable Logic Control (PLC) based control panel to
provide for automatic operations of the system. However, the system must be started locally at the control panel
and process data is only able to be monitored at panel mounted interface screen. The manufacturers control
panel is corroded beyond its useful life. The floor stands for the panel enclosure are almost entirely decayed by
rust with the weight of the panel seemingly supported by the conduits entering at the bottom of the panel.
The PLC controller in the SBR control panel is also at the end of its supported lifecycle. The manufacturer of this
product has ceased manufacturing this model and no longer supports it for technical assistance, maintenance, or
software interface.
Alarms throughout the plant are relayed through an alarm notification system called Mission. The Mission system
provides a common trouble alarm for a process area without providing any amplifying information to allow for
advanced troubleshooting or prioritizing response. The Mission system is also used at the Town’s pump stations,
tanks and water treatment plants for monitoring alarms at these facilities. When an alarm is active, the Mission
system will use a cellular connection to notify operators based on a pre-programmed calling list.
4.6.2.12 Existing Spray Irrigation Effluent Disposal
Currently the Town has an MDE discharge permit to spray irrigate 0.542 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated
effluent on 223.7 acres of suitable spray area from March 1 to December 15. They have mainly center pivot spray
rigs, but also have three fixed head spray nozzles located near the control building. There are ten (10) spray fields
with individual approved spray rates that vary from 0.3 inches per week to 2 inches per week, per field.
Currently, they spray at approximately 0.5 MGD among 173.44 acres of irrigation fields. Often the existing fields
are sprayed 8 to 12 hours per day.
The Town is not permitted to use chicken manure on the spray fields. They apply chemical fertilizer because
more nitrogen is required per the annual Nutrient Management Report than is in the effluent. The nitrogen
concentration in the effluent is typically 2 mg/L or lower. At the spray fields the main crop grown is corn, with
some soybeans also.
The existing storage pond’s original design was not specified large enough. The pond was built in 2001 when the
spray rigs were built.
Water levels and groundwater quality are monitored in ten monitoring wells on a quarterly basis. Water quality is
monitored at three stream sites quarterly. On a weekly basis, water levels are measured in ten piezometers which
are located near the various center pivots. Permission to spray effluent is conditional on water levels observed in
the piezometers.
The surficial geologic formation that underlies the area is Upland Deposits according to the Geologic Map of
Maryland (1968). The Upland Deposits are gravel, sand, silt, and clay that were deposited in the Quaternary
Period of earth history.
Underneath the Quaternary layer are sediments of the Calvert Formation, which formed in the Tertiary Period.
The upper part of the Calvert Formation is exposed in stream valleys in the Centreville area. At the Town spray
field property, the Calvert Formation is represented by a layer of green silty sand exposed in the stream valley.
Page 43

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Space (NRCS) Soil Survey of Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
the Town spray fields are underlain by soils of the Matapeke-Mattapex-Nassawango map unit. The farms located
to the northwest and to the northeast of the Town spray fields are underlain by soils of the Ingleside-Pineyneck-
Unicorn map unit. Soils at both the existing spray fields and the considered expansion farms are both well-
drained which is advantageous. Both can also include soils that have a wet substratum.
4.7 Water and Energy Audits
The Centreville WWTP is supplied with potable water from the Town’s water treatment and distribution system.
The Town does not currently meter the potable water use. The WWTP does not have an onsite treated effluent
water reuse system, and therefore all water used in the treatment and maintenance operations is potable water.
A water audit of current significant uses of potable water was conducted at the site and is summarized in Table
4.14.
Table 4.14: Existing Significant Water Uses
Estimated Instantaneous Estimated Average Daily
Use
Flow Usage
gpm gpd
Influent Screen Spray
2 1,000
Water
SBR Scum Spray Down 5 50
Miscellaneous Cleaning
10 100
During Maintenance
The electric usage of the WWTP is only metered for the entire site. The current major energy demands are
summarized in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Existing Major Electrical Demands
Major Electrical
Quantity Electric Demand, Each
Demands
Aeration Blowers 3 50 HP
Sludge Holding Aeration
2 30 HP
Blowers
SBR Mixers 2 20 HP
UV Disinfection 1 15 kW
Effluent Pumps 2 20 HP
Buil/ding Electric Heat,
- 35 kW, total
Total
For the period January 2020 through March of 2023 the WWTP used an average of 1,091 kWh each day. The
annual average daily electric usage for 2020 through 2022 is summarized in Table 4.16.
Page 44

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 4.16: Recent Electrical Usage
Annual Average Electric
Year
Demand (kWh / Day)
2020 1,107
2021 1,057
2022 1,048
Page 45

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
5 Need for Project
The annual average daily flows from the Centreville WWTP from 2014 to 2022 are shown in Table 5.1, with an
annual average daily flow of 0.40 MGD.
Table 5.1: Historical Centreville Effluent Flow
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Annual
Average
0.36 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.40 0.44 0.42 0.51 0.41
Flow
(MGD)
The annual average effluent flows have recently exceeded 80% of the existing facility’s permitted flow (0.542
MGD), with the average of the last three calendar years (2020-2022) averaging 0.45 MGD, which is 83% of the
permitted flow. As discussed in Section 3.4, the population is expected to continue to grow.
5.1 Health, Sanitation and Security
Maintaining the health, sanitation, and safety of the population served, as well as the areas impacted by the
disposal of the treated effluent are key drivers for the project.
The influent screen, treatment system aeration capacity, tertiary filter, UV disinfection, and Effluent Pump Station
regularly reach their practical operating limits during wet weather events. The systems are operating as designed,
and maintenance is timely, but these systems do not have sufficient capacity to handle the full range of flows and
loads the WWTP is currently experiencing.
As discussed in Section 5.2, the majority of the treatment plant is reaching 20 years old. The concrete tanks are
in excellent condition. The mechanical process systems are reaching the end of their useful life, and the control
systems have exceeded their useful life. The SBR main control panel is no longer supported by the manufacturer.
Without the control system operating, a sequencing batch reactor requires a dedicated operator to provide
manual operation 24/7. This represents a significant risk to maintaining treatment.
The spray irrigation system is also showing signs that maintaining compliance with the discharge permit
requirements will become more challenging as flows increase. During extended wet periods the treated effluent
storage lagoon has approached its capacity, and the spray irrigation fields are also approaching their practical
limits.
Due to the stress on the treatment plant and disposal sites, and despite the efforts of the Town’s operations
department, the NPDES discharge permit has been violated multiple times over the past three years. Further
information regarding these violations can be found in the Town’s response to MDE. Regardless, the system
continues to age and flows increase the system will approach a tipping point where it is unable to reliably meet
the discharge permits.
5.2 Aging Infrastructure
The majority of the WWTP, the effluent storage lagoon and spray irrigation system were brought online in 2005.
Mechanical process equipment at WWTPs has a generally accepted expected life of 20 years. As the equipment
exceeds this, the cost to repair the equipment starts to outweigh the cost of replacement. More importantly, when
equipment is offline waiting for repairs, it is not available to contribute to the treatment capacity.
Control systems have the shortest expected life of equipment at a WWTP. The specific expected life will depend
on the manufacturer continuing to support the hardware and software. With the constant changes and upgrades
in processor based systems, the manufacturers must use the currently proven technology to keep costs
Page 46

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
competitive and can only support so many different systems with spare parts, programming, and updates. The
primary hardware in the Centreville sequencing batch reactor’s main control panel is no longer supported by the
manufacturer. As such replacement parts are no longer readily available, can take months to find and can be
many times the cost of supported systems.
5.3 Reasonable Growth
The project is consistent with the Maryland “Smart Growth” legislation which established Priority Funding Areas
(PFA). The wastewater treatment plant lies completely within a Maryland Department of Planning PFA. The
Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan for Water and Sewer identifies the planned growth for the Town of
Centreville and projects a buildout sanitary flow of 1.75 MGD.
As indicated previously, the annual average flows to the WWTP are currently above 80% of the permitted flow, at
approximately 0.4 MGD. Developers have approached the Town with conceptual plans for significant housing
developments within the Town. Those developments are not practical without the expansion of the WWTP.
Considering the recent average flows, and the known potential for development, increasing the design capacity to
1.0 MGD was selected. The expansion to 1.0 MGD will give the Town many years of planned growth without
having a WWTP that is excessively large to treat the recent flows. Projecting out when the new developments will
be brought online is difficult, but it is expected the Town could reach 80% of the 1.0 MGD capacity sometime
between 2040 and 2050.
Page 47

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
6 Upgrade and Expansion Alternatives
The primary goals for the upgraded and expanded treatment process are:
1. Provide ENR levels of treatment and continue compliance with the NPDES discharge permit (refer to
Section 2.3.1).
2. Provide liquid and solids treatment for 1.0 MGD annual average influent flow and associated wet
weather flows.
There are several facilities that require expansion and/or upgrades to accommodate the increased level of
treatment and hydraulic throughput regardless of the treatment alternative that is selected. Equipment catalogs for
the major equipment described in this section are included in Appendix D.
The three alternatives considered are:
Alternative 1 – Expand the SBR process, expand the post flow equalization tank, and add a denitrifying
tertiary filter.
Installing two additional SBR tanks will expand the current process that has been proven to be effective.
The SBR operation is already understood, operating, and maintaining the system will remain
straightforward. To accommodate for increased flow, the post equalization tank would also be expanded,
and a tertiary denitrifying filter would be added downstream of the SBR. The process will require more
space and need to deal with the aging SBR infrastructure. The SBR’s main control panel is no longer
supported and finding replacement parts is difficult.
Alternative 2 – Replace the existing SBR system with a 5-stage conventional activated sludge process
and add a tertiary filter with denitrifying capability.
This biological process reduces nitrogen and phosphorus compounds by switching between both high
and low oxygen environments. Flow passes through distinct anaerobic, anoxic, aeration, post anoxic, and
reaeration stages, similar to a “Bardenpho” configuration. The anaerobic zone enriches phosphorus-
accumulating organisms that help remove phosphorus in later stages. Denitrification occurs in both
anoxic zones, where denitrifying bacteria converts nitrates into nitrogen gas. In the aeration stage,
nitrification occurs, converting ammonia to nitrate, and is recycled to the first anoxic zone. The reaeration
stage helps release any more nitrogen gas minimize denitrification occurring within the subsequent
clarifier. RAS from the secondary clarifier is pumped to the dewatering facility and the rest of the flow is
further treated by a denitrifying filter. Due to the change in treatment technology, additional operator
knowledge will be required to maintain and operate the system.
Alternative 3 – Replace the existing SBR system with to a 5-stage MBR activated sludge process.
The process configuration is similar to Alternative 2 utilizing 5-stages, however solid separation is
facilitated via the membrane and not via clarifiers. The membrane has a pore size of approximately 1
micron, that allows water to permeate while retaining the activated sludge in the reactor. The effluent is
pulled through the membranes, which are commonly either a tube or plate style, the resulting permeate
has a low turbidity with the excess sludge being removed from the reactor basins. This results in a high-
quality effluent without the need for a tertiary filter, and results in a compact process that also has a
longer sludge retention time. The membrane does limit the hydraulic throughput of the treatment process
and an influent flow equalization tank is required upstream of the MBR to ensure flux through the MBR
does not exceed its capacity. The existing SBR tanks would be converted into influent flow equalization
tanks. Additionally, knowledge to operate and maintain the new system as well as the additional process
equipment compared to the other alternatives, will be required.
In addition to the three alternatives, a ‘do nothing’ option was also initially considered but is not a practical option.
The current flows to the WWTP exceed 80% of the design capacity, and as indicated in the recent performance,
Page 48

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
the WWTP has occasionally exceeded the permit limits. Therefore, the existing plant is only marginally capable of
treating the existing flows. As the plant equipment ages the repairs and associated downtime will increase, which
will degrade the effective treatment capacity. Refer to Section 5.
6.1 Common Upgrades
Upgrades that are common to all three alternatives include:
1. Expand influent screening. Alternatives 1 and 2 will be a 6-mm effective opening screen, and
Alternative 3 will require a 2-mm opening screen.
2. Construct/convert influent flow equalization tank(s).
3. Expand UV disinfection.
4. Expand chemical dosing.
5. Review options for expansion of treated effluent disposal.
6. Install sludge treatment and dewatering.
7. Install an on-site non-potable water system.
8. Miscellaneous refurbishment of reused facilities.
9. Electrical and control system upgrades.
6.1.1 Influent Screening
Due to the age of the existing influent screen, difficulty in procuring replacement parts, and to accommodate
higher peak flows, it is recommended to replace the screen. The existing screen has performed well, and the
operations staff is familiar with operating and maintaining this style of screen. Additionally, the existing concrete
channel appears in fair condition and can be reused with some modification and refurbishment (e.g. spalling and
crack repair).
For Alternatives 1 and 2 it is recommended that the replacement screen be the same style as the existing screen.
The existing mechanical screen bypass channel and manual bar rack would remain in place to serve as back up
to the additional mechanical screen.
The influent screen for Alternatives 1 and 2 would comply with the design criteria in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Influent Mechanical Screen Design Basis – Alternatives 1 and 2
Parameter Value Units
Quantity, Duty/Standby 1/0 Unit
Peak Flow 4 MGD
Screen Opening 6 mm
Screen Basket Diameter 40 Inches
Integrated Screenings
Ancillary Equipment Washer/Compactor with -
Bagger
Basis of Design Lakeside – Raptor -
Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge requires a more robust screening system with smaller openings to protect
the membranes. For Alternative 3, it is recommended to provide both coarse and fine screens in series, with 1
duty and 1 standby screen for each size. The existing screen channels will be expanded to add a channel for a
second coarse screen. The existing screen will be replaced. A dual channel fine screen facility will be constructed
to the north of the existing screens. The influent screen for Alternative 3 would comply with the design criteria in
Table 6.2.
Page 49

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 6.2: Influent Mechanical Screen Design Basis – Alternative 3
Parameter Value Units
Coarse Screens
Quantity, Duty/Standby 1/1 Unit
Peak Flow, Each
4 MGD
Screen
Screen Opening ½ inch
Screenings
Ancillary Equipment Washer/Compactor with -
Bagger
Basis of Design Duperon Low Flow -
Fine Screens
Quantity, Duty/Standby 1/1 Unit
Peak Flow, Each
4 MGD
Screen
Screen Opening 2 mm
Screenings
Ancillary Equipment Washer/Compactor with -
Bagger
Basis of Design Huber Band Screen -
6.1.2 Influent Flow Equalization Tank
To accommodate fluctuations in influent flows during wet weather events, an influent flow equalization (EQ) tank
is recommended for each alternative. The equalization tank will reduce the peak flows (peak shaving) to the
SBRs, activated sludge basins, or MBRs and therefore improve the effluent quality during wet weather events.
The influent flow EQ tank will be designed to provide wet weather peak flow shaving at the 1.0 MGD annual
average flow conditions. Since the current influent flows are not measured, the tank will be sized based on typical
municipal peak flow characteristics. A conservative peak day peaking factor of 3 will be used, therefore a peak
day flow of 3.0 MGD is expected. A 500,000-gallon working volume concrete tank is recommended to reduce the
peak day flow through the treatment process to 2.5 MG. Redundant 750 gpm submersible pumps with variable
frequency drives (VFD) will be mounted in the EQ tank to pump flow that is diverted from the EQ tank to the
SBRs, activated sludge basins, or MBRs.
For Alternative 1 – SBR, a new 500,000-gallon working volume tank would need to be constructed onsite. For
Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge and Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge, the existing SBR tanks
can be converted into two (2) influent flow EQ tanks. As shown in Table 4.9, each existing SBR tank has a
maximum working capacity of 0.589 MG. Refer to Section 6.3 for site plan layouts for each alternative.
6.1.3 UV Disinfection
The existing UV system was upgraded after 2005 and is operating well; however, it is undersized to handle the
peak day flow following the expansion to 1.0 MG annual average influent flow and associated wet weather flows.
To better utilize the space available in the Filter and Blower Building, the existing UV system will be replaced with
an enclosed low pressure high output inline system. Table 6.3 summarizes the design basis for the replacement
system.
Page 50

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 6.3: UV Disinfection Replacement System Design Basis
Parameter Value Units
Quantity, Duty/Standby 1/1 -
Configuration Parallel -
Peak Day Flow 3.3 MGD
Design Transmittance 65 %
UV Dose > 40 mJ/cm2
Effluent Quality < 116(1) MPN/100 mL E. Coli
Number of Lamps, each unit 20 800W each, LPHO
ETS – UV System,
Basis of Design manufactured by -
Evoqua
(1) – Note that effluent quality limit would be 14 MPN/100 mL E. Coli if the new
outfall extension is used, per Section 6.1.5.
6.1.4 Chemical Dosing
For the ENR upgrade of the Centreville WWTP, chemical addition for increased phosphorus removal will be
required. The existing chemical dosing system will be expanded for additional polyaluminum chloride (PACl) and
methanol dosing. Increased dosing of PACl is required to precipitate higher concentrations of ortho-phosphorus in
order to meet a TP concentration less than 0.3 mg/L, as required by ENR. To meet the target TP concentration,
an estimated 240 gallons per day (gpd) of PACl will be required. PACl will be dosed upstream of the denitrification
filters for Alternatives 1 and 2, and downstream of the MBR process for Alternative 3. PACl dosing capacity will be
increased by replacing the existing PACl drums with an 8,000-gallon capacity double contained PACl bulk storage
tank located in the Filter and Blower Building. Alternatively, two (2) 4,000-gallon double contained tanks may be
installed for PACl storage, if the Filter and Blower Building cannot accommodate a single larger tank. 8,000
gallons of PACl storage will provide over 30 days of chemical storage. The existing PACl dosing pumps will likely
need to be replaced to accommodate a higher capacity.
Each alternative will also include methanol dosing to aid in additional nitrate removal and subsequent reductions
in TN concentration less than 3 mg/L, as required by ENR. To meet the target TN concentration, an estimated 65
gpd of methanol will be required. For Alternatives 1 and 2, methanol would be dosed just upstream of the
denitrification filters. For Alternative 3, methanol would be dosed within the MBR tank. Methanol will be stored in a
4,000-gallon double contained bulk storage tank, within or outside of the Filter and Blower Building for
Alternatives 1 and 2, or within the MBR Process Building for Alternative 3. 4,000 gallons of methanol storage will
provide over 40 days of chemical storage.
6.1.5 Review of Effluent Disposal Options
As previously mentioned, Centreville WWTP currently discharges to Gravel Run through an existing outfall during
the cold weather months (December 1 to March 31). During the warmer weather months (April 1 to November
30), effluent is discharged to the Town’s spray irrigation site. Previously, Centreville WWTP was permitted to
utilize spray disposal year round; however, with the most recent permit update in 2010 and updated MDE
requirements, spray disposal is restricted to March 1 to December 15.
At the Town’s current spray irrigation disposal site, there is a total usable disposal area of 173.44 acres. The
disposal site is reported to be near capacity at current flows. Concurrently with the ENR expansion and upgrade
of the Centreville WWTP, the Town is actively pursuing expansion of the effluent disposal capacity to
accommodate the expected increase in WWTP influent flows.
The Town has unsuccessfully pursued expanding its spray irrigation area, despite years of searching for suitable
land. Other water reuse options, such as indirect potable reuse (IPR), have been discussed but are not
Page 51

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
considered feasible in the near term. Therefore, expanding the surface water discharge to allow year-round
discharge is currently the most viable approach. This section provides a brief overview of the proposed work to
expand the surface water discharge effluent disposal.
6.1.5.1 Year Round Stream Discharge
To allow for year-round surface discharge, the Town is proposing to relocate the plant outfall to Corsica River at a
location downstream of the Watson Road Bridge, which would be consistent with MDE’s approved report for
TMDL of Nutrients for Corsica River (May 2000).
The Town is proposing to manage the plant’s expanded effluent flow by maximizing use of the existing spray
irrigation field capacity in combination with discharge to a new Corsica River outfall within the TMDL nutrient
limits. During the irrigation season, the current permitted flow (0.542 MGD) will be applied to the fields with the
remaining effluent flows (0.458 MGD) to Corsica River. Outside the irrigation period, all flows would be discharged
to Corsica River. The assumption for this scenario is ENR effluent quality with a consistent treatment performance
of 3 mg/L and 0.3 mg/L for TN and TP, respectively. It should be noted that MDE has recently proposed a more
stringent TP limit of 0.15 mg/L (i.e. 50% further reduction) if year-round stream discharge is selected. This would
allow for a nutrient loading to Corsica River that is well below the established TMDL limits for low flow periods and
for the total annual limit. These assumptions provide a good overall nutrient load margin of safety, especially
during low flow (warm) periods where nutrient loads to Corsica River are most critical and where the utilization of
the spray fields is greater.
With year-round surface discharge, upgrades to the existing Effluent Pump Station will be required to send
additional flow through the new outfall pipe and further into the Corsica River. Additionally, a shellfish protection
tank will be required. The tank will need to be sized for 24 hours of holding of the design average flow, or
1,000,000 gallons. The tank will be used to stop all wastewater from flowing to the stream if the effluent quality is
poor or the disinfection system is offline. Upgrades to the Effluent Pump Station and construction of the shellfish
protection tank are not recommended at this time as part of the ENR upgrade and expansion.
6.1.6 Biosolids Handling
The dewatered biosolids are currently disposed of in a landfill. By providing sufficient solids retention time in an
aerobic digester, a Class B biosolids would be produced. This potentially could allow for land application of the
dewatered biosolids.
For Alternative 1 – SBR, a new aerobic digester would be constructed in the footprint of the existing reed drying
beds. For Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge and Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge, the existing
post equalization and sludge storage tanks will be retrofitted to be aerobic digesters. Refer to Section 6.3 for site
plan layouts for each alternative. The design criteria for the aerobic digester are provided in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Aerobic Digester Design Criteria
Parameter Value Units
Design Waste Sludge 16,000 gallons/day
1,300 Lbs dry solids/day
10,000 Mg-TSS/L
Digester Solids Concentration with Settling and Decant 20,000 Mg-TSS/L
Solids Retention Time 60 days
Number of Tanks 2 -
Working Volume, each 250,000(1) gallons
Working Volume, Total 500,000(2) gallons
Surface Aerator Mixers (3 in each Tank) 20 HP/each
(1) – For Alternatives 2 and 3, the retrofitted aerobic digesters will have an approximate working volume of
175,000 gallons each.
Page 52

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
(2) – For Alternatives 2 and 3, the retrofitted aerobic digesters will have an approximate total working volume of
350,000 gallons.
There are several proven, reliable sludge dewatering methods that can be applied to Centreville WWTP. Similar
to the treatment process, a primary consideration should be that the equipment is straightforward to operate and
maintain. One widely utilized technology across the wastewater industry is the belt filter press (BFP). See Figure
6.1 for a BFP. BPFs have many advantages, including:
• Low capital cost,
• Low energy consumption,
• Simple operation and maintenance, and
• Ability to handle stringy solids (i.e. rags) and plastics.
Prior to sludge being deposited on the BFP, the sludge is conditioned with polymer to promote the coagulation of
solids. The polymers would be received in a concentrated liquid format in 55-gallon drums. Polymer would be
pumped by peristaltic pump to a make down tank, a 300-500-gallon fiberglass tank where potable water is added
to condition the polymer and get the proper concentration for dosing. The polymer solution is then pumped into an
injection ring located in the belt filter press feed pipeline and mixed in-line with the sludge.
During the dewatering operation, as the dewatered cake is discharged, the press belts are continuously washed
with spray water. A wash water skid equipped with a booster pump will provide the pressure to adequately wash
the belts.
The cake will be discharged from the belt filter press onto a belt conveyor which conveys the cake into a roll off
storage container until it is taken for disposal.
Another technology considered is the volute dewatering press. The volute dewatering press is similar in overall
configuration to a screw press, with a center conveying screw pushing the solids that are larger than the openings
in the dewatering drum towards the discharge end. See Figure 6.2 for a volute dewatering press, and Figure 6.3
for a typical screw press. The screw press uses a static perforated, or slotted drum which separates the solids.
The volute press utilizes the annular space between donut shaped plates to separate out the solids. The screw
and volute press both have low capital costs and low energy consumption.
The volute dewatering press and screw press have fewer moving parts than the belt filter press which should
translate to lower maintenance costs.
The BFP has low capital cost and low energy consumption as advantages that have led to numerous installations.
The dewatering equipment will be further evaluated during the design of the expansion.
A dewatered cake storage area will be provided with a permeable asphalt floor and a pre-engineered clear span
roof.
Page 53

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Figure 6.1: Belt Filter Press (Credit: Andritz)
Figure 6.2: Volute Dewatering Press (Credit: Process Wastewater Technologies, LLC)
Page 54

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Figure 6.3: Screw Press (Credit: Schwing Bioset, Inc.)
To expand the biosolids handling process and to house additional equipment, a Dewatering Facility and Covered
Cake Storage Facility will be constructed onsite. Refer to Section 6.3 for site plan layouts for each alternative.
The Dewatering Facility will consist of the following architectural characteristics:
• 4-inch Brick veneer with CMU block bearing wall, with steel roof trusses, and standing seam metal roof.
• Fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) doors, windows, frames, etc., as required, with new reinforced
concrete slab.
• This building will be an enclosure for covering sludge tanks.
• One bay will be two stories for covering the sludge tanks, and the other bay will be one story for vehicles.
The Covered Cake Storage Facility will consist of the following architectural characteristics:
• Pre-engineered steel portal framed building with standing seam metal roof, with all four sides open to the
exterior, over a new reinforced concrete slab.
6.1.7 Non-Potable Water System
A non-potable water system will be installed to be used in a variety of applications throughout the WWTP. The
non-potable water system will allow for onsite reuse of the treated plant water and subsequent reduction in
potable water demand at the WWTP. Currently, the WWTP utilizes potable water for all its water needs.
Installation of a non-potable water system will result in a cost savings for plant operation, as well as an increase in
efficiency of the WWTP. Refer to Section 6.5.1 for additional water and energy efficiency considerations for this
project.
The non-potable water system will be installed within the Filter and Blower Building. The system will be skid
mounted and have an approximate capacity of 200 gpm. The system will draw non-potable water supply from the
UV effluent and have non-potable storage in an approximately 5,000-gallon capacity tank. Pumps mounted on the
skid will draw non-potable water from the tank and pump to a distribution system throughout the WWTP. Non-
potable water can be used for applications such as spray water for the influent screens, pump seal water, wash
down, or yard hydrants throughout the WWTP.
Page 55

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
6.1.8 Laboratory and Administration Building
The current Laboratory and Administration Building was not designed to accommodate the number of current
operators. For example, the building does not have a designated office space. Instead desks are placed in the
electrical distribution room, and in the entryway. The restroom was designed for single occupancy and is serving
as the locker/changing room. In addition, the plant expansion, and the move to more stringent ENR effluent
quality will result in an increase in the quantity and type of laboratory tests that are needed to maintain process
control.
The expansion project will include the renovation of the existing space including the demolition of the existing
laboratory cabinets and restroom. The available space will be re-allocated to provide separate spaces for:
• Laboratory
• Office Space
• Separate locker room with shower and bathroom
• Electrical Distribution and Control Room
The existing Lab Building consists of 4-inch Brick veneer with CMU block bearing walls, with steel roof trusses,
asphalt fiberglass roof, and existing hollow metal doors, windows, frames. The existing structure is to remain and
be painted as required. The interior spaces will be renovated with new finishes, including acoustical ceilings,
painted walls, doors, and frames, casework, fixtures, etc. A roof leak was discovered at a portion of the existing
asphalt fiberglass roof while onsite, which will be repaired or replaced as necessary. Figure 6.4 shows the
existing Lab Building.
Figure 6.4: Existing Lab Building
6.1.9 Filter and Blower Building
The existing Filter and Blower Building consists of 4-inch Brick veneer with CMU block bearing walls, with steel
roof trusses, asphalt fiberglass roof, and existing hollow metal doors, windows, frames. The existing structure is to
remain and be painted as required. Interior work will include removal of existing process equipment, expansion of
the electrical room, replacement of the existing filters and UV system, expansion of the PACl chemical storage
and dosing system, and replacement of the MCC’s. New finishes, including acoustical ceilings, painted walls,
doors, and frames, casework, fixtures, etc., will be provided. Figure 6.5 shows the existing Filter and Blower
Building.
Page 56

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Figure 6.5: Existing Filter and Blower Building
6.1.10 Control Building
The existing Control Building consists of 4-inch Brick veneer with CMU block bearing walls, with steel roof
trusses, asphalt fiberglass roof, and existing hollow metal doors, windows, frames. The existing structure is to
remain and be painted as required. The interior spaces will be removed and refurbished for other uses. New
finishes, including acoustical ceilings, painted walls, doors, and frames, casework, fixtures, etc., will be provided.
Figure 6.6 shows the existing Control Building.
Figure 6.6: Existing Control Building
Page 57

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
6.1.11 Electrical System Upgrades
The electrical system upgrades proposed herein include all three treatment alternatives, with the exception of the
MBR Process Building (see Section 6.1.11.7), which would only be required for Alternative 3 (MBR Activated
Sludge). The existing electrical loads for the WWTP utilize approximately 25% (peak demand of 101 kW and
average demand of 90 kW) of the existing 500 kVA transformer capacity, and the existing incoming electrical
equipment in the Filter and Blower Building will not require electrical upgrade. The existing 500kW engine driven
generator is sufficiently sized for the planned expansions.
6.1.11.1 Filter and Blower Building
The existing electrical equipment, including an enclosed circuit breaker, automatic transfer switch, panelboards
MDP, DP and PA, and low voltage transformer, in the electrical room is in fair condition. However, the existing
MCC’s in the Blower Room should be replaced with new MCC’s. The existing circuit breakers in the existing
MCC’s located have been overheated and tripped in the summer months even with portable fans blowing directly
towards the MCC’s. High ambient temperature is the worst enemy for the electrical equipment and shortens the
life of the electrical equipment.
Therefore, the existing MCC’s should be replaced with new MCC’s in a new conditioned space in the Filter and
Blower Building to prolong the equipment’s life and avoid any nuisance tripping from the heat. The new MCC will
be sized per the motor list, shall be bigger than the previous two MCC’s, and will consolidate the existing as well
as new process loads. All the branch circuits from this MCC will be new with a new feeder circuit from panelboard
MDP.
6.1.11.2 Lab Building
The existing electrical equipment in the Lab Building is antiquated and should be replaced with new electrical
equipment, including the transformer outside (which has been damaged and moved), switchboard, and Panel PC.
Moreover, this equipment is original equipment that was not updated to properly protect the electrical
loads/equipment and do not have proper working clearance in accordance with the National Electrical Code
(NEC) due to the existing work benches, microwave oven, and refrigerator. All existing feeders and branch circuit
wiring in the building should be replaced with new conduit and wires. All new LED lighting and receptacles will
also be provided based on the new building layout.
6.1.11.3 Pump Building (Old Control/Admin Building)
The existing Panel PD is a relatively new panel in good condition and has proper working clearance. The existing
panel will remain. However, the existing feeder from the Lab Building shall be replaced from a new distribution
panel.
6.1.11.4 Replacement Influent Screening
The screens are being replaced, and a new control panel complete with variable frequency drives (VFDs), circuit
breakers, and controls will be provided outside mounted on a strut frame.
6.1.11.5 New Dewatering Facility
A new feeder will be run to this building, and new distribution equipment will be provided, including panelboards
and dry type transformers. Electrical fixtures including receptacles, lighting, and switches will also be provided.
Page 58

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
6.1.11.6 New MBR Process Building
For Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge, a new feeder will be run to the MBR Process Building, and new
distribution equipment will be provided, including panelboards and dry type transformers. Electrical fixtures
including receptacles, lighting, and switches will also be provided.
6.1.11.7 General Site Electrical
The new electrical loads are anticipated to double, and a 150 kVA pad mounted transformer and a 600-amp
distribution panel are proposed to accommodate the proposed treatment facility electrical loads and spare
capacity. All new feeders and branch circuit breakers shall be properly protected. Site lighting shall be provided
per revised layout plan. All outside feeders shall run in underground ductbank system.
In summary, the following electrical upgrades are proposed:
1. Existing service is adequate for all three alternatives and shall be retained.
2. Replace interior lighting for the whole plant with LED lighting.
3. Provide new lighting and controls for new proposed building.
4. Provide new LED site lighting for the whole plant.
5. Replace existing MCCs with new in the Filter and Blower Building.
6. New feeders and branch circuits for proposed upgrades.
7. New panelboards, feeders, branch circuits and fixtures for Lab building, MBR Process building and
Dewatering Facility.
8. Provide new ductbank system.
9. Provide new site lighting.
6.1.12 Control System Upgrades
To help achieve the operational goals of the advance treatment systems proposed, a centralized Plant Control
System (PCS) should be developed to provide the ability for centralized monitoring and supervisory control.
Individual processes should be provided with a dedicated PLC control panel that will provide the local control for
the individual process equipment and collect process data from local instruments.
Centralized supervisory control would allow operators to interface with the local PLC based control systems that
are providing process control at the different process facilities. The distributed nature of this type of system builds
reliability into the system by not relying on a single processor to remotely control a process. If there is a failure in
communications or a local control panel, the remaining system will continue to operate based on programming
and commands issued locally by the dedicated processor. This type of system saves on the installation of conduit
and wire by locating the controller near the process area and also allows for the use of less expensive control
equipment that has lower total memory and input/output point capability to control a limited scope of equipment.
The PCS system will collect monitored process data from field instrumentation and archive these data in a
historian function. The data historian will allow for review of operations through historical trends and creating
daily/monthly or annual reports. The automated and centralized collection of these data will facilitate in optimizing
the process control resulting in possible savings in energy, chemicals and reduced workloads while providing the
data trail to ensure regulatory compliance.
The PCS should be extended to provide remote monitoring of the pump stations, tanks and water treatment
plants throughout the town. Similar type of local control panels should be located at these facilities to replace the
aged control equipment and to communicate with the centralized PCS. Using the PCS to interface with these
other facilities is practical in the sense that it makes full use of the software and hardware that will be purchased
for the wastewater treatment plant. These systems are scalable to allow for additional capacity without impeding
on the overall efficiency or functions for the plant.
Page 59

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Communications between the WWTP centralized PCS and the remote sites will most efficiently be performed
through the use of cellular network technology. Using a third-party cellular provider for remote communications is
a low-cost solution that makes use of the providers existing infrastructure and security practices at established
low-cost GSA pricing.
6.2 Treatment Alternative Upgrades
Three (3) alternatives to upgrade and expand the Centreville WWTP have been developed. The different
upgrades that are required for each treatment alternative are detailed below. Preliminary hydraulic profiles for
each of the three alternatives is included in Appendix E.
6.2.1 Alternative 1 – Expand the Sequencing Batch Reactor
6.2.1.1 SBR Process
Expanding the existing SBR process from 0.542 MGD to 1.0 MGD to provide the design effluent quality would
require the following major scope components:
• Construct a 1.0 MG influent flow equalization basin
• Construct two (2) additional SBR tanks outside of the existing SBR tank structure with floating mixers,
removable fine bubble aeration grids, and decant arms.
• Double the capacity of the existing post equalization (post EQ) tank by removing the dividing wall between the
existing post EQ tank and sludge holding tank and replacing the equipment.
• Install denitrification filters and a denitrification filter control building and pump station.
• Install three (3) additional blowers in the existing blower room.
• Add storage and handling for the addition of an external carbon source (methanol) to SBR.
Refer to Section 4.5.1 for a description of the SBR treatment process. Table 6.5 outlines the design
specifications for the SBRs.
Page 60

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 6.5: SBR Design Basis
Parameter Value Units
No. of Basins 4 -
Length, each 70.5 Ft
Width, each 53.2 Ft
Volume each at Avg.
0.47 Million Gallons
Side Water Depth
Cycles/day 5 Per day/basin
Cycle Duration 4.8 Hr/cycle
Food to Mass Ratio 0.064 Lbs BOD5/lb MLSS-Day
Mixed Liquor
Mg/l at Min. Water
Suspended Solids 4,000
Depth
(MLSS) Concentration
Hydraulic Retention Days at Avg Water
1.17
Time Depth
Solids Retention Time 17.9 Days
Estimated Dry Sludge
1,984 Lbs WAS/Day
Produced
Actual Oxygen Required 7,453 Lbs O2/Day
Air Flowrate per Basin 1,670 SCFM
6.2.1.2 SBR with Aerobic Granular Sludge
If Alternative 1 is pursued, there is an option to decrease the required SBR tank capacity by installing an
AquaNereda® Aerobic Granular Sludge process, manufactured by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, within the SBRs. The
AquaNereda® Aerobic Granular Sludge process uses an optimized batch cycle structure with granular sludge to
decrease settling time. Therefore, it can operate at higher concentrations, allowing for more treatment capacity
within the existing tank volume.
The main benefit of the SBR with aerobic granular sludge option is that only three (3) total SBR tanks would be
required, rather than four (4) SBR tanks that are required for the standard SBR Alternative 1. This would increase
and optimize the amount of available site space at the WWTP. However, costs of the SBR with aerobic granular
sludge option include the cost of the SBR granular sludge equipment, which is estimated to be approximately
25% higher than the cost of the standard SBR Alternative 1 equipment, and there have been limited installation of
aerobic granular sludge in the U.S. Therefore, other alternatives were pursued instead.
6.2.1.3 Effluent Filtering
Due to the hydraulic limitations the existing cloth media filter will be replaced with a deep bed downflow
intermittent backwash sand media filter (IBF). As an additional benefit, with the addition of a carbon source, the
IBF will be able to simultaneously denitrify the secondary effluent from the SBR, as well as remove particulate
solids.
The IBFs are deep mono media type filters where the influent wastewater flows into the filter by overflowing a weir
at the top of the filter. The water flows downward through the sand media, support gravel and underdrain. The
treated effluent flows out of the bottom of the filter into the effluent pipeline and to the treated effluent clearwell.
The bed is backwashed by pumping water from the clearwell into the bottom of the filter where the underdrain
distributes the treated effluent across the filter. The backwash water overflows the influent weir and is discharged,
by automatic valves and associated piping, into the mudwell. The biofilm develops on the sand media and
sufficient biomass remains in place through the backwash process.
Page 61

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
In the denitrifying mode, a carbon source is required. Methanol or glycerin will be added to the filter influent and
the nitrate in the influent is converted to nitrogen gas that escapes the process. In the IBF process the removal of
solids and excess biomass produced in the denitrifying mode is accomplished through the intermittent backwash
of the sand media bed.
In denitrifying mode, the IBF can reliably achieve less than 1.0 mg/L nitrate, even at high influent nitrate
concentrations. During maximum month design conditions, the nitrate levels will be less than 12 mg/L, making the
IBF a reliable treatment process.
The IBF systems also remove total phosphorus as a result of the particulate solids capture and from a small
fraction of biological consumption of soluble phosphorus, typically less than 0.02 mg/L per mg/L nitrate removed.
While simultaneous denitrification and phosphorus removal through chemical addition and precipitation can be
achieved in the filter, chemical phosphorus removal will be performed upstream of the DN filter stage, i.e. in the
SBR or activated sludge process.
The number of filter cells required depends on both hydraulic (peak) flow (relative to filter headloss) and nitrate
loading (performance efficiency). Based on the 1.0 MGD design conditions (average and maximum month) the
IBF process would consist of three (3) filter cells (144 SF of filtration area per filter cell), for a total of 2,592 CF of
active filtration volume.
The IBF filters would consist of concrete above grade tanks with influent channels integrated into the structure.
An online nutrient analyzer will be installed in a small building adjacent to the filters. The analyzer will have
centrifugal pumps recirculating flow from the sample points (filter influent and effluent) to the analyzer and back to
just downstream of the sample point. One sample pump will draw water from the denitrification filter pump station
discharge pipeline (influent). The sample point will be up stream of the methanol injection point. A second sample
pump will draw water from the denitrification filter discharge pipeline (effluent).
A control system for controlling the filtration and backwashing operations of three filters will be located in the new
building, roughly 28’ by 10’, including level transmitters, sensors, control panels, analyzers, and a magnetic flow
meter (i.e. magmeter). The external carbon storage tank and dosing system will be located adjacent to the IBF.
Two (2) submersible backwash pumps (25 HP each), two (2) submersible mudwell pumps (6.5 HP each), and two
(2) positive displacement blowers will be provided.
The design specifications for the IBF are shown in Table 6.6.
Page 62

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 6.6: Denitrifying Filter Design Basis
Parameter Value Units
Quantity 3 Total Unit
Average Design Flow, total 1.0 MGD
Maximum Month Flow, total 1.2 MGD
Peak Flow, total 3.3 MGD
Avg TSS to Filter 30 mg/l
Nitrate and Nitrite to Filter < 8.0 mg/l
Filtration Area, Each 144 sq feet
Filtration Area, Total 432 sq feet
Filter Media Depth 72 inches
Avg TSS from Filter < 5.0 mg/l
Nitrate and Nitrite from Filter < 1.0 mg/l
Hydraulic Loading Rate
< 2.2 gpm/sq feet
(average)
Hydraulic Loading Rate
< 3.0 gpm/sq feet
(maximum month)
Hydraulic Loading Rate
< 8.0 gpm/sq feet
(peak flow)
Backwash Frequency 24 Hrs
Backwash rate 5-6 gpm/sq feet
Backwash Cycle Duration 20-25 min
Backwash Volume 17,280 gallons
Integrated Controls and
Ancillary Equipment -
Backwash System
elimi-NITE Denitrification
Basis of Design System, manufactured by -
Leopold
6.2.1.4 Post Equalization Tank
Additional post equalization tank capacity will be required for the expansion. For Alternative 1, the existing sludge
holding tank would be converted for additional post equalization tank capacity. The concrete wall that currently
separates the existing post equalization tank and existing sludge holding tank would be demolished to effectively
double the capacity of the existing post equalization tank. New surface agitators will be installed in the post
equalization tank.
6.2.2 Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge
6.2.2.1 Activated Sludge Process
Conversion of the existing SBR process to a conventional activated sludge process to provide the design effluent
quality, as well as expand the design capacity from 0.542 MGD to 1.0 MGD would require the following major scope
components:
• Construct two (2) 5-stage activated sludge basins and two (2) rectangular secondary clarifiers with double-
sided weirs.
• Convert the existing SBR tanks to two (2) separate influent flow equalization tanks, as described in Section
6.1.2, and convert the existing post EQ tank and the existing sludge holding tank into two (2) aerobic digesters,
as described in Section 6.1.6.
Page 63

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
• Install denitrification filters and a denitrification filter control building and pump station.
Most of the site is steeply sloped and is constrained on all sides from expansion. The rectangular clarifiers can
integrate the RAS pumping into the footprint of the clarifiers, and with common wall construction occupy less area
compared to circular clarifiers with separate RAS pump stations. Therefore, rectangular secondary clarifiers were
selected over the more common circular clarifiers.
Figure 6.4 depicts a schematic of the 5-stage process. Influent first flows through an anerobic tank, where oxygen
devoid conditions are conducive to phosphorus-accumulating organisms to release phosphate into the
wastewater, ensuring it is more readily available to be removed in the further stages than if it remained in
biomass.
Flow then enters the first anoxic zone where the majority of denitrification occurs. Denitrifying bacteria use nitrate
as an electron acceptor to covert its nitrogen through a series of steps, ultimately becoming nitrogen gas.
The water then enters the aerobic zone where nitrification primarily occurs. Through aerobic bacteria, ammonium
is oxidized to nitrite and ultimately nitrate, where it is then recycled, called mixed liquor, to the previous stage for
denitrification.
Next, the post anoxic zone aids with removing nitrates from the previous aerobic zone that are not recycled back
to the first anoxic zone. A carbon source may be supplemented here to aid in nitrification. Methanol is one ideal
substance; however, due to Maryland's colder climate, it may only prove effective with attached-growth media.
Other carbon sources such as acetate, ethanol, or sugar are suitable carbon sources for ordinary bacteria
(methanol requires slow growing methylotrophic bacteria) that can still be effective to cooler climates.
Fine bubble diffusers incorporate air in the final rearation zone to help release any more nitrogen gas that has
formed as well as minimize inhibit any more denitrification from occurring in the following secondary clarifiers.
This will allow the sludge to settle better and ensure no potential nitrogen gas bubbles form and rise and mixing
the water in the process.
As mentioned, water flows to secondary clarifiers following the 5-stage process, where it then flows to a
denitrification filter for further nitrogen removal. RAS from the secondary clarifiers is pumped to the Dewatering
Facility by submersible pumps within the secondary clarifiers. Design specifications for the denitrification filter are
discussed in Section 6.2.1.3.
Some key differences between a 5-stage activated sludge process and SBR include that 5-stage activated sludge
process will have continuous flow while an SBR delivers flow in batches, which could play a role in treatment
efficacy of other treatment technologies like UV disinfection. 5-stage processes are typically favored for nutrient
removal, as it can simultaneously remove nitrogen and phosphorus. However, it has a higher footprint and has a
higher energy consumption. A schematic overview of the 5-stage process is depicted in Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.7: Schematic of 5-Stage Process (Credit: EPA)
Page 64

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Design criteria for the 5-stage activated sludge basins and the secondary clarifiers are listed in Tables 6.7 and
6.8, respectively.
Table 6.7: 5-Stage Activated Sludge Basin Design Basis
Parameter Value Units
No. of Trains 2 Trains
No. of Stages 5 -
Length of Train, each 95 ft
Width of Train, each 35 ft
Average Side Water Depth 18.1 ft
Volume each at Average Side
0.45 Million Gallons
Water Depth
Solids Retention Time 10-20 Days
RAS Recycle Ratio 50-100 %
Internal Nitrate Recycle 300 %
MLSS Concentration 3000-4000 mg/L
HRT 1st Zone (Anaerobic) 0.5-1.5 (MMF Design: 1) Hr
Anaerobic Zone Working
25,000 Gallons
Volume (each train)
HRT 2nd Zone (Pre Anoxic) 1-3 (MMF Design: 2) Hr
Pre Anoxic Zone Working
50,000 Gallons
Volume (each train)
HRT 3rd (Aerobic) 4-12 (MMF Design: 10) Hr
Aerobic Zone Working Volume
250,000 Gallons
(each train)
HRT 4th Stage (Post Anoxic) 2-4 (MMF Design: 4) Hr
Post Anoxic Zone Working
100,000 Gallons
Volume (each train)
HRT 5th Stage (Reaeration) 0.5-1 (MMF Design: 1) Hr
Reaeration Zone Working
25,000 Gallons
Volume (each train)
Total Design HRT 18 Hr
• HRT = Hydraulic Retention Time
• MMF = Maximum Monthly Flow
Page 65

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 6.8: Secondary Clarifier Design Basis
Parameter Value Units
No. of Clarifiers 2 -
Length, each 60 ft
Width, each 35 ft
Average Side Water Depth 14 ft
Average SOR 250 gpd/sq feet
Peak SOR 800 gpd/sq feet
Average SOR with one
500 gpd/sq feet
Clarifier Offline
Average SLR at 100% RAS 14 Lbs/day/sq feet
Peak SLR at 50% RAS 35 Lbs/day/sq feet
• SOR = Surface Overflow Rate
• SLR = Solids Loading Rate
6.2.2.2 Effluent Filtering
Similar to Alternative 1 (SBR Expansion), the existing cloth media filter will be replaced with a deep bed downflow
IBF. Refer to the description and design basis in Section 6.2.1.3 for the proposed filter upgrades.
6.2.3 Alternative 3 – Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Activated Sludge
6.2.3.1 MBR Process
Conversion of the existing SBR process to a MBR activated sludge process to provide the design effluent quality,
as well as expand the design capacity from 0.542 MGD to 1.0 MGD would require the following major scope
components:
• Construct a two (2) train 5-stage activated sludge facility, with a larger 5th zone to install MBR equipment.
• Construct an MBR Process Building to house blowers and storage/equipment for the addition of an external
carbon source (methanol) to the MBR.
• Convert the existing SBR tanks to two (2) separate influent flow equalization tanks, as described in Section
6.1.2, and convert the existing post EQ tank and the existing sludge holding tank into two (2) aerobic digesters,
as described in Section 6.1.6.
The four stages prior to the MBR system typically include anaerobic, preanoxic, aerobic, and postanoxic stages,
similar to the 5-stage activated sludge process. The fifth stage includes the MBR system, which uses a
membrane filter with a pore size of approximately 1 micron to allow water to pass through while leaving behind
the activated sludge. The effluent is pulled through the membranes, which are commonly either a tube or plate
style, the resulting permeate has a low turbidity with the excess sludge being removed from the reactor basins.
Oftentimes an external carbon source is utilized to aid in nutrient removal like methanol, with other substitutes like
ethanol to be evaluated.
This results in a high-quality effluent without the need for a tertiary filter and results in a compact process that also
has a longer sludge retention time. Since there is no need for settling, MBR's can also operate at higher mixed
liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations.
The membrane limits the hydraulic throughput of the treatment process, so an influent flow equalization tank is
required upstream of the MBR to ensure flux through the MBR does not exceed its capacity. MBRs also incur
fouling and would need to be cleaned 2-4 times a year with Citric Acid or sodium hypochlorite, although reducing
sludge age can reduce fouling.
Page 66

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
The hollow fiber membrane units are cleaned in place which can undergo either a maintenance clean 1-2 times a
week or more thorough recovery clean occurring twice a year. Maintenance clean leave the train out of operation
for around 30 minutes are done without draining the tank with cleaning solutions reversed through the fibers.
Recovery cleans has the tank filled with permeate and cleaning solution to be soaked for 6-8 hours, which is then
neutralized and drained.
MBR’s smaller footprint and high-quality effluent are due to higher volumetric loading rates resulting in lower
hydraulic retention times compared to conventional activated sludge (CAS) systems. Although MBRs are
energetically more expensive than CAS systems, they have become significantly more efficient in the past 10
years compared to the only slight improvements in CAS technology, becoming 14% less expensive, in relation to
CAS systems.
These advancements are due to primarily the reduction in air scour energy for membrane cleaning due to new
diffuser technology, greater membrane packing density, decreased maintenance costs, longer operating life, and
increased use of gravity permeation from membranes. MBR's higher energy costs are due membrane aeration
and permeate pumps that CAS do not have, as well as the cost of RAS pumping being four times higher in the
MBRs than in a CAS system.
Table 6.9 lists the design specifications of the 5-stage activated sludge basins with the MBR system.
Page 67

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 6.9: 5-Stage Activated Sludge Basin with MBR Design Basis
Parameter Value Units
No. of Trains 2 Trains
No. of Stages 5 -
Length of Train, each 89 ft
Width of Train, each 35 ft
Average Side Water Depth 18.1 ft
Volume each at Average Side
0.42 Million Gallons
Water Depth
Solids Retention Time 10-20 Days
RAS Recycle Ratio 50-100 %
Internal Nitrate Recycle 300 %
MLSS Concentration 8000 mg/L
HRT 1st Zone (Anaerobic) 0.5-1.5 (MMF Design: 1) Hr
Anaerobic Zone Working
25,000 Gallons
Volume (each train)
HRT 2nd Zone (Pre Anoxic) 1-2 (MMF Design: 1.8) Hr
Pre Anoxic Tank Working
45,000 Gallons
Volume (each train)
HRT 3rd Zone (Aerobic) 4-8 (MMF Design: 7.2) Hr
Aerobic Zone Working Volume
180,000 Gallons
(each train)
HRT 4th Zone (Post Anoxic) 2-3 (MMF Design: 2.8) Hr
Post Anoxic Tank Working
71,000 Gallons
Volume (each train)
Total Design HRT (including
bioreactors and excluding 12 Hr
membrane Tanks)
No. of Cassettes per Train 3 Cassettes
No. of Modules installed per
132 Modules
Train
Cassette Internal Dimensions
21.7’ x 9’ x 13’ Ft
L x W x H
Reaeration Zone Working
Volume (including membranes, 103,000 Gallons
each train)
Membrane Surface Area 113,520 Sq ft
Net Flux (Avg Daily) 5.38 gpd/sq feet
Net Flux (Max Monthly) 6.46 gpd/sq feet
Net Flux (Max Daily) 12.92 gpd/sq feet
Net Flux (Peak Hour) 17.76 gpd/sq feet
Hydraulic Peak Flux Rate
22.2 gpd/sq feet
(Peak Hour)
Peak Flux Rate Capacity for
healthy biological activity 13.9 gpd/sq feet
(Peak Monthly Flow)
Basis of Design Veolia -
• HRT = Hydraulic Retention Time
• MMF = Maximum Monthly Flow
Page 68

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
The MBR Process Building will consist of the following architectural characteristics:
• 4-inch Brick veneer with CMU block bearing wall, with steel roof trusses, and stranding seam metal roof.
• FRP doors, windows, frames, etc., as required, with a new reinforced concrete slab.
• This building will be an enclosure for covering process equipment/blowers, chemical cleaning systems for
the membranes, and methanol chemical storage/dosing equipment.
6.3 Site Plans and Schematics
Alternative 1 – SBR will include the post EQ tank expansion, which includes the volume of the existing post EQ
and sludge holding tanks. Two additional SBR tanks, adjacent to the current ones, will be constructed.
Additionally, denitrification filters will be installed, and their respective Control Building will be built adjacent to the
Filter and Blower Building. Finally, the sludge drying reed beds would be transformed to include the influent flow
equalization tank, aerobic digesters, Dewatering Facility, and Covered Cake Storage Facility.
Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge and Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge would see the existing
SBR tanks converted into two (2) influent flow equalization tanks, while the middle tanks would be converted into
two (2) aerobic digesters. The Dewatering Facility and Covered Cake Storage Facility will be constructed to the
south of the influent screening, influent flow equalization tanks, and aerobic digesters. Across the road, where the
existing sludge drying reed beds are located, a 2 train 5-stage activated sludge process would be constructed.
At the end of the train, Alternative 2 will have secondary clarifiers, while Alternative 3 will have the MBR tanks and
MBR Process Building, housing the blower and methanol storage and feed equipment. Similar to Alternative 1,
Alternative 2 will have denitrification filters installed, and their respective Control Building will be built adjacent to
the Filter and Blower Building.
All three alternatives will include replacement of the influent screening, and backup generator, which will all be
constructed in the same relative location of the existing facilities, respectively. The Control and Lab Buildings will
each be modified, as discussed in Sections 6.1.8, 6.1.9, and 6.1.10. Each site plan also includes reserved area
for construction of a shellfish protection tank, if year-round stream discharge into the Corsica River is pursued in
the future.
Page 69

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
6.4 Environmental Impact
Environmental impacts associated with each design alternative are quantified in Table 6.10 and summarized by
alternative below. Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge would have the least environmental impacts compared to
both Alternative 1 – SBR and Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge.
Table 6.10: Environmental Impacts by Design Alternative for Centreville WWTP Site
Environmental Resource Alternative 1 (SQFT) Alternative 2 (SQFT) Alternative 3 (SQFT)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetland 0 0 0
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetland 459 486 0
Perennial Stream 0 0 0
Wetland 25-ft Buffer 2,199 2,985 177
Forest Stands 1,733 5,598 178
FEMA Floodplain 29 22 0
Forest Interior Dwelling Bird (FIDS)
9,190 21,513 13,307
Habitat
Tier 2 Catchment 55,137 49,184 47,259
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area 55,137 49,184 47,259
6.4.1 Alternative 1 – Expand the Sequencing Batch Reactor
Alternative 1 – SBR would impact existing wetlands/wetland buffer, forest, the 100-year floodplain, all located in
the northernmost portion of the LOD. There would be impacts to FIDS habitat across the northern, northeastern,
and western portions of the LOD. There would also be impacts to the Gravel Run 1 Tier II (High Quality)
catchment and CBCA throughout the entire LOD. Alternative 1 would not impact any streams.
6.4.2 Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge
Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge would impact existing wetlands/wetland buffer, forest located in the
northernmost and westernmost portions of the LOD. This alternative would impact the 100-year floodplain located
in the northernmost portion of the LOD. There would be impacts to the FIDS habitat throughout the northern and
western portions of the LOD. There would also be impacts to the Gravel Run 1 Tier II (High Quality) catchment
and CBCA throughout the entire LOD. Alternative 2 would not impact any streams.
6.4.3 Alternative 3 – Membrane Bioreactor
Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge would impact existing wetland buffer in the northwestern portion of the
LOD. There would be impacts to forests in the northernmost portion of the LOD and the FIDS habitat throughout
the northern, northeastern, and western portions of the LOD. This alternative would also the Gravel Run 1 Tier II
(High Quality) catchment and CBCA throughout the entire LOD. Alternative 3 would not impact streams or the
100-year floodplain.
6.5 Sustainability Considerations
The WWTP upgrade and expansion will be designed to reduce its impact on the environment and to be resilient to
future changes in the climate as indicated in this section.
Page 73

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
6.5.1 Water, Chemical and Energy Efficiency
The existing WWTP utilizes potable water for all its water needs. The upgrade will include an onsite non-potable
water system to utilize treated effluent for the process related water needs.
The treated effluent water quality will be sufficient to meet off-site Class III and IV reclaimed water requirements.
Potential future off site water reuse includes irrigation of the Queen Anne County recreational fields located
adjacent to the Town.
In addition to the onsite water reuse, the potable water use onsite will be reduced through the replacement of the
existing plumbing fixtures with low flow.
Energy efficiency will be considered for the selection of lighting and equipment for the project. Examples of
improved energy efficiency include:
• The existing florescent tube and halogen lights will be replaced with LED lights. New lights will only be LED.
• All equipment will use high efficiency motors.
• The UV disinfection system will have the latest generation of UV intensity measurement and lamp controller.
• Pumps will have variable frequency drives (VFD) to operate at optimal speeds.
• New process blowers will be high efficiency turbo blowers.
• Dewatering equipment will consider slow speed, low energy demand type equipment.
The primary chemical consumptions include external carbon for denitrification and metal salt for phosphorus
removal and are similar for all three alternatives. Alternative 3 has additional cost related to the use of acid and
bleach for periodic membrane cleanings. Labor costs and electrical power costs are also slightly higher for
Alternative 3 however differences are not significant. The major operating costs (maintenance, energy, chemical
and labor) are includedin Table 7.5.
6.5.2 Green Infrastructure
The three alternatives will have similar opportunities for incorporating green infrastructure as deemed practical. As
an example, the roof cover over the dewatered biosolids storage area will be designed to accommodate the future
installation of solar PV cells. The solar PV cells will be connected to the utility electric grid to offset the electricity
used by the WWTP. There may be other areas on the site that could accommodate additional solar PV cells.
6.5.3 Climate Related Considerations
The upgrade and expansion of the WWTP is required to protect the receiving stream and the environment from
wastewater that does not meet the discharge permit requirements. Without an expansion of the treatment
capacity, the likelihood of future process upsets increases with the increase in influent flows stressing the
capabilities of the existing system.
The new facilities will be constructed to protect them from a 100-year flood with 3 feet of additional protection
provided. New structures will have a finished floor or top of wall of at least 3 ft above the 100-year flood elevation.
By selecting Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge, the proposed facilities would have the smallest footprint of the
alternatives considered. Therefore, the facilities would have a smaller impact to the site and can be located to
reduce their impact on environmentally important features such as the wetlands and forested areas.
Page 74

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
6.6 Cost Estimates
A conceptual cost estimate was developed for each of the three treatment alternatives that are being considered.
The cost estimates were developed using preliminary equipment supplier quotations based on the design
concepts described in this preliminary engineering report. The cost estimate does not include expansion of the
effluent discharge, such as the cost of extending the outfall into the Corsica River or the cost to acquire and spray
discharge to additional irrigation sites.
The cost estimates for each of the treatment alternatives were developed using the expertise and experience of
the WRA engineers. The cost estimates presented represent WRA’s best engineering judgement and assumes
that competitive bids are received. However, the unpredictability of the current market should be taken into
consideration when the project goes to bid. The estimates were prepared in accordance with AACE Class 4
Budgetary (planning-level) construction cost requirements. All costs are presented in 2023 dollars and will need to
be indexed using the annual inflation rate. Contingency cost, an allowance that reflects the uncertainty associated
with a construction cost opinion based on a “predesign” study of the indicated facilities, is included as a 30%
markup in the estimate. Additionally, an escalation markup of 4% per year is also included in the estimate.
The conceptual cost estimates for each alternative are presented in Table 6.11. Refer to Appendix A for detailed
breakdown.
Page 75

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 6.11: Conceptual Construction Cost Estimates for Treatment Alternatives
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3: MBR
Alternative 1: SBR Conventional Activated
Activated Sludge
Sludge
Base Facilities
Interior Demolition (Lab, Control, and Filter and Blower Buildings) $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000
Influent Screening Expansion $ 825,000 $ 825,000 $ 825,000
Methanol Facility $ 618,000 $ 618,000 $ 618,000
Non-Potable Water System $ 54,000 $ 54,000 $ 54,000
Dewatering Facility $ 2,413,000 $ 2,413,000 $ 2,413,000
Covered Cake Storage Facility $ 835,000 $ 835,000 $ 835,000
Lab Building Refurbishment $ 139,000 $ 139,000 $ 139,000
Control Building Refurbishment $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000
Filter and Blower Building Refurbishment $ 348,000 $ 348,000 $ 348,000
Base Subtotal Cost $ 5,457,000 $ 5,457,000 $ 5,457,000
Facilities for ENR Alternatives
Influent Flow EQ Tank(s), Aerated, with Pumping $ 2,054,000 $ 2,019,000 $ 2,019,000
Existing Tank Modifications $ 214,000 $ 643,000 $ 643,000
Clarifier Tanks, Equipment, and RAS Pumps - $ 4,749,000 -
Denitrification Filter Tanks, Equipment and Controls $ 3,112,000 $ 3,112,000 -
Miscellaneous Process Piping and Equipment $ 157,000 $ 235,000 $ 784,000
Additional SBR Tanks, Equipment and Controls $ 3,564,000 - -
Activated Sludge Equipment - $ 1,012,000 -
MBR Process Equipment and Controls, including MBR Process Building - - $ 5,789,000
Post EQ Tank and Equipment $ 78,000 - -
UV Disinfection System $ 642,000 $ 642,000 $ 642,000
Aerobic Digester Tank and Equipment $ 1,427,000 $ 78,000 $ 78,000
Alternative Subtotal Cost $ 11,248,000 $ 12,490,000 $ 9,955,000
Alternative Plus Base – Subtotal Construction Cost $ 16,705,000 $ 17,947,000 $ 15,412,000
Electrical $ 2,517,000 $ 2,722,000 $ 4,169,000
Site Civil, including Yard Piping and Demolition (15% Alternative + Base) $ 2,506,000 $ 2,692,000 $ 2,312,000
Site SCADA (5% Alternative + Base) $ 835,000 $ 897,000 $ 771,000
Subtotal $ 22,563,000 $ 24,258,000 $ 22,664,000
Contingency (30%) $ 6,769,000 $ 7,278,000 $ 6,799,000
Escalation to December 2026 (4%/year) $ 3,662,000 $ 3,938,000 $ 3,678,000
Grand Total Construction Cost $ 32,994,000 $ 35,474,000 $ 33,141,000
Page 76

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
6.7 Design Criteria
The influent basis of design flows and loads for the upgrade and expansion are included in Table 6.12.
Table 6.12: Influent Basis of Design
Annual Max Max Peak Start Up
Parameter Units
Average Month Day Inst. Min Day
Flow MGD 1.0 1.2 2.4 3.2 0.2
Wastewater Degrees
20 12
Temperature C
mg/l 130 156
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
lbs/day 1,084 1,561
mg/l 145 174
Total Suspended
Solids
lbs/day 1,209 1,741
mg/l 35 42
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
lbs/day 292 420
mg/l 8 8
Total Phosphorus
lbs/day 67 80
The flow peaking factors were developed based on the MDE Design Guidelines for Wastewater Facilities, with the
exception of the monthly peaking factor. The design uses a peaking factor of 1.2, and the MDE design guidelines
recommend a peaking factor of 1.6 for a 1 MGD facility. The upgrade and expansion of the Centreville WWTP is
designed to provide full treatment during the maximum month flows and loads, during cold weather conditions,
with one treatment train offline. Considering that Centreville will only have two MBR trains, sizing one train to treat
the maximum monthly flow and loads at the MDE recommended monthly flow peaking factor of 1.6 would
oversize the facilities for start-up conditions, and thereby requiring only one train to be operated at a time to be
efficient. During final design a maximum monthly flow peaking factor of 1.3 will be considered and determined if it
would represent a de minimis increase in construction costs and have a small impact on the operability of the
facility during start-up. If so, the design basis will be adjusted.
The influent total suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) were sampled and analyzed in
2017 and again in 2023 as presented in Appendix C. The TSS measurements were highly variable, with a
standard deviation nearly as large as the average. In addition, the wastewater biological and chemical computer
modeling software being used, BioWin by EnviroSim, requires the TSS concentration to be higher than the BOD
concentration to allow for valid calculations. Therefore, the TSS concentrations were adjusted to be in line with
the BOD values.
The design basis influent total phosphorus concentration selected utilizes the maximum daily composite sample
from the 2017 and 2023 sampling and analysis. Again, the limited samples that were taken and analyzed resulted
in a large distribution of values. The chemical dosing system will be designed to meet maximum month influent
loading. Using a conservative value for phosphorus concentration will allow the system to reliably meet the
Page 77

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
relatively low ENR effluent phosphorus concentration of 0.15 mg/L as proposed by MDE if year-round stream
discharge is selected.
The design effluent quality basis of design for the project are summarized in Table 6.13. Each alternative must
meet the effluent basis of design.
Table 6.13: Effluent Basis of Design
Parameter Units Annual Monthly Average Max Month
Biochemical Oxygen
mg/l <10 <10
Demand
Turbidity1 NTU <2 <5 any time
Total Suspended Solids mg/l <10 <10
Total Nitrogen mg/l <3 <3
Total Phosphorus2 mg/l <0.15 <0.15
MPN / 100 mL E. Coli
E. Coli1 1 23
Monthly Median
1 Class IV Reclaimed Water Requirements, 2 Requirement with relocated outfall to Corsica River
6.8 Land Requirements
The WWTP upgrade and expansion will be constructed on developed land owned by the Town. The land
disturbance at the WWTP will vary depending on which alternative is selected for the upgrade. Alternative 1
(SBR) would require the largest footprint at the WWTP to construct, while Alternative 3 (MBR) would require the
smallest footprint. Refer to Section 6.3 for proposed site plans for each of the three alternatives.
Future expansion of the spray irrigation system would require at least 300 acres of suitable land located near the
Town. The identification, testing, and development of the field will be considered separately from the WWTP
upgrade.
6.9 Potential Construction Issues
The construction of the three alternatives will have potential construction issues that need to be identified, the
risks understood, and mitigation plans developed. Based on experience and knowledge of the site, an initial list of
specific construction related issues and methods to mitigate the risk have been developed as summarized in
Table 6.14.
In order to maintain plant operations during construction, both existing SBRs are required to remain online until
the selected treatment process is constructed and put into service. For Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated
Sludge and Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge, this requires the 2 train 5-stage activated sludge basins to be
constructed and put into service before either of the SBR tanks are converted into influent flow equalization tanks.
The proposed site layouts for each of the three alternatives, described in Section 6.3, allow for maintenance of
plant operations during construction.
Page 78

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 6.14: Summary of Potential Construction Issues
Issue Risk Planned Mitigation Methods
Encountering
Dewatering excavation Plan for thorough soil borings and geotechnical
groundwater during
expense investigations early during design
excavations
Encountering Review all available information.
unidentified Change in scope during
underground piping and construction During design conduct subsurface investigation and
structures test pitting where there are potential obstructions
Realistically estimate delivery times based on
Product and equipment
Delay in construction estimates from named manufacturers and
delivery longer than
schedule experience with other projects and keep in contact
expected
with key manufacturers during construction
Integration of Insufficient process data
Complete process and instrumentation diagrams,
manufacturer supplied relayed to the SCADA
Input/Output lists and control descriptions will be
control panels with the from the manufacturer’s
included in the Contract Documents
plant SCADA control panels
Automation is too
Conduct workshops with operations to custom tailor
Level of automation that complex for operations
the control system and the level of automation with
operations can maintain to troubleshoot and
the needs and skills of operations
maintain
Contract Documents will include a 30 day testing
period of the complete treatment plant with a
Assessing the treatment requirement to operate the plant with equipment and
Treatment process
process under design treatment trains offline to simulate design
testing
conditions conditions. Testing conditions, sampling and
requirements for the system passing the testing will
be included.
The definition of substantial completion for individual
In complex upgrade
facilities and major equipment, and the
projects some treatment
Turn over of treatment responsibilities for the Owner and Contractor
facilities will be brought
facilities between facility substantial completion and final
online before substantial
completion will be clearly defined in the
completion
specifications.
The design phase will discover additional potential construction issues and where practical the Contract
Documents will identify the area the Installing Contractor should be aware of.
Construction risks specific to Alternative 1 – SBRs include the deep structure construction of the SBRs in close
proximity to the adjacent residences. Additionally Alternative 1 has the largest overall disturbed area, resulting in
the greatest risk to encountering unknown obstructions. Therefore Alternative 1 has the largest risks during
construction.
Construction risks associated with Alternative 2 – Conventional Activated Sludge include a large area of
disturbance and the most number of new structures. One advantage of Alternative 2 to Alternative 1, and
Alternative 2 avoids the deep construction adjacent to residences.
Construction risks associated with Alternative 3 – MBR are less than either of the two other options, as it avoids
deep construction adjacent to residences, it also represents the fewest number of structures and has the smallest
disturbance footprint.
Page 79

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
7 Alternative Evaluation
7.1 Effluent Water Quality Comparison
Each of the three alternatives are capable of meeting the treatment and capacity goals for this project. To verify
this, the expected secondary effluent water quality of each alternative was evaluated by modeling each of the
three treatment alternatives using BioWin software. Each treatment alternative was modeled under average flow
conditions and maximum monthly (simulating wet weather) flow conditions.
Table 7.1 shows the different influent conditions that were used for modeling average conditions versus maximum
monthly conditions for each alternative. These influent conditions are based on composite influent sampling data
of the WWTP conducted in September/October 2017 and in March 2023, which is included in Appendix C. Note
that influent sampling data was limited since it is not conducted on a regular basis.
Table 7.1: BioWin® Model Influent Conditions
Biochemical
Volatile Total Total Kjeldahl
Oxygen
Flow Temperature Suspended Suspended Nitrogen
Condition Demand
Solids (VSS) Solids (TSS) (TKN)
(BOD)
(MGD) (Deg C) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Average 1.0 20 130 116 145 35
Maximum
1.2 12 156 139 174 42
Monthly
Additional influent conditions were assumed in the model which did not change between average and maximum
monthly model runs. These conditions include:
• Total Phosphorus = 8.0 mg/L
• Total Sulfur = 10 mg/L
• Nitrate = 0 mg/L
• pH = 7.3
• Alkalinity = 6.0 mmol/L
As stated in Section 2.3.1, the treatment quality goals for ENR include a TN concentration below 3.0 mg/L and a
TP concentration below 0.3 mg/L. The reduction in TP at Centreville WWTP will depend on upgrades to the
existing chemical dosing system and amount of PACl added to precipitate phosphorus. PACl chemical dosing
was not modeled in BioWin. Therefore, this modeling study focused on comparing TN reduction in the biological
treatment process for each of the three treatment alternatives.
Table 7.2 lists the biological treatment quality parameters that were monitored in the secondary effluent in
BioWin, as well as the target concentrations for each of the three alternatives in order to meet the effluent quality
goals of this project. The parameters that were monitored include concentrations of MLSS, cBOD, TSS, ammonia,
filtered TKN, and nitrate + nitrite.
Page 80

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 7.2: Target Secondary Effluent Water Quality Parameters
Biological Treatment Alternative 1 (SBR) and Alternative 2
Alternative 3 (MBR Activated Sludge)
Parameter (Conventional Activated Sludge)
MLSS <= 4,000 mg/L <= 8,000 mg/L
cBOD <= 30 mg/L <= 2 mg/L
TSS <= 20 mg/L Non-detect
Ammonia < 1.0 mg/L < 1.0 mg/L
Filtered TKN < 2.0 mg/L < 2.0 mg/L
Nitrate + Nitrite < 8.0 mg/L < 1.0 mg/L
As shown in Table 7.2, Alternatives 1 and 2 have the same target effluent quality concentrations with respect to
nitrate (/nitrite) and rely on the downstream denitrification filters to complete the nitrogen removal, although
Alternative 2 can also incorporate methanol addition in the post-anoxic zone for enhanced nitrogen removal and
use the tertiary filters for final solids removal only. For Alternative 3 all nitrogen removal is within the MBR process
tankage as there is no additional downstream removal process, and is facilitated by methanol addition within the
MBR secondary anoxic zone to reduce nitrate + nitrite concentrations below 1 mg/L.
All three alternatives require ammonia concentrations to be below 1 mg/L. MBRs can typically operate at higher
MLSS concentrations compared to conventional activated sludge clarifiers, which is why Alternative 3 has a
higher allowable MLSS concentration.
Tables 7.3 and 7.4 show the secondary effluent water quality results from modeling at both average and
maximum monthly conditions.
Table 7.3: Secondary Effluent Water Quality BioWin Modeling Results – Average Conditions
Biological Alternative 2:
Alternative 1: SBR Alternative 3: MBR
Condition Treatment Units Conventional
Expansion Activated Sludge(1)
Parameter Activated Sludge
Flow MGD 1.0 1.0 1.0
MLSS mg/L 3,600 2,500 5,100
cBOD mg/L 6.0 2.4 1.0
TSS mg/L 20 9 0
Average Ammonia mg/L 0.30 0.12 0.06
Filtered TKN mg/L 1.3 1.4 1.2
Nitrate mg/L 2.9 4.0 0.08
Nitrite mg/L 0.05 0.03 0.01
Total Nitrogen mg/L 4.6 5.6 1.4
(1) – Note that Alternative 3 (MBR Activated Sludge) modeling includes 75 gpd of methanol addition in the
postanoxic zone.
Page 81

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 7.4: Secondary Effluent Water Quality BioWin Modeling Results – Maximum Monthly Conditions
Biological Alternative 2:
Alternative 1: SBR Alternative 3: MBR
Condition Treatment Units Conventional
Expansion Activated Sludge(1)
Parameter Activated Sludge
Flow MGD 1.2 1.2 1.2
MLSS mg/L 3,800 3,600 7,500
cBOD mg/L 10 3.5 0.9
TSS mg/L 20 14 0
Maximum
Ammonia mg/L 0.40 0.30 0.17
Monthly
Filtered TKN mg/L 1.5 1.7 1.5
Nitrate mg/L 1.4 5.2 0.70
Nitrite mg/L 0.8 0.1 0.04
Total Nitrogen mg/L 4.1 7.3 2.4
(1) – Note that Alternative 3 (MBR Activated Sludge) modeling includes 75 gpd of methanol addition in the
postanoxic zone.
The secondary effluent quality of all three alternatives meets all of the target quality parameters listed in Table
7.2. The BioWin modeling results for filtered TKN concentrations are below 2 mg/L; however, the historical
average TKN concentrations from 2014-2022, as listed in Section 4.4, are below 1 mg/L. It is assumed that
BioWin is not properly accounting for the biodegradable portion of TKN, which is why filtered TKN concentrations
are reporting unusually high in the models. In conclusion, BioWin modeling of each of the three treatment
alternatives confirms that each alternative is capable of meeting the treatment and capacity goals for this project.
7.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
A life cycle cost analysis was performed on the three alternatives. A life cycle cost analysis combines the initial
capital cost with the net present value of the operating costs across the expected life of the project into a present
worth total. The life cycle cost analysis provides a more complete picture of the costs of the project than just the
capital cost.
For the life cycle cost analysis, the electrical loads for the major equipment are multiplied by the percentage of
time per year the equipment is expected to be running. Equipment with variable speed drives and variable loads
are calculated using the expected annual average load.
Labor for each alternative was compared to the existing cost of labor for the current WWTP and extrapolated to
consider the increased complexity of the upgrade as well as the increased size of the plant to treat the expanded
flows.
The chemical costs indicated in Table 7.5 under ‘Annual Chemical Costs’ are the estimated costs of methanol to
drive the denitrification process and the addition of PACl to precipitate phosphorus. The design average influent
nitrogen and phosphorus and the goals for effluent nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are used in the
calculations at an annual average influent flow of 1.0 MGD.
As noted in the Table 7.5 footnote, the membrane cleaning chemical costs are included in the ‘Annual
Maintenance/Repairs Costs’ for the Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge. The ‘Annual Maintenance/Repair
Costs’ also includes the annual contribution to replacement of the membranes every ten years.
For the life cycle cost analysis the project is assumed to have no salvage value at the end of the 20 years.
Page 82

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 7.5: Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Alternative 2 –
Alternative 1 – SBR Alternative 3 – MBR
Conventional Activated
Expansion Activated Sludge
Sludge
WWTP Capital Cost $32,994,000 $35,474,000 $33,141,000
Operating Cost
Annual Maintenance/Repair
$133,076 $164,841 $226,647
Costs(1)
Annual Electric Cost $ 55,157 $77,528 $84,877
Annual Burdened Labor $384,800 $395,200 $499,200
Annual Chemical Costs $336,886 $336,886 $336,886
Operating Cost Subtotal $909,919 $974,455 $1,147,609
Real Discount Rate(2) 2% 2% 2%
Project Life, years 20 20 20
Operating Cost Present Value $14,880,000 $15,930,000 $18,770,000
Present Worth $47,874,000 $51,404,000 $51,911,000
(1) Maintenance estimated at 2% of equipment cost for Alternatives 1 and 2 and 2.5% for Alternative 3 to
account for membrane replacement and cleaning chemicals
(2) December 2022 OMB Circular No. A-94
The life cycle cost analysis results in the present worth ranging from approximately $48 million for Alternative 1 up
to $52 million for Alternative 3. The results are within 8% of each other. Considering the variability in estimating
construction and operating costs, the three alternatives are similar in life cycle costs.
7.3 Non-Monetary Evaluation
Life cycle costs include items of each alternative that have a dollar value. The value of the project will also be
influenced by factors that do not have a direct cost measure. The following criteria for the non-monetary
evaluation have been defined based on feedback from the Town of Centreville
• Leverages operators experience
• Operational simplicity
• Ease of maintenance
• Public acceptance
• Compatibility with water reuse
• Ability to evolve with future technologies
• Ability to upgrade treatment process in the future
• Available site space for future improvements
The non-monetary evaluation criteria are categorized and weighted as described below.
Leverages Operators Experience
Operators currently at the Centreville WWTP have experience with operating the existing two-tank SBR
system. This criterion evaluates the complexity in training operators for each of the three treatment
alternatives. This criterion was assigned a weighting factor of 5%, due to significantly different levels of
training that would be required for each of the three alternatives.
Operational Simplicity
Each of the three alternatives will have different day-to-day involvement for operators and will require
different levels of attention to maintain operation. Because some of the alternatives are more complicated
to operate, this criterion was assigned a weighting factor of 5%.
Page 83

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Ease of Maintenance
The equipment for each treatment alternative must be accessible for maintenance once it is placed into
service. Equipment must also be reliable and have a low likelihood of experiencing upsets and
discharging unacceptable effluent, so maintenance may be kept at a minimum. This criterion considers
each alternative’s reliability, how often the equipment for each alternative will require servicing, as well as
the availability of replacement parts and how complex the equipment is to maintain. This criterion has
been assigned a weighting factor of 10%.
Public Acceptance
This category considers the public view and acceptance of the three treatment alternatives. The upgrade
and expansion of the Centreville WWTP has been presented to various public groups and stakeholders
within the Centreville area, and the public perception and feedback received from these groups is
considered in this criterion. Alternatives that received more positive feedback will be given a higher score.
This criterion has been assigned a weighting factor of 10%.
Compatibility with Water Reuse
The Town of Centreville plans for future potable water reuse using the WWTP effluent. This criterion
evaluates how each treatment alternative positions the Town to move towards potable water reuse in the
future. This includes how much expansion to the treatment process will be required in the future to meet
the effluent quality levels required for potable water reuse. This criterion has been assigned a weighting
factor of 10%.
Ability to Evolve with Future Technologies
It is important to the Town that the Centreville WWTP is positioned to incorporate future treatment
technologies and remain on the forefront for wastewater treatment. This category considered how flexible
each treatment alternative is for incorporating future technologies. Because this criterion has a high
importance to the Town, it has been assigned a weighting factor of 20%.
Ability to Upgrade Treatment Process in the Future
Federal and state regulatory agencies may establish more stringent effluent quality requirements in the
future—therefore, this category considers how each treatment alternative can be upgraded in the future to
meet higher effluent quality. This criterion has a high importance to the Town and therefore has been
assigned a weighting factor of 20%.
Available Site Space for Future Improvements
Future expansion and development in the Town of Centreville will require additional expansion of the
WWTP beyond the planned 1.0 MGD capacity. This category considers how much site space will be
available after construction of each treatment alternative. It is desired to maintain as much site space as
possible for future expansion efforts. Because of this, this criterion has been assigned a weighting factor
of 20%.
Each of the evaluation criteria noted above have been weighted to reflect their relative importance to the
construction and operation of the treatment process. The weighting factors were discussed with the Town staff
and represent the consensus opinion. Each alternative was assigned a score based on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1
being the lowest or least desirable and 10 being the highest or most desirable for a given criterion. The total score
for each category was then determined by multiplying the individual criteria scores by the assigned weight, and
then summing up the weighted scores. Table 7.6 presents the final criteria ranking tabulation.
Page 84

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 7.6: Non-Monetary Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives
Weight % 5 5 10 10 10 20 20 20
Ability to Upgrade
Leverages Operators Compatibility with Ability to Evolve with Available Site Space for Total
Operational Simplicity Ease of Maintenance Public Acceptance Treatment Process in the Rank
Experience Water Reuse Future Technologies Future Improvements Score
Future
Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments
The SBR
process is The SBR tanks This alternative
Operators are The SBR
viewed are adaptable and requires the most
highly familiar The SBR The SBR process will
favorably by the can be modified to amount of site Requires
with the existing process has a process requires provide
Alternative 1: public, but is accommodate space. It will be the relatively high
10 SBR technology, 10 relatively low 10 minimal 8 10 effluent quality 7 4 4 680 3
SBR Expansion seen as an other most challenging amount of site
which is complexity for maintenance of suitable for
older, technologies, such to further upgrade disturbance.
currently used at operators. equipment. future water
conventional as aerobic the future
the WWTP. reuse.
treatment granular sludge. treatment capacity.
process.
This alternative
Operators will be The activated
requires a
able to use sludge process The activated The activated
The activated moderate amount
knowledge of the The activated is viewed sludge process sludge basins are
Alternative 2: sludge process of site space. Requires
existing SBR sludge process favorably by the will provide adaptable and can
Conventional requires There will be relatively low
8 process to learn 6 is moderately 8 8 public, but is 10 effluent quality 7 be modified to 6 6 710 2
Activated relatively low space to construct amount of site
the new complex for also an older suitable for accommodate
Sludge maintenance additional disturbance.
conventional operators. conventional future water future
equipment. activated sludge
activated sludge treatment reuse. technologies.
basins for future
process. process.
upgrade.
The MBR is a
The MBR newer treatment
process technology on the
The MBR received the forefront of This alternative
process is The MBR most positive The MBR wastewater minimizes the
The MBR
significantly process has feedback from process will treatment. It amount of site
process requires
Alternative 3: different than the highly complex public groups. It provide removes the most space required. Requires least
significant
MBR Activated 1 existing SBR 1 equipment that 1 10 is one of the 10 effluent quality 9 solids of the three 10 There will be 10 amount of site 800 1
maintenance of
Sludge process and will requires a lot of newer, suitable for alternatives, space to construct disturbance.
complex
require operational advanced future water providing additional MBR
equipment.
considerable attention. technologies reuse. marginally better tanks for future
training. that public effluent quality to upgrade.
groups are most be used in a future
excited about. potable water
reuse system.
Page 85

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Based on the results of the evaluation, of the three treatment alternatives evaluated, Alternative 3 – MBR
Activated Sludge received the highest score based on the criteria listed in this section.
Before recommending Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge, one non-monetary consideration that is specific to
MBRs was also considered, and that is the design of MBR systems from different vendors varies widely. The
MBR is purchased as an integrated system of equipment and controls, and there is no standardization among
MBR vendors. The equipment required, physical layout, operational characteristics and control can be very
different for each vendor’s system.
To avoid expensive re-design during construction to accommodate the specifics of the provided MBR system, the
Town will include a competitive pre-selection of MBR system and vendor during the final design of the project. By
developing a request for proposals (RFP) for the MBR system between the 30% and 60% design submittals, the
design can be tailored to the pre-selected system. This also shortens the time for development of shop drawings
after the notice to proceed for construction, so key long lead items can be purchased in time to avoid the
construction schedule critical path.
The design engineer and the Town will also consider pre-purchasing major equipment that could greatly impact
the overall construction duration. One item included in each alternative scope that remain with an excessively
long lead time is the back-up generator. Fortunately, the back up generator does not impact the installation and
start up of any of the treatment facilities. So, if the generator could be installed before the scheduled substantial
completion, it would not impact the overall construction duration. It is anticipated that the generator delivery could
be 18 months, which would not impact the overall construction duration.
Having addressed these Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge risks, and as a result of the life cycle cost analysis
and the non-monetary evaluation, Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge is the recommended treatment upgrade
for the Centreville WWTP. This alternative will be further developed during detailed design.
Page 86

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
8 Recommended Upgrades and Expansion
8.1 Preliminary Project Design
A summary of the project scope for the expansion and upgrade of the Centreville WWTP to an MBR activated
sludge treatment process is detailed in this section. Table 8.1 lists the preliminary project design and facility
upgrades that are required for the recommended alternative.
Table 8.1: Preliminary Project Design – Alt 3 MBR Activated Sludge
Facility Description
Replace the existing mechanical screen with a bar rack rated at 4.0 MGD (peak
Influent Screening
hydraulic flow) and install new center feed fine screens down stream of bar rack.
Convert the existing SBR process tanks to two (2) 500,000-gallon working capacity
Influent Flow Equalization
each influent flow EQ tanks with surface aerator/mixers. Submersible pumps will
Tank
pump flow from the EQ tank to the MBRs.
Install 2 train, 5-stage activated sludge process with membranes to separate solids
from treated effluent. Fine bubble diffusers will be installed to incorporate air from
proposed high efficiency blowers. Anoxic and swing zones will be agitated with
submersible mixers. Permeate pumps will draw effluent through membranes. Low
MBR Process
head propeller pumps for internal recycle and return activated sludge will be
installed. Waste sludge pumps will pull mixed liquor from the reactors and
discharge into the aerobic digesters. Chemical cleaning facilities will be provided to
clean the membranes.
Provide a double contained PACl tank located in the Filter and Blower Building
Chemical Dosing with a minimum of 30 days of storage and dosing system. Provide methanol
storage with a minimum of 30 days of storage and dosing facility.
Install two (2) in-line low pressure high output (LPHO) UV disinfection units to
UV Disinfection
replace existing.
To be further evaluated:
• Additional spray irrigation disposal,
Effluent Disposal
• Relocate outfall and expand stream discharge to year-round, and
• Planning for future beneficial water reuse.
Install a non-potable water system that draws from the UV effluent to a buffer tank
Non-potable Plant Water
in the Filter and Blower Building. Install pumps to distribute non-potable water
System
supply from the buffer tank throughout the WWTP.
Retrofit the existing post EQ and sludge holding tanks to two (2) aerobic digesters
Aerobic Digesters
with ability to thicken solids and decant liquid back to treatment process.
Biosolids Dewatering Install new biosolids handling building for dewatering process. New covered
System sludge cake storage area for Class B biosolids.
Provide enhanced process controls at separate process areas with routine
Plant Control System and functions or complex control loops with centralized monitoring and control
SCADA workstation for operator interface. Provide capabilities to provide hub for Town
wide SCADA system of utilities.
Administration/Laboratory Reconfigure the Administration/Laboratory Building to better utilize the space for
Space the laboratory uses and provide dedicated space for locker rooms and offices.
Page 87

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
8.2 Permit Requirements
Impacts to wetlands and other WOTUS would require Section 404 authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) for the discharge of dredge or fill material. Impacts to waterways, 100-year floodplains,
nontidal wetlands, 25-foot nontidal wetland buffers would require a Maryland Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways
Permit. Additionally, a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from MDE is required for any impacts to waterways
or wetlands requiring a USACE Section 404 authorization. Projects with the potential to impact Tier II waters are
subject to MDE’s Tier II Antidegradation Review. Early coordination with MDE will be initiated during the
permitting process to determine whether additional avoidance measures and best management practices (BMPs)
are required. Impacts to forest, trees, and FIDS habitat within the CBCA would require coordination with the
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission (CAC) and/or the Queen Anne’s County Critical Area Program.
Table 8.2 summarizes the expected permits that will need to be obtained during the design phase of the project.
Additional environmental permits will be identified during design.
Table 8.2: Permit Requirements
Permitting Agency Permit
Maryland Department of the
Sewerage Construction Permit
Environment (MDE)
Maryland Department of the Modification to NPDES Surface Water
Environment (MDE) Discharge Permit
Maryland Department of the NPDES Permit for Stormwater
Environment (MDE) Discharge During Construction Activities
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
Queen Anne’s County
Permit
Queen Anne’s County Stormwater Management Permit
8.3 Sustainability Considerations
The WWTP upgrade and expansion to an MBR treatment process will be designed to reduce its impact on the
environment and to be resilient to future changes in the climate as indicated in this section.
8.3.1 Water and Energy Efficiency
As described in Sections 6.1.7 and 6.5.1, a non-potable water system will be installed at the Centreville WWTP
to promote water efficiency by reducing the onsite potable water demand and reusing treated plant effluent. The
treated effluent water quality will be sufficient to meet off-site Class III and IV reclaimed water requirements. New
developments will be encouraged to connect into the reclaimed water for irrigation of common spaces.
Energy efficiency will also be at the forefront for the selection of lighting and equipment for the project. Examples
of improved energy efficiency include:
• The existing florescent tube and halogen lights will be replaced with LED lights. New lights will only be LED.
• All equipment will use high efficiency motors.
• The UV disinfection system will have the latest generation of UV intensity measurement and lamp controller.
• Pumps will have variable frequency drives (VFD) to operate at optimal speeds.
• New process blowers will be high efficiency turbo blowers.
Page 88

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
• Dewatering equipment will only consider slow speed, low energy demand type equipment.
8.3.2 Green Infrastructure
As described in Section 6.5.2, the selected treatment Alternative 3 will incorporate green infrastructure at a
reasonable cost. The canopy over the dewatering cake storage area will be designed to accommodate the future
installation of solar cells. The solar cells will be connected to the utility electric grid to offset the electricity used by
the WWTP.
8.3.3 Climate Related Considerations
As described in Section 6.5.3, the upgrade and expansion of the WWTP is required to protect the receiving
stream and the environment from wastewater that does not meet the discharge permit requirements. Without an
expansion of the treatment capacity, the likelihood of future process upsets increases with the increase in influent
flows stressing the capabilities of the existing system.
The new facilities will be constructed to protect them from a 100-year flood with 3 feet of additional protection
provided. New structures will have a finished floor or top of wall of at least 3 ft above the 100-year flood elevation.
With the recommended treatment Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge, the proposed facilities will have the
smallest footprint of the alternatives considered and can be located to reduce the impact on environmental
features such as wetlands and forested areas.
Additionally, expansion of the sludge treatment and handling facilities will result in Class B biosolids. This could
potentially allow for land application of the dewatered biosolids, which is a more solution to minimizing landfill
disposal.
8.4 Construction Cost Estimate
A budgetary cost estimate of construction for the recommended treatment alternative (Alternative 3 – MBR
Activated Sludge) is included below. The cost estimate was developed using preliminary equipment supplier
quotations based on the design criteria and unit costs for structures and ancillary construction. All three treatment
alternatives were analyzed for construction and life cycle cost (see Sections 6.6 and 7.2), but this section will
focus on the construction cost estimate of the recommended Alternative 3.
The estimates were prepared in accordance with AACE Class 4 Budgetary (planning-level) construction cost
requirements. All costs are presented in 2023 dollars and will need to be indexed using the annual inflation rate.
Contingency cost, an allowance that reflects the uncertainty associated with a construction cost opinion based on
a planning level stage of the facilities, is included as a 30% markup in the estimate. Additionally, an escalation
markup of 4% per year is also included in the estimate.
The estimated total construction cost for Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge is summarized in Table 8.3.
Additional cost breakdowns for Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge are included in Appendix A.
Page 89

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 8.3: Scope and Construction Cost Estimate – Alternative 3 (MBR Activated Sludge)
Item No. Category Cost
1 Interior Demolition (Lab, Control, and Filter and Blower Buildings) $95,000
2 Influent Screening Expansion $825,000
3 Converting Influent Flow Equalization Tanks, Aerated, with Pumping $2,019,000
4 Methanol Facility $618,000
5 UV Disinfection System $642,000
6 Non-Potable Water System $54,000
7 Dewatering Facility $2,413,000
8 Covered Cake Storage Facility $835,000
9 Lab, Control, and Filter and Blower Buildings Refurbishments $617,000
10 Existing Tank Modifications $643,000
11 Miscellaneous Process Piping and Equipment $784,000
12 MBR Process Building, MBR Equipment and Controls $5,789,000
13 Aerobic Digester Tank and Equipment $78,000
14 Electrical $4,169,000
15 Site Civil, including Yard Piping and Demolition (15% Items 1-12) $2,312,000
16 Site SCADA (5% Items 1-12) $771,000
Subtotal $22,664,000
Design Contingency (30% of Subtotal) $6,799,000
Escalation to December 2026 (4%/year) $3,678,000
Total $33,141,000
Total (Low Range -20%) $26,513,000
Total (High Range +50%) $49,712,000
8.5 Annual Operating Budget
8.5.1 Income
The Town projects income for the sewer system primarily from ongoing sewer service fees with some new
connection fees expected. Table 8.4 summarizes the currently projected annual income for the sewer system for
the next five fiscal years.
Page 90

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Table 8.4: Sewer System Income
Fiscal Year Projected Annual Income
FY24 $1,531,427
FY25 $1,607,998
FY26 $1,704,478
FY27 $1,826,791
FY28 $1,972,694
8.5.2 Annual O&M Costs
The primary operating and maintenance costs after Alternative 3 is implemented are summarized in Table 7.5,
with Alternative 3 repeated in Table 8.5 for ease of reference.
Table 8.5: Annual Sewer System O&M Costs
Alternative 3 – MBR Activated Sludge Annual Costs
Maintenance/Repair Costs(1) $226,647
Electric Cost $ 84,877
Burdened Labor $499,200
Chemical Costs $336,886
Total Operating and Maintenance
$1,147,610
Costs
(1) - Maintenance is estimated at 2.5% of equipment cost for
Alternative 3 to account for membrane replacement and
cleaning chemicals.
8.5.3 Debt Repayments
The Town’s existing debt is being serviced from the annual budget. Additional debt will primarily be serviced
through anticipated connection fees and additional sewer service fees from the planned and anticipated
developments within the current town boundary and by the annexation of adjacent development.
8.5.4 Reserves
The Town maintains a healthy reserve fund. As the Town grows, the reserve fund will also be increased to keep
pace with the increased operating and maintenance costs of the expanded treatment plant.
8.6 Project Implementation Schedule
A preliminary construction schedule has been developed for the scope of work. The task durations for each of the
facility upgrades detailed in this report are included in Figure 8.1.
Page 91

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 Centreville WWTP ENR 1655 days Mon Mon
Upgrade and Expansion 3/20/23 7/23/29
2 PER Development 255 days Mon 3/20/23Fri 3/8/24
3 Start PER Update 0 days Mon 3/20/23Mon 3/20/23 3/20
4 Advertise for M/WBE 4 wks Mon 3/27/23Fri 4/21/23
5 Town Assembles 4 wks Mon 3/27/23Fri 4/21/23
Requested Information
6 Develop ENR PER 2 wks Mon 4/24/23Fri 5/5/23
Amendment
7 Town Review PER 2 wks Mon 5/8/23 Fri 5/19/23
Amendment
8 Sub Agreements 2 wks Mon 5/22/23Fri 6/2/23
9 Develop Draft PER 4 wks Mon 6/5/23 Fri 6/30/23
10 Topo Survey 4 wks Mon 6/5/23 Fri 6/30/23
11 Develop Alternatives 16 wks Mon 3/20/23Fri 7/7/23
12 Subconsultant Field Work8 wks Mon 5/22/23Fri 7/14/23
13 Develop PER 22 wks Mon 7/17/23Fri 12/15/23
14 Draft PER to Town and 0 days Mon Mon 12/18
MDE 12/18/23 12/18/23
15 Review Draft PER 8 wks Mon 12/18/23Fri 2/9/24
16 Incorporate Comments 2 wks Mon 2/12/24Fri 2/23/24
17 Finalize PER 2 wks Mon 2/26/24Fri 3/8/24
18 Develop Design Proposal4 wks Mon 12/18/23Fri 1/12/24
19 Town Reviews Design 2 wks Mon 1/15/24Fri 1/26/24
Proposal
20 ENR Upgrade Design 390 days Mon 1/29/24Fri 7/25/25
21 Project Set Up 2 wks Mon 1/29/24Fri 2/9/24
22 Design Kick Off w Town 0 days Mon 2/12/24Mon 2/12/24 2/12
23 30% Design 8 wks Mon 2/12/24Fri 4/5/24
24 30% Design Internal QA 2 wks Mon 4/8/24 Fri 4/19/24
25 30% Design to Town 0 days Mon 4/22/24Mon 4/22/24 4/22
26 Town Reviews 30% Design2 wks Mon 4/22/24Fri 5/3/24
27 30% Design Comment 0 days Mon 5/6/24 Mon 5/6/24 5/6
Review Meeting
28 60% Design 10 wks Mon 5/6/24 Fri 7/12/24
29 60% Design Internal QA 2 wks Mon 7/15/24Fri 7/26/24
30 60% Design to Town 0 days Mon 7/29/24Mon 7/29/24 7/29
31 Town Reviews 60% Design2 wks Mon 7/29/24Fri 8/9/24
Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline
Project: Centreville WWTP ENR Split Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only Progress
Date: Mon 12/4/23
Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup External Tasks Manual Progress
Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone
Figure 8.1: Project PImagpele 1mentation Schedule

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
32 60% Design Comment 0 days Mon 8/12/24Mon 8/12/24 8/12
Review Meeting
33 Pre-Final Design 10 wks Mon 8/12/24Fri 10/18/24
34 Pre-Final Design Internal2 wks Mon Fri 11/1/24
QA 10/21/24
35 Pre-Final Design to Town0 days Mon 11/4/24Mon 11/4/24 11/4
36 Town Reviews Pre-Final 2 wks Mon 11/4/24Fri 11/15/24
Design
37 Pre-Final Design 0 days Mon Mon 11/18
Comment Review 11/18/24 11/18/24
38 Design Review Meeting 2 wks Mon Fri 11/29/24
with MDE 11/18/24
39 MDE Review 8 wks Mon 12/2/24Fri 1/24/25
40 Permitting 12 wks Mon 1/27/25Fri 4/18/25
41 Develop Bid Ready 4 wks Mon 4/21/25Fri 5/16/25
Documents
42 Bid Ready Doc Internal QA2 wks Mon 5/19/25Fri 5/30/25
43 Bid Ready Docs to Town 0 days Mon 6/2/25 Mon 6/2/25 6/2
44 Town Finalizes Funding 8 wks Mon 6/2/25 Fri 7/25/25
45 ENR Upgrade and 130 days Mon Fri 1/23/26
Expansion Bidding 7/28/25
46 Town Prepares for 4 wks Mon 7/28/25Fri 8/22/25
Advertisement
47 Advertise 12 wks Mon 8/25/25Fri 11/14/25
48 Open Bids 0 days Mon 11/17/25Mon 11/17/25 11/17
49 Bid Review 2 wks Mon 11/17/25Fri 11/28/25
50 Bid Recommendation to 0 days Mon 12/1/25Mon 12/1/25 12/1
MDE
51 MDE Bid Review 4 wks Mon 12/1/25Fri 12/26/25
52 Construction NTP 4 wks Mon 12/29/25Fri 1/23/26
53 ENR Upgrade and Exp 910 days Mon Mon
Construction 1/26/26 7/23/29
54 Issue PO's 2 wks Mon 1/26/26Fri 2/6/26
55 Shop Drawing 16 wks Mon 2/9/26 Fri 5/29/26
Submittals and Review
56 Major Equipment Delivery36 wks Mon 6/1/26 Fri 2/5/27
57 Mobilize Site 0 days Mon 2/8/27 Mon 2/8/27 2/8
58 Construction 104 wks Mon 2/8/27 Fri 2/2/29
59 Substantial Completion 0 days Mon 2/5/29 Mon 2/5/29 2/5
Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline
Project: Centreville WWTP ENR Split Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only Progress
Date: Mon 12/4/23
Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup External Tasks Manual Progress
Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone
Figure 8.1: Project PImagpele 2mentation Schedule

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
60 Operations Process 2 wks Mon 2/5/29 Fri 2/16/29
Training
61 Commissioning and 12 wks Mon 2/19/29Fri 5/11/29
Start Up
62 Process Testing 4 wks Mon 5/14/29Fri 6/8/29
63 Develop Punchlist 2 wks Mon 6/11/29Fri 6/22/29
64 Project Closeout 4 wks Mon 6/25/29Fri 7/20/29
65 Final Completion 0 days Mon 7/23/29Mon 7/23/29 7/23
Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline
Project: Centreville WWTP ENR Split Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only Progress
Date: Mon 12/4/23
Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup External Tasks Manual Progress
Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone
Figure 8.1: Project PImagpele 3mentation Schedule

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
9 Project Asset Management
9.1 Inventory of Critical Assets
After the implementation of the Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion project the following will be the
Town’s Critical Assets at the WWTP:
1. Incoming Power Distribution
2. Back Up Power Generator
3. Aeration Blowers - Existing
4. Aeration Blowers – New
5. Administration/Lab Building
6. Disinfection (Filter and Blower) Building
7. Control Building
8. Influent Screening Facility
a. Mechanically Cleaned Screens
b. Washer/Compactor
c. Concrete Channels
9. Process Tanks
a. Flow EQ Tanks
b. Aerobic Digesters
c. Diffusers
10. MBR Trains
a. Mixers
b. Diffusers
c. Internal Recycle Pumps
11. Ultraviolet Light Disinfection
12. Effluent Pump Station
13. Dewatering Facility
a. Dewatering Press
b. Polymer Storage and Dosing
c. Sludge Conveyor
14. Covered Cake Storage Area
9.2 Condition of Critical Assets
All critical assets will be new with the exception of the following:
A. Incoming Power Distribution
B. Aeration Blowers – Existing
C. Administration/Lab Building
D. Disinfection (Filter and Blower) Building
E. Process Tanks
F. Effluent Pump Station
The condition of the critical assets is described below:
A. Incoming power distribution
The incoming power distribution includes the utility owned transformer and cables to the overhead power
system. The incoming switchboard owned by the Town is in in good condition with many years of
remaining expected life.
Page 95

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
B. Aeration Blowers – Existing
The three existing aeration blowers are 20 years old and are operating as designed and are in good
condition. The blowers have many years of remaining expected life.
The existing aeration blowers will be used for processes that are ancillary to the treatment process,
specifically to provide aeration of the two influent flow equalization tanks and the two aerated digesters.
The blowers will have a standby unit.
C. Administration/Lab Building
The Administration/Lab Building will be refurbished with the project and will have many years of remaining
expected life.
D. Disinfection (Filter and Blower) Building
The Disinfection (Filter and Blower) Building is in good condition with many years of remaining expected
life.
E. Process Tanks
The concrete process tanks are in good condition with more than 30 years of remaining expected life. The
mechanical equipment will be replaced with the project. Handrails, lighting, and other appurtenances will
be refurbished or replaced during the upgrade.
9.3 Critical Asset Maintenance and Replacement Plan
With the installation of the majority of the equipment and tanks being newly installed with the upgrade and
expansion project, there is the typically a cut to maintenance budgets. In conjunction with the lower maintenance
budget, the Town must institute a replacement fund which is funded annually with the monies the Town would
have spent maintaining 20+ year old equipment. Therefore, with funding similar to current, the Town will be
prepared for the eventual replacement of equipment as needed with the saved funds.
9.4 Critical Asset Energy and Water Efficiency Plan
There are two parts of critical asset energy and water efficiency: operational efficiency and future upgrades.
Operational efficiency refers to how the treatment process is actually operated compared with the optimal
theoretical energy and water efficiency. For example, aeration is the single largest cost for the activated sludge
treatment process and automating the speed of the blowers to provide just enough air to meet the process
requirements, will save considerable energy compared to manually operating the blowers.
The ENR upgrade will include simple and proven process instrumentation and automation to assist the operations
to operate the treatment process with operational efficiency. Examples include in tank continuous read dissolved
oxygen and ammonia instruments to monitor the treatment process and adjust aeration needs automatically using
Ammonia Based Aeration Control (ABAC). Chemical dosing will also have flow pacing implemented to
automatically adjust the phosphorus precipitant to adjust dosing based on continuous flow measurement inputs.
The methanol dosing will be controlled based on nitrate readings entering and leaving the second anoxic zones.
Water efficiency will be primarily through the replacement of potable water use with non-potable water
everywhere practical.
Page 96

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Future upgrades consider the improvements in energy efficiency over time. For example, at some point in the
future, it is likely the ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection system installed with the ENR upgrade and expansion which
is highly efficient by today’s standards, will be eclipsed by future technologies of UV disinfection, or another
completely different technology. The Town’s DPW needs to keep up to date with the latest equipment available by
attending wastewater conferences, or by bringing a consulting engineer into an on call contract. The on call
engineer can be tasked with reviewing the energy efficiency of the treatment processes and make
recommendations for improvements.
Page 97

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Appendix A
Cost Estimate Line Items
Page 98

Centreville ENR Upgrade and 1 MGD Expansion 10-May-24
Town of Centreville
Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
Alt 1 - 4 SBR Alt 2 - Act Sludge Alt 3 - MBR
Alternative 3 Facilities
Existing Tank Modifications $ 214,000 $ 643,000 $ 6 43,000
Clarifier Tanks, Equipment and RAS PS $ - $ 4 ,749,000 $ -
Denitrification Filter Tanks, Equip and Controls $ 3 ,112,000 $ 3 ,112,000 $ -
Misc Process Piping and Equipment $ 157,000 $ 235,000 $ 7 84,000
Additional SBR Tanks, Equip, and Controls $ 3 ,564,000 $ - $ -
Activated Sludge Equipment $ - $ 1 ,012,000 $ -
MBR Process Equipment and Controls $ - $ - $ 5,789,000
Post EQ Tank and Equipment $ 78,000 $ - $ -
Aerobic Digester Tank and Equipment $ 1 ,427,000 $ 78,000 $ 7 8,000
Ultraviolet Disinfection System $ 642,000 $ 642,000 $ 6 42,000
Pre-Flow EQ Tank, Aerated, w Pumping $ 2 ,054,000 $ 2 ,019,000 $ 2,019,000
Alternative Subtotal Cost $ 11,248,000 $ 12,490,000 $ 9,955,000
Base Facilities
Interior Demolition (Lab, Control, and Filter and Blower Buildings) $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 9 5,000
Influent Screening Expansion $ 825,000 $ 825,000 $ 8 25,000
Methanol Facility $ 618,000 $ 618,000 $ 6 18,000
Non-Potable Water System $ 54,000 $ 54,000 $ 5 4,000
Dewatering Facility $ 2 ,413,000 $ 2 ,413,000 $ 2,413,000
Covered Cake Storage $ 835,000 $ 835,000 $ 8 35,000
Lab Building Refurb $ 139,000 $ 139,000 $ 1 39,000
Control Building Refurb $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 1 30,000
Filter & Blower Building Refurb $ 348,000 $ 348,000 $ 3 48,000
Base Subtotal Cost $ 5,457,000 $ 5,457,000 $ 5,457,000
Alternative Plus Base - Subtotal Construction Cost $ 16,705,000 $ 17,947,000 $ 15,412,000
Electrical $ 2 ,517,000 $ 2 ,722,000 $ 4,169,000
Site Civil, inc Yard Piping and Demo (15%) $ 2 ,505,750 $ 2 ,692,050 $ 2,311,800
Site SCADA (5%) $ 835,250 $ 897,350 $ 7 70,600
Subtotal $ 22,563,000 $ 24,258,400 $ 22,663,400
Contingency (30%) $ 6 ,769,000 $ 7 ,278,000 $ 6,799,000
WWTP ENR Total Const Cost (December 2023 Dollars) $ 29,332,000 $ 31,536,400 $ 29,462,400
Escalated to December 2026 (4%/year) $ 32,994,000 $ 35,474,000 $ 33,141,000
$ 3 ,662,000 $ 3 ,937,600 $ 3,678,600

MARK-UP SUMMARY
PROJECT NAME: Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion PER CLIENT: ESTIMATED BY:
Town of Centreville WRA
Centreville,
PROJECT LOCATION: DESIGN SUBMISSION: WORK ORDER NUMBER:
Maryland PER 14375-000
MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT
MARKUP DESCRIPTION
MARKUP % MARKUP % MARKUP %
SUBCONTRACTOR MARKUPS
Factors from Means Location Factor Tables CityCentreville
and City Cost Index Tables to account for Material100.00%
LOCATION FACTORS market conditions at project location Labor100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Equipment100.00%
This factor adjusts for project specific elements including: restriction on work hours, security
WORK RESTRICTION FACTOR/PHASING 0.00%
requirements, limited site access, phasing, etc.
Sales tax may be added to materials costs, equipment costs, and sub-contractor work. State =
SALES TAX ON MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT 6.00% 6.00%
MD
LABOR BURDEN 29.17%
Workers Comp. Insurance State specific; Means 2022 9.00%
Fixed Overhead Federal and State Unemployment, FICA, Risk Insurance & Liability; Means 2015 18.50%
Home office overhead for Installing Contractor. This markup is typically in the range of 8 - 12%
INSTALLING CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%
Profit for Installing Contractor. This markup is typically in the range of 8 - 12%
INSTALLING CONTRACTOR PROFIT 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%
TOTAL MARKUP - SUBCONTRACTOR 1.283 1.563 1.283
PRIME CONTRACTOR MARKUPS
Job office overhead costs including quality control, temporary facilities, project security, clean-up,
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS & CQC etc. Line items (Div 01) or percentage can be used. Typically 5% - 15% of project cost, including 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
3% CQC.
Home office overhead for Prime contractor. This markup is typically in the range of 5 - 10%. For
PRIME OVERHEAD 8.25% 8.25% 8.25%
small projects self-performed by the Prime, this could be 0%.
Profit for Prime Contractor. This markup is typically in the range of 5 - 10%. For small projects self-
PRIME PROFIT 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%
performed by the Prime, this could be 0%.
The bond is used to pay for completion of construction if the contractor fails to do so. Typically
BOND 1.50% 1.50% 1.50%
ranges from 0.5% - 2%, depending on Contractor's past performance.
Cost growth (escalation) from the date of the estimate to the estimated mid-point of construction.
ESCALATION Source of escalation index = (Means, ENR, NAVFAC, etc.) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
*Note: Escalation is calculated in summary spreadsheet
Required to account for cost of unknowns based on level of design development.
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MISC. PROJECT-SPECIFIC MARKUP (Enter description here. This will not be used for most projects.)
TOTAL MARKUP - PRIME CONTRACTOR 1.223 1.223 1.223
TOTAL MARKUP - COMBINED 1.568 1.911 1.568
Mark-up Summary
2023 PER Cost Estimate - Centreville WWTP.xlsx Page 1 of 1

DETAILED COST: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
PROJECT NAME: Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion PER CLIENT: ESTIMATED BY:
Town of Centreville WRA
Centreville,
PROJECT LOCATION: DESIGN SUBMISSION: WORK ORDER NUMBER:
Maryland PER 14375-000
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF UNIT COSTS TOTAL COSTS
SOURCE QUANTITY TOTAL
MEASURE MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT
DEMOLITION
3 existing buildings: miscellaneous interior
1 LS $ - $ 5 0,000.00 $ - $ - $ 5 0,000 $ - $ 5 0,000
demolition of interior partitions, casework, etc.
NEW WORK
Dewatering Building 1960 Sq Ft $ 1 50.00 $ 1 50.00 $ 1 0.00 $ 2 94,000 $ 2 94,000 $ 1 9,600 $ 6 07,600
Alfa Laval Quote 2m Belt Filter Press 1 LS $ 3 85,500.00 $ 1 15,650.00 $ - $ 3 85,500 $ 1 15,650 $ - $ 5 01,150
Sludge Conveyors 1 LS $ 1 00,000.00 $ 1 00,000.00 $ - $ 1 00,000 $ 1 00,000 $ - $ 2 00,000
Polymer System 1 LS $ 1 00,000.00 $ 1 5,000.00 $ - $ 1 00,000 $ 1 5,000 $ - $ 1 15,000
Non-Potable Water System 1 LS $ 2 5,000.00 $ 7 ,500.00 $ - $ 2 5,000 $ 7 ,500 $ - $ 3 2,500
Influent Screening Concrete 100 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 4 0,000 $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 8 0,000
Huber Quote Influent Screens 2 ea $ 1 60,000.00 $ 4 8,000.00 $ - $ 3 20,000 $ 9 6,000 $ - $ 4 16,000
Methanol Facility 1 LS $ 1 50,000.00 $ 2 00,000.00 $ - $ 1 50,000 $ 2 00,000 $ - $ 3 50,000
Covered Cake Storage 3200 Sq Ft $ 7 5.00 $ 7 5.00 $ - $ 2 40,000 $ 2 40,000 $ - $ 4 80,000
Lab Building Refurbishment 800 Sq Ft $ 5 0.00 $ 5 0.00 $ - $ 4 0,000 $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 8 0,000
Control Building Refurbishment 750 Sq Ft $ 5 0.00 $ 5 0.00 $ - $ 3 7,500 $ 3 7,500 $ - $ 7 5,000
Filter & Blower Building Refurbishment 2000 Sq Ft $ 5 0.00 $ 5 0.00 $ - $ 1 00,000 $ 1 00,000 $ - $ 2 00,000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 1,832,000 $ 1,335,650 $ 19,600 $ 3 ,187,250
SUBCONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 517,723 $ 751,833 $ 5,539 $ 1 ,275,095
SUBTOTAL $ 2,349,723 $ 2,087,483 $ 25,139 $ 4 ,462,345
PRIME CONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 523,741 $ 465,289 $ 5,603 $ 9 94,634
BASE BID DIVISION 1 - TOTAL COSTS $ 2,873,464 $ 2,552,772 $ 30,742 $ 5 ,456,979
00 General Requirements (2)
2023 PER Cost Estimate - Centreville WWTP.xlsx Page 1 of 1

DETAILED COST: ALTERNATIVE 1 - SBRs
PROJECT NAME: Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion PER CLIENT: ESTIMATED BY:
Town of Centreville WRA
Centreville,
PROJECT LOCATION: DESIGN SUBMISSION: WORK ORDER NUMBER:
Maryland PER 14375-000
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF UNIT COSTS TOTAL COSTS
SOURCE QUANTITY TOTAL
MEASURE MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT
DEMOLITION
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
NEW WORK
Evoqua Budget Quote Closed Vessel Low Pressure UV System 1 ls $ 3 57,448.00 $ 1 07,234.40 $ - $ 3 57,448 $ 1 07,234 $ - $ 464,682
$ - $ - $ - $ -
Leopold Budget Quote Denitrification Filters Equipment 1 ls $ 1 ,500,000.00 $ 4 50,000.00 $ - $ 1 ,500,000 $ 4 50,000 $ - $ 1,950,000
Denitrifiction Concrete 300 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 1 20,000 $ 1 20,000 $ - $ 240,000
$ - $ - $ - $ -
AquaSBR Budget Quote AquaSBR System 1 ls $ 8 21,640.00 $ 2 46,492.00 $ - $ 8 21,640 $ 2 46,492 $ - $ 1,068,132
2 x SBR Tank Concrete 1500 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 6 00,000 $ 6 00,000 $ - $ 1,200,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Existing Tank Modifications 1 LS $ 1 00,000.00 $ 3 0,000.00 $ - $ 1 00,000 $ 3 0,000 $ - $ 130,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Misc Process Piping 1 LS $ 1 00,000.00 $ - $ - $ 1 00,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Post EQ Modifications 1 LS $ 5 0,000.00 $ - $ - $ 5 0,000 $ - $ - $ 50,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Pre-Eq Tank Concrete 750 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 3 00,000 $ 3 00,000 $ - $ 600,000
Pre-Eq Pumps, Blowers and Diffusers 1 LS $ 4 00,000.00 $ 2 00,000.00 $ - $ 4 00,000 $ 2 00,000 $ - $ 600,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Aerobic Digester Concrete 900 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 3 60,000 $ 3 60,000 $ - $ 720,000
Aerobic Digester Blowers and Equipment 1 LS $ 5 0,000.00 $ 5 0,000.00 $ - $ 5 0,000 $ 5 0,000 $ - $ 100,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 4,759,088 $ 2,463,726 $ - $ 7,222,814
SUBCONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 587,808 $ 1,386,823 $ - $ 1,974,631
SUBTOTAL $ 5,346,896 $ 3,850,549 $ - $ 9,197,445
PRIME CONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 1,191,796 $ 858,268 $ - $ 2,050,063
BASE BID DIVISION 1 - TOTAL COSTS $ 6,538,692 $ 4,708,817 $ - $ 11,247,508
Option 1 - 4 SBRs (2)
2023 PER Cost Estimate - Centreville WWTP.xlsx Page 1 of 1

DETAILED COST: ALTERNATIVE 1 (SBRs) - ELECTRICAL
PROJECT NAME: Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion CLIENT: ESTIMATED BY:
Town of Centreville WRA, DEI
Centreville,
PROJECT LOCATION: DESIGN SUBMISSION: WORK ORDER NUMBER:
Maryland PER 14375-000
UNIT OF UNIT COSTS TOTAL COSTS
SOURCE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TOTAL
MEASURE MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT
DEMOLITION
Demolition 1 LS $ - $ 1 00,000.00 $ - $ - $ 1 00,000 $ - $ 1 00,000
NEW WORK
Filter Building
600A Motor Control Center (MCC-A) 1 EA $ 2 00,000.00 $ 2 0,000.00 $ - $ 2 00,000 $ 2 0,000 $ - $ 2 20,000
Branch Circuit Wiring from MCC-A 1 LS $ 1 00,000.00 $ 1 50,000.00 $ - $ 1 00,000 $ 1 50,000 $ - $ 2 50,000
New Feeder for 600 MCC-A 1 LS $ 1 5,000.00 $ 3 ,500.00 $ - $ 1 5,000 $ 3 ,500 $ - $ 1 8,500
Existing Panel DP modifications including new
1 LS $ 3 0,000.00 $ 1 5,000.00 $ - $ 3 0,000 $ 1 5,000 $ - $ 4 5,000
breakers and branch circuits
Lighting and Branch Wiring 2000 SF $ 7 .00 $ 5 .00 $ - $ 1 4,000 $ 1 0,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lab Building
208V Panelboard 2 EA $ 1 0,000.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ - $ 2 0,000 $ 4 ,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lighting and Branch Wiring 750 SF $ 6 .00 $ 4 .00 $ - $ 4 ,500 $ 3 ,000 $ - $ 7 ,500
Receptacles including branch wiring 750 SF $ 2 .00 $ 3 .00 $ - $ 1 ,500 $ 2 ,250 $ - $ 3 ,750
Dewatering Building
480V Panelboard 1 EA $ 1 5,000.00 $ 3 ,000.00 $ - $ 1 5,000 $ 3 ,000 $ - $ 1 8,000
208V Panelboard 2 EA $ 1 0,000.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ - $ 2 0,000 $ 4 ,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lighting and Branch Wiring 1900 SF $ 7 .00 $ 5 .00 $ - $ 1 3,300 $ 9 ,500 $ - $ 2 2,800
Receptacles including branch wiring 1900 SF $ 3 .00 $ 4 .00 $ - $ 5 ,700 $ 7 ,600 $ - $ 1 3,300
Branch circuits for mechanical loads 1900 SF $ 6 .00 $ 8 .00 $ - $ 1 1,400 $ 1 5,200 $ - $ 2 6,600
Dry type transformer 45kVA 2 EA $ 2 ,500.00 $ 1 ,250.00 $ - $ 5 ,000 $ 2 ,500 $ - $ 7 ,500
Outside
600A Motor Control Center (MCC-B) including
1 EA $ 1 50,000.00 $ 4 0,000.00 $ - $ 1 50,000 $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 1 90,000
VFDs
Branch Circuit Wiring from MCC-B including
1 LS $ 1 00,000.00 $ 1 25,000.00 $ - $ 1 00,000 $ 1 25,000 $ - $ 2 25,000
underground ducts
Feeder for Dewatering Building 1 LS $ 1 0,000.00 $ 2 0,000.00 $ - $ 1 0,000 $ 2 0,000 $ - $ 3 0,000
Feeder for Control Building 1 LS $ 5 ,000.00 $ 8 ,000.00 $ - $ 5 ,000 $ 8 ,000 $ - $ 1 3,000
Site Lighting and Branch Wiring 1 LS $ 4 0,000.00 $ 4 0,000.00 $ - $ 4 0,000 $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 8 0,000
Testing and Commisioning 1 LS $ - $ 4 0,000.00 $ - $ - $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 4 0,000
Grounding and Bonding 1 LS $ 2 5,000.00 $ 5 0,000.00 $ - $ 2 5,000 $ 5 0,000 $ - $ 7 5,000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 785,400 $ 672,550 $ - $ 1 ,457,950
SUBCONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 221,954 $ 378,617 $ - $ 600,571
SUBTOTAL $ 1,007,354 $ 1,051,167 $ - $ 2,058,521
PRIME CONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 224,534 $ 234,300 $ - $ 458,834
BASE BID DIVISION 16 - TOTAL COSTS $ 1,231,888 $ 1,285,466 $ - $ 2 ,517,354
Div 16
Cost Estimate - Alternative 1.xlsx Page 1 of 1

DETAILED COST: ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PROJECT NAME: Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion PER CLIENT: ESTIMATED BY:
Town of Centreville WRA
Centreville,
PROJECT LOCATION: DESIGN SUBMISSION: WORK ORDER NUMBER:
Maryland PER 14375-000
SOURCE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT OF UNIT COSTS TOTAL COSTS TOTAL
MEASURE MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT
DEMOLITION
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
NEW WORK
Brentwood Budget Quote 60' Dia. Sludge Rapid Removal Clarifiers 2 ea $ 4 94,750.00 $ 2 47,375.00 $ - $ 9 89,500 $ 4 94,750 $ - $ 1 ,484,250
Clarifier Concrete 1300 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 5 20,000 $ 5 20,000 $ - $ 1 ,040,000
RAS Pump Station 1 LS $ 5 00,000.00 $ - $ - $ 5 00,000 $ - $ - $ 5 00,000
Evoqua Budget Quote Closed Vessel Low Pressure UV System 1 ls $ 3 57,448.00 $ 1 07,234.40 $ - $ 3 57,448 $ 1 07,234 $ - $ 4 64,682
Leopold Budget Quote Denitrification Filters 1 ls $ 1 ,500,000.00 $ 4 50,000.00 $ - $ 1 ,500,000 $ 4 50,000 $ - $ 1 ,950,000
Denitrifcation Concrete 300 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 1 20,000 $ 1 20,000 $ - $ 2 40,000
Internal Recycle Pumps 8 ea $ 2 5,000.00 $ 7 ,500.00 $ 2 00,000 $ 6 0,000 $ - $ 2 60,000
Fine Bubble Diffusers and Blowers 1 LA $ 2 50,000.00 $ 1 00,000.00 $ - $ 2 50,000 $ 1 00,000 $ - $ 3 50,000
Reactor Tank Modifications 1 LS $ 4 0,000.00 $ 1 2,000.00 $ - $ 4 0,000 $ 1 2,000 $ - $ 5 2,000
Reactor Tank Concrete 400 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 1 60,000 $ 1 60,000 $ - $ 3 20,000
Misc Process Piping and Equipment 1 LS $ 1 50,000.00 $ - $ - $ 1 50,000 $ - $ - $ 1 50,000
Aerobic Digester Tank Modifications 1 LS $ 5 0,000.00 $ - $ - $ 5 0,000 $ - $ - $ 5 0,000
Pre-Eq Pumps, Blowers and Diffusers 2 LS $ 4 00,000.00 $ 2 00,000.00 $ - $ 8 00,000 $ 4 00,000 $ - $ 1 ,200,000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 5,636,948 $ 2,423,984 $ - $ 8 ,060,932
SUBCONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 788,454 $ 1,364,452 $ - $ 2,152,906
SUBTOTAL $ 6,425,402 $ 3,788,437 $ - $ 10,213,839
PRIME CONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 1,432,189 $ 844,423 $ - $ 2,276,612
BASE BID DIVISION 3 - TOTAL COSTS $ 7,857,591 $ 4,632,860 $ - $ 1 2,490,451
Option 2 - Activated Sludge (2)
2023 PER Cost Estimate - Centreville WWTP.xlsx Page 1 of 1

DETAILED COST: ALTERNATIVE 2 (CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE) - ELECTRICAL
PROJECT NAME: Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion PER CLIENT: ESTIMATED BY:
Town of Centreville WRA, DEI
Centreville,
PROJECT LOCATION: DESIGN SUBMISSION: WORK ORDER NUMBER:
Maryland PER 14375-000
UNIT OF UNIT COSTS TOTAL COSTS
SOURCE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TOTAL
MEASURE MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT
DEMOLITION
Demolition 1 LS $ - $ 100,000.00 $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 1 00,000
NEW WORK
Filter Building
600A Motor Control Center (MCC-A) 1 EA $ 2 00,000.00 $ 2 0,000.00 $ - $ 2 00,000 $ 2 0,000 $ - $ 2 20,000
Branch Circuit Wiring from MCC-A 1 LS $ 1 00,000.00 $ 1 50,000.00 $ - $ 1 00,000 $ 1 50,000 $ - $ 2 50,000
New Feeder for 600 MCC-A 1 LS $ 1 5,000.00 $ 3 ,500.00 $ - $ 1 5,000 $ 3 ,500 $ - $ 1 8,500
Existing Panel DP modifications including new
1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ - $ 30,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ 4 5,000
breakers and branch circuits
Lighting and Branch Wiring 2000 SF $ 7 .00 $ 5 .00 $ - $ 1 4,000 $ 1 0,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lab Building
208V Panelboard 2 EA $ 1 0,000.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ - $ 2 0,000 $ 4 ,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lighting and Branch Wiring 750 SF $ 6 .00 $ 4 .00 $ - $ 4 ,500 $ 3 ,000 $ - $ 7 ,500
Receptacles including branch wiring 750 SF $ 2 .00 $ 3 .00 $ - $ 1 ,500 $ 2 ,250 $ - $ 3 ,750
Dewatering Building
480V Panelboard 1 EA $ 1 5,000.00 $ 3 ,000.00 $ - $ 1 5,000 $ 3 ,000 $ - $ 1 8,000
208V Panelboard 2 EA $ 1 0,000.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ - $ 2 0,000 $ 4 ,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lighting and Branch Wiring 1900 SF $ 7 .00 $ 5 .00 $ - $ 1 3,300 $ 9 ,500 $ - $ 2 2,800
Receptacles including branch wiring 1900 SF $ 3 .00 $ 4 .00 $ - $ 5 ,700 $ 7 ,600 $ - $ 1 3,300
Branch circuits for mechanical loads 1900 SF $ 6 .00 $ 8 .00 $ - $ 1 1,400 $ 1 5,200 $ - $ 2 6,600
Dry type transformer 45kVA 2 EA $ 2 ,500.00 $ 1 ,250.00 $ - $ 5 ,000 $ 2 ,500 $ - $ 7 ,500
Outside
600A Motor Control Center (MCC-B) including
1 EA $ 2 00,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ - $ 200,000 $ 40,000 $ - $ 2 40,000
VFDs
Branch Circuit Wiring from MCC-B including
1 LS $ 1 50,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 3 00,000
underground ducts
Feeder for Dewatering Building 1 LS $ 1 0,000.00 $ 2 0,000.00 $ - $ 1 0,000 $ 2 0,000 $ - $ 3 0,000
Feeder for Control Building 1 LS $ 5 ,000.00 $ 8 ,000.00 $ - $ 5 ,000 $ 8 ,000 $ - $ 1 3,000
Site Lighting and Branch Wiring 1 LS $ 4 0,000.00 $ 4 0,000.00 $ - $ 4 0,000 $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 8 0,000
Testing and Commisioning 1 LS $ - $ 4 0,000.00 $ - $ - $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 4 0,000
Grounding and Bonding 1 LS $ 2 5,000.00 $ 5 0,000.00 $ - $ 2 5,000 $ 5 0,000 $ - $ 7 5,000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 885,400 $ 697,550 $ - $ 1,582,950
SUBCONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 250,214 $ 392,691 $ - $ 642,905
SUBTOTAL $ 1,135,614 $ 1,090,241 $ - $ 2,225,855
PRIME CONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 253,123 $ 243,009 $ - $ 496,132
BASE BID DIVISION 16 - TOTAL COSTS $ 1,388,737 $ 1,333,250 $ - $ 2,721,986
Div 16
Cost Estimate - Alternative 2.xlsx Page 1 of 1

DETAILED COST: ALTERNATIVE 3 - MBR ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PROJECT NAME: Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion PER CLIENT: ESTIMATED BY:
Town of Centreville WRA
Centreville,
PROJECT LOCATION: DESIGN SUBMISSION: WORK ORDER NUMBER:
Maryland PER 14375-000
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF UNIT COSTS TOTAL COSTS
SOURCE QUANTITY TOTAL
MEASURE MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT
DEMOLITION
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
NEW WORK
Evoqua Budget Quote Closed Vessel Low Pressure UV System (1/2 for MBR) 1 ls $ 3 57,448.00 $ 1 07,234.40 $ - $ 3 57,448 $ 1 07,234 $ - $ 4 64,682
QuoteMBR Equipment 1 ls $ 4 ,000,000.00 $ - $ - $ 3 ,000,000 $ 1 ,000,000 $ - $ 4 ,000,000
New MBR Process Building 400 SF $ 1 50.00 $ 1 50.00 $ - $ 6 0,000 $ 6 0,000 $ - $ 1 20,000
Reactor Tank Modifications 1 LS $ 4 0,000.00 $ 1 2,000.00 $ - $ 4 0,000 $ 1 2,000 $ - $ 5 2,000
Reactor Tank Concrete 400 CY $ 4 00.00 $ 4 00.00 $ - $ 1 60,000 $ 1 60,000 $ - $ 3 20,000
Misc Process Piping 1 LS $ 5 00,000.00 $ - $ - $ 5 00,000 $ - $ - $ 5 00,000
Pre-Eq Pumps, Blowers and Diffusers 2 LS $ 4 00,000.00 $ 2 00,000.00 $ - $ 8 00,000 $ 4 00,000 $ - $ 1 ,200,000
Aerobic Digester Tank Modifications 1 LS $ 5 0,000.00 $ - $ - $ 5 0,000 $ - $ - $ 5 0,000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 4 ,967,448 $ 1 ,739,234 $ - $ 6 ,706,682
SUBCONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 4 54,986 $ 9 79,009 $ - $ 1,433,995
SUBTOTAL $ 5 ,422,434 $ 2 ,718,243 $ - $ 8,140,677
PRIME CONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 1 ,208,633 $ 6 05,882 $ - $ 1,814,515
BASE BID DIVISION 4 - TOTAL COSTS $ 6 ,631,067 $ 3 ,324,126 $ - $ 9 ,955,192
Option 3 - MBRs (2)
2023 PER Cost Estimate - Centreville WWTP.xlsx Page 1 of 1

DETAILED COST: ALTERNATIVE 3 (MBR ACTIVATED SLUDGE) - ELECTRICAL
PROJECT NAME: Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion PER CLIENT: ESTIMATED BY:
Town of Centreville WRA, DEI
Centreville,
PROJECT LOCATION: DESIGN SUBMISSION: WORK ORDER NUMBER:
Maryland PER 14375-000
SOURCE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY M U E N A I S T U O R F E MATERIAL UN L IT A B C O O R STS EQUIPMENT MATERIAL TOT L A A L B C O O R STS EQUIPMENT TOTAL
DEMOLITION
Demolition 1 LS $ - $ 100,000.00 $ - $ - $ 1 00,000 $ - $ 1 00,000
NEW WORK
Filter Building
600A Motor Control Center (MCC-A) 1 EA $ 2 00,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ - $ 2 00,000 $ 2 0,000 $ - $ 2 20,000
Branch Circuit Wiring from MCC-A 1 LS $ 1 00,000.00 $ 1 50,000.00 $ - $ 1 00,000 $ 1 50,000 $ - $ 2 50,000
New Feeder for 600 MCC-A 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 3 ,500.00 $ - $ 1 5,000 $ 3 ,500 $ - $ 1 8,500
Existing Panel DP modifications including new
1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ - $ 3 0,000 $ 1 5,000 $ - $ 4 5,000
breakers and branch circuits
Lighting and Branch Wiring 2000 SF $ 7 .00 $ 5 .00 $ - $ 1 4,000 $ 1 0,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
$ -
Lab Building $ -
208V Panelboard 2 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ - $ 2 0,000 $ 4 ,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lighting and Branch Wiring 750 SF $ 6 .00 $ 4 .00 $ - $ 4 ,500 $ 3 ,000 $ - $ 7 ,500
Receptacles including branch wiring 750 SF $ 2 .00 $ 3 .00 $ - $ 1 ,500 $ 2 ,250 $ - $ 3 ,750
MBR Process Building
480V Panelboard 1 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 3 ,000.00 $ - $ 1 5,000 $ 3 ,000 $ - $ 1 8,000
208V Panelboard 2 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ - $ 2 0,000 $ 4 ,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lighting and Branch Wiring 400 SF $ 7 .00 $ 5 .00 $ - $ 2 ,800 $ 2 ,000 $ - $ 4 ,800
Receptacles including branch wiring 400 SF $ 3 .00 $ 4 .00 $ - $ 1 ,200 $ 1 ,600 $ - $ 2 ,800
Branch circuits for mechanical loads 400 SF $ 6 .00 $ 8 .00 $ - $ 2 ,400 $ 3 ,200 $ - $ 5 ,600
Dry type transformer 45kVA 2 EA $ 2 ,500.00 $ 1 ,250.00 $ - $ 5 ,000 $ 2 ,500 $ - $ 7 ,500
Dewatering Building
480V Panelboard 1 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 3 ,000.00 $ - $ 1 5,000 $ 3 ,000 $ - $ 1 8,000
208V Panelboard 2 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ - $ 2 0,000 $ 4 ,000 $ - $ 2 4,000
Lighting and Branch Wiring 1900 SF $ 7 .00 $ 5 .00 $ - $ 1 3,300 $ 9 ,500 $ - $ 2 2,800
Receptacles including branch wiring 1900 SF $ 3 .00 $ 4 .00 $ - $ 5 ,700 $ 7 ,600 $ - $ 1 3,300
Branch circuits for mechanical loads 1900 SF $ 6 .00 $ 8 .00 $ - $ 1 1,400 $ 1 5,200 $ - $ 2 6,600
Dry type transformer 45kVA 2 EA $ 2 ,500.00 $ 1 ,250.00 $ - $ 5 ,000 $ 2 ,500 $ - $ 7 ,500
Outside
600A Motor Control Center (MCC-B) including
1 EA $ 300,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ - $ 3 00,000 $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 3 40,000
VFDs
Branch Circuit Wiring from MCC-B including
1 LS $ 250,000.00 $ 2 00,000.00 $ - $ 2 50,000 $ 2 00,000 $ - $ 4 50,000
underground ducts
Feeder for MBR Process Building 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ - $ 1 0,000 $ 2 0,000 $ - $ 3 0,000
Feeder for Dewatering Building 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ - $ 1 0,000 $ 2 0,000 $ - $ 3 0,000
Feeder for Control Building 1 LS $ 5 ,000.00 $ 8 ,000.00 $ - $ 5 ,000 $ 8 ,000 $ - $ 1 3,000
Site Lighting and Branch Wiring 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ - $ 4 0,000 $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 8 0,000
Diesel Generator 750kW including ATS 1 EA $ 5 00,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ - $ 5 00,000 $ 5 0,000 $ - $ 5 50,000
Testing and Commisioning 1 LS $ - $ 40,000.00 $ - $ - $ 4 0,000 $ - $ 4 0,000
Grounding and Bonding 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ - $ 2 5,000 $ 5 0,000 $ - $ 7 5,000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 1,641,800 $ 8 33,850 $ - $ 2 ,475,650
SUBCONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 4 63,973 $ 4 69,422 $ - $ 933,394
SUBTOTAL $ 2,105,773 $ 1,303,272 $ - $ 3,409,044
PRIME CONTRACTOR MARKUP $ 4 69,366 $ 2 90,493 $ - $ 759,858
BASE BID DIVISION 16 - TOTAL COSTS $ 2,575,139 $ 1,593,764 $ - $ 4 ,168,903
Div 16
Cost Estimate - Alternative 3.xlsx Page 1 of 1

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Appendix B
Existing NPDES Stream and Spray Discharge Permits
Page 99

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Appendix C
Influent Sampling Data and 9-Year Effluent Operating Data
Page 100

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
Data 1: Operating Effluent Weekly Spreadsheets

Stream Effluent Spray Effluent
Flow BOD TSS TKN Ammonia NO2 + NO3 Total Nitrogen-N TP Ge E o . m Co e l a i n Flow BOD TSS TKN NO2 + NO3 Ammonia TP E. Coli
Year Month Week MGD mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L mg/L mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day MPN/100 ml MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L MPN/100 ml
1 0.320 5.50 16.15 4.50 13.43 0.79 0.27 0.90 2.73 1.69 5.07 0.09 0.26 1.00
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 5 1 1 2 2 2 . . 5 0 0 0 6 5 . . 7 3 5 0 4 4 . . 5 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 . . 1 5 2 9 0 1 . . 7 2 8 1 0 0 . . 3 5 2 4 1 1 . . 7 4 4 5 4 3 . . 6 8 4 8 2 2 . . 5 6 2 5 6 6 . . 7 9 6 9 0 0 . . 0 0 7 8 0 0 . . 2 2 0 0 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0
4 0.324 1.55 4.47 2.25 5.83 1.53 0.27 1.82 5.46 3.36 10.47 0.09 0.30 1.00 0.322 2.31 4.05 0.93 2.24 0.23 0.344 7.4
1 0.355 6.00 21.97 4.00 14.65 1.04 0.33 2.57 9.38 3.61 13.20 0.07 0.25 1.00 0.368 3.88 4.50 1.09 1.99 0.25 0.473 1.8
1-Feb 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 5 7 8 4 4 2 . . 5 6 0 9 1 7 1 . . 7 6 3 8 4 4 . . 0 7 0 5 1 1 0 3 . . 3 9 9 2 1 0 . . 5 9 6 8 0 0 . . 4 2 2 2 2 2 . . 5 6 2 8 6 7 . . 5 7 3 9 4 3 . . 0 6 7 5 1 1 0 0 . . 5 6 7 3 0 0 . . 1 0 0 9 0 0 . . 2 2 7 7 1 1 . . 0 7 0 6 0 0 . . 5 5 2 7 2 0 3 2 . . 7 4 5 0 4 4 . . 3 3 8 0 0 0 . . 9 6 0 2 2 2 . . 2 1 3 8 0 0 . . 2 2 3 0 1 1 . . 1 0 4 4 3 9 1 6 1 . . 0 5
4 0.360 6.00 17.01 4.00 11.64 0.54 1.10 2.66 7.86 3.19 9.43 0.09 0.25 3.26 0.568 2.42 4.25 0.68 2.19 0.27 0.905 5.9
1 0.367 8.50 25.67 4.00 11.76 4.79 3.51 1.91 5.52 6.69 20.23 2.33 7.25 1.00 0.238 2.44 4.33 0.80 2.48 0.20 1.180 1.8
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 3 4 6 4 5 4 . . 5 5 0 0 1 1 5 3 . . 7 1 4 9 5 4 . . 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 . . 2 1 2 1 1 0 . . 1 8 7 0 0 0 . . 3 2 7 0 2 2 . . 1 3 4 2 6 7 . . 1 0 0 8 3 3 . . 3 1 1 2 9 9 . . 4 5 2 2 0 0 . . 1 1 7 9 0 0 . . 4 5 9 8 3 2 . . 2 0 6 0 0 0 . . 2 0 6 7 7 2 2 . . 6 1 7 5 4 4 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 8 7 0 8 2 2 . . 6 2 6 1 0 0 . . 2 2 1 0 0 0 . . 7 5 3 2 6 6 1 1 . . 9 8
4 0.336 4.50 12.03 4.50 12.03 0.95 0.20 2.74 7.41 3.69 9.97 0.31 0.83 2.05
1
1-Apr 2 3
4 0.378 4.48 5.40 1.20 1.48 0.27 0.342 1.8
1 0.472 4.13 6.08 1.08 1.40 0.24 0.763 5.0
1-May 2 3 0 0 . . 2 6 8 1 9 9 4 4 . . 5 3 1 7 3 0 . . 7 9 4 4 1 0 . . 0 4 2 2 1 1 . . 1 6 4 0 0 0 . . 2 1 6 2 1 1 . . 8 5 6 7 1 2 6 1 . . 7 8
4 0.481 3.27 2.56 0.73 1.66 0.13 1.328 1.9
1 0.245 6.26 1.30 1.04 1.61 0.14 1.689 4.3
1-Jun 2 3 0 0 . . 2 1 9 7 8 3 1 1 . . 4 8 7 9 2 1 . . 7 4 5 4 0 0 . . 5 7 0 0 2 2 . . 0 0 8 0 0 0 . . 1 1 3 2 0 0 . . 9 5 7 3 3 1 1 1 . . 8 8
2014 4 1
1-Jul 2 3
4 0.0717 3.46 3.22 0.39 1.67 0.16 0.596 3.6
1 0.306 3.36 1.44 0.37 1.64 0.16 1.582 1.8
1-Aug 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 9 8 5 2 3 3 . . 8 0 3 4 1 0 . . 2 5 2 6 0 1 . . 3 3 4 6 1 1 . . 2 5 6 2 0 0 . . 3 6 2 4 2 3 . . 2 1 4 4 4 3 2 4 . . 0 5
4 0.597 3.97 1.10 0.97 1.56 0.15 3.151 6.4
1 0.506 5.22 1.88 0.86 1.67 0.18 2.574 1.9
1-Sep 2 3 0 0 . . 3 2 2 7 3 4 4 1 . . 2 7 3 1 2 1 . . 5 3 6 0 1 1 . . 0 0 3 5 1 1 . . 7 5 0 9 0 0 . . 1 1 5 5 1 1 . . 8 6 1 8 5 4 1 1 . . 8 8
4 0.170 2.41 0.88 0.98 1.64 0.18 1.408 1.8
1
1-Oct 2 3
4 0.060 2.59 1.81 1.01 1.32 0.29 0.899 1.8
1 0.201 3.23 0.75 0.59 1.07 0.11 1.348 4.5
1-Nov 2 3 0 0 . . 5 2 6 4 4 5 4 3 . . 0 3 8 4 3 1 . . 0 1 0 9 0 0 . . 6 5 8 3 1 1 . . 7 1 0 7 0 0 . . 1 1 1 2 2 2 . . 0 5 5 3 6 8 1 1 1 4 . . 0 6
4
1 0.315 1.28 3.46 0.50 1.35 1.00 0.10 2.05 5.54 3.05 8.24 0.18 0.50 1.00
1-Dec 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 0 0 6 3 4 2 . . 1 3 9 1 1 5 0 . . 6 9 9 4 2 1 . . 5 0 0 0 6 2 . . 5 4 3 8 0 0 . . 8 9 8 0 0 0 . . 1 1 5 3 1 1 . . 9 8 9 9 5 4 . . 2 6 4 4 2 2 . . 8 7 7 9 7 6 . . 5 8 6 6 0 0 . . 1 1 4 3 0 0 . . 3 3 7 1 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0
4 0.319 9.00 32.58 4.00 14.48 0.75 0.20 2.43 8.80 3.18 11.52 0.10 0.36 1.00
1 0.315 2.06 5.09 0.50 1.23 1.00 0.12 1.90 4.65 2.90 7.10 0.11 0.27 1.80
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 3 7 2 3 2 6 . . 8 3 6 2 1 9 6 . . 0 7 9 2 0 2 . . 5 2 0 5 1 5 . . 5 9 9 3 1 0 . . 7 8 4 0 0 0 . . 1 1 0 5 1 1 . . 8 9 7 5 5 5 . . 9 2 5 1 3 2 . . 6 7 1 5 1 7 1 .3 .4 6 6 0 0 . . 1 0 0 9 0 0 . . 3 2 2 5 1 1 . . 0 4 0 1
4 0.376 2.22 6.58 2.25 6.75 0.94 0.16 1.49 4.38 2.43 7.14 0.15 0.43 1.41
1 0.344 3.08 9.30 0.50 1.52 0.72 0.11 1.58 4.82 2.29 7.03 0.23 0.71 1.00
1-Feb 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 2 2 1 0 3 2 . . 2 2 0 0 8 5 . . 7 5 2 6 1 0 . . 2 5 5 0 3 1 . . 4 2 9 7 0 0 . . 6 4 3 5 0 0 . . 1 1 2 0 1 1 . . 1 9 9 0 3 4 . . 2 8 6 3 1 2 . . 8 3 2 5 4 5 . . 9 9 9 6 0 0 . . 1 1 4 6 0 0 . . 3 4 9 1 1 7 . . 7 1 6 0
4 0.322 2.10 5.74 6.50 17.72 0.60 0.14 1.24 3.38 1.84 5.00 0.20 0.54 1.00
1 0.412 3.67 12.00 0.75 2.50 0.60 0.16 1.84 6.04 2.44 8.02 0.15 0.49 8.92
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 1 1 5 1 5 3 . . 8 0 1 8 1 1 9 1 . . 6 3 1 7 0 1 . . 7 0 5 0 2 3 . . 5 7 4 7 0 1 . . 7 1 9 7 0 0 . . 2 1 1 0 2 1 . . 0 9 6 2 6 7 . . 9 2 5 3 2 3 . . 8 0 5 8 1 9 1 .6 .4 0 0 0 0 . . 3 3 1 1 1 1 . . 0 1 4 9 3 6 8 . . 8 7 2 8
4 0.366 4.64 14.22 1.00 3.10 0.67 0.22 2.08 6.50 2.75 8.59 0.26 0.81 7.96
1
1-Apr 2 3
4
1
1-May 2 3
4
1
1-Jun 2 3
2015 4 1
1-Jul 2 3
4
1
1-Aug 2 3
4
1
1-Sep 2 3
4
1
1-Oct 2 3
4
1
1-Nov 2 3
4
1 0.431 1.59 5.62 0.50 1.82 0.40 0.12 2.30 8.36 2.69 9.80 0.14 0.49 4.02
1-Dec 2 3 0 0 . . 3 4 9 1 7 3 3 2 . . 2 3 0 5 1 8 0 . . 5 4 8 9 0 0 . . 7 5 5 0 2 1 . . 4 7 4 4 0 0 . . 4 4 0 0 0 0 . . 1 1 0 0 1 2 . . 9 6 7 0 6 9 . . 6 0 7 3 2 2 . . 3 9 7 9 1 8 0 .0 .4 1 1 0 0 . . 1 1 5 9 0 0 . . 4 6 9 6 3 1 2 3 . . 2 1 3 0
4 0.478 2.22 10.18 0.50 2.13 0.45 0.11 2.31 9.85 2.76 11.81 0.16 0.71 12.46
1 0.406 2.24 7.77 1.75 6.11 0.44 0.10 2.88 10.01 3.31 11.53 0.14 0.49 11.65
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 0 3 1 9 3 2 . . 4 0 2 0 8 6 . . 2 6 8 0 2 0 . . 2 5 5 0 7 1 . . 5 6 2 2 0 0 . . 4 4 0 8 0 0 . . 2 1 3 7 3 2 . . 6 5 1 6 9 8 . . 0 1 7 2 4 3 . . 0 0 0 5 1 9 0 .6 .1 6 7 0 0 . . 4 2 7 2 1 0 . . 1 7 7 0 1 5 4 8 4 . . 3 5 0 0
4 0.424 2.81 8.83 1.00 3.31 0.36 0.10 2.85 9.44 3.21 10.61 0.17 0.57 50.02
1 0.481 4.29 16.80 0.75 2.94 0.35 0.31 1.68 6.59 2.03 7.95 0.26 1.00 8.12
1-Feb 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 6 7 9 3 1 1 . . 3 7 1 4 5 7 . . 2 3 6 0 0 2 . . 5 5 0 0 1 2 0 . . 0 3 1 5 0 0 . . 8 3 5 3 0 0 . . 1 2 6 4 1 2 . . 9 4 9 6 1 8 0 .0 .1 0 8 2 2 . . 8 7 4 9 1 1 1 1 . . 4 5 0 8 0 0 . . 1 1 3 3 0 0 . . 5 5 2 4 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0
4 0.470 1.33 5.49 0.75 3.05 0.72 0.12 1.73 7.44 2.45 10.64 0.13 0.57 1.00
1 0.457 1.00 3.77 2.00 7.54 0.38 0.23 1.97 7.43 2.35 8.85 0.13 0.49 4.88
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 6 4 1 9 1 1 . . 8 1 7 0 8 4 . . 1 0 0 6 1 0 . . 5 5 0 0 6 1 . . 1 8 6 6 0 0 . . 3 3 7 7 0 0 . . 1 1 9 3 2 2 . . 0 2 4 6 8 8 . . 6 3 0 0 2 2 . . 4 6 1 3 1 9 0 .7 .1 1 5 0 0 . . 1 1 3 9 0 0 . . 5 7 2 0 1 4 . . 4 3 1 8
4 0.414 2.79 10.44 1.25 4.82 0.39 0.11 2.23 8.40 2.61 9.85 0.33 1.21 1.00
1
1-Apr 2 3
4
1
1-May 2 3
4
1
1-Jun 2 3
2016 4 1
1-Jul 2 3

Stream Effluent Spray Effluent
Flow BOD TSS TKN Ammonia NO2 + NO3 Total Nitrogen-N TP Ge E o . m Co e l a i n Flow BOD TSS TKN NO2 + NO3 Ammonia TP E. Coli
Year Month Week MGD mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L mg/L mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day MPN/100 ml MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L MPN/100 ml
4
1
1-Aug 2 3
4
1
1-Sep 2 3
4
1
1-Oct 2 3
4
1
1-Nov 2 3
4
1
1-Dec 2 3
4
1 0.419 2.37 9.01 0.50 1.86 0.68 0.11 1.01 3.71 1.69 6.17 0.18 0.64 1.00
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 8 7 5 2 4 3 . . 6 7 4 6 1 1 4 2 . . 3 0 3 6 4 0 . . 5 5 0 0 1 1 3 . . 5 8 7 8 1 1 . . 2 5 3 9 0 0 . . 1 4 8 3 1 1 . . 5 1 3 3 5 3 . . 0 6 6 2 2 2 . . 7 7 5 2 8 8 . . 9 6 7 3 0 0 . . 2 3 5 8 0 1 . . 8 2 2 0 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0
4 0.405 1.73 6.07 0.50 1.75 0.59 0.13 1.33 4.64 1.92 6.71 0.19 0.65 1.00
1 0.364 3.15 9.18 1.00 2.92 1.05 0.13 1.63 4.78 2.68 7.90 0.43 1.25 1.00
1-Feb 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 7 4 0 9 2 1 . . 8 5 5 6 8 4 . . 9 7 1 2 1 0 . . 7 7 5 5 5 2 . . 6 2 5 7 0 0 . . 4 4 8 9 0 0 . . 1 1 2 1 1 1 . . 8 8 1 6 5 5 . . 6 6 3 5 2 2 . . 2 3 9 5 7 7 . . 1 1 1 7 0 0 . . 3 4 9 9 1 1 . . 2 4 0 8 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0
4 0.376 2.34 7.29 0.75 2.34 0.69 0.10 1.32 4.10 2.01 6.25 0.67 2.09 1.00
1 0.357 1.04 3.02 1.25 3.64 0.56 0.16 1.42 4.13 1.98 5.74 0.86 2.48 1.00
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 4 3 0 9 4 2 2 2 . . 0 7 5 1 5 8 . . 4 8 6 3 1 2 . . 7 5 5 0 4 8 . . 5 5 7 2 0 0 . . 9 7 6 8 0 0 . . 1 1 6 9 1 1 . . 4 3 6 0 4 4 . . 1 2 9 9 2 2 . . 4 0 2 8 6 6 . . 9 8 0 9 0 0 . . 8 4 5 4 2 1 . . 4 4 7 4 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0
4 0.382 3.27 11.12 1.25 4.06 0.99 0.21 1.15 3.92 2.14 7.28 0.38 1.26 1.00
1
1-Apr 2 3
4
1
1-May 2 3
4
1
1-Jun 2 3
2017 4 1
1-Jul 2 3
4
1
1-Aug 2 3
4
1
1-Sep 2 3
4
1
1-Oct 2 3
4
1
1-Nov 2 3
4
1 0.375 1.77 5.04 2.50 7.16 0.78 0.14 1.83 5.31 2.61 7.59 0.60 1.72 1.00
1-Dec 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 7 6 1 5 1 3 . . 8 7 0 0 1 5 0 . . 9 8 5 3 3 2 . . 0 0 0 0 9 5 . . 5 8 9 5 0 1 . . 9 4 3 3 0 0 . . 5 2 5 1 1 1 . . 8 2 0 7 5 3 . . 8 7 6 1 2 2 . . 7 7 2 0 8 7 . . 8 9 8 0 0 0 . . 5 2 2 9 1 0 . . 6 8 7 5 2 4 7 . . 4 1 5 0
4 0.371
1 0.362 5.66 16.510 2.50 7.385 0.86 0.205 1.61 4.804 2.47 7.370 0.64 1.977 44.75
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 4 3 2 6 7 6 6 1 . . 1 8 9 2 0 0 2 5 1 .5 .2 3 4 6 9 2 2 . . 2 5 5 0 0 0 8 7 . . 1 6 3 3 4 1 1 1 . . 5 4 5 1 5 0 0 0 . . 6 4 1 9 2 6 0 0 . . 9 7 3 4 6 7 3 2 . . 1 2 5 9 5 9 2 2 . . 4 1 9 5 1 7 8 6 . . 5 6 0 1 6 5 0 0 . . 1 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 . . 6 6 1 7 4 1 5 2 5 8 . . 0 4 5 0 0 0
4 0.377 3.513 10.579 6.667 20.477 1.373 0.235 1.861 5.739 3.234 9.928 0.170 0.517 10.767
1 0.404 4.305 13.586 3.000 9.533 1.455 0.295 2.119 6.790 3.574 11.446 0.165 0.527 1.000
1-Feb 2 3 0 0 . . 5 4 4 7 5 4 3 3 . . 9 0 1 8 5 0 1 1 5 2 . . 7 6 8 5 3 6 5 4 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 6 . . 1 4 2 3 4 4 2 1 . . 6 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 . . 4 3 7 8 7 9 1 0 . . 9 8 2 4 7 1 7 3 . . 2 4 2 5 1 5 4 3 . . 5 0 3 7 7 0 1 1 7 2 . . 4 6 4 1 5 1 0 0 . . 6 2 2 5 5 5 2 1 . . 5 0 2 4 3 7 1 3 0 .1 .1 0 0 0 0
4 0.440 3.255 12.254 2.750 10.146 0.770 0.327 1.580 5.816 2.350 8.641 0.450 1.659 1.000
1 0.416 3.265 12.008 1.250 4.285 0.710 0.343 1.816 6.733 2.526 9.403 0.785 2.863 7.100
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 4 5 6 1 3 3 . . 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 . . 8 6 5 4 1 2 3 1 . . 0 7 0 5 0 0 1 6 1 .5 .9 9 7 5 2 0 1 . . 5 0 3 6 5 5 0 0 . . 3 2 0 7 6 0 1 1 . . 8 7 1 4 6 8 7 6 . . 3 2 5 5 5 2 2 2 . . 3 8 5 1 1 3 9 9 . . 5 9 0 8 1 7 0 0 . . 6 4 7 4 0 0 2 1 . . 6 5 5 6 8 9 10 1 1 .0 .2 0 5 0 0
4 0.454 2.677 10.538 1.000 3.891 1.310 0.354 1.904 7.550 3.214 12.930 1.073 4.178 55.733
1 0.000 4.66 0.75 1.52 1.66 0.29 0.86 1.90
1-Apr 2 3 0 0 . . 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 7 . . 9 2 9 3 0 0 0 1 . . 5 2 0 5 0 0 1 3 . . 4 0 1 5 5 5 1 0 . . 4 9 7 8 0 2 0 1 . . 4 9 3 1 6 0 1 1 . . 4 2 5 6 0 0 2 3 . . 0 2 0 5 0 0
4 0.336 4.650 0.500 1.100 1.462 0.343 0.760 1.800
1 0.700 3.505 0.750 1.420 1.745 0.28 1.54 1.90
1-May 2 3 0 0 . . 2 0 5 0 8 0 1 4 . . 0 1 0 4 0 5 1 1 . . 7 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 . . 4 8 6 4 0 5 1 1 . . 3 6 2 3 9 3 0 0 . . 1 1 8 0 3 0 2 1 . . 6 5 1 1 5 5 4 2 . . 5 6 0 0 0 0
4 0.379 3.243 1.000 0.848 1.723 0.132 1.448 4.300
1 1.094 1.989 1.185 1.267 1.730 0.119 1.165 1.000
1-Jun 2 3 0 0 . . 3 6 9 6 0 1 1 2 . . 4 5 6 4 5 5 1 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 7 8 3 8 0 0 2 1 . . 1 7 3 2 3 0 0 0 . . 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 . . 7 6 8 3 5 5 2 1 3 . . 5 0 0 0 0 0
2018 4 1 0 0 . . 2 4 3 0 5 7 1 4 . . 0 3 0 6 0 0 2 0 . . 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 1 9 3 5 5 5 1 1 . . 9 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 . . 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 4 3 6 8 5 0 4 6 . . 8 5 5 0 0 0
1-Jul 2 3 0 0 . . 6 6 5 2 5 4 3 1 . . 9 4 6 6 0 0 0 1 . . 5 2 0 5 0 0 1 1 . . 2 2 6 8 5 0 2 1 . . 1 4 6 6 8 6 0 0 . . 1 1 0 0 5 3 1 2 . . 5 2 7 8 5 0 1 1 6 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0
4 0.100 2.480 1.167 0.720 1.442 0.102 2.877 4.633
1 0.510 1.610 1.750 0.725 1.295 0.100 1.585 4.850
1-Aug 2 3 0 0 . . 4 6 8 4 3 1 1 2 . . 4 4 8 4 0 5 0 0 . . 1 7 0 5 0 0 1 0 . . 2 7 9 5 0 0 1 1 . . 1 0 4 0 2 6 0 0 . . 1 1 0 0 8 8 2 2 . . 0 0 5 5 0 0 6 1 . . 7 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.829 3.030 2.500 1.303 1.007 0.100 2.243 1.000
1 0.661 0.100 0.500 0.930 1.193 0.104 3.030 1.500
1-Sep 2 3 0 0 . . 0 6 0 7 0 9 4 4 . . 8 3 5 6 0 0 3 0 . . 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 7 7 3 2 0 0 1 1 . . 5 3 8 1 4 0 0 0 . . 1 1 4 0 0 8 2 2 . . 6 3 5 4 0 0 3 4 . . 1 2 0 0 0 0
4 0.000 2.520 0.750 0.720 1.788 0.100 2.200 1.500
1 0.631 1.425 0.500 1.235 1.573 0.106 2.050 2.050
1-Oct 2 3 0 0 . . 1 3 4 5 1 3 3 2 . . 6 1 2 8 5 5 1 1 . . 5 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 . . 7 9 6 2 0 5 1 1 . . 5 6 7 1 5 5 0 0 . . 1 1 0 0 5 7 2 2 . . 4 0 5 1 0 5 1 3 . . 0 6 0 5 0 0
4 0.427 2.278 0.875 0.948 1.768 0.117 1.570 2.325
1 0.000 1.525 0.750 1.120 1.759 0.110 0.550 2.000
1-Nov 2 3 0 0 . . 0 4 7 9 7 8 1 2 . . 3 9 7 0 5 0 0 3 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 . . 1 8 5 9 0 5 1 1 . . 9 9 8 7 0 3 3 2 . . 1 8 3 6 0 8 0 0 . . 1 1 2 0 5 0 1 0 . . 0 2 5 2 0 0
4 0.276 2.355 1.750 0.720 1.956 2.676 0.114 0.520
1 0.558 1.470 6.880 3.000 14.045 0.860 0.199 2.071 9.636 2.931 13.648 0.645 2.981 1.000
1-Dec 2 3 0 0 . . 5 7 5 5 4 8 2 2 . . 2 1 5 6 5 0 1 1 0 2 . . 1 6 4 0 6 9 0 1 . . 5 7 0 5 0 0 1 2 0 .2 .0 5 8 0 7 0 0 . . 7 7 9 2 0 0 0 0 . . 1 1 6 6 3 6 2 1 . . 8 8 9 7 1 8 1 1 3 1 . . 0 4 0 1 3 3 3 2 . . 6 5 8 9 1 8 1 1 6 5 . . 5 7 5 7 8 6 0 0 . . 3 2 1 6 5 0 1 1 . . 4 5 1 8 8 4 1 4 . . 0 2 0 5 0 0
4 0.730 4.383 #DIV/0! 2.833 #DIV/0! 0.837 0.205 1.627 #DIV/0! 2.464 #DIV/0! 0.233 #DIV/0! 1.000
1 0.735 2.400 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.720 0.259 1.722 #DIV/0! 2.442 #DIV/0! 0.205 #DIV/0! 6.050
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 6 6 4 3 4 3 1 1 . . 7 7 4 4 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 3 . . 5 2 0 5 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 7 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 . . 3 2 8 8 5 0 2 1 . . 0 9 1 5 8 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 2 . . 7 6 3 7 8 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 4 4 6 0 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 0 6 0 0 0 0
4 0.640 1.477 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.720 0.287 2.352 #DIV/0! 3.072 #DIV/0! 0.450 #DIV/0! 2.067
1 0.583 1.955 #DIV/0! 1.750 #DIV/0! 0.720 0.100 2.719 #DIV/0! 3.439 #DIV/0! 0.610 #DIV/0! 1.000
1-Feb 2 0.613 1.560 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.720 0.100 2.327 #DIV/0! 3.047 #DIV/0! 0.650 #DIV/0! 1.000

Stream Effluent Spray Effluent
Flow BOD TSS TKN Ammonia NO2 + NO3 Total Nitrogen-N TP Ge E o . m Co e l a i n Flow BOD TSS TKN NO2 + NO3 Ammonia TP E. Coli
Year M1-oFnetbh We
3
ek
0
M
.6
G
2
D
3 1
m
.8
g
8
/L
0 #
lb
D
s
I
/
V
d
/
a
0
y
! 0
m
.5
g
0
/L
0 #
lb
D
s
I
/
V
d
/
a
0
y
! 0
m
.7
g
9
/L
0 0
m
.1
g
2
/L
9 2
m
.3
g
7
/L
5 #
lb
D
s
I
/
V
d
/
a
0
y
! 3
m
.1
g
6
/L
5 #
lb
D
s
I
/
V
d
/
a
0
y
! 0
m
.5
g
6
/L
0 #
lb
D
s
I
/
V
d
/
a
0
y
!
MPN
1
/
.0
1
0
0
0
0 ml MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L MPN/100 ml
4 0.645 1.903 #DIV/0! 1.333 #DIV/0! 0.720 0.232 2.901 #DIV/0! 3.621 #DIV/0! 0.757 #DIV/0! 1.000
1 0.729 2.720 #DIV/0! 2.000 #DIV/0! 0.720 0.259 2.342 #DIV/0! 3.062 #DIV/0! 0.640 #DIV/0! 100.750
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 6 6 6 1 7 4 2 2 . . 6 5 7 7 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 1 . . 8 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 . . 1 3 7 8 3 0 1 1 . . 5 3 9 3 1 1 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 2 . . 4 4 1 5 1 1 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 6 2 4 4 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 5 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.624 3.165 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! 0.855 0.394 1.549 #DIV/0! 2.404 #DIV/0! 0.295 #DIV/0! 1.000
1 0.525 1.860 0.750 0.720 1.287 2.007 0.251 0.225
1-Apr 2 3 0 0 . . 5 3 4 5 6 6 1 1 . . 6 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 . . 5 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 . . 7 8 5 0 0 0 1 1 . . 4 8 0 9 7 0 2 2 . . 1 6 5 9 7 0 0 0 . . 2 2 3 6 3 0 0 0 . . 2 6 8 8 0 0
4 0.390 1.677 1.000 1.250 1.972 3.222 0.351 1.030
1 0.111 1.435 0.500 0.910 2.106 3.016 0.285 1.865
1-May 2 3 0 0 . . 0 5 5 0 3 2 1 1 . . 2 2 4 7 5 0 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 7 7 2 2 0 0 1 2 . . 8 3 1 9 4 2 2 3 . . 5 1 3 1 4 2 0 0 . . 1 2 7 3 1 2 1 1 . . 8 9 3 6 0 5
4 0.086 1.090 0.500 0.987 1.745 2.732 0.194 1.387
1 0.038 1.135 0.500 0.930 2.488 3.418 0.297 1.615
1-Jun 2 3 0 0 . . 1 6 4 1 7 4 1 1 . . 3 0 9 1 5 5 1 0 . . 2 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 . . 9 8 0 3 0 5 1 1 . . 9 2 9 7 6 1 3 2 . . 8 1 9 0 6 6 0 0 . . 1 1 9 2 1 1 1 1 . . 0 4 7 6 5 5
2019 4 1 0 0 . . 5 3 2 3 3 0 1 1 . . 1 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 8 8 8 5 5 0 1 1 . . 4 1 0 5 3 6 2 2 . . 2 0 8 0 8 6 0 0 . . 1 1 1 0 3 0 2 2 . . 0 2 3 1 5 5
1-Jul 2 3 0 0 . . 7 6 1 6 3 3 1 1 . . 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 . . 3 7 0 5 0 0 1 0 . . 1 7 8 9 0 0 1 1 . . 1 2 8 2 6 7 2 2 . . 3 0 6 1 6 7 0 0 . . 1 3 0 9 0 1 2 2 . . 4 9 8 0 0 0
4 0.854 1.175 0.500 0.720 1.144 1.864 0.130 2.563
1 0.681 1.295 0.500 0.720 1.289 2.009 0.120 1.950
1-Aug 2 3 0 0 . . 4 6 8 4 0 1 1 1 . . 0 5 5 1 0 5 0 2 . . 5 2 0 5 0 0 1 1 . . 9 0 7 0 0 0 1 1 . . 4 5 5 0 5 0 3 2 . . 4 5 2 0 5 0 0 0 . . 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 . . 3 2 4 9 0 5
4 0.411 1.070 0.500 0.860 1.615 2.475 0.100 1.980
1 0.412 1.030 0.500 1.000 1.558 2.558 0.100 1.860
1-Sep 2 3 0 0 . . 4 5 7 3 1 7 1 1 . . 0 0 0 8 0 5 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 7 5 5 0 8 0 2 2 . . 7 5 5 0 8 0 0 0 . . 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 . . 7 9 0 6 0 5
4 0.304 1.115 0.750 1.000 1.659 2.659 0.121 1.905
1 0.221 1.230 1.000 1.000 1.437 2.536 0.195 1.537
1-Oct 2 3 0 0 . . 0 0 9 3 0 6 1 1 . . 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 7 4 9 5 9 5 2 2 . . 7 4 9 9 9 8 0 0 . . 1 1 1 5 1 7 2 1 . . 2 7 5 5 0 0
4 0.032 1.103 0.625 1.000 1.868 2.868 0.337 1.950
1 0.265 1.355 1.250 1.000 1.317 2.317 0.100 1.620
1-Nov 2 3 0 0 . . 1 5 1 0 1 9 1 1 . . 2 0 8 8 0 5 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 4 4 1 4 1 7 2 2 . . 4 4 1 4 1 7 0 0 . . 1 1 4 8 2 6 1 1 . . 5 2 3 8 5 0
4 0.194 2.520 0.750 0.790 0.922 1.712 0.295 0.970
1 0.442 1.840 #DIV/0! 0.750 #DIV/0! 0.500 0.145 0.873 #DIV/0! 1.373 #DIV/0! 1.535 #DIV/0! 1.500
1-Dec 2 3 0 0 . . 4 3 5 9 5 6 1 2 . . 7 3 2 2 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 7 5 5 0 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 5 6 7 8 3 5 0 0 . . 2 8 8 8 5 9 1 0 . . 5 8 2 6 4 2 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 1 . . 0 5 9 4 6 7 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 0 . . 9 9 8 5 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 2 0 0 2 0 . . 3 5 5 0 0 0
4 0.412 1.177 #DIV/0! 0.833 #DIV/0! 0.500 0.161 0.816 #DIV/0! 1.316 #DIV/0! 0.377 #DIV/0! 72.000
1 0.415 1.535 #DIV/0! 0.750 #DIV/0! 0.500 0.415 0.878 #DIV/0! 1.378 #DIV/0! 0.630 #DIV/0! 2.600
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 5 1 0 3 1 1 . . 2 0 9 0 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 5 7 0 5 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 5 5 0 6 0 8 0 0 . . 2 2 6 2 9 1 1 1 . . 1 0 6 2 4 9 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 6 5 6 9 4 6 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 4 9 6 5 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 10 4 1 .2 .2 0 5 0 0
4 0.441 1.530 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.500 0.226 1.383 #DIV/0! 1.883 #DIV/0! 0.753 #DIV/0! 2.367
1 0.457 1.595 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.500 0.211 1.254 #DIV/0! 1.754 #DIV/0! 0.965 #DIV/0! 12.100
1-Feb 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 7 6 4 6 2 1 . . 9 9 2 4 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 0 . . 2 5 5 0 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 5 6 7 7 0 5 0 0 . . 5 5 5 7 7 7 1 1 . . 3 2 0 7 3 9 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 8 9 7 5 3 4 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 0 . . 3 8 3 6 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 2 0 0 1 0 . . 2 5 5 0 0 0
4 0.402 3.265 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.730 0.379 1.128 #DIV/0! 1.858 #DIV/0! 1.050 #DIV/0! 200.500
1 0.448 2.010 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.690 0.538 1.094 #DIV/0! 1.784 #DIV/0! 0.830 #DIV/0! 200.500
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 4 4 5 4 1 1 . . 6 9 1 8 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 1 . . 7 7 5 5 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 5 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 . . 4 5 8 0 4 1 1 0 . . 0 9 4 3 9 2 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 5 8 4 3 9 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 5 9 1 5 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 10 1 0 .0 .7 0 5 0 0
4 0.470 2.177 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.878 0.555 0.920 #DIV/0! 1.798 #DIV/0! 0.967 #DIV/0! 200.500
1 0.376 1.640 1.750 0.848 5.136 5.983 0.443 1.635
1-Apr 2 3 0 0 . . 0 0 0 5 0 6 1 1 . . 4 5 7 3 0 5 1 0 . . 2 7 5 5 0 0 0 0 . . 5 5 6 3 8 5 1 1 . . 5 4 6 4 2 5 1 1 . . 7 9 7 8 9 0 0 0 . . 3 2 0 9 9 1 1 2 . . 4 1 5 6 0 0
4 0.096 1.310 1.833 0.617 1.592 2.209 0.277 1.390
1 0.020 1.640 1.500 0.500 1.545 2.045 0.218 1.915
1-May 2 3 0 0 . . 4 5 1 1 6 4 1 1 . . 6 4 8 0 5 0 1 1 . . 0 2 0 5 0 0 4 0 . . 0 5 9 8 0 8 0 1 . . 4 1 7 2 8 0 4 1 . . 5 7 6 0 8 7 3 0 . . 4 2 2 1 0 5 1 0 . . 8 8 3 8 0 5
4 0.082 2.100 0.500 0.500 1.238 1.738 0.260 2.015
1 0.419 1.170 1.500 0.500 1.210 1.710 0.248 1.770
1-Jun 2 3 0 0 . . 4 3 5 6 6 5 1 1 . . 0 6 8 5 5 0 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 4 2 . . 7 0 7 8 0 0 1 0 . . 0 8 9 6 3 3 5 2 . . 8 9 6 4 3 3 0 0 . . 3 2 1 2 0 9 2 1 . . 5 7 3 6 5 5
2020 4 1 0 0 . . 6 3 7 7 6 4 1 1 . . 4 5 0 6 0 0 0 1 . . 6 5 6 0 7 0 0 0 . . 9 5 5 0 8 0 0 1 . . 9 0 9 2 1 4 1 1 . . 9 5 5 2 0 4 0 0 . . 1 1 6 2 6 6 2 2 . . 6 5 2 0 0 0
1-Jul 2 3 0 0 . . 3 7 9 3 1 4 1 1 . . 0 2 9 7 0 0 1 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 2 3 6 5 6 6 1 1 . . 7 8 6 5 6 6 0 0 . . 1 3 7 3 5 3 2 2 . . 3 4 8 0 0 0
4 0.330 1.323 0.667 0.798 1.496 2.033 0.471 1.870
1 0.000 1.945 0.750 1.313 3.542 4.854 0.391 2.950
1-Aug 2 3 0 0 . . 4 1 7 9 7 0 2 1 . . 8 1 0 6 5 0 0 0 . . 7 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 . . 0 9 1 9 8 0 1 1 . . 3 8 1 6 7 3 2 2 . . 3 8 3 5 5 3 1 0 . . 3 2 0 4 3 7 2 2 . . 5 6 1 3 5 0
4 0.609 1.665 0.500 0.823 1.793 2.615 0.169 2.420
1 0.304 1.900 0.500 1.393 1.612 3.004 0.154 1.730
1-Sep 2 3 0 0 . . 3 5 1 7 1 9 1 1 . . 9 0 7 9 0 5 0 0 . . 5 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 . . 9 5 0 0 5 0 1 1 . . 9 5 0 0 4 2 2 2 . . 8 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 . . 1 1 4 8 9 9 1 1 . . 6 6 8 8 5 5
4 0.544 1.920 1.125 0.521 1.358 1.880 0.166 1.303
1 0.188 2.900 0.500 0.500 1.167 1.667 0.254 1.180
1-Oct 2 3 0 0 . . 2 4 0 6 3 6 3 2 . . 3 4 8 6 5 0 0 0 . . 5 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 . . 5 6 0 9 0 5 1 1 . . 0 4 1 3 0 6 1 2 . . 5 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 . . 2 2 7 3 6 8 0 1 . . 8 4 6 8 5 5
4 0.404 2.015 0.500 0.533 1.147 1.679 0.409 1.635
1 0.726 1.305 0.500 0.500 1.273 1.773 0.462 1.935
1-Nov 2 3 0 0 . . 3 8 4 0 9 5 1 3 . . 3 3 4 1 5 0 0 0 . . 5 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 2 2 3 6 3 4 1 1 . . 7 7 3 6 3 5 0 0 . . 3 3 7 6 7 2 1 1 . . 4 5 8 8 0 5
4 0.277 2.255 0.500 2.853 1.435 3.788 0.519 1.135
1 0.701 1.550 #DIV/0! 1.250 #DIV/0! 2.293 0.427 1.190 #DIV/0! 3.482 #DIV/0! 0.785 #DIV/0! 20.150
1-Dec 2 3 0 0 . . 6 7 5 5 8 3 1 1 . . 8 8 1 0 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 5 5 0 0 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 2 . . 8 7 5 7 5 0 0 0 . . 5 4 2 4 1 1 1 1 . . 2 7 8 0 3 3 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 4 4 . . 1 4 3 7 8 3 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 1 . . 8 3 1 3 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 7 6 6 4 . . 1 6 0 0 0 0
4 0.731 1.897 #DIV/0! 1.500 #DIV/0! 4.867 0.300 1.668 #DIV/0! 6.534 #DIV/0! 0.857 #DIV/0! 381.300
1 0.778 1.515 #DIV/0! 1.500 #DIV/0! <1.0 0.275 1.762 #DIV/0! 2.262 #DIV/0! 1.165 #DIV/0! 1.000
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 7 6 1 9 7 9 1 1 . . 3 8 7 1 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 3 3 . . 0 5 0 0 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 < .5 1 1 .0 0 0 0 . . 3 4 9 3 7 0 1 1 . . 9 8 5 1 7 9 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 2 . . 7 8 1 1 2 9 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 0 . . 0 9 0 0 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 < .0 1 0 .0 0
4 0.634 1.460 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! 1.030 0.192 2.134 #DIV/0! 3.149 #DIV/0! 0.715 #DIV/0! <1.0
1 0.644 1.370 #DIV/0! <0.5 #DIV/0! 1.020 0.187 2.005 #DIV/0! 3.025 #DIV/0! 0.900 #DIV/0! <1.0
1-Feb 2 3 0 0 . . 6 6 3 7 4 6 1 1 . . 4 6 9 0 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 2 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 < .0 1 5 .0 0 0 0 . . 2 1 2 5 5 6 2 3 . . 3 2 9 6 6 8 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 3 4 . . 3 2 9 9 6 3 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 8 7 5 3 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 0 2 8 1 2 3 . . 1 5 5 0 0 0
4 0.743 1.640 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! <1.0 0.296 2.475 #DIV/0! 3.475 #DIV/0! 0.455 #DIV/0! <1.0
1 0.799 <1.0 #DIV/0! 20.500 #DIV/0! <1.0 0.314 2.148 #DIV/0! 3.148 #DIV/0! 0.360 #DIV/0! <1.0
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 6 6 9 5 3 1 2 1 . . 0 1 6 7 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! < < 0 0 . . 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 < .1 1 5 .0 5 1 0 . . 4 2 3 0 8 0 1 1 . . 7 7 1 7 5 6 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 3 2 . . 8 7 7 7 0 6 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 4 1 0 0 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 121 <1 0. .0 300
4 0.651 1.580 #DIV/0! 1.500 #DIV/0! 1.910 0.273 1.886 #DIV/0! 3.190 #DIV/0! 0.157 #DIV/0! 7.750
1 0.628 2.607 <0.5 1.350 1.593 0.265 0.340 4.650
1-Apr 2 3 0 0 . . 5 5 6 4 9 2 2 2 . . 5 2 3 2 0 0 1 < . 0 0 . 0 5 0 1 0 . . 3 9 0 7 0 0 2 2 . . 1 1 9 2 4 5 0 0 . . 7 1 8 7 0 0 0 0 . . 2 1 9 7 5 0 1 3 1 . . 1 5 0 5 0 0
4 0.540 2.995 2.500 2.420 2.065 1.010 0.860 2419.600
1 0.503 2.740 1.500 1.950 2.015 0.523 2.550 <1.0
1-May 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 7 6 7 8 2 3 . . 3 2 5 3 0 0 1 < . 0 5 . 0 5 0 1 2 . . 6 7 2 7 0 5 2 2 . . 4 6 6 1 0 5 0 0 . . 6 4 5 5 5 7 2 2 . . 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 < . 1 0 . 0 0 0
4 0.468 2.970 <0.5 2.405 3.085 0.572 2.900 <1.0
1 0.457 2.900 <0.5 1.445 2.835 0.217 1.900 1.000
1-Jun 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 5 3 3 8 2 2 . . 9 5 2 5 0 0 < < 0 0 . . 5 5 1 0 . . 1 4 4 5 5 5 2 2 . . 5 6 4 4 5 5 0 0 . . 1 1 5 4 6 3 2 2 . . 1 2 7 0 0 0 < < 1 1 . . 0 0
4 0.438 3.175 3.000 1.338 2.853 0.224 2.643 <1.0
1 0.443 2.380 <0.5 1.210 2.145 0.186 1.715 1.000
1-Jul 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 1 1 5 8 2 2 . . 3 2 8 4 0 0 < < 0 0 . . 5 5 1 < . 1 2 . 8 0 0 2 3 . . 2 0 1 8 5 5 0 0 . . 2 2 6 0 2 9 1 1 . . 0 9 8 2 0 0 2 < . 1 7 . 9 0 5
4 0.398 2.930 <0.5 <1.0 3.495 0.215 2.120 1.000
1 0.408 3.215 <0.5 1.255 1.390 0.374 0.700 <1.0
1-Aug 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 1 3 6 4 4 5 . . 1 3 9 5 5 0 2 1 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 . . 6 9 2 0 0 0 0 1 . . 8 8 5 4 5 5 0 8 . . 5 7 9 9 9 0 0 0 . . 7 4 8 0 5 5 14 < 3 1 . . 7 0 00
4 0.420 2.583 3.000 1.923 2.093 0.154 1.357 3.767
1 0.412 1.660 <0.5 1.320 2.000 0.165 1.450 3.100

Stream Effluent Spray Effluent
Flow BOD TSS TKN Ammonia NO2 + NO3 Total Nitrogen-N TP Ge E o . m Co e l a i n Flow BOD TSS TKN NO2 + NO3 Ammonia TP E. Coli
Year Month Week MGD mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L mg/L mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day MPN/100 ml MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L MPN/100 ml
1-Sep 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 . . 8 5 5 8 0 5 1 < . 0 0 . 0 5 0 1 < . 1 1 . 2 0 0 2 2 . . 2 1 6 4 5 5 0 0 . . 1 1 6 7 0 0 1 1 . . 3 4 6 1 5 0 3 < . 1 1 . 0 0 0
4 0.441 1.533 <0.5 <1.0 1.997 0.166 1.737 1.000
1 0.400 1.460 <0.5 <1.0 1.840 0.218 2.100 <1.0
1-Oct 2 3 0 0 . . 4 3 0 9 1 7 1 1 . . 9 2 1 8 0 0 2 < . 0 0 . 0 5 0 1 1 . . 0 4 7 5 0 0 1 1 . . 4 5 3 6 5 5 0 0 . . 2 2 1 7 9 4 1 1 . . 5 4 6 8 5 5 >2 < 4 1 1 . 9 0 .6
4 0.431 1.320 1.000 1.370 1.395 0.348 2.185 1210.300
1 0.413 1.455 <0.5 2.070 0.950 0.381 1.765 <1.0
1-Nov 2 3 0 0 . . 4 3 0 9 6 3 1 1 . . 3 3 0 0 0 0 < < 0 0 . . 5 5 2 2 . . 2 9 7 8 0 5 1 0 . . 5 8 6 1 0 5 0 0 . . 3 4 6 1 6 6 2 1 . . 6 4 0 6 0 5 5 < . 1 2 . 0 0 0
4 0.428 1.365 1.000 1.840 0.760 0.474 0.977 <1.0
1 0.472 1.435 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! 2.155 0.808 0.785 #DIV/0! 2.940 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! <1.0
1-Dec 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 4 2 3 4 1 1 . . 8 6 5 2 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! < < 0 0 . . 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 4 4 7 3 0 5 0 0 . . 7 8 9 1 2 9 0 0 . . 9 9 1 6 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 2 . . 6 4 9 0 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 9 7 3 0 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 < .0 1 0 .0 0
4 0.439 2.340 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! 2.527 1.078 0.817 #DIV/0! 3.343 #DIV/0! 0.767 #DIV/0! 1.000
1 0.468 1.555 #DIV/0! <0.5 #DIV/0! 1.825 0.551 1.470 #DIV/0! 3.295 #DIV/0! 0.510 #DIV/0! <1.0
1-Jan 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 5 8 8 4 1 1 .5 .2 9 9 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! < < 0 0 . . 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 3 .9 .4 7 2 5 0 0 . . 5 6 4 5 8 9 5 5 1 0 . . 0 9 5 2 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 4 . . 8 4 9 7 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 6 7 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! < < 1 1 . . 0 0
4 0.425 1.895 #DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0! 1.81 0.854 1.007 #DIV/0! 2.817 #DIV/0! 0.78 #DIV/0! <1.0
1 0.479 1.400 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! 1.450 0.630 0.845 #DIV/0! 2.295 #DIV/0! 0.795 #DIV/0! 5.400
1-Feb 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 3 3 4 0 1 1 . . 8 4 5 8 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! < < 0 0 . . 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 4 4 3 6 0 0 0 0 . . 6 7 0 2 4 6 0 0 . . 4 7 4 1 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 2 . . 8 1 7 7 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 0 0 . . 6 6 1 0 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! < < 1 1 . . 0 0
4 0.447 4.093 #DIV/0! 2.333 #DIV/0! 1.923 1.043 0.633 #DIV/0! 2.557 #DIV/0! 1.043 #DIV/0! 1.000
1 0.431 5.380 #DIV/0! 2.000 #DIV/0! 1.830 1.080 1.255 #DIV/0! 3.085 #DIV/0! 0.850 #DIV/0! <1.0
1-Mar 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 4 5 9 5 3 3 . . 6 6 9 3 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 < .0 0 0 .5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 6 4 2 9 0 0 0 0 . . 8 7 7 3 0 0 1 1 . . 3 2 8 9 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 3 2 . . 0 7 0 8 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 1 . . 1 0 0 5 0 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 2 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.421 3.193 #DIV/0! 4.500 #DIV/0! 1.460 0.653 1.270 #DIV/0! 2.730 #DIV/0! 0.920 #DIV/0! 1210.300
1 0.446 2.730 3.000 1.445 1.285 0.880 0.930 1.000
1-Apr 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 2 1 1 9 1 1 . . 5 3 5 3 5 0 2 < . 0 0 . 0 5 0 1 < . 1 0 . 2 0 0 1 0 . . 4 9 5 3 0 0 0 0 . . 4 3 8 0 5 1 1 0 . . 3 9 5 5 0 0 121 <1 0. .0 300
4 0.399 1.945 2.000 <1.0 0.510 0.145 1.700 2.000
1 0.418 1.820 <0.5 1.225 0.915 0.442 3.000 307.600
1-May 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 0 1 2 2 3 3 . . 0 5 9 7 0 0 < < 0 0 . . 5 5 1 1 . . 2 4 8 5 0 0 0 0 . . 4 1 7 3 5 0 0 0 . . 5 6 2 9 7 3 2 2 . . 1 2 7 0 0 0 34 < 6 1 . . 0 0 00
4 0.430 2.587 3.000 1.920 0.443 0.687 2.490 4.100
1 0.391 2.580 4.000 1.975 0.520 0.556 2.515 1.000
1-Jun 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 9 8 8 5 2 3 . . 7 1 5 8 5 0 < < 0 0 . . 5 5 1 1 . . 4 1 1 3 5 0 0 0 . . 5 7 6 8 5 5 0 0 . . 7 4 0 2 3 3 2 2 . . 6 7 3 3 0 0 12 1 1 . 0 0 . 0 3 0 00
4 0.400 2.207 1.000 1.205 0.703 0.209 2.620 1.000
1 0.391 1.380 <0.5 1.260 1.130 0.270 3.330 1.000
1-Jul 2 3 0 0 . . 4 4 1 2 7 0 1 1 . . 4 9 1 2 0 5 5 2 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . 1 0 6 4 0 0 1 1 . . 3 5 9 5 0 5 0 0 . . 2 3 8 3 7 6 3 2 . . 0 8 4 1 0 5 < < 1 1 . . 0 0
4 0.392 1.875 1.000 <1.0 1.480 0.264 2.665 <1.0
1 0.391 1.445 <0.5 <1.0 2.515 0.218 3.015 1222.750
1-Aug 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 8 5 4 1 1 1 . . 4 4 8 4 0 5 < < 0 0 . . 5 5 1 1 . . 1 2 4 2 0 0 1 6 . . 6 3 7 7 0 5 0 0 . . 1 1 5 2 6 4 4 3 . . 1 6 5 2 0 0 < < 1 1 . . 0 0
4 0.353 1.687 4.500 1.110 3.383 0.164 3.700 1210.300
1 0.367 2.065 <0.5 <1.0 4.555 <0.1 1.835 <1.0
1-Sep 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 6 5 9 2 2 2 . . 0 9 5 1 0 0 2 1 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 < . 1 6 . 7 0 0 4 2 . . 6 4 1 3 0 5 < < 0 0 . . 1 1 2 3 . . 8 0 5 0 0 0 3 < . 1 0 . 0 0 0
4 0.352 1.745 1.000 <1.0 2.265 0.122 2.250 353.800
1 0.413 1.615 1.000 <1.0 2.450 0.127 0.783 42.800
1-Oct 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 8 8 1 4 1 1 . . 9 5 4 5 5 0 1 < . 0 5 . 0 5 0 1 < . 1 0 . 3 0 0 2 1 . . 1 7 3 9 5 0 < < 0 0 . . 1 1 2 2 . . 1 7 0 5 0 0 1 < . 1 0 . 0 0 0
4 0.404 1.560 <0.5 <1.0 2.450 <0.1 2.470 <1.0
1 0.391 - - - - - - <1.0
1-Nov 2 3 0 0 . . 3 3 7 9 1 0 1 1 . . 5 4 1 9 0 0 2 < . 0 0 . 0 5 0 < < 1 1 . . 0 0 1 1 . . 5 4 8 2 0 0 < < 0 0 . . 1 1 0 0 . . 3 8 3 3 3 3 < < 1 1 . . 0 0
4 0.378 1.640 2.000 <1.0 1.565 0.106 1.235 <1.0
1 0.476 1.130 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! 1.030 0.149 2.435 #DIV/0! 2.950 #DIV/0! 2.420 #DIV/0! <1.0
1-Dec 2 3 0 0 . . 4 5 4 3 0 9 1 1 . . 5 1 0 5 5 0 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! < < 0 0 . . 5 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 < .0 1 4 .0 0 0 0 . . 1 2 7 2 3 3 2 2 . . 0 1 3 2 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 2 . . 5 1 5 2 0 5 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 2 1 . . 7 1 8 8 5 4 # # D D I I V V / / 0 0 ! ! 1 < .0 1 0 .0 0
4 0.508 1.195 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/0! 1.150 0.170 2.863 #DIV/0! 3.247 #DIV/0! 2.163 #DIV/0! 1613.400
2014-2022
Max 0.799 9.000 #DIV/0! 20.500 #DIV/0! 4.867 3.510 3.608 #DIV/0! 6.690 #DIV/0! 2.785 #DIV/0! 1613.400 1.094 7.230 6.075 9.900 6.375 8.790 4.150 2419.600
Average 0.469 2.635 #DIV/0! 1.913 #DIV/0! 1.061 0.361 1.730 #DIV/0! 2.772 #DIV/0! 0.558 #DIV/0! 77.370 0.383 2.238 1.448 1.171 1.702 1.167 1.243 63.835
Min 0.303 1.000 #DIV/0! 0.500 #DIV/0! 0.333 0.100 0.445 #DIV/0! 1.316 #DIV/0! 0.069 #DIV/0! 1.000 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.336 0.130 0.100 0.100 0.220

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
Data 2: Operating Effluent Annual Spreadsheet

Stream Effluent Spray Effluent Total Flow
Calendar Flow BOD TSS TKN Ammonia NO2 + NO3 Total Nitrogen-N TP Geom Co e l a i n E. Flow BOD TSS TKN NO2 + NO3 Nitr T o o g t e a n l -N Ammonia TP Geom Co e l a i n E.
Year MGD mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L mg/L mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day MPN/100 ml MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L MPN/100 ml MGD
2014 0.34 4.19 12.17 3.53 10.08 1.20 0.50 2.09 5.97 3.29 9.45 0.25 0.76 1.28 0.25 2.72 4.22 0.82 2.28 3.10 0.22 0.79 3.54 0.58
2015 0.38 3.15 9.92 1.31 3.91 0.71 0.14 1.89 6.13 2.61 8.37 0.18 0.57 4.52 0.25 3.87 3.03 0.85 1.62 2.31 0.18 1.13 2.72 0.63
2016 0.45 2.15 7.87 1.21 4.57 0.45 0.17 2.32 8.44 2.76 10.13 0.21 0.76 4.80 0.25 3.44 1.57 0.81 1.58 2.39 0.23 2.02 2.57 0.70
2017 0.38 2.50 7.88 1.77 5.48 0.85 0.20 1.46 4.60 2.32 7.29 0.46 1.43 1.22 0.21 3.17 1.52 0.90 1.42 2.30 0.16 1.82 5.99 0.59
2018 0.49 3.44 12.27 2.80 10.26 1.13 0.37 1.72 6.74 2.91 11.36 0.45 1.82 20.59 0.36 2.76 1.17 1.09 1.58 2.63 0.19 1.68 3.69 0.84
2019 0.59 2.02 9.917 0.99 4.836 0.72 0.28 1.83 8.985 2.55 12.511 0.66 3.241 31.31 0.37 1.27 0.67 0.98 1.58 2.56 0.18 1.67 5.22 0.96
2020 0.51 1.87 7.992 0.79 3.358 1.34 0.41 1.21 5.186 2.55 10.906 0.88 3.750 117.81 0.37 1.76 0.86 1.00 1.50 2.46 0.40 1.84 7.64 0.88
2021 0.59 1.63 8.052 2.84 14.036 1.86 0.54 1.63 8.063 3.15 15.528 0.68 3.348 461.08 0.45 2.41 1.89 1.96 2.03 3.77 0.57 1.58 236.15 1.04
2022 0.46 2.40 9.166 2.08 7.940 1.74 0.63 1.39 5.301 2.82 10.799 1.16 4.428 2.40 0.39 2.06 2.35 1.37 1.83 2.71 0.37 2.43 234.03 0.85
2014-2022
Max 0.588 4.187 12.274 3.529 10.261 1.338 0.500 2.319 8.985 3.287 12.511 0.877 3.750 117.814 0.368 3.869 4.221 1.091 2.275 3.097 0.399 2.021 7.643
Avg 0.447 2.758 9.717 1.770 6.071 0.914 0.294 1.789 6.578 2.712 10.002 0.441 1.762 25.933 0.292 2.713 1.864 0.922 1.650 2.535 0.224 1.567 4.481
Min 0.335 1.870 7.865 0.786 3.358 0.446 0.136 1.214 4.597 2.316 7.286 0.176 0.571 1.225 0.208 1.271 0.666 0.810 1.423 2.305 0.164 0.794 2.569
Max Load (lbs/year)
TN: 1501.3TP: 450.0

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report
Centreville, MD
Data 3: Influent Sample Spreadsheet

Centreville WW 24 hr Composite Influent Sampling 2023 Centreville WW 24 hr Composite Influent Sampling 2017
Sample Date BOD TSS Ammonia TKN Nitrate/Nitrite Sample Date BOD TSS Ammonia TKN Nitrate/Nitrite pH TP
3.20.23 148 76 28.2 36.4 0.24 19.19.17 71.53 57 26.3 26.41<0.065 7.06 1.5
3.22.23 115 121 27.5 36.7 1.91 29.20.17 79.8 57 26.5 29.13<0.042 7.12 1.73
3.24.23 135 137 21 16.2<0.10 310.03.17 184.8 358 39.8 46.46<0.065 7.57 7.97
3.27.23 129 124 21.1 34.4<0.10 410.04.17 101.1 70 28.4 32.88<0.042 7.34 3.63
3.29.23 122 189 26 41.3<0.10 510.10.17 132.2 60 36.2 31.85<0.042 7.19 3.57
3.31.23 109 50 37.4 38.2 1.01 610.11.17 199.3 120 30.3 38.46<0.042 7.27 5.57
710.17.17 96.7 75 32.1 29.45 0.304 7.26 2.4
810.18.17 106.5 62.5 36.9 30.27<0.065 7.22 2.13
910.24.17 180.4 73 35.9 37.12<0.065 7.2 3.53

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Appendix D
Major Process Equipment Catalog Information
Page 101

Item 2: Dewatering Solids

Item 3: Sequence Batch Reactor

Item 4: Aerobic Granular Sludge

Item 5: Final Clarifier

5/6/2024
1 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
May 6, 2024
Attn: Irene Pais
Geiger Pump & Equipment Company
830 Tryens Road
Aston PA 19014
USA
Phone: (610) 459-5747
Fax: (610) 459-3992
email: IPais@geigerinc.com
Re: Centreville, MD - WRA - Centreville, MD
Polychem™ Chain and Flight Sludge Collection System
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL
Brentwood Industries, Polychem Brand, proposes and offers to supply all materials and services as an
Approved manufacturer and in general accordance with Brentwood's standard practices and
specifications, clarifications, and information provided.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S): N/A
SECTION(S): N/A
ADDENDA RECEIVED: N/A
BRENTWOOD PROPOSES TO FURNISH POLYCHEM CHAIN AND FLIGHT EQUIPMENT AS FOLLOWS:
Four ( 4 ) Secondary Longitudinal Collector Mechanisms, Approximately
60 FT Long x 16.75 FT Wide x 14 FT AWD, 4 Shaft System
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
2 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
*ITEMS INCLUDED:
ITEM DESCRIPTION / MATERIAL
Drive Chain NH78, Reinforced Nylon Resin w/ 303 SS Pins
Collector Chain Pins and
Glass Reinforced Nylon Pins w/ Acetal Retainer Clips
Retainer Clips
Collector Chain Links NCS-720-S, Reinforced Thermoplastic Polyester Resin
Flight Attachment Links NCS-720-S, Reinforced Thermoplastic Polyester Resin, F-22-8
3''x8'' nominal C-Channel w/ Integral Lip, Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic,
Flights
spaced at 10 Ft ( 3.05 m ) intervals
Wear Shoes Nylon 6-6
Hardware 316 SS
Fillerblocks Polypropylene
Headshaft Spindles Cast Nylon-6
Biaxially Wrapped Fiberglass Epoxy Tube(s) w/ Internal UHMW-PE
Headshaft(s)
Tubular Bearings
Driven Sprocket(s) NH78, 40T, Cast Nylon-6, w/integral teeth
Collector Sprockets for
NCS-720-S, 23T, Cast Nylon-6
Headshaft(s)
Set Collars Split, Cast Nylon-6, w/ 316 SS Clamping Band
Headshaft Keys Glass Reinforced Nylon 6-6
Collector Sprockets for Stub
NCS-720-S, 17T, Cast Nylon-6
Shafts
Idler Stub Shafts Cast Nylon-6 w/UHMW-PE Outer Journal Bearing
Retainer Plate for Stub Shafts Polycarbonate
Wall Bracket Supports for
Glass Reinforced Nylon 6-6
Return Track
Run Shoe to Splice Wall
Nylon 6-6
Bracket to Return Track
Return Track 3'' x 3'' x 3/8'' Angle, Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
3 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
*ITEMS INCLUDED (Continued):
ITEM DESCRIPTION / MATERIAL
Wear Strip UHMW-PE - 3/8'' thick x 2-5/8'' wide
Chain Tightener(s) for Drive Nylon 6-6 7T Sprocket w/ Cast Nylon-6 Arm and FRP Adjustable
Chain Mounting Bracket
Limit Switch DPDT, Cutler Hammer, Zinc Die Cast, NEMA 4X, SS Arm
Drive Sprocket Shear pin
11T Nylon Sprocket Mounted to 304 SS Shear Pin Hub
Assembly
Shear pin Kit(s) Aluminum
Drive Unit Output Shaft 304 SS
Drive(s) - Single, Each SEW Eurodrive Helical-Bevel Gear box (DIN-ISO) with integral mount
Driving (1) Collector SEW Motor (IEC), 1/2 HP, 3 PH, 60 Hz, 230/460 VAC
Base Plate for Drive Unit(s) 304 SS
Chain Guard for Drive Chain 304 SS
Deflector Rail (if required by FRP Angle Rail w/UHMW-PE Wear Strip and Nylon 6-6 Wall Support
equipment layout) Brackets
Anchor System 316 SS
Adhesive for Anchors w/
Hilti
Dispenser
Above Item Descriptions/Materials may vary slightly after engineering
*
and consultant review.
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
4 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
The following total estimated spare parts will be furnished for this project. After engineering, quantities
may vary from quantities listed below. Spare Parts will be packaged separately and plainly identified.
SPARE PARTS INCLUDED
QTY DESCRIPTION
20 feet of drive chain
10% of all collector chain furnished
10% of all chain-to-flight attachment links furnished
12 shear pins for every drive sprocket assembly furnished
5 longitudinal flights complete with wear shoes, fillerblocks, and hardware
1 replacement 11T drive sprocket (sprocket plate only)
ITEMS SPECIFICALLY NOT INCLUDED
1 SmartGuard Flight and Sprocket Monitoring System
2 Rotating Scum Troughs or Helical Skimmers
3 Control Panel(s)
4 Effluent Troughs, Weirs, Baffles
5 Seismic Calculations
6 Hold Down Rail, 304 SS
7 Tank Measurements
8 PE Stamp of Submittals
9 Triple or Right Angle Drives Operating Two (2) Common Longs & Cross Collector
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
5 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
EXISTING CONCRETE STRUCTURE (IF APPLICABLE):
Pricing and schedule are based on limited structural information provided at the time of quotation and assume the
necessary existing tank dimensions will be provided by purchaser in a timely manner to facilitate the start of submittals.
In lieu of customer supplied tank dimensions, purchaser may elect to procure Brentwood's Tank Measurement services.
Should the verified tank dimensions and equipment conditions differ from the information provided for quotation, and/or
require special bracketry or supporting structures, Brentwood reserves the right to revise pricing and schedule
accordingly. Delays associated with receipt of complete tank measurements, incomplete information from RFI’s, and
release and approval to manufacture may result in changes to the price and schedule.
TANK MEASUREMENTS:
Tank Measurements are NOT included in this price or proposal, but can be provided and billed per attached published
field labor and expense rates. If measurement services are purchased, Brentwood will require the assistance of one (1)
person while on site to support tank measurements, and tanks must be completely drained and cleaned before
entrance. In addition, customer / contractor shall supply all necessary equipment to safely access tanks (ladders,
lighting, etc.). Tank measurement services require a minimum 2 week notice and are based on technician availability.
SUBMITTALS:
Shop drawing and submittal preparation will be in accordance with Brentwood's standard submittal practices, and will
be based on one submittal for all tanks at one time. Should separate submittals for each tank be required at separate
intervals, Brentwood reserves the right to revise pricing accordingly.
TIME AND DELIVERY:
1. Brentwood will furnish initial submittal drawings approximately ten (10) Weeks
after receipt of executed purchase order and field verified structural dimensions and information. PE review,
calculations and stamp (if required) may be sent at a later date under separate cover.
2. Estimated Submittal Review: Brentwood estimates a four (4) week review period by consultant or
customer.
3. We further propose to furnish the equipment approximately thirteen (13) weeks after receipt of final
engineering approval and returned submittal drawings and release to manufacturing.
FREIGHT:
Freight allowed, best way, point of manufacture to job site. Requests for specific methods of shipment will be at
requestors’ expense. On-site transportation, unloading, and storage costs by others.
WEIGHT AND VOLUME:
Estimated weight is 11,300 Lbs. Estimated volume is One ( 1 ) Truck(s).
TAXES:
Pricing does not include any States’ sales tax if applicable, unless otherwise stated.
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
6 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
SCHEDULE OF VALUES & PAYMENT TERMS:
1. 15% with Shop drawing and submittal transmission; 35% with approved submittals and/or release to
manufacture; 50% on material shipment. All payments 100% Net 30 days from invoice date. Payment
terms subject to credit approval.
2. These terms are not contingent upon or in conjunction with any agreement purchaser has with
other parties.
3. For Brentwood Water & Wastewater Standard Terms and Conditions visit:
https://www.brentwoodindustries.com/terms/
ESCALATION:
The price(s) quoted are subject to adjustment to reflect increases in material cost(s), should these increases in price
exceed 3% during the specified Schedule of Construction. Increases are based on price indexes for PVC (ChemData)
and Stainless Steel (MEPS International), which can be provided upon request. It is understood and agreed that it will be
Brentwood's option whether to invoke escalation, should the price exceed this amount.
BILL AND HOLD:
If Purchaser fails to take delivery on any scheduled delivery date based on the terms of the executed purchase
Agreement, Brentwood reserves the right to reallocate any Product to other projects and reschedule production for the
delayed Product. Purchaser will be required to accept any increase in price associated with the repurchase of material
to fulfill the purchased Product requirements and the Product Delivery Date will be rescheduled in conjunction with
current production schedules.
If the Purchaser requests that Brentwood holds Product in excess of an agreed upon delivery date and Brentwood
agrees to hold the Product, Purchaser will provide written notification to Brentwood to store the Product at its facilities for
a period of time prior to shipment ("Bill and Hold"). Brentwood will provide written confirmation of the Bill and Hold to
Purchaser, including a Statement of Transfer of Title and invoice.
Payment for the Bill and Hold material is due in accordance with the agreed upon terms in the executed purchase
Agreement except to the extent dates must be adjusted due to delivery rescheduling, in which case adjusted dates will
be shown on the invoice. All payments will be made in accordance with the invoiced payment terms and instructions.
For all Bill and Holds, Purchaser acknowledges that (i) they have made a fixed commitment to purchase the Product, (ii)
risk of ownership for the Product passes to Purchaser upon signing Statement of Transfer, (iii) Purchaser has requested
that the Product be on a Bill and Hold basis for legitimate business purposes, (iv) if no delivery date is determined at the
time of invoicing and Statement of Transfer and Brentwood does not receive a request for delivery within two (2)months
from the Bill and Hold invoice date, Brentwood has the right to release the shipment upon written notice to Purchaser
any time following the two (2) month period from Bill and Hold invoice date. Brentwood shall be entitled to storage
charges of 1 ½% per month of the purchase value of stored material beginning 30 days after Bill and Hold invoice date
and continuing until the Product is picked up by Purchaser or shipped by Brentwood. Upon receipt of request from
Purchaser to ship the stored Product, Brentwood shall use commercially reasonable efforts to ship the Product within two
(2) to 4 (four) business weeks following confirmed receipt of such request.
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
7 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
VALIDITY:
This proposal is valid for a period not to exceed 90 days from latest date shown above unless extended by Brentwood in
writing. Pricing on this project is based upon shipment schedule as shown above. Extensions to delivery timelines or
requests for staged shipments may require renegotiation of pricing.
FIELD SERVICE STARTUP AND TRAINING:
The services of a qualified Brentwood field technician is included to assist in inspection of installed equipment, startup
and field testing, certification, and operator training, if required by specification. Duration limited to Two (2) trip(s) for
Four (4) man-day(s) on site total. Non use of contractual field service days does not generate a credit on this project.
Field service requires a minimum 2 week notice and is based on technician availability. Less notice may be
accommodated with additional costs.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS:
Unless otherwise specified, one (1) digital copy of our O&M manual and installation and layout drawings will be
furnished on or before shipment of equipment. Digital copy can be downloaded from our FTP site or finished on a USB
Flash drive. Digital copy of O&M shall be in Adobe pdf format and be locked and uneditable.
WARRANTY:
Brentwood warrants material supplied on this project to be free from defects in workmanship or materials for a period of
twelve (12) months from date of certification by an authorized Brentwood representative or eighteen (18) months from
date of shipment, whichever shall occur first. Warranty excludes labor to install or remove parts. Chain and flight system
is designed for continuous operation, and intermittent operation is not recommended due to potential for excess sludge
build up. Damage resulting from intermittent operation of chain and flight equipment is not covered under this
warranty.
PAINTING AND COATINGS:
Stainless Steel and plastic equipment shall not be painted. Unless otherwise specified, all ferrous wetted components
will be provided with a surface preparation of SSPC-SP10 Near White Metal and a shop primer 1 coat of Sherwin Williams
Dura-Plate 235 Multi-Purpose Epoxy @ 4 Mils D.F.T. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure finish paint is
compatible with specified primer. Any adhesion issues between coats are not the responsibility of Brentwood. The top
coat must be applied within 6 months of the prime coat, otherwise the assembly surface will need to be abraded or the
primer will need to be removed and surface preparation redone prior to application of the top coat, by others. OEM
components above deck (drive units, bearings, actuators, etc.) shall be furnished with manufacturer's factory finish.
AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL ACT:
Per Implementation of American Iron and Steel provisions of P.L. 113-76, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014,
Brentwood’s Polychem brand clarifier System and accessories is considered a mechanical system and is not considered
construction material or structural steel subject to AIS requirements.
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
8 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
GENERAL EXCLUSIONS*:
1. Contractor/customer shall be responsible for field verification of all dimensions.
2. Foundations, supports for Polychem equipment (diaphragm plates) or special mounting plates.
3. Bid, performance, supply, or maintenance bonds.
4. Installation of equipment and anchor systems, concrete, sealing compounds, shim stock or grout.
5. Grouting behind idler stub shafts, head shaft spindles, & return track wall brackets is not included, but is
required for these systems.
6. Tools or spare parts (unless listed elsewhere in this Proposal).
7. All reducer oil, bearing grease, or other lubricants.
8. Field paint, touch-up, finish painting, or finish coatings.
9. Unloading, hauling, erection, and storage of equipment.
10. Grease line piping (unless listed elsewhere in this Proposal) or grease guns.
11. Any electrical components or controls not shown in items included section of this Proposal.
12. All control panels (unless listed elsewhere within this Proposal), unistrut supports / mounting for control
panels, electrical conduit, wires, or wiring, wire fittings, or boxes.
13. Wall Sleeves for scum troughs, weirs, baffles, overflow weirs, effluent troughs.
14. Anchor pull out testing.
15. PI&D drawings
16. Conduit sizing or drawings.
17. Detailed specific storage plans or maintenance schedules for installed equipment outside of
Brentwood's standard maintenance and preventative maintenance information.
18. Factory assembly of components.
19. Any component shown or described on a drawing and not included in the Items Included section of
this Proposal, or any component or service not shown in this Proposal.
*unless above items are listed as included elsewhere in this Proposal, they are excluded.
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
9 of 13
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL #WG08049 CENTREVILLE, MD - WRA - CENTREVILLE, MD
PRICING SUMMARY:
LUMP SUM BUDGETARY BASE PRICE: $311,700.00
ADDERS TO BASE OFFERING:
Four ( 4 ) 304 SS Rotating Scum Troughs, Manual Lever Operated, Approximately 12-Inch Diameter x
16.75FT Long: $183,050.00
Proposal Submitted By:
Jonah Graciani
Jonah Graciani, Sales Estimator
Brentwood Industries, Polychem Brand
email: jonah.graciani@brentwoodindustries.com
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
10 of 13
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
11 of 13
Brentwood Water Group (Water & Wastewater) Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale
Applicability and Acceptance
These terms and conditions of sale (“Terms) are the only terms which govern the sale of product (“Product”) by Brentwood Industries, Inc. (“Brentwood”) to Purchaser (“Purchaser”). Brentwood and
Purchaser together are the “Parties” and each a “Party” herein. Brentwood’s accompanying quotation or proposal (collectively “Proposal”) and these Terms (collectively this “Agreement”), comprise the
entire agreement between the Parties and supersede all understandings, agreements, negotiations, representations, or communications. In the event of a conflict between these Terms and a Proposal, the
terms and conditions in the Proposal prevail. Brentwood’s commencement of work or service does not constitute acceptance of any Purchase Order. No Purchase Orders will be binding upon Brentwood
without express written acceptance by an authorized Brentwood employee. These Terms will be the sole, controlling terms for Purchaser’s Purchase Order (“Purchase Order”) and no other terms and
conditions will apply.
Pricing and Payment:
Payment to be 100% prepayment of goods before shipment unless a credit application has been completed and an extension of credithas been approved. Approved payment terms shall be due in full
within thirty (30) days from invoice date. Pricing is in accordance with Brentwood’s Proposal. Brentwood reserves the right to adjust the Proposal price at any future time due to raw material and/or labor
cost fluctuations greater than +/-3%.
Shipment and Title:
The shipment terms unless stated otherwise in Brentwood’s Proposal will be EXWORKS. Risk of loss and title transfer at Brentwood’s facility. Brentwood may, without liability or penalty, make partial
shipments of Products to Purchaser.
Inspection and Claims:
Upon delivery of Product, Purchaser must inspect the Product for freight damage and must notify Brentwood in writing within five(5) days after delivery. Furthermore, Purchaser agrees to inspect and
accept the Product within a reasonable timeframe. Brentwood may waive claims not made in accordance with the above terms in thissection.
Default:
Purchaser's failure to make payment as agreed and according to invoices or Purchaser’s failure to perform any of its other obligations under this Agreement constitutes a default. In the event of default,
Brentwood will provide written Notice of the default (in accordance with the Notices section of this Agreement) to Purchaser.IfPurchaser does not i) correct the default or ii) address how it plans to correct
the default in writing to Brentwood within five (5) business days from receipt of Notice of default, Purchaser will remain indefault and Brentwood may do any of the following, (i) exercise any and all other
rights and remedies of a secured Party under Article 9 of the UCC or applicable law ; (ii) suspend any further Product deliveries or provision of services until Purchaser pays its obligations in full; iii) be
excused from any of its performance obligations under this Agreement resulting from Purchaser’s delays or inability to complete its obligations; iv) send Purchaser’s past due invoice(s) to collections for
nonpayment of obligations and report Purchaser’s non-payment to appropriate credit agency.
Delays::
Delays in project schedule beyond the expected ship date not caused by Brentwood which result in additional costs not included in quoted price may be invoiced by Brentwood to Purchaser.
Storage Fees:
Unless otherwise agreed upon by Brentwood and Purchaser, in the event Purchaser notifies Brentwood it cannot take delivery onthe agreed upon delivery date on the face of Purchaser’s Purchase Order,
Brentwood will store the Product free of charge for up to thirty (30) days after the initially agreed delivery date. After the thirtieth (30th) day, Purchaser agrees to pay a monthly storage fee equal to one and
one-half (1.5%) percent of the invoice price of the Product. The monthly storage fee will be due in full upon receipt of invoicefor the storage fee regardless of whether Purchaser has been invoiced or has
paid for the Product.
Termination:
Brentwood or Purchaser may terminate this Agreement if either Party defaults by materially breaching its obligations in this Agreement, provided the breaching Party does not commence correction of the
breach within five (5) business days from receipt of written notice of default. The Parties will agree upon a reasonable amount of time to correct the breach. In the event the Party in default fails to correct
the breach within the agreed upon time frame, the other Party may terminate the Agreement by providing written notification to the Party in default. In the event of termination, the Purchaser agrees to
pay Brentwood cancellation charges in accordance with the table below based on the Purchase Order Value.
C ontracted
Ship m ent
(w eeks)
U p to 8
8.01 - 12
12.01 - 16
16.01 - 20
20.01 - 24
24.01 - 28
28.01 - 32
32.01 - 36
36.01 - 40
40.01 - 44
44.01 - 48
48.01 - 52
52.01 - 56
E lap sed T
0 - 2
2 0
1 5
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
im e – from date of E xecuted P
2.01 - 4 4.01 - 6
5 0 7 5
4 0 6 0
2 5 4 5
1 5 2 5
1 0 2 0
1 0 1 5
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
urchase O
6.01 - 8
1 0 0
8 0
6 0
4 5
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 5
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
rder to date of C
8.01 - 12
1 0 0
8 5
6 5
5 0
2 5
2 0
2 0
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
ancellation (w
12.01 - 16
1 0 0
8 5
7 0
5 0
3 5
2 5
2 5
2 5
2 5
2 0
2 0
eeks)
16.01 - 20
1 0 0
9 0
7 0
6 0
5 0
5 0
4 5
4 5
4 0
3 5
20.01 - 24
1 0 0
9 0
7 5
6 0
6 0
5 5
5 5
5 0
5 0
24.01 - 28
1 0 0
9 0
8 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 5
28.01 - 32
1 0 0
9 5
8 5
8 0
6 5
6 0
6 0
32.01 - 36
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 0
7 0
7 0
36.01 - 40
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
40.01 - 44
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
44.01 - 48
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
48.01 - 52
1 0 0
9 5
52.01 - 56
1 0 0
Changes:
Purchase Order changes are subject to Brentwood’s written approval, and additional time and charges may apply. Brentwood willnot be liable for any delays due to change order requests. Brentwood
may make changes to its Product without obligation, apply or manufacture such changes in any Product manufactured prior thereto.Brentwood may make such changes to any ordered Product as
does not, in Brentwood’s reasonable judgment, interfere with the satisfactory operation of the Product.
Taxes:
All government charges upon the production, shipment or sale of the Product, including, without limitation, sales, use, occupation, export and import taxes, and any other impositions by any
government whatsoever, direct or indirect, including those required to be collected by Brentwood, will be paid by Purchaser or, in lieu thereof, Purchaser will furnish Brentwood with an exemption
certificate acceptable to the taxing authority. Brentwood reserves and Purchaser disclaims all rights to drawback of duties paidon materials used in the manufacture of the Product. Purchaser will
supply Brentwood with proof of exportation and all other documents necessary and otherwise cooperate to obtain payment thereof.
Returns:
No Product may be returned for credit or otherwise unless Purchaser receives Brentwood’s authorization. Product authorized for return or credit must be returned in good condition, in its original
packaging with completed identification and with all supporting documentation detailing of any claimed defect as required by Brentwood. All shipping and freight charges shall be prepaid by the
Purchaser. The returned Product may be subject to a restocking charge of 30%.
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
12 of 13
Warranty:
Brentwood warrants against defects in materials and workmanship. Warranty coverage is contingent on proper storage, installation, use, operation, maintenance, and shutdown procedures, all
occurring under ordinary conditions and in compliance with good industry standards, the approved design criteria, Brentwood’sapproved Submittal and Operation and Maintenance Manual. The
Warranty period shall be limited to twelve (12) months from Product shipment. The terms of this Warranty shall be modified only through written agreement by an authorized Brentwood employee.
The remedy for a covered defect during the Warranty period shall be limited, at Brentwood’s option and control, to repair or replacement of defective Parts and Components, including shipping costs.The
remedy excludes costs of labor, removal of non‐conforming Products, and expenses related to installation of the replacement Products.
THE TERMS OF THIS WARRANTY ARE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE OBLIGATION OF BRENTWOOD TO PURCHASER OR THIRD PARTY FOR CLAIMS RELATED TO THE PRODUCT.UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL
BRENTWOOD BE LIABLE TO ANY PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY INCIDENTIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES OR ANY OTHER LOSS, COST, OR EXPENSE OTHER THAN SPECIFICALLY
STATED IN THIS WARRANTY.OTHER THAN THE EXPRESS LIMITED WARRANTIES MADE HEREIN, BRENTWOOD EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL OTHERWARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY LAW,
WITH RESPECT TO ANY SERVICE OR DELIVERABLE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESSFOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AS WELL AS ANY
WARRANTIES WHICH MAY ARISE FROM PRIOR COURSE OF DEALING, CUSTOM, TRADE USAGE, PROVISION OF SAMPLES, PRODUCT LITERATURE OR WEBSITE CONTENT.
Limitation of Liability:
REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, BRENTWOOD’S LIABILITY RELATING TO THE PRODUCT OR THE MANUFACTURE, SHIPPING, SALE OR USE OF THEPRODUCT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PRICE PAID BY
PURCHASER FOR THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT GIVING RISE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION. BRENTWOOD, ITS AFFILIATES, AND THEIR OFFICERS, DIRECTORS,EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, DOWNTIME, FAILURE TO DETECT ANY FLAW
IN ANY SUBJECT MATTER OF ANY TEST, LOSS OF GOODWILL, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, DELAY IN PERFORMANCE, OR LOST OPPORTUNITIES. REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUPPLY OR SUBSEQUENT USE OR POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Indemnification:
Purchaser will at all times indemnify, defend and hold harmless Brentwood, its officers, directors, employees, agents, servants and representatives from and against any and all damages, liabilities, losses,
claims, suits, penalties, fines, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees (collectively, “Claims”) arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with any (a) infringement or misappropriation of any
patent, trademark, or other intellectual property right, including third Party rights, arising from Brentwood’s adherence toPurchaser’s Specifications; (b) use, operation or possession of Brentwood
Product, except to the extent the Claim arises from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Brentwood; or (c) breach byPurchaser of any provision of any Agreement with or obligation to Brentwood.
Brentwood will at all times indemnify, defend and hold harmless Purchaser from and against loss, injury, damage and liabilityarising directly in connection with bodily injury death, or destruction of
tangible or real property, including loss of use directly resulting from or caused by Brentwood or Brentwood’s product, its negligent act, error, omission or for damages arising from Brentwood’s gross
negligence or willful misconduct in performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Claims and damages are limited to Brentwood’s proportionate percentage of negligence and/or fault.
Insurance:
Brentwood will maintain and carry insurance including, but not limited to Commercial General Liability in a sum of $1,000,000per occurrence and Workers Compensation in amounts as required by
applicable statute. Additional coverages may be available. Upon request, Brentwood will provide to Purchaser a certificate ofinsurance evidencing its coverages.
Confidential Information:
All non-public, confidential and proprietary information (“Confidential Information”), whether disclosed orally or reduced to writing, whether or not marked or otherwise designated or not identified as
such. Confidential Information does not include information which: (i) is or becomes available to the public generally (otherthan as a result of a disclosure by the Purchaser in violation of this Agreement);
(ii) is subject to public disclosure under any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation; (iii) becomes available to Purchaser on a non-confidential basis from a source other than Brentwood; or (iv)
was known by or was available to Purchaser prior to or at the time Brentwood disclosed it.
Purchaser agrees to protect and safeguard all Confidential Information with at least the same degree of care as the Purchaserwould protect its own Confidential Information, but in no event with less than
a commercially reasonable degree of care. Purchaser shall hold all Confidential Information in confidence and shall disclose it only to its employees needing to use the Confidential Information for the
limited purposes of this Agreement and said employees shall be bound to the confidentiality Terms of this Agreement. No other disclosure of Confidential Information is allowed unless written permission
is granted by Brentwood. Purchaser agrees not to use Brentwood’s Confidential Information for any purpose other than this Agreement. Purchaser agrees not to use the Confidential Information in any
manner to Brentwood’s detriment, including without limitation, to reverse engineer, disassemble, analyze, decompile, copy, modify, develop, or design.
Force Majeure:
Brentwood shall not be liable or responsible to Purchaser, nor be deemed to have defaulted under or breached this Agreement, forany failure or delay in fulfilling or performing any term of this
Agreement to the extent Brentwood’s failure or delay is caused by or results from a forcemajeureevent, including, acts of God;flood, fire, earthquake, pandemics, disease outbreaks, explosions or other
natural disasters; war, invasion, hostilities, terrorist acts, civil unrest; government orders or actions; embargoes or blockades in effect on or after the date of this Agreement; national emergency; strikes,
labor stoppages or slowdowns, or other industrial disturbances; shortage of adequate raw materials, labor, power, or transportation facilities; and other similar events beyond the reasonable control of
Brentwood.
Brentwood shall give notice within fourteen (14) days of the force majeure event or as soon as reasonably practicable to Brentwood, stating the period of time the occurrence is expected to continue.
Brentwood shall use diligent efforts to end the failure or delay and ensure the effects of such are minimized. Brentwood shall resume the performance of its obligations as soon as reasonably practicable
after the removal of the cause. In the event Brentwood remains unable to perform its obligations within ten (10) weeks from notice of force majeure event Purchaser may terminate the Agreement.
Governing Law and Jurisdiction:
This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without reference to conflicts of law principles. The Parties hereby agree that disputes hereunder shall be subject
to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts of Berks County, Pennsylvania, in either the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The Purchaser waives any objections based on personal or subject matter jurisdiction or venue.
Export Control:
Purchaser will not use, distribute, transfer, or transmit any Product, components or technical information (even if incorporatedinto other products) provided in connection with this transaction except in
compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations (the “Export Laws”). Purchaser will not, directly or indirectly export or re-export the following items to any country which is in the then-current list of
prohibited countries specified in any applicable Export Laws: (a) the Product, components or technical data disclosed or provided to Purchaser by Brentwood; or (b) any improvements or variations of such
Product, components or technical data. Purchaser agrees to promptly inform Brentwood in writing of any written authorization issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce office of export licensing to
export or re-export any such items referenced in (a) or (b). The obligations stated above in this clause will survive the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement.
Translation:
This document may be translated into one or more languages; however, the English translation shall be the official version and shall prevail over other translations. All dollar amounts are United States
currency unless specified otherwise. Purchaser shall abide by the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997, as amended.
Assignment:
Purchaser shall not assign or delegate its obligation hereunder without Brentwood’s written consent, and any attempted assignment or delegation without such written consent shall be void.
Waiver:
No waiver by Brentwood of any of the provisions of this Agreement is effective unless explicitly set forth in writing and signedby Brentwood. No failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any right,
remedy, power or privilege arising from this Agreement operates, or may be construed, as a waiver thereof. No single or partial exercise of any right, remedy, power or privilege hereunder precludes any
other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy, power or privilege.
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

5/6/2024
13 of 13
Severability:
If any term or provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegalityor unenforceability shall not affect any other term or provision of this Agreement or
invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction.
Notices:
All notices, requests, consents, claims, demands, waivers and other communications hereunder (each, a “Notice”) shall be in writing and addressed to the Parties at the addresses set forth on the face of
the Proposal or to such other address that may be designated by the receiving Party in writing. All Notices shall be delivered by personal delivery, nationally recognized overnight courier (with all fees pre-
paid or certified or registered mail (in each case, read receipt requested, postage prepaid). Except as otherwise provided inthis Agreement, a Notice is effective only (a) upon receipt of the receiving Party,
and (b) if the Party giving the Notice has complied with the requirements of this Section.
Authority:
The individual assenting to or executing any documents or orders, whether as a hard copy or, on behalf of Purchaser acknowledges, represents and warrants that he or she has read and understands these
Terms and Conditions and has been duly authorized by the Purchaser to execute such on behalf of the Purchaser and bind the Purchaser to these Terms and Conditions.
Relationship of the Parties:
The relationship between the Parties is that of independent contractors. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any agency, partnership, joint venture or other form of joint
enterprise, employment or fiduciary relationship between the Parties, and neither Party shall have authority to contract for or bind the other Party in any manner whatsoever.
Survival:
Provisions of this Agreement which by their nature should apply beyond their terms will remain in force after any terminationorexpiration of this Agreement.
Amendment and Modification:
This Agreement may only be amended or modified in writing by Brentwood and executed by an authorized representative of each Party.
By signing below both Parties accept Brentwood Water Group (Water and Wastewater) Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale.
BRENTWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. PURCHASER
By: ____________________ By:
Print Name: ____________________ Print Name:
Title: Title:
Brentwood Industries, Inc. Company: ______________________
Brentwood Industries, Inc.
500 Spring Ridge Dr., Reading PA 19610
Phone: 610.374.5109 brentwoodindustries.com Fax: 610.685.0137 1

Item 6: Membrane Bioreactor

Budget Proposal for the
Centreville, MD MBR
ZeeWeed Membrane Bioreactor System
Submitted to:
Sherwood-Logan & Associates
Andrew Kreider
(603) 848-3950
akreider@sherwoodlogan.com
June 29th, 2023
Veolia Proposal Number: 556484
Submitted by:
Graham Best- Regional Manager
Tel: (905) 465-3030 Ext. 3209
Email : graham.best@veolia.com
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 1 of 15

Table of Contents
1 Introduction to ZeeWeed Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
Technology ......................................................................................................... 3
Benefits of Veolia System Design .....................................................................................5
1.1.1 Pre-Engineered Z-MOD L Process Pump Skid .....................................................5
1.1.2 Membrane Aeration System Design ......................................................................5
1.1.3 Membrane Cleaning Systems ...............................................................................6
2 Design ................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Influent Flow Data .............................................................................................................7
2.2 Influent Quality ..................................................................................................................7
2.3 Effluent Quality ..................................................................................................................7
2.4 Influent Variability ..............................................................................................................8
2.5 Biological System Design ..................................................................................................8
2.6 Membrane System Design ................................................................................................9
3 Scope of Supply ............................................................................................... 10
3.1 Scope of Supply by Veolia ..............................................................................................10
3.2 Scope of Supply by Others .............................................................................................12
4 Commercial ....................................................................................................... 15
4.1 System Pricing ..............................................................................................................15
4.2 Freight Terms.................................................................................................................15
4.3 Equipment Shipment and Delivery ..............................................................................15
4.4 Terms and Conditions of Sale ......................................................................................15
Veolia Water Technologies & Solutions
Confidential and Proprietary Information
The enclosed materials are considered proprietary property of Veolia Water Technologies &
Solutions (Veolia). No assignments either implied or expressed, of intellectual property rights,
data, know-how, trade secrets or licenses of use thereof are given. All information is provided
exclusively to the addressee and agents of the addressee for the purposes of evaluation and is
not to be reproduced or divulged to other parties, nor used for manufacture or other means,
without the express written consent of Veolia. The acceptance of this document will be construed
as an acceptance of the foregoing.
*The following are trademarks of Veolia Water Technologies & Solutions and may be registered
in one or more countries: InSight, LEAPmbr, Z-MOD, ZeeWeed, and ZENON
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 2 of 15

1 Introduction to ZeeWeed Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR) Technology
The proposed ZeeWeed Membrane filtration system for the Centreville, MD MBR is
designed to ensure reliable long-term performance and to maximize operational flexibility.
At the core of the MBR process is the ZeeWeed 500 series hollow fiber membrane. The
ZeeWeed 500 series membrane is a reinforced hollow fiber ultrafiltration membrane that
was designed specifically for high solids applications. The membrane fiber has a nominal
pore size of 0.04 m, a tensile strength of 135 lbs, (vs 3 lbs for non-reinforced fibers)
and is highly resistant to chemicals, including acids, bases and chlorine, allowing for
flexible cleaning regimes. The membrane material is both mechanically and chemically
bonded to the porous supporting braid that provides the mechanical strength. This double-
bonding means that the membrane will never separate from the braid. The relatively thin layer
of membrane layer is the key to ensuring long-term permeability. Some membranes attempt
to make up for their lack of a reinforced braid with a thicker membrane wall. The increase in
strength is only marginal compared to a thinner non-reinforced fiber, and is still orders of
magnitude less than a reinforced fiber. The cost of this approach comes from the tendency to
trap organics and colloidal material inside the membrane material, rendering them
permanently fouled.
The membrane is manufactured and assembled into discrete units called “modules” or
small membrane subunits. These are the basic building blocks of the membrane system
that are manifolded together to create a “cassette” or large membrane subunit. The
cassette, proposed for the Centreville, MD MBR, is 52M ZeeWeed 500D cassette and
each module in the cassette has 430 ft2 of membrane area.
In the ZeeWeed membrane filtration process, the
membrane cassettes are immersed directly in the mixed
liquor. A series of cassettes connected to a common
permeate header is called a “membrane train”. Each
membrane train is connected to the suction side of a duty
pump for permeation. The
pump creates a slight
vacuum in the permeate
header to draw treated
water from the outside in
through the hollow fiber
ZeeWeed 500 Cassette
membranes, leaving the
mixed liquor solids on the outside of the membrane.
Permeate is then directed to downstream
ZeeWeed Membrane Trains
disinfection or discharge facilities. Air, in the form of and Cassette
large bubbles, is introduced below the bottom of the
membrane modules, producing turbulence that scours the outer surface of the
hollow fibers to keep them clean.
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 3 of 15

The proposed system design utilizes LEAPmbr Aeration, SUEZ’s latest aeration
technology for MBR systems. A specially designed and highly efficient aeration
system is used to scour the outside surface of the membranes and move feed
water solids away from the membrane fibers. LEAPmbr Aeration Technology
uses factory installed aerators which are integrated into the base of each
ZeeWeed 500 cassette.
LEAPmbr aerators use no moving parts within the membrane aeration system. A
single air pipe and a single permeate pipe (per membrane train) provide the
connection between the immersed membranes and the permeate pumps and
blowers that comprise the rest of the ZeeWeed system. LEAPmbr aeration
greatly simplifies the aeration system and reduces air requirements for the
system.
LEAPmbr Aeration – Simple Energy Efficient Aeration
LEAPmbr aeration provides the most intense air scour, which is ideal for
removing solids from a membrane bundle. This is ONLY possibly because of the
increased strength that comes from the reinforcing braid. A single monofilament
fiber with no supporting braid is cheaper to manufacture, but it cannot survive
the mechanical stress of a large-bubble, high-shear air scour device. Similarly,
flat plate and similar modified plates will not allow for the free movement of fibers
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 4 of 15

and the passage of large bubbles, which results in a tendency to sludge in
unrecoverable fashion.
The combination of a robust, high-strength fiber and large-bubble air scour are
the keys to long-term performance stability.
Benefits of Veolia System Design
At Veolia, our goal is to create long term partnerships with our customers, which is why
we design our systems with you in mind. Our approach to the proposed ZeeWeed
membrane bioreactor system has been optimized around the following three key system
attributes.
 robust design – proven design parameters with scope and configuration options for a
wide variety of conditions
 simple operations – simple & automated operations coupled with Veolia support for
the operating team
 lowest cost of ownership for the Owner
We are continuously striving to improve our system designs to provide optimal solutions
for our customers. Highlighted below are several systems that we have optimized to meet
your needs.
1.1.1 Pre-Engineered Z-MOD L Process Pump Skid
The Z-MOD L process pump skid is a pre-engineered equipment skid that helps simplify
ZeeWeed membrane filtration system design and installation. The Z-MOD L skid is a
“plug and go” skid that incorporates most of
dedicated membrane train equipment onto a
single prefabricated equipment skid for simple
onsite installation.
The Z-MOD L skid is designed to handle all
membrane train flow conditions and includes
a bi-directional process pump that performs
both permeation and backpulse duty. A train-
dedicated remote I/O panel is installed on the
Z-MOD L skid, with all skidded equipment and
instrumentation pre-wired and tested within
the panel.
1.1.2 Membrane Aeration System Design
Aeration is one of the most important operating parameters for successful long term MBR
operations and is a significant component of operating cost.
Veolia MBR system utilizes a very simple aeration strategy which minimizes the amount
of instrumentation and controls required to achieve energy efficient membrane aeration.
No complex control loops or complicated airflow measurement devices are required for
LEAPmbr aeration technology to achieve energy efficiency.
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 5 of 15

1.1.3 Membrane Cleaning Systems
Veolia has developed membrane design principles based on best engineering practices
that ensure the permeability of the membrane is maintained over the life of the
membranes.
A fully automated suite of membrane maintenance procedures will ensure long-term,
successful operation, including:
 in-situ chemical membrane cleaning performed directly in the membrane process
tanks so your operators don’t waste time moving cassettes.
 the ability to increase or decrease the frequency of chemical cleans to fit the
operating conditions.
 the ability to backpulse, when needed, to greatly improve your operator’s ability to
recover from non-design conditions.
The above cleaning systems can be automated, resulting in operators having available a
full suite of comprehensive cleaning systems which are simple to use and initiate.
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 6 of 15

2 Design
The proposed ZeeWeed membrane filtration system for the Centreville, MD MBR is
offered based on using the design parameters summarized in the following sections.
2.1 Influent Flow Data
The influent design flows are summarized in the table below.
Flow Conditions1 Capacity Units
Average day flow (ADF) 0.75 MGD
Max month flow (MMF)1 0.93 MGD
Max Day flow (MDF)1 2.25 MGD
Peak hour flow (PHF) 2.5 MGD
Maximum flow with one train offline for
2.25 MGD
maintenance or cleaning (less than 24 hours)
Note 1: Any flow conditions that exceed the above-noted flow limits should be equalized prior to treatment in
the ZeeWeed membrane filtration system.
Note 2: The flow definitions as seen in the table above are as follows:
• ADF – the average flow rate occurring over a 24-hour period based on annual flow rate data.
• MMF – the maximum monthly flow rate sustained less than one month period based on annual flow rate
data.
• MDF – the maximum daily flow rate sustained over a 24-hour period based on annual flow rate data.
• PHF – the maximum flow rate sustained over a 2-hour period based on annual flow rate data.
2.2 Influent Quality
The design solution proposed is based on the wastewater characteristics detailed below.
The concentrations listed below are specific to the flow used for the biological design as
listed in Section 2.1 below.
Influent Design Parameters Value Unit
design influent temperature 10 ºC
BOD 175 mg/L
5
TSS 200 mg/L
inert solids fraction1 20 %
NH3-N 281 mg/L
TKN 40 mg/L
TP 8 mg/L
Alkalinity1,2 250 mg/L as CaCO
3
Note 1: Parameter value assumed.
Note 2: Veolia is assuming that sufficient influent alkalinity is available for the proper performance
of the biological system. Should influent alkalinity not be sufficient, chemical addition by the buyer
will be required.
2.3 Effluent Quality
The following performance parameters are expected upon equipment startup and once
the biological system has stabilized based on the data listed in Sections 1.1 and 1.2.
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 7 of 15

Effluent Design Parameters Value Unit
BOD ≤ 5 mg/L
5
TSS ≤ 5 mg/L
NH -N ≤ 1 mg/L
3
TN1 ≤ 3 mg/L
TP ≤ 0.3 mg/L
turbidity ≤ 1 NTU
Note 1: TN ≤ 3 mg/L corresponds to a minimum design temperature of 10ºC and < 0.1 mg/L
recalcitrant dissolved organic nitrogen in the influent.
2.4 Influent Variability
Influent wastewater flows or loads in excess of the design criteria defined above should
be equalized prior to entering the membrane tanks. In the event that the influent exceeds
the specifications used in engineering this proposal, or the source of influent changes, the
ability of the treatment system to produce the designed treated water quality and/or
quantity may be impaired. Buyer may choose to continue to operate the system but
assumes the risk of damage to the system and/or additional costs due to increased
membrane cleaning frequency, potential for biological upset and/or increased
consumables usage.
2.5 Biological System Design
For the Centreville, MD MBR project, the screened influent wastewater first enters the
pre-anoxic tank for denitrification and alkalinity recovery. Mixed liquor will then be
transferred to aerobic tanks, where BOD is oxidized and most of NH3-N is converted
into NO3-N. The post-anoxic tank is set up with organic carbon dosing for further
denitrification. Finally, the mixed liquor enters the membrane tanks where biomass is
separated from the mixed liquor by the ZeeWeed 500 membranes. The coagulant will be
dosed to the MBR system for further TP removal to meet the TP effluent target. The flow
sheet is shown below.
A permeate pump draws permeate through the membrane which is then pumped
through a disinfection system by others.
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 8 of 15

Waste sludge is diverted from the RAS line to the sludge holding tank (by others). The
frequency of wasting is a function of influent characteristics, reactor design and operator
preferences.
The following table is a summary of the biological design.
Biological Design Parameters Value Unit
flow basis for biological design 0.93 mgd
total pre-anoxic tank working volume 70,000 gal
total aerobic working volume 280,000 gal
Total post-anoxic tank working volume 110,000 gal
total bioreactor working volume (excluding membranes) 460,000 gal
total design HRT (including bioreactors and membrane
11.9 hours
tanks)
aerobic design SRT (excluding membrane tanks) 13 days
waste sludge removal (based on MMF and 10 g/L) 18,000 gpd
design MLSS concentration in bioreactor ≤ 8,000 mg/L
Alum addition 150 gpd
Methanol Addition 1 40 gpd
design liquid depth in bioreactor 18 ft
Note 1: Alternate carbon sources can be utilized such as Micro-C.
2.6 Membrane System Design
Membrane Design Parameters Design
Number of membrane trains 3
Number of ZMODL skids 3
Number of cassette spaces per train 3
Number of cassettes installed per train 3
ZeeWeed 500D, 430
Type of cassette (modules per cassette)
ft2, 52M
Module design per train (1x52) + (2x40)
Total number of modules installed per train 132
Total number of modules installed per plant 396
Total number of cassettes installed per plant 9
Spare space 33.3%
Membrane tank internal dimensions (one train)
21.7’ × 9’ × 13’
L x W x H (ft)
Note 1: Tank dimensions and volumes are preliminary only and may change slightly once final detail design
commences.
Note 2: The ultrafiltration system is designed for installation within concrete tanks supplied by buyer.
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 9 of 15

3 Scope of Supply
3.1 Scope of Supply by Veolia
The following table provides a summary of the main equipment included with the supply
of the ZeeWeed MBR System.
Quantity Description (1)
Membrane Blower & Associated Equipment
3+1 Inlet filters and silencers
3+1 PD membrane blowers
3+1 Sound enclosures
3+1 Discharge silencers
3+1 Discharge pressure relief valves
3+1 Discharge pressure indicators c/w isolation valves
3+1 Discharge check valves
3+1 Discharge flexible connectors with clamps
3+1 Blower discharge low flow switches
3+1 Membrane blower isolation valves
Process Blower & Associated Equipment
2+1 Inlet filters and silencers
2+1 PD membrane blowers
2+1 Sound enclosures
2+1 Discharge silencers
2+1 Discharge pressure relief valves
2+1 Discharge pressure indicators c/w isolation valves
2+1 Discharge check valves
2+1 Discharge flexible connectors with clamps
2+1 Blower discharge low flow switches
2+1 Membrane blower isolation valves
Biological Equipment
2 Pre-anoxic mixers – 1 per tank
2 Post-anoxic mixers – 1 per tank
Fine bubble system for process aeration - loose shipped (with tank downcomer
2
piping, 2 aerobic zones)
Submersible RAS pumps, used to transfer mixed liquor from the aerobic tanks to
2
the pre-anoxic tanks - including isolation valves and associated instruments
Biological tank controllers, each with associated one (1) pH sensor and one (1)
2
DO sensor
MBR ZeeWeed Membrane & Associated Equipment
1 lot Membrane cassette installation assemblies
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 10 of 15

9 ZeeWeed 500D 52-module membrane cassettes
396 ZeeWeed 500D 430 ft2 membrane modules
6 Membrane tank level switches
3 Membrane tank level transmitters
3 Pressure transmitters
3 Ejector assemblies
Permeate Pump Skid (L1120)
Membrane equipment skids – epoxy-coated carbon steel
Each skid includes:
• One (1) permeate pump – reversible rotary lobe pump
• One (1) magnetic flow meter
3
• Two (2) pressure gauges
• One (1) turbidity probe
• One (1) RIO panel
• Associated piping and valves
Backpulse System
- Permeate pumps will also provide backpulse duty
1 Backpulse tank and associated level transmitter and valves
1 Temperature transmitter on the common permeate discharge line
RAS Pumps & Associated Equipment
3+1 RAS pump suction isolation valves
3+1 RAS pump suction pressure gauges w/hand isolation valves
3+1 RAS pump suction drain valves
3+1 Centrifugal RAS pumps
3+1 RAS pump discharge pressure gauges w/hand isolation valves
3+1 RAS pump discharge check valves
3+1 RAS pump discharge drain valves
3+1 RAS pump magnetic flow meters
3+1 RAS pump discharge isolation valves
Sludge wasting system, including
• One (1) on/of automatic valve
1
• One (1) magnetic flow meter
• One (1) isolation valve
Process Chemical Dosing System
1 Skid-mounted sodium hydroxide dosing system, including 1+1 chemical dosing
pumps, and associated valves, instruments, and piping
1 Movable level switch for sodium hydroxide day tank
1 Skid-mounted coagulant dosing system, including 1+1 chemical dosing pumps,
and associated valves, instruments, and piping
1 Movable level switch for coagulant day tank
1 Skid-mounted carbon dosing system, including 1+1 chemical dosing pumps, and
associated valves, instruments, and piping
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 11 of 15

1 Movable level switch for carbon day tank
Membrane Cleaning System
1 Skid-mounted sodium hypochlorite dosing system, including 1 chemical dosing
pump, and associated valves, instruments, and piping
1 Movable level switch for sodium hypochlorite day tank
1 Skid-mounted citric acid dosing system, including 1 chemical dosing pump, and
associated valves, instruments, and piping
1 Movable level switch for citric acid day tank
1 Common shelf spare chemical dosing pump
Compressed Air System
1+1 Air compressors, each compressor mounted on a horizontal/vertical receiver tank
Compressed air assembly (loose shipped) includes:
• one (1) coalescing filter
• one (1) low air pressure switch
1
• one (1) pressure regulator
• one (1) low-low air pressure switch
• associated valves
1+1 Refrigerated air driers and associated valves
Electrical and Control Equipment
Main control panel (MCP, NEMA12) with Allen Bradley PLC and touch screen
1
HMI
Miscellaneous
1 Membrane cassette lifting bracket
General
Incl. Equipment general arrangement and layout drawings
Incl. Operating & maintenance manuals
Field service and start-up assistance (2) - 40 days support over 4 site visits from
Incl. Veolia Water field-service professionals for commissioning, plant start-
up/commissioning, and operator training
Incl. 24/7 emergency phone support – 1 year
Incl. Veolia insight Basic on-line monitoring service – 1 year
Incl. Equipment mechanical warranty – 1 year
Membrane warranty – 10-year pro-rated membrane warranty (2-year full
Incl.
replacement warranty and the following 8-year pro-rated membrane warranty)
Notes:
1) All Veolia-supplied equipment is designed for installation in an unclassified area except specified
otherwise.
2) Additional field service hours will be billed separately from the proposed system capital cost at a rate
plus living and traveling expenses. Detailed Veolia service rates are available upon request.
3.2 Scope of Supply by Others
The following items are for supply by buyer and will include, but are not limited to:
❑ Overall plant design responsibility
❑ Installation on site of all Veolia-supplied skids and loose-shipped equipment
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 12 of 15

❑ review and approval of design parameters related to the biological process and
membrane separation system
❑ Review and approval of Veolia supplied equipment drawings and specifications
❑ Detail drawings of all termination points where Veolia equipment or materials tie
into equipment or materials supplied by others
❑ Equipment foundations, civil work, full floor coverage equipment contact pads,
buildings, etc.
❑ Receiving, unloading and safe storage of Veolia-supplied equipment at site until
ready for installation
❑ HVAC equipment design, specifications and installation (where applicable)
❑ UPS, Power Conditioner, Emergency power supply and specification (where
applicable)
❑ Lifting devices including crane able to lift 10,000 lbs for membrane removal,
lifting davits, hoists and guide rails for submersible mixers and pumps, etc.
❑ MCC, VFDs, or starters for 3-ph motors, including loose ship Veolia-supplied
equipment
❑ 2mm opening fine screen
❑ Equalization tank and associated equipment – as required
❑ Influent pumps and associated valves and instrument
❑ Biological and membrane tanks
❑ All chemical storage tanks, day tanks, and containment
❑ Treated water storage tank – as required
❑ Process and utilities piping, pipe supports, hangers, valves, etc. including but not
limited to:
▪ piping, pipe supports and valves between Veolia-supplied equipment and
other plant process equipment
▪ piping between any loose-supplied Veolia equipment
▪ process tank aeration system air piping, equalization tank system piping,
etc.
❑ Interconnecting pipe between Veolia-supplied skids and tanks (as applicable)
❑ Electrical wiring, conduit and other appurtenances required to provide power
connections as required from the electrical power source to the Veolia control
panel and from the control panel to any electrical equipment, pump motors and
instruments external to the Veolia-supplied enclosure
❑ Suitable, secure remote internet connection for 24/7 emergency telephone
technical support service and InSight remote monitoring & diagnostics service
❑ All bolts, brackets and fasteners to install Veolia-supplied equipment. Seismic
structural analysis and anchor bolt sizing
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 13 of 15

❑ Alignment of rotating equipment
❑ Lubricant oil for all rotating equipment
❑ Raw materials, chemicals, and utilities during equipment start-up and operation
❑ Supply of seed sludge for biological process start-up purposes
❑ Disposal of initial start-up wastewater and associated chemicals
❑ Weather protection as required for all Veolia supplied equipment. Skids and
electrical panels are designed for indoor operation and will need shelter from the
elements.
❑ Laboratory services, operating and maintenance personnel during equipment
checkout, start-up and operation
❑ Touch up primer and finish paint surfaces on equipment as required at the
completion of the project
❑ All permits
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 14 of 15

4 Commercial
4.1 System Pricing
Pricing for the proposed equipment and services, as outlined in Section 3, is
summarized in the table below. All pricing is based on the design operating conditions
and influent characteristics detailed in Section 1. The pricing herein is for budgetary
purposes only and does not constitute an offer of sale. No sales, consumer use, or other
similar taxes or duties are included in the pricing below.
Price: All Equipment & Service
Z-MOD-L Membrane Bioreactor System, as
$2,780,000 USD
per Section 3.1
4.2 Freight Terms
The following freight terms used are as defined by INCOTERMS 2020.
All pricing is CIP project site.
4.3 Equipment Shipment and Delivery
Veolia has provided a timeline for the major milestones below. The buyer and seller will
arrange a kick-off meeting after contract acceptance to develop a firm shipment
schedule.
 Seller: Shop Drawing Package – 12-16 weeks after the PO is accepted
o Partial submittals recommended
▪ P&IDs
▪ Mechanical (includes Bill of Material, cut sheets, membrane tank GA)
▪ Electrical
 Seller: Shipment of Equipment – 40-52 weeks from NTP with Manufacture of
Equipment (partial shipments allowed)
 Seller: Shipment of Membranes – Membranes will ship immediately prior to their
installation on-site and commissioning
4.4 Terms and Conditions of Sale
This proposal has been prepared and is submitted based on the seller’s standard terms
and conditions of sale.
Veolia Confidential and Proprietary Information
Proposal #: 557243 Page 15 of 15

Item 7: Denitrifying Filters

Budget Proposal
WWTP
Centreville, MD
prepared for:
Centreville, MD
5/2/2023

Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.
108 Tomlinson Dr
Zelienople, PA 16063
Mr. Chris Ball
Direct: 724-453-2109
Mobile: 724-713-7145
Email: chris.ball@xylem.com
5/2/2023
Project name : Centreville, MD WWTP
Project number : I23178
To Whom It May Concern,
Based on your inquiry, we are pleased to forward the following proposal to your attention.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer our equipment and services for the Centreville, MD
WWTP.
We hope that our proposal comes up to your expectation. If you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully,
Chris Ball
Senior Sales Engineer

1
Xylem is a leading global water technology provider, enabling customers to transport, treat, test
and efficiently use water in public utility, residential and commercial building services, industrial
and agricultural settings. The company does business in more than 150 countries through a
number of market-leading product brands, and its people bring broad applications expertise with
problems.
meet the demands and challenges of treating water and wastewater. From smarter aeration to
advanced filtration to chemical-free disinfection, Xylem leverages its well-known Treatment
brands, Flygt, Leopold, Sanitaire, and Wedeco, to offer hundreds of solutions backed by a
comprehensive, integrated
needs in a number of different industries including municipal water and wastewater, aquaculture,
biogas and agriculture, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, and mining.
Our scientists and engineers utilize their deep applications expertise and continually listen and
life-cycle costs, but also promote the smarter use of water.
Leopold has long been a worldwide leader in the water and wastewater treatment industry
supplying both filtration and clarification systems. Leopold both
designs and supplies systems for gravity filtration, clarification,
denitrification, sludge collection and backwash water recovery.
Leopold solutions are ideal for algae, contaminant, and nutrient
removal, desalination pretreatment, reuse, SDI, and taste and odor
reduction. Since its establishment in 1924, Leopold has pioneered
and acquired a number of innovative technologies aimed at improving the quality of water while
reducing costs. With over 8,000 installations, customers from around the world have come to rely
on Leopold
Since 1924 Leopold has been designing and manufacturing rapid gravity media filtration and
clarification solutions for treating water and wastewater.
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

Leopold supplies potable drinking water treatment plants with media filtration, backwash water
recovery, reuse and desalination pretreatment solutions, while supplying wastewater treatment
plants with tertiary filtration and denitrification solutions. They also supply both potable and
wastewater treatment plants with dissolved air flotation (DAF) clarification,
and sludge collection solutions.
Leopold engineers are available to help analyze,
evaluate and design all aspects of a complete filtration
system, including evaluating influent water qualities,
determining optimal loading rates and best design
configuration, selecting the best media characteristics,
Leopold Filterworx performance filter system comes
complete with flume, underdrains, integral media
support, engineered media, backwash water troughs,
and system controls. The result is a cost effective,
efficient, high-performance system designed to meet
customer requirements.
Leopold also offers sludge collection solutions with the Clari-
VAC floating sludge collector and the CT2 submerged
sludge collector. These systems are used in final clarifiers to
remove the sludge solids. For those areas where nitrogen
and phosphorus removal is required, Leopold provides elimi-
NITE denitrification systems which convert the filters to
become biologically active so that the effluent meets the
mandated nitrate and phosphorus levels.
For more information please visit us on our homepage:
http://www.xylem.com/treatment/us/brands/leopold
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

2
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
elimi-NITE® Denitrification System General Process Description
The elimi-NITE Denitrification System is an attached growth, microbiological process. This
gravity, downflow, packed-bed denitrification system is physically identical to a deep-bed
downflow sand filter. Denitrifying microorganisms attach to the filter media, which provides the
support system for their growth. A carbon source such as methanol, acetic acid, molasses, etc.
is added upstream of the packed-bed filter and a nitrified influent is filtered through the media.
The packed-bed filter system is well suited for denitrification because it provides the necessary
hydraulic detention time for the biological reaction to take place. The filter media is composed
of a coarse, hard, predominately siliceous material. This media can filter out solids and serve
as a support system for the denitrifying microorganisms. The downflow packed-bed system
eliminates the requirement for downstream filtration or clarification required of other
denitrification systems.
As denitrification occurs, nitrogen gas accumulates in the filter media, which increases the
headloss over the headloss due to the accumulation of solids. The nitrogen gas bubbles are
periodically released from the media by taking the filter off line and applying backwash water for
a few minutes. This process is called the nitrogen release cycle or filter bumping. The
frequency of the nitrogen release cycle is a function of both nitrate removal and a minimum
acceptable time between cycles, typically less than one hour. Usually a filter needs to be
bumped once every four to eight hours, again depending on the nitrogen loading rate. The
bumps are usually set on a time basis. After a bump the headloss in the filter is reduced or
recovered. However, when the liquid level in the filter reaches a designated high level,
signifying that the bumps are not effective in reducing headloss, a full backwash is performed
on the filter.
The elimi-NITE Denitrification System is comprised of the following basic principles:
A packed deep-bed layer of sand for biomass attachment and retention of suspended solids
A Leopold Universal® Type S®Filter System for distribution of air and water for superior
backwashing of the elimi-NITE filter module.
A complete chemical feed system of the carbon source for denitrification (future)
Automated backwash sequence and controls optimized for each applications requirement
utilizing Leopold FilterWorx Control System.
The full backwash consists of the following sequence:
Influent and effluent valves are closed
Waste valve is opened
Blower is started
Air isolation valve is opened, vent valve is closed and air only wash for approximately one
minute
Backwash pump is started
Backwash isolation valve is opened and air/water backwash for approximately 15 minutes
Air isolation valve is closed, vent valve is open and the blower is stopped
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

Water only backwash continues for approximately 5 minutes to purge air from the filter
Backwash isolation valve is closed and the backwash pump is stopped
Waste valve is closed
Influent and effluent valves are opened
Gases such as nitrogen or dissolved oxygen will build-up high levels in the filter and cause air
binding. In this case the filters are water-
filters from the influent flow, closing the effluent valve, starting the backwash pump, opening the
backwash valve, opening the waste valve (optional if the water depth stays below the effluent
launder) and backwashing the filter for approximately 2-5 minutes. This reversal of flow allows
the built-up gases to escape the filter. The filter is then put back on-line. The bumps can be
programmed to occur either on time or on level and are site specific.
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

3
3.1 DESIGN CRITERIA:
The elimi-NITE Denitrification System described here-in is a wastewater treatment system
designed for the removal of nitrate-nitrogen.
The elimi-NITE Denitrification System that shall be furnished and installed is described in Section
3.2 - Scope of Supply.
The system has been designed based on specifications using the following
criteria:
Plant Flow MGD
AAF 1.00
MMF 1.20
PHF 3.30
Note: Please define the following parameters to help optimize the denitrification process.
The elimi-NITE Denitrification System is based on treating the influent the filters with the following
characteristics:
Influent Parameter mg/L Given Assumed
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30 X -----
Nitrates 8.0 X -----
N-Ammonia ----- ----- -----
Minimum Water Temperature (°C) 12 X -----
The elimi-NITE Denitrification System is designed to achieve the following monthly average
effluent quality:
Effluent Parameters mg/L Given Assumed
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) <5.0 ----- X
Nitrates 1.0 X -----
Total Nitrogen 3.0 ----- X
The external carbon source for the elimi-NITE Denitrification System that will be provided by
others is methanol.
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

If Phosphorous removal is required, the phosphorous must be in an insoluble form. This may
require the use of coagulants upstream of the Filtration System.
Elimi-NITE Denitrification System Design Criteria
Total number of filters Three (3)
Active Filtration volume 2,592 ft3
Total filtration area 432 ft2
Individual filter sizing
Area 144 ft2
Length 12-
Width 12-0"
Media Depth
Media volume 864 ft3
Media Type
Coarse Silica Sand 72
Loading Rates Filter Loading Rate (Three) with one in backwash (Two)
At 1.00 MGD 1.61 gpm/ft2 2.41 gpm/ft2
(AAF)
At 1.20 MGD 1.93 gpm/ft2 2.89 gpm/ft2
(MMF)
At 3.30 MGD 5.31 gpm/ft2 7.96 gpm/ft2
(PHF)
Backwash Rates
Design concurrent water rate 6 gpm/ft2
Design concurrent air rate 5 scfm/ft2
Design high water rate 6 gpm/ft2
Designed Driving Head 8-0
3.2 SCOPE OF SUPPLY
Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc will supply only the items specifically detailed within this proposal.
Filter Internals:
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

Three (3) Complete elimi-NITE filters, 432 square feet effective filtration area
total, 12- 2-
arrangement including:
432 square feet Leopold Universal® Type XA® Underdrain of the Dual/Parallel Lateral
type, manufactured from corrosion resistant, high-density polyethylene
supplied with necessary "O"-rings and carbon steel "L" anchor rods and
clips. Epoxy, sealant, bonding agents, or other similar materials used during
installation are not included and to be provided by others.
432 square feet I.M.S® 1000 MEDIA RETAINER will be furnished. The scope includes
molded thermoplastic I.M.S® 1000 media retainer factory installed onto
the proposed underdrain block prior to shipment.
Three (3) sets Air Header Assemblies shall be manufactured from schedule 10, type
304 stainless steel pipe. The air header pipe shall measure 6" in
diameter and will run the width of the filter cell. The air header shall
flange and hardware is to be supplied by others. The air header pipe will
have j-risers to provide air to each of the individual filter laterals.
Six (6) WASH TROUGHS: Under this section, we propose to furnish six (6)
Leopold Reinforced Fiberglass Troughs, Leo-Lite No. 87, measuring 12"
wide x 12" deep x 12'-0" long, round bottom construction. Also included is
the standard end hanger assembly fabricated from type 316 stainless steel
and type 18-8 stainless steel hardware. Also included with the above
troughs are reinforced fiberglass matched-die straight edge weir plates
attached to the troughs with type 18-8 stainless steel fasteners. Also
included shall be type 304 stainless steel stabilizers for stabilization of
wash water troughs. Wash troughs shall have one closed end and one
open discharge end with waterstop.
Media:
2,592 cubic feet Coarse Silica Sand
Effective Size: x No. 12
134 Tons
FilterWorx Control System:
Under this section, we propose to furnish the following FilterWorx Automatic Control System
for the subject project for controlling the filtration and backwashing operations of three (3)
filters. The system will consist of the following equipment:
Three (3) Leopold model AFC-5000 Single Filter Control Panels. The panels shall be
housed in a NEMA 4X rated, 316 stainless steel enclosure. The panels shall include
provisions for the automatic, semi-automatic, and manual control of the filtration and
backwashing operations of one (1) filter. Logic functions shall be performed by an Allen
Bradley Compact Logix Series PLC. Manual operation shall be independent of the PLC.
Operator interface shall be via an Allen Bradley Panelview Plus 1000 touchscreen and Square
D type ZB4 selector switches, pushbuttons and pilot lights.
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

.
Three (3) Siemens Hydroranger 200 Ultrasonic filter level transmitters
One (1) Siemens Hydroranger 200 Clearwell Level Transmitter
One (1) Siemens Hydroranger 200 Mudwell Level Transmitter
Two (2) Hach Nitratax Sensors and SC1000 Controllers (One Influent & One Effluent)
One (1) Hach Dissolved Oxygen Sensor
Two (2) Hach Phosphate Analyzers
One (1) Siemens 5100W 8
One (1) Lot Spare Equipment consisting of:
One (1) PLC DI module
One (1) PLC DO module
One (1) PLC AI module
One (1) PLC AO module
Two (2) of each type of relay, selector switch, pushbutton, and pilot light used.
Automatic Valves:
Under this section we propose to furnish the following 150 lb. Class flanged butterfly valves
conforming to AWWA C-504. The valves shall be flanged with EDPM seats, 316 stainless steel
shafts and cast iron bodies per ASTM A126. Shaft seals should be self-compensating split V-
type or O-ring packing made of BUNA-N per AWWA C-504 class B. The valves shall be supplied
with the listed electric operators.
Quantity Function Size Service
Three (3) Influent 6-inch open/close
Three (3) Effluent 10-inch open/close
Three (3) BW Inlet 8-inch open/close
Three (3) BW Waste 10-inch open/close
Three (3) Air Inlet 6-inch open/close
One (1) Backwash Control 8-Inch modulating
One (1) Air Vent 2-inch open/close
Pumps:
Two (2) Submersible Backwash Pumps. The pumps shall be rated for 864 gpm at an
connection and hardware, guide bar brackets and stainless steel lift chains. The pump motor shall
be 25 hp, 60 Hz , 460v, 3 phase and have a cast iron housing, volute and impeller. Also included
shall be a manual isolation butterfly valve and an air cushioned swing check valve. The stainless
steel guide bars shall be supplied by the contractor.
Two (2) Submersible Mudwell Pumps. The pumps shall be rated for 188 gpm at an
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

connection and hardware, guide bar brackets and stainless steel lift chains. The pump motor shall
be 6.5 hp, 60 Hz , 460v, 3 phase and have a cast iron housing, volute and impeller. Also included
shall be a manual isolation butterfly valve and an air cushioned swing check valve. The stainless
steel guide bars shall be supplied by the contractor.
Blowers and Appurtenances:
Two (2) Positive Displacement Blower Packages The blower packages shall be
capable of supplying air to the filters during backwash at a rate of 720 scfm. Included with the
blower package are TEFC motor, silencer, filter, pressure relief valve, flexible connections,
pressure gauges, temperature gauges, discharge check valve and discharge butterfly valve.
The blower shall have a 460 volts, 3 phase, 60 hertz, TEFC motor. An acoustical enclosure will
be included.
3.3 SERVICES
The services of a qualified Leopold technical representative to instruct the Contractor's
personnel about the proper installation technique of the mechanical filter equipment will be
provided for a period of nine (9) days (8 hr/day) on site plus six (6) days travel time to and from
the job-site in three (3) trips.
The services of a qualified Leopold technical representative for filter control system startup
and operator training will be provided for a period of twelve (12) days (8 hr/day) on site plus
eight (8) days travel time to and from the job-site in four (4) trips.
Additional services may be obtained at the current prevailing rate plus living and travel
expenses.
Should our service representative be scheduled and arrive on site at the time requested by the
contractor/purchaser and the equipment is not ready, our standard per diem rate, plus travel
and living expenses will apply.
4
MEDIA:
Submittals:
Materials meet and/or exceed American Water Works Association
Standard B100 (latest revision) for Filtering Material. Typical samples
and/or test reports detailing the physical and chemical characteristics of
the filtering material will be provided for review and approval as required
by the specification. If independent testing is required per specification,
test reports of the actual material produced will be submitted for approval
prior to release for shipment.
Packaging and Placement of Materials:
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

Material will be packaged in semi-bulk containers, "Super Bags," with lifting
sleeves and bottom discharge spout, containing approximately 2,000 to 4,000
pounds per sack.
Quantities:
Quantities indicated above are Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc best
calculations of the quantity requirements. Loss of gravel due to storage or
handling is not covered by this proposal.
ITEMS NOT INCLUDED:
The following items, while not comprehensive, are not included in the elimi-NITE Denitrification
System:
Receiving, unloading, storing, and proper installation of supplied equipment and materials.
Concrete for filter, building/architectural work and engineering thereof.
Grout between and under the underdrain laterals in filters.
Platforms, ladders, or walkways.
Lubricants for mechanical equipment.
Interconnecting piping, piping supports, and wall sleeves/pipes including flanges, bolts, nuts,
and gaskets.
Instrument air pipe, isolation valves, tubing, and engineering thereof.
Electrical starters, circuit breakers, motor control center, conduit, and interconnecting wiring
and engineering thereof, and 480 VAC, 3 phase, 60 HZ power.
Water supply/disposal for flushing of filter internals, media installation or backwash testing.
Lab services for performance guarantee testing.
5
5.1 MAIN SCOPE
BASIS of PRICING:
Any items and/or accessories not specifically called out in this quotation must be
construed as being furnished by others.
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

This quotation is considered firm for 90 days. Orders received more than 90 days after
the date of this quotation is reviewed by Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc before
acceptance and is subject to changes in prices or delivery depending on conditions
existing at the time of entry. Quoted prices are firm for delivery within 12 months from
the delivery date stipulated in the plans & specifications or mutually agreed upon by
Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. and Purchase Order issuer at time of order
placement.
We do not include any applicable taxes.
Orders resulting from this quotation should be addresses to Xylem Water Solutions
USA, Inc. 108 Tomlinson Dr., Zelienople, PA, 16063, USA.
We propose to furnish the material described in this document for a total budget selling price
of :
$ .
Pricing for the equipment and field services outlined in this proposal, DAP Jobsite per Incoterms
2020.
For further information pertaining to the equipment contained in this proposal, please contact our
area representative, who is:
Sherwood-Logan & Associates, Inc.
2140 Renard Ct.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: (410) 274-3716
Email: AKreider@sherwoodlogan.com
Attention: Andrew Kreider
Pricing is based on the following payment terms (net 30 days):
10% following initial submittal for approval
80% following the date of the respective shipments of the product
5% following installation, not to exceed 150 days after shipment of the product
(whichever comes first)
5% following start-up, not to exceed 180 days after shipment of the product
(whichever comes first)
6
6.1 DELIVERY SCHEDULE
6.1.1 Delivery time
Delivery of fabricated items and filter media 24 to 45 weeks after drawing approval.
Delivery of filter valves and control 30 to 60 weeks after drawing approval.
6.1.2 Production schedule
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

8 to 10 weeks after order
acceptance.
Submittal of EIC drawings for approval 8 to 12 weeks after order acceptance.
6.2 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE NORTH AMERICA
This order is subject to the Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale Xylem Americas effective
on the date the order is accepted. Terms are available at http://www.xyleminc.com/en-
us/Pages/terms-conditions-of-sale.aspx and incorporated herein by reference and made a part
of the agreement between parties.
Different terms are hereby rejected unless expressly assented to in writing.
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE: BUYER agrees ACCEPTANCE: SELLER hereby accepts
to purchase the equipment and services herein BUYER'S offer to purchase.
in accordance with the terms and conditions
set forth above.
________________________________________ Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.
(BUYER)
BY:____________________________________ BY:_________________________________
____________________________________ _________________________________
____________________________________ _________________________________
______________________, 20 __________ _____________________, 20 ________
Xylem, Inc.
www.xylem.com/treatment

Item 8: UV Disinfection Unit

"

Centreville WWTP ENR Upgrade and Expansion
Preliminary Engineering Report - DRAFT
Centreville, MD
Appendix E
Preliminary Hydraulic Profiles
Page 102

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP
801 South Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231