EXHIBIT_A_WITH_CAROLLO_REPORT.pdf

EXHIBIT A

Y23-825-GO

Request for Proposal For Engineering Services

ORANGE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

SOUTH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (SWRF)

ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS

This is a request for a proposal for performing the engineering services required to complete the proposed SWRF Advanced Wastewater Treatment Improvements. Information concerning the project and the required contents of the proposal are presented in the following document. The project includes one element:

• Advanced Wastewater Treatment Improvements

PROJECT PURPOSE

The purpose of the project is to design, permit and perform construction administration for improvements to SWRF to increase the treatment performance to meet advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) standards in the entire 56 MGD ADF of plant effluent. For the purposes of this project, AWT is defined as 5 mg/L BOD, 5 mg/L TSS, 3 mg/L TN, and 1 mg/L TP.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The project includes the construction of improvements to the treatment process basins at the facility. The suggested improvements to meet the goal of AWT are outlined in the technical memorandum listed below. If needed, Proposers are encouraged to develop additional approaches as part of the response to this RFP.

A technical memorandum describing this project has been developed. It is titled “Orange County Utilities, South Water Reclamation Facility, Advanced Wastewater Treatment Improvements.” It was prepared by Carollo Engineers, Inc. and their team, and is attached for reference.

SCHEDULE

The proposal shall contain a schedule for accomplishment of the project that reflects the proposed elapsed time in days for completion of milestones including the preliminary engineering phase, the design phase, the bidding phase and the construction of the project. The schedule shall identify and address accomplishment of each major milestone enumerated in the Scope of Work. Assume a County review time of three (3) weeks for each submittal. Once the notice to proceed is issued for the engineering services, the schedule shall be updated with specific “start” date and “end” date for each task. The revised schedule shall be submitted to the Orange County Utilities Department(OCUD) Project Manager

(PM).

The schedule will reflect the proposed elapsed time in calendar days that the engineer will require for accomplishing the task, the estimated bidding duration and the construction time. The duration of activities controlled by the County shall be estimated with assistance of the OCUD PM and shall be included in the schedule.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

The proposal shall contain a chart that depicts the organizational hierarchy of the project team including all sub-consultants. All sub-consultant services shall be clearly defined. The chart shall contain names, title and responsibility of each team member and depict the flow of communication and responsibility for task performance.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Services required include:

1. preliminary engineering;

2. surveying;

3. geotechnical;

4. stormwater management;

5. design and preparation of construction documents;

6. permitting;

7. bidding assistance; and,

8. construction administration services.

Preliminary Engineering

The purpose of the Preliminary Engineering phase is to present the project completion alternatives to the County in a manner that will allow the County to make an informed decision as to how the project shall proceed. The Engineer will evaluate the needs and determine the requirements for the project with respect to the County’s standards and specifications and any other agencies having jurisdiction over the project. The Engineer will prepare and submit to the County a Preliminary Design Memorandum (PDM) for the project. The report shall summarize the site plans and designs of the proposed project and present recommendations and cost estimates. Specific tasks listed below will be completed as an element of the PDM, and may include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Coordinate and attend a Project Kick-off Meeting and Prepare and distribute meeting minutes.

2. Collect and review all available information such as records, maps, aerials, surveys, easements, plans, record drawings, soils investigation reports, zoning classification, building codes and standards that may be pertinent to execution of the project. Review all requirements of all agencies having jurisdiction over the project. Collect and review any other information that may have a bearing and impact on the planning, design, approval, permitting, construction or operation of the project.

3. Evaluate existing conditions with OCUD Field Services, plant operations staff and engineering project manager at the facility by site visitation. Consider current field conditions and any proposed site improvements and changes that may impact the project location and layout.

4. Prepare a preliminary site plan for the project which indicates all conflicts with existing utilities and all areas where special construction techniques may be required. Additionally, present any other pertinent information necessary for the County to evaluate the proposed site plan.

5. Confirm data contained in the previously prepared Technical Memorandum.

6. Prepare a preliminary estimate of probable construction costs for the project based on the preliminary site plan and design drawings.

7. Prepare and submit to the County for review, a draft site plan and preliminary design of the proposed project.

The Preliminary Design Memorandum (PDM) for the project shall include the findings and conclusions that resulted from the Preliminary Engineering effort; including, but not limited to, illustrative sketches and plans, permit requirements, and future plans.

Submit five (5) copies of the PDM to the County. Meet with the County to discuss Report and revise and finalize the PDM based on comments from the County. Submit two (2) copies and a digital copy as a single .pdf of the final PDM.

Survey

Following approval of the PDM, the Surveying will be performed for the project. The survey services shall meet the minimum requirements of OCUD for survey accuracy and control as described in Minimum Requirements For Survey Accuracy and Control and in the OCUD Standards and Construction Specifications Manual, (Manual), dated February 2011, or most current edition. Engineer shall be responsible for familiarization with survey requirements stated in the Department’s Manual to include but not be limited to Chapter 2 General Requirements and Design Standards and Chapter 3 Specifications.

1. A boundary survey will not be required. Existing underground utilities flagged by the respective utility owners shall be located by the survey. Additionally subservice verification of utilities will be required via soft digs or other method that will not damage the buried utilities.

2. Submit survey field notes and other pertinent survey data in electronic format. Data shall include but not be limited to the following:

a. Computations – Traverse closures and control coordinates;

b. Electronic files of data collected, control, title search of public records, last deeds of record of other data utilized in the survey effort

c. Survey Map Report; and

d. Control Survey Requirements

a. Horizontal and Vertical Control:

b. Vertical control data shall be based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988. Benchmark(s) shall be provided for each of the Design Drawings.

c. The horizontal control data shall be relative to the Florida State Plane Coordinate system, East

Zone, North American Datum of 1983/1990 adjustment.

d. Conventional surveying of the control and traverse points shall maintain a minimum positional reliability of 1:10,000 feet relative to the nearest geodetic control station. All baseline control traverses shall be tied to at least two existing horizontal controls of second order class I or higher standards or a control established by the County.

e. Base lines shall be parallel to the right-of-way/easements and monumented at the beginning and end of the project and at all changes in direction. Enough corners shall be found to determine the right-of-ways and these monuments shall be indicated on the survey. Monuments shall be described as to what was set and the state plane coordinates with vertical elevations (x,y,and z).

f. GPS surveyed control baselines shall meet these post processed GPS survey specifications using the kinematic survey method. Kinematic GPS surveys make use of two or more GPS units.

At least one GPS unit is set up over a known (reference) station and remains stationary, while other (rover) GPS units are moved from station to station. These surveys can be either continuous or “stop and go”. Stop and go station observation periods are of short duration, typically under two minutes.

g. Minimum number of reference stations to controls the project is 3rd order or better.

h. Minimum number of check stations is 2.

i. Maximum distance between the survey project boundary and the network reference control stations is 6 miles.

j. Maximum PDOP during station occupation is 5.

k. Minimum observation time on station is 5 epochs.

l. Minimum number of satellites observed simultaneously at all stations is 5 (100% of time).

m. Maximum epoch interval for data sampling is 1 to 15 seconds.

n. Minimum satellite mask angle above the horizon is 10 degrees. During office processing, start with a 15 degree mask.

e. Topographic Survey Requirements

a. Perform topographic survey of site as-needed to support the design of the project.

f. Utility Location Information Requirements

a. Determine by excavation, the horizontal and vertical location of existing utilities in the project area.

g. Survey Deliverables

a. Electronic submittal at 90% Design Submittal: All survey field notes and other pertinent survey data in electronic format shall be provided at the 90% design review meeting. Data shall include but not be limited to the following:

• Computations – Traverse closures and control coordinates

• Electronic files of the data collected, control, title search of public records, last deeds of records or other data utilized in the survey effort.

• Survey Map Report

• Surveyor shall prepare and submit a QA/QC surveying review checklist. The surveyor shall be totally responsible for the QA/QC process of their services

• The survey electronic files shall be signed and sealed by a registered surveyor by creating

“Signature” file in accordance with Chapter 5J-17.062 (formerly Chapter 61G17-7.0025)

FAC

b. Electronic files shall be sealed by creating a “signature” file that contains the Surveyor, date, a brief overall description of the documents and a list of the electronic files to be sealed. Each file in that list shall be identified by its file name utilizing relative Uniform Resource Locator (URL) syntax (RFC) 1738, December 1994.

c. Each file shall have an authentication code defined as an SHA-1 message digest described in Federal Information. Processing Standards Publication 18j0-1 “Secure Hash Standard,” 1995 April 17.

d. For those sheets that are electronically signed and sealed by a registered surveyor, the following notice shall be placed legibly on the sheet. The notice shall be located outside and along the right sheet border line, within 1/8 inch of the line and beginning within one inch of the bottom sheet border line.

“NOTICE; THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THIS SHEET IS THE ELECTRONIC FILE

SIGNED AND SEALED UNDER RULE 5J-17.062, FAC”

Geotechnical Investigation

1. Perform a geotechnical investigation to facilitate design of the proposed facilities and construction of the project.

2. The results of the geotechnical investigation shall be summarized in a report that includes the following:

a. Soil boring logs and classifications;

b. Existing groundwater levels and estimated seasonal high levels;

c. Other concerns as appropriate.

3. Review the geotechnical report and incorporate any recommendations and findings regarding soil and groundwater conditions into the design construction documents.

4. The geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County. Additionally, an unbound copy shall be included with the unbound technical specifications submitted for bidding purposes.

Stormwater Management

Evaluate the effect of the proposed improvements on the existing stormwater system and Environmental Resource Permit (ERP).

Final Design and Preparation of Construction Documents

Prepare construction drawings to include all required plan and elevation views and all necessary Construction Details and Notes. The construction documents shall be complete and meet requirements for competitive bid of the construction contract and subsequent construction of the Project. Documents shall comply with Supplemental Requirements for Design and Record Documents and the current requirements of the OCUD Standards and Construction Specification Manual (Manual) including but not limited to Chapter 2 General Requirements and Design Standards, 3.03 Construction Plans. A quality assurance and "constructability" review shall be provided prior to all submittals to the Department.

Design services will include submittal of construction documents at the 60%, 90%, and 100% level of completion.

1. Prepare the technical specifications for the project manual. The construction documents shall be complete and meet all requirements for construction contract competitive bid formulation and subsequent construction of the projects.

2. Provide and coordinate the services of a land surveyor, registered in the State of Florida as a

Professional Land Surveyor, to perform a detailed topographic for generating the site plan. The Engineer will review all survey data to ensure that the needs of the County and the project are met.

3. The Drawings shall state what datum was used to set the controls shown on the Drawings.

4. The Surveyor’s name, registration number, and the date the survey was performed shall be indicated on the construction drawings.

5. A draft of the sections of the technical specifications, and a draft of the bid schedule (with bid items and quantities), a Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs, and other required bid documents will be included.

6. The structural analysis and design shall be performed by an engineer licensed by the State of Florida as a structural engineer.

7. The Engineer shall provide and coordinate the services of an electrical engineer registered in the State of Florida to produce the electrical design for the project.

8. The Engineer shall design and coordinate with the County on the Supervisory Control and Data

Acquisition System (SCADA) improvements for the project.

9. Submit five (5) sets of construction drawings and technical specifications for the project at a 60% level of completion to the County. The minimum requirements of a 60% level of completion are defined as a complete set of plan and elevation drawings indicating all survey and topographic information, all existing utility locations, all applicable construction details and a preliminary draft of all sections of the technical specifications and design calculations. Meet with the County to discuss the 60% submittal, prepare a written list of County comments, submit to County for verification and subsequently revise the construction documents per the County’s comments.

10. Submit five (5) sets of construction drawings and technical specifications for the project at a 90% level of completion to the County. The minimum requirements of a 90% level of completion are defined as the incorporation of all County comments received and verified after the County’s review of the 60% submittal. At the 90% level of completion, the construction drawings and technical specifications shall be at a level of completion that will allow the projects to be bid. Meet with the County to discuss the 90% submittal, prepare a written list of County comments, submit to County for verification and subsequently revise the construction documents per the County’s comments.

11. Submit two (2) signed and sealed hardcopy sets of construction drawings and technical specifications, a digital copy of the drawings and specifications as a single PDF and a copy of the drawings in AutoCAD™ Release 14 format to the County. Specifications will be in Microsoft Word ™format.

12. Prepare and provide State of Florida registered professional engineer signed and sealed Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost and prepare and provide the Bid Schedule for the project.

Permitting

1. Prepare and submit all required permit applications and supporting documentation necessary to obtain required permits for construction and operation from all agencies with jurisdiction over the project. It is anticipated the project will require permitting with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for both the construction and an update to the facility Environmental

Resource Permit (ERP). Permitting for construction will also be required through the Orange County Building Safety Division.

2. Respond to all requests for additional information from permitting agencies.

3. Pay fee for all permits unless instructed otherwise after discussion with Orange County. Orange

County will reimburse fees paid by the Engineer.

Bidding Assistance

1. Create construction drawings and specifications for bidding and ePlan™ distribution by the Orange County Procurement Division (Procurement). Provide Procurement with:

a. One (1) CD with file of Bid Schedule, Index of Drawings, Drawings Table of Contents

b. One (1) CD’s each containing 2 file folders

i. 1 folder contains pdf of plans

ii. 1 folder contains pdf of specifications

2. Attend a pre-bid conference, prepare minutes of the pre-bid conference and submit to County for the project.

3. Consider written questions from bidders related to the project and prepare all addenda as required to interpret, clarify or expand the Bidding Documents. Submit addenda to County in a timely manner that allows reception of addenda by all bidders no later than a minimum of three

(3) days prior to bid opening date.

4. Review and evaluate the three apparent low bidder's bids, prepare a tabulation of bids, verify bidder’s experience and references and make recommendations to County regarding the award of the construction contract for the project.

Construction Administration

Construction inspection is provided by the County. The engineer will provide general construction administration for the project that includes provision of consultation and advice. All instructions to the Contractor(s) shall be issued through the County. The following tasks will be accomplished during the construction phase. The construction phase shall initiate the day after the Board of County Commissioners has awarded the construction contract.

1. Prepare and submit conformed documents, modify bidding documents, if required, and obtain

County/Procurement required and contractor executed documents; provide the County ten (10) full size and five (5) half-size signed and sealed sets of the construction drawings and fifteen (15) complete Project Manuals (collectively referred to as the “conformed” Contract Documents) for the Department’s use during the construction phase of the project.

2. Provide PM a scanned digital version of the hard copy Conformed Construction Drawings in protected

Adobe Acrobat document file (pdf) format and comprised of files in the tagged information file (.tif) format and signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record.

3. Provide a digital version of the Conformed Construction Drawings submitted in AutoCAD (.dxf or

.dwg) format.

4. Plan, organize and conduct a pre-construction conference and prepare a pre-construction conference booklet; distribute Conformed Contract Documents, take meeting minutes and distribute written minutes to all attendees for the project.

5. Review shop drawings and product submittals for conformance with the Contract Documents.

6. Attend monthly construction progress meetings, take meeting minutes and distribute such minutes to all attendees for the project. Concurrently on the day of the monthly construction progress meeting, observe the construction of the project and discuss any concerns with the County.

7. Provide clarification and interpretation of the Contract Documents when requested.

8. If requested by the County evaluate any request for changes in contract price and time made by the

Contractor and prepare change orders if required for the project.

9. Attend and participate in all start-ups and observe and provide technical guidance during the initial operation and the performance tests as required by the technical specifications.

10. Conduct substantial and final completion inspections of the project and prepare appropriate “punch lists” for the project.

11. Review as-built drawings prepared by the construction contractor’s State of Florida registered Professional Surveyor; review and revise the as-built/record drawings.

12. Prepare Record drawings in accordance with Supplemental Requirements For Design and Record

Documents based on information provided by the Contractor only; provide three (3) sets of prints of the record drawings and an electronic file of the record drawings utilizing the AutoCAD™ Release 14 format to the Department; additionally provide electronic files of scanned images of the record drawings in the “.tif” file format to the Department.

13. Prepare necessary documents and submit the Project certification of completion and any necessary partial certifications to the FDEP to obtain all approvals.

CAROLLO REPORT

EXHIBIT A- ATTACHMENT 1

Orange County Utilities

SOUTH WATER RECLAMATION

FACILITY (SWRF) ADVANCED

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

EVALUATION

FINAL | May 2022

Orange County Utilities

SOUTH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (SWRF)

ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT

EVALUATION

FINAL | May 2022

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by Victor J. Godlewski on the date adjacent to the seal.

Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

Carollo Engineers, Inc.

200 E Robinson Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, Florida 32801 407.478.4642 407.478.4643

Digitally signed by Victor J. Godlewski Contact Info: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Date: 2022.05.06 11:05:13-04'00'

SOUTH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT EVALUATION | ORANGE COUNTY UTILITIES pw://Carollo/Documents/FL/OCUD/200362-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/TM/2022_SWRF AWT_Rpt

Contents

Executive Summary ES-1

ES.1 Introduction ES-1

ES.2 Alternatives Discussion ES-2

ES 2.1 Opinions of Probable Construction Costs ES-3

ES 2.2 Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison ES-4

ES.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ES-4

Section 1 - Introduction 1-1

1.1 Background and Methodology 1-1

1.2 Permit and Implementation Considerations 1-2

1.3 Existing South Water Reclamation Facility 1-3

Section 2 - Water Quality and Flow Characteristics 2-1

2.1 Influent Wastewater Flow Projections 2-1

2.1.1 Overall Hydraulic Capacity 2-1

2.1.2 Biological Treatment Train Hydraulic Capacity 2-1

2.2 Raw Wastewater Quality 2-2

2.3 Permit Requirements 2-2

2.3.1 Applicable Laws and Regulations 2-2

2.3.2 Public Access Reuse 2-3

2.3.3 Class 1 Reliability 2-3

2.4 Current Effluent Quality Goals 2-5

2.5 Future Effluent Quality Goals 2-6

Section 3 - Selection of AWT Alternatives 3-1

3.1 Selection Process 3-1

3.2 Pairwise Analysis 3-4

3.3 Selected Alternatives 3-5

Section 4 - AWT Treatment Alternatives Analysis 4-1

4.1 SWRF AWT Evaluation 4-1

4.2 Conventional 5-Stage BNR 4-2

4.2.1 Process Description and Design 4-2

4.2.2 Secondary Clarifiers 4-5

pw://Carollo/Documents/FL/OCUD/200362-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/TM/2022_SWRF AWT_Rpt

FINAL | MAY 2022 | i

FINAL | MAY 2022 | ii

4.2.3 Other Process Impacts 4-6

4.2.4 Proposed Improvements 4-9

4.2.5 Phasing Plan 4-10

4.3 5-Stage Biological Nutrient Removal/Membrane Filtration (MBR) 4-10

4.3.1 Process Description and Design 4-10

4.3.2 Other Process Impacts 4-15

4.3.3 Proposed Improvements 4-15

4.3.4 Phasing Plan 4-15

4.4 5-Stage Biological Nutrient Removal/Nuvoda MOB™ 4-16

4.4.1 Process Description and Design 4-16

4.4.2 Other Process Impacts 4-19

4.4.3 Proposed Improvements 4-19

4.4.4 Phasing Plan 4-19

Section 5 - Treatment Alternatives Comparison 5-1

5.1 Discussion of Alternatives 5-1

5.2 Economic Evaluation 5-1

5.2.1 Engineer’s Conceptual Opinion of Probable Construction Costs 5-1

5.2.2 Operations and Maintenance Cost (O&M) Estimates 5-2

5.3 Non-Economic Evaluation 5-3

Section 6 - Conclusion and Recommendations 6-1

6.1 Hybrid BNR/ Nuvoda MOB™ Alternative 6-1

6.2 Implementation Considerations 6-1

Appendices Appendix A Slides Presented at the Alternatives Evaluation Workshop

Appendix B Conceptual Site Plans

Appendix C Nuvoda MOB™ References and Proposal

Appendix D Opinions of Probable Construction Cost

FINAL | MAY 2022 | iii

Tables

Table ES.1 Summary of SWRF Treatment Trains ES-1

Table ES.2 SWRF AWT Alternatives Comparison ES-2

Table ES.3 SWRF AWT Annual Costs-Power and Chemicals ES-4

Table 1.1 SWRF Influent Flow Projections Summary 1-2

Table 2.1 SWRF AWT Annual Costs-Power and Chemicals 2-1

Table 2.2 Historical Influent Concentrations and Load Peaking Factors 2-2

Table 2.3 SWRF Class I Reliability Requirements 2-4

Table 2.4 South Water Reclamation Facility FDEP Wastewater Effluent 2-5

Table 4.1 Summary of SWRF Treatment Trains 4-1

Table 4.2 Estimated 5-Stage BNR Treatment Capacity of Existing SWRF Bioreactors

4-4

Table 4.3 North Plant Disk Filters Capacity Summary-AWT 4-6

Table 4.4 North Plant Disinfection Capacity Summary-AWT 4-7

Table 4.5 South Plant ABW Filter Capacity Summary-AWT 4-8

Table 4.6 South Plant Disinfection Capacity Summary-AWT 4-9

Table 4.7 Estimated Treatment Capacity of Existing SWRF Bioreactors with MBR 4-11

Table 4.8 MBR Basin Design Criteria 4-13

Table 5.1 SWRF AWT Annual Costs-Power and Chemicals 5-3

Table 5.2 SWRF AWT Alternatives Comparison 5-3

FINAL | MAY 2022 | iv

Figures

Figure 1.1 SWRF Site Plan View 1-4

Figure 3.1 Universe of Options 3-2

Figure 3.2 Universe of Options Capable of AWT 3-3

Figure 3.3 Structured Decision Analysis Results 3-4

Figure 4.1 5-Stage BNR Flow Schematic 4-2

Figure 4.2 AWT Process Basin Requirements – 1.0 mgd 4-3

Figure 4.3 Conceptual SWRF Flow Split to 5-Stage BNR Treatment Trains 4-4

Figure 4.4 Conceptual SWRF Flow Split to Secondary Clarifiers 4-5

Figure 4.5 MBR Process Flow Diagram 4-11

Figure 4.6 MBR Flow Split Schematic 4-12

Figure 4.7 MBR Flow Schematic 4-16

Figure 4.8 Sludge Granule 4-17

Figure 4.9 Nuvoda MOB™ Process Schematic (Source: Nuvoda) 4-17

Figure 4.10 Nuvoda MOB™ Central WAS Screening Concept 4-18

FINAL | MAY 2022 | v

Abbreviations AADF annual average daily flow

ABW automatic backwash

ADF average daily flow

AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment

BFA Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.

BFP belt filter press

BNR biological nutrient removal

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.

County Orange County, Florida

DL detection limit

EWRF Eastern Water Reclamation Facility

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute

GST ground storage tank

IFAS Integrated fixed film activated sludge

MBR membrane bioreactor

MG million gallons mg/L milligrams per liter mgd million gallons per day

MLE Modified Ludzack-Ettinger

MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids

NWRF Northwest Water Reclamation Facility

OCU Orange County Utilities

O&M Operations and maintenance costs

PAR public access reuse

PHF peak hourly flow

RAS return activated sludge

RIB rapid infiltration basin

SBR Sequencing batch reactor

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SORAP Sustainable Operations and Resilience Action Plan

SWRF South Water Reclamation Facility

TCR total chlorine residual

TN total nitrogen

TSS total suspended solid

FINAL | MAY 2022 | vi ug/L micrograms per liter

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WAS waste activated sludge

WCIIDC Water Conserv II Distribution Center

WRF Water Reclamation Facility

FINAL | MAY 2022 | ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 Introduction

The South Water Reclamation Facility (SWRF) operates under FDEP Permit Number FLA107972 that was issued on March 7, 2019 with an expiration date of March 6, 2024. To meet OCU sustainability goals and more restrictive nutrient requirements, OCU is expecting that FDEP will issue an administrative order requiring AWT levels of effluent quality within 4.5 years of permit renewal. OCU has targeted a date of September 2027 for substantial completion of the required AWT treatment upgrades.

Currently, the SWRF has four separate trains of biological treatment as summarized in Table ES.1. Although these trains provide good nutrient removal today, they were not designed to provide AWT effluent quality at their design flows.

Table ES.1 Summary of SWRF Treatment Trains

Treatment Train Current AADF

Capacity (mgd) Future AADF

Capacity (mgd) Current Process Description

North Plant No. 1 (N1)

8 11 MLE BNR

North Plant No. 2 (N2)

20 20 4 Pass/Step feed-2 stage BNR

South Plant East

7.5 20.5 Oxidation ditch

(SPE)

South Plant West

(SPW)

20.5 20.5 3 Pass/step feed-2 stage BNR

AWT water quality is defined as follows:

• CBOD5 – 5 mg/L (annual average).

• TSS – 5 mg/L (single sample maximum).

• TN – 3 mg/L (annual average).

• TP – 1 mg/L (annual average).

Orange County Utilities (OCU) has authorized the Carollo Team (Carollo and BFA) to complete this professional engineering services Task Authorization (TA 29 SWRF AWT) to perform a conceptual evaluation of advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) alternatives for potential implementation at the SWRF. The Carollo team’s work included the development of a long-list review of options that was followed by a structured decision analysis that enabled staff to select three alternatives for further evaluation.

The selected alternatives included the following:

• Conventional 5-stage Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR).

• 5-stage BNR with Membrane Filtration (MBR).

• 5-stage BNR with Ballasted Media (Nuvoda MOB™).

The Carollo team developed conceptual designs for each alternative, opinions of probable construction costs and a comparison of key operations and maintenance costs.

FINAL | MAY 2022 | ES-2

The purpose of this study is to give OCU a perspective on the potential costs associated with conversion of SWRF to AWT and to serve as a planning tool.

ES.2 Alternatives Discussion

The advantages and disadvantages of the three selected alternatives are summarized in Table ES.2.

Table ES.2 SWRF AWT Alternatives Comparison

• Proven technology.

• OCU staff is familiar with operations and maintenance.

• Limited chemical use required for nutrient removal.

• Requires less site area.

• The secondary clarifiers and filters would no longer be needed making more space available on the site.

• Requires additional reactor volume for reliable treatment.

• The new reactor site will displace area that was reserved for reclaimed water storage.

• Requires significant yard piping improvements for an already congested site.

• Estimated to be the highest cost of the three options evaluated.

• Requires more energy and chemicals.

• Membranes must be protected from physical damage.

• Membrane life is approximately 10 years.

• MBR technology is unfamiliar to OCU staff.

• Requires significant yard piping improvements.

• OCU has made significant investments in secondary clarifiers and tertiary treatment that would no longer be required.

Disadvantages Advantages Alternative

5- St ag e

BN

R w ith

M

BR

Co nv en tio na l 5-

St ag e

BN

R

FINAL | MAY 2022 | ES-3

Disadvantages Advantages Alternative

• This alternative has significant cost advantages when compared to the other options.

• Use of the Nuvoda MOB™ media to augment treatment capacity and achieve improved water quality has been demonstrated since 2009.

• It has been estimated that SWRF’s existing bioreactor volume will be sufficient to produce AWT quality with the Nuvoda MOB™ media.

• The ballasted media will enhance settling

• The ballasted media is organic and readily available. It is a “green” technology.

• Limited requirements for new underground piping

• Limited chemical use required for nutrient removal.

ES 2.1 Opinions of Probable Construction Costs

• The Nuvoda MOB™ media has not been implemented at the scale required for SWRF.

• Recovery of the media and redistribution to the treatment trains could be challenging.

• If for some reason the process proves to be unsuccessful, then OCU would be at risk for non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

Conceptual Opinions of probable construction costs were developed for each of the alternatives.

The basis for these estimates includes the following:

• Design phase estimates prepared for similar projects.

• Bid history and schedule of values for similar projects.

• Allowances for work categories based on professional judgement.

• Supplier quotations.

Due to the nature of this cost evaluation, the approximate planning level capital cost will be less than that of a Class V Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) as described per AACE International guidelines. A Class V OPCC is based upon a 0-2 percent design maturation for the purposes of the conceptual screening of design alternatives. A Class V OPCC has an accuracy of -50 percent to +100 percent from the actual cost of construction. It is anticipated that the design maturation for this evaluation will be less than 5 percent and that it will have a wider range of accuracy than a Class V OPCC per the AACE International guidelines.

The OPCCs presented herein are useful for comparing the conceptual costs for the alternatives.

These OPCCs are also useful for initial financial planning. However, more reliable financial planning will result from an OPCC that is developed using design documents that have been advanced to at least a 30 percent design completion level.

The engineers OPCC for each alternative are included in Appendix D and summarized below:

• 5-stage BNR with Nuvoda MOB™: $107,400,000.

• Conventional 5-stage BNR: $186,500,000.

• 5-stage BNR with MBR: $392,600,000.

5- St ag e

BN

R w ith

N uv od a

M O

B™

FINAL | MAY 2022 | ES-4

ES 2.2 Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparison

For this evaluation, the most significant annual O&M costs are associated with energy and chemical usage. It was assumed that labor costs would remain about the same at SWRF regardless of the alternative that is ultimately selected by OCU. Chemical costs associated with disinfection were not included since the costs should be about the same for each alternative and would have no influence on the financial ranking. Energy costs were estimated using a rate of $0.10/KwH.

A comparison of the key O&M costs is presented in Table ES.3. The estimated annual power costs for Conventional 5-stage BNR and 5-stage BNR with Nuvoda MOB™ are equivalent at about $2.5 million for 60 mgd and $3.0 million for 72 mgd The MBR alternative has the highest estimated annual costs of $3.8 million at 60 mgd and $4.7 million at 72 mgd.

Table ES.3 SWRF AWT Annual Costs-Power and Chemicals

SWRF AWT Annual Cost Summary 60 mgd 72 mgd

Item ($/yr) ($/yr)

5-Stage BNR with MBR

MBR Air Scour-Power 729,557 833,780

Permeate Pumps-Power 284,312 341,174

Recycle Pumps-Power 710,780 1,023,523

BNR-Power 2,100,000 2,520,000

Total MBR Power $3,824,648 $4,718,476

Sodium Hypochlorite $67,000 $85,000

Citric Acid $517,000 $657,000

Total Chemical Costs $584,000 $742,000

5-Stage BNR with MBR Power & Chemicals $4,408,648 $5,460,476

Conventional 5-Stage BNR-Power $2,534,000 $3,041,000

5-Stage BNR with Nuvoda-Power $2,534,000 $3,041,000

ES.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on this evaluation of the three AWT alternatives that were selected by OCU for SWRF, Carollo recommends that OCU pursue the 5-stage BNR with Nuvoda MOB™ alternative. The estimated cost advantages for this alternative are compelling. This approach combines a process that is already familiar to OCU with an organic ballasted media that has a significant record of experience in the U.S. Since Nuvoda MOB™ lacks experience at SWRF’s scale, it is recommended that a full-scale testing plan be developed for SWRF. The data obtained during the testing will allow OCU to proceed with more confidence and will enable refinement of design criteria.

FINAL | MAY 2022 | ES-5

During a workshop to discuss OCU’s comments on the draft report, OCU staff presented an alternative concept to the Nuvoda MOB™ alternative. Staff’s concept involved fully converting all treatment trains to 5-stage BNR yielding an overall AWT treatment capacity of 48 mgd.

After upgrades are completed for SPE, the Nuvoda MOB™ media would be added for a full-scale performance test. Assuming the testing proves successful, OCU would then be able to apply to FDEP to rerate SPE from 9.25 mgd to 20.5 mgd increasing the permitted capacity from 48 mgd to 59.25 mgd. OCU could then decide how to phase the other trains in with Nuvoda MOB™ media to keep pace with projected capacity needs. If the results of the full-scale testing proved to be unfavorable, OCU could then proceed with development of new BNR treatment basins as outlined in Section 4.2 or another option could be considered as treatment technologies evolve.

The estimated probable construction cost for the initial phase of this hybrid alternative is $89,505,000. The estimated probable construction cost to convert the other trains to Nuvoda MOB™ media is $18,558,000. Refer to Appendix D for summaries of the estimated probable construction costs for the hybrid alternative.

The Nuvoda MOB™ alternative is the least disruptive alternative for the proposed conversion of SWRF to AWT. It is expected that construction of the first phase conversion of SPE, SPW, and N1 would take up to three years to complete. Allowing two years for design and bidding would yield a total project time of five years. To provide more schedule buffer, OCU could consider alternative forms of project delivery such as construction manager at risk (CMAR) or progressive design build.

FINAL | MAY 2022 | 1-1

Section 1

INTRODUCTION

Orange County Utilities (OCU) has authorized the Carollo Team (Carollo and BFA) to complete this professional engineering services Task Authorization (TA 29 SWRF AWT) to perform a conceptual evaluation of advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) alternatives for potential implementation at the County’s South Water Reclamation Facility (SWRF). The Carollo team’s work included the development of a long-list review of options (see Section 3) that was followed by a structured decision analysis that enabled staff to select three alternatives for further evaluation.

The selected alternatives included the following:

• Conventional 5-stage Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR).

• 5-stage BNR with Membrane Bioreactors.

• 5-stage BNR with Ballasted Media (Nuvoda MOB™).

The Carollo team developed conceptual designs for each alternative (see Section 4), opinions of probable construction costs and a comparison of key operations and maintenance costs (see Section 5.2).

The purpose of this study is to give OCU a perspective on the potential costs associated with conversion of SWRF to AWT and to serve as a planning tool.

1.1 Background and Methodology

In Florida, AWT standards require that treated effluent be less than or equal to 5 mg/L CBOD5, 5 mg/L TSS, 3 mg/L total nitrogen (TN), and 1 mg/L total phosphorus (TP) on an average annual basis (TSS is a grab sample maximum). SWRF currently produces advanced secondary quality reclaimed water, a quality level that is less than AWT. SWRF has four separate trains including, the North Plant 1 (N1), North Plant 2 (N2), South Plant East (SPE), and South Plant West (SPW).

Each train has a different treatment process. The N1 is a recently modified 8-mgd Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) activated sludge process train, N2 is a 20-mgd step-feed BNR process train, the Southwest Plant is a 20.5-mgd step-feed BNR process train, and the Southeast Plant is a 7.5-mgd carrousel train. SWRF’s capacity recently increased to 56.0-mgd upon completion of the Phase V expansion.

The goal for the planned improvements is to achieve AWT quality effluent at SWRF in each of the four separate treatment trains. It is anticipated that all process trains will need to be improved and modified from a different starting point. The SWRF site is space limited and will not easily accommodate treatment alternatives that require additional tankage or equipment.

The methodology for evaluation of the treatment alternatives must consider the County’s overall goals for treatment technology, operations and constructability, practical and physical limitations of the SWRF site, as well as the current County wide initiatives such as the Sustainable Operations and Resilience Action Plan (SORAP).

FINAL | MAY 2022 | 1-2

The evaluation began with consideration of a “universe of options” for treatment alternatives and technologies and continued with a reduced list of those technologies that will provide reliable AWT-quality effluent.

Further evaluation included a structured decision analysis method to identify a shorter list and then the three best treatment alternatives. Conceptual plans of the SWRF were prepared for each of the three selected treatment alternatives. And finally, this report provides OCU with an approximate range of conceptual planning level capital costs for the three selected alternatives along with a comparison of key O&M costs.

1.2 Permit and Implementation Considerations

The SWRF operates under FDEP Permit Number FLA107972 that was issued on March 7, 2019 with an expiration date of March 6, 2024. To meet more restrictive nutrient requirements, OCU is expecting that FDEP will issue an administrative order requiring AWT levels of effluent quality within 4.5 years of permit renewal. OCU has targeted a date of September 2027 for substantial completion of the required AWT treatment upgrades. The SWRF facilities plan included the flow projections listed in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 SWRF Influent Flow Projections Summary

Year Wastewater Flow

Projection (mgd AADF) Max Month Flow

(PF=1.2) (mgd) Maximum Day Flow

(PF=1.5) (mgd) Peak Hour Flow (PF=2.5) (mgd)

2020 37.9 45.5 56.9 94.7

2025 42.3 50.8 63.5 105.7

2030 46.7 56.0 70.0 116.7

2035 51.1 61.3 76.7 127.7

2040 55.5 66.6 83.3 138.7

2045 59.9 71.9 89.9 149.7

2050 64.3 77.2 96.5 160.7

The design flow for the initial phase of AWT should consider the ability to take trains out of service for modifications. The impacts of removing trains from service will be less severe when influent wastewater flows are lower.

Considering a phased approach, upgrades do not necessarily need to include 100 percent of plant capacity. Of the four effluent disposal options for SWRF, only the RIB recharge flow of

20.8 mgd AADF or about 38 percent of the 54.0 mgd permitted capacity would need to meet AWT-effluent quality. However, managing two effluent qualities would be challenging.

FINAL | MAY 2022 | 1-3

1.3 Existing South Water Reclamation Facility

SWRF is located in south Orange County at 4760 West Sand Lake Road, Orlando, Florida. The SWRF has an AADF permitted capacity of 56.0 mgd using physical, chemical, and biological processes. There are four separate biological treatment trains with shared, Influent Pump Station (IPS), and Preliminary Treatment Structure (PTS). The North Plant Disk Filter and Chlorine Contact Tank (CCT) receive effluent from the N1, N2, and SPW. The South Plant ABW filters and CCT receive effluent from the SPE. This section describes existing process units and equipment. The existing plant layout for SWRF can be seen in Figure 1.1. The SWRF consists of the following process areas:

• Influent pump station.

• PTS (screening and grit removal).

• Secondary treatment:

- North Plant 1.

- North Plant 2.

- Southeast Plant.

- Southwest Plant.

• Tertiary treatment:

- North Tertiary Treatment Complex.

- South Tertiary Treatment Complex.

• Reject and equalization.

• Solids handling.

• Odor control.

• Stormwater management.

• Structural/building mechanical.

• Electrical system.

• Instrumentation System.

FINAL | MAY 2022 | 1-4

Figure 1.1 SWRF Site Plan View

FINAL | MAY 2022 | 2-1

Section 2

WATER QUALITY AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS

2.1 Influent Wastewater Flow Projections

2.1.1 Overall Hydraulic Capacity

The SWRF is expected to accommodate domestic, commercial, and industrial flows. The proposed hydraulic capacities within the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program previously completed by Carollo will allow the SWRF to accept a total flow of 69 mgd AADF. As stated in Technical Memorandum No. 2 for the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program previously completed by Carollo, the build-out capacity for SWRF is 72 mgd AADF. Influent wastewater will continue to be treated by shared preliminary treatment before being separated into the four biological treatment trains. The process structures will be sized to accommodate the proposed permit capacity in addition to peak flows as predicted by flow peaking factors.

2.1.2 Biological Treatment Train Hydraulic Capacity

The rated capacity for each of the existing treatments trains at the SWRF following Phase V improvements is summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 SWRF AWT Annual Costs-Power and Chemicals

Process Train AADF MMADF MDF PHF

N1 8 9.6 12 20

N2 20 24 30 50

SPE 7.5 9 11.25 18.75

SPW 20.5 24.6 30.75 51.25

NP Tertiary Treatment(1) 48.5 58.2 72.75 --

SPE Tertiary Treatment 7.5 9 11.25 --

Total Plant Capacity 56 67.2 84.75 Note(2)

Notes:

(1) Combined flow from N1, N2, and SPW.

(2) Effluent flow to tertiary treatment is equalized approaching MDF.

The SWRF Facilities Plan, and Capital Improvement Program report previously completed by Carollo concluded that N1, N2, SPW, and SPE existing processes have sufficient capacity for original design peaks. However, the north and south tertiary treatment facilities were not designed to accommodate flows exceeding the max daily flow (MDF) of the combined upstream treatment trains. ROF controllers located downstream of each group of secondary clarifiers directs flow to either tertiary treatment or equalization (EQ) ponds for storage. The philosophy for controlling flow upstream of the tertiary treatment facilities is not expected to change.

FINAL | MAY 2022 | 2-2

2.2 Raw Wastewater Quality

As a part of the SWRF Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program report previously completed by Carollo, Carollo performed a flow and load analysis based on historical plant flow, loading data, and record documents utilized for design of past expansions. The historical values from 2012 to 2017, recommended design values, and peaking factors for the relevant influent parameters can be found in Table 2.2 from the previously cited Facilities Plan.

Table 2.2 Historical Influent Concentrations and Load Peaking Factors

Parameter

Historical Value, Annual

Average

Recommended Influent Design Concentration, Annual Average

Maximum Month Load

Peaking Factor

Maximum Day Load Peaking Factor

Unit cBOD5 193 200 1.4 2.2 mg/L

TSS 194 225 1.8 3.6 mg/L

TP 9 9 1.4 2.1 mg/L

2.3 Permit Requirements

The SWRF operates under domestic wastewater facility permit number FLA107972 issued by the FDEP, which expires March 6, 2024. The plant was subject to interim limits until the Phase V improvements were completed, at which point final effluent limits would be imposed.

2.3.1 Applicable Laws and Regulations

State environmental laws and regulations are defined by the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The Florida Statutes refer to Florida laws and the FAC refers to rules and regulations derived from the Florida Statutes. Developed by the FDEP and approved by the State Environmental Commission, the FAC defines water quality standards and beneficial uses.

The following statutes, rules, and regulation apply to the SWRF facility:

• FAC Chapter 62-600 “Domestic Wastewater Facilities”.

• FAC Chapter 62-610 “Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application”.

• FAC Chapter 62-620 “Wastewater Facility and Activities Permitting”.

• FAC Chapter 62.640 “Domestic Wastewater Residuals”.

A summary of the applicable rules and regulations is as follows:

Chapter 62-600, Domestic Wastewater Facilities, FAC – This chapter sets and mandates the minimum design requirements for domestic wastewater facilities.

This section establishes a protocol to adhere to when selecting treatment processes and equipment that will efficiently and reliably meet required reclaimed water of effluent limitations. This chapter also details USEPA Class 1 reliability requirements to specify the minimum amount of redundancy for equipment and processes.

Chapter 62-610, Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application, FAC – This chapter outlines the operation and maintenance criteria for land application systems that treat and discharge reclaimed water or domestic wastewater effluent for groundwater and surface water discharge projects.

TKN 44 47 1.4 1.8 mg/L

FINAL | MAY 2022 | 2-3

Chapter 62-620, Wastewater Facility and Activities Permitting, FAC – This chapter outlines the criteria and requirements to apply for a wastewater facility permit as well as the procedure to modify, maintain, and transfer facility permits. The chapter also details the grounds for suspension and revocation of a wastewater permit.

Chapter 62-640, Biosolids, FAC – This chapter outlines the minimum requirements for the treatment and management of biosolids and septage applied to land or distributed.

2.3.2 Public Access Reuse

The SWRF is permitted for the following reuse disposal sites:

Land Application R-001: R-001 is an existing 27.81 mgd AADF permitted capacity slow-rate public access system. R-001 is a reuse system which consists of irrigation within an approved reuse service area to the major users identified in Condition IV.2 of the FDEP Permit.

Wet-weather storage is provided for a total of 419.39 MG: 192.6 MG at the Westerly Effluent Disposal (WED) site (a 14 cell RIB system which is part of Land Application system R-001), 20 MG in the four 5-MG Conserv II storage tanks, two on-site 10 MG tanks, and 2.0 MG in the two 1-MG Meadow Woods storage tanks.

Land Application R-002: R-002 is an existing 20.5 mgd AADF permitted capacity RIB system.

R-002 is a reuse system which consists of the Conserv II RIBs as described in the current permit for FLA01079.

Land Application R-003: R-003 is an existing 19.5 mgd AADF permitted…