Wastewater Treatment Facility Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis

CITY OF PEOSTA, IOWA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

ANTIDEGRADATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
2016
IIW, P.C.
4155 Pennsylvania Avenue
Dubuque, IA 52002-2628
Voice: 563-556-2464
Fax: 563-556-7811
IIW Project No. 15189-01 Web: www.iiwengr.com
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
ANTIDEGRADATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
FOR
PEOSTA, IOWA
2016
PREPARED FOR: City of Peosta

P.O. Box 65
Peosta, Iowa 52068
Phone: 563-556-8755
PREPARED BY: IIW, P.C.

4155 Pennsylvania Avenue
Dubuque, Iowa 52002-2628
Phone: 563-556-2464
Fax: 563-556-7811
IIW PROJECT NO: 15189-01
ISSUED: November 22, 2016
I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me

or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa.
FOR IIW, P.C.
Eldon Schneider, P.E. Date

License Number: 22517
My license renewal date is December 31, 2017
Pages or sheets covered by this seal:
Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis and Appendices
WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1-1

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DESIGN PARAMETERS .................... 2-1
2.1 City Information ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Existing Facilities ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Current Flow and Loading Conditions ......................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Projected Conditions .................................................................................................... 2-4
3 RECEIVING STREAM NETWORK .......................................................... 3-1
4 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ........................................................................ 4-1
5 POC IDENTIFICATION AND TIER PROTECTION LEVEL ............... 5-1
6 IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES ............. 6-1
6.1 Lagoon Modifications .................................................................................................. 6-2
6.2 New Mechanical WWTF.............................................................................................. 6-3
6.3 Land Application .......................................................................................................... 6-8
6.4 Alternative Evaluation .................................................................................................. 6-8
6.5 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................. 6-15
7 JUSTIFICATION OF DEGRADATION..................................................... 7-1
8 PROJECT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ........................ 8-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A General Location Map

Appendix B Existing WWTF Exhibits
Appendix C Proposed Alternatives Exhibits
City of Peosta, Iowa TOC-1 IIW, P.C.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name
ADW Average Dry Weather
Analysis Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis
AWW30 30-Day Average Wet Weather
AWW180 180-Day Average Wet Weather
BPCA Base Pollution Control Alternative
BOD5 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
City City of Peosta
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfu Colony Forming Units
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DO Dissolved Oxygen
ft2 Square Feet
gpd Gallons per Day
gpm Gallons per Minute
IAC Iowa Administrative Code
IIW IIW, P.C.
I/I Inflow and Infiltration
lb/d Pounds per Day
LDA Less Degrading Alternative
LMI Low and Moderate Income
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MHI Median Household Income
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
MOR Monthly Operating Reports
MWW Maximum Wet Weather
NDA Non Degrading Alternative
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PE Population Equivalent
PHWW Peak Hour Wet Weather
POC Pollutants of Concern
SIU Significant Industrial User
SRF State Revolving Fund
S.U. Standard Units
TRC Total Residual Chlorine
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN Total Nitrogen
TP Total Phosphorus
UA/UAA Use Assessment/Use Attainability Analysis

Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name
USCB United States Census Bureau
United States Department of Housing & Urban
USHUD
Development
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WQBEL Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Table Name Page

Table 2-1. Historical Population ....................................................................................................... 2-1
Table 2-2. Projected Population ........................................................................................................ 2-1
Table 2-3. Lagoon Cell Volumes ...................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-4. Current Design Hydraulic Loads ..................................................................................... 2-3
Table 2-5. Current Design Maximum 30-day Organic Loads........................................................... 2-3
Table 2-6. Current Design Organic Loads ........................................................................................ 2-3
Table 2-7. Metals Testing Results ..................................................................................................... 2-4
Table 2-8. Projected Design Hydraulic Loads .................................................................................. 2-4
Table 2-9. Projected Design Organic Loads ..................................................................................... 2-5
Table 3-1. Current Stream Designations ........................................................................................... 3-1

Table 3-2. Current Impairment Status ............................................................................................... 3-2
Table 4-1. Current NPDES Limits .................................................................................................... 4-1

Table 4-2. Aerated Lagoon WQBELS .............................................................................................. 4-2
Table 4-3. Mechanical WWTF WQBELS ........................................................................................ 4-3
Table 5-1. Receiving Stream POC Information ................................................................................ 5-1
Table 6-1. Alternative Capital Costs ................................................................................................. 6-9

Table 6-2. Alternative Annual Costs ............................................................................................... 6-10
Table 6-3. Present Worth Costs....................................................................................................... 6-11
Table 6-4. Alternative Classification and Evaluation ..................................................................... 6-14
Table 6-5. Practicable Alternative Evaluation for POCs................................................................. 6-14
Table 6-6. Key for Table 6-5 ........................................................................................................... 6-14
Table 8-1. Peosta, IA SEI Factors ..................................................................................................... 8-1

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. Exhibit Name Page

EX-01 General Location Map .................................................................................................... A-1
EX-02 Existing WWTF Schematic and Layout ......................................................................... B-1
EX-03 Alternative No. 1 Schematic and Layout ........................................................................ C-1

EX-04 Alternative No. 2 Schematic and Layout ........................................................................ C-2
EX-05 Alternative Nos. 3 and 4 Schematic ................................................................................ C-3
EX-06 Alternative No. 5 Schematic ........................................................................................... C-4
EX-07 Alternative No. 6 Schematic ........................................................................................... C-5

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Executive Summary
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is experiencing rapid residential growth. Their existing lagoon system is loaded to
approximately 70 percent of its rated flow capacity. Previous studies have indicated that capacity may be
reached within the next 5 to 10 years. Area around the existing lagoon system is limited for expansion due
to industrial park developments.
To address these potential developments, the City is embarking on a Facility Planning process to evaluate
potential options for an expanded or new WWTF to serve continued residential and potential commercial
and industrial growth.
The City is proposing either the expansion of their existing facility or the construction of a new facility.
Therefore, an evaluation of alternatives to assess the level of degradation to the surface water quality is
required. This Analysis identifies and evaluates potential treatment improvements that are capable of
meeting the proposed effluent limits and offer a range of treatment and disposal capabilities to evaluate
non-degrading and less-degrading alternatives as mandated by Iowas Antidegradation Policy and
Implementation Procedure.
The following alternatives were evaluated for this Analysis. Alternatives appended with an A indicate
additional unit processes added to achieve nutrient removal:
Lagoon Modifications
o Alternative No. 1 - Lagoon Expansion
o Alternative No. 2 - Aerated Continuous Discharge Lagoon
New Mechanical WWTF
o Alternative No. 3 - Submerged Air Diffusers
o Alternative No. 3A - Submerged Air Diffusers w/ Nutrient Removal
o Alternative No. 4 - Oxidation Ditch
o Alternative No. 4A - Oxidation Ditch w/ Nutrient Removal
o Alternative No. 5 - SBR
o Alternative No. 5A - SBR w/ Nutrient Removal
o Alternative No. 6 - MBR
o Alternative No. 6A - MBR w/ Nutrient Removal
Land Application
o Alternative No. 7 - Land Application
A total of 11 alternatives were evaluated. The alternatives were evaluated based on their practicability,
economic efficiency, affordability and degradation on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Alternative No. 4A
was selected as the Preferred Alternative based on affordability, practicability, and preference of the City.
Although the Preferred Alternative is considered less degrading and expected to improve overall water
quality in the receiving stream network for a number of pollutants, degradation for some pollutants of
concern will occur. Therefore, a description of the project social and economic importance is included at
the end of this Analysis.
*****
City of Peosta, Iowa 1-1 IIW, P.C.

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Existing Conditions and Design Parameters
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DESIGN PARAMETERS

2.1 City Information
The estimated current population for the City is approximately 1,600 full time residents. Historical USCB
census data for the City is provided in Table 2-1. Population remained steady within the City until the
1990s when a large residential influx started rapidly increasing population. In 2010, the census data
reports 1,377 people in 438 households for an average of 3.14 people per household. The design period
for the WWTF project is 20 years. Over this time period, the residential population in the City is expected
to continue to increase at similar or even higher rates. The City has adopted a City of Peosta
Comprehensive Plan 2015 that includes population projections through the year 2040 as provided in
Table 2-2.
Table 2-1. Historical Population

Year Population
1940 45
1950 60
1960 50
1970 57
1980 120
1990 128
2000 651
2010 1,377
Table 2-2. Projected Population

Year Population
2020 2,035
2030 2,807
2040 3,750
2.2 Existing Facilities

The City operates a controlled discharge lagoon under their NPDES Permit No. 3150000 issued effective
August 1, 2014. The WWTF is located at the west end of the City and is situated less than 1,000 feet from
several industrial and commercial developments to the south and east. To the west is agricultural land
slated for potential development as an industrial park. A site map is included as Exhibit EX-01 in
Appendix A. The NPDES Permit for the WWTF includes additional monitoring requirements for metals
due to the two permitted SIU Discharges: Mi-T-M Corporation and Camoplast Solideal. These categorical
industrial facilities have discharge monitoring and concentration limits based on Pretreatment Standards
regulated under 40 CFR 433 for Metal Finishing Point Sources. A Compliance Schedule is included for
the NPDES Permit related to meeting limits for Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Nickel,
Silver, and Zinc. At this time, the City is gathering operating data for responding to the prescribed limits.
Sanitary sewer flows are delivered to the WWTF from two pump stations, the Roadway Lift Station and
the Kapp Court Lift Station. The Roadway Lift Station delivers the majority of flows roughly averaging

150,000 gpd. The Roadway Lift Station consists of two sets of pumps to handle normal daily and wet
weather conditions. Each set of pumps discharge to a dedicated force main that terminates at the existing
WWTF. The maximum estimated pumping rates from a single pump and force main are 400 gpm and 750
gpm for the pumps discharging to the 6-in and 10-in force mains, respectively. The maximum capacity of
the Roadway Lift Station using both of the parallel force mains is approximately 2,100 gpm, but this
condition has not been observed to occur.
The remaining flow reaching the WWTF is pumped from the Kapp Court Lift Station which serves a
portion of the Industrial Park adjacent to the existing WWTF. The Kapp Court Lift Station has a firm
capacity of 180 gpm discharging into a 4-in force main. Flow from the Kapp Court Lift Station is highly
dependent on work activities and receives flow primarily from office buildings. On working days
(typically weekdays), flows roughly average 30,000 gpd, with little to no flow on nonworking days.
The WWTF consists of a six-celled controlled discharge lagoon with supplemental aeration provided in
the largest cell (Cell No. 4), which is also the first cell to receive raw wastewater in normal operations.
The effective volumes for the six existing lagoon cells are summarized in Table 2-3. The WWTF was
originally constructed in 1986 and was substantially upgraded in 1998 to increase overall capacity and in
2007 to add aeration to the primary cell. Exhibit EX-02 in Appendix B provides a layout and schematic of
the existing WWTF. The permitted capacity of the existing WWTF is summarized as follows:
ADW: 0.200 MGD
AWW180: 0.250 MGD
MWW: 0.625 MGD
Design BOD5 Load: 521 lb/d as BOD5
Design TSS Load: 521 lb/d
PE: 3,120
Table 2-3. Lagoon Cell Volumes

Approximate Effective Volume
Cell No.
Surface Area (acres) (MG)
1 5.1 7.78
2 1.1 2.15
3 1.1 2.15
4 7.7 18.35
5 3.1 10.18
6 3.2 10.56
Total 21.3 51.17
2.3 Current Flow and Loading Conditions

Hydraulic loads to the WWTF were analyzed based on historical wastewater flow data. Table 2-4 presents
the historical values, which represent the current WWTF Design Flows as approved by Iowa DNR as a
part of the Facility Planning process. The values are based on WWTF MORs covering the effluent flow
measurements during the timespan of January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015.

Table 2-4. Current Design Hydraulic Loads

Current Design
Parameter Flow Conditions
(MGD)
ADW 0.106
AWW180 0.174
AWW30 0.208
MWW 0.477
PHWW 0.728 (505 gpm)
Organic loads to the WWTF were analyzed based on historical wastewater data and theoretical per capita
loading rates provided in Chapter 14 of the Iowa Wastewater Facilities Design Standards. BOD5, TSS,
and TKN are the base parameters for design. Table 2-5 presents the historical trends and theoretical loads.
The WWTF MORs cover the influent BOD5 and TSS measurements during the timespan of January 1,
2010 to December 31, 2015. TKN loads are calculated based on theoretical loads using a PE of 1,900.
The design basis loads in Table 2-6 represent the current WWTF Design Loads as approved by Iowa
DNR as a part of the Facility Planning process.
Table 2-5. Current Design Maximum 30-day Organic Loads

Historical Loads Theoretical Loads
Current Design
Parameter based on MORs based on Chapter 14
Loads (lb/d)
(lb/d) (lb/d)
BOD5 419 (811) -- 419
TSS 354 (773) -- 354
TKN N/A 87.4 87.4
1. Load in parenthesis represents Maximum Day observed (observed BOD5 and TSS peaking factors of
2.00 and 1.44, respectively).
Table 2-6. Current Design Organic Loads

Maximum 30-Day Maximum Day
Parameter
(lb/d) (lb/d)
BOD5 419 811
TSS 354 773
TKN 87.4 149
Due to the presence of the metal finishing categorical industrial facilities sending flow to the WWTF, the
City has also started collecting samples to quantify influent concentrations of the metals identified in their
Compliance Schedule. Monthly samples taken from February 2015 through September 2016 were
evaluated for this Analysis. The samples were gathered as a 24-hour composite on a rotating basis at the
Roadway Lift Station, Kapp Court Lift Station, and WWTF influent. The data was compiled to create
indicative average and peak conditions. Table 2-7 provides a summary of this data review. Individual
pump station values were transferred into average and maximum concentrations to create a composite
load to the WWTF based on those daily flows. This method does create artificially high numbers for

certain metals though since several parameters were detected below the method reporting limit for the test
and therefore were assigned that value as a result. Cadmium, Chromium, Nickel, Silver, and Cyanide
were commonly measured below the reporting limit.
Although not included as an effluent limit or monitoring requirement, the existing WWTF has had
historical issues related to Molybdenum accumulating in lagoon sludge within the primary cells. Sampled
concentrations have exceeded ceiling concentrations for typical land application. In July 2016, the City
started measuring influent Molybdenum concentration as a part of the other metal analyses. The results
are also included in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7. Metals Testing Results

Concentration (mg/L) Load (lb/d)
Parameter
Average Maximum Average Maximum
Zinc 0.16067 0.25242 0.24658 0.61306
Cadmium 0.00022 0.00030 0.00035 0.00060
Chromium 0.00319 0.00785 0.00514 0.01898
Cyanide 0.00500 0.00500 0.00805 0.01268
Nickel 0.00444 0.00596 0.00713 0.01264
Silver 0.00213 0.00287 0.00343 0.00557
Copper 0.06540 0.07880 0.09957 0.19095
Lead 0.00275 0.00710 0.00445 0.01273
Molybdenum -- 0.526 -- 0.912
2.4 Projected Conditions

The design period for the WWTF project is 20 years. The City is expected to grow such that an additional
design flow of approximately 0.234 MGD will need to be treated at the WWTF, a PE of 2,338. Table 2-8
presents the additional and total projected Design Flow conditions. Table 2-9 presents the additional and
total projected Design Load conditions at the WWTF.
The metals loads to the WWTF are not expected to increase significantly due to the projected residential
growth. Additional, unidentified industrial growth will warrant an evaluation as to whether the WWTF
will be impacted by influent metals concentrations and require treatment to remove them.
Table 2-8. Projected Design Hydraulic Loads

Projected Projected Design
Parameter Additional Design Flow Conditions
Flows (MGD) (MGD)
ADW 0.125 0.231
AWW180 0.234 0.408
AWW30 0.234 0.442
MWW 0.468 0.945
PHWW 0.819 1.54 (1,070 gpm)

Table 2-9. Projected Design Organic Loads

Projected Additional Design Loads (lb/d) Projected Design Loads (lb/d)
Parameter Maximum Maximum
Maximum Day Maximum Day
30-Day 30-Day
BOD5 514 997 933 1,808
TSS 585 766 939 1,539
TKN 108 185 195 334
*****

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Receiving Stream Network
3 RECEIVING STREAM NETWORK

The existing discharge receiving stream network consists of discharge to unnamed creek, to Whitewater
Creek, to North Fork Maquoketa River, to Maquoketa River, to Mississippi River. The proposed location
for a new Outfall for a new WWTF would be directly into Whitewater Creek approximately 4,500 feet
upstream of the confluence of the unnamed creek and Whitewater Creek. The effect would be to bypass
Unnamed Creek but otherwise follow the same receiving stream network as the existing WWTF.
A UA/UAA has been completed for the unnamed creek downstream of the existing Outfall. It is classified
as A2 B(WW-2) per the Iowa DNRs Surface Water Classification, effective on June 17, 2015. Class A2
designation refers to secondary contact recreational uses where contact with the water is incidental or
accidental and the probability of ingestion is minimal such as fishing and shoreline activities. Class
B(WW-2) designation refers to smaller perennial streams capable of maintaining aquatic life but do not
have the flow and habitat required to support and sustain game fish populations.
A UA/UAA has not been completed for the segment of Whitewater Creek from the confluence with the
unnamed creek to the headwaters. This includes the Outfall location of a new WWTF. According to the
current State rule, in order to maintain compliance with the Clean Water Act, the segment of Whitewater
Creek at the proposed Outfall must be presumed to be A1, B(WW-1). The Class A1 designation refers to
primary contact recreational uses involving direct and prolonged contact and full body immersion such as
swimming and water sports. The Class B(WW-1) designation refers large rivers and medium sized
tributary streams capable of supporting and sustaining a wide variety of aquatic life including game fish.
A UA/UAA would need to be completed and finalized within the Surface Water Classification report to
change these designations.
The current receiving stream network designations per the Surface Water Classification report effective
June 17, 2015 are summarized in Table 3-1. No segments of the receiving stream network are classified
as an OIW.
Table 3-1. Current Stream Designations

Current
Stream Note
Designation
Unnamed Creek A2 B(WW-2)
A1 B(WW-1) Not studied. Presumed classifications.
From confluence with unnamed creed
A2 B(WW-2)
to Dutch Lane crossing
Whitewater Creek A1 B(WW-2) At Dutch Lane crossing
A2 B(WW-2) To Curran Branch
A2 B(WW-1) HH To confluence with unnamed creek.
To mouth at North Fork Maquoketa
A1 B(WW-1) HH
River
North Fork Maquoketa River A1 B(WW-1) HH To mouth at Maquoketa River
Maquoketa River A1 B(WW-1) HH To mouth at Mississippi River
The receiving stream segments for the existing and proposed WWTF Outfalls are not currently listed on
the 305(d) impaired waters list. However, several downstream segments within the stream network are

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Receiving Stream Network
currently listed on the 305(d) impaired waters list. Waters listed on the 305(d) impaired list are waters for
which effluent limits will not be sufficient to meet all state water quality standards for one or multiple
pollutants from point or nonpoint sources. Listed waters have one or more designated uses that are either
partially or completely unsupported due to pollution or an unknown cause. The downstream segments
within the stream network currently listed on the Iowa DNR ADBNet- 305(b) Water Quality Assessment
Database are summarized in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Current Impairment Status

Stream Segment
Stream Impaired Use(s) Cause/Stressor
ADB ID
IA 01-NMQ-0100_1 Aquatic Life Biological
Whitewater Creek
IA 01-NMQ-0100_1 Primary Contact Indicator Bacteria
North Fork Maquoketa River IA 01-NMQ-0020_1 Biological Biological
IA 01-MAQ-0060_1 Aquatic Life Biological
Maquoketa River IA 01-MAQ-0060_2 Primary Contact Indicator Bacteria
IA 01-MAQ-0060_3 Primary Contact Indicator Bacteria
TMDLs for pollutants identified as causing the impairment(s), are required to be calculated by the State
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for 305(d) listed waters. The state assigns a level of priority
for the calculation of TMDLs based on the level of pollution and severity of impairment of a listed water.
The TMDL priority and status assigned to each of the stream segments listed in Table 3-2 above are
currently listed as low priority with no schedule.
*****

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Effluent Limitations
4 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
The NPDES Permit effluent limits for the existing WWTF are provided in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Current NPDES Limits

Concentration (mg/L) Mass (lb/d)
Parameter 7-Day 30-day Daily 7-Day 30-day Daily
Average Average Maximum Average Average Maximum
CBOD5 (1) 40 25
TSS 120 80
pH 6.5 (2) 9.0
Metals and
Cyanide (3)
Zinc 0.216 0.216 4.496 4.496
Cadmium 0.0005 0.0043 0.0095 0.09
Chromium 0.011 0.016 0.23 0.334
Cyanide 0.005 0.022 0.109 0.459
Nickel 0.094 0.844 1.961 17.588
Silver 0.004 0.004 0.079 0.079
Copper 0.017 0.027 0.352 0.561
Lead 0.008 0.197 0.161 4.117
1. 85 Percent Removal Required.
2. Daily Minimum.
3. Effective starting July 1, 2019.
Anticipated effluent limits based on projected conditions are based on the results of WLAs completed by
Iowa DNR (issued April 25, 2016) for different alternatives as a part of this Analysis. Effluent limits for
discharge to the existing Outfall location (Unnamed Creek) from an Aerated Lagoon is provided in Table
4-2. Effluent limits for discharge to a new Outfall location (Whitewater Creek) from a Mechanical
WWTF is provided in Table 4-3.
The more stringent WQBELs for the aerated lagoon can be attributed to the lower base flow within the
unnamed tributary to Whitewater Creek which provides little dilution at the point of discharge.

Table 4-2. Aerated Lagoon WQBELS

CBOD5 (1) 40 25
TSS 45 30
pH 6.5 (2) 9.0
DO 5.0 (2)
Ammonia
Nitrogen
January 5.8 19.9 20.2 73.4
February 6.5 8.5 22.7 31.1
March 3.9 3.9 14.4 14.4
April 2.3 4.7 8.1 17.4
May 2.0 3.2 7.1 11.9
June 1.5 3.2 5.2 11.9
July 1.2 3.2 4.3 11.9
August 1.1 2.7 3.9 9.8
September 1.6 2.7 5.7 9.8
October 2.7 2.7 9.8 9.8
November 2.7 2.7 9.8 9.8
December 3.9 3.9 14.4 14.4
Bacteria
630 (3)
E.coli
Chloride 398 630 1,450 2,321
Sulfate 1,517 1,517 5,586 5,586
TRC 0.241 0.319 0.889 1.176
Metals and
Cyanide
Cadmium 4.637E-04 4.326E-03 1.689E-03 1.593E-02
Chromium 1.128E-02 1.604E-02 4.108E-02 5.905E-02
Copper 1.719E-02 2.695E-02 6.279E-02 9.926E-02
Cyanide 5.331E-03 2.205E-02 1.942E-02 8.120E-02
Lead 7.887E-03 1.979E-01 2.873E-02 7.286E-01
Nickel 9.613E-02 8.453E-01 3.502E-01 3.113E+00
Silver 3.809E-03 3.809E-03 1.402E-02 1.402E-02
Zinc 2.161E-01 2.161E-01 7.956E-01 7.956E-01
1. 85 Percent Removal Required
2. Daily Minimum
3. Number of Organisms per 100 mL as a geometric mean measured quarterly March through November.

Table 4-3. Mechanical WWTF WQBELS

CBOD5 (1) 40 25
TSS 45 30
pH 6.5 (2) 9.0
DO 4.5 (2)
Ammonia
Nitrogen
January 12.3 15.8 32.9 57.3
February 14.0 15.0 37.1 53.8
March 6.3 15.2 17.1 55.2
April 4.6 16.1 12.5 58.7
May 3.9 15.6 10.7 40.6
June 2.6 11.2 7.5 26.8
July 2.7 8.7 7.2 20.8
August 2.5 9.1 6.6 21.2
September 3.0 10.2 8.4 24.5
October 6.4 16.2 17.2 46.7
November 7.9 15.1 21.2 55.0
December 9.3 16.5 24.8 59.8
Bacteria
126 (3)
E.coli
Chloride 496 645 1,639 2,350
Sulfate 1,554 1,554 5,658 5,658
TRC 0.244 0.320 0.894 1.177
Metals and
Cyanide
Cadmium 5.886E-04 4.436E-03 1.930E-03 1.614E-02
Chromium 1.432E-02 1.645E-02 4.694E-02 5.984E-02
Copper 2.068E-02 2.753E-02 6.953E-02 1.004E-01
Cyanide 6.768E-03 2.261E-02 2.219E-02 8.228E-02
Lead 1.001E-02 2.029E-01 3.283E-02 7.383E-01
Nickel 1.220E-01 8.669E-01 4.001E-01 3.154E+00
Silver 3.906E-03 3.906E-03 1.421E-02 1.421E-02
Zinc 2.216E-01 2.216E-01 8.062E-01 8.062E-01
1. 85 Percent Removal Required
2. Daily Minimum
3. Number of Organisms per 100 mL as a geometric mean measured quarterly March through November.
*****

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis POC Identification and Tier Protection Level
5 POC IDENTIFICATION AND TIER PROTECTION LEVEL

A summary of all current and proposed POCs and their associated secondary or WQBEL, tier protection
levels, and beneficial uses affected for the WWTF are provided in Table 5-1. All POCs have been
assigned a Tier 2 review. A Tier 2 review applies to POCs in a receiving stream that are currently or at
least presumed to be in compliance with an associated water quality standard. Tier 2 protection prohibits
the degradation of surface water quality (compared to existing) unless a review of reasonable alternatives
along with social and economic considerations justifies the additional degradation.
Table 5-1. Receiving Stream POC Information

Secondary or
POC Tier Affected Designated Use
WQBEL?
CBOD5 Secondary 2 Aquatic Life, General
TSS Secondary 2 General
pH WQBEL 2 Recreation, Aquatic Life
DO WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life
Ammonia Nitrogen WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life
Bacteria E.coli WQBEL 2 Recreation
Chloride WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life
Sulfate WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life
TRC WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life
TN No 2 General (Nuisance Aquatic Life)
TP No 2 General (Nuisance Aquatic Life)
Cadmium WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life, Human Health
Chromium WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life, Human Health
Copper WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life, Human Health
Cyanide WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life, Human Health
Lead WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life
Nickel WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life, Human Health
Silver WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life
Zinc WQBEL 2 Aquatic Life, Human Health
*****

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Identification and Discussion of Alternatives
6 IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES

The existing WWTF is consistently meeting current NPDES Permit effluent limits. However, the Permit
includes a compliance schedule related to meeting limits for Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide,
Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc. Additionally, the projected growth of the City will require a significant
increase in treatment capacity over the existing capacity. Therefore, the alternatives need to provide
adequate treatment and capacity in order to meet NPDES Permit effluent limits and to accommodate
future growth.
Several options exist for wastewater treatment, including expansion or modification of the existing lagoon
and new mechanical treatment facilities. The projected Design Flow conditions are a significant increase
over the existing lagoon capacity and therefore, a mechanical treatment facility would be the most likely
option for the City to select. However, expansion of the lagoons is included as an option in order to
address the utilization of the Citys current infrastructure and investment. The following wastewater
treatment alternatives have been evaluated for this Analysis.
Lagoon Modifications
o Alternative No. 1 - Lagoon Expansion
o Alternative No. 2 - Aerated Continuous Discharge Lagoon
New Mechanical WWTF
o Alternative No. 3 - Submerged Air Diffusers
o Alternative No. 3A - Submerged Air Diffusers w/ Nutrient Removal
o Alternative No. 4 - Oxidation Ditch
o Alternative No. 4A - Oxidation Ditch w/ Nutrient Removal
o Alternative No. 5 - SBR
o Alternative No. 5A - SBR w/ Nutrient Removal
o Alternative No. 6 - MBR
o Alternative No. 6A - MBR w/ Nutrient Removal
Land Application
o Alternative No. 7 - Land Application
Treatment of the seven metals and cyanide identified in the Permit effluent limits are not directly
addressed in the wastewater treatment alternatives that are evaluated in this Section. Loads are not
expected to increase with the increase in flow entering the WWTF as the loads are primarily due to the
SIU discharges currently included in the Permit. The influent sampling results discussed in Part 2 indicate
that copper and zinc represent the greatest potential for exceeding effluent limits at the WWTF. A
minimum removal rate of 40 percent for copper would need to be achieved to ensure compliance based on
current influent rates. A minimum removal rate of 10 percent for copper would need to be achieved to
ensure compliance based on current influent rates. Biological treatment systems are known to reduce
metal concentrations by incorporating them into biology or settling reduced forms of the metals out of
solution. Removal rates of 50 to 98 percent have been observed. If this proves to be insufficient through
more sampling, a more effective and practical way to deal with these metals and cyanide would be to
prevent them from entering the system. Restricting discharges from SIUs would present a more effective
program rather than trying to treat the entire wastewater flow and would be recommended. The historical
issues with Molybdenum may also require future SIU controls if it presents limitations to disposal of
sludge.

6.1 Lagoon Modifications

Wastewater lagoons are a low cost, relatively simple, and moderately reliable method for treating
municipal and industrial wastewater. Wastewater lagoons are particularly suited for small rural
communities where land availability is not an issue. The general process involves the treatment of
wastewater through natural aerobic and anaerobic processes. Treatment is improved through the addition
of air and mixing.
The existing WWTF consists of a six-celled controlled discharge lagoon with supplemental aeration
provided in the largest primary cell. The projected Design Flows for a controlled discharge lagoon option
result in a design flow that is nearly 65 percent greater than the current WWTF capacity. Alternative Nos.
1 and 2 evaluate the potential of expanding the existing system or modifying it to a continuously
discharging aerated lagoon to allow treatment within the existing storage volume.
6.1.1 Alternative No. 1 Lagoon Expansion

An expanded controlled discharge lagoon system would require the total storage volume to increase by 65
percent. This additional capacity would consist of new Cell Nos. 7, 8, and 9, which would be roughly
equivalent to existing Cell Nos. 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The projected AWW180 Design Flow results in a
required effective storage volume of approximately 73 MG, which is 22 MG in excess of the current
storage volume. The additional land area required to accommodate the additional lagoon cells would be
approximately 21 acres for a total area of 61 acres for the entire WWTF. Appropriate undeveloped land is
not available in the area surrounding the existing lagoons. The City would likely need to purchase
developed land within the industrial park at a higher cost per acre than the estimated cost for undeveloped
land. Additionally, costs for demolition of any structures existing on the developed land would need to be
added to the construction costs for the alternative.
A schematic and layout of the expanded lagoon facility to a nine-cell system is provided in Exhibit EX-03
in Appendix C. Note Cell Nos. 4 and 7 would both act as primary, aerated cells and influent flows would
need to be balanced between them during operation.
A controlled discharge facility would provide adequate treatment for current NPDES Permit effluent
limits, but future limits for metals and cyanide and other POCs may not be attainable. Additionally, the
land area required to provide adequate storage capacity would be excessive. Controlled discharge
lagoons are typically more suited for smaller communities and become less suitable as communities grow
because of the increasing land requirements.
Several features of Alternative No. 1 make it not practicable:

Additional degradation of the receiving stream for multiple POCs, including CBOD5, TSS,
chloride, sulfate, and metals.
Land availability, cost, and usability are questionable.
6.1.2 Alternative No. 2 Aerated Continuous Discharge Lagoon

Alternative No. 2 would allow the City to modify their existing controlled discharge lagoon to an aerated
continuous discharge lagoon facility without acquiring additional land. Aerated lagoons require
substantially less surface area than controlled discharge lagoons. The total storage volume of a continuous
discharge lagoon system is roughly 30 days, as compared to a controlled discharge lagoon system, which
requires a minimum of 180 days. Aeration is typically supplied through mechanical or diffused aeration

rather than by algal photosynthesis. The process consists of two or more primary cells that are aerated,
followed by quiescent (non-aerated) lagoon cells that provide settling of solids.
Additional NPDES Permit requirements are imposed on continuously discharging facilities compared to
controlled discharge lagoons. The modified system would be required to meet the effluent limits
identified in Table 4-2, which include ammonia, DO, and bacteria that are not currently assessed.
Ammonia removal does occur in an aerated lagoon, it is unlikely that the facility would be reliably
capable of meeting the WQBEL without an additional process. Therefore this alternative includes a
SAGR process following the aerated lagoon system. The SAGR process is an aerated filter system
which will also promote DO in the treated effluent to address the DO effluent limit. The addition of a
disinfection process to remove bacteria will also be required. UV disinfection is proposed since the
effluent quality following the SAGR should be adequate and chlorination would require additional
monitoring and control to address the TRC effluent limit.
A schematic and layout of the modified lagoon WWTF to an aerated system is provided in Exhibit EX-04
in Appendix C. Note that Cell Nos. 4, 5, and 6 would need to remain in operation during construction of
the new lagoon WWTF within the limits of existing Cell Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Additional costs for temporary
treatment during construction will required for this alternative.
Flow equalization would also be provided in this alternative. An earthen berm structure with synthetic
liner is proposed to be located within the limits of existing Cell No. 4. Flow equalization volume would
be equivalent to approximately 1 day of the difference between the PHWW and MWW flows. Flow rates
to the aerated continuous discharge lagoon system would be limited to MWW flows.
6.2 New Mechanical WWTF

The most suitable mechanical treatment options available for the City would be variations of the activated
sludge treatment process. The activated sludge treatment process provides biological treatment of
wastewater using microorganisms to breakdown and remove organic waste under aerobic conditions. The
activated sludge treatment process has three basic components:
A reactor where microorganisms are concentrated maintained in suspension under aerated
conditions. This mixture is referred to as MLSS.
A reactor where the solids within the MLSS are separated from the treated wastewater.
A solids recycling and wasting system for returning separated solids back to the beginning of the
process or removing excess accumulation of solids.
Mechanical WWTFs generally provide a greater degree of treatment with greater reliability and require a
fraction of the land area compared to lagoons. Many variations of the activated sludge process have been
developed to improve treatment performance. The variations to the conventional process include
adjustments in treatment or retention time, method of aeration, and process configurations. The activated
sludge processes evaluated in this Analysis include extended aeration, SBR, and MBR processes.
Manufacturer-specific treatment packages for each of the variations have been evaluated to provide a
general comparison of configurations and to determine land requirements and general costs.
In addition to the activated sludge portion of the treatment system, each mechanical WWTF alternative
will include the following processes as part of the overall WWTF:
Preliminary Treatment
o Screening and grit removal.
o Preliminary treatment will be designed to handle PHWW flow.

Flow Equalization
o Flow equalization within two earthen berm structures with synthetic liners is proposed to
be located at the new WWTF site.
o Flow equalization volume will be equivalent to approximately 1 day of the difference
between the PHWW and MWW flows.
o Flow rate to the activated sludge processes will be limited to MWW flows.
Disinfection
o UV Disinfection is proposed for all mechanical WWTF alternatives.
Reaeration
Solids Treatment and Handling
o Dewatering of sludge is proposed to handle potentially high molybdenum concentrations.
Nutrient Removal Technology (Optional Adder)
One or multiple buildings to house the Preliminary Treatment equipment, blowers, electrical equipment,
and administrative offices will be required. On-site emergency power generation to maintain operation of
the WWTF during utility power outages will be included. The site for the construction of the new
mechanical WWTF Alternatives was assumed to be located on one of three sites identified as suitable
located southwest of the City, as indicated in Exhibit EX-01 in Appendix A. Approximately 2 to 3 acres
would be required for the WWTF, but to allow expansion and secondary uses for the property, a site area
of 7 acres would be more reasonable.
A sludge management plan will need to be developed for all of the mechanical WWTF alternatives. In
general, the plan outlines a sludge management schedule, treatment or processing, storage, monitoring
and reporting, and ultimate method of disposal. The complexity of the plan will depend on the constructed
WWTF. Sludge management is more significant for the mechanical WWTF alternatives as sludge is
produced at higher rates and must be disposed of more frequently, typically every month or twice a year
depending on the chosen solids treatment system. The average influent concentrations measured for
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc do not indicate that these metals, which would be
removed in the sludge, would represent a limiting factor for land application. However, Molybdenum will
likely present restrictions on land application. If the metal concentration is not sufficiently below the
ceiling concentration, land application will be prohibited and the sludge must be sent to a landfill.
Dewatering equipment is proposed to remove liquid from the sludge sufficiently to allow it to be accepted
by a landfill.
Each of the mechanical WWTF alternatives can be modified to allow nutrient removal. Biological
removal of TN and TP can be achieved by the addition of selector basins and recycle streams. Chemical
addition can also be utilized for the removal of TP when conditions allowing biological removal are not
expected to occur on a reliable basis.
6.2.1 Alternative No. 3 - Extended Aeration Submerged Air Diffusers

The extended aeration process is a modification of the conventional activated sludge process in which the
contact time between the wastewater and microorganisms within the aeration basins is increased from
approximately 6 to 8 hours to approximately 18 to 24 hours. This modification reduces to relative volume
of waste solids and allows the system to better absorb peak load events. Air is typically supplied to the
MLSS within the aeration basins by rotating surface agitators or submerged air diffusers. Both function to
entrain air into the MLSS in order to maintain a desired concentration of DO. Following aeration the
MLSS traditionally enters a secondary clarifier where most of the solids are allowed to settle by gravity to
the bottom of the basin. A portion of these solids are then pumped back into the aeration basins as RAS.
Excess solids not required to maintain treatment are disposed of as WAS to a separate solids treatment

process. Regulatory requirements and biological growth models are used to size the aeration basin and
secondary clarifiers.
This alternative evaluates the use of blowers and submerged air diffusers to provide mixing and oxygen to
the system. The aeration basins are typically rectangular structures with water at least 10-ft deep. The
MLSS generally flows down the length of the basin, the floor of which is covered with submerged
diffusers delivering compressed air. A simplified schematic of Alternative No. 3 is provided on Exhibit
EX-05 in Appendix C.
The SEQUOX treatment process featuring four parallel trains of two-stage aeration and secondary
clarification within a common wall structure was evaluated for Alternative No. 3. Fine-bubble diffusers
are supplied for first-stage aeration and coarse bubble diffusers are supplied for second-stage aeration.
Compressed air from positive-displacement blowers is delivered to submerged air diffusers.
6.2.2 Alternative No. 4 Extended Aeration Oxidation Ditch

An oxidation ditch is a variation of the extended aeration activated sludge process that utilizes rotating
surface agitators to provide aeration rather than blowers and submerged diffusers as described in
Alternative No. 3. Installations in the area of the City are typically horizontal shaft rotors with brushes or
discs that mix, aerate, and push the MLSS around the ditch structure. A typical oxidation ditch consists of
a single or multi-channel configuration within a circular- or oval-shaped basin. The secondary clarifier
may be located within the annular space of the ditch to save on construction costs and land requirements.
Oxidation ditch rings may be interconnected at the ends in order to produce a long, continuous loop.
Aerators induce circulation and provide aeration in the ditch. A simplified schematic of Alternative No. 4
is provided on Exhibit EX-05 in Appendix C.
The Oxystream treatment process featuring two oxidation ditch structures each with two concentric
rings providing series flow from the outer to middle to inner rings was evaluated for Alternative No. 4.
Aeration and mixing are provided through the use of mechanical slow speed surface aerators vertically
mounted on platforms above the water surface. The platforms prevent plashing and provide access to the
aerators for maintenance. The aerators push the water to maintain a minimum velocity in the cross-section
of the channel to maintain suspension of the MLSS. The ditch structure is followed by two secondary
clarifier tanks.
6.2.3 Alternative No. 5 SBR

The SBR is a fill-and-draw activated sludge system. The SBR treatment process uses the same unit
processes of a conventional activated sludge systems except that the processes occur over time within a
single tank rather than simultaneously in separate tanks. Wastewater enters a reactor which contains
settled solids from previous fill-and-draw sequences. The MLSS is aerated and mixed for a set duration of
time, then allowed to settle. Once the solids have settled, the clear, treated wastewater is decanted and
sent to downstream processes or discharge. Recycling of solids is achieved by keeping the settled solids
in the bottom of the basin until the next fill cycle. Excess solids are routinely wasted to a separate solids
treatment process. A simplified schematic of Alternative No. 5 is provided on Exhibit EX-06 in Appendix
C.
The OMNIFLO treatment process featuring three SBR basins was evaluated for Alternative No. 5.
Compressed air from positive-displacement blowers is delivered to a submerged jet aeration header
within each tank to provide the aeration and mixing energy.

6.2.4 Alternative No. 6 MBR

A MBR combines the activated sludge treatment process with a filtration process. MBRs produce a high
quality effluent due to the use of a membrane barrier to separate solids, which reduces concentrations of
BOD5, TSS, and bacteria to levels lower than a gravity clarification process can reliably achieve. The
membrane units can be submerged in the aeration tanks or separate tanks depending on the
manufacturers recommendations. Membranes are typically constructed of a cellulose or polymer material
in configurations of hollow fiber bundles or flat plates. Wastewater will typically need to be pumped
through the membranes, but gravity flow can be used with certain technologies.
MBRs are capable of maintaining MLSS concentrations 3 to 4 times greater than extended aeration
treatment process within the aeration basins since they do not rely on gravity settling of solids. This factor
allows for smaller aeration tank volumes and the removal of secondary clarifier structures. A separate
disinfection process is sometimes not required since some membranes have small enough openings that
they retain the pathogenic bacteria within the MLSS. A disinfection process is still assumed to be required
for this Alternative.
In order to prevent fouling of the membranes, influent wastewater must screened to remove solids larger
than 1 to 3 mm. Screening for Alternatives Nos. 3, 4, and 5 would only require screen opening sizes in the
range of 6 to 7 mm (~1/4-in). Improper care and maintenance of membranes will result in frequent
replacement of membranes which will significantly increase operational costs for a MBR facility.
Membrane manufacturers typically provide a guarantee of varying lengths which can be from 3 to 5 years
which can be a significant factor when determining cost effectiveness.
A simplified schematic of Alternative No. 6 is provided on Exhibit EX-07 in Appendix C.
The Kubota MBR treatment process featuring two trains with three stages including an anoxic and pre-
aeration stage followed by three MBR basins was evaluated for Alternative No. 6. Compressed air from
positive-displacement blowers is delivered to the submerged membrane units within each tank to provide
the aeration and mixing energy.
6.2.5 Nutrient Removal Options

WQBELs for nutrients are not anticipated to be included in the NPDES Permit, but are included in this
Analysis to review the potential affordability of removing these POCs. For the purposes of this Analysis,
treatment to meet target effluent concentrations of 10 mg/L of TN and 1.0 mg/L of TP have been
considered. These options are presented as cost adders to the mechanical treatment alternatives described
in previous sections.
6.2.5.1 TN Removal
Biological TN removal is accomplished in a stepwise fashion: first by the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate
(nitrification), then by the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas (denitrification). Nitrification is already a
process that is designed into each of the activated sludge treatment processes.
Denitrification is often achieved by modifying the extended air process into the Modified Lutzak-Ettinger
process. In this scenario an anoxic selector tank is placed upstream of the aeration tank. RAS is returned
to the head of the anoxic selector and an additional recycle flow of MLSS prior to secondary clarification
is delivered to the same point. The availability of raw waste mixed with the nitrates in the MLSS recycle
allows the biological material to utilize the oxygen in the nitrates instead of requiring aeration from the
blowers. Nitrate is thus consumed and released as nitrogen gas and leaves the treated water.

A desirable influent BOD5:TKN ratio to achieve denitrification through the use of this process is 4:1 to
7:1. A chemical feed of a carbon source, such as methanol, is commonly used to promote denitrification
in systems with inadequate influent BOD5. The Citys ratio is approximately 5:1, so it is assumed that
chemical feed will not be required to achieve denitrification to the target effluent concentration. Due to
the benefit of reusing the oxygen in nitrates formed in the ammonia removal process, denitrification
capabilities are commonly constructed even if there is no specific TN removal requirement.
For Alternative No. 3 the system as designed includes an influent distribution tank that can be utilized as
an anoxic selector tank and is anticipated to produce an effluent TN concentration of 5 mg/L. Therefore it
will only require the addition of an MLSS recycle pump station for TN removal.
For Alternative No 4 the infrastructure required for TN removal will consist of an anoxic selector tank
sized for an HRT of a minimum of 5 hours at AWW30 flow, an MLSS recycle pump station, and an
additional surface aerator.
For Alternative No. 5 the infrastructure required for TN removal will consist of an additional surface
mixer and modifications to the control system. No additional tank volume will be required.
For Alternative No. 6 the system as designed is anticipated to produce an effluent TN concentration of 5
mg/L and therefore will not require additional modifications for TN removal.
6.2.5.2 TP Removal
TP removal can be achieved by biological or chemical removal. Chemical removal is considered in this
Analysis.
Biological TP removal consists of creating an anaerobic selector tank to create conditions that promote
the growth phosphorus accumulating organisms. These organisms ingest phosphorus at a higher rate than
other classes of organisms (3 to 5 percent rather than 1 to 2 percent). When these organisms are sent out
of the system as WAS, TP is removed from the system. For biological removal to be successful a typical
influent BOD5:TP ratio of 30:1 is desirable. The influent TP concentration for the WWTF is unknown.
Chemical removal is common in smaller WWTFs because it is relatively simpler to manage and the costs
of the equipment are much lower. TP is removed from the system by a chemical addition process where
the chemical causes phosphorus to coagulate onto a solid, which can then be settled out in a clarifier or
retained on a filter. Typical metal salts include aluminum sulfate and ferric chloride dosed at 5 to 15
mg/L, depending on the influent concentration of TP and location of addition. The most common and
effective chemical application point is just before secondary clarification or filtration. This allows the
chemical to interact with fewer potential contaminants that would be present in the raw wastewater.
In order to meet the target effluent TP concentrations in this Analysis, a chemical removal system will
consist of a ferric chloride chemical feed system dosing the wastewater either at the head of the aeration
tank or at the entrance to secondary clarification or membrane filtration. Settling in the secondary
clarifiers should be sufficient to meet the target effluent limit.
For Alternative Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 the infrastructure required for TP removal will consist of a chemical
storage and feed system located within a small building, piping to the delivery point, and a mixer at the
delivery point. The chemical removal process does create additional solids and may require more frequent
sludge removal from the sludge storage tank. It is assumed for this Analysis that the total solids load to
the Solids Treatment and Handling system will increase 10 percent with chemical TP removal.

6.3 Land Application

Slow rate land application was considered for this Analysis as a non-degrading alternative (NDA). The
existing controlled discharge lagoon WWTF would continue to operate in this alternative while excess
new flows would be directed to land application facilities.
Costs for land application systems are generally high due to the amount of land required, the degree of
pre-treatment needed to settle and remove solids prior to application, and the possible need for pathogen
treatment prior to land application.
6.3.1 Alternative No. 7 Land Application

For this analysis the existing WWTF would continue to operate as designed and all flow in excess of the
rated capacity would be diverted at the Roadway Lift Station to a new land application storage facility.
The long-term average flow to the land application storage facility would be the difference between the
projected AWW180 flow and existing WWTF capacity, 0.158 MGD.
For the general area of the City, Chapter 21 of the Iowa Wastewater Facilities Design Standards states
the minimum amount of storage to be provided for land application is 215 days, approximately eight
months. Chapter 21 also indicates that the minimum treatment of the wastewater prior to land application
shall be equivalent to the treatment obtained from a primary lagoon cell constructed and designed in
accordance with Chapter 18C. At the excess design flow of 0.158 MGD, the required amount of storage
would be approximately 34 MG. The land area required for the construction of the storage lagoons would
be approximately 26 acres. The storage lagoons would also need to meet Chapter 14 requirements for site
selection.
Required irrigation area is contingent upon several site specific factors such as constituent concentrations
within the wastewater and the site soils for nitrogen, phosphorus, trace elements, and salinity. All
constituents must be measured and the land application rate adjusted to ensure that a balance is
maintained. Additional factors for the land application site include the permeability of the soils, site
separation distances, geology, and groundwater. A reasonable assumed application rate of 10 inches per
year would require a minimum of 269 acres for the irrigation land area with a 1,000 buffer area. The
potential Karst topography present in the area around the City could place restrictions on potential land
application sites even if current landowners were receptive to wastewater irrigation.
Several features of Alternative No. 7 make it not practicable:

The City is located within a Karst topography area which creates a potential for direct
connections to the groundwater which could lead to contamination of nearby wells even if all
setback distances are met.
The land area needed for land application may not be found in one location due to the poorly
suited soils for irrigation in this area. This would require the City to haul wastewater to one or
more locations for application.
6.4 Alternative Evaluation
6.4.1 Costs
This part presents "order-of-magnitude" opinion of probable costs of the alternatives. The "order-of-
magnitude" opinions of probable costs are preliminary in detail and are intended for general fiscal
planning only. The level of accuracy of this planning level estimate is +30 percent to -15 percent.
These order-of-magnitude opinions of probable costs are based primarily on our experience and judgment
as a professional consultant combined with information from past experience, vendors, and published
sources. Since IIW no control over weather, cost and availability of labor, material and equipment, labor
productivity, construction contractor's procedures and methods, unavoidable delays, construction
contractor's methods of determining prices, economic conditions, government regulations and laws
(including the interpretation thereof), competitive bidding or market conditions and other factors affecting
such opinions or projections; consequently, the final project costs will vary from the opinions of costs
presented in this Analysis and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific
financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
The opinions of probable costs are for the construction of the proposed improvements as outlined above
and include abandonment of existing structures, piping, and buildings to the extent not reused, equipment,
installation, building, civil, piping, electrical, and instrumentation. These opinions assume that the
equipment at the new WWTF will be powered by a new electrical service to the WWTF site. Not
included in the construction costs are project costs related to removal and disposal of hazardous materials,
and taxes.
A 20 percent contingency allowance is included in the Capital and Annual Costs to cover all types of
unaccounted-for construction related project costs resulting from conditions, details or components which
are not normally known or determined until final detailed design.
6.4.1.1 Capital Costs

Capital costs are associated with the construction of a new facility or expanding and modifying the
existing facility. Capital costs shall include construction, land acquisition, and professional services such
as legal, engineering, and survey. All capital costs are presented in 2016 dollars and do not include any
escalation for inflation. Each alternative includes a mark-up of 20 percent to cover professional services.
Table 6-1 presents the estimated capital costs for each alternative.
Table 6-1. Alternative Capital Costs

Alt. No. Description Capital Cost
1 Lagoon Expansion $4,002,000
2 Aerated Continuous Discharge Lagoon $5,046,000
3 Submerged Air Diffusers $7,242,000
3A Submerged Air Diffusers with Nutrient Removal $7,391,000
4 Oxidation Ditch $6,415,000
4A Oxidation Ditch with Nutrient Removal $6,909,000
5 SBR $7,039,000
5A SBR with Nutrient Removal $7,388,000
6 MBR $7,714,000
6A MBR with Nutrient Removal $7,862,000
7 Land Application $6,834,000
The likely source of financing for the capital costs associated with the construction of a new facility or
expanding and modifying the existing facility will be a standard 20-year SRF Loan from the Iowa DNR.
The City will also likely pursue a CDBG grant to assist in funding the project, but it is not accounted for
the purposes of this Analysis.

6.4.1.2 Annual Costs

Annual costs are associated with the daily requirements for operating and maintaining the WWTF.
Annual O&M costs include labor, power, chemicals, and equipment maintenance and replacement. O&M
costs are estimated for each alternative and presented in 2016 dollars for the first year. Collection system
O&M costs are not included in this estimate.
The 2015 City of Peosta Financial Statement indicates total expenditures for sewer of $222,304.64 which
includes wages, laboratory testing, equipment maintenance and purchase, and miscellaneous
administrative costs. Sanitary sewer and lift station maintenance related expenses are also included in the
2015 budget figure. A breakout of expenses attributed to the existing lagoon system is estimated to be
$123,000. Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 7 use this value as a starting point for annual costs. Table 6-2
presents the estimated annual costs for each alternative.
Table 6-2. Alternative Annual Costs

Alt. No. Description 2016 Annual Cost
1 Lagoon Expansion $158,300
2 Aerated Continuous Discharge Lagoon $155,900
3 Submerged Air Diffusers $262,400
3A Submerged Air Diffusers with Nutrient Removal $282,700
4 Oxidation Ditch $257,900
4A Oxidation Ditch with Nutrient Removal $282,100
5 SBR $259,800
5A SBR with Nutrient Removal $284,100
6 MBR $281,700
6A MBR with Nutrient Removal $301,900
7 Land Application $199,900
6.4.1.3 Present Worth Costs

Table 6-3 summarizes the alternatives identified for wastewater treatment. Present worth for annual costs
is calculated based on a discount rate of 3.375 percent per year (discount rate based on 18 CFR 704.39
discount rate for 2015 under Water Resource Development Act of 1974, Section 80) over the project
design period of 20 years.

Table 6-3. Present Worth Costs

Alt. No. Description Present Worth Cost
1 Lagoon Expansion $6,277,000
2 Aerated Continuous Discharge Lagoon $7,286,000
3 Submerged Air Diffusers $11,014,000
3A Submerged Air Diffusers w/ TN & TP Removal $11,454,000
4 Oxidation Ditch $10,121,000
4A Oxidation Ditch w/ TN & TP Removal $10,964,000
5 SBR $10,774,000
5A SBR w/ TN & TP Removal $11,471,000
6 MBR $11,762,000
6A MBR w/ TN & TP Removal $12,203,000
7 Land Application $9,706,000
6.4.2 POC Evaluation

This part presents the individual POCs and the relative effect of each Alternative with respect to their
removal to evaluate the potential to minimize degradation. For the purposes of this evaluation it is
assumed that Alternative No. 7 (Land Application) is the only practicable alternative that will not cause a
change above the existing conditions for any of the POCs discussed below.
6.4.2.1 CBOD5
Although removal efficiency of CBOD5 is expected to remain the same or better for all of the practicable
treatment alternatives (i.e. reduced effluent concentrations), the total mass of CBOD5 discharged into the
receiving stream could increase given the expected increase in permitted effluent loadings.
6.4.2.2 TSS
Although removal efficiency of TSS is expected to remain the same or better for all of the practicable
treatment alternatives (i.e. reduced effluent concentrations), the total mass of TSS discharged into the
receiving stream could increase given the expected increase in permitted effluent loadings.
6.4.2.3 pH
All practicable treatment alternatives will be capable of meeting anticipated WQBEL range for pH. No
additional degradation due to pH is anticipated.
6.4.2.4 DO
All practicable treatment alternatives will be capable of meeting anticipated WQBEL for DO. CBOD5 and
Ammonia Nitrogen WQBELs are set to keep the DO concentration in the receiving stream from dropping
below 5.0 mg/L at any time. No additional degradation due to DO is anticipated.

6.4.2.5 Ammonia Nitrogen

The existing WWTF does not have effluent limits for Ammonia-Nitrogen. Since all practicable
discharging treatment alternatives will have an Ammonia-Nitrogen WQBEL, it is assumed that some
additional degradation will occur. However, it is anticipated that all practicable treatment alternatives
will be capable of meeting the limit.
6.4.2.6 Bacteria E.coli

The existing WWTF does not include a disinfection process. Since all practicable treatment alternatives
include a disinfection step, no further degradation is anticipated to occur from bacteria. The primary
difference will be due to the continuous nature of the discharged material rather than the large seasonal
flows from the controlled discharge operation.
6.4.2.7 Chloride
Further degradation is anticipated to occur from chloride for all practicable treatment alternatives since
chloride is not removed as a part of the treatment processes. Chloride discharged to the receiving stream
may increase due to the use of metal-salt chemicals for treatment, for example ferric chloride.
6.4.2.8 Sulfate
Further degradation is anticipated to occur from sulfate for all practicable treatment alternatives since
sulfate is not removed as a part of the treatment processes. Sulfate discharged to the receiving stream may
increase due to the use of metal-salt chemicals for treatment, for example ferric sulfate or alum.
6.4.2.9 TRC
TRC is not anticipated to be in the final NPDES Permit. All alternatives transitioning to continuous
discharge are proposed to incorporate a UV disinfection process rather than using a chlorine-based
treatment.
6.4.2.10 TN
TN is not anticipated to be in the final NPDES Permit. Alternatives that include nutrient removal are
anticipated to meet a target effluent TN of 10 mg/L.
6.4.2.11 TP
TP is not anticipated to be in the final NPDES Permit. Alternatives that include nutrient removal are
anticipated to meet a target effluent TP of 1.0 mg/L.
6.4.2.12 Metals and Cyanide

The seven metals and cyanide identified as POCs are not expected to increase in concert with the increase
in flow entering the WWTF as they are primarily due to the SIU discharges currently included in the
Permit. Lagoon stabilization and activated sludge treatment are both known to reduce metal
concentrations by incorporating them into biology or settling reduced forms of the metals out of
dissolution. Removal rates of 50 to 98 percent have been observed in biological processes. Total metal
concentrations discharging the plant are expected to vary primarily in relation to TSS concentrations,
while dissolved concentrations could be expected to remain stable barring any chemical treatment, such
as metal-salt addition.
No further degradation is anticipated to occur from metals and cyanide for all practicable alternatives
since influent loads are anticipated to remain steady and removal from treatment will remain at or better
than current technology. The primary difference will be due to the continuous nature of the discharged
material rather than the large seasonal flows from the controlled discharge operation.
Alternative No. 6 is likely to provide less pollutant load than the other mechanical treatment alternatives
due to their better removal TSS.
As noted at the beginning of this Section, a more effective and practical way to deal with metals
discharging the WWTF is to prevent them from entering the system by restricting discharges by the SIUs.
6.4.3 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation of treatment alternatives is to identify the least degrading and reasonable
alternative. A reasonable alternative is one that is practicable, economically efficient, and affordable as
defined by Iowas Antidegradation Policy and Implementation Procedure.
An alternative is considered practicable if it would provide effective and reliable treatment without
resulting in potential environmental impacts by implementing the alternative. Examples of potential
environmental impacts include degradation of groundwater, increased odor, and air emissions.
Economic efficiency is an evaluation of the overall costs for implementing the alternative compared to the
BPCA necessary to protect beneficial uses of the receiving stream network and meet the most stringent
WQBELs. Alternatives with estimated costs less than 115 percent of the cost of the BPCA are considered
economically efficient.
An evaluation of an alternatives affordability is used to determine if the cost of implementing an

alternative would be too high to be considered reasonable. An affordability assessment has been
completed to assess the level of economic impact imposed on the City by implementing each alternative.
Economic guidance states that in most cases an alternative is considered unaffordable when the annual
costs per household for the implementation of the alternative exceeds 2.0 percent of the Citys MHI. The
guidance further states that the alternative is not expected to result in significant economic hardship to the
City if the annual costs per household for the alternative are less than 1.0 percent of the Citys MHI.
Table 6-4 summarizes the cost evaluation of the alternatives as well as providing classification as NDA,
LDA, or BPCA and an evaluation of practicability, economic efficiency and affordability. The Citys
MHI is $81,750 , which is based on the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
available from the USCB. The annual cost per household is based on the annual cost of financing the
Capital Costs plus the Annual Costs associated with operating and maintaining the facility. The City
reports that 659 connections receive water and wastewater service.
Table 6-5 summarizes the degradation effect of the practicable alternatives for each POC.

Table 6-4. Alternative Classification and Evaluation

Is the Alternative Reasonable?
Alternative BPCA, NDA
Number or LDA? Economically
Practicable? % of BPCA Affordable? % of MHI Reasonable?
Efficient?
1 LDA N Y 62% Y 0.75% N
2 LDA Y Y 72% Y 0.86% N
3 LDA Y Y 109% Y 1.31% Y
3A LDA Y Y 113% Y 1.37% Y
4 BPCA Y Y 100% Y 1.21% Y
4A LDA Y Y 108% Y 1.31% Y
5 LDA Y Y 106% Y 1.33% Y
5A LDA Y Y 113% Y 1.37% N
6 LDA Y N 116% N 1.40% N
6A LDA Y N 121% N 1.46% N
7 NDA N Y 96% Y 1.15% N
Table 6-5. Practicable Alternative Evaluation for POCs

Alternative No.
POC
2 3 3A 4 4A 5 5A 6 6A
CBOD5 o + + + + + + ++ ++
TSS o + + + + + + ++ ++
pH o o o o o o o o o
DO + + + + + + + + +
Ammonia Nitrogen + + + + + + + + +
Bacteria E.coli + + + + + + + + +
Chloride o o o o o o o o o
Sulfate o o o o o o o o o
TRC o o o o o o o o o
TN o o ++ o ++ o ++ + ++
TP o o ++ o ++ o ++ + ++
Metals and Cyanide o o o o o o o + +
Table 6-6. Key for Table 6-5

Symbol Meaning
++ Less Degradation
+
o Status Quo
-
-- More Degradation

6.5 Preferred Alternative

Alternative No. 4A, Extended Aeration Oxidation Ditch with TN and TP Removal, is the Preferred
Alternative. This alternative is the least costly of the mechanical treatment alternatives and will provide
flexibility as the community grows with the potential for future expansion in the future without major
modifications to existing units. The modifications for added TN and TP removal are not cost prohibitive
for the City. The Preferred Alternative annual household costs are estimated to be 1.31 percent of the
Citys MHI.
*****

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Justification of Degradation
7 JUSTIFICATION OF DEGRADATION
The Preferred Alternative will result in compliance with all Secondary Limits and WQBELs anticipated
to be in a future NPDES Permit. The Preferred Alternative will reduce the amount of several pollutants
currently being discharged, thereby improving overall water quality in the receiving stream. Even with the
assumed City growth, the Preferred Alternative will reduce the loadings of Ammonia-Nitrogen and
bacteria to the Receiving Stream.
Although removal efficiencies of CBOD5 and TSS are expected to increase with the Preferred
Alternative, the total mass of these pollutants discharged into the receiving stream could increase given
the expected increase in Permitted effluent flows.
*****

WWTF Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis Project Social and Economic Importance
8 PROJECT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE

The proposed WWTF improvements included in the Preferred Alternative are necessary to continue
providing adequate wastewater treatment and to accommodate additional growth in the City. The
Preferred Alternative is not expected to directly cause a negative impact to the employment status, MHI,
poverty level, population, or housing construction. The existing and proposed municipal wastewater
infrastructure is and will be funded through the revenue generated by the system users. The likely source
of financing for the construction of the Preferred Alternative is a standard 20-year SRF Loan.
Several economic and non-economic impacts will occur as a result of the proposed improvements. With
the previously referenced funding assumptions for the Preferred Alternative, the average monthly
residential user charge for wastewater collection/treatment services will need to increase to cover the
costs for the Preferred Alternative implementation and other wastewater improvements noted in this
Analysis. The proposed construction will require a greater portion of user income to be utilized for
wastewater collection/treatment services. Therefore, the possibility does exist for community growth to be
hindered if new users (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) determine that the associated costs for
wastewater services are undesirable. However, the proposed construction will minimize the necessary
financial impact to the City as the Preferred Alternative is an economically efficient and affordable
alternative. With the proposed increase in treatment capacity and the degree of treatment to be provided
after construction, the project will represent an overall benefit to the Receiving Stream network and to the
continued growth of the City.
Table 8-1. Peosta, IA SEI Factors

State
Factor Status Notes Source
Average
Population 16 years 2010-2014 American
Rate of Employment 82.4% and over in civilian Community Survey 64.2%
labor force 5-Year Estimates
Population 16 years 2010-2014 American
Rate of
3.0% and over in civilian Community Survey 3.7%
Unemployment
labor force 5-Year Estimates
2010-2014 American
Median Household 2014 Estimated
$81,750 Community Survey $52,716
Income Income
5-Year Estimates
2010-2014 American
Individuals below
Poverty Level 11.3% Community Survey 12.6%
poverty level
5-Year Estimates
Increase from 2000 to
Population Trends +111% 2000/2010 Census +4.1%
2010
Housing Starts 50.9% 2000-2009 2010 Census 12%
June 30, 2015

Sewer Revenue $289,993 City Unknown
Financial Statement
*****

Appendix A General Location Map
IIW, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
INTEGRITY.EXPERTISE.SOLUTIONS
C COPYRIGHT 2015
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN
PREPARED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS
PROJECT ONLY. NO PART OF THIS
DOCUMENT MAY BE REPRODUCED
OR DISTRIBUTED IN ANY FORM
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF IIW,
P.C. ALL INFORMATION IN THIS
DOCUMENT IS CONSIDERED
PROPERTY OF IIW, P.C.
WWTF ANTIDEGRADATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

GENERAL LOCATION MAP
2016
Project Description
By
.
.
.
.
.
.
Date
Issued For Construction: .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Drawn By: LEN
Description
Drawing Issue Information
Issued For Bidding: .

Project Mgr: JDB
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rev
Sheet No:
Project No: 15189

Appendix B Existing WWTF Exhibits
IIW, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
C COPYRIGHT 2016

SCHEMATIC AND LAYOUT
EXISTING WWTF
2016
Project Description
By
.
.
.
.
.
.
Date
.
.
.
.
.
.
Drawn By: LEN
Description

Project Mgr: JDB
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rev
Sheet No:
Project No: 15189

Appendix C Proposed Alternatives Exhibits
IIW, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
C COPYRIGHT 2016

ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
2016
Project Description
By
.
.
.
.
.
.
Date
.
.
.
.
.
.
Drawn By: LEN
Description

Project Mgr: JDB
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rev
Sheet No:
Project No: 15189

IIW, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
C COPYRIGHT 2016

ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
2016
Project Description
By
.
.
.
.
.
.
Date
.
.
.
.
.
.
Drawn By: LEN
Description

Project Mgr: JDB
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rev
Sheet No:
Project No: 15189

IIW, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
C COPYRIGHT 2016

ALTERNATIVE NOS. 3 AND 4

SCHEMATIC
2016
Project Description
By
.
.
.
.
.
.
Date
.
.
.
.
.
.
Drawn By: LEN
LEGEND
Description

Project Mgr: JDB
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rev
Sheet No:
Project No: 15189

IIW, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
C COPYRIGHT 2016

ALTERNATIVE NO. 5

SCHEMATIC
2016
Project Description
By
.
.
.
.
.
.
Date
.
.
.
.
.
.
Drawn By: LEN
LEGEND
Description

Project Mgr: JDB
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rev
Sheet No:
Project No: 15189

IIW, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
C COPYRIGHT 2016

ALTERNATIVE NO. 6

SCHEMATIC
2016
Project Description
By
.
.
.
.
.
.
Date
.
.
.
.
.
.
Drawn By: LEN
LEGEND
Description

Project Mgr: JDB
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rev
Sheet No:
Project No: 15189

Wastewater Treatment Facility Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wastewater Treatment Facility Antidegradation Alternatives Analysis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CITY OF PEOSTA, IOWA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

PREPARED FOR: City of Peosta

PREPARED BY: IIW, P.C.

IIW PROJECT NO: 15189-01

ISSUED: November 22, 2016

I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me

FOR IIW, P.C.

Eldon Schneider, P.E. Date

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1-1

Appendix A General Location Map

City of Peosta, Iowa TOC-1 IIW, P.C.

City of Peosta, Iowa TOC-2 IIW, P.C.

City of Peosta, Iowa TOC-3 IIW, P.C.

Table No. Table Name Page

Table 3-1. Current Stream Designations ........................................................................................... 3-1

Table 4-1. Current NPDES Limits .................................................................................................... 4-1

Table 5-1. Receiving Stream POC Information ................................................................................ 5-1

Table 6-1. Alternative Capital Costs ................................................................................................. 6-9

Table 8-1. Peosta, IA SEI Factors ..................................................................................................... 8-1

City of Peosta, Iowa TOC-4 IIW, P.C.

Exhibit No. Exhibit Name Page

EX-02 Existing WWTF Schematic and Layout ......................................................................... B-1

EX-03 Alternative No. 1 Schematic and Layout ........................................................................ C-1

City of Peosta, Iowa TOC-5 IIW, P.C.

City of Peosta, Iowa 1-1 IIW, P.C.

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DESIGN PARAMETERS

Table 2-1. Historical Population

Table 2-2. Projected Population

2.2 Existing Facilities

City of Peosta, Iowa 2-1 IIW, P.C.

Table 2-3. Lagoon Cell Volumes

2.3 Current Flow and Loading Conditions

City of Peosta, Iowa 2-2 IIW, P.C.

Table 2-4. Current Design Hydraulic Loads

Table 2-5. Current Design Maximum 30-day Organic Loads

Table 2-6. Current Design Organic Loads

City of Peosta, Iowa 2-3 IIW, P.C.

Table 2-7. Metals Testing Results

2.4 Projected Conditions

Table 2-8. Projected Design Hydraulic Loads

City of Peosta, Iowa 2-4 IIW, P.C.

Table 2-9. Projected Design Organic Loads

City of Peosta, Iowa 2-5 IIW, P.C.

3 RECEIVING STREAM NETWORK

Table 3-1. Current Stream Designations

City of Peosta, Iowa 3-1 IIW, P.C.

Table 3-2. Current Impairment Status

City of Peosta, Iowa 3-2 IIW, P.C.

Table 4-1. Current NPDES Limits

City of Peosta, Iowa 4-1 IIW, P.C.

Table 4-2. Aerated Lagoon WQBELS

City of Peosta, Iowa 4-2 IIW, P.C.

Table 4-3. Mechanical WWTF WQBELS

City of Peosta, Iowa 4-3 IIW, P.C.

5 POC IDENTIFICATION AND TIER PROTECTION LEVEL

Table 5-1. Receiving Stream POC Information

City of Peosta, Iowa 5-1 IIW, P.C.

6 IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES

City of Peosta, Iowa 6-1 IIW, P.C.

6.1 Lagoon Modifications

6.1.1 Alternative No. 1 Lagoon Expansion

Several features of Alternative No. 1 make it not practicable: