Jim:

Received your message, and have placed a stop work order to the design team. It sounds like you might be out until the New Year, but here would be some of my suggested actions:

• Chronicle the reasons for increased cost from the time of the engineering report thru the 60% ($2.38M at engineering report, $3.17M at 10%,$4.46M at 60%) briefly in draft memo format, to be used solely for discussion with the City project team and Dick Warren.
• Consideration of the following alternatives for discussion:
  • Life cycle analysis of BCF costs versus hauling sludge.
  • Phasing/whittling of scope of BCF improvements. Remember that some of the major cost increase items included the requested full build-out of the site, in combination with capacity design based on a C:N value that adheres to the City's experience from operation, but one that could potentially be reduced in the future with some optimization (including better mixer/air circulation, etc.) and/or a different sludge quality from the MBR facility. So there is opportunity to just build a few more bays for the current pinch, start processing the biosolids from the MBR plant, then see where operations lie and how much more capacity might be needed for 2025 volumes or beyond.
  • Implementation of further solids handling at the WWTP through dewatering/drying/Class A equipment (the FKC demo unit offered the Class A alternative with lime addition, pellets through drying, etc.). I'm not sure it would make sense to revisit the Siemens Cannibal system, as we are still stuck with the phosphorus recirculation/intended biological phosphorus removal dilemma. Realize that consideration of these alternatives would still necessitate solids storage away from the WWTP site, and, if implemented, would likely be accompanied by substantial reduction in potential distribution to the residential market.
    

Hope you have a great New Year, and we'll talk shortly thereafter. Just as an FYI - Kimberly Mathis from Enviroquip will be in town and will meet with our design team on Friday January 4. My objective from that meeting is to develop procedures and a schedule that will get us through the shop drawing review Phase 1 period efficiently. This does not alleviate the urgency for finalizing negotiations with Enviroquip, with the consequential damages still at the heart of the issue. Eric's email this morning was intented to provide further background to current industry conditions on that issue.

Chris

___________________________
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
www.kennedyjenks.com
 
Christopher W. Kelsey, P.E.
32001 32nd Ave. South, Suite 100
Federal Way, WA 98001
ChrisKelsey@KennedyJenks.com

( 253-874-0555 | Direct: 253-942-3467
      Cell: 253-670-5402 | Fax: 253-952-3435