Laserfiche WebLink
e. Review of existing scrubber system and improvement recommendations. The County also <br />requested 1) a review of the existing scrubber system and the efficiency in an effort to <br />provide recommendations for optimization to the County, and 2) instrumentation and <br />control improvements for the carbon dioxide, lime, caustic and sulfuric acid systems. <br />f. Design criteria and recommendations for instrumentation and control improvements. <br />Each alternative will include preliminary design criteria and recommendations necessary <br />to implement instrumentation and control improvements. This includes any <br />modifications necessary to the existing SCADA system. <br />The evaluation will also include review of the existing instrumentation and controls for <br />chemical storage and feed systems (carbon dioxide, lime, caustic and sulfuric acid) and <br />recommendations for improvement. <br />g. Proposed site layout and plans. Each alternative will include a proposed site layout <br />generally detailing where the proposed improvements or modifications will be on the <br />existing site. Any site constraints will first be identified through discussions with the <br />County. <br />h. Revised process flow and instrumentation diagrams. Each alternative will include revised <br />process flow and instrumentation diagrams, detailing the modifications necessary to <br />implement the alternative. <br />Discussion of considerations and/or risks for continuity of operations. A section in the <br />report will include discussion on considerations for each alternative in order to establish <br />the minimum downtime for the Hobart WTP during construction. It will also include <br />discussion on how each alternative will help improve continuity of operations in regard <br />to operating the WTP as an integrated plant, maintenance, cleaning, bypass, etc. once the <br />improvements are implemented. <br />j. Planning level cost estimate. A planning level cost estimate will be developed for each <br />alternative presented. The cost estimate will include contingency. <br />k. Life cycle cost of each alternative to assist the County with decision making. After a <br />planning level cost estimate is developed for each alternative, the life cycle cost, or <br />assessing the total cost of the alternative over the course of its life cycle will be presented. <br />The analysis will include evaluating capital, operation and maintenance and disposal <br />costs. The analysis will also include considerations for a discounted cash flow and the net <br />present value. <br />Summary of recommendations. A summary of recommendations for the different <br />alternatives will be presented, including a recommendation of the most feasible <br />alternative relative to cost, timeframe, operational flexibility and feasibility. <br />Task 5 —Technical Memorandum <br />1. Prepare a Draft Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum that presents the different <br />alternatives summarized above under Item No. 1 and most feasible alternative recommendation. <br />Provide the County with one (1) hard copy of the Draft and a PDF format copy for review. <br />JCR/pt/ IRCDUS Project ID 12.24.504 <br />Tt #200I3P Indian River -3- 11/12/24 <br />OTETRATECH <br />