EPA-430/9-77-009
Construction Grants Program
Information
VALUE ENGINEERING
\ * . - .
CASE STUDIES AND BIlVIATS FOR
PROPOSALS AND REPORTS
A SUPPLEMENT TO THE VALUE ENGINEERING
WORKBOOK FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROJECTS
JUNE 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been'reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
NOTES
To order this publication, MCD-27, "VALUE ENGINEERING, Case Studies and
Formats for Proposals and Reports" (June 1977), write to:
General Services Administration (8FFS)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 8022'5
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
11.
-------
Foreword
... " . " -- ' " '.-*
_In an effort to ensure fiscal and technical integrity in the EPA
multi-billion dollar construction grants program, value engineering
(VE) applied to project designs has been encouraged since 1974 and was
made mandatory for larger projects in 1976. The requirements and
"detailed guidance for conducting VE studies on EPA funded projects
are contained in section 35.926 of the Construction Grants Regulations
and the VE Workbook (MCD-29) published in July 1976.
This report supplements the VE Workbook. It contains detailed
information on the results of five projects which were voluntarily
subjected to VE under actual grant conditions. Also included are
(1) formats for VE proposals and reports, and (2) guidance for
determining the appropriate level of VE effort.
The report does not present any regulatory requirements. It is
primarily a guide to good practice. It'will also serve as a reference
from which useful information may be extracted. The formats and
guidance are included to ensure simplicity in the VE program and
thereby the VE process can be effectively and expeditiously executed.
The Environmental Protection Agency intends to revise and update
the report as more information is developed through experience. All
users are encouraged to submit any pertinent information to the Director,
Municipal Construction Division (WH-547), Office of Water Program
Operations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460. - -
Thomas C. _
Assistant Administrator
Water and'Hazardous Materials
-------
ABSTRACT
This report provides guidance on formats for Value Engineering (YE)
study proposals and reports; guidance on the appropriate level of VE effort
and VE team composition; and case studies on five wastewater prp'jects which
were subjected to VE under EPA's voluntary VE program.
IV
-------
.CONTENTS
Foreword ............... iii
Abstract .; ... iv
Figures. . . . > . -.- . . . . . ... . . > .» . . . .... .... - vii
Tables ..................... x
'.'" . ., 'i _, _ _ '"','' - yt- . ..-_.. . '
1. Guidance on Formats for VE Study Proposals and Reports . 1
Proposals ±or VE studies., . ...... . ... ......... . 1
Reports on VE studies 4
2. Guidance on Determining the Appropriate Level of VE
Effort and VE Team Composition . . . . . . ." 8
Introduction ....... .... 8
Total manpower required and number of workshops . . 8
VE team composition and qualifications. ....... 12
3. Value Engineering Studies of Five Wastewater Projects. . 16
Introduction. . . 16
Lebanon, Oregon Project
Description of the proposed project prior to
the VE study .......... 17
The VE study . . . .." . 20
Level of VE effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
VE study summary . . . . ... . 22,
General observations '-._.- . . ... . 32
Concord, North Carolina Project
Description of the proposed project prior to
the VE study ... 33
The VE study . . . . ;.. . . . . . .'. . . . . 38
Level of effort. . . . . . . 38
VE study summary . . . ." 39
VE recommendations 40
Designers response to VE recommendations ... 48
General observations . . .52
Plainville, Connecticut Project
Description of the proposed project prior to
the VE study ...... ..'_.. 53
. , The VE study 60
Level of effort 64
Method used for the VE study 65
Resultsand recommendations of the VE study. . 65
General observations ........ 86
Cleveland, Ohio Project
Description of the proposed project prior to
the VE study «... 87
v
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
The VE study 91
Level of VE effort 92
VE recommendations 92
Indianapolis, Indiana Project
Description of the proposed project prior to
the VE study 108
The VE study H2
Organization and conduct of the study 114
Level of effort. 118
Summary of savings and recommendations .... 118
General comments 127
General Observations From Case Studies 128
vi
-------
FIGURES - - - .
Number ....__.. - . . .. - Page
» '
1 Estimation of VE level of effort . . . . . .*.".'..".. .' 13
Lebanon, Oregon Case Study ,
2 Pre-VE project, Lebanon, Oregon ..... 18
3 Post VE project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . 19
4 F.A.S.T. diagram . .'... . . ... 26
5 Lebanon wastewater treatment facility cost model . .' . . . 27
Concord, North Carolina Case Study - -' -
6 Flow schematic as designed . . . . . .;". . . 34
7 . Overall layout ...............;...... 36
8 Hydraulic profile .... . . . . . .: . . . . ...... . 37
9 Main pump station and force main revision. . . . . . -. .- .~ 41-
10 -Main pump station utilizing rock for foundation. . . . V. 42
11 Pump station enclosures. . * . ... . 43
12 Ash basin - as designed .... ..... i ......". 45
13 Ash basin - proposed ... . . . . . . .: . ..;-.:. . . .'-.-- 46
14 Proposed new yard piping alt. (plant layout as designed) *. 47
Plainville, Connecticut Case Study
15 ' Schematic of existing STP Town of Plainville, Conn. ." . . 54
16A Schematic flow diagram prior to VE study . ".-''. . . . .! r. . 57
16B Hydraulic profile prior to VE study. . . . . . . . . .' . . 58
17, Site plan prior to VE study. . . . - ;.'''-'' 59
. vii
-------
FIGURES (continue d)
Number
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29A
29B
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Page
Cost model - Workshop no. 1 teams 66
Cost model - Treatment plant components 67
Cost model matrix - treatment plant components -
Workshop 1
Cost model - Workshop no. 2 teams
Cost model matrix treatment plant components.
68
69
70
Cost model matrix treatment plant components -
Workshop 2 71
Idea comparison 72
Criteria weighting process 73
Analysis matrix 74
Cost savings 78
Site plan after Workshop 1 79
Schematic flow diagram after Workshop 1 80
Hydraulic profile after Workshop 1 81
Biodisc walls 83
Biodisc walls 84
Workshop 2 - Site team recommendations 85
Cleveland, Ohio Southerly Case Study
Site plan 89
Contract 10, Item 5 94
Contract 10, Item 6 95
Contract 10, Item 13 96
Contract 14, Item 2 100
Vlll
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number .. ....... . _. . Page
38 Contract 14, item 7 .............. 102
39 Contract 14, Item 12. . . . . . . 103
Indianapolis, Indiana Case Study
40 Existing Belmont Plant. . . . . . . . . . ...".-.. . . . 109
41 Existing Sbuthport Plant. ... . ... ... .; . . . ... ._ _. . 110
42 Proposed Southport flow schematic . . . ".. .... .."... 113
43 Treatment alternative one - Southport 124
44 Treatment (split roughing) alternative two-Southport. . . . 125
45 Treatment, alternative three - Southport . . " 126
IX
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Approximate Level of Effort as a Function of the number
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
of VE Teams and Workshops
Lebanon, Oregon Case Study
2 Conceptual Cost Estimate, Lebanon, Oregon Project (Input
10
Data to VE Teams) 23,24
Ideas Recommended by VE Teams Rejected by Review Team. . . 28,29
VE Ideas Accepted by Design Team 30,31
Plainville, Connecticut Case Study
Discharge Standards 55
Design Criteria and Influent Characteristics 56
Cost Savings Summary - Workshop I 76
Cost Savings Summary - Workshop II . . . 77
Indianapolis, Indiana Case Study
Outline of VE Tasks
Accepted VE Recommendations
Rejected VE Ideas 121-123
Summary Data on Five Case Studies 129
-------
SECTION 1 --.-.--.----.-'
GUIDANCE ON FORMATS FOR VE STUDY. PROPOSALS AND REPORTS
PROPOSALS FOR VE STUDIES
The VE Workbook addresses the considerations to be made in preparing
proposals to EPA for VE studies. This report presents more specific out-
lines of suggested proposal organization. The VE proposal is part of the
Step 2 grant application. However, the VE proposal must be a separate sec-
tion of the application and must contain adequate information so that it
can be reviewed independently. The proposal should be complete but concise.
It need not explain VE concepts. The following outline is suggested as a
guide for submitting VE proposals to EPA.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION, ' -:_ .,-../ ;
A. Project name and EPA identification.number.
B. ; Treatment process and capacity - (Brief description).
1. Liquid . .. _.... ; . *.
'--'. 2. ' Solid -. - .-:. , , ,;.".. ..-.-- ' : -.'-. -.
. C. Estimated construction (Step 3) costs (grant eligible costs).
D. Design status.
II. PROPOSED SCOPE OF VE STUDY
A. Proposed constraints with detailed reasons.
B. Scope of technical areas to be investigated.
III. PROPOSED ORGANIZATION OF VE STUDY
A. Timing of the VE study (at what percentage(s) of design
completion) and rationale.
B. Number and length of Workshops (40 hours or less per work-
shop) and rationale. -
1. Discuss effects on design schedule with overall work
plan showing integration of VE effort into design
; ,"" ' schedule. ,...--.- ' :
-------
2.
Number of VE Teams and rationale.
C. Composition of Teams and rationale.
1. Primary study area for each team.
2. Specific skills to be included on each team.
3. Selection criteria for VETC and team members.
4. List of individual team members and alternates with
resumes of each.
D. Plan for Cdnduct of VE Study.
1. Pre-Workshop Preparation.
a. Specific documents to be furnished and distributed
and by whom.
b. Plan for co-ordinating with designer to obtain
agreeable basis of costs.
2. VE Workshop.
a. Location and day-by-day agenda for workshop.
b. Plan for availability of design staff to answer
questions.
3. Post Workshop Procedures.
a. Schedule for oral presentation.
b. Schedule for preparation and submittal of prelim-
inary VE report.
c. Schedule for preparation and submittal of final
VE report.
IV. VE FEE PROPOSAL (EPA FORM 5700-41, See Page 16 of VE Workbook)
Procurement of VE services and the VE contract must comply with
40 CFR 35.937 of the construction grant regulations. The estimated
level of effort for the design firm should be shown separately.
V. PROPOSED VE CONTRACT
VI. APPENDIX - QUALIFICATIONS OF VETC AND TEAM MEMBERS
The following is a sample of Sections I-III of the proposal, illustra-
ting that these sections should be concise.
EXAMPLE VE PROPOSAL, SECTIONS I - III
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name - River City, California; Project No. 77D-1014.
Design Flow = 22 mgd (new plant construction).
Process - Activated Sludge; Chlorination; Anaerobic Sludge
Digestion; Drying Beds.
Estimated Grant Eligible Construction Costs - $14,200,000.
-------
Design Status - Step I report approved; No Step 2 work yet
done.
II. PROPOSED SCOPE OP VE STUDY
Constraints Changes which would necessitate initiation of
EIS procedures are not to be made; changes which would result
in significantly longer time to implement design and con-
struction are not to be made (i.e., changes which might re-
quire extensive new site acquisition or new interceptor
routings).
Technical Areas to be Investigated - Unit process design cri-
teria, structures, electrical, mechanical, plant layout,
site.
III. PROPOSED ORGANIZATION OF VE STUDY
Timing of Study - at 20% of design (insert estimated date);
changes easily implemented at this point and most needed
data, including costs, will be available.
Number & Length of Workshops - 1, 1 team workshop.
Composition of Teams -
' - - - - - -,*. ' "...
VETC = (Insert Individual & Co. Name)
List of Team Members and Alternates
Team Composition
Mechanical - - ~:. .... . -: - : .. - ..
Electrical '_'.
Civil/structural :-:
Sanitary
Cost Estimator '---.-
Pre-Workshop Activities "-' ..' V
, Design Firm: Assemble preliminary plans (which will
- -include I & C drawings) and specifications; project
reports, unit quantity takeoffs and unit costs.
VETC: Co-ordinate with the designer"arid validate basis
of cost estimates; distribute material from designer
to team members; arrange facilities for workshop.
. . Workshop (Show agenda for each day) : L .
' "" 'Day 1 " .' . " '.'.."", '_-.-.-- .
Day 2 \
-------
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Post Workshop Schedule
Oral Presentation - (Insert Date)
Preliminary VE Report - (Insert Date)
Review Period for Designer - (Insert Start and Comple-
tion date)
Final VE Report - (Insert Date)
Implementation Plan - VETC will be retained on a per-
diem basis as needed to resolve questions on imple-
mentation .
REPORTS ON VE STUDIES
The VE Workbook presents several worksheets and related discussions
which will be of use in planning and preparing the VE report. The follow-
ing outline provides additional guidance on report format and content:
PRELIMINARY VE REPORT(1)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Name and EPA Identification Number.
B. Describe timing and scope of VE study.
C. Describe team responsibilities.
II. COST SUMMARY
A. Estimate by designer of project costs (capital and operation
and maintenance presented separately).
B. Estimated project costs after VE (capital and operation and
maintenance presented separately).
III. SUMMARY OF VE RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Present Summary Table Shown, Recommended Changes With
Following Information.
(1) Prepared by VETC so as to be ready for distribution to attendees at
oral presentation of VE results.
-------
1. Brief Narrative Description and schematic sketches of
before vs. after.
2. Construction, O & M and total savings for each recom-
mendation. . .
3. Estimated Implementation Costs.
IV. APPENDIX (Separate Volume) ;
A. Documentation for VE Recommendations.
1. Validation of Designer's Original Cost Estimates.
2. Documentation Related to Each Recommended Change.
a. Description of Recommended Change.
b. Before and After Design Criteria. :
c. Supporting Calculations on Costs (unit quantities,
unit prices, O & M manhours).
B. VE Team Workbooks (For Each Team).
1. Cost' Models
2. Functional Analysis
3. Speculative Phase
4. FAST Diagrams
5. Idea Evaluation
6. Cost Analysis
7. Alternative Evaluation
8. Team Recommendations
FINAL VE REPORT
(1)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Name and EPA Identification Number.
B. Reference Preliminary VE Report for Details on VE Recommen-
dations.
II. SUMMARY OF REDUCTION IN COST FROM ACCEPTED VE RECOMMENDATIONS
'. (including capital, OS M for each item)
III. SUMMARY OF DESIGNER'S EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS (Each recom-
mendation numbered in accord with number used in Preliminary VE
Report) .
A. Tabulate Accepted Recommendations. .
B. Describe Rejected Recommendations With Reasons For Rejection
of Each.
C. . Implementation.Schedule and Related Costs.
(1) Prepared by Designer.
-------
IV. DOCUMENTATION (Data Sources, calculations, etc.) FOR DESIGNER'S
REJECTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS OF VE RECOMMENDATIONS.
The following specific recommendations should be carefully reviewed
prior to preparation of the VE report:
- Make each VE recommendation brief, clear and complete.
- Don't put unrelated items in the same VE recommendation; make
a separate recommendation for each.
- Provide enough information in the VE recommendation (using supple
mental pages immediately following it as needed) so that the
recommendation is self explanatory and can be understood and eval
uated without the need to refer to other documents.
Each recommendation should be supported by:
Before and after design criteria.
Before and after sketches.
Before and after costs.
Information on how costs were developed (i.e.) quantities,
unit prices, labor and utility rates, O & M manhours and
an explanation of where they came from.
A list of other alternatives relating to the recommendations,
which were seriously considered, the reasons for their
rejection.
Before and after sketches are very helpful and should be included.
These should be clear and should be as detailed as necessary to
explain the proposal. They should not however, include unneces-
sary detail, accuracy or embellishment. Portions or reduced
portions of construction drawings are not usually effective.
A VE recommendation such as "Site team - Relocate chemical build-
ing, change site lighting, eliminate unnecessary parking and
reduce height of flood control berm - Initial Savings $100,000,
LCC Savings $1,200,000", doesn't adequately describe the recom-
mendation to the evaluator or owner. It should be divided into
four proposals with each expanded to explain quantitatively what
is really being proposed and why.
Don't waste time and space explaining the history of VE, the
reasons for VE, the VE method, the U.S. Government, PL 92-500,
how designers design, etc., in the VE report. The report is for
the designer and the owner's technical staff along with the fund-
ing agencies to review and evaluate.
Functional analyses, FAST diagrams, cost models, weighting and
evaluation sheets , brainstorming lists , etc . , should be put in
an appendix. Use an adequate table of contents for the detailed
-------
sections of the report 'and the appendix with a method such as
colored pages to set-off the beginning of each recommendation.
Be explicit about the acceptance of rejection of recommendations
without saying, for instance: "This recommendation was referred
to the electrical engineering department for further analysis".
Accept the recommendation or'state why it is rejected.
Be consistent in numbering the VE ideas so they can be readily
traced from the VE workbooks through the summary portions of the
final report. A simple system such as "F-3" to indicate the
third idea of the foundation (F). team works well.
-------
SECTION 2
GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL
OF VE EFFORT AND VE TEAM COMPOSITION
INTRODUCTION
The appropriate level of VE effort for a given project is a function
of several factors, the major ones being: project size, project complex-
ity, constraints upon scope of VE Study, and the degree of completion of
the design. This latter point will become less of variable under the man-
datory program because projects will plan for VE prior to the initiation
of Step 2. As a project progresses through Step 2, the potential for
savings through VE decreases because the cost of implementing changes be-
comes greater. EPA discourages any VE effort after 80% completion of Step
2. The optimum opportunity for return on VE costs appears to be when VE
is conducted at 10-30% of completion of the design. The priorities of the
design team should recognize the VE effort as a project milestone at the
10-30% point in Step 2 and establish priorities which will insure the
availability of material described in the VE workbook. The subsequent dis-
cussions of level of effort are based upon conducting the VE study at the
10-30% point in Step 2. The level of VE efforts for studies later than
this in Step 2 should be reduced to reflect the reduced potential for re-
turn. The major elements to be determined for a given VE study are:
Total manpower required and number of workshops.
Number and composition of the VE team(s).
TOTAL MANPOWER REQUIRED AND NUMBER OF WORKSHOPS
Depending on the size and complexity of the project, the VE effort may
vary from one team and one study to multiple teams and/or multiple studies
in order to adequately review the project. In some larger and/or complex
projects, it may be desirable to schedule two VE workshops during the
course of the design. The first may occur when 10-30% of the design is
complete and would concentrate on basic factors such as project layout;
processes used; building systems to be used (steel frame vs. precast walls
for example); general approach to electrical, instrumentation, controls,
etc. The second workshop would occur when the design is complete enough
(approximately 50-60% complete) that a detailed review of the electrical,
mechanical, and structural designs could be made.
The determination of how many teams and how many studies must be made
-------
on a case-by-case basis. For example,: a large advanced waste treatment pro-
ject may readily justify separate teams, each with a study area such as
structures, mechanical, electrical, process, and site. If the system in
question is simply an add-on to an existing plant to provide a single pro-
cess, the level of effort may be relatively small and readily handled in
one VE review. On the other hand, a small but highly refined-system, to
provide the ultimate that today's technology can achieve, would require
above average effort.
Typically, one VE team consists of five members. In some cases, larger
teams may be justified and have been used on particularly large and complex
projects. However, for most projects, the five man team will be an appro-
priate size. The_ following components make-up the VE effort:
VE Team Co-ordinator (VETC)
Pre-Workshop Preparation.- Collects project reports, drawings,
specifications, quantity takeoffs, and cost data from designer.
Also makes arrangements with team members and distributes informa-
tion to team.members.
Conducts the Project Review Workshop.
Prepares the Preliminary VE Report.
.Participates in implementation Phase - as required. - :
Designer . ~ , '
Pre-Workshop Preparation - Works with VETC in assembling needed
information. ,
, During Workshop - Provides answers to questions raised by the
VE teams (first 2 days of workshop). The designer's participa- '
tion is passive and any defensive reactions must not be allowed
to interfere with the generation of alternative ideas.
Coordinates Resolution; of Questions with VETC and Owner.
Prepare Final VE Report - In coordination with the Owner, prepares
the final VE report. .....-. . - -..,..,.. .... . ,
. Implementation of VE Ideas - This is highly variable and falls
outside the scope of the VE Study itself.
Table 1 presents typical levels of effort associated with varying
numbers of VE teams fojr one or two workshops. There may be cases where the
first of two workshops utilizes more teams than the second. For example,
one five team workshop followed by a later three team workshop would result
in an estimated level 0f effort of 43.5 + 26 = 69.5 man-weeks. Generally
the opportunities for changes and ease of implementing changes are
-------
I
w
w
I
i
o
H
D3
a
O
PH
W
w
8
H
W
g
w
PS
H
pue
asuodssH
sure sj,
doqs
sure si.
IT)
in 10 in
m m m
in m
m
I O H H H
iHrHCNCNCN
iHHHr-HrHtNCNCMCNlCN
inomoinooooo
tn w w w
4J+J+J4J4J^J4J-P-P-P
^MMHWUMMS^M
OOOOOOOOOO
to
(tf
T!
-H
U-l
O
.§
H
-P
(0
P
fi
Cn
fi
O
H
P
O
i i i I I I i
10
-------
significantly greater at the 10-30% design point where the first workshop
would be held. Thus, greater VE effort is usually made at this point than
at the time of the second workshop. There may be unusual cases where in-
creases over the estimates in Table 1 are clearly justified but drastically
greater proposed efforts may indicate that work which should be done as
part of the design effort (cost estimation or analysis of alternatives out-
side of constraints for example) is creeping into the VE effort. As a
general guide, the support effort by the designer should not exceed 30% of
the VE effort. The designer's estimated supporting level of effort should
be considered as a budget guide only with actual payment based on cost-plus-
fixed-fee. The effort actually required of.the designer will be a function
of the number and complexity of VE recommendations. Redesign effort to
implement VE recommendations is not part of the VE effort.
The appropriate overall level of effort is chiefly a function of plant
size"'and complexity. Complexity is difficult to quantify. For example,
secondary treatment plant complexity itself can vary substantially as a
function, for example, of the sludge disposal process (land application of
digested sludge is much less mechanically complex than mechanical thicken-
ing, dewatering, and incineration). Perhaps the best indicator of potential
complexity and the potential for savings from VE is the cost of a given
capacity plant. That is, a 20 mgd plant costing $30,000,000 is likely to
be more complex and/or offers more potential for savings from VE than a
20 mgd plant costing $14,000,000. Likewise, a 10 mgd plant costing
$14,000,000 is more complex than the 20 mgd plant costing $14,000,000 and
may justify a larger VE effort.
Based upon a cost analysis of several plants of varying capacity and
complexity and an estimation of VE effort for each, a nomograph (Figure 1).
has been developed for estimating the appropriate level of VE effort for
various size/cost plants. A straight line is drawn from the plant capacity
being constructed (the capacity being added in the case of a plant expan-
sion) through the estimated construction cost .(excluding engineering, legal,
financing, etc. costs). The point at which the extension of this line
strikes the right axis of the nomograph provides an estimate of the appro-
priate level of the VE effort. An example is plotted for a low complexity
plant:
20 mgd plant capacity
Estimated Cost = $14,000,000
Estimated level of VE effort = 19 man-weeks
Refer to Table 1 - One, two-team effort appears appropriate
Where only certain components of a plant are being modified or ex-
panded, it may be difficult to develop an applicable "capacity being con-
structed" value. For example, a plant abandoning land disposal of sludge
for a system utilizing mechanical dewatering and incineration might have
no associated change in treatment capacity.... Such cases will usually
involve a limited number of sub-systems and the guidelines in the EPA VE
Workbook for projects of limited complexity (page 12) may be used for
guidance.; . -, > .,--.-. .,-. .. ;, ;
11
-------
In cases where processes are being added to upgrade plant, performance
without changing plant capacity, Figure 1 may be used for guidance as
illustrated below.
Assume that coagulation, tertiary sedimentation, filtration, and sludge
incineration facilities are being added to an existing 50 mgd activated
sludge plant with no increase in'the existing 50 mgd capacity with the
following associated costs:
Rapid Mixing
Flocculation
Clarifier
Filtration
Chemical Feeding:
Alum
Polymer, Wastewater
Polymer, Sludge
Chemical Sludge Pumping
Dissolved Air Flotation
Thickener
Vacuum Filter
Multiple Hearth Furnace
Yardwork
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION COST
$130,000
160,000
2,200,000
5,600,000
200,000
62,000
580,000
62,000
360,000
1,300,000
7,000,000
2,730,000
$20,384,000
Figure 1 indicates a VE level of effort of about 19 man-weeks for a
50 mgd capacity which has a cost of $20,000,000 (1-2 team workshop). With
the limited number of sub-systems involved (for example, no extensive site
considerations involved because it is an addition to an existing facility),
such a level of VE effort appears appropriate. If the same facility were
being built as an all new plant, then total construction costs could
approach $35,000,000 and the associated level of VE effort would then be
about 36 man-weeks (2-2 team efforts or 1 - 4 team effort).
VE TEAM COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATIONS
Obviously, the skills and expertise of VE Team Members must be tailored
to the nature of the specific project involved. For example, VE of a major
land treatment system should involve personnel with agricultural engineer-
ing, irrigation system design, and perhaps farm management skills. These
skills would be totally inappropriate for a conventional secondary treat-
ment plant project.
Regardless of the specific technical skills required for a project,
there are some universally applicable considerations for team members.
Team members should be highly qualified in the disciplines they repre-
sent. The competence of the individuals who make up the VE team(s) is
probably more important than the precise composition of the teams. The
creativity of the teams will be proportional to the competence of their
12
-------
O
LJL
UL
LU
U.
O
_J
LU
>
LU
>
LL.
O
o
LU
o
O f
k. t- ra
JB o. ° o>
s §- «
CO 3 d)
« c
01 a. S °>
~ ja S to
£ c to
5'Mi
>» o *^
S c
r £
m
E
cu 3 o
II
U '.
o- c |
»- r !
s £ c
X w
»
E e
0 Q.
W M 10
01 01 Q}~
01 01 O>
C C C
.I'l 1
o o o
T- in o
2
c
goo
goo
P. o o
go" o"
2 o o
° o o
w o'o"
_
§-»§:
o UJ o
» - r=
3 « O,
-g. E «
>, g. -S
c o
< o o
s
o
cb
o
»T
O) fr\
S -«O
cy o
II -T- J2
X ^ II
: O j| M
c x -g-
~ -S -o
D. -g£
o 2* E n
x CL * 0
uj uj w S
o
o
o
CO
o
-------
members, and to judicious selection of the mix of those disciplines. Hav-
ing too many members from the same discipline on a team may stifle creativ-
ity. The participants proposed for the study should have current design,
construction, procurement, operation or administrative experience suited to
the analysis of the subject design. The importance of the preceding sen-
tences cannot be overemphasized. One team of highly competent, creative
individuals may recommend and identify many times the VE savings of several
teams of mediocre personnel. Also, the objectivity of the VE Team Coordin-
ator and participants is essential to the success of the VE effort. As
noted in the VE Workbook the goals of VE "can only be achieved by all parties
working together in a harmonious and constructive atmosphere".
When an outside firm or personnel are used for VE, the VETC and team
members should be selected with the advice of the Owner's design firm, but
should perform the VE study independently. Seeking the advice of the de-
signer will insure that the designer respects the technical ability and
integrity of the VE teams and establishes the basis for the co-operative
atmosphere needed for a successful VE study.
As noted earlier, a typical VE team consists of five members. For a
conventional secondary treatment plant where a single team is used, useful
skills may include an electrical-instrumentation engineer, a mechanical
engineer oriented toward pumping-piping systems, a civil/structural engin-
eer, a sanitary engineer, an operator, and a cost estimator available as an
advisor. As plant size and/or complexity increases, one may reach the point
that five teams, each with emphasis on each of the above technical areas
may be needed. Where multiple teams are used, it is desirable that each
team has a designated leader who has had VE workshop training and experience
as well as the needed technical expertise. It is difficult to generalize
on skills needed (i.e., land treatment vs. conventional plants as noted
earlier). In all cases, some of the skills may be drawn with beneficial
results from the Owner's staff if the needed skills may be found there and
are available. Changes in the process selected in Step 1 are normally out-
side the scope of a Step 2 VE study because of the potential for delays by
reopening Environmental Assessment procedures, etc. Thus, team emphasis
on sanitary process is usually not provided. Personnel with actual waste-
water plant operation and maintenance experience - whether they be electri-
cal, mechanical, civil, in education - should be included when appropriate.
Team members with background in construction may also provide a useful
perspective. The effort required for coordination of VE teams may be
summarized as follows: 1 and 2 team efforts - 1 VETC; 3 teams - 1 VETC plus
1 assistant; 4 and 5 teams - 1 VETC plus 2 assistants.
Some individuals may offer expertise in more than one area (i.e.,
sanitary-hydraulics). For some processes - particularly AWT processes -
chemical engineering skills might well be utilized on some teams. Emphasis
in team orientation must reflect local conditions. If, for example, foun-
dation conditions are very straight forward with little potential for
savings, this team might be replaced by one solely oriented toward pumping
and piping.
14
-------
It may be practical and beneficial to serve multiple teams with a
single cost estimator or a staff of estimators not on the. teams.
For projects where two VE efforts are undertaken (10-30% and 50-60%
points in Step 2), the second set of VE teams should provide increased
emphasis on the construction management and O & M aspects of the project.
An alternative to structuring the teams on a discipline basis (i.e.,.
structural) is to- assign teams to process areas such as a team for - sludge
processing, one for secondary treatment facilities, etc. Each team would
then have a broad range of disciplines (electrical, mechanical, civil,
structural, sanitary, etc.).
15
-------
SECTION 3
VALUE ENGINEERING STUDIES OF FIVE WASTEWATER PROJECTS
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the results of Value Engineering (VE) studies
conducted on five wastewater treatment projects under the EPA voluntary VE
program. These case studies were made to supplement, with actual field
experiences, the VE Workbook (MCD-29) on application of VE techniques to
wastewater projects. In order to collect information on the projects,
meetings were held with the designer, value engineer, owner, state regula-
tory agency, and in some cases, Regional EPA personnel on each project.
In most cases, each of the parties involved in a given project were inter-
viewed separately in order to obtain their individual views on the VE
study. The five VE projects studies were Cleveland, Ohio; Indianapolis,
Indiana; Concord, North Carolina; Lebanon, Oregon; and Plainville, Connec-
ticut. The study of each project is presented separately. The goal of
each project was to develop the following information:
1. brief description of the project;
2. level of VE effort used and why;
3. designer's role in the project review workshop and the potential
impact of that participation on the VE effort;
4. VE recommendations;
5. savings for each change recommended by the VE team;
6. designer's acceptance and rejection of the VE recommendation.
Reason and analysis for each rejection;
7. VE fees and implementation costs;
8. net savings in capital and life cycle costs realized as a result
of applying VE;
9. general comments (the VE team composition, the implementation
process, the role and responsibility of the VE team coordinator
from the preworirshop through the implementation processes, etc.).
Based upon the analysis r>f each of the five projects, some general
observations which supplement i-e guidance provided in the EPA VE Workbook
were noted and are presented in the final section of this report. Separate
sections present specific guidai ;e on level of VE effort and on recommended
formats for VE proposals and reports.
It should be kept in mind that most VE efforts under the EPA voluntary
program were made under less-than-optimum conditions. Frequently, the
decision to include VE came late in the design effort. Problems
16
-------
experienced with lack of proper preparation for the VE effort and difficulty
in implementing changes late in the design effort should be reduced where
the VE effort is incorporated in the original design workplan.
LEBANON, OREGON PROJECT
This report .is based on interviews held on November 3 and 4, 1976 in
Corvallis, Lebanon, and Portland, Oregon with the design firm, VE firm
(same as design firm in this case), the municipality, the State Dept. of
Environmental Quality, and the EPA Regional office.
Description of the Proposed Project Prior to VE Study
The original Lebanon wastewater treatment plant (trickling filter pro-
cess) was placed in operation in 1954 with the addition of a Secondary
clarifier in 1957.
The facility performed satisfactorily. More stringent effluent stand-
ards. (10 mg/1 for BOD and SS during summer months) imposed by the State
of Oregon necessitated an upgrading of the plant. A study.of the system
was completed by the consulting engineering firm in October, 1974. The
original plant consisted of the following unit processes:
1. Influent Pumping
2. Headworks (Comminutor and aerated grit chamber)
3. Flow, .Measurement
4. Primary Clarification'" , . , ;
5. Trickling Filter * .....--
6. Secondary Clarifier
" , 7. Chlorination -"-...
8. Anaerobic Sludge Digestion
9. Sludge Drying. Beds
The plant modifications recommended in the October, 1974 study are
:shown on Figure 2. :- ..... ...... --. !::..>: .,,- ,;.,;.::,..: ,:v, .: :". ,,
The plant expansion was later designed for an average dry weather flow
of 3 mgd; average wet weather flow of 7.2 mgd; and. a peak hydraulic capa-
city of 14.5 mgd.
The originally proposed plant expansion included the construction of
a new plant pump station with a capacity sufficient to allow all storm
flow to receive treatment before it is discharged. This pumping capacity
eliminated all bypasses and allowed the abandonment of an existing storm-
water pump station. The abandonment of the pump station required the
construction of a new 24-inch sewerline parallel to an existing 27-inch
sewer to the treatment plant.
The existing plant pump station grit chamber and comminutor basins were
abandoned because the location and capacity of these facilities did not
lend itself to expansion in a manner which would allow the plant to remain
17
-------
FIGURE 2
PEE-VE PROJECT
LEBANON, OREGON
18
-------
FIGURE 3
POST VE PROJECT
LEBANON, OREGON
19
-------
in operation during construction. The space occupied by these facilities
was used to provide storage for chlorine and miscellaneous plant equipment
and supplies.
The new plant pump station would pump the raw sewage to a new headworks
consisting of a flow division box,comminutor, and hydrasieve screen. The
flow division box allowed a flow of up to 8 mgd to pass through the commin-
utor and on through the rest of the plant. Storm flows in excess of 8 mgd
were split to a hydrasieve screen where the sewage receives the equivalent
of primary treatment after which it flows by gravity to a chlorine contact
chamber for disinfection prior to discharge.
The comminuted effluent would flow by gravity to the aeration basin.
The aeration basin consisted of two cells for flexibility of operation with
each cell utilizing three 20-hp mechanical aerators to aerate and mix the
contents of the basin. The aeration basin effluent would flow by gravity
to the existing primary and secondary clarifiers. The existing primary
clarifier would be modified so it can serve as a secondary clarifier.
A secondary effluent pump station pumped secondary effluent to the
mixed media filtration complex. The filters are required to meet the more
stringent effluent standards. The filtered effluent would flow by gravity
to a chlorine contact chamber where it would be disinfected before dis-
charge. The existing chlorination facilities would be expanded.
Other proposed additions to the plant included a new aerobic digester,
new sludge drying beds, and conversion of the existing anaerobic digester
into a storage facility for aerobically digested sludge. The existing
trickling filter was to be removed. The existing sludge drying beds were
to be relocated to allow for a more economical layout of the expanded
plant.
In addition to the drying beds, a liquid sludge loading dock would be
provided near the sludge drying beds to enable flexibility for truck haul
of liquid digested sludge to farmlands as a fertilizer. A dried sludge
storage building would be provided to allow stockpiling of dried sludge.
It was assumed that the ultimate disposal of the digested waste solids
would be on local farmland as a fertilizer - a successful, established
practice at Lebanon.
The cost of the originally proposed design was estimated at $3,565,000
'March, 1977 basis including engineering, legal, administrative costs).
Costs are discussed in more detail later in this report.
The VE Study
Organi zation
The VE study was conducted in 1976 by the same firm that was perform-
ing the design. One VE team included an engineer from outside the design
firm. The Lebanon City Engineer also served on two of the VE teams.
20
-------
Three VE teams were used for this project. Team #1, called the "over-
view team," began its study.at 15 percent of design completion. Team #l's
main area of concentration was major design concepts, facilities plans,
and processes. Some ideas were remanded :from Team #1 to two succeeding VE
teams. Team #2 called the "architectural - structural team" and Team #3
called the "mechanical, electrical, instrumentation and control team",
made subsequent studies at the 25 percent design stage. v:
The composition of the teams was as follows: : :
VE Team 1 - Overview Team - - ',
Electrical Engr. - Team Leader (also VE director for firm and VETC
.-"-- for study)
Sanitary Engr. - - , -
Mechanical Engr.-(from outside consulting, firm) .
Architectural Consultant - ~". ; '- -
Civil Engr. - (City Engineer for City of Lebanon). , ,
VE Team 2 - Architectural - Structural Team
Electrical Engr. - Team Leader (also VE director for firm)
Structural Engr.
Civil Engr. " , -
Sanitary Engr.
VE Team 3 -' Mechanical, Electrical, I & C Team " -
Mechanical Engr. - Team Leader . -
Sanitary Engr.
~- Instrumentation & Control
Electrical Engr.
Civil Engr. -r- (City Engineer for Lebanon) ' "
In"addition to-the value engineering and design teams, a review team
was formed. Senior engineers from the design firm comprised this review
team. The function of the review team was to compare the original design
as conceived by the design team, with the alternative design as conceived
by the value engineering teams. If a VE team proposal was accepted by
the review team, the design team was instructed to incorporate the modi-:
fication into the design. If a VE team proposal was rejected by the
review team, a full explanation was given for the rejection. ..-.--
The composition of the review team was:
4 Sanitary Engrs. (1 was Team Captain)
Structural Engr.
2 Mechanical Engrs.
Architect "
One of the four sanitary engineers on the review team was also the"
project design engineer. No members of the design team served on the
VE teams. .
21
-------
Team 1, the overview team, gave more emphasis to general brainstorming
than did the subsequent VE teams 2 and 3. Team 1 met for 3 days at 15% of
design completion. Teams 2 and 3 each met for 40-hour sessions and gener-
ated some new ideas as well as evaluating in detail several ideas proposed
by"Team 1.
Level of VE Effort
The above paragraphs summarize the manpower devoted to the VE teams.
The total fee for the VE study was $29,500, including the supporting efforts
by the design personnel. The VE study was conducted as a lump sum amend-
ment to an existing contract between the City and the design firm for the
design of the Lebanon plant. The initiative for the VE study came from the
designer who made a presentation to the City Council on the merits of VE.
The following advantages of an in-house VE team as compared to an outside
VE team were presented. With an in-house VE team, the designers know the
qualifications and motives of the VE team members whereas with an outside
firm doing the study, qualifications, motives, and attitudes of the parti-
cipants are unknown.
Following approval of the VE study by the City, the design firm gained
the approval by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) for grant funding. The VETC felt that the level of VE effort for the
Lebanon project will serve projects of comparable complexity in the
$3,000,000 - $20,000,000 range. He feels that the one preliminary VE team
early in the design followed by two VE teams represents a minimum level of
effort in this cost and complexity range. The VETC has experimented with
team workshop periods greater than 40 hours and has concluded that the
benefits gained are not proportional to the added cost. The review team
and cost estimator used in the Lebanon study performed outside the 40 hour
limitation but the 3 VE teams accomplished their work within 40 hour
periods (24 hours for VE Team 1). A key element in the VE work was having
design team cost estimates available for VE teams 2 and 3 so that VE teams
did not have to develop cost estimates for the proposed design. The 25-30%
design completion used for detailed VE at Lebanon is viewed by the design
firm as the optimum point for VE because they believe that the inflationary
cost increases from delays encountered in acceptance and implementation of
VE recommendations at later stages of the project (i.e., 60-70% design
completion) will offset an undesirable proportion of any savings that might
bp realized. One of the major changes resulting from the VE study at
uebanon (related to a change in the chlorine contact basin as described
later) was easily implemented without causing delays or incurring redesign
costs because the chlorine contact basin design had not yet been detailed
at 25% design completion.
VE Study Summary
At the beginning of the information phase, the Overview VE team
gathered all of the available design documents, including a conceptual
cost estimate shown in Table 2.
22
-------
TABLE 2. CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
(Input Data to VE Teams)
West Side Pump Station
Primary System
Plant Pump Station
Influent Sewer
Comminutor/Hydrasieve
Splitter Box
- LEBANON, OREGON PROJECT
Estimated Cost
$110,000
$70,000 bldg.
Subtotal
, .Say
Secondary System, . '_..'_..
Aeration Basins'
Aeration Equipment
RAS Pump Station
. Secondary Clarifier
Splitter Box
Secondary Effluent Pump Station
Cl Contact
Flow Meas,
Final Effluent Pump Station
$27,000 bldg.
Tertiary System
Mixed Media Filter
Solids Handling
Digester Repairs
Drying Beds
Aerobic Digester
Storage
Subtotal
Say
$22,500 bldg.
Subtotal
Say
300,000
50,000
73,000
4,200
$427,200
$430,000
120,000
132,000
48,000
100,000
4,200
48,000
120,000
15,000
50,000
$637,200
$640,000
$198,000
6,000
192,000
71,500
5,000
$274,500
$275,000
23
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Support Facilities
Control Building
Landscaping
Painting
Plant Piping
ISC
Electrical
Subtotal
Say
Summary Table
West Side Pump Station
Primary System
Secondary System
Tertiary System
Solids Handling
Support Facilities
Contingencies, 15%
*Construction Cost Adjustment (40%)
Estimated Eng., Legal & Admin (10%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Project Cost
Less Federal Grant
Net Cost to City
Estimated Cost
$ 7,500
25,000
20,000
126,000
18,000
162,000
$358,500
$360,000
$110,000
430,000
640,000
198,000
275,000
360,000
$2,013,000
302,000
$2,315,000
926,000
$3,241,000
324,000
$3,565,000
$2,673,750
$891,250
*July 1974 to Mar 1977 = 32 mos. @ 1.25%/mo.
24
-------
After examining information supplied to them, the Overview team formu-.
lated a Functional Analysis System Technique (F.A.S.T.) diagram for this
wastewater plant (Figure 4). A cost model (Figure 5) was then developed" to
identify those functions that have a, poor cost-to-worth ratio. The worth
..concept used in developing such cost models is no longer being used by-the
designer because of the difficulty in establishing reasonable worth values
for wastewater project components and because they feel that the. F.A.S.T.
diagram is much more useful in determining areas subject to improvement
through brainstorming. The worth values shown in Figure 5. were based on
"gut", feels on lowest-cost approaches ,or where they "could cut 10%," etc.
The cost-to-worth ratios determined are quite low,
..."' . - , - -'. . .,-.--.'-. J,; - , , , . f' ' . , . .;...:-'., . , ... ,
The first four hours of'each of the three VE sessions was devoted to
the designer briefing the VE team on the project. Each of the three VE
teams then entered the speculative phase. There were no constraints placed
on the scope of ideas. The ideas generated were then ranked during the
analytical phase on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the top of the scale for
the ideas judged to be of most potential)., In practice, trie ranking system
amounted to a "fail-or-pass" system. If any member of the VE team felt an
idea was worth pursuing, it was given a ranking of 5 or more. The design
firm now uses a "fail-or-pass" system rather than attempting any numerical ,
rankings at this stage. The balance of disciplines on the VE team enabled,
for example, ideas proposed by a sanitary engineer which might be clearly_
unworkable from an, electrical standpoint to be.eliminated. Those ideas
which passed this initial screening were then subjected to a detailed pre-
liminary engineering evaluation to minimize "the time that the design team
might spend on ideas which would be found to be worthless if they were'
only pursued^far enough. Documentation of.these evaluations' of even clearly
unworkable ideas is included to ease future VE efforts which may generate
the same ideas. In areas where the design hadn't .progressed far enough for
detailed calculations, the idea was noted and passed on to the design team.
In some cases, major assumptions had to be made to perform the economic
analyses. These assumptions were rioted in the VE; report. , ,
Ideas which passed-these first two analyses, were presented to the "
review team. The review team then compared this new alternative to the
original design and decided which of the two designs was to be used. -Table
3 summarizes the VE ideas which were recommended to the review team by the
VE teams but which were rejected. -
. Table -4 presents the VE ideas which were accepted by the design team.
Costs to implement the VE changes were not defined but were considered
"minimal" because there was little impact on already completed design work.
No delays resulted. The DEQ accepted the proposed changes although they
did request automated freeze protection for any outdoor pumps. Figure 3
presents the post VE layout of the plant.
About 50% of the! projected savings from the VE study were related to
the repositioning of the chlorine contact chamber. The raising of the con-
tact chamber requires.pumping of secondary effluent to the chamber at all
times. The DEQ remains uncertain as to whether or not the added power and
25
-------
u
z
-UI
z
Ill
85
cc
LULU
9s:
I!
mu
u z
D Ul
cc
O
«r
LU
i I ,
il
nr *"
Q<
2
°- D
z
= £
3
z
u
II
CCM
luQ
ii
Zui
U1O
0
ec
s
88
5
0
8
O CM
O-l
-------
MODEL 1
PLANT
0.9Z7 |
1
1
:1-
-1
.J
i
PROCESS
d
1
1
;l-
r-
-
-
U
C
<
u
u
h
£
u
i
c
r
<
i
?
c
c
<
p
>
a
«
C
~ c
u
u
r
PRELIMINARY/J
r
TIONAL
OPERA
[
i
0
c
;
u
t;
0
J
)
t
J
>
Li
I
D
J
0
j
C
5
i
i
t
.
:
i
>
j
)
PRIMARY
h-
CC
O
o.
e.
c -
3
j
o
_
d
d
9
d
_.
d
d
N
d
_-
d
1
-1
.°J
1
1
S|
J
._!
1
J
= 1
J
~-\
\
I
.1
.J
1
1
1
11
,
1
1
sl
dl
-J
--]
1
S|
.J
p
tu
fc
i
1
1
p
(.
z
c
L
fe
a
a
r
SUSP. SOLIDS 1
r
SETTLING 1
P
SCREENING/
p
V
c
a
2
C
C.
P
«
S
3
H
nc
O
°f,
Z
<
cc
-
I
1
)
REMOVAL
1
Z
<
K
GRINDING
>
i
.
--
i
<0
N
d
«
d
o
d
[ 0.061
0.046
o
d
«
d
1
r
oi
.J
._!
1
1
« 1
"" 1
.°J
1
1
1
Sl
21
.J
1
1
1
i!
.°j
i
i
i
SI
dl
.J
~~\
1
I
" 1
0 i
.J
1
1
1
= 1
.°J
1
O
Z
D
a.
1
!-
TRANSPORT
1
1
BOD
REMOVAL
1
AERATION
PROCESS
1 ^
r~
0
g
i
DINGS
D
m
1
_j
a: ' -
O
f-
1
.
O
O
o
d
c
o
d
in
o
d
o
o
d
^
o
-
o
o
1
1
§1
ol
.J
"1-
1
1
.°J
"1
1
1
-J
-_ |
1
1
5|
J
]
1
1
!l
i
s '
'i
1
1
1
SI
°J
1
o
z
i-
r
DISPOSAL "
1
1
NUTRIENT
REMOVAL;
|
1
EQUIPMENT
i
1
SETTLING
TANK
1
1
OC
UJ
0
1
O
. O
o
0
d
2
m
o
d
o
o
o
d
U
C
LJ
1
1
dl
J
n
i
i
SI
dl
.j
--,
1
i
sj
.J
._,
1
1
II
.J
"1
1
1
= 1
dl
.J.
\
1
1
=1
.J
'a:
a.
OLLARS
FR HAY
da
H-
0<
. oc
^
[j
5
LJ
J
r
RICAL
o
LU
uS
p
0
u
:
p
z
c
f
c.
u
u
- z
I
c
p
V
\
z
H
APACm
u
Q
> o
1 ^
"£-
0
to
D
-
J)
C
5
c
j
j
)
j
>
i
o
1
1
in
-co
d
o
o
d
140 0
| 0.060
i r:
1
1 rr
10 tu
Sl JE '
°'l 0 '
1
1
"I
1
1
sr
Sl
.J
~i i
i
oc
* I !
1
1
i =
>< UJ t
t I ' '
o 1 ^~ t
1
FACILITY
i-
""'I g
Ml i .-
rv- -
1 £ £
LJL ^i f
, 2 c.
OT .
s:
' ' 0
r . LJJ
_j
i " '
\
i
i
3 . j
}
\
i
= o|
°l
= c|
J
1
1
.1
1 O .
3 d 1
J
J
J
3
3
0
27
-------
C
O
H
CO
-H
U
a
H
O
to
H
CO
m
Impellers
G
o
H
4J
ftj
4J
G
g
H
d
cu
CO
&
e
-H
ft
ft
O
G
to
id
r<"{
4->
C
id
r-H
CM
to
Cn
id
H
-
-H
Cn
pj
rH
ft
^
e
CO
ft
o
-P
2
cu
id
d
cu
cu
ft
CO
43
Cn
-H
43
MH
0
T3
G
(d
G
O
H
ft
Cn
.,_{
g
43
O
H
|5
8
G
cu C
-P 3
G ft
-H
rd Cn
S G
0
0) i-H
P
id cu
3 43
tJ* *P
CU
'd G
rd -H
olation.
to
H
>d
P
o
CO
'd
r*
rd
CO
U
-H
-P
CU
_e
5
co
0)
id
O
g
H
M
45
CU
CO
CO
CO ft 43
ft cu o
CU G -.H
G -H 43
H H &
ft CO
'O QJ (tf
jUj rQ ty\
ft 3 cu
G
H Cn 4J
CU T)
H
43
d
I
id
ft ft
cu
H CO CO
fi
(U O
H CO
M
O
O
a
ft
cu
o cu
H Cn
ft T3
O
ft
c
-H
0)
43
W
M
rd
§
U
43 id CU
CO CU
rd -P 43
43 CO Cn
id 3
g S g
H G 43
Oj
co Ti
-P C
(d P
oo
rH M
IH cn
0)
d
G rH
'i "°
H CU
cu 4->
rH
O -H
4-> m
Ql
ft
d
G
rd
rd
4->
co
trd
^j
ft CO
ro
^
00
. H
O
CO
to
tj
o
ft
&
to
o
4J
id
cu
id
£
^
s
«
H
CO
-p
0
G
H
CO
id
45
C
H
4->
rd
ft
cu
4J
id
5
to
H
>i
rH
rd
ft
cu
P
cu
rj
wall and
removed.
o
0
0
^
H
W-
0
"§
S
g
H
ft
iminate b
H
H
O
O
rH
in
H
v>
Cn
G CU
H Cn
G Id «
CU i-H O C
ft
ft
CO
rd
CO 4->
43 CU
W 4J
badcwa:
concre
tt It i
for filte
instead o
28
-------
Q
s
03
rH
I
MH
O
3
03
rl
O
a
MH
O
tn
H
05
(d
m
rH
(d
rl
0) . 05 .
fi 03
03 -rH
tn i SH 4->
03
tn
rd
. 03 4-1 iH
03 -rH 03
rr-J _f*< Lj_i Jj
n3 4-i H id
o
S 0)
O 03 MH
rH Q) -rH
03 S.
> "id
03
O
4-1
(d 4J
4J
M
03
0 0
(N -H
M-l
0) M-l
> -H
0) Ti
H
^3 (U
03 '
U 4J
H. O
C (d . .
id SH (ti
a o
3
(d -.
S 03
«!
p
O1 p|
ft
e a
O 03
M
MH tn
s2
3 rl
03 a>
03; fi
2 £
a
o£
T) ft
ffi 03
-0
de
tf
H fi
03 >i 03 _
N -p >in3
H -H 03 Q)
rH rH 4-1
H -H rH (d
sa g.ri
X 4J 4-1
00 S 03
M-l
0) -H
4-1 e
4-1 -H
n
o o
in H
O
MH
k/l
Q
id
^
rH
03
.03
4-1
-03
0
(d
03
03
C
H
g.
l
03
0
4-1
fi
O
0
MH
H
"a
g'
rl
05
Q)
4-1
03
(d
&
X!
03
(d
'2
C3
03
.Q
03
4-1
Cti
C
g
H
r-H
H
'8,
S"
s
03
*
TJ
C
a
(d
4-1
"ft
id
rl
o
4->
'03
B
S
>i
rH
4J
O
g
H
T3
M
3
id
.&
X!
05
ta
&
.s
id
43
,
rH
rH
1
4-J
%'.
0
tn
(d
&
03
03
S
s
iH
rH
MH
Oj
K
t-H
O
iH
4-1
C
0
o
>1
r-H
r-H
.id
3
fi
S
tn
g.'
3
(d
tn
03
*J
03
03
s:
a
MH
o
03
3
>l
43
5
-g
&
0
rH
MH
MH
O
§
H
4-1
MH
0
4-1
q
4J
05
3
£
id
M
48
(d
rl
0)
a
0
rH
03
' C
(d
a
rH
0
rl
4J
C
o
U
JH
-O
4-1
^
03
fQ
. -H
>
2
CM
-a
M
o
4-1
id
rH
0
c
3
s
.s
>l
rH
8.
$
H
s
-p1
(d
C
rH
t-H
H
«
05
SH
«
rl
8
S
S
i-H
MH
03
4J
"ft
H
"t-H
03
3
4J
(d
-P
03
M
0
P
6
29
-------
C
H
rd
rH
rd
rl
-P
C
-P1
O
Pi
p
co
W
*
0
H
O
Ss,
o
1
0
H
rH
fd 0
-rl 0
-P 0
C 0
H CN
co-
o
-P O
0 O
o
CN
C/3-
CO
0)
-p
rH
id
rd
1
1
d
^
a
UH
o
13
rd
-P
co
C
H
CO
JbJ
-p1
rH
rH
H
CD
pj
1
rH
rd
p
Tl
MH
0
0)
s
o
o
rji
CO
W-
O
O
O
^
-P
M CO
CU Q)
-P en
I-H -rl
H -a
s
en 0
c c
H
rH rd
"3 Cn
H C
4J "C
rH
£'P
H pQ
[ i
co MH
-rj 0
0) 13
rd
0) 0)
P CO
CD .5
s
1
CO
in
o
r>
co-
co
if)
o
r-T
CN
w-
13
rd
4->
C
8
cu
C
H
o
s
-P
C
cu
0
-p
0)
c c
O -H
H w
-P rd
P ^
M C
P 0
CO -H
C -P
O fd
U M
0)
rH rd
i i
rd T3
C
8E
3
0) 'S
CO
D
1
' o
o
VD
CO
0
i-H
co-
0
o
ID
CO
0
i-H
cu
C
rl CU
O
rH 0
X! -P
O
^
0 CD
.r* O
P P3
'o "S
T3 0)
rd M rd
0) -rl 0
XI -P M
0
C C
O 0 O
H ,f"i »H
4J 4J ,|J
-5 &5
M.S g
i o 0
P H
ft rH .p
-p p
C M O
0 MH
rH 5 KH
<4H -rl
t[ ] ti rrt
0 0
0 § o
c* ro
4J X! -P
O P
C O
0 -P
rl O t3
rl -P CO
to a -H
O O rd
ft U M
s
1
CN
i |
CN
CN
H
«
CN
H
CN
CN
H
W-
L
O rH
MH MH
C
Cn -H
C
rl 0
rO XI
rH -P
H
P tn
A C
rH^
0 M
llr^
C! C
0 0
>w
Cn o
-rU
| ^ ({J
CO (1)
rH -P
R CO
0 C
H
XI g
0
O -rl
rd t3
0 0
rd O
0
-P rH
C 0
0 CO
p*
0 MH
CO O
rd
.Q 0
Cn
0 rd
X! M
-P 0
-P
0 CO
s
§
H
-P
rd
^J
CO
1
-p
c
0
1
o
0
0
in
w-
o
0
o
in
H
CO-
1
3
&
rH
rH
-P
rd
A
H
CO
CO
O
ft
CO
rd
s
rj
g
CO
rd
CO
0
>
H
M
T3
13
S
CO
&
3
Oj
o co
o c
na o
4J -H
P 4J
O rd
-P
0 CO
D
<
\
^
<
&
fJl
a
4-)
rl 0
0 P
!§£
MH
p en
J3 C
H
en "g1
C -H
rl rH
O 0
rH
9 X*
XI O
p
0 -p
+J
rH M
rl 0
0 P
rj |«]
4J MH
0 -H
H
&3
rd M
-p -a
CO >)
fl-0 .
M 0 C
H X! O
XI 4J -H
4J -P
0 O
0 M P
XI O M
-P -P -P
CO CO
O C
rH 0 0
d 4-1 0
I
0
o
0
CO
rH
CO-
o
o
o
CO
H
co-
&
1
^J
c
s
rH
MH
rl
0
4-1
s
6
MH
M "
0 CT>
4J C
§1
H
rH P
O X!
-P M
83
rl
rl MH
0
80
^
ft -p
0 O
5 c
0 O
4-1 -H
rd -P
0 rd
O 4J
rH to
(S
O
O
o
-*
t~~l
o
o
0
1
w-
o
o
o
o
rH
co-
co
g
rl
*O Q.
CO P
CO XI
S M
O 0
4-1
C fd
rd
rH en
H
o o
MH H
rH
-H M?
rl
4-1 rd
M 4J
rd CO
4-> 0
CO M
0
0 1
rl C
4-1 fd
O 4-1
4-1 0
3 n3
rd M
a5
is g
H O
rd
4-1 O
CO 4J
5
0
^
CO
M
s
0
8-
M
MH
CO
H
rH
O
P
O
x!
MH
MH
0
&
'O
0 .
0 M
C 0
CO O
U ft
rd 4J
C rl
d rd
-rl CO
rH 0
W rl
30
-------
r
*l
0"i i
c
(d
rH r
-H -
fl)
-P t
O
-P
01
[V]
i
- .
3)
H
D
51
i
0)
H
rl
-q
H
d o
H 0
P 0
C in
H
O
P 0
0) o
a -
tn
w-
c
rl
o
rH
H
3
M
: ' 0
H
j^
Q)
-P
c
H
s
g
s
rH
tn
C
H
01
3
.-s
^r*
-P
J-j
0)
4J
id
^J
§
id
rH
^
o
e
01
>l 01
01 -H
.sr
rH 0)
td C
H O
*& rCJ
ft
(U (U
S rH
O (1)
43 -P
ft
Q) T3
H 0)
(D W
P Id
0)
^
CM
W-
o
p^
r^
^
^
CM
to-
*.
l_3
^
EH
g
** *
31
-------
capital costs for continuous pumping were adequately considered. The VE
report does not quantify these added costs. The DEQ was also concerned that
all the costs associated with relocation of piping and the distribution box
to permit relocation of the chlorine contact chamber may not have been fully
recognized.
The DEQ also raised some questions at the time of the VE report about
the justification for the added capital costs for the restart unit for auto-
matic restart of motors following a power bump. An analysis of the O & M
savings led to the conclusion that it was a cost/effective item.
As can be seen from Table 4, about 90% of the VE savings were related
to initial, capital costs with about 10% related to O & M savings. O & M
savings were estimated over a 20 year period.
A review of the project final plans and specifications was made to
determine how the items in Table 4 were incorporated. The specifications
still provided for the original mixed media filters with the dual-media
option being noted in the specifications as an acceptable alternate if the
supplier provides satisfactory performance data to the engineer. Any rede-
sign required for the alternative filter systems was specified to be the
responsibility of the supplier. The other major VE items were incorporated
essentially as suggested by the VE teams.
The DEO reported that the Step 3 grant application for the Lebanon pro-
ject showed a slightly higher project cost than the pre-VE estimates which
had been made on a March, 1977 basis. The DEQ recognized that the final
estimate was a more detailed estimate and that inflationary influences were
now real rather than projected. However, they were concerned about how one
can effectively evaluate the savings actually resulting from VE under these
conditions. The project construction bid on December 8, 1976 with a low
bid of $3,795,000 - some $500,000 over the initial post VE estimate and
nearly $300,000 over the Step 3 grant application value.
The final VE report was summarized to the City Council by the design/
VE firm with a verbal presentation.
General Observations
The design team personnel felt the VE process offered a welcome review
and that the VE review will make for a better effort on the next design.
The design personnel appear to have an increased awareness of costs in the
early design phases knowing that a VE effort will be made. The design
firm now incorporates the VE efforts as project milestones in the basic
project workplans to insure that all needed data are available to the VE
teams. Process and instrumentation drawings have been found to be an
especially important item for the VE study.
The designer feels that in-house VE studies have merits which should
be carefully considered. In-house studies offer more rapid and more com-
plete communication, an essential element if the VE study is to be
32
-------
successful. Inclusion of some VE team members from outside the design firm
helps ,to insure the client that objectivity is maintained.
The basic client reaction (expressed by the City Engineer) was favor-
able to the VE study. He felt that the .fact that it was an essentially
in-house VE study did not inhibit the objectivity and thoroughness of the
VE study. He felt the timing of the VE study was excellent and that there
were no implementation problems associated with the VE suggestions'. He
felt that the original process selection study had been well performed and
that discussion of other alternative processes were not justified. He
thought the balance of the disciplines and involvement of outside personnel
on the overview team (VE Team 1) was very good. He felt the VE study was
an excellent opportunity for the City personnel to learn in detail how the
new facility will operate and that there is probably no other way that
would be comparable in effectiveness in this regard.
None of the in-house VE Team members had been involved in a prior VE
study. The VE Team Coordinator had to spend some time convincing the .team
members that they were not repeating the normal design review procedures.
A field trip by the team members, to the plant under study would be worth-
while. The City Engineer felt the design personnel were helped signifi-
cantly by the VE study and that the help was gratefully received., .
The DEQ personnel believed that more regulatory agency input and in-
volvement should be provided on the next VE project. They felt the perspec-
tive they have from review of all projects in the State would be useful in
the VE study. They also felt that addition of personnel with construction
experience to VE teams would be worthwhile. They felt the Step 1 selected
process alternative should serve as a constraint on the VE process to avoid
reopening aspects such as the EIS where^delays could be prohibitive. A
review meeting with the EPA and "State prior to presenting results to the
client was suggested by DEQ. The ,VE report should clearly spell out any
risks associated with the VE re commendations,.'. ,
CONCORD, N. C. PROJECT , ,.,_.,. ._ ...' ,
This report is based on interviews held on November 30 and December 2,
1976 in Raleigh, N. C. and Alexandria, VA. with the design firm, the State
Dept. of Environmental Management, the City, and "the Value Engineer.,., The
EPA Regional office was contacted by telephone on December 9, 1976.
Description of the Proposed Project Prior to the VE Study
A schematic of the process of the plant is shown in Figure 6.
quality requirements are as follows: ;
Effluent
BOD -20 mg/1
SS-30 mg/1
NH -1.0 mg/1
DO-80% Saturation
33
-------
>- ce
i£ LLJ
o >
o
CC (X
cr>
Q_
O
O
CO COQ-
CO
2TLU
CC C3 CO
0.0
O
LJJ
2
O
(/)
LU
O
IS)
<
y
H-
<
^
LU
U
LU
or
Z3
O
LL.
co
34
-------
The all-new facility was designed for! the following flow conditions
Average Daily Flow
Maximum Daily Flow
Peak Hourly Flow
Maximum Flow Rate
Minimum Daily Flow
24 _mgd :
43.2 mgd
54 mgd
88.53 mgd
7.2 mgd
The plant receives a substantial amount of textile wastes (15 mgd
initially). Lime is added to the primary clarifiers to provide removal
of heavy metals. Primary treatment is followed by apure oxygen activated -
sludge carbonaceous treatment basin. Once past this basin, the flow enters
secondary clarifiers and passes on to the second stage pure oxygen nitro-
genous treatment basin. Only flows below 1.5 x Q average enter, this basin
to prevent the flushing of nitrifiers during peaks. Flows in excess of
this -amount proceed"directly to the disinfection basin and to the river.
Leaving the nitrogenous treatment basin, the flow proceeds through final
clarifiers and to the disinfection basin. Disinfection in this -facility is
handled by ozone which also provides reaeratipn prior to discharge.
Sludges are blended in gravity thickeners. The thickened sludge is
fed to pressure filters after being blended with ash and dewatered to at
least 40% dry solids. The resulting cake is burned in a multiple hearth
furnace;with the'ash from this furnace recycled to the pressure filters for
blending with incoming sludge. Excess ash is pumped in a slurry to an ash
settling pond. Figure 7 presents a layout of the plant and Figure 8 pre-
sents a hydraulic profile.
The site chosen for the plant is approximately 300 acres of presently
undeveloped farm 'arid woodland. Initially, approximately 50 of the 300
acres will be directly impacted. The site Is steeply sloped as evidenced
by site elevations of the impacted area which range from 506' to 583' above
mean 'sea level. Much of the site is underlain with rock at 2-10 ft depth.
The estimated cost of the project at the time of the VE study was as
follows.: . . -. .
Components
Administration Bldg.
Main Pump Station
Aeration Basins
Oxygen Equipment
Clarifiers
Electrical "
Yard Piping
Di s in fe ctipn
Sludge Thickening
Sludge Dewatering
Sludge Incinerator
TOTAL
Total Eligible
Project Cost
1,500,000
2,500,000
7,000,000
3,068,000
5,600,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
1,800,000
2,790,725
30,258,725
35
-------
Q.
O
c
"o
!o
H
36
-------
.0
Q.
o
J:i
o-^
3 .2
in 10
oo
8
H
37
-------
The VK Study
Background
When EPA1s voluntary VE program began, the EPA Region IV office noti-
fied projects which appeared amenable to VE. The Concord Project Designer
responded and was eager to try VE. A meeting was held with EPA personnel,
the City, and the Designer in September, 1975 to discuss the merits of VE.
The City endorsed the concept. The Designer sent some personnel to a VE
Training Workshop. Proposal to conduct the VE Study was solicited by the
Designer in early November, 1975, and was accepted by the Designer on
January 12, 1976.
Organization
The VE Study was conducted in January, 1976 at a point when the design
was 70-80% complete. The Designer selected a VE Team Co-ordinator (VETC)
who served as a subcontractor to the Designer. The VETC then proposed
several alternate VE team members for review by the Designer. The final
composition of the VE team was as follows:
VETC - CVS, BS Engineering
VE Team - Mechanical Engineer
Structural Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
Electrical Engineer
Cost. Estimator
In addition, two members of the design firm were present during the
entire 40-hour workshop. One was a member of the VE Team and both provided
design background and history to the VE Team.
Level of VE Effort
As noted above, 1 five man team was used for the VE workshop. The
total level of effort involved in the VE Study (including pre- and post-
workshop effort) was 16.5 man-weeks for the VETC and Team Members and
5.25 man-weeks support by the Designer. The breakdown of effort and total
costs are shown below:
Value Engineer
Senior Program Engineer 240 hours $ 5,500
Program Engineer 60 hours 1,070
Project Engineer 40 hours 635
Clerical Support " 85 hours 580
Travel Expense (Transportation
and Subsistence) 1,175
Reproduction Costs of Study Documents 930
Telephone and Shipping Costs 450
Consultants 238 hours 9,000
Travel Expense (Transportation
and Subsistence) 1,460
$20,800
38
-------
Plus.Designers Administrative Fee (20%)
and Designers Profit (12%)
.'..;_ /SUBTOTAL
$ 7,155
$27,955
Designer
Assemble Material
a. Print Drawings and Spec.
b. Cost Estimate & Documentation
Coordinate and Review documents
with V. E. prior to
analysis
V.E. Analysis
16 hours
60 hours
30
80
hours
hours
Misc. Support
186
20
hours
hours
Subtotal
TOTAL
206 hours
6,265.
$34,220
Consideration was given to use of a second VE Team but only one team
was used because the project design was so nearly complete. Also because
of the extensive design work completed, the. following constraints were
placed on the .VE.effort: ...."
1. The process (activated sludge utilizing pure oxygen) 'has been
fixed. , .
2. Effluent quality criteria are fixed.
3. Alternatives which unduly extend the design and construction
period currently stipulated be de-emphasized unless there are
substantial present-worth savings which would justify the delay
in plant startup. .
4. All alternatives must comply with all state and EPA directives,
regulations, and guidelines.
5. Plant layout has been fixed.
Restrictions on project delays were important not only from the
standpoint of inflationary effects but also because (1) construction grant
money had to be committed in the current fiscal year and (2.) a favorable
situation was felt to exist for very competitive construction bids due to
the recent lack of construction projects in the area.
The level of effort and constraints were accepted by the Owner, State,
and EPA prior to the VE Study. The State felt that the VE effort was
being made too iate in Step 2 but desired to gain experience with VE. The
VE Workshop was held January 26-30, 1976.
VE Study Summary
The standard cost/worth approach was used in the study. The VE Team
.productivity was limited on the first two days of the workshop because of
uncertainity over the basic scope of the study. Some members of the VE
Team wished to consider aspects of the project which apparently fell out-
side the original constraints (i.e., overall plant layout, process, etc.).
39
-------
The cost estimates provided to the VE Team were broad and no unit quanti-
ties were available. Thus, the VE Team spent time generating unit cost
data which should have been available prior to the workshop. Also, an EPA
film crew was present for the first two days to gather material for a
training film. This proved to be another disruptive factor.
VE Recommendations
The following is a brief description of each of the proposed changes.
1. Figure 9. Main pump station. The design had two 24 inch and
two 30 inch mains. Proposed eliminating one 24 inch and one
30 inch force main. Of the two remaining mains (24 and 30 inch),
changed the 24 inch to a 42 inch main.
Initial Savings
LCC Savings (Amortized Value
of Initial Savings Only)
$98,050
8,700
2. Figure 9. The main pump station had two constant speed and two
variable speed pumps. The VE team proposed using all variable
speed pumps thereby reducing the size of wet well. Result is
a reduction in size of the pump station from 70 feet by 70 feet
to 70 feet by 60 feet.
Initial Savings $221,000
LCC Annual Savings (Amortized
Value of Initial Savings Only) 19,500
3. Figure 10. Main pump station. The VE team proposed constructing
the lower 18 feet by excavating and utilizing the rock faces for
floors and walls and using shotcreting facing. Also, decreased
the excavation of site by 4.5 feet.
'Initial Savings
$380,000
LCC Annual Savings (Amortized
Value of Initial Savings)
33,500
4. Figure 11. Eliminated above ground enclosure over all four
stations except for stair well enclosure.
Initial Savings $74,000
LCC Annual Savings (Amortized
Value Initial Savings) 6,520
Annual Oper. and Maint. Cost
Savings 2,130
pump
40
-------
10' DELETED
BY PROPOSED
CHANGE
EXISTING
24" DIP
EXISTING
30".'-DIP-
EXISTING
24" DIP
MAIN PUMP
STATION
PROPOSED:
DELETE 24" AND 30"
FORCE MAINS
EXISTING
30" DIP
PROPOSED:
CHANGE 24"
DIP TO 42"
- BOX I
--DI-VIS. "C"
FIGURE 9. MAIN PUMP STATION & FORCE MAIN REVISION
41
-------
H
§
s
o
3
H
N
H
H
§
EH
W
3
H
H
42
-------
QC _J
O _J
U_ LLJ
2£
,oc oc
UJ >-
>
-------
5. Figure 12 and 13. The 18 inch concrete retaining wall in the ash
basin ran lengthwise. The team proposed changing the wall to run
across the basin width. This would shorten the wall, road, 3
inch pipeline and electrical wiring and conduit to pump station.
Initial Savings
LCC Annual (Amortized Value of
Initial Cost Savings)
$95,950
8,454
6. Figure 14. Several changes related to plant layout were proposed:
a. Regrading to eliminate trucked-in fill.
b. Modifying road slopes to minimize cut and fill.
c. Change the splitter boxes and Parshall flumes to magnetic
meters and flow controllers.
d. Delete the Step II screw pump station by laying out the
settling tanks and aeration tanks in concrete with the
natural grade.
e.
Change the return sludge screw pumps to propeller pumps.
f. Waste activated sludge to be pumped to gravity thickeners
by branching off return sludge system and throttling a
control valve to vary the flow.
Initial Savings
$3,734,170
LCC. Annual Savings (Amortized
Value of Initial Savings 328,000
Annual Oper. Cost Savings 30,700
Total Initial Savings $2,974,570
LCC Annual Savings
(Amortized Value of
Initial Savings)
Annual Oper. Cost
Savings
262,000
27,500
The total proposed savings are summarized below.
44
-------
18" CONC. RET. WALL
PUMP STATION
ROADWAY
FIGURE12.
ASH BASIN-AS "DESIGNED
3" CIP
45
-------
t
3" CIP
ROADWAY
PUMP STATION
18" CONG.
RET. WALL
FIGURE 13.
ASH BASIN-PROPOSED
46
-------
N
t
TO THICKENERS
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
30" C.I.
(TYP)
12" 0.1 .P.
{12" Oil.P. WAS
TO STEP I)
BOX
LIME METER NG
STATION
FLOW METER
AND P.V.
U2" 0.1 .
FLOW CONTROL
AND METERING
(TYP) (6 TOTAL:
MH #22
P.V.-
^NOTE: ROADWAY ,
DELETED '
THROUGHOUT
MUCH OF THIS
AREA
20". 0. I . P .
(RETURN SLUDGE)
R.S. PUMP STATION
30" 0 . I . P ;
SPLITTER
2U" D. I .P.
(TYP)
FLOW METER
R.S. PUMP STATION
\
MH SU8' (RELOCATED
SOUTH FROM O.RIG DESIGN)
-STEP n CLARIFIERS
2U" D.I.P.
72" RCP BYPASS
MH ₯47
60" RCP
(BYPASS FOR Q > I.5 0 AVG.
AND TOTAL BIOLOGICAL
PLANT PROCESS)
D.I.P.
NOTE: 12:1 SLOPES
IN THIS AREA CHANGES
TO 3:1 SLOPE
FIGURE 14. PROPOSED NEW YARD PIPING ALT.
(PLANT LAYOUT AS DESIGNED)
47
-------
VE
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Initial
Savings
98,050
221,000
380,000
74,000
95,950
2,974,570
TOTAL 3,843,570
LCC Annual
(Amortized
Initial Savings)
8,700
19,500
33,500
6,520
8,454
262,000
338,674
Annual
Operating and
Maint. Cost Savings
2,130
27,500
29,630
The life cycle cost (LCC) annual savings were calculated at 6-1/8
percent and a facility life of 20 years.
In addition to the 6 specific changes evaluated in detail by the VE
Team, several other ideas were offered for consideration by the Designer.
Those considered by the Designer are discussed later.
Designers Response to VE Recommendations
The Designer received a copy of the VE Team workbooks and other infor-
mation including cost estimates and recommendations from the VE Team on
January 31, 1976 - the day after the conclusion of the VE workshop. Every
division head of the design firm reviewed the workbook together with its
cost estimates and recommendations on the 31st of January and made recom-
mendations for implementation and/or rejection for each of the recommenda-
tions. This review led to a seventeen page response to the initial draft.
This response was forwarded to the VETC for his review prior to preparation
of the final VE report.
Many of the initial responses of the Designer are mirrored in his
formal response of March 11 to the final report summarized below. The
numbered items correspond to the VE item numbers presented in the preceding
section.
1. Main pump station. The original design had two 24 inch and two
30 inch mains. VE proposed eliminating one 24 inch and one 30
inch force main. Of the remaining mains (24 and 30 inch), VE
changed the 24 inch to a 42 inch main.
Both of these items were thoroughly considered originally by the
Designer and both were unequivocally rejected. The decision on four force
mains versus two force mains, was made after consulting a pump manufacturer
who had experience in dredging operations. The Designer concluded there
would be a problem with settling of the larger solids which would be con-
veyed through the force mains at the lower flows. Also, the Designer was
concerned that once a line is shut down, settling would take place and it
would be very difficult to reintroduce suspension of these particles. The
solution proposed was to use a high enough velocity in the line to scour
the entire line upon the restarting of the pumps (velocities in the range
48
-------
of 8 or 9 feet per second). , The Designer did not feel that such velocities
would be reached with two force mains. The Designer also disagreed with
a recommendation that the pumps be manifolded on a discharge header because
there would be dead areas within such a header,..
The Designer concluded that .this VE recommendation would not give
velocities adequate to eliminate grit problems and that operating and
maintenance problems would be multiplied. - ' - ,
2. ' The main pump station has two constant speed and two variable
speed pumps. The eam proposed using all variable speed pumps
thereby reducing the size of the wet well. Result is a reduc-
tion- -in size of the pump station from 70 feet by 70 feet to 70
feet by 60 feet. -'
The Designer had considered in his initial design, four variable speed
pumps. He concluded .that .frequency control, would not be available .on ;
larger pumps. Continuous, running and extreme'turn down on pumps would
result in higher power costs than the .original design.
jected. . .. .. '
The idea was re-
3. Main pump station. The VE Team proposed constructing the lower
18 feet by excavating and utilizing the rock faces for floors
and walls and.using shotcreting facing. This also.decreased
. "" the ;excavation of site by 4.5 feet. , "-.' ''"'
Serious consideration was given to;this proposal. Soil borings were
made the week-of February 16, 1976, in the area proposed for relocation
of this station. These borings found only weathered rock.initially en-
countered at a depth of 50 feet, well below the proposed bottom of a
relocated pump station. Rock was not:,available for employment of this pro-
posal and the idea was rejected. ... .-. . , /.
4. Eliminate above ground enclosure over .all,four pump stations
. " except for stairwell enclosure. .'
The p'ump station structures were specifically requested by the owner
and served as protective cover for electrical and mechanized equipment,
wash and toilet facilities, first aid kit and miscellaneous apparatus.
The idea was rejected.
5. Ash Basin. The team proposed changing an 18 inch concrete re-
taining wall to run across the basin width rather than along
its length. This would shorten the wall, road, 3 inch pipeline
and electrical wiring and conduit to pump station.
This recommendation was accepted.
.6. Alternatives"included:
a. Regrading to eliminate trucked-in fill,.
49
-------
b. Modifying road slopes to minimize cut and fill.
c. Change the splitter boxes and parshall flumes to magnetic
meters and flow controllers.
d. Delete the Step II screw pump station by laying out the
settling tanks and operation tanks in concrete with the
natural grade.
e. Change the'return sludge screw pumps to propeller pumps.
f. Waste activated sludge to be pumped to gravity thickeners
by branching off return sludge system and throttling a
control valve to vary the flow.
The Designers response to these recommendations was: 6a S b: Too
late for such a drastic change. 6c would be nothing but operating problems.
Velocity is too low for mag meter efficiency. Unbalanced flow would
jeopardize a guarantee from the oxygen system supplier.
6d would require drastic rearrangement of units with increased head
on main pump stations.
6e propeller pumps would destroy floe, not easily matched to flow.
Also, increased operating and maintenance problems would be incurred as
compared to screw pumps.
6f. This would not be as compatible with thickener operation as pump
station with variable capacity and storage.
Two other ideas generated (but not fully evaluated) by the VE Team
were accepted by the Designer:
Item 7: Locate lime feed system as close to application area as
possible. The lime storage, preparation and -feed system change was incor-
porated in the plans. Savings realized in this change are minimal, but
operation problems are minimized with the facility being close to the
high demand point.
Initial Savings $17,500
LCC Annual (.Amortized Value
of Initial Savings) 1,542
Engineering cost to make
change 600
Item 8: Eliminate extensive curb and gutter. Use only where neces-
sary. Approximately 85% of curb and gutter was eliminated. Only that
which was considered to be critically related to drainage, pavement protec-
tion and safety was retained.
50
-------
The cost of implementing this change was significant. It was necessary
to revise and recalculate a major portion of the runoff for the revised
drainage system. It was necessary to revise the grading plans and re-route
much of the runoff. ' T ,
Initial Cost Savings $84,796 .
LCC Annual (Amortized Value
of'Initial Savings! 7,470 . _'.
Engineering cost to make ": : , -
change 3,200
.The Designers response to the VE recommendation-may be summarized as
follows: - . ........ ... _
VE
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
Initial
Savings
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
95,850
Rejected
LCC Annual
8,454
Engineering
Cost
700 (to collect soil data)
800.. . .-'-,'." ' " ".
Additional
Items
7.
8.
17,500
84,796
TOTAL
198,246
1,542
7,470
17,466...;
600
3,200
5,300
The initially implemented changes had a net savings'of. $192,946 which
represented only 5% of the savings estimated by the VE Team ($3,843,570)
and 0.6% of the estimated construction cost ($30,258,725).
.On April 13, 1976, the EPA Regional Office forwarded_tp the City a
memo from EPA's Washington D.C. Municipal Construction Division. The
memo questioned the basis for rejection of VE items 6d, 6e, and 6f which
had an initial saving potential of $2,720,000.
This letter resulted in a meeting on May 4, 1976 in the EPA Atlanta
office attended by the Designer, the City's Director of Utilities, the
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Management, the EPA
Regional Office and EPA Headquarters personnel. Neither the VETC nor any
of the VE Team Members attended. There was .no provision in the Value
Engineering contract for the VETC participation subsequent to completion
of the VE report. The City supported the Designer's rejection of the VE
recommendations during this meeting and EPA agreed that the Designer's
response was acceptable. In addition, .the Designer indicated that the
total savings would be $920,000 after consideration of the VE suggestions.
51
-------
The Designer supplemented his earlier response to the VE report with a
letter of May 12, 1976, which expanded on his earlier grounds for rejec-
tion of VE items 6d, 6e, and 6f, and which also reported the fact 'that the
bid was $920,000 under the Designer's estimate and that this savings was a
direct result of the VE effort.
This $728,000 increase in VE savings is related to savings in clarifier
costs. During the VE workshop, discussion about the potential merits of
rectangular clarifiers occurred. However, ho detailed evaluation of their
cost was made and as can be noted from the preceeding list of VE recommen-
dations, no change in clarifier design was proposed by the VE Study. How-
ever, the Designer elected to bid rectangular clarifiers as an alternate
to the circular units (no added cost to the client for added engineering)
based upon his exposure to the concept in the VE Workshop. The resulting
bids indicated that the circular units were indeed lower in cost than the
rectangular and the bids for the circular units were some $720,000 less
than the original estimate of $5,600,000. The Designer's rationale in
attributing the savings to the VE Study is (1) the thought to bid rectangu-
lar units as an alternate was inspired by the VE Workshop and (2) inclusion
of the rectangular alternate led to more competitive bidding among the
suppliers of circular equipment.
General Observations
The difficulty in implementing VE changes at 80% of design was very
real and significant.
Confusion over constraints on the VE Scope caused inefficiencies as
well as unnecessary misunderstandings among all parties.
The Designer felt the VE Team Members had inadequate experience with
sewage treatment design and with VE itself. He felt too much workshop
time was spent on explaining VE procedures.
The cost data provided by the Designer to the VE Team did not relate
to unit quantities but was rather a general, overall estimate. The VE
Team spent time generating cost data which should have been provided in
advance. The Designer now intends on future VE projects to provide quantity
takeoffs by the 20% design point to overcome this problem.
The VETC believes that the VETO -should not be a sub-contractor to the
designer in order that he can be better shielded from pressures in resolv-
ing conflicts.
Provisions should be made for VETC participation after completion of
the VE report to assist in resolving differences.
The Designer became a supporter of the VE concept and has subsequent
to the project study, sent 12 of his personnel to VE training workshops.
52
-------
PLAINVILLE, CONNECTICUT PROJECT "' ;
This section is based on interviews and telephone conversations held
during December, 1976 with the design firm, the State Department of En-
,vironmental Protection, the VE Consultant, and the municipality.
Description of, the Proposed Project Prior to the VE Study
The Town of Plainvilie was operating a 1.6 mgd secondary treatment
plant.using single stage trickling filters and anaerobic'digesters. Dis-
charge of disinfected effluent is to the Pequabuck River. A flow sheet for
the original plant is shown in Figure 15. Influent flows have for some
time exceeded the design capacity of the plant and the effluent quality_has
deteriorated.
Because of the overload and'jnore stringent discharge requirements set
by the State and EPA, a series of studies were undertaken beginning in
1970 to select a treatment process and to determine the assimilative capa-
city of the river. These studies included operation of a pilot plant and
computer modeling of the river and resulted in the final setting of dis-
charge standards and preparation of a facilities plan in late 1974. Dis-
charge standards are shown in Table 5. The conclusions of the studies were,"
that based on the influent characteristic shown in .Table 6, the required
.effluent quality could be attained. That effluent quality corresponds to
removals of approximately 95 percent of the carbonaceous oxygen demand and
92.percent of the nitrogenous oxygen demand.
To achieve the required degree of treatment, the processes .described
below were .selected as being the most cost-effective and design was started
on 3.8 mgd treatment plant. A flow sheet and a hydraulic profile for the
proposed plant are shown: in Figures 16A and 16B, and a site plan is shown
in Figure 17.
Raw sewage entering the plant would flow to new pretreatment facilities
consisting of coarse screening, grit removal in a non-aerated grit chamber,
comminution, and metering. Following pretreatment,. the flow would be
split between the two existing and two new primary clarifiers, recombined
and then pumped into new pump station to the secondary treatment system.
The proposed secondary treatment process would use four, seven-stage
trains of rotating biological discs designed for removal of both carbon-
aceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand. The process would be 'housed in a
heated concrete structure. The existing trickling filters would be con- .
verted to equalization basins, designed to reduce fluctuations in the load
applied to the secondary and tertiary treatment. - r
Following secondary treatment, effluent would flow to two parallel
trains of rapid mix tanks and flocculation basins. Lime, alum and polymer
would be added as coagulants and settling aids in the rapid mix tanks. ;.
Biological discs would be used as flocculators.
53
-------
I
tL
5
0
CD
cc
Q co
. I
H
ETREATMEN
rr
O-
MANUALLY
CLEANED
_i
UJ
z
<
I
o
t-
cc
o
cc
COMMINUTO
SCHEMATIC OF EXISTING STP
TOWN OF PLAINVILLE, CONN.
Figure 15
54
-------
TABLE 5
DISCHARGE STANDARDS
Effluent (mg/1)
Parameter
BOD
Suspended Solids
Ammonia (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Ultimate Oxygen Demand
w/Filtration
V . 5.
10
2
14 (7)*
17
w/Filtration and
Chemical.CJarification
2
1
2
2 (1)*
12
*Value in parentheses indicates expected level with
industrial discharge restrictions.
55
-------
TABLE 6
DESIGN CRITERIA AND INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Design Parameter
Life
Flow
Avg
Peak
Influent
BOD
Suspended Solids
Ammonia (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Ultimate Oxygen Demand
Value
25 yr (1975 to 2000)
3.8 mgd
9.9 mgd
180 mg/1
200 mg/1
22 mg/1
20 (10)* mg/1
371 mg/1
*Value in parentheses indicates expected level with
industrial discharge restrictions.
56
-------
Q
LU
>
Oi
Q
o
o
U_
y
i-
<
LLI
u
FIGURE 16A
57
-------
MO[aq 335 '3u;| LptDyy
o
H H
l^ «
D
UJ ^
II o
. = o.
« _p
to
o
I
O
z
u-
<
z
o
-a o ^-«
T o'- I
i -^ -5 ^
J c£:2
J1 n 5
O
|U»n|,U!
FIGURE 16B
58
-------
I/O
UJ
O
g
C£
Q.
a.
111
UJ
o
<
cc
FIGURE 17
59
-------
From there, effluent would flow to two existing and two new chemical/
secondary clarifiers for settling and then be pumped through three, new,
multi-media, horizontal, pressure filters. After filtration, the effluent
would be disinfected with chlorine and subjected to post aeration in a new
chlorine contact tank and then discharged to the river.
The two sludge, streams would be treated separately. Primary sludge
would be digested in the two existing two-stage, heated, anaerobic diges-
ters. Additional insulation would be installed on the digesters to make
them more efficient. Secondary/tertiary sludge would be digested in two
new aerobic digesters, thickened in two new gravity thickeners and then
combined with the digested primary sludge. The combined sludge would
then be dewatered on two new vacuum filters and hauled by truck to the
town's landfill. Existing sludge drying beds would remain in service for
standby use.
In addition to the described treatment facilities, the design also
included a 2-story administration building housing offices and a laboratory;
a building covering the chemical treatment system and filters as well as
additional office, locker room and lab facilities; a building housing the
dewatering equipment; a building housing the pretreatment system; and
1200 linear feet of influent sewer.
The construction cost for the facilities based on first quarter 1976
prices was estimated to be $7,550,000. A breakdown of the costs is shown
below:
Sitework
Primary and pre-treatment
Secondary treatment
Tertiary treatment
Chemical feed, mix and floe
Filtration
Disinfection-post aeration
Clari fication
Sludge handling
Interface
Buildings
The VE Study
? 784,200
478,400
2,224,900
268,700
556,400
53,600
264,200
988,800
792,700
1,146,400
Background
After attending an AIA-ACEC instructional workshop on value engineer-
ing, the designer was convinced of the merits of VE and was anxious to
apply it to one of his projects. Costs for the Plainville project were
escalating and it was thought that good opportunity existed to achieve
some savings through VE. At the time EPA was looking for projects on
which VE studies could be conducted on a voluntary basis and, when approach-
ed by the designer, recommended the project. The designer then discussed
VE and its potential with the town's staff and together they convinced the
Town Council to apply for funding of a VE study. The State DEP approved
60
-------
the VE concept.
Step 2 grant.
The regional EPA office authorized an amendment to the
Organization
The VE study was conducted in two workshops. The first workshop was
held in June and July of 1975 when design was approximately 15 percent
complete. This workshop used five teams and involved a review of the pro-
cess as well as the physical design. The second workshop was conducted in
October of 1975 when the project was approximately 75 percent complete.
This workshop used three teams and concentrated more on operation and main-
tenance aspects of the project. .,
The name given, basic function addressed, and responsibilities assigned
to each team were as follows:
Workshop I
,- -1' - "".- Team 1 - Site ~ -.-;..,.
Basic function - Provide access * .:-.-'.-
Responsibilities - Maintain operation of access to and around
the existing plant during construction; review alternatives for -
providing security, lighting, landscaping and flood protection
and review consolidation of processes and buildings on the site.
Team 2 - Energy ~ " - - ~-
Basic function - Provide energy
Responsibilities - Review means for reducing and conserving pro-
cess, building, and site energy; reduce number of pumping stages;
review choice of energy sources. , - .
Team 3 - Process
Basic function - Treat waste'
Responsibilities - Consolidate processes, reduce pumping stages,
maximize and integrate the use of existing facilities and pro-
cesses with new processes, review life cycle costs for processes,
improve aesthetics of plant.
- Team 4 - Buildings
r ''.-'- 'Basic function - Enclose spaces
Responsibilities -_Minimize the amount of enclosed space; consol-
idate buildings for processes, administration and laboratory to
reduce life cycle cost; review use of alternative building sys-
tems and materials.
; Team 5 - Underground Structures - :
Basic function - Support process
61
-------
r
Responsibilities - Review design of concrete tanks, foundations
and other UG structures; review design techniques and criteria;
and review plant layout and configuration of structures.
Workshop II
Team 1 - Site
Basic function - Provide access
»
Responsibilities - Maintenance of operation during construction.
Look at alternatives for providing security, landscaping, paving
and interfacing.
Team 2 - Buildings
Basic function - Enclose spaces
Responsibilities - Minimize building volumes and excavation and
dewatering costs. Look into alternatives for building finishes,
structural systems and equipment placement.
Team 3 - Maintenance/Operation/Replacement (MOR)
Basic function - Maintain treatment
Responsibilities - Minimize costs for MOR. Look for alternatives
which reduce costs for labor, chemicals, electrical energy, fuel
parts, and equipment replacement.
The workshops were conducted along the same lines as the AIA/ACEC
instructional workshops and as such served the dual functions of training
and value engineering. The designer retained a YE consultant to lead the
workshops and provide the instruction.
Members of the teams were selected largely from the designer's staff
but included personnel from the Town of Plainville, the State Department
of Environmental Protection and elsewhere as indicated below. During the
first workshop, personnel actually working on the design were used as team
members as it was thought that at that point the design had not become
sufficiently "fixed" to hinder their objectivity. Conversely, it was
thought that the designers had the best knowledge of the project and, there-
fore, could perform most effectively. Many of the individuals who had done
the original design work were no longer with the design firm. Thus, the
personnel who were involved in the VE study were not those responsible for
the original design decisions.
During the second workshop more team members from outside the de-
signer" s office were used and fewer of the designer's personnel directly
involved with the design were used. For this later workshop it was felt
that a more beneficial study could be conducted by using people more famil-
iar with the construction, operation, and maintenance of treatment facil-
ities. It was also felt that by this point the designers might not be as
objective or creative as they should be about reviewing and changing their
62
-------
own work. ., '_ ; ". ; / ;, .'"" ' '
For the most part, teams were multidisciplinary and were composed as
shown:
Workshop I
Team 1 - Site ._ . . . .
Electrical*Engineer (Designer) Team Leader .
Mechanical Engineer {Designer)
Civil Engineer (Designer) ' ,
Landscape Architect (Designer) .
' Supt. of Public Works (Plainville)
.Team 2 - Energy
2 Mechanical Engineers (Designer)
Electrical Engineer (Designer)
Civil Engineer (Designer)
Plumbing.Engineer (Designer)
Town Manager (Plainville)
one was Team Leader
Team 3 - Process ,. _.,...' . , - ,
2 Environmental Engineers (Designer) one was Team Leader
Chemist (Designer) .
Sanitary Engineer (State)
Treatment Plant Superintendent (Plainyille)
Team 4 -. Buildings .... . "
Planner/Architect (Defigner) Team Leader
Arciiitect (Designer)
2 Building Designers (Designer)
Team 5 - Underground Structures
3 Structural Engineers (.Designer)
Technical Writer (Designer)
Workshop il '"_^ .' .. " "* '. ..'
Team' 1 - Site
one was Team Leader
Landscape Designer (.Designer) Team Leader
Plumbing Engineer (.Designer)
Contractor (.Consultant)
Field Engineer (Designer)
Electrical Designer (Designer)
Team 2 - Buildings '
Architect (Consultant) Team Leader
Structural Engineer (Designer)
Electrical Engineer (Designer)
Mechanical Engineer (Designer) ;
Treatment Plant Superintendent (Plainville)
63
-------
Team 3 - Maintenance, Operation and Replacement
3 Environmental Engineers (Designer) one was Team Leader
Treatment Plant Supervisor (Plainville)
Sanitary Engineer (State)
Level of Effort
As discussed above, the VE study was conducted in two parts, the first
consisting of a five-team workshop at the 15 percent completion point, and
the second a three team workshop at the 75 percent completion point. Both
workshops were forty hour sessions and were preceeded by information gather-
ing and preparation work and followed by the preparation of a report and
the presentation of results. This level of effort was considered appropri-
ate and close to optimum for the size and type of project involved by the
participants who believed that a fewer number of teams would not have been
able to cover the selected subjects adequately. Also, the VE effort was
used for training of the designer's staff in VE techniques which may have
influenced the number of personnel involved.
The grant-eligible cost for the complete VE study was $53,610. This
cost was considerably below the amount spent by the designer, however,
because the workshops were used as training sessions and not all costs were
eligible for grant funding. Costs for travel and subsistance were small
since most of the team members either were on the designer's staff or were
from the immediate area.
None of the often-found constraints, except that the workshops must not
delay the overall project, were applied to the study. To the contrary,
review of the process and equipment selection was encouraged. It was
commented that "process selection" exerts the greatest influence on the
overall project cost and therefore, it is the area having the greatest
potential for savings.
Method Used For The VE Study
Before beginning the first workshop, meetings were held between the
designer and the VE consultant to plan the study, set the number and makeup
of the teams and assign topics to each team. Also during this planning
period, a cost estimate was prepared and materials to be used in the study
were collected and reviewed.
The workshops were divided into four phases typical of conventional VE
studies. These phases were: Information, speculative or creative, analy-
tical or evaluation, and recommendation.
The emphasis of the information phase was to acquaint all team members
with the project, plans, specifications, project reports, costs and other
available documents. Because workshops were instructional as well as
problem solving sessions, this first phase also was used to explain VE to
the team members. For the first workshop, the session for this phase was
held on one day about two weeks before the other four day session.
64
-------
The information phase resulted in the completion'of functional analyses
and the preparation of cost models. Examples of these are shown in Figures
18-20 for the first workshop and Figures 21-23 for the second workshop.
F.A.S.T. diagrams were used as aids to determining the basic functions to
consider. Worths used in the cost models were determined from the lowest
costs to reasonably meet the basic functions.
In the period between the two sessions, additional information was
collected. Because there was already some idea of what alternatives might
be proposed and analysed at the later session, additional costs relating
to those alternatives were gathered and estimated during this 'interim per-
iod.
The workshop continued with the speculative phase. This.phase used
the brain-storming technique to generate ideas for study during the analy-
tical phase. Some 250 ideas were generated during the first workshop and
after preliminary review, about 40 percent of these ideas were passed on
to the analytical phase for further evaluation. In the second workshop,
the three teams listed approximately 110 ideas about 30 percent of which
were passed on for evaluation.
The procedure used for evaluation involved first listing the advantages
and disadvantages of the best ideas carried over from the speculative phase
and then ranking the ideas to narrow the number passed on for further
evaluation. Each of the surviving ideas was then compared against the
present design on an "Analysis Matrix." Here, the important criteria for
the particular functions were listed across the page and weighting factors
reflecting their relative importances were given. A ranking was then
assigned for each alternative and criteria and total values reflecting the
merits of the alternatives were determined. A criteria weighting process
comparing the importance of assigned criteria and finally arriving at a
relative weight for each criterion was employed to help set the weighting
factors used in the analysis matrix. Completed samples of the several
forms used in the evaluation phase are included as Figures 24, 25, and 26.
To complete the evaluation phase, construction costs and then life
cycle costs were estimated for each alternative scoring high on the
analysis matrix.
Finally, a value engineering recommendation was prepared by each team.
Alternatives showing the greatest cost savings were presented along with
a summary of the design criteria and a listing of before and after construc-
tion and life cycle costs.
These proposals along with an overall summary of savings were presented
'to the Town Council and the State DEP in a formal meeting at the end of
each workshop. Following the presentations, final""reports giving all data
and summaries were prepared and submitted to the Town, State and EPA.
Results and Recommendations of the VE Study .
The savings in initial costs as a result of the VE Study were estimated
65
-------
h
u
c
c
i
2
<
a
c/
u
K
(_
<
u
c
u
u
E
c
tu
1-
z
_J
a
I TREAT.
I
/
Z
<
a
ft
i-
I
u.
Q
U
U.
a
o
s
" a
_J C
< i
(S V
V. X
a> oc
t c
Z J
- Ul
J O UJ
1RKSHOP)
COST 1 PR
3= Z
! "- 3
8 a
: Q- ta
1 i U
i ' r
:8 3
c
< ^
^ Ul
0 W
\ \
\
T-
\
o^
CO
a5
o
o
IO
CN
T
I
i
0
1 io
1
UJ
IOC
a
I
U) >
-J <
cSS
<3 -^
- S
UJ <-
O en
3 Z
m Ul
^ 0
i
^
^
J
<
5P
H
Z
Ul
\
+,
§1
S
1
1
§|
si
f
1
H
co
O
Q
J
H
a
o
^
RGROUNDI
UJ
C
in
3
Z
E
m
W
1
/ \
0
DC
a
CO
_l
2
z
X
o
UJ
to
CM
UJ
H
(7!
T-'
r***
JCTURES
oc
--
i
<
c
-
c
c
c
e
c
c
s
1
J
g
CC
a
UJ
CM
u
r
c
' c
^I
*»
r*C
CO
CM
o
*
§
3
cf
O
D
O
3
D
5
D
CMa
05 oc
^°
l-^**
1
>J
3
~sO~
=5
§
rl
~~
06
'
O
CM"
0
IJ
-q
ui
CO
g
CM
rj
_
Of*r
.^J
n
li
^
~i
^1
*
CM
O
O
^
00
.^
Q_
O
UJ O
C£ 5:
C5
UJ
O
t/»
O
u
66
-------
UJ O
CD ,-.
Q Q-
=> o
CQ CC
O-
o
I
o
^
LU
ce
Sfc 3
j Q Q_
^ D- CO
P ci E^
^ C3 _l
LZc?
E i^ DQ O
A-i
L5J
_J
Q- ni
co OS
LU Q_
Ll_ CD I
Sin S
tgf2
a 3 z
51
51
_fj
R|
SI
IS
J 3
o in
I gl
5l
-J:
.J
.J
SI
II
MEGHAN
PIPING
g]
_"2J
ELECT.
LIGHTIN
SI
.11
NEW PUI
STATION
I I
t]
EXIST.
STATIOr
i!:
EFF. PU
STATICS
|
J
NEW PU
1
"'""' '
.1)
di
gg
sTt
r-l
.-J
.j
s
< o
|B.
m c
a: z ^
o
gl
_J
-J
IIT1
.J
ri
S'
i!
i
E-TREAT.
LDING '
MS.F.
^1
«\
1!
i
i
ETTLING
NKS
"SI
ul
gl
SI
I
1
O
1-
~^1
IB,
i
r
i
~
i
i
-J
1J
.J
.J
a:
1
I
O
UJ Q UJ
§01-
o o
DC -I CC
OIL Q.
Sl
< -I
»S
SI
si
67
-------
DISCIPLINE
\^ TEAM NO
\ WORKSHOP #1
\ TEAMS
\ (CATEGORIES
X STUDIED)
COTOfiEMTS N.
SUE 784,700
TTirtd. , Rd. , Park,
Flood Protection
. Landscape, Security,
jfalks
. Drainage
. Aceessjoad
. Influent Sevier
PR1MARY-PRETREAT. 579,200
. Prstreatiront
. Pretreatrcent Bldg.
. 2 Settling Tanks
.,Ho'dtng Tank___._
. "Vricic^ Filter
._Jio-Contactors
. 3io-Cont. Build.
URJJARIT-FINAL 1.374.600
. Mixj^Chem. Teed, Floe
_ftlt. ,_8ack Purngs
. *i'jKop. Chlorine
-_Ierc. Treat Build.
.-filter Build.
U-'JOGe. 989.800
; -|«Jii£.-pJfflS5-E£ed
_^4«rgbic Digesters
iNTjjFACi 833.400
llSil._Oist.t Li ant
3&.5',tni Itacipn .. _
J
-------
H
Ul
0
Q
Z
Q.
O5
Ul
t_
"J
O
U.
Q
Ul
U.
Q
0
2\
1-
Z
^
Q.
S
CC
2
^
Q.
CO
UJ
p
FACILI
Q
UJ
U.
Q
§
^ a
-J O
< X
°
< if
Ul
J5 <"
sS
\
\-
\
CN
- OO
,_:
"
"O
7
/
k
1
cc
o
s
1
UJ
cc
a
I
GOALS
L/DAY
l- g
O ^~
Q H
03 QJ
o
^.
^
Q
(3
*2
UJ
O
CO
eo . ;
r~
§|
CN ^~"
m
-?
1
CO
O
O
H
a
<
0
Q
2
C
CC
o
DC
Ul
Q
Z
D
in
1
Q
_l
m
(A
Ul
o
o
GC
Q.
m
'
0
Z
X
o
Ul
£
3
Ul
to
^
1
.-
c/:
a
~ O
o
3 ^"^
cc
1-
to
o
p.^ '
CO
CO
CO
GO
_ ^ _
O
1
^ CN
Oo-t
E
H
o
Ul
Ul oo
.a
rg
o
co-
CN
lX
CO
a
-o-
5
-*"
o»
c^
o
eo
f_
H
1C
[^
n
CO
>n
o
_~J
~n
1
l§
x>S
Neo
1
CN
1
^
*
00
_J
IS*
<
a.
o
III
Q
O
O
U
69
-------
ig K a
>§
-------
DISCIPLINE
\ TEAM HO.
\ WORKSHOP ifl
\ TEAMS
\ (CATEGORIES
.----. = ^STUDIED)
TREATMENT' \
PLANT \
COMPONENTS . . \
SITE . ' .
. Grad., Rd.,, Park,
Flood Protection
. Landscape. Security, Wai
Hot. atari TO
. Access Road -:
. Influent Sewsf
PRIMAar-PRETREAT.
. Pretreatment
. Pretreatirent Bldg.
. 2 Settling Tanks
. Holding Tank
SECONDARY
. Trick. Filter
. Bio-Contactors
. Bio-Cont. Build.
TERTIARY- FINAL
. Mix; Cheni. Feed, Floe
. Filt._, Back PU.TIDS '
. 2 Clarifiers
. Aeration, Chlorine
. Tert. Treat Build.
. Filter Build.
SLUD3E ; Sludge Blend
. Aerobic*" Digesters
.' Vac. Filt. .PU.TDS, Feed
. Thickeners
. Anasrob i c 0 i ges ters
INTERFACE -
. f'iech. Pioing
. Elect. Dist., Light
. Hsw PUTIO Station
. Exist. Purco Station
. Eff. Puiro Station '
. NEW Piwo Sta. Build.
OPERATIONAL SUPP.
. Old Ad-.inis. Build.
L Kw Ari-n:V-'.c,Fi1 .Bui Id.
BASE cost f=pp ',s'n«l;c;lin?^
ICO'" Workshoo i'2 Savings
£0%. iavin.a's ror K?w &unn
3,000
7,500
3.500
57,700
975.300
98.100
473. 500
54.700
9.500
38,000
44,000
383 ,800
219 .-600
61,000
209,433
92,000
19,000
345,800 180,000
904,800
2,954,533
395,785.
J16,(>Hol 1
583.1721
2,954,533
ELEC.
EfiG.
. ro
V
ELECTRICAL '.
(Site, Process, Build.;
22,300
12 ,000
I2.AQO -
13.300
11.300
10.300 '
16,700
800
75,800
6,000
12,000
6,700
3,200
2,300
190 ,400
395,100
20,000
16,000!.
'379,100!
MECH.
ENG.
ro
D>
t/i m
- o'
r*- re
~o c-i
3?
O
ro
w
ro
53.800
48,000
13,000
171,000
285,800
285.800
CIVIL .ENG.'
lA.'IO. ARCH
""".r" '""'
316,000
145,000
121.000
103 ,000
137,567
34,900
..
857,467 i
145,555 *
1 lf> .444 |
7
-------
JUDICIAL PHASE
STUDY NO.
IDEA COMPARISON
Select the most feasible ideas or combination of ideas. List them below. List both the advantages and dis-
advantages of each idea to determine where additional work must be done.
IDEA
Change dike slope
Raise sides of tankage & equipment
Allow site to flood
Use alternate approach road
Consolidate all but existing facil-
ities on SE side of site
All interface above ground
Supplement effluent sewer lines
Postpone new line
Ground lower replace grass
Raise site
-lood protection Lronk Road
build berm on pipes
Minimum flood lights
Rent site lighting from CLP
Structures foundation walls as dikes
(Rated from 1-12)
12 Best
ADVANTAGE
eliminates riprap
saves fill -
flood protection
less expensive
cost savings
above flood level
cost savings more
efficient operation
maint.
cost savings
cost savings
cost savings
life cycle savings
flood protection
better structure
cost savings
cost savings
no initial cost
no maintenance
reduces cost
DISADVANTAGE
requires more fill
and space.
more renovation
costs
conflicts with de
sign criteria
requires equipmen
removal
backup flooding
citizen complaint
link costs
heavier foundatio
multi level oper
ation
maintenance
increase maint.
higher cost later
(inflation)
greater initial
cost
hiqh initial cost
no access to site
durinq floods
high initial costs
long term costs
increases interfac
RANK
2
3
1
6
1
10
9
8
7
4
5
12
11
2
FIGURE 24
72
-------
<£.
1-
<5
£
o
UJ
E
u
C3
U.
UJ
U
ffi
O
H
O
UJ
O
EC
a
a
o
o
u.
co
UJ
s
0
.5
<
co
UJ
8
3
m
0
§
u
a
0
UJ
u.
I
cs
OW IMPORTANT
MINOR DIFFERENCE
MEDIUM DIFFERENCE
MAJOR DIFFERENCE
-
-
-
UJ
te
o
o
00
UJ
U
O
a:
a.
o
Qi O
O UJ
Qi
UJ
O
ui
EC
UJ
EC
U
O
<
J>
"co
co
o
c:
o
3
C
8
|
1
a
o
"o
o3
O
m
u
73
-------
JUDICIAL PHASE
ANALYSIS MATRIX
SITE FLOOD PROTECTION
List the best ideas
from ranking and
comparison techniques.
Dstermine which one
stacks up best against
the desired criteria.
PRESENT WAY
Consolidate & relocate
1) buildings
Buildings as dike
Fill Entire site
Raise Facilities
and equipment
EXCELLENT - 4
FIGURE 26
74
-------
to be $952,000, 13% of the prewprkshop estimate or 17.8 times the eligible
VE costs. The study also produced (MOR) maintenance, operation, and re-
placement savings estimated at $440,000 per year. The combined result of
the two above savings was a savings in life cycle cost of about 35 percent.
The savings were based on a 30 year life and an interest rate of 10
percent. Annual costs were based on ah estimated average cost over a 30
year life and assumed an inflation rate of 5.75 percent. It was also
assumed that flow into the plant increased linearly from 1.8 mgd to 3.8 mgd
over the 30 year life. . ------ -- ' -- -- '
Tables 7 and 8 show the savings attributed to each team for the two
workshops. Figure 27 summarizes the overall results for capital and life
cycle icosts. - It is noteworthy '.that",, for both workshops only 80 percent'of"/
the apparent savings in initial cost were actually claimed. This was done
in an attempt to reflect the fact that estimated costs tend to increase :as
detailed design progresses. It should also be noted that.-the'--'savings in -
MOR costs shown in the table for Workshop X were based-on a: reportedly
incorrect estimate of preworkshop costs and therefore, were not included in
the overall savings. " ' . - _
The value engineering recommendations prepared by each team at the end
of the workshops summarized the proposed design changes1 and expected
savings resulting from the particular team's work. Because the studies 'r
were conducted.by the design firm,! the VE recommendations were actually
reviewed by a team;other than the original design team. Discussiqn of
the significant aspects.of each team's proposal is included below:
Workshop I. - Site; The team proposed the consolidation of various"-"7--"-'
new structures into one_new structure as shown in Figure 28 arrd modi-
fications of the perimeter flood control bernu This reduced the". .
amounts of site grading and excavations as well as the fencing, piping,
groundcover, drainage, rip rap and paving. The final layout proposed
for the site was the work of all teams. Other items in the proposal
included changing the grass covering most of the site to a natural
ground cover having a higher initial cost but lower maintenance and
life cycle costs and reducing the amount of site illumination from
the pre-VE plan of lighting the entire site with pole mounted flood
lights to using a minimum amount of building-mounted flood lights.
Workshop I. - Energy: The major cost saving proposals by this group
involved (.1) the use of heat pumps for building heating and cooling
employing plant effluent as a heat source and (2) the use of a pro-
grammed, electrical demand limiter to control the operating times
of non-continuously running motors. This proposal also-considered
the energy savings to be gained from use of the alternate site plan
proposed by other teams. .
Workshop I. . Process; This team developed new process flow sheet and
hydraulic profile (Figure 29) on which the team could base many of
their proposals. This new flow sheet retained the existing trickling
75
-------
TABLE 7
COST SAVINGS SUMMARY - WORKSHOP I
TEAM
Site
Energy-Mechanical
(Site, Process, Building)
Ene rgy-Electrical
(Site, Process, Building)
Process (Equipment)
Buildings
(Arch., Struct., Found.)
Underground Structures
(Tanks, Exc., Backfill, Found.)
TOTALS
Base Cost Pre-Workshop I
Workshop I Savings
Savings (New Budget)
New Budget Design to Cost Model
FIRST COST
$ 316,600
155,600
73,400
209,000
322,300
362,000
$1,438,900 (100%) $ 212,600 (100%)
ANNUAL MOR COST
$ 38,400
22,500
89,900
28,000
33,800
$7,550,000
1,438,900 (100%)
1,151,120 (
$6,398,880
$ 533,000
212,600 (100%)
$ 320,400
76
-------
.TABLE 8
COST SAVINGS SUMMARY - WORKSHOP II
TEAM
Site
Building
MOR
TOTALS
Base Cost Pre-Workshop II
Workshop Savings
Savings (New Budget)
New Budget Desigri-to-Cost Model
FIRST COST
$ 145,555
415,785
$ 561,340
$6,594,200
$ 561,340 (100%)
$ 449,072 ( 80%)
$6,145,128
ANNUAL MOR COST
$ 440,000
$ 440,000
$1,260,000
$ 440,000 (100%)
$ 820,000
77
-------
JH 40,000,000 "
o
a
{2
z
UJ
UJ 30,000,000
cc
5
a
UJ
cc
p 20,000,000 -
<
cc
UJ
a.
o
UJ
10,000,000
UJ
z
$37,800,000
$32,400,000
$24,600,000
(30 YEAR LIFE CYCLE COST SAVINGS - $13,200,000; 35%)
DESIGN PERIOD
7,500,000 -
5,000,000
o
_i
p 2,500,000'
Z
< $6,398,880
O
CC
0.
a.
<
d o
o *
< m
$6.594,200
$6,145,128
(INITIAL COST SAVINGS - $952,000; 13%)
a.
o
oc
o
UJ
>
$6,598,000
(3
h-
U
o
o
O
O
DESIGN PERIOD
o
FIGURE 27. COST SAVINGS.
78
-------
FIGURE 28
79
-------
CC
UJ
E
MULTI-STAGE
BIO-CON-
TACTOR
UJ
CO
CO
O) V
!g s-1
CD
Z
5
z
UJ
ffl
UJ
CD
Q
Q_
O
a;
o
Of
UJ
Q;
o
o
UJ
X
u
tsi
FIGURE 19A
8Q
-------
sso|poai^ 9 g .
CD
£E Z
UJ Q
i- rj
-15
Lb CD
\ 1
883
o«8<
59s8i
2S66d
5
«
O)
^ W
> CC .
OC [u
0^
z cc
85
^u
z
o
152
-1 Z
n <
O (-..
o
0
LL
Si
5x
^5
X -^
0
4 *~
PL. '"'
= ^=jl ^S
o3 S
^c
0 o
-D il
§S,
o 01
a» r°
1/5.5
r:
*=n -
.
i
i
r
CL
O
X
LU
J-
U_
<-
UJ
_J
LL.
O
ce:
a.
u
FIGURE
81
-------
filters as roughing filters rather than converting them to equalization
basins. The use of roughing filters reduced the organic loading on
the biodisc process and allowed the deletion of four of the 28 bio-
discs. Other proposals by the team included (1) changing a new low
lift pump from the multi-speed centrifugal type to screw type (2)
changing flocculation equipment from biodiscs to conventional floccu-
lators (3) using gravity filters in place of pressure filters and
thereby eliminate three pumps and a standby generator (4) converting
existing (hydraulically inadequate) secondary clarifier to a chlorine
contact basin and (5) eliminate the septic waste holding tank.
Workshop I - Buildings: Using the new flow scheme developed by the
process team and the modified grading plan suggested by the site team,
this team proposed reductions in building areas from an original lay-
out of 40,200 SF to a new layout of 17,800 SF. The reductions were
accomplished by eliminating the pretreatment building and using outdoor
equipment rather than constructing a new enclosed pump station, using
plastic covers over the biodisc structure in place of a concrete
housing, consolidating the tertiary equipment building with the bio-
disc structure, and changing building systems for the administration/
vacuum filter building to a pre-engineered system. The size of this
last building was also reduced.
Workshop I - Underground Structures: Proposals by this team resulted
mainly from consolidation of structures under the new site layout.
This consolidation reduced the lengths of walls to be constructed and
the amount of excavation. The configuration of the biodisc structure
was changed from that shown in Figure 30 to that shown in Figure 31.
This resulted in a reduction in lengths of walls, channels and walk-
ways. Changes in design philosophy allowed the use of thinner con-
crete walls and the use of higher strength reinforcing steel allowed
savings in steel weight. The substitution of wood for concrete con-
struction of baffles walls in the chlorine contact tank and biodisc
structure also produced some savings.
Workshop II - Site: Several items proposed by this team are shown in
Figure 32. These include elimination of some access roads, changing
material of a 24 inch pipeline from ductile iron to reinforced con-
crete, revision of the electrical distribution system to provide
separate services to the new treatment building and to the existing
control building. Other proposals involved changes to and reductions
in landscaping, retention of an existing garage scheduled for demoli-
tion (the garage will be used by the Town for purposes not associated
with sewage treatment).
Workshop II - Buildings: In the interim between workshops, it appears
that the concrete structure over the biodiscs (replaced with plastic
covers during the first workshop ) was reincorporated into the design
as was concrete framing for the administration building. A proposal
of the second workshop replaced the concrete framing with steel
framing and reduced the heights of both structures. Another proposal
82
-------
_l
O co
Q Q-
i £
CO
Q
m co
co <
cu ~~*
0 0 0
"to T- o
T- -^ CM
l-
<_>
UJ
to
U
ALL
HAN
TOTAL LENGTH OF WS .
TOTAL LENGTH OF CNELS .
TOTAL LENGTH OF ACCESS WALKS
83
-------
b
%
r
\
(
\
(
»
** *-
D a a a a a
A/kill Tl STA^E
a^ BIO-CONTACTOR
1 SYSTEM
*-
D D D n n n
«M
>
V
1
A
t
^
V.PIER
SECTION A-A
TOTAL LENGTH OF WALLS
TOTAL LENGTH OF CHANNELS
TOTAL LENGTH OF ACCESS WALKS
600 If
400 If
200 If
as access walkways
b= open channels
c= concrete piers
DRIVES
SAVINGS OVER
ORIGINAL WAY
440 If
140 If
30 If
ESTIMATED SAVINGS DUE TO NEW DISC LAYOUT: $75,000
FIGURE 31
BIODISC WALLS
84
-------
L_JL_ J LJ I
FIGURE 32
-------
eliminated the planned basement of the administration building. Con-
struction of the basement carried a high cost because of the presence
of a high groundwater table at the plant site. Railing materials were
also changed by this team.
Workshop II - MOR: The work of this team indicates very significant
savings in annual and life cycle costs - $440,000 and $13,200,000
respectively. The major savings came from the areas of labor and elec-
trical energy. The required staff was reduced from 18 to 9 men mainly
through a re-evaluation of staffing needs. Electrical energy costs
were reduced by providing time clocks to regulate the operations of
equipment where operation might not need to be continuous at full rat-
ing all day. Such equipment included clarifier drives, biodisc drives
and digester mixers. Savings in fuel oil consumption were expected to
result from more effective insulation of various plant components.
This included covering the long, above-ground influent line; covering
the screw pumps; reducing airchange criteria in biodisc structure, thus
reducing heating requirements; using additional earth-fill insulation
at several structures; and reducing the heating criteria for the
secondary digesters.
General Observations
The designer indicated he was quite pleased with the study and was now
a strong advocate of VE. He would not mind having his competitors conduct
VE studies on his projects although he thinks using his own staff, even
those working on the design, for a VE study early in Step 2 has benefits.
He felt using personnel from the client, particularly plant operators is
good because they bring in a practical view and go away with a better under-
standing of the project. He also felt the representative of the State DEP
who served as a team member during each workshop brought a different and
useful viewpoint to the study. He also felt that the regional EPA office
should also have provided a representative but none were available. The
designer thought that the number of teams used and the timing of the two
workshops was nearly optimum. He also stated that two workshops are highly
desirable even on small projects.
The VETC indicated that for reasons already given, it is acceptable to
include designers on teams in early workshops but that it is better to
exclude them from participation in later workshops. He recommended that the
best talent available should be used on the VE teams. By using "experts",
some savings will result from their review of a less experienced person's
design. They will know the latest design techniques and, during the de-
signers review and rebuttal, their suggestions will carry more weight.
Because maintenance and operations costs are difficult to set over a long
plant life, the VETC recommends that a sensitivity analysis be performed on
the life cycle costs. When LCC's for various alternates having different
first costs are close, redetermining LCC's over a range of inflation rates
may help to select the probable best alternate.
The VETC felt that the imposition of constraints should be kept to a
86
-------
minimum. Since process selection possibly has the greatest influence on-
cost, its review offers a high*potential for savings and shouldn't be exclud-
ed from the study.
The VETC felt that conducting the VE workshop within the 40 hour session
is important. This gets the work done efficiently and without delays to
the project. To conduct the study in 40 hours, however, all needed informa-
tion must have been gathered by the VETC well before the workshop. To avoid
the common problem of having time to estimate the costs of complex alter-
nates during the study, these alternates can often be anticipated by the
VETC and designer during the preworkshop period and critical cost informa-
tion for the team gathered before the workshop.
The VETC expressed that in order to get qualified VE teams,, it is
necessary to have them selected and approved at the time of grant approval.
He likened the selection process to that of selecting subcontractors in the
construction industry. If a subcontractor or VE team is not selected and
a price agreed upon at the time of grant approval, then there will be
"shopping" later. The result will be a lower price and a less qualified
team. To remedy the situation he suggests that the teams, including the
qualifications of each team member and. the VETC, the price and the work-
plan be approved and fixed at the ;time the Step 2 grant is approved.
The State indicated that they were happy to have participated in the
study and, time permitting, would participate:in future studies when asked.
The Town Manager, who was a team member, spoke highly of the study and
of VE in general. He felt that VE was worth the cost and should be applied
to all sewage treatment projects. Although he thought the study was con-
ducted well and certainly saved money, he would recommend that future stud-
ies be made by an outside firm. He also felt that review of process should
be encouraged during the early VE study but not during one made late in the
design period..
.. On the subject of. initial acceptance, he indicated that the Town Coun-
cil was somewhat reluctant to accept the idea of a VE study. However,
because the plant's cost had risen so much and because some of the council
members had worked for a corporation where VE had been used, they were
receptive to proceeding with the study.
CLEVELAND, OHIO SOUTHERLY PROJECT ' '
. This report is based on interviews held on December 7 and 8, 1976 in
Cleveland and Twinsburg, Ohio with the VE firm, the Cleveland Regional ,
Sewer District, the designer, and the State EPA. ,
Description of the Proposed Project Prior to the VE Study
The Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant is one of three that are
operated by the Cleveland Regional Sewage District. The plant was origin-
ally installed in 1927. The plant modifications discussed herein were
87
-------
proposed to meet new treatment criteria calling for a higher level of treat-
ment and to increase the capacity from 115 mgd to 200 mgd (average flow).
The Southerly plant also filters and incinerates 1.8 mgd of sludge from the
Easterly plant.
The flow and effluent criteria to which the plant is to be upgraded
are:
200 mgd - Design Flow
400 mgd - Peak Plow for Full Treatment
735 mgd - Storm Flow, Primary and Disinfection
7 ppm - Monthly Avg. BOD and SS
1 ppm - Monthly Avg. Phosphorus, Not Over
2 ppm - Monthly Avg. Ammonia Nitrogen, Not Over (Summer)
200/100 ml - Monthly Mean Coliform, Not Over
The proposed project prior to the VE may be described as follows
(See Figure 33):
Headworks
To be modified to allow combining of flow of three existing interceptors
for routing to new screens and grit removal tanks. Provision for routing
this flow to existing detritus tanks are to be made. The design is based on
a flow of 735 mgd.
Screens
Seven new 125 mgd mechanical screens are to be installed.
are to be collected by conveyor and disposed by landfill.
Screenings
Grit Removal
Existing two detritors used only as described above.
chambers to be installed.
Seven new grit
Primary Settling Tanks
There were 10 existing basins with a total surface area of 77,400 SF.
Eight new basins with a total surface area of 173,000 SF are to be added.
First Stage Aeration Basins
Two-stage aeration and settling tanks are to be used for respective
carbonaceous removal and nitrification. Existing aeration tanks are to be
used in the first stage and new tanks are to be installed for the second
stage. The existing aeration tanks provide a detention, disregarding
recycled flow and drawoff of primary effluent dilution water, of about 2.5
hours. The total BOD load to the first stage tanks would be 93 Ibs. per
1000 cu. ft. A BOD removal of 75% is projected.
First Stage Settling Basins
Ten existing clarifiers offered 110,000 sq. ft. of surface area. New
clarifiers would be added to increase total surface area to 302,500 sq. ft.
to provide a surface settling rate of about 663 gallons per sq. ft. per day.
88
-------
UJ
CC
15
GZ
89
-------
Second Stage Aeration Basins
Ten new basins with a total capacity of 39,300,000 gallons are provided
for nitrification. The detention disregarding recycled .flow is about 4.65
hours with an estimated BOD load of 12.3 lbs/1000 cf.
Second Stage Settling Basins
Ten basins with a total surface area of 323,000 sq. ft. and SWD of 14'
are proposed. At design flow rates, the surface settling rate will be
about 550 gallons per sq. ft. per day.
Tertiary Filters
Tertiary filters with an area of 52,000 sq. ft. were proposed based
on 3.33 gpm per sq. ft. at average flow and 6.0 gpm per sq. ft. at peak
flow.
Chlorination
Two contact basins designed for 15 minute detention at a flow of 400
mgd are proposed. Chlorinators are sized to apply 10 mg/1 at 400 mgd.
The overflow from primary basins during storms is to be given a dosage of
15 mg/1.
Solids Handling
Degritters-
Primary sludge and any stored Easterly Plant sludge will be diluted by
primary effluent and pumped through cyclone degritters. Ten 1000 gpm
units are proposed.
Gravity Thickeners
The above degritted sludges will be applied to gravity type thickeners.
Six existing digesters are to be modified to gravity thickening tanks.
Thickened sludge will be stored in modified existing anaerobic digesters.
Thickener overflow (both primary and waste activated) is returned to the
primary settling tanks.
Waste Activated Sludge Thickeners
The Southerly Plant waste activated sludge will be thickened by centri-
fuges.
Thermal Conditioning
A thermal conditioning (heat treatment) is proposed. Five 280 gpm
units will be furnished. The thermally conditioned sludge will be thick-
ened to about 8% in modified existing elutriation tanks. The thermally
conditioned sludge can be filtered without thickening at reduced vacuum
filtration rates.
Vacuum Filters
Two additional filters are proposed. The existing facilities comprise
ten 500 sq. ft. filter units. The design filter loading rate is 5 Ibs
per sq. ft. per hour.
90
-------
Incinerators^'- ... . . -. '...'' .: ' .
The four existing incinerators are to have major repairs and no addi-
tional units provided. They are 22'3" diameter, each having 9 hearths.
Filtered sludge can be hauled if there is an incineration shutdown.
The VE Study , . . _._..*"" ' .
Background ,--, - .... .. . .
Contracting for design, equipment purchasing and construction of the
Southerly improvements had been broken into eighteen packages, which sub-
sequently were consolidated into sixteen. The purpose of the division was
to keep the packages small enough to involve smaller firms in competition,
and.to avoid excessive markups on major equipment. The VE studies for
Southerly were similarly divided... Construction on seven of the sixteen.
contract packages had been completed or was under way, and bids imminently
due on two others, when it was determined that three designs, all 90%
complete, would be subjected to value analysis. The packages to be value
engineered were Primary Facilities, C-10, Second Stage Facilities, C-14,
and Effluent Filler Building, C-15. At this writing (Dec. '76) the VE
Team is under contract with the CRSD to VE Contract 16, and is doing the
estimating and other preparatory work for the actual study.
Since the design was-substantially complete and construction schedule
pressing, there was no likelihood that a process change could be imple-
mented or would be cost effective. The VE firm, selected by the staff of
the Cleveland Regional Sewer District, was, therefore, one better versed
in construction techniques than in treatment technology.
The Cleveland Regional Sewer District .(CRSD) advertised for Construc-
tion Management (CM) support on the complete sixteen contract. upgrading of
the Southerly plant. A firm was selected, and a grant application was made
for CM funding. CRSD desired the CM orientation to insure ease.of construc-
tion of the proposed design and to validate cost estimates. It was suggest-
ed by Region V that these functions of CM could be obtained through a VE
study. The CRSD and the VE firm then contracted directly for the VE
Study, with no direct involvement of the design firm. Of the three con-
tracts to be value engineered, two (contracts 10 and 14, first and second
stage facilities, respectively) had been completed, including the Designer's
review, at the time of this report. The Designer's review of the,third
(contract 15) had not yet been completed. Thus., this discussion will be
limited to the two completed VE studies on Contracts 10 and 14.
Organization . . . .. .,
The VE teams were composed from structural,.mechanical, and architec-
tural personnel from the VE firm. Two CRSD, sanitary-civil engineers were
members of teams in each study. There was no Designer representative pre-
sent during the study.
The VE teams were completely sequestered from their normal work and
the studies were each run in ten full days, consecutive except for a Sun-
day. The CRSD indicated to the VE teams that any questions, that could
.91
-------
not be answered from the drawing file, were to be addressed to the CRSD,
who in turn would direct the inquiry to the Designer, and return with an
answer.
The Designer expressed a wish that the VE Team might have been more
process oriented, "so they wouldn't suggest so many obviously unfeasible
ideas (smaller tunnels, combining flows in fewer, larger pipes, etc.)".
The Designer did acknowledge, however, that for this study of a substanti-
ally complete design, it probably was best to have a construction-oriented
team.
Considerable effort was put into having the preliminary VE report
published concurrent with study completion. A presentation was made to the
Owner, CRSD, U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA, and the design firm.
The Designer's project manager was the first to review the VE study
recommendations for the Designer. Sepcific points were then referred to
department managers and lead designers, in such disciplines as structures,
electrical, architecture, soils, etc. Comments were also presented to
CRSD who referred them to the VE firm to make sure that recommendations
were properly interpreted.
Level of VE Effort
Two five-man teams conducted the study on Contract 10 and three five-
man teams on Contract 14. Each study was ten full days in duration.
For Contracts 10 and 14, the fee for the VE Team's activities was
$225,000. The Designer's costs for supporting and reviewing the study
were $13,800.
VE Recommendations
The following summarize the accepted and rejected VE recommendations
for the two VE studies:
CONTRACT 10 - PRIMARY FACILITIES, CLEVELAND-SOUTHERLY
Accepted Suggestions
1. Decrease Scope of Demolition Work
2. Reduce Size of Tunnels, Reduce Scope
of Access Building, and Eliminate
Segments at Tunnel (Recom. by VE = $508,405)
3. Delay Access to One Side of Maintenance
Building
4. Use On-Site Material to Backfill Above
Pipeline
Savings
$269,374
$165,375
$179,629
$ 86,340
92
-------
Accepted Suggestions ~ Savings
5. Eliminate Chamfer at Construction $ 19,440
Joints. Leave Edges Square (See Figure 34)
6. Use Aluminum Extrusion In Lieu of $ 36,356
Built Up Sheet Parts for Stop Plank
(See Figure 35) .
7. Use NEMA 1 Enclosures In Lieu of #12 $ 29,499
for MCCs . . : .
8. Reduce Backfill Compaction Requirements ' $172,755
(Recom. by VE = $765,760)
9. Reduce Scope of Broadway South . / $244,859
Interceptor Flume ...
10. Eliminate Duplicate Meter on Easterly . $ 35,267
Sludge Line
11. Increase Spacing of Construction Joints ' $ 66,399
12. Eliminate 1" of'Non-Shrink Grout in Primary $574,260
Tank
13. Simplify Detail of Rail at Bottom of. $ 23,721
Primary Tank (See Figure 36)
14. Eliminate Roof on Grit Building $200,167
15. Defer Construction of the Bar Screen $112,988
16. Eliminate Roller Gates to #2 Primary $133,482
Influent Channel - ,
17. Eliminate Crane for Screenings Containers $ 40,990
18. Simplify Design of Bar Screens (recommended $ 14,000
savings $35,565) / "
19. Use Aluminum in Lieu of Stainless Steel $ 12,600
for Doors and Door Frames (recommended
savings $24,684)
20. Redesign Bottom Rail in Grit Channel $ 8,400
21. Eliminate Future Grit Chute $ 3,049
22. Delete Requirement for Test witness for $ 2,300
Blower ASME Test .
93
-------
?'
'V?
>
. ' v*
^k
PRESENT TYPICAL JOINT DETAIL
o '»
' 7
. 0.
.'"*-." -\ » *>'
* * "« v - ' *
, . w I «
REVISED TYPICAL JOINT DETAIL
FIGURE 34
CONTRACT 10, ITEM 5
94
-------
-^C7 x 3.205 Alum.
(Top, bottom, ends)
'16 Alum, plate
ALUMINUM STOP PLANK - TYPICAL SECTION
Resilient material
0.250'Thick alum, wall (typ.)
ALUMINUM STOP PLANK - PROPOSED EXTRUSION
FIGURE 35
CONTRACT 10, ITEM 6
95
-------
30 Ib/yd Rail
7^;>V^v*/;X.r:.vr.\
*: . *
T Grout
*
^Struct. Concrete Slab
RE VISED DETAIL
Grout
30 Ib/yd Rail
Spot we Id
both sides
Shim Plate
Weld plate
W/Vi' x 3"weld studs
PRESENT DETAIL
FIGURE 36
CONTRACT 10, ITEM 13
96
-------
Total Accepted Savings,
Contract 10, Primary Facilities $2,431,250
Rejected Suggestions (S) and Justification (J)
1. (S) Reduce cement content of concrete $ 69,900
(J) Contrary to ACI-350. Low reliability. -
2. (S) Use #57 stone in lieu'of #8 stone $ 28,901
in underdrainage system .
(J) Soils consultant advises the #57 stone
will not function as reliably.
3. (S) Change design of curbing $ 27,524
(J) Does not allow .for installation of
wearing course after .construction. Would
require curbing twice. . :
4. (S) Use thinner stainless steel handrails $ 56,704
(J) Walls only 1/16" thick are too difficult
to weld.
5. (S) Raise invert of "underdrain in $ 18,783
Primary Tanks
(J) Would require more Ells and Tees, hence
more costly.
6. (S) .Eliminate mud mat under Primary Tanks $ 39,810
(J) Would cause underdrain contamination;
would reduce underdrain course thickness;
would cause variations in depth of concrete .
over reinforcing steel'..
7. (S) Use metal deck forms for tunnel roofs $ 16,044
(J) Would not provide necessary pipe supports;
would require painting maintenance.
8. (S) Use earth fill in. lieu of washed mortar $583,142
sand for fill
(J) "Type C Fill" was interpreted to mean
washed sand. In the Cleveland area, this
is not a proper interpretation.
97
-------
9, (S) Eliminate divider wall in Primary Influent $ 61,325
Channel #2
(J) Divider enables one channel to be taken
out of service for maintenance without flow
inte rruption.
10. (S) Use masonry unit walls in lieu of precast $190,846
panels and glass panels
(J) Does not equal "U" Value or aesthetic
appeal of precast panel. Will require
lighting power to replace daylight.
11. (S) Use precast roof panels. Eliminate parapet $ 35,913
and coping. Use rigid insulation.
(J) Number of penetrations in roof slab
mitigates against precast. Cannot get 20
year bond on gravel stop roof. Rigid
insulation requires extensive drawing
changes to get necessary additional pitch.
12. (S) Reduce height of pipe gallery $ 29,885
(J) Height of present design allows future
installation of grit ejector equipment.
13. (S) Delete roof hatches in grit building $ 10,029
(J) Hatches are required to permit removal
of bar screens.
14. (S) Relocate aeration compressor from grit $ 7,787
building to screen building
(J) No available area in screen building.
Present design locates all compressors
together.
15. (S) Replace concrete stairs with steel $ 3,542
(J) Steel would require more maintenance.
16. (S) Eliminate power operator for overhead $ 2,091
door
(J) Would probably result in fewer than ideal
manual operations, hence loss of heat and
release of odor.
98
-------
17. (S) Eliminate elevator in sludge degritting ~$ 88,901
building
(J) Cleveland Reg. Sewer pist. prefers to
retain elevator. :
18. (S) Reduce basement height in sludge de- . $ 29,090
gritting building from 20' to 16'
(J) Height required for installing equipment
19. (S) Replace aluminum gratings and platforms * $ 8,344
"- in screen and degritting buildings with galvanized
steel. ' .. ...
(J) Galvanized steel would require increased
, maintenance. ,
Contract #10, Primary Facilities
Totally Rejected Suggestions $1,312,474
Total, Partially Rejected Suggestions 979,686
Approved Suggestions 2,431/250
Proposed by VETC '" ' . . 4,723,408
CONTRACT 14 - SECOND STAGE FACILITIES - CLEVELAND SOUTHERLY
Accepted Suggestions
1. Replace steel sludge activated sludge return
line with cast-in-place concrete. (Recommended
savings was $441,231. Designer rejected cast-in-
place because of pipe fitting requirements and
losses, but cut steel pipe wall thickness for"
savings shown). ..'... .
2. Incorporate slope in bottom. of settling tanks
instead of top. (See Figure 37).
3. Use single wall tank dividers in lieu of double
. , wall with joint filler. (Recommended savings
was $569,559. Designer accepted single wall
between settling tanks, but not aeration tanks,
because of cantilever walls were not cost
effective.
Savings
$192,403
$322,317
$192,226
4. Replace 12" diameter aluminum baffle wall pipe $ 26,626
sleeves with steel sleeves.
5. Relocate stairs to astride the North-South
tunnel.
$ 21,164
99
-------
-------
6. Delete tank beam adjacent.to_air header. , $ 50,000
7. Delete paper tube void in concrete. $ 10,367
(See Figure 38). , ' ,
8. Revise roof framing; and slab. (Recommended $ 35,069
savings $97,000. Designer accepted alternate
roof framing) .
9. Delete intumescent paint fire proofing of, $ 84,900
structural steel. ; x
10. Replace double concrete wall between aeration $ 56,500
tanks and compressor building with columns.
11. Replace continuous 3 1/2 X 5 angle around $ 4,650
. roof slab with individual clips for mullion
support. .
12. Support crane on separate structural system; $ 50,780
eliminate eccentric load in building structure.
(See Figure 39).
13. Substitute conduit and cable for 5 KV bus $225,000
ducts.
14. Substitute NEMA #1 General Purpose Enclosures $ 7,500
for NEMA #12 enclosures for motor control
centers and "switchgear. (Recommended "savings
$11,000. Designer added gasketing requirement).
15. Increase spacing of vertical piles to develop $252,157
full design capacity of 100 kip piles.
(Recommended savings $936,353. Designer cited
specific oversights, i.e., punching shear on
tank slab, erroneous load assumptions, loading
eccentricities to rebut some, but accepted
others). 1
16. Replace non-shrink grout with cement grout.
17. Extend construction joints-from 25 feet to
50 feet.
Contract 14, Second Stage Facilities Total
Accepted Savings
Rejected Suggestions (S) and Justification (J)
1, (S) Omit continuous angle- support for launder
weir, and replace with individual anchor bolts,
weld studs or inserts. ,
$1,419,232
$318,196
$3,269,087
Savings *
$380,452
101
-------
PRESENT 18'V PAPER TUBE
PROPOSED SOLID HAUNCH
18'V PAPER TUBE
TYPICAL TANK BAFFLE WALL HAUNCH DETAIL
FIGURE 38
CONTRACT 14, ITEM 7
102
-------
I I
PARTIAL ELEVATION
PARTIAL REVISED ELEVATION
FIGURE 39
CONTRACT 14, ITEM 12
103
-------
(J) Experience in installing such fasteners
showed damaged or sheared off studs.
2. (S) Delete walkway on aeration tank divider $224,503
wall.
(J) Would prevent future addition of a spray
water system.
3. (S) Decrease all 18" aeration tank slabs to $218,822
16" thickness. Add #5 rebar at all pile caps.
Add #5 bent bars, and eliminate all "hi-chairs".
(J) Will increase top rebar requirements, and
subject bottom rebars to corrosion.
4. (S) Replace stainless steel aeration piping $241,760
with fiberglass.
(J) No experience or tests available for
using fiberglass in this application.
5. (S) Replace reinforced concrete pipe in $ 68,862
return sludge line with cast-in-place
concrete walls.
(J) Standard pipe fittings could not be used
and head loss from poorer flow coefficient not
acceptable.
6. (S) Relocate aeration tank air headers 9' $ 34,188
lower, directly on top of tank, with steps
provided for crossover at intersecting
walkways.
(J) Would limit access to tanks. Air flow
measuring elements would not function without
existing length of pipe.
7. (S) Reduce backfill on South wall of aeration $ 43,611
and settling tanks to same height as North
wall. Use same wall section as North wall.
(J) Grading requirements are different.
8. (S) Eliminate third row of reinforcing steel $ 39,864
in tank footings.
(J) Without center bars, tension stresses
cannot be transferred from upper to lower
rebars.
104
-------
9. (S) "Reduce North-South tunnel height by
. one foot. .
$ 9,617
10.
(J) Clearances will be unacceptable, and
overall tank geometry will be affected. .
(S) Lower compressor floor by 11 1/2 feet;
in turn lower building jiei.ght and eliminate.
crane. ; , ......
$103,550
(J) Will limit access between aeration tanks;
access to one half of the building blocked by
, air header. Headroom and access restricted
in basement. ......... .-.., , !_........'-..
11. (S) Eliminate roof drain piping td storing ,
drainage system; drain roof directly into
treatment stream. ' '" -
,,$ 18,010
(J) Regulatory rules and ordinances pro- ,
hibit discharge of storm water into waste
streams on new construction. . _-...-,
12. (.S) Eliminate 30 ton bridge crane. .... , ; $216,610.
(J) Maintenance would require specialized
labor and rigging:equipment. -
13. (S) Limit crane travel to .reduce;building , $ 5,560
height. ,
(J) Will leave some equipment inaccessible
for maintenance.
'-'. . . I - . !-,, ,'^11,
14. (S) Present design locates compressors in $ 15,900
...middle of building. Relocate at end of; , ..-.,.
building to reduce length of piping runs.
(J) Would prevent installation of a stairway
required by Cleveland-Sewage District. , . :
15. (S) Substitute precast concrete for steel' $ 81,300
' frame of compressor building.
(J) VE team compared cost of steel frame,
which is designed.for heavy moment connection,
with a precast construction that does not.-
Savings is not real.
105
-------
16. (S) Relocate entire sludge return pumping -$585,600
station. Reduce back fill and road work;
route effluent channel straight through
rather than under the building; omit two
72" dia. RCP return sludge pipes.
(J) Would block access for polymer delivery;
would block access to replace spiral pumps;
pump room floor would be ten feet above tops
of tanks, requiring access ramps and retaining
walls.
17. (S) Elimir ite sluice gate on swing spare $ 17,800
spiral pump in sludge return pump station.
(J) Would reduce operating flexibility of
pump station.
18. (S) Omit either of two stairs in sludge $ 3,100
pump station.
(J) Would violate Ohio building code.
19. (S) Eliminate bridge crane in sludge pump $ 56,100
station.
(J) Survey of all existing spiral lift
stations shows inclusion of cranes. Main-
tenance would be difficult without cranes.
20. (S) Relocate electrical substation #16. $ 4,800
(J) Any closer location, would interfere
with turn around area.
21. (S) Use excavation material from Contract $457,800
#10 as fill in Contract #14.
(J) Contract #14 is balanced on cut and fill.
Further, the VE team has recommended using
this same cut material on Contract #15.
22. (S) Reduce scope of batter piles at South $277,540
wall of tank #10.
(J) The grading requirements are different
for North and South walls.
23. (S) Design vertical piles to accept $893,330
horizontal loads, and eliminate, batter
piles.
106
-------
(J). To develop the necessary resistance, the piles
would have to deflect one half inch.- The bending. ;
stresses wquld exceed concrete allowables. There-:
,fore, the steel casings would have to be designed
to carry the bending. This would preclude use of
shell piles, require special moment connections,
and limit the, installation to the use of pipe
piles.. ....... ~ ..,- - .... -.-.- :. : . >/-.
24 (S) , Use ash material to .backfill foundation $194,299
walls. --.--:. , -. ..." . .
; (J) The spec was incorrectly interpreted to .
require offsite backfill, material. Current .-'= i,,:
work progress shows acceptable compaction of , .
on-site materials. - _
Contract #14 , Cleveland Southerly
. ," Totally Rejected Suggestions $4,220,878
'"' * Total, 'Partially Rejected Suggestions 1,280,445
Approved Suggestions 3,269,087
Total VE Proposed " " - ; 8,770,410
SUMMARY OF THE VE STUDY ^ .
Savings ' ' ....... - ' ~'. ' ' '
At the writing of this repdrt, "the designer arid" the' CRSD had completed
their review of 'the VE fecommendatio'ns for Contracts 10 (primary facilities)
and 14 (second stage facilities). On Contract 10," $2; 43 million savings
were approved out of $4.72 million recommended, a 51.5% approval, for
6.5% savings. On Contract 14, $3.27 million savings were approved out of
$8. 77 million recommended, a 37.3% approval for a 4.4% savings. At this
writing the Designer's review of Contract 15 recommendations was not com- :
plete. The average of 44% approval and 5.5% savings on the first two
contracts is a very creditable result for a study with such tight constraints
so late in design.
The cost of the completed portion of the Cleveland-Southerly VE study
represents 0.2% of _the_ estimated congtructipn costs for those packages,
and 4% of the savings the study .generated, or a 25 to 1 return.. The^
results of the study were sufficiently impressive to indicate that VE
studies at 50% complete or later should include construction specialties
on"tlie VE;teams. ' " ' - . - '*r~-: !" ,---. , ^ ... .- -_'. ' "
General Observations . " /' ';
A very large part of the VE' firm's expense was the preparation of a
very detailed cost estimate of the 100% complete design. The VE firm
107
-------
characterized it as being "as accurate as if we were bidding it for con-
struction" . A substantial portion of the cost for the VE study was this
estimating effort. It should be recognized that reliable cost information
is essential for an effective VE analysis. However, the VE effort in cost
information gathering should be limited to verifying the designer's data.
The VE reports for each of the three studies were quite large, and
well illustrated, but due to the forms used, the same information was pre-
sented repeatedly. This made the report large and lengthy for a reviewer
(Designer, Owner, State, EPA) to read. A few such forms are useful during
the course of a VE study, to insure that unrecorded ideas are not lost,
and that all are subjected to the same degree of analysis, but the final
form of the report should be concise in presentation. A uniform numbering
system for recommendations must be adhered to so that all readers can
follow and compare costs and comments readily.
The Designer expressed a preference for dealing with a single firm to
VE his designs, rather than a consortium of experts from across the country.
He felt strongly that team members should have experience with wastewater
facilities. He felt that he could provide a +10% estimate of costs at the
20% design complete point for future Step 2 VE studies. This would be a
tops-down, ($/mgd) not a bottoms-up ($/cu yd x cu yds) estimate. The VETC
commented that he would only be interested in performing VE as a prime
consultant to the Owner, and not as a subcontractor to the Designer.
A very strong force for minimizing changes in the existing design was
the prospect of losing grant funds if spending were to be delayed beyond
normal grant expiration dates. The Ohio EPA indicated that since there
was a mechanism for freezing grant funds when a delay results from, for
example, a citizen or losing-bidder lawsuit, there should be a similar
mechanism for delays to achieve economy.
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA PROJECT .
This section is based on interviews held during November and December,
1976 with the design firm, the VE consultant, the City, and the State Board
of Health s Water Pollution.
Visits to both of the treatment plants involved in the study and visits
to some of the workshop sessions were made.
Description of the Proposed Project Prior to the VE Study
The City of Indianapolis presently operates two large secondary treat-
ment plants. These are known as the Belmont Plant and the Southport Plant
(Figures 40 and 41). Both plants use the activated sludge process and
discharge into the White River. Sludge from both plants is treated and
incinerated at the Belmont plant by conditioning with ash from the incin-
erators, dewatering on vacuum filters and burning in multiple hearth
incinerators.
108
-------
I SU3HIUV1O AUVQNOO3S
109
-------
r
i §-
J)1^. l>=^±-~_^ L2:::=
110
-------
The Belmont plant, largest of the two, was built in several stages
beginning in 1925. This plant has a peak primary capacity of285 mgd and
a secondary capacity of 125 mgd. The newer Southport plant has a capacity
of 56 mgd. This plant was built as two parallel.28 mgd trains, one train
in 1966 and the other -in 1969. . . ' ' _
'In 1972 the Indiana Pollution Control Board issued an order calling
for'the plants to.be upgraded to provide an advanced level of treatment
and issued new discharge standards. These discharge standards required
an'effluent 'quality as follows: ; .'..."' '''-..
Biochemical Oxygen
Suspended Solids
Ammonia Nitrogen
Dissolved Oxygen
Demand (5-day)
10 mg/1
10 mg/1
1 mg/1
8 mg/1
These standards'were predicated on the fact that during low flow stages
in the river, effluent flow is several times the river flow.. , An extensive
pilot study was completed and a facilities plan recommending the treatment
process was- then'prepared. The facilities plan recommended the following
process for 'the Belmont plant: ; '
1. Install new screens and grit chambers . ..
2. Reequip and modernize the existing raw sewage pump station
3. Construct fixed-film roughing towers .''''"-- .
4. Construct oxygen activated sludge nitrification facilities ~ -
and a cryogenic oxygen generating system ,
5. Construct a^gravity filtration system .
6. Construct an ozone disinfection/post oxygenation system
Many of the older facilities including aeration basins, secondary
clarifiers and blowers were to be abandoned. One blower building was to
. remain as , a storage building. Little work on the existing sludge handling
system was proposed under.the plan. " - -
Work proposed at the Belmont plant also included construction of new
laboratory facilities, a new computerized control system and a new employee
facility; A-layout of the proposed facilities is shown in Figure.40.
Although the discharge requirements and the flow sheet proposed for
the Southport plant were basically the same as for the Belmont plant,
because of its relative newness, recommended construction differed somewhat.
;The plan for the preliminary/primary treatment system called for construc-
tion of new preliminary treatment facilities (screening and aerated grit
removal), modification of existing circular^primary clarifiers to accomo-
date higher flows, and refitting of the existing primary pump station.
Following primary treatment, fixed-film roughing on plastic or redwood media
filters was planned. This was to be followed by suspended growth nitrifi-
cation using a pure oxygen retrofit of existing aeration tanks.
Ill
-------
r
New rectangular secondary clarifiers with related return and waste
sludge systems were proposed to accomodate the nitrification system. The
plan then called for filtration of the effluent in gravity filters and dis-
infection and oxygenation of the final effluent with ozone (Figure 42).
The existing shallow and inefficient secondary clarifiers were to be
abandoned and the blower buildings were to be converted to a laboratory
and a maintenance building.
The pre VE cost for enlarging and upgrading the two plants was esti-
mated to be $234,000,000.
The VE Study
Background
In March, 1975, the prime design firm began preparation of plans and
specifications for construction of the two plants. The design schedule
called for the plants to be operational by January, 1979. The time limit
and the size of the project called for separate construction contracts to
be let for various parts of the work as its design was completed and also
to let separate contracts for purchase of some of the larger equipment
orders.
The schedule also necessitated that the designer subcontract some of
the design to other firms. Several local and regional firms were then
contacted and assigned phases of the work.
Design proceeded on schedule and by September, 1975 contracts for the
sitework at both plants and for purchase of the cryogenic oxygen generating
equipment were advertised for bids. Design for other portions of the work
was also progressing - some phases nearing completion and some just getting
started.
Over the several year life the project had experienced, costs had
risen considerable. With each update of the facilities plan, new require-
ments and inflation caused estimated costs to rise. This increase in cost
and the fact that much of the Belmont plant, even though old, was proposed
for abandonment, caused the State to be concerned and to look for ways to
reduce costs. After discussion with EPA, the State suggested to the City
that a voluntary Value Engineering study of the design would benefit all
concerned. The City expressed concern that such a study would delay the
project and result in a failure to meet the 1979 deadline for operation
of the new plants. However, tae City agreed to proceed with Value Engin-
eering and in October, 1975 reqn»sted proposals for the work. In March,
1976 a tentative grant award was received from EPA and meetings between the
City and the selected VE consultants were held to organize the study.
At the beginning of the VE study, design had progressed to the point
where much of the design, including the nitrification systems, effluent
filters and the Belmont accessory buildings was complete and ready for bid.
The completion of other work ranged from 5 to 90 percent.
112
-------
i
NEW SCREENING
AND GRIT
REMOVAL
MODIFIED
| EXISTING PRIMARY j
I
r
NEW ROUGHING
FILTERS
1
PURE OXYGEN |
I RETROFIT TO I
| EXISTING AERATION i_
| BASIN FOR I
NITRIFICATION ; .
EXISTING SECONDARY '
CLARIFIERS I
ABANDON '
NEW SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
NEW FILTRATION
NEW OZONATION
J
Figure 42
PROPOSEDSOUTHPORT
FLOW SCHEMATIC
113
-------
It was also during that period and on into February, 1976 that re-
evaluations of some systems were made by the designers. These included
re-evaluation of whether or not to abandon the Southport activated sludge
tanks.
Organization and Conduct of the Study
Discussion of the study's organization must be prefaced by mention or
reiteration of some of the factors controlling and influencing it. First,
were the reasons for the voluntary VE study. Although the main reason for
the study was to reduce the project's cost, there were underlying reasons
for it also. For example, the State did not believe that they had suffi-
ciently qualified staff to accomplish review of the project.
The desire for a general review of the design influenced the selection
of the VE consultant and the study itself. All three of the VE consultants
considered for the work were teams made up of a large, recognized sanitary
engineering firm with experience in designing large plants and a firm
experienced in value engineering.
Because the project was to be divided into several contracts and be-
cause the designs for some of the contracts were much further along than
for others, the City decided to divide the VE study into phases in order
to complete certain portions at an early date. This was to allow changes
to be made and contracts to be let early for the construction needed first.
Table 9 shows a listing of the work included in each of the three phases.
The City limited the VE study further by selecting only portions of
the project for review and imposing a list of constraints. Systems repre-
senting only about 60 percent of the total cost (those shown in Table 9)
were to be reviewed. Some systems which were nearly identical for the two
plants, e.g., effluent filters, roughing towers and disinfection facilities,
were to be studied only once. Systems for which' savings in comparison to
overall plant costs were expected to be small and over which there was no
controversy were also left out of the VE study. The VETC remarked that in
effect the City performed an informal functional analysis prior ,to the
study and excluded those elements with minor potential for savings.
The constraints imposed by the City included:
1. Certain design parameters are fixed
2. Process has been fixed
3. Effluent quality criteria are fixed
4. Alternatives which unduly extend the design and construction
schedule shall be de-emphasized unless there are substantial
present worth savings which would justify delay in plant
startup.
5. All alternatives shall comply with all State and EPA directives,
regulations and guidelines.
6. Equivalent of secondary treatment must be maintained at all
times at both plants.
114
-------
._.__ TABLE 9 "" ;
',«-:*<-:.!; OUTLINE: OF V,E. .TASKS
FACILITY - _ ,_ ' ; , . ' -f_ ;.;... ..-' .'
Phase' i -. ; "\':~~, '""'' '.':.-. : "'-'.'......' ; " ." ...'. . . ( * .'."
Belmont ' ' " ' ' -- - . _
Nitrification System (include review of abandonment of aeration tanks
and final clarifiers). "^ ............ . .... . .
Southport " " " " . '' ' ''"..'.'
Nitrification System (include review of"abandonment of final clarifiers
at the Southport Plant). .
Intermediate Pump Station. . :
Phase !!"'' ".. '-'"1 - ' --'5 -: -' ------ -..-...;.--.-... , ^- .:- . . -_--; - --- :_-
Belmont - - .-.- ' '" '..'
Primary System "including bar screens, g^rit chambers, j raw pump station
. and primary clarifiers (include review of increasing capacity of
the primary fr.om 220 mgd to 300 mgd independent of Phase I, and
review of the proposed modification of pumping station).
Stormwatef Holding/Equalization Lagoon"(include review of the location
of. holding lagoon inlet at outlet of primary settling tanks)T"
Roughing System. " "_ " " '.
Southport '.'"' , ''...'.' :'-'.. .. ', ',-',',.', ...7 .' . !/-
Yard Piping. ' '".' "
Primary System including bar screens, influent pumping stations, grit
chambers, and primary !clarifiers. .
Ozone System. .' ' '' 1.'.-,.'.' . ....'".', _'_ .T ;.,;",',, .. '.,'-.". .. '.'.'.''.. . . ',- .-..,
Phase III "'"""'" '"" ' --:-/-- - ^.-- ..; -r ..'.,,.-;. ..-., - .-, r. -/;_^../ _-_
Belmont . - " -'--'- ' ' ; ' ! -v - .
Electrical Distribution System including Substation. '
Laboratory B.uilding, reuse of blower building, remodel administration
building (include review of space and cost requirements for new
laboratoryXadministration building and possible modification of
,'""'" present administration and blower building (office/storage).
Southport " '-
Effluent Pumping Station.
"Effluent _; Filters..,',-' *J^._ ;,..,,. "l!_._ "_. .._'.,......".. .'..'."'" /%".'--. '--'' .'"'
" Electrical .Distribution System;,including Substations!
115
-------
A seventh constraint requiring that the study be conducted in Indian-
apolis was dropped. The City did indicate at the end of the project that
if they were ever again involved in a VE study, they would be sure it was
done in Indianapolis to ease transfer of information.
With the exception of No. 2, the constraints posed no problem to the
study and were readily accepted by the VE consultant. Constraint 2, how-
ever, was a source of almost constant conflict over what was meant by
"process" and "fixed".
As previously mentioned, pilot studies had been conducted on a number
of processes and combinations of processes. These studies were instru-
mental in selecting the process train adopted for the two plants. As a
result, there was much reluctance on the parts of the City and designer
to allow any variation of the process. On the other hand, the VE consul-
tnat was charged with review of the abandonment of facilities and equip-
ment, while achieving the greatest possible saving but with the design
unchanged in general. One group said that roughing on plastic media, single-
stage nitrification with high purity oxygen and disinfection with ozone as
well as all the designers loading rates must remain unchanged. The other
group said that consideration of different roughing techniques, using air
instead of oxygen in the activated sludge process, two stage nitrification,
disinfection with chlorine and a number of other modifications to the de-
sign could possibly produce savings without affecting the effluent quality
and should be subjected to study. As the study progressed, some compromises
were reached and some process changes were considered and recommended by
the VE consultant.
Actual work on the VE study began with a day long briefing attended
by representatives of the designer and his subcontractors, the City, the
State, EPA, the VE consultant and several team members, and others.
Representatives of the City, State and the designer gave the history of the
project, presented much of the available reference materials and explained
the background of some of the discussion made during design. The meeting
was preceeded by two days of tours of the plants to gain a better knowledge
of the layout and condition of facilities, and to provide team members a
chance to talk with operating personnel. Both of these familiarization
processes are now considered "musts" by the VETC.
The workshops for this project were not conducted in the typical 40-
hour-straight-through sessions. They were, however, conducted in the normal
informational, creative, analytical and proposal phases. With some vari-
ation, a team would meet and in one or two days conduct the informational,
creative, and part of the analytical sessions. The team would then adjourn
and the members would individually complete assigned portions of the re-
mainder of the analytical work (including estimating) and portions of the
proposal work. In some instances the remainder of the proposal was com-
pleted in reconvened team meetings, but in others, they were completed by
individual assignment.
116
-------
Adjourning the team in order .to complete the analytical work was per-
haps necessary in some instances. Because of the magnitude and complexity
of some of the tasks being studied, considerably more than the normal one
to two1 days usually devoted to analysis of alternatives was necessa'ry.
Teams used in the study were multidisciplinary and were drawn from a
list of some thirty-five individuals representing both members of the two
firms doing the VE study. Members were primarily professional engineers
and architects and represented such engineering disciplines as sanitary,
mechanical, industrial, electrical, chemical,; instrumentation, civil and
structural. The preponderance of the participants were sanitary and struc-
tural engineers, however, many could be considered to represent more than
one specialty.
Teams ranged in size from five members up to eleven or .twelve members
depending on the size and complexity of the team assignment. It should
be noed that often assignments considered total systems such as nitrifi-
cation rather than specialties such as structures and this possibly re-
sulted in the use of larger teams having more disciplines, rather than
greater numbers of smaller teams. Because of the phasing some of the
participants served oh more than one team. :-
Presentation of the results of each phase was done in three parts. At
the mid-point of each phase an in-progress review was: held to allow the
VE consultant to present to the designer and City the alternates he was """''
considering and to receive some feedback as to their acceptability. An
end-of-phase briefing was held when work for the particular phase was
about 90 percent complete to present findings and make sure proposed,alter-
natives were understood. This briefing was followed by presentation of a
final report for the phase. When the entire study was completed, a' final
presentation was made to summarize the findings of the three phases.
The designer1s role during the study was primarily to provide informa-
tion and to evaluate proposed alternatives. As mentioned, the designer
was present at the initial briefing session and at the presentation made
by the VE consultant. ' ; -'-
For a project of the nature of the Indianapolis plant there was a
vast amount'of data and knowledge to be transferred and interpreted. This
transfer of information was complicated further because most of the VE
study was conducted at the office of the VETC in St., Louis, while the
designer was in Indianapolis.
, Some of the work was also done in .the Chicago office of one of the VE
consultant members. The designer stated that had the VE study been con-
ducted in Indianapolis as originally planned, information transfer would
have been more.effective as.well as more efficient. He also thought that
would he have been closer to the study he could have prevented time "from
being wasted studying alternatives he"had already considered in some detail.
However, the City felt that no project delays were attributable to the
value engineering process at the mid-point of the study arid a decision was
117
-------
made to continue VE. On receipt of the reports from the VE consultant, the
designer made a review of all proposed alternatives and then prepared his
final report accepting or rejecting those alternatives. The designer
stated he had to re-estimate the costs of some 71 VE recommendations in
order to have costs comparable to original estimates.
The City's role was one of coordinating, resolving conflicts, exped-
iting, and trying to keep the project on schedule. On completion of the
study the City began reviewing proposals from the VE consultant's and the
designer's final reports and re-evaluating some of the alternatives re-
jected by the designer. No follow-up work to review and push further
alternates rejected by the designer was provided for in the VE contract.
The City's representative, however, has had a considerable amount of
design experience and, within the limits of his available time, is qualified
to review them himself. The City made suggestions which were adopted,
providing significant savings.
The State's active involvement in the VE process had substantial im-
pact on the scope of the VE analysis and subsequently on the level of VE
effort. The State now considers it desirable to have the VE consultant
review and comment on the designer's report and then meet with the designer
to make one last try to resolve differences. Both the State and the City
said, however, that if additional time was taken for further review, the
projects position on the funding priority list would be lost for the
current year. Both recommended that some means be developed by EPA whereby
current year funding for a project could be frozen without being lost.
Level of Effort
The cost for the VE study was $349,400 or about 0.15 percent of the
total estimated construction cost for the two plants. Of the total cost
for the study, $275,000 was for the VE consultant and $74,400 was for
assistance and review by the designer. The above costs, however, do not
reflect the considerable amount of time spent by the City during the study.
When the study was conceived, it was proposed to run the three phases
in succession using three teams for the first phase and six teams each for
the two remaining phase. Each phase was to take a maximum of three months
from its beginning to delivery of its final report with the final report
for phase 3 being submitted September 14, 1976.
There was considerable variance to the team make-up and schedule. The
final report for phase 3 was submitted on October 18, 1976. The designers
final report was issued on November 12, 1976.
Summary of Savings and Becommendations
Savings listed in the V6 consultant's final report total $43",600,000
in initial cost and $43,472,000 in present worth, life-cycle cost over 20
years. Savings from recommendations accepted by the designer total
$21,918,000 in initial cost and $22,969,000 in present worth, life-cycle
118
-------
cost. The designer claims that $12,600,000 of the initial savings and
$13,500,000 in life-cycle savings are the result of a suggestion he made
prior to the VE process to use an all new nitrification system at the
Southport plant. Recognizing this, savings from VE effort would be
$9,318,000 and $9,469,000 respectively for initial and life-cycle costs.
Table 10 summarizes the savings anticipated from accepted recommendations,
and Table 11 summarizes rejected recommendations.
The initial studies under phase I concentrated on the nitrification
systems and whether or not to abandon existing facilities. Various changes
such as the use of air rather .than oxygen and the use of single or two
stage nitrification rather than the designed roughing/nitrification system
were also evaluated.
The results of this early work were three alternate systems for
Southport all judged by the VE team to be more cost effective than the
designed system. These alternates were:
1. Split the primary effluent such that 70 mgd would flow through
new roughing filters, new nitrification tanks and new clarifiers
and the remaining 55 mgd would flow through the existing facil-
ities. Flows would be recombined before the effluent filters
(Figure 43). '
2. Split the primary effluent such that 70 mgd would flow through
new roughing filters. The remaining 55 mgd would be roughed in -
the existing activated sludge plant. Flows would then be re com- -.
bined and flow to new nitrification tanks and on through the
remainder of the process (Figure 44).
3. .Pump the entire primary effluent flow through new roughing filters
and then split it such that 50 mgd would be nitrified in the
existing air activated sludge plant and the remaining 75 mgd
would be nitrified in a new oxygen nitrification system. .Flows
would then be recombined and pass to new final clarifiers and on
through the remainder of the plant (Figure 45).
The City judged alternates 1 and 3 to be unallowable process changes
and these alternates .were dropped from the study. Alternate 2 (split
roughing) was judged acceptable and set,the basis for continuation of the
study. The prime constraints on process change seemed to be that any. new
system must provide some form of roughing and that nitrification must be'
accomplished by using pure-oxygen, activated sludge facilities for the
entire flow. Later, disinfection and post-aeration with ozone was added to
the "required" list. The split roughing concept was later also proposed
for the Belmont plant. Savings anticipated from split roughing Belmont were
estimated to be: Initial costs - $4,810,000 and Annual LC costs - $150,300.
The designer rejected the split roughing concept for both plants. In his
final repqrt-the designer accepted a concept of split nitrification.
. :» " .! » !'h ' ' i 'SB..','-11'1 ' *h. ', ' " "-'- ' " I./ 'j'ir -', I'P a"1 "i|- s£ i ;,talir.,- " , ,"'. ,L " ' , , i, -,', ", < - , ' -'
i i'. ,': ."'!«-«' VM.'.Vii*! tit , ,M' "-; , w |i,i|in win vi'ili.iitii lit. «g,.ti,inrik,.,ri' , 11 AH, W'l« »iv ,1 F > : * ,i,,i n, v .,,.j Jrt"'-, ilk ,H fi,,. In n ! i
In all, the VE reports for the Indianapolis project include four large
119
-------
TABLE 10
ACCEPTED VE RECOMMENDATIONS - INDIANAPOLIS
Split Nitrification at Southport - 30 mgd
Through Existing Facilities, 95 mgd to all
New Nitrification (Oxygen) Facility; Modi-
fied Version of an Idea Submitted by De-
signer Prior to VE Workshop
Modify Piping Gallery, Screw Pumps,
Clarifiers
Belmont
Southport
Use Straight Weirs on Primary Clarifiers
Instead of Installing Serpentine Weirs
(Southport)
Replace Effluent Pump Station Electric
Motors With Diesel Power (Southport)
Eliminate Roofs Over Effluent Filters
(Belmont and Southport) While Retaining
Roof Over Operating Gallery
Relocate Laboratory Building and Remodel
Existing Administration Building
Initial
LCC -
Present Worth
$17,860,000 $17,714,000
1,226,000
981,000
1,793,000
1,435,000
134,000
240,000
234,000
238,000
416,000
881,000
416,000
959,000
$21,918,000 $22,969,000
(1)
Portion of savings resulting from
suggestion by Designer prior to VE
Workshop
12,600,000
13,500,000
Net savings attributable to VE effort
by Designer, City, and VE Consultants
$ 9,318,000 $ 9,469,000
120
-------
TABLE 11"
REJECTED VE IDEAS
Item
Reason for Rejection
(Several items associated with original concept of retrofitting existing
aeration basins at Southport with oxygen system to provide nitrification
were rendered obsolete by the decision to construct new nitrification fac-
ilities for 95 mgd and use existing basins for nitrification of 30 m'gd. :
These items are not listed here.)
Locate ozone generation building
on top of ozone contact tank.
Separate ozone equipment into 3
groups and house in separate
buildings around perimeter of con-
tact tanks in buildings with 2 or
more open sides..
Eliminate louvers'around ozone
generator section of ozone
building;(leave building open)
or replace with screens.
Use existing Southport bar screens
with new facility for one screen.
Replace bar screens with new rear
cleaning devices with new building
for one added screen.
Use existing grit chambers.
Use velocity controlled grit
chamber in place of aerated grit
chamber.
Provide primary treatment at
Belmorit of portion of flow to
Southport plant. -
Would require more costly contact
tank structure." Could cause safety
hazard if leaks develop in tank
top.
Open sides provide no shelter
during wet weather. O & M more
difficult if system is fragmented.
Piping costs would increase due to
out units.
Provides no weather protection.
Existing screens are maintenance
problem, bars- are bent, chains
break often, grinder inoperable.
Proposed construction' very diffi-
cult. Could not find manufacturer
v who could supply screen as pro-
posed. Velocities would be ex-
cessive. Cost estimate too low
when all associated costs to
existing building considered.
Hydraulics inadequate.
desired redundancy-
Eliminates
Potential odor problems. Larger
structures would be moire costly
than proposed design.
Costs of transfer line underesti-
mated by VE. Would reduce storm
flow treatment at Belmont.
12.1
-------
TABLE 11
(continued)
Item
Provide electric drive for all pumps
with diesel generators for standby
power.
Replace axial flow pumps with
screw pumps.
Use single surface wash arm in
effluent filters instead of dual
arm.
Move filter flumes from center
of each filter to end.
Eliminate backwash surge relief
valves.
Eliminate redundant valving in
surface wash system.
Use insert flow tubes rather than
magnetic flow meters for spent
filter washwater flow monitoring.
Eliminate air relief valves on
surface wash, backwash, and
spent washwater lines.
Eliminate filter surface wash flow
rate control system.
Eliminate utility water flow
monitoring system.
Use 2300 V. power source and
control pump speed with magnetic
couplings.
Reason for Rejection
Inadequate number of generators
contained in VE recommendation.
Not as cost effective as diesel
power for pumps (see accepted ideas
in Table 2),
Loss of cleaning capability. Power
savings could be offset by need
for longer backwashing.
Would increase head for backwash,
requiring increase in bw pumps
from 500 to 1000 HP..
Design had already been modified
to eliminate two of the valves.
Pump shut-off valves needed to
isolate pumps for service,
throttling valves needed to control
flow, filter shut-off valves needed
to isolate filter for wash cycle.
Solids would plug sensing apertures
in insert flow tube.
Valve on spent washwater line elim-
inated.. Others needed to prevent
upset of filter media.
Need to adjust flow to keep volume
of spent washwater as low as
possible. Also used to control
amount of chlorine injected.
Need to determine amount of chlor-
ine to feed to filter effluent
used in the plant and to determine
pump or valve failures.
Variable frequency drives more
efficient. Magnetic coupling costs
used in VE are low and exclude some
needed items.
122
-------
TABLE 11
(continued)
Item
Maintain underground dual line
primary and secondary electrical
service but use 2400 V. service
for larger motors.
Reason for Rejection
Transformers used in VE not stock
items and costs used in VE are
low; double transformation losses
not considered; increases safety
hazards. - - ' '
123
-------
r.L.
I EXISTING PRIMARY
Q = 70 mgd
NEW ROUGHING
FILTERS
NEW
NITRIFICATION
TANKS
0=55 mgd
[FILTRATION |
EXISTING ACTIVATED)
ISLUDGE FACILITIES j
| FOR NITRIFICATION |
Figure 43
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE ONE-
SOUTHPORT
124
-------
__!__
EXISTING PRIMARY
Q = 70 mgd
i '
Q = 55 mgd
f~ EXISTING I
| ACTIVATED SLUDGE I
| FACILITIES FOR 1
i ROUGHING I
1
NEW NITRIFICATION
(OXYGEN)
FACILITIES
NEW SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
FILTRATION
Figure 44
TREATMENT (SPLIT ROUGHING) ALTERNATIVE TWO-
SOUTHPORT
125
-------
EXISTING PRIMARY .
NEW ROUGHING
FILTERS
0 = 75 mgd
Q = 50 mgd
NEW NITRIFICATION
(OXYGEN)
FACILITIES
r
1 EXISTING;
, SLUDGE A
BASIN
' NITRIF
,__j
r
'1
'I
I
J
NEW
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
T
Figure 45
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE THREE-
SOUTHPORT
126
-------
volumes of suggestions and supporting analysis prepared by the VE consul-
tant. One large volume was prepared by the designer which contained his
supporting determinations of the acceptability of the VE suggestions.
General Comments
On such a major project, the study should be conducted locally so that
the designer can provide needed assistance. By having- the sessions con-
ducted locally, the designer would (1) be available in person to explain
the project and his work, and (2) to keep better informed of the ideas-
being proposed and thus be able to,, indicate what.alternates he may already
have reviewed and rejected during design. ,_
When delay from redesign time results from VE, the cost of inflation
should be included in the comparisons of costs for proposed alternatives.
For the Indianapolis project, the Designer expressed that time could
have been saved if he had had more opportunity to explain his cost esti-
mates. -. . " _ ; ,
The designer has more confidence in his design as a result of the VE
procedure. : .--".--'.. " , ' ,'"\'" , " . .
The State believed that no grants should be awarded for VE until a
good cost estimate is available. Guidance on inflation rates for plant and
power costs, design life and interest rates, etc. should be given by EPA
in a manner similar to that for facilities planning. All criteria con-
trolling the VE'study need to be fixed and clearly spelled out. The VETC
should be present in final meetings and have previously had time to review
the Designer's rebuttal. It would be beneficial to have State people on
the VE teams but time arid'budgets may not permit it. -.-
The City also felt that the workshops should be held locally and that .
team' members must have no demands on their time other than the VE study.
They also felt that everyone involved must understand and recognize the
frailties.of human naturei The City felt it is the savings that are im-
portant, -not who gets the credit for them. The VETG should have a chance
to participate in discussion of the Designer1s rebuttals. The City and EPA
agreed that the entire Indianapolis VE study should have been done at a
much faster rate. There needs to be a way to gain time to evaluate.ideas
rejected by the Designer but which appear to have merit, without losing
the current year's grant position. " . '. ,
The VETC believed the fact that one of.the study's main purposes,
which was to review .the design, changed the procedures from those used in
a true VE study. Much more time..than would normally be allocated to
analysis was spent in order to thoroughly study some alternates. The
philosophy of "there must be a better way" must be considered in selecting
participants. VETC work should not end when his report is .presented. He
must also-be involved in gaining acceptance of his proposed changes.
Phasing of the study is not beneficial; evaluation of ideas by the VE team
127
-------
created in a late phase may be influenced by biases and opinions of what
might be the acceptance of the Designer of related ideas developed earlier.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS FROM CASE STUDIES
Table 12 summarizes data on the five case studies. The return in terms
of net savings to VE costs ranged from a factor of 5 to 26. VE fees ranged
from about 0.2 to 0.8% of the estimated construction costs. Based upon
the discussions held with the participants in these five studies and the
subsequent author's analysis, the following observations are offered. An
attempt is made to avoid duplication of concepts already expressed in the
VE workbook although some of the observations serve to reinforce or give
greater emphasis to concepts in the workbook.
1. Availability of adequate cost data on the proposed design at the
start of the VE workshop is essential if the VE study returns
are to be optimized. The lack of adequate cost data hampered
the effectiveness of several of the VE studies analyzed. Also,
lack of consistency in cost estimating techniques between the
designer and VE teams created needless duplication of effort
in some cases. The design work plan should recognize the
necessity for cost information for VE purposes. The work plan
should insure that preliminary estimates of unit quantities and
unit prices are available prior to the VE workshop. The proposal
for the VE study should be required to demonstrate how the
availability of adequate cost data will be assured and that the
VE teams will not spend their time developing basic cost infor-
mation on the existing design which should be provided by the
designer.
2. Another problem area is the accurate estimation of cost for a
large number of alternatives in the short time available in the
VE effort. Changes in unit quantities of concrete, steel,
earthwork, etc., are relatively easy to evaluate. The original
designers unit prices, if valid, then permit ready calculations
of changes in cost. However, alternatives in process equipment
not fully considered in the original design (fluidized bed
incineration versus multiple hearth, for example) are much more
difficult to accurately estimate and reliance on manufacturers
estimates may lead to faulty conclusions. Outline specifica-
tions, at least, from the designer are needed to accurately
interpret his intent. Publication of a comprehensive cost guide
should be considered. Frequent use of the earlier 1971 Black
& Veatch study (EPA Contract 14-12-462) was noted in the case
studies but this study is difficult to up-date for some costs
and does not include some recently introduced processes and
equipment.
3. To avoid the common problem of having time to estimate the costs
of complex alternates during the study, these alternates can
often be anticipated by the VETC and designer during the
128
-------
a
-H US
to
m o
O A° -r-l
1 " " .. - * " 4_)
Cn CU
C >irH
g 1 i"
H 4-1 O
' 'EH cn U
-p
'"- . c
'' QJ
-4->
eo
0)
p>
...', C
r H
, '. f.
w
p>
4->
tH tO
O fi
o\° CJ
^1
'C?
P3 p
t^1 '-p
cn
' -
~ . '
cn
H
H
Q
D
EH
cn
H
cn
CM CJ CO
.rH , tn
M rj
^* -H
W 'H' ' >
3 fe IS
§cn
z
EH O
. ,|
^
- Q
>j
PS
rf
s
O
W _
__"
'..
tn
1 . C
rt
- ^
IS
cn
*
.ft
g
H
to
01
-H
>
IS
1 en
1
M
a
O -P
4-1 'C
CU rH tO CU
S is en s
H c CU
4-> -H H
-P -H > ft
to c is g
H H cn u
rH
(S >,
H «
4J
H 01
EH O*1
MCW
H ^"
^
O IS
cu cn
w
c. .
: - ...;-. . O
T3 -H
- QJ 4-J
' 4J O
iS 3 4-i
- g ^ in
,-r) 4J O
. 4-1 to O
to s
w o
u
r **'. .'"" ' ":.-' - -i
, . ./.'.; -4 ' . . -";'
- ~ ; . ' -:\ ~ , ' ..-;
tn
g
IS
cu
EH
MH
O
6
2
+ -
tn (o
£ B D
IS IS 4-1
CU CU
-P 4-1 S
0
rH CM -H
£»
1 10
^
in in rH
rH CM
-P
to
S
co.
<
o
Q)
0)
fa
o
O '
in
«.
cn
01
co-
t/l
-p
tn
5
JV|
^
ro
cn
to
tn
,C
^
IS
cn
p
K
in
o
to
10
CU
a
I-H
o - - .
t^1"
"X
*3*
CM
to
^
r-
^*
m
t/>
,,
M
7
S
o
o
o
^
in
VD
in
ro
-
; o
C D^
o e
fd ro
Q *
(n
- h-1
g
fo
0
-P
rH
1
in
r-
CO
rH
,
o
o
CM
CM.
*.
^
CO ; -
«-
01
\o
CM .
^
CM
O
o .
o
.0
0
CM -
in-
O
in
ro
^
co
*,
<"">
If)
N
p--
"*.
CO
in
CN
o
ro
t
u
z*
~. ^
a tn
o
u ^
C CM
0
u
to to
g g
IS' IS
0 0
-P -P
in ro
1 1
A° A°
in in
rH f^
'-
[^.
,
o
?
o
rH
{Q
*. -
ro
in
<£>
co
H
rH
c
O
O,
o
p
O :
.O
O
i-H
CO-
CM
[^
co
^f
0
^*
^ ..
i-H
VI-
c
0
o
o .-
o
m
in
B .
0 -^*
r{ *C
I-H cn
1> E
C co
H .
iB ro
rH V
Fn
tn
c
iS
0
4-1 .
in
i .
*
o
o
rH
CM
CM
O;
O
0
CO
00
ro
CM
cn
m
CM
-*
CM
«
o
o
o
o
O v .
o
*.
in
t/>
cn
CD
*3"
0
^
ro
rH
W-
7
o
o
0
a\
CO
rH
r-
o
i-H
W
O -
^ L^ ^
d -a
rH
0 O
> 0
0 CM
i-H *
O
a
cu »
iH d»
M O
IS O
> rH
to i tn
c g
o m is
-H 0
4^ g -P.
te O
O ^4 in
ft UH rH
in
rH
O
O
0
*.
cn
ro .
ft
MH 4H
O O
§to
c
rl , 0
4-1 ' -H
rl 4J
,. a 8
QJ
rH QJ
»Q tn
H O
C71 rC
-H -P
rH
0 MH
0
S 4J
id tn
r) O
0 U
rH CM
129
-------
preworkshop period and critical cost information for the team
gathered before the workshop.
4. The constraints of the VE study (i.e., effluent criteria not to
be challenged, etc.) must be clearly identified in writing as part
of the proposal for the VE study. No verbal modifications of the
constraints should be allowed. Major changes in constraints
should require the written approval of the Owner, State and EPA
prior to the VE workshop. Any uncertainties over the meaning of
the constraints must be resolved before the VE workshop.
5. When the VE effort is conducted by a VETC from outside the design
firm, having the VETC as a subcontractor to the designer may be an
administrative convenience. However, such an arrangement has the
disadvantage of placing the VETC in a subservient position to the
designer. The VETC may feel an ethical limitation on the pursuit
of design changes directly with the Owner, no matter how worth-
while the changes appear to be or how arbitrary the Designer's re-
jection of the proposal may have been. Although the advice of the
designer should be sought in selecting the VETC and team members,
the Owner should be encouraged to contract directly with the VETC
for the VE study.
6. The VE contract should include specific provisions for partici-
pation on an as-needed basis of the VETC (and some team members
if necessary) in post-VE report discussions of VE recommendations.
Although the VE workbook stresses this point, in the cases
observed there was no provision for participation of the VETC
once the VE report had been submitted in some of the case studies.
The implementation phase participation of the VETC and team mem-
bers could be provided for in the VE contract as a service beyond
the basic VE effort to be provided upon authorization by the
Owner and reimbursed upon an hourly rate basis.
7. Participation of qualified Owner's personnel as VE team members
is encouraged. Not only do they offer a useful perspective,
the knowledge they gain of the proposed facilities during the
VE effort will pay long term dividends to the public.
8. Careful screening of the VE team members qualifications can not
be over emphasized. Several instances were observed where sub-
stantial amounts of VE workshop time were devoted to justifying
the VE approach, to establishing the scope of the VE effort, and
to lengthy pursuit of ideas which were simply not suited to
wastewater situations.
9, Widely divergent opinions were heard on the relative desirability
of one-firm outside VE efforts as opposed to the no-two-people--
from-the-same firm approach. In some cases, multiple personnel
from the same firm brought previously established antagonisms
to the VE team, as well as the potential that their firm1s bias
for certain design approaches may be unduly weighed in the VE
130
-------
effort. Some expressed, ,a strong belief that the efficiencies in
communication and administration by having the VE personnel all
from one firm were important to a successful effort. The key to
the success does not seem to hinge on the one-firm or multiple-
firm composition of the VE teams but rather on the competence
and objectivity of the individuals involved.
10. There were (and will, no doubt continue to; be) occasions where the
: ;- .VE personnel seemed to. feel a great deal of pressure to demon-
strate recommended savings approaching 10 times the VE study fee
in order '_to justify the VE program, even to the extent of pre-^-
senting ideas outside the original constraints. This is an
unhealthy situation in that it generates subsequent non-productive
efforts on the part of the Designer, State, and EPA personnel to
rebut ideas which cannot be implemented. It is recognized that
VE of an excellent design will not show a 10:1 return and that
lower savings in such a case will not adversely reflect on the
VE program.
11. Most of: the savings identified., in the VE studies were related to
' . - . initial costs. This may be partially accounted for by the fact
that differences in O & M labor and maintenance materials for
suggested changes are harder to quantify than changes in construc-
tion cost. Available data on O s M.costs associated with various
'. unit processes is now scattered among several publications or
draft reports and it should be collected .into a single published
document supplemented by additonal studies, as needed, on indiv-
idual pieces of equipment.
12. Because maintenance and operations costs are difficult to set
over a long plant life, a sensitivity analysis performed on the
life cycle costs may be beneficial. When LCC's for various
alternates having different first costs are close, redetermining
LCC's over a range of inflation rates may help to select the
probable best alternate.
13. Resistance to implementation of VE ideas is unquestionably
significant when design completion approached 70^-80%. Increased
construction management orientation of the VE teams at this
point of the design is appropriate and can still produce signifi-
cant savings.
14. Some of the VE reports reviewed in this effort were lacking in
organization and clarity, making evaluation of even the basic
consideration of which VE ideas were accepted and the associated
' savings very difficult. The proposal for the VE study should be
, required to contain the-p-reposea~~rormat of the VE report..
15. Of those interviewed, a nearly universal dissatisfaction with
available VE training workshops was expressed. The common theme
of complaints was that too much time was spent on promotion of
131
-------
the VE concept and too little time spent in hard discussions of
the problem areas in applying VE techniques to wastewater projects.
16. Experience with VE appears to increase design personnel awareness
of costs in the early stages of their next projcet.
17. VE team members must be isolated from their responsibilities on
other projects during the VE workshop. Potential team members
should be rejected if they have conflicting demands on their
time or attention.
18. Care will be required on the part of EPA and all others involved
to avoid use of the VE program to accomplish non-VE goals such
as provision of detailed cost estimates of an existing design,
a vehicle to achieve (or prevent) predetermined design changes
desired by the State or Owner but resisted by the designer, or
to needed outside design help which should be funded as part of
the design fee.
19. Selection of an outside VE firm which is a competitor of the
designer in the same geographic and technical area introduces a
needless element of suspicion and distrust and should be avoided.
20. A team member from the Owners staff cannot be in the workshop
merely to tell the teams what the Owner wants. Such a bias would
reduce creativity.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981677-094/1128 Region No. 8
132
------- |