Capital Region Water

CONSULTING ENGINEER’S ANNUAL REPORT

Wastewater System

October 3, 2016

Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

CONSULTING

ENGINEER’S ANNUAL

REPORT Wastewater System

Prepared for:

John Mastracchio, P.E., CFA David Stewart, P.E., BCEE Vice President Director of Engineering Capital Region Water

212 Locust Street, Suite 302

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Prepared by: Arcadis U.S., Inc. 855 Route 146

Suite 210

Clifton Park New York 12065 Tel 518 250 7300 Fax 518 250 7301

Our Ref.:

09059008.0000

Date: October 3, 2016

This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited.

arcadis.com i Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... v 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Report Methodology and Limitations ...... 1 2 Wastewater System Management ...... 3 2.1 Overview of the Wastewater System ...... 3 2.2 Wastewater System Description ...... 5 2.2.1 Wastewater Treatment ...... 5 2.2.2 Wastewater Pump Stations ...... 5 2.2.3 Wastewater Conveyance ...... 6 2.3 Management and Staffing ...... 6 2.3.1 Administration, Engineering, Finance, and Operations Departments ...... 8 3 Wastewater System Performance ...... 10 3.1 Service Area ...... 10 3.2 Customer Base ...... 10 3.3 Regulation and Compliance ...... 11 3.3.1 Operational Performance ...... 11 3.3.2 Notices of Violation ...... 12 3.3.3 Sewer Overflows and Bypass Events ...... 12 3.3.4 Partial Consent Decree ...... 13 3.3.5 Wet Weather Program Accomplishments ...... 14 3.3.6 Nine Minimum Controls Plan ...... 15 3.3.7 Operations and Maintenance Manual ...... 15 3.3.8 Data Management Systems ...... 16 3.3.9 Public Notification and Outreach ...... 16 3.3.10 Flow Monitoring ...... 16 3.3.11 Industrial Pre-Treatment ...... 17 4 Wastewater System Condition ...... 17 4.1 Overview ...... 17 4.2 Condition Assessment ...... 17

arcadis.com ii Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

4.2.1 AWTF ...... 19 4.2.2 Pump Stations ...... 20 4.2.2.1 Front Street Pump Station ...... 20 4.2.2.2 Spring Creek Pump Station ...... 22 4.2.2.3 City Island Pump Stations ...... 22 4.2.2.4 Market Street Pump Station ...... 22 4.2.3 Collection System ...... 23 4.2.3.1 Cleaning and Rehabilitation of Sewer Interceptors ...... 23 4.2.3.2 Green, Oxford, and Baily Streets and Parkway Boulevard Sewer Inspections ...... 24 4.2.3.3 Water Arsenal Boulevard Area Sanitary Sewer CCTV Investigations ...... 25 5 Capital Improvement Plan ...... 26 5.1 Overview ...... 26 5.2 AWTF Upgrade ...... 26 5.3 Pump Station Capital Improvements ...... 28 5.4 Conveyance Capital Improvements ...... 28 5.5 Discussion ...... 28 6 Operations and Maintenance Expenses Review ...... 30 6.1 Overview ...... 30 6.2 Historical Wastewater System Expenses ...... 30 6.3 Additional Operations, Maintenance, and Repair Costs ...... 31 7 Conclusions ...... 31

TABLES

Table 2-1: Summary of Major Wastewater and Stormwater System Facilities ...... 3 Table 3-1: Customer Information ...... 11 Table 3-2: Sewer Overflows and Unauthorized Discharges ...... 13 Table 4-1: Summary of the Rating System ...... 18 Table 4-2: Major Assets Risk Rating ...... 19 Table 4-3: AWTF Improvements ...... 20 Table 4-4: Pump Station Improvements ...... 22

arcadis.com iii Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Table 5-1: Capital Improvement Plan ...... 29 Table 6-1: Historical Wastewater System Expenses ...... 30 Table 6-2: Additional O&M and Repair Costs ...... 31

FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Wastewater System Infrastructure Map ...... 4 Figure 2-2: CRW 2016 Management Level Organizational Chart...... 7 Figure 2-3: CRW 2016 Wastewater Operations Department Organizational Chart...... 9

APPENDICES Appendix A – Wastewater System Service Area Map

arcadis.com iv Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AWTF Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CEAR Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report CIP Capital Improvement Plan CRW Capital Region Water CSO Combined Sewer Overflow FY Fiscal Year MGD Million Gallons per Day Mg/L Milligrams per Liter NMC Nine Minimum Controls NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M Operation and Maintenance OMM Operation & Maintenance Manual PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PPC Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow UD Unauthorized Discharge VFD Variable Frequency Drive

arcadis.com v Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

1 INTRODUCTION Arcadis U.S., Inc. (“Arcadis”) prepared this Wastewater System Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report (“CEAR”) for Capital Region Water (“CRW”) as required by Section 808 of the Trust Indenture between CRW and Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company originally dated March 1, 2014. This CEAR is being submitted to comply with the following requirements for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2017, as outlined in the Indenture: Section 808: “It shall be the duty of the Consulting Engineer, in addition to the other duties prescribed elsewhere in this Indenture, to prepare and file with CRW and with the Trustee on or before 90 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year while this Indenture is in force, a report setting forth the following: a. Its advice and recommendations as to the proper maintenance, repair, and operation of the System during the next fiscal year; b. Its advice and recommendations as to the Capital Additions that should be made during the next fiscal year, and its estimate of the amounts of money that should be expended for Operating Expenses and its estimate of the amounts of money necessary for such purposes; and c. Its finding whether the properties of the System have been maintained in good repair, working order, and condition and its estimate of the amount, if any, required to place such properties in such condition and the details of such expenditures and the approximate time required therefor.”

CRW’s fiscal year runs from January 1 through December 31. The wastewater system is owned and operating by CRW and includes an Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (“AWTF”), a conveyance system, and wastewater and stormwater collection systems located within the City limits. Overall, the wastewater system includes approximately 48 miles of sanitary sewers, 29 miles of stormwater sewers, and 87 miles of combined sanitary and stormwater sewers. The wastewater collection system provides service to customers located within the City. The conveyance and treatment systems provide wastewater conveyance and treatment services to City and Suburban wholesale customers. Suburban wholesale customers include Susquehanna Township, Susquehanna Township Authority, Lower Paxton Township, Lower Paxton Township Authority, Swatara Township, Swatara Township Authority, Paxtang Borough, Penbrook Borough, Steelton Borough, and the Steelton Borough Authority.

1.1 Report Methodology and Limitations In preparing this CEAR, Arcadis reviewed existing records and documents prepared by or on behalf of CRW to understand, assess and report on the technical information contained therein as it relates to the FY 2016 CEAR. The major relevant documents provided by CRW and reviewed as part of the CEAR include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

• Chapter 94 Municipal Wasteload Management Report and Semi-Annual Report on Consent Decree Implementation, March 2016. • 2015 Operation and Maintenance Manual (Version 1.0)

arcadis.com 1 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

• Nine Minimum Control Plan, August 2016 • CRW 2005 Long-Term Control Plan • Capital Improvement Plan (as of April 2013) • Monthly Treatment Plant Operating Data (2013, 2014, 2015, and through July 2016) • Various engineering reports, as related to interceptor cleaning and rehab, screening studies, sewer replacement evaluation, CCTV inspections, etc. • Historic Water System Expenses (FY 2014 and FY 2015) • Budgeted FY 2016 Water System Expenses • Correspondence to/from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”), as related to inspection reports, bypass events, unauthorized discharges (“UD”), and sanitary sewer overflow (“SSO”) events. In addition, on September 15-16, 2016, Arcadis conducted limited visual site inspections of the following components of the Wastewater System.

• Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility • Front Street Pump Station • Spring Creek Pump Station • City Island North Pump Station • City Island South Pump Station • Market Street Pump Station The review also included discussions with representatives of CRW and performance comparisons to other comparable wastewater systems and related industries. This CEAR summarizes the findings of the visual inspections at the time they were conducted and the findings of the data reviewed and discussions with CRW up to the date of the issuance of the CEAR. Changed conditions occurring or becoming known after such date could affect the material presented and the conclusions reached herein to the extent of such changes. Arcadis has not independently verified the accuracy of the information provided by CRW and others. However, we believe such sources are reliable and the information obtained to be appropriate for the analysis undertaken and the conclusions reached herein. In addition, the scope of our review did not include any pending or threatened litigation against CRW. CRW has stated that there is no significant litigation that they believe would have any material impact on its operations. In completing this CEAR for CRW, Arcadis is not serving in the role of a “municipal advisor” under the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. As such, Arcadis is not recommending any action regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities; and is not acting as a registered municipal advisor to CRW and does not owe a fiduciary duty to CRW pursuant to Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, with respect to the information and material prepared in connection with this CEAR. CRW should discuss any information and material prepared in connection with this CEAR with any and all internal and external financial and other advisors that they may deem appropriate before acting on this information and material.

arcadis.com 2 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

2.1 Overview of the Wastewater System CRW is a municipal authority that owns and operates the AWTF, a conveyance system, and wastewater and stormwater collection system within City limits. The AWTF is one of the largest publically owned treatment facilities in the Commonwealth and currently the largest in Pennsylvania within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The AWTF employs biological nutrient removal technology in an activated sludge plant to achieve nitrogen and ammonia requirements. Overall, the wastewater system includes approximately 48 miles of sanitary sewers, 29 miles of stormwater sewers, and 87 miles of combined sanitary and stormwater sewers. A summary of the major wastewater system facilities is provided on Table 2-1. The wastewater collection system provides service to customers located within the City. The conveyance and treatment systems provide wastewater conveyance and treatment services to City and Suburban wholesale customers. Suburban wholesale customers include Susquehanna Township, Susquehanna Township Authority, Lower Paxton Township, Lower Paxton Township Authority, Swatara Township, Swatara Township Authority, Paxtang Borough, Penbrook Borough, Steelton Borough, and the Steelton Borough Authority. The Suburban wholesale customers account for approximately 50% of the revenues.

Table 2-1: Summary of Major Wastewater and Stormwater System Facilities

Design Peak Facility Description 2015 Average 2015 Peak Capacity

High Purity Advanced Wastewater Oxygen Activated 45.0 MGD 20.7 MGD 23.5 MGD1 Treatment Facility Sludge Plant

Front Street Pump Station Pump Station 43.2 MGD 13.7 MGD 33.1 MGD2

Spring Creek Pump Pump Station 28.9 MGD 5.3 MGD 12.9 MGD Station

City Island North Pump Pump Station 0.432 MGD 0.006 MGD 0.014 MGD Station

City Island South Pump Pump Station 0.432 MGD 0.006 MGD 0.014 MGD Station

Market Street Pump Pump Station Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Station

1Maximum 30 month average. 2Peak day flow.

A map of the wastewater system’s infrastructure, including stormwater pipe, interceptor sewers, force mains, gravity sewer mains, and pump stations, is shown in Figure 2-1.

arcadis.com 3 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Figure 2-1: Wastewater System Infrastructure Map

Source: 2015 CEAR, prepared by Herbert, Rowland, and Grubic, Inc.

arcadis.com 4 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

2.2 Wastewater System Description

2.2.1 Wastewater Treatment The AWTF is a 45 million gallon per day (“MGD”) capacity, high purity, oxygen activated sludge plant. The plant consists of preliminary treatment, including vortex grit removal, followed by primary clarifiers, high purity oxygen secondary treatment, secondary clarifiers, and chlorine disinfection. The plant was recently upgraded to implement biological nutrient removal, and this process began operation in April of 2016. This upgrade consisted of new 4.5 million gallon biological reactor tankage and numerous associated appurtenances to upgrade treatment capabilities for nitrogen removal.

2.2.2 Wastewater Pump Stations The Front Street Sewage Pump Station, located at 830 South Front Street receives combined sewage flows from the 42-inch by 42-inch Front Street interceptor and 60” diameter Paxton Creek interceptor. The Pump Station was constructed in the late 1950s. Minor upgrades in 1973 included ventilation and valve control improvements and replacement of the screenings compactor and belt conveyors in 1986. Annual average daily flow ranges between 14 and 16 MGD with peak daily flows exceeding 40 MGD. The Pump Station has four (4) 200 horsepower vertical shaft solids handling pumps in the dry well which are each rated for 10,000 gpm at 56 feet of head. Two pumps are constant speed and two pumps are equipped with variable frequency drives (“VFD”). Dry weather flows are typically conveyed with one pump operating while wet weather flows result in two to three pumps operating simultaneously. Four pumps in simultaneous operation occurs only during extreme flooding events. The Pump Station conveys flow approximately 6,100 feet to the AWTF through a 48” cast iron force main with the contribution of Spring Creek Pump Station flows into the force main approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the AWTF. There are two redundant primary electrical feeds to the Pump Station. The Spring Creek Pump Station was originally constructed in 1959, and it currently conveys average daily flows of 4.8 MGD to the AWTF with a peak discharge flow of up to 30 MGD. The pump station is located just south west of the intersection of South Cameron Street and Magnolia Street, serves the southern portions of the wastewater collection system. Wastewater enters the station through a 24-inch cast iron interceptor on the east side of the station and a 27-inch reinforced concrete pipe interceptor on the south side. The station is equipped with three sewage pumps that discharge through a 24-inch cast iron line, which ultimately connects to the 48-inch force main from the Front Street Pump Station. The Spring Creek Pump Station also has a permitted combined sewer overflow (“CSO”) chamber that relieves the system during high flow events. There are also two City Island Pump Stations that convey wastewater flow from the City Island to the Front Street Interceptor and eventually to the Front Street Pump Station. CRW also operates the Market Street Pump Station, which conveys stormwater from a railroad underpass to the CRW Wastewater System.

arcadis.com 5 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

2.2.3 Wastewater Conveyance CRW operates and maintains 59 CSO regulator structures located along the Front Street, Paxton Creek, and Hemlock Street interceptor sewers, which ultimately direct combined wastewater (sanitary wastewater and stormwater) to the AWTF. During dry weather conditions, the CSO regulator structures divert all of the combined wastewater from the trunk sewer lines to the interceptor sewers. During wet weather, the rate and volume of the sanitary and stormwater flow from the system of collector sewers increases significantly and can exceed the capacity of the downstream interceptor sewers and the AWTF. When this occurs, the CSO regulator structures (sometimes called diversion structures) divert a controlled volume of flow to the interceptor, while untreated excess combined wastewater is discharged to receiving waters. The receiving waters are the Susquehanna River for regulator structures along the Front Street interceptor, and Paxton Creek (a tributary of the Susquehanna) for regulators along the Paxton Creek and Hemlock Street interceptors. There are also CSO outfalls at the Front Street pump station and the Spring Creek pump station. These are permitted emergency outfalls (CSO-002 and CSO-003) that only activate during a mechanical failure of the pump stations or if the station capacities are exceeded during large storms. Each regulator has a dedicated outfall, with one exception in which two regulators serve a common outfall. Therefore, there are a total of 60 outfalls (including those from the pump stations). In addition, the wastewater conveyance system also includes approximately 250,756 feet of sanitary sewers, 151,808 feet of storm sewers, and 457,320 feet of combined sanitary and stormwater sewers.

2.3 Management and Staffing The Wastewater System was originally managed, owned, and operated by the City. In 1990, the Harrisburg Authority (which has been renamed, Capital Region Water) was created to purchase the Wastewater System from the City and at the same time enter into a 1990 Management Agreement with the City for continued management and operation of the Wastewater System. In 2011, the City was placed under State of Pennsylvania Receivership due to severe financial distress, which primarily resulted from having insufficient funds to pay its solid waste system debt associated with the Harrisburg Resource Recovery Facility. As a result, the Commonwealth’s Office of the Receiver, the City, and CRW agreed to terminate the 1990 Management Agreement with the City on November 4, 2013. With the termination of this Agreement, CRW has taken back operational and management control of the Wastewater System. An overview of the current organization structure of CRW is shown in Figure 2-1.

arcadis.com 6 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Figure 2-2: CRW 2016 Management Level Organizational Chart

Shannon Williams, P.E. Board of Directors Chief Executive Officer (Five Positions)

Michael Jess Rosentel David Stewart, Andrew Bliss David Jack Lausch McFadden Superintendent P.E., BCEE Community Nowotarski, CPA Director of Superintendent (Wastewater Director of Outreach Chief Financial (Water Division) Division) Engineering Manager Officer Administration

Claire Maulhardt Nancy Kuhn Renee Snyder Sheri Byrne-Long City Beautiful Yuri Evans Revenue and Human Cityworks H20 Program GIS Manager Customer Resources Administrator Manager Service Mgr. Manager

arcadis.com 7 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

CRW is governed by a five member Board of Directors and is headed by the Chief Executive Officer, who is responsible for all technical and administrative operations of CRW, as well as the implementation of programs, policies, and procedures, and the execution of contracts upon approval by the Board. In addition to providing wastewater collection and treatment services, CRW also provides drinking water services. CRW operates as one entity; however, CRW separately tracks and records the provision of services associated with each of the utilities it manages and operates.

2.3.1 Administration, Engineering, Finance, and Operations Departments CRW’s organizational chart is made up of four departments, which include Finance, Engineering, Administrative, and Operations, all headed by their respective department directors. These departments provide services to support CRW’s wastewater utility, as well as its water utility. The Administrative Department provides office management, information technology, human resources, insurance, health and safety, and administrative support services. The Engineering Department provides engineering support, project coordination, GIS coordination, wet weather coordination, and asset management services. The services currently provided by the Finance Department include accounting, billing and collections, customer service, and payroll. CRW believes that its organizational structure is sufficient to achieve its current goals and has added 24 new employees within the past year. Personnel expenses associated with these departments is allocated to each of the utilities based on budgeted time allocated to each of the services. The Operations Department of CRW includes the Drinking Water Division, Water Quality Division, Wastewater Division, Stormwater Division, and the Facility Maintenance and Field Services Division. The organization structure of the Wastewater Operations Department is shown on Figure 2-2 and is responsible for operating and maintaining the collection and conveyance infrastructure, as well as the systems at the AWTF.

arcadis.com 8 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Figure 2-3: CRW 2016 Wastewater Operations Department Organizational Chart

Jess Rosentel Superintendent

Randy Schaffer Raymond Hoke

Pretreatment Plant Joseph Baker Ken Freysinger Administrative Coordinator / Operations Maintenance Field Assistant I Lab Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Operations (1 Position)

Lab Technician II Plant Operator IV (1 Position) (9 Positions) Lab Technician I Plant Operator I Plant Maintenance: Field Maintenance: Field Operations: (1 Position) (5 Positions) Electrician III Maint. Worker IV Field Operator IV (1 Position) (1 Position) (1 Position) Maint. Worker IV Maint. Worker III Field Operator III (4 Positions) (1 Position) (1 Position) Maint. Worker I Maint. Worker I Field Operator II (1 Position) (3 Positions) (2 Positions) Laborer III Field Operator I (1 Position) (3 Positions) Laborer I (1 Position)

arcadis.com 9 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

The Operations Department is responsible for operation and maintenance (“O&M”) of facilities, permit compliance, tracking and reporting, energy management, monitoring, long-term planning, repair, and construction and assistance in budget preparation and tracking.

3 WASTEWATER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

3.1 Service Area The wastewater system provides service to City retail customers and Suburban community wholesale customers. The Suburban communities account for approximately half of the revenues of the conveyance and treatment systems and include Susquehanna Township, Susquehanna Township Authority, Lower Paxton Township, Lower Paxton Township Authority, Swatara Township, Swatara Township Authority, Paxtang Borough, Penbrook Borough, Steelton Borough, and Steelton Borough Authority, all of which are located in Dauphin County. A map of the wastewater system’s service area is included in Appendix A.

3.2 Customer Base CRW maintains approximately 17,200 active connections within the City of Harrisburg. Over 15,000, or approximately 88.0 percent, of the active connections are comprised of residential customers. Suburban communities are billed on a wholesale basis; therefore, individual account data for customers located in these communities is not available. Some Suburban customers are billed based on metered water consumption, while others are billed based on the estimated number of equivalent dwelling units within their customer base. For billing purposes, one equivalent dwelling unit has been assumed to equal 65,000 gallons of annual water consumption. During FY 2014, Suburban communities were billed for approximately 2.65 billion gallons of wastewater flow. The number of customers and billed wastewater flow by class for customers located within the City of Harrisburg are shown in Table 3-1. The total billed wastewater flow for Suburban communities is also shown in the table.

arcadis.com 10 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Table 3-1: Customer Information

Consumption Description Accounts (1,000 gal.) City of Harrisburg: Residential 15,084 604,971 Commercial 1,597 410,772 Industrial 56 20,253 Public 12 232,546 Utility 450 79,574 Other 2 7,340 Total 17,201 1,355,456 Suburban Communities: Penbrook Borough n/a 95,878 Paxtang Borough n/a 48,699 Swatara Township n/a 461,094 Lower Paxton Township n/a 1,032,513 Susquehanna Township n/a 878,609 Steelton Borough n/a 133,843 Total n/a 2,650,636 Combined Total 17,201 4,006,092 Source: FY 2014 billing data provided by CRW.

3.3 Regulation and Compliance CRW’s AWTF is permitted to discharge to the Susquehanna River under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit No. PA0027197. CRW‘s permit renewal application has been submitted and is currently under review.

3.3.1 Operational Performance In FY 2015, the average annual wastewater flow received at the AWTF was 20.7 MGD and the maximum three month average was 23.5 MGD. The permitted design hydraulic capacity flow for the AWTF is 45.0 MGD. No hydraulic overloads were recorded in 2015, as the monthly average flow at the AWTF did not exceed the design capacity of 45.0 MGD in any month during the year. In addition, the average flow at the AWTF in FY 2016, through July 2016, was approximately 22.3 MGD and the highest average flow on a per month basis occurred in February, and was 34.1 MGD. Based on flow projections for the City of Harrisburg, and contributing municipalities, no hydraulic overload conditions are projected through FY 2020, as the annual average flow in that year is projected to be 24.4 MGD. In FY 2015, annual average biochemical oxygen demand (“BOD”) loading was 25,581 pounds per day with a maximum month loading of 27,885 pounds per day. The permitted average daily organic loading for the AWTF is 68,257 pounds BOD per day. No organic overloads were recorded in 2015 and no overload conditions are expected through 2020, as the annual average organic loading is projected to be increase to 24,231 pounds per day over the period from 2015 to 2020. Furthermore, the average pounds of BOD loadings at the AWTF in FY2016, through July 2016, was 24,267 pounds per day and the highest average loadings on a per month basis occurred in May and was 28,409 pounds per day. Over the past five years, the average organic waste strength of the sewerage received at the AWTF has averaged less

arcadis.com 11 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

than 130 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”). The organic waste strength of the sewerage is not expected to increase significantly over the next five years. With the completion of the BNR project at the AWTF, CRW has realized a significant decrease in the concentration of nitrogen in the effluent from the AWTF. For example, in 2015, the average concentration of nitrogen as sampled from effluent was 22.4 mg/L; however, once the BNR facilities had become operational in April 2016, the concentration of nitrogen decreased to 7.1 mg/L in May, 5.5 mg/L in June, and 1.0 mg/L in July.

3.3.2 Notices of Violation On June 4, 2016, CRW notified the PADEP of a partial bypass event at the AWTF as a result of a power outage. During the event, primary treated effluent bypassed secondary treatment and was combined with final effluent to receive disinfection prior to discharge. In a June 17, 2016 letter from PADEP, CRW was required to provide a written report explaining the cause of the violation, and remedial actions to be implemented. On October 22, 2015, CRW received a letter from the PADEP regarding an unpermitted discharge of untreated sewage from the collection system to an unnamed tributary of Asylum Run on October 9th and 13th of 2015. This discharge was due to a structural failure of several assets within a section of CRW’s sanitary sewer system. The structural failure was addressed, but major rehabilitation work in this area of the sewer system was recommended by CRW’s superintendent.

3.3.3 Sewer Overflows and Bypass Events There were 30 secondary bypass events during 2015. A secondary bypass event is where there is excess wastewater flow received at the secondary treatment train above 45.0 MGD, causing the wastewater flow to bypass secondary treatment. Several of the bypass events exceeded 12 hours in duration, with the longest bypass event lasting longer than 18 hours. In accordance with the NPDES permit, 45.0 MGD of flow is accepted by the secondary treatment train, and any remaining flow is diverted through the secondary bypass. CRW does not have equipment in place to provide actual flow data at the secondary treatment train and the secondary bypass. With the completion of certain projects at the AWTF in 2016, CRW will improve its ability to monitor flows through the secondary treatment train and bypass. CRW has a combined sanitary and stormwater system, which conveys wastewater and stormwater runoff during wet weather periods. Regulators and diversion chambers divert excess flow to Paxton Creek or Susquehanna River during wet weather events. Wet weather events occur when the combined flow exceeds the dry weather peak flow capacity. CRW’s discharge permit authorizes discharges from regulators and diversion chambers however it does not authorize overflows from sanitary sewers or discharges from other than identified combined sewer regulators and diversion chambers. A summary of the SSO events and unauthorized discharges (UDs) during the 2015 reporting period are listed in Table 3-2.

arcadis.com 12 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Table 3-2: Sewer Overflows and Unauthorized Discharges

Date Location SSO or UD Issue

1/14/15 2977 Heather Place SSO Basement Backup

1/15/15 372 Wyatt Street SSO Basement Backup

2/1/15 2817 Watson Street SSO Basement Backup

2/6/15 3014 N 3rd Street SSO Basement Backup

3/14/15* 2262 Kensington Street SSO Basement Backup

4/9/15* 25 North 20th Street UD Manhole Surcharge

4/10/15 1463 S 13th Street SSO Basement Backup

4/26/15 234 N 2nd Street UD Basement Backup

5/4/15 638 and 640 Harris Street UD Basement Backup

6/3/15 1148 Derry Street UD Basement Backup

6/26/15 2541 N 4th Street SSO Basement Backup

7/4/15* 2235 Adrian Street SSO Manhole Surcharge

10/9/15* Unnamed tributary to Asylum Run (from Calder Street and Reily Blockage, Manhole SSO 10/13/15* Street Surcharge

10/27/15* 2653 Waldo Street UD Basement Backup 10/28/15*

11/16/15* 2201 Kennsington Street SSO Blockage

Blockage, Manhole 12/20/15* Unnamed tributary to Asylum Run (from Reily Street) SSO Surcharge

12/28/15* 1527 S 12th Street SSO Basement Backup

* Denotes an event that was reported to PADEP

3.3.4 Partial Consent Decree In August 2015, CRW entered into a partial Consent Decree with the Department of Justice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and PADEP concerning the operation of its collection system, pump stations, and AWTF. The Consent Decree requires CRW to complete a Long-Term Control Plan for its combined sewer system, update the Combined Sewer System Operations and Maintenance Manual and Nine Minimum controls, obtain a MS4 permit and establish a Stormwater Management Program, and implement early action projects, including:

• Complete construction of AWTF Improvement Project (BNR Upgrade)

• Purchase total nitrogen credits for Water Years 2014 & 2015.

• Repair structural deficiencies in the Front Street Interceptor

arcadis.com 13 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

• Investigate and repair known sinkholes caused by sewer infrastructure

• Investigate CSO outfalls that exhibit chronic river intrusion / wastewater exfiltration

• Conduct a pilot study of cost-effectiveness of four CSO activation monitoring technologies and implement the findings The four major regulatory drivers that impact CRW’s wastewater system are as follows: 1. Ammonia discharge limit (which will be addressed with the completion of the biological nutrient removal project at the AWTF). 2. Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy Compliance for total nitrogen and total phosphorous cap loadings (which will be addressed with the completion of the biological nutrient removal project at the AWTF). 3. Nine Minimum Controls and Long-Term Control Plan update. 4. Compliance with Minimum Control Measure activities under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit. In March 2014, CRW began upgrading its AWTF with biological nutrient removal in order to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy and meet new NPDES permit discharge requirements. This $50 million project at the AWTF consisted of adding biological nutrient removal technology to the existing processes to achieve nitrogen and ammonia removal requirements associated with the new NPDES discharge permit. A description of this project is provided in Section 5 of this report. As this project was being constructed, CRW did realize permit exceedances for ammonia nitrate in 2015. Each of the exceedances were reported to the PADEP and were noted to be the result of design limitations at the AWTF. It is expected that with the completion of project related to improved nutrient removal processes at the AWTF in 2016, such exceedances will be avoided in the future.

3.3.5 Wet Weather Program Accomplishments CRW’s progress during FY 2016 under its Wet Weather Program included the following accomplishments:

• Investigated each combined sewer overflow outfall for structure defects, defined priority remedial work, and developed a project schedule for the work.

• Began flow monitoring four separate sanitary locations to begin preparing a Separate Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Assessment.

• Construction related to the AWTF biological nutrient removal project was completed.

• Developed, calibrated, and validated the hydrologic and hydraulic model and prepared a Sewer System Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Report based on the requirements outlined in the partial Consent Decree.

• Reviewed and compiled necessary information and prepared a report addressing sensitive and priority areas in receiving waters.

arcadis.com 14 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

• Reviewed and compiled necessary information and prepared a Financial Capability Analysis covering sewer rate setting, service population definition, and median household income.

• Evaluated the effectiveness of the Nine Minimum Controls Plan and documented recommendations for revision as part of the first annual update to the Nine Minimum Controls Plan. CRW also reviewed the Operations and Maintenance Manual and made note of recommended modifications.

In order to continue to fulfil the requirements of the partial Consent Decree, CRW is anticipated to complete the following projects related to its Wet Weather Program in FY 2017:

• Prepare an Existing System Characterization that includes utilizing the hydrologic and hydraulic model to characterize combined sewer overflow discharge events, incorporating the results of the investigation of sensitive and priority areas, and characterizing the current water quality in receiving waters in which the demonstration approach is utilized while initiating efforts to identify pollutants of concern.

• Begin implementation of the Separate Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Assessment Plan.

• Perform a comprehensive assessment of the structural integrity of the Paxton Creek interceptor and complete all remedial work as necessary.

3.3.6 Nine Minimum Controls Plan CRW concluded the review of their existing operations and maintenance programs, as well as the Nine Minimum Controls (“NMC”) documentation in July and August 2015. CRW also assessed the additional resources and programs that must be developed in order improve the performance of the collection, conveyance, and treatment systems for stormwater and wastewater within the City of Harrisburg. CRW developed a detailed approach to achieve future compliance with each of the NMCs. In many cases the compliance measures are already implemented, such as daily CSO regulator inspections. In other areas, additional information is required to implement some of the NMCs and CRW has undertaken the efforts necessary to collect the data. For example, CRW completed collection system manhole inspections in the Fall of 2015, which are critical to understanding condition and connectivity of the system. For other tasks, CRW continues to plan for the implementation of the NMCs, as is the case with the development of formal public outreach and education program. The complete NMC Plan was submitted on August 10, 2015.

3.3.7 Operations and Maintenance Manual CRW reviewed ongoing maintenance and operation efforts and developed improved practices for compilation in the new Operations and Maintenance Manual (“OMM”). The OMM defines the critical equipment and facilities for the AWTF and collection/conveyance systems. The OMM also includes detailed procedures, complete with checklists, for the following system components: CSO regulators, outfalls and backflow prevention gates, pump stations, interceptors, force mains, collection system and manholes, and inlets and catch basins. The OMM also outlines emergency procedures, citizen complaint

arcadis.com 15 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

tracking, sinkhole remediation, and education programs. The document was submitted on August 10, 2015.

3.3.8 Data Management Systems CRW has developed a Cityworks data management system for their sewer system. Cityworks was implemented in October 20, 2015. This software is the record keeping tool for maintenance activities and will assist in reporting requirements of the partial Consent Decree. From October 20, 2015 to December 31, 2015 the following items have been documented in Cityworks for sewer system maintenance and inspection activities:

• 43 service requests, including 8 for sinkholes

• 63 work orders completed

• 155 daily CSO inspection work orders with a total of 4,580 inspections Beginning on February 9, 2016, Cityworks began documenting the hot spot manhole inspections. During 2016 CRW will continue to review and assess the data captured with relation to workflow processes and reporting requirements. Additional training for CRW staff is also scheduled for 2016. CRW also continues to update their GIS database. During the Fall of 2015 significant modifications were incorporated based on the collection system manhole inspections, which provide information of pipe connectivity.

3.3.9 Public Notification and Outreach CRW conducted an inventory of the existing signage in the Summer of 2015, and CRW is developing a signage plan and notification procedures. This will now include a pilot program for signage, which was detailed in the August 10, 2016 NMC Plan Update. CRW is currently developing temporary signs to the install at the 18 outfalls that currently do not have signage. CRW has continued to conduct numerous public outreach activities from July through December 2015, including the following:

• 2-Minute Tuesday monthly trash clean-ups involving over 180 volunteers

• City Beautiful presentation at Bethesda Mission Youth Center

• Community Ambassador monthly meetings

• Conservation Carnival on Labor Day

• Can the Grease demonstration at Bethesda Youth Mission Family Day

3.3.10 Flow Monitoring CRW completed the Initial Flow Metering and Monitoring Program Plan in August 2015. The monitoring program involved flow monitoring with redundant level measurement at 13 CSO regulator monitoring sites and 13 interceptor monitoring sites. There are eight precipitation gauging sites, as well as gauge adjusted radar rainfall. The monitoring period commenced in September 2014 and has provided data that will be suitable for sewershed characterization and model validation. CRW is maintaining the four flow

arcadis.com 16 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

meters monitoring flow from the satellite communities, as well as eight of the combined sewer interceptor flow meters at the current sites in order to support flow maximization and storage maximization evaluations. By December 2015 CRW was monitoring flow at six sites within the separate sanitary sewer. This data will be utilized in the Separate Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment. CRW began the CSO Activation Monitoring Pilot Study Plan in November 2015. Three of the four technologies have been successfully installed and remain operational. The fourth technology encountered technical difficulties, which required removal of the unit. The data collected to date has been analyzed and compared against redundant flow monitoring equipment.

3.3.11 Industrial Pre-Treatment CRW maintains an Industrial Pre-Treatment Program to ensure that industrial users comply with federal state, and local pre-treatment program effluent discharge limitations and regulations. Industrial user compliance eliminates interference or possible damage to the conveyance and treatment system, untreated waste from passing through the AWTF to the receiving stream, the contamination of sludge which limits disposal and reuse options, and the exposure of personnel to chemical, explosion or fire hazards. The total number of permitted industrial users in 2015 was nine. During FY2015, no additional significant industrial users were permitted, however, during the year, CRW lost one permitted industrial user. Therefore, the total number of permitted industrial facilities was eight at the end of FY2015. Of the eight permitted industrial users, one is classified as categorical and seven as non-categorical industrial users. Inspection and sampling activities performed during the year included facility inspections, self-monitoring inspections, and compliance sampling. During 2015, no permitted industrial users were on a formal compliance schedule for non-compliance. However, during the 2015 calendar year, three violation notices were issued. Two letters of violation were issued for noncompliance with effluent discharge limits. One notice of violation was issued for a significant noncompliance reporting violation along with $750.00 in fines.

4 WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONDITION

4.1 Overview CRW staff aim to ensure the entire Wastewater System is properly operated and maintained. The cost to provide routine and preventative maintenance is included in CRW’s annual operating budget. CRW uses a proactive preventative maintenance program and a systematic replacement policy for inventory parts in order to minimize downtime.

4.2 Condition Assessment Arcadis conducted a limited condition assessment of the key components of CRW Wastewater System on September 15-16, 2016, which included a review of existing information provided by CRW, discussions with CRW staff, and visual observations during field visits. Based on the type of facilities, available documents related to the facilities, and our experience with similar facilities, a representative sample of

arcadis.com 17 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

facilities was inspected on a limited basis to visually confirm the information provided, identify any apparent capital improvement needs, and discuss reliability and O&M performance with the operation and maintenance staff. No field investigations were conducted for buried infrastructure. The condition assessment of the facilities in the Wastewater System was based on numerical ratings for the following criteria:

• Appearance of mechanical, structural, and electrical components

• Reliability

• O&M performance

• Capacity

• Regulatory compliance Based on the evaluations using the above categories, an overall risk rating was assigned to each of the major assets. The risk ratings for each of the five categories above are outlined in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Summary of the Rating System

Numerical Interpretation of Description Rating Rating

1 Little to no risk Relatively new and in good physical and operating condition.

2 Some risk Good condition, no known capital requirements.

Aged or worn but generally in good operating condition may 3 Moderate risk require capital investment within 5-years.

Operational but nearing end of life and / or requires 4 Significant risk investment to bring to full operating condition.

5 High risk Should be on high priority for renewal and/or replacement.

The following presents a summary of the risk ranking for each of the major facilities based on a review of the available information and limited visual inspections.

arcadis.com 18 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Table 4-2: Major Assets Risk Rating

Major Asset Risk Rating

AWTF 3

Front Street Pump Station 3

Spring Creek Pump Station 3

City Island North Pump Station 2

City Island South Pump Station 2

Market Street Stormwater Pump Station 2

Combined Sewer Overflow Regulators 2

Interceptor Sewers: • Front Street Interceptor 4 • Paxton Creek Interceptor 4 • Hemlock Street Interceptor 3 • Spring Creek Interceptor 3 • Paxton Creek Relief Interceptor 3 • Asylum Run Interceptor 3 Collection System 3

Separate Stormwater Collection System 3

Overall System Rating 2.8

Overall the Wastewater System is in fair condition; however, some components are aged and will require investigation and capital investment to preserve the asset and maintain appropriate system performance and delivery of services. The following provides a summary of the current condition of the major components, the rational for the risk scores assigned, and the improvements needed to address moderate, significant, and high risks.

4.2.1 AWTF The AWTF, located on Elliot Street off South Cameron Street on the City of Harrisburg’s boarder with the Borough of Steelton, treats wastewater conveyed from the Front Street Pump Station, the Spring Creek Pump Station and the Trewick Street Pump Station (Borough of Steelton). It also treats trucked in wastewater. The site also contains the CRW collection system maintenance garage. The AWTW utilizes grit removal, primary clarification, oxic/anoxic biological treatment, chemical addition, final clarification and disinfection to treat wastewater prior to discharge to the Susquehanna River. It also thickens, anaerobically digests and dewaters residuals from the wastewater treatment processes prior to their being land applied on farm land as Class B residuals. CRW completed major improvements to the biological treatment and final clarification processes at the AWTW in 2016 which were intended to achieve the effluent limits for nutrient removal contained in its discharge permit. Arcadis reviewed available summaries of AWTF records which indicate that the plant has satisfied the performance requirements of its discharge permit since the biological treatment and final clarification

arcadis.com 19 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

processes came into service in spring 2016. The most recent available PADEP Sewage Compliance Inspection Form, dated August 10, 2016, made three recommendations regarding the plant: update the Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency (“PPC”) plan to include changes from plant upgrade, clean stormwater catch basins including those connected to plant drain, and keep areas in front of the biosolids storage pads clean. The AWTF appears to be in good overall physical condition based on the available documents and an Arcadis inspection on September 15, 2016. However some capital investments and minor additional O&M expenditures should be made within the next five years to ensure continued compliance with effluent limits and reduce operating costs. Table 4-3 identifies the anticipated additional capital and incremental O&M needs that have not been identified already in the previous CRW CIP.

Table 4-3: AWTF Improvements

Description Classification

Rehabilitate Onsite Power Generation Facilities Capital Addition

Rehabilitate Anaerobic Digesters Capital Addition

Rehabilitate Primary Clarifiers Capital Addition

Update PPC Plan O&M

Clean Onsite Stormwater Catch Basins O&M

Clean Area in front of Bio-solids Storage Pads O&M

In addition, in April 2015, a Screening Study was completed by Hazen and Sawyer that evaluated the screening equipment at the AWTF, Front Street Pump Station and Spring Creek Pump Station. This study recommended that screens be installed at the AWTF. The AWTF currently has no screening facilities. Rather, preliminary treatment includes vortex grit removal, followed by primary clarifiers, high purity oxygen secondary treatment, secondary clarifiers, and chlorine disinfection. Two units were proposed, with a third bypass channel containing a manually-cleaned bar rack. Each channel will have with the ability to pass 40 MGD, providing a total of 120 MGD of capacity and 80 MGD (peak design flow) with one unit out of service. The total project cost for the AWTF screening facility was estimated to be $10.25 million. In addition, a trucked-in waste standalone facility was recommended because the hydraulic level in the new screening facility will be several feet above grade and trucked-in waste cannot be discharged directly upstream of the AWTF screens. The estimated construction cost of the trucked-in waste facility is $1 million.

4.2.2 Pump Stations CRW maintains five wastewater or stormwater pump stations: Front Street, Spring Creek, City Island North, City Island South and Market Street.

4.2.2.1 Front Street Pump Station

The Front Street Pump Station is located at 830 South Front Street in the City of Harrisburg. It conveys combined sewage from the Front Street Interceptor and the Paxton Street Interceptor to the AWTF.

arcadis.com 20 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Johnson, Mirmiran and Thompson (“JMT”) prepared an engineering report dated November 2015 assessing the condition of the station and proposing extensive improvements to it. The station appears to be in fair overall physical condition based on the available documents and an inspection by Arcadis on September 16, 2016. Capital investments and additional O&M expenditures should be made within the next five years to ensure continued operation and to reduce operating costs as described below. CRW has completed a preliminary design for the upgrade of the Front Street Sewage Pump Station. The Front Street Sewage Pump Station receives combined sewage flows from the 42”x42” Front Street interceptor and 60” diameter Paxton Creek interceptor. Annual average daily flow ranges between 14 and 16 MGD with peak daily flows exceeding 40 MGD. Many of the pump station components are near the end of their useful life, including the screens, pumps, HVAC system, and electrical and control systems. CRW contracted with JMT to perform engineering evaluation and design for upgrading the pump station. According to the Draft Preliminary Engineering Report entitled Front Street Sewage Pump Station Improvements, prepared by JMT in November 2015, the pump station upgrade will generally include replacement of pumps, bar screens, screenings conveyance equipment, controls and associated improvements to electrical, HVAC and building systems to meet code requirements, including the following specific components:

• Replacing the four (4) existing solids handling pumps, motors and provide VFDs

• Replacing the existing discharge piping and valves

• Replacing the two (2) existing bar screens and the screenings conveyance systems

• Replacing the existing hydraulic actuator system with electric actuated valves

• Providing an effluent flow meter

• Replacing the existing motor control center and switchgear

• Evaluating the requirements for emergency power generation equipment

• Upgrading the existing SCADA telemetry system

• Replacing the existing HVAC equipment

• Completing building system repairs as required to meet code requirements According to the report, the Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the recommended improvements and upgrades to the Front Street Pump Station is between $9.3 million and $9.7 million. The report estimates that engineering and design for the upgrades will take approximately one year, and the construction duration is estimated to take approximately 2 years to complete. In addition, the Screening Study that was completed in April 2015 also recommended replacement of the screens at the Front Street Pump Station and the Spring Creek Pump Station. Many of the station components were reported to be near or beyond their useful life. The total project cost at the Front Street Pump Station was estimated to be $3.1 million, and the project cost at the Spring Creek Pump Station was estimated to be $7.5 million. It was anticipated that the design of the Front Street Pump Station would begin in 2015, and construction would be completed in 2016. CRW has now scheduled this work

arcadis.com 21 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

to be done in FY 2018 and FY 2019. Further, it was anticipated that the design for Spring Creek would begin in 2018 and construction would begin and be completed in 2019.

4.2.2.2 Spring Creek Pump Station

The Spring Creek Pump Station is located southwest of the intersection of South Cameron Street and Magnolia Street in the City of Harrisburg. It conveys combined sewage from the Spring Creek Interceptor and the Hemlock Street Interceptor to the AWTF. Hazen and Sawyer prepared an engineering report dated April 21, 2015 that assessed the condition of the station as part of an investigation into improving wastewater screen performance at all CRW’s major wastewater facilities. The station appears to be in fair overall physical condition based on the available documents and an inspection by Arcadis on September 16, 2016. Capital investments and additional O&M expenditures should be made within the next five years to ensure continued operation and to reduce operating costs. Table 4-4 identifies the anticipated additional capital and incremental O&M needs for the pump stations that have not been identified already in the previous CRW CIP.

Table 4-4: Pump Station Improvements

Description Classification

Repair Broken Railing at City Island South O&M

4.2.2.3 City Island Pump Stations

The City Island North Pump Station is located at the north end of City Island in the City of Harrisburg. It conveys sewage from the City Island South Pump Station and elsewhere on City Island to the CRW collection system in Harrisburg proper. The station appears to be in good overall physical condition based on the available documents and an inspection by Arcadis on September 16, 2016. However, it’s recommended that CRW replace the wooden platform at the pump station due to warping and splitting, the electrical control box due to corrosion, and electrical gear due to its age. It is estimated that the cost to replace the platform and the electrical equipment would be approximately $100,000. The City Island South Pump Station is located near the center of City Island in the City of Harrisburg. It conveys sewage from elsewhere on City Island to the City Island North Pump Station. The station appears to be in good overall physical condition based on the available documents and an inspection by Arcadis on September 16, 2016. However, there is a broken weld on the railing of the pump station, the wooden platform needs to be replaced due to warping and splitting, the electrical control box needs to be replaced due to corrosion, and electrical gear needs to be replaced due to its age. It is estimated that the cost to replace the platform and electrical gear would total approximately $100,000. The broken weld is expected to be repaired by CRW maintenance staff.

4.2.2.4 Market Street Pump Station

The Market Street Pump Station conveys stormwater from a railroad underpass to the CRW sewer system. The station appears to be in good overall physical condition based on the available documents and an inspection by Arcadis on September 16, 2016. However some additional O&M expenditures

arcadis.com 22 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

should be made within the next five years to ensure continued operation and to reduce operating costs. For example, cracks were observed on concrete surfaces in the generator building. In addition, many of the pumps are old and it was noted that piping and valves throughout the pump station may not be functioning properly due to corrosion. It is estimated that it will cost no more than $100,000 to make these repairs.

4.2.3 Collection System CRW maintains approximately 130 miles of collection sewers, with approximately 80 percent of the system operating as a combined system, conveying both sanitary and stormwater runoff during wet weather events. Regulators and diversion chambers serve to divert excess flows to the Paxton Creek or the Susquehanna River during wet weather events. The collection system was not inspected by Arcadis during its field visit. However, an evaluation of the condition of the collection system is included in CRW’s Chapter 94 Municipal Wasteload Management Report for FY 2015. Based on what is described in the report, it was noted that CRW performed various maintenance activities during the year and, as a result of a purchase of a CCTV truck and equipment earlier in the year, began inspecting and cleaning a portion of the collection system during the year. CRW has also continued the implementation of its Geographic Information System program during the year. CRW intends to use the data collected to improve its mapping of the collection system and to perform an initial condition assessment of the collection system that will allow it to prioritize repair and replacement projects. CRW’s collection system experienced several sanitary sewer overflows and unauthorized discharges in 2015, as summarized in Table 3-2. Many of these events included backups in basements on private property that were attributable to issues with the collection system. Others included general blockages or manhole surcharge events. Beginning in 2016, and in accordance with the partial Consent Decree, CRW will report all overflow and unauthorized discharge events to PADEP. However, as noted in the CRW’s Chapter 94 Municipal Wasteload Management Report for FY 2015, CRW has completed all of its requirements of the partial Consent Decree that included deadlines prior to December 31, 2015. The report also noted that CRW has made substantial progress toward future programs and projections, which address additional requirements of the partial Consent Decree.

4.2.3.1 Cleaning and Rehabilitation of Sewer Interceptors

In 2014, CRW contracted with Redzone Robotics to inspect their large diameter conveyance sewers. The inspections included approximately 250 sewer segments 24-inches to 72-inches in diameter with a total length of 71,000 linear feet. Redzone also inspected approximately 200 manholes. Based on a review of the inspection data, and as reported in a February 27, 2015 memorandum to CRW from CDM Smith, several sewers were found to have high risk structural issues and were recommended for rehabilitation in the next 10 years. The following is a summary of the recommendations provided by CDM Smith based on the inspections:

• Paxton Creek Interceptor and Manhole Inspection. It was recommended that this entire 15,900 linear feet stretch of sewer be cleaned. The estimated cost for such cleaning was estimated to be $636,000. It was also recommended that 30 segments of the interceptor, approximately 9,000

arcadis.com 23 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

linear feet in length be rehabilitated due to structural issues. The estimated cost of the rehabilitation was estimated to be $3.6 million. It was also recommended that 40 manholes along the interceptor be lined at a cost of approximately $100,000. The priority for this rehabilitation was characterized as “high”.

• Front Street Interceptor and Manhole Inspection. The report recommended that 11,000 feet of pipe be cleaned at a cost of approximately $275,000, and due to structural condition, it was recommended that this section of interceptor be rehabilitated at a cost of approximately $3.1 million. The priority for this rehabilitation was characterized as “medium” and the cleaning priority was identified as “high”.

• Paxton Creek Relief Interceptor and Manhole Inspection. The report recommended that 5,800 linear feet of sewer be cleaned at an estimated cost of $175,000.

• Spring Creek Relief Interceptor and Manhole Inspection. The report recommended that 714 linear feet of sewer be cleaned at an estimated cost of $21,400. It was also recommended that 5,100 linear feet of sewer be rehabilitated due to structural issues at an estimated cost of $1.3 million. In addition, it was recommended that 20 manholes along the interceptor be rehabilitated at a cost of approximately $50,000.

• Hemlock Street Relief Interceptor and Manhole Inspection. A small portion of this interceptor was recommended to be cleaned. The structural integrity of interceptor and the condition of the manholes were characterized as “pretty good”.

• Asylum Run Interceptor and Manhole Inspection. The report recommended that approximately 2,500 linear feet of sewer be rehabilitated at an estimated cost of $500,000. The priority of this rehabilitation was characterized as “High”. The manholes were characterized as “pretty good.”

• Paxton Creek Interceptor Sewer and Manhole Inspection. No Redzone reports were available for this sewer. No major structural defects were found using other available information and the condition of the interceptor was such that no cleaning was recommended at this time.

• Spring Creek Interceptor Relief and Manhole Inspection. No Redzone reports were available for this sewer. But no major structural defects were found using other available information and the condition of the interceptor was such that no cleaning was recommended at this time.

4.2.3.2 Green, Oxford, and Baily Streets and Parkway Boulevard Sewer Inspections

Structural deficiencies and concerns were identified following inspections of sewer pipe sections and manholes located at Green Street, Oxford Street, North 4th Street, Parkway Boulevard, and Bailey Street, as reported in the 2016 Sewer Replacement Project Final Report, prepared by HRG dated April 2016. The report indicates that immediate rehabilitation of these assets are necessary in order to ensure continued operation of the system, extend the useful life, limit or reduce the necessary maintenance of the system, decrease the costs associated with conveyance and treatment of inflow & infiltration, improve the hydraulic capacity of the system, decrease the probability of further failure and deterioration in the system, and improve the system for the health and safety of the public.

arcadis.com 24 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

The alternatives recommended in this report for replacement of sewer sections have an estimated construction cost of approximately $1,230,000. These recommended replacements are underway and include the following sewer sections: 1. Full replacement of the following sewer sections totalling approximately 1,905 linear feet:

• Bailey Street

• 1616 Green Street (Manhole SSMH-000884 to Manhole SSMH-000877)

• Oxford Street (Manhole SSMH-000620 to Manhole SSMH-000621)

• Oxford Street (Manhole SSMH-000621 to Manhole SSMH-000622)

• 919 Green Street (Manhole SSMH-001100 to Manhole SSMH-001088) 2. Spot repairs and cured-in-place pipe lining are recommended for sewer sections near 2034 N. 4th Street (between manhole SSMH-000736 and manhole SSMH-000735) and on Parkway Boulevard (between manhole SWMH-000208 and inlet SWINLT-004169). The totals are approximately 47 LF of pipe replacement and approximately 429 LF of CIPP lining. 3. Full replacement of Manholes SSMH-000620 (Oxford Street), SSMH-621(Oxford Street), SSMH- 000735 (N. 4th Street), SSMH-002106 (Bailey Street), and SSMH-002230 (Bailey Street) is recommended. 4. The addition of three (3) new manholes on Bailey Street and one (1) new manhole at the end of the spot repair on the sewer section on Parkway Boulevard (between manhole SWMH-000208 and inlet SWINLT-004169). 5. Replacement of all inlets and combined sewer laterals that connect to the sewer pipe sections on Bailey Street. 6. Miscellaneous rehabilitation of all of the other manholes in the areas of the study. Rehabilitation includes chimney seals, cementitous liners, new frame and cover, and/or grouting of joints.

4.2.3.3 Water Arsenal Boulevard Area Sanitary Sewer CCTV Investigations

In December 2015, CRW had CDM Smith conduct a CCTV investigation of approximately 5,000 linear feet of 1-in to 24-in sanitary sewer in the vicinity of Arsenal Boulevard. Based upon the condition assessment, CDM Smith recommended the following high priority improvements in memorandums dated January 20, 2016 and September 6, 2016 to CRW:

• Replacement or rehabilitation of 2,640 LF of sanitary sewer that included two stream crossings

• Installation of two new manholes

• Replacement or reconstruction of one structure (upstream of the Reily Street stream crossing)

• Abandonment of one structure (downstream of the Reily Street sewer stream crossing) The rehabilitation recommendations were divided into an initial (approximately one year) phase or future phases (3-5 years or 7-10 years). The initial phase of the work consists of the following:

arcadis.com 25 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

• Redirecting the Calder Street branch sanitary sewer to connect to the Reily Street branch sewer thereby eliminating a stream crossing. By eliminating the Calder Street branch stream crossing, the alignment of the 24-in sanitary sewer will not need to be maintained in the stream.

• Installing a new 24-in sanitary sewer on the south side of Arsenal Blvd. to eliminate a stream crossing. The existing Arsenal Blvd. crossings for the 24-in sanitary sewer, which are downstream of SSMH-002530 and upstream of SSMH-005025, will be maintained and rehabilitated with cured in place pipe. Two new manholes will be installed, one upstream to direct the 24-in sanitary sewer towards the south side of Arsenal Blvd. and one downstream at the connection point of the Reily Street branch sewer that will also connect the new 24-in pipe to the existing 24-in sewer prior to the second Arsenal Blvd. crossing. The 17th Street 10-in sanitary sewer will also be extended to the new 24-in line along the south side of Arsenal Blvd. This alternative was selected because it eliminates the Arsenal Blvd. crossings, maximizes use of the existing infrastructure, and eliminates the most problematic section of sanitary sewer along the stream and steepest embankment. The preliminary construction cost estimate for the Phase 1 improvements was estimated by CDM Smith to cost approximately $2.7 million.

5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

5.1 Overview CRW maintains a long-term capital improvement plan (“CIP”) that identifies the major planned projects and initiatives for the Wastewater System. The CIP includes projects that are required to replace aging infrastructure, enhance or expand services to customers, provide resiliency and redundancy, and increase cost effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, as discussed previously, CRW recently entered into a partial Consent Decree with the Department of Justice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the PADEP concerning the operation of its collection system, pump stations, and AWTF. Therefore a portion of CRW’s capital program pertains to projects implemented under its Wet Weather Control Program. A review of CRW’s CIP, as shown in Table 5-1, its past accomplishments, and the current observed condition of key assets was completed to assess the overall condition of the Wastewater System, and to identify potential capital improvements that should be considered for implementation by CRW in FY 2017. The following presents a summary of the findings of our review.

5.2 AWTF Upgrade In March 2014, CRW began upgrading its AWTF with biological nutrient removal in order to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy and meet new NPDES permit discharge requirements. This $50.0 million project at the AWTF consisted of adding biological nutrient removal technology to the existing processes to achieve nitrogen and ammonia removal requirements associated with the new NPDES discharge permit. The process involved adding side stream treatment (nitrification) for the filtrate from the sludge dewatering process that, when returned to the main treatment process, will bolster

arcadis.com 26 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

performance. Multiple tanks and processes were modified to complete the integration of the new process. The project was completed in March 2016. In addition, the following maintenance projects were completed at the AWTF in 20151:

• Completed upgrade to all plant PLC and SCADA software control systems

• Installed one new pump, four new motors, and four new variable frequency drives at the Settled Sewage Pump Station

• Installed new effluent flow meter, motor control center, and two wet well level monitoring systems at the Settled Sewage Pump Station

• Installed new overflow weirs in Thickener No. 2

• Replaced the entire cross collection assembly on Primary Settling Tank No. 2

• Completed demolition and retrofit of all internal mechanisms in all six Final Clarifiers

• Replaced all six return activated sludge valves for associated Final Clarifiers

• Completed retrofit of the Cryogenic Oxygen Distillation Facility

• Completed cleanout of all three High Purity Oxygen Reactors, and replaced associated aerators, mixers and instrumentation

• Replacement of 15kV electrical switchgear, duct banks and high-voltage cables

• Installed new polymer system for enhanced chemical treatment in the Primary Settling Tanks

• Installed a new scum pump in the Final Clarifier Pipe Gallery

• Installed mechanical seals on all pumps for waste activated, thickened and raw sludge pumping systems

• Installed new variable frequency drives for the raw sludge, waste activated sludge and dilutent water pumping systems With the biological nutrient removal project now completed, CRW plans to move forward with other AWTF capital projects including:

• Headworks Screening

• Trucked-In Waste Receiving Station

• HVAC improvements

• Cogeneration improvements

• Primary thickener sludge pump replacement

• Primary clarifier improvements and repair

• Hydrogritter improvements

1 Chapter 94 Municipal Wasteload Management Report and Semi-Annual Report on Consent Decree Implementation, March 2016.

arcadis.com 27 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

• Solids Facilities Plan

• Other miscellaneous improvements The anticipated cost and timing of these improvements is summarized in the CIP for CRW, as shown in Table 5-1.

5.3 Pump Station Capital Improvements The pump station improvements at the Front Street and Spring Street Pump Stations, as described in Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.2, are programmed to be completed over the next three years, in FY 2017 through FY 2019, as shown in Table 5-1. In general, these projects are related to the replacement of screens at the Front Street and Spring Street Pump Stations, as well as the replacement of pumps, controls, and various improvements to electrical HVAC, and building equipment at the Front Street Pump Station. The replacement of platforms and electrical gear at the City Island Pump Station is included in FY 2020.

5.4 Conveyance Capital Improvements CRW has included several conveyance capital improvements in its CIP shown in Table 5-1. These include the Paxton Creek, Front Street, Spring Creek, and Asylum Run Interceptor improvements, as discussed in Section 4.2.3.1. In addition, it also includes line repairs at Green, Oxford, Baily Streets and Parkway and Arsenal Boulevards, as discussed in Section 4.2.3.2 and Section 4.2.3.2. Collection system cleaning, rehabilitation, and replacement work is expected to be ongoing through FY 2021. In addition to the conveyance capital improvements, CRW plans to implement a number of Long-Term Control Plan related capital projects, including CSO outfall remediation and several green stormwater infrastructure projects, as shown in Table 5-1.

5.5 Discussion No additional projects were identified at this time for the five year period, from FY 2017 through FY 2021, for the proper maintenance, repair, and operation of the Wastewater System other than those shown in Table 5-1. The estimates of probable costs included in the CIP are preliminary and were developed based on prior reports completed by others for CRW, visual analysis, without detailed review. As individual studies are prepared, costs shown in the CIP may increase or decrease based upon further definition of project scope. It is recommended that CRW update its cost estimates and capital funding for these projects as this comparison warrants. Furthermore, changes to the capital plan should be communicated to the finance department so as to not delay the acquisition of funding to support the required capital projects, and CRW should aim to implement the CIP projects that it identifies and includes in its capital budget each year.

arcadis.com 28 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

Table 5-1: Capital Improvement Plan

Location Description FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 AWTF Headworks Screening $ 5,125,000 $ 5,125,000 $ - $ - $ - AWTF Trucked-In Waste Receiving Station - - - 150,000 850,000 AWTF Cogeneration Improvements 68,530 - 80,940 80,940 80,940 AWTF Intercooling Bundles for CO Distillation Facility Compressors 72,000 - - - - AWTF Cryogenic Oxygen Distillation Facility Compressors 500,000 - AWTF Primary Clarifier Improvements and Repairs 172,550 - 213,387 213,387 213,387 AWTF Hydrogritter Improvements - - - 23,100 276,900 AWTF Solids Facilities Plan Projects 750,000 5,000,000 - - - AWTF Miscellaneous 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Pump Front Street Pump Station Screening Improvements - 465,000 2,635,000 - - Pump Spring Street Pump Station Screening Improvements - 1,125,000 6,375,000 - - Pump Front Street Pump Station Improvements 1,425,000 4,037,500 4,037,500 - - Pump City Island Pump Station Improvements - - - 200,000 Convey Paxton Creek Interceptor and Manhole Repairs 5,432,900 - - - - Convey Front Street Interceport and Manhole Repairs - 284,109 1,988,763 1,988,763 - Convey Spring Creek Interceptor Improvements - - - 150,706 1,167,969 Convey Asylum Run Interceptor Improvements 106,090 1,485,260 - - - Convey Green,Oxford, Baily Streets & Parkway Blvd Sewer Improvements 1,300,000 - - - - Convey Arsenal Boulevard Sewer Improvements - Ph 1 1,350,000 1,350,000 - - - Convey Collection System Cleaning, Rehab, and Replacement 6,332,575 9,629,975 6,197,775 6,197,775 2,076,400 Convey Miscellaneous Conveyance Projects 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 LTCP Nine Minimum Controls Plan and Long-Term Control Plan 238,773 238,773 238,773 238,773 238,773 LTCP NMC Plan and LTCP Phase 1 Upgrades 315,000 210,000 - - - LTCP CSO Outfall Remediation 360,000 - - - - Misc Stormwater / GSI Projects 3,578,750 1,750,000 - - - Total $ 27,527,168 $ 31,100,617 $ 22,167,138 $ 9,643,444 $ 5,304,369

arcadis.com 29 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES REVIEW

6.1 Overview The Trust Indenture (Section 809) requires CRW to adopt a Wastewater System budget each year. CRW typically adopts a finalized budget in November, two months prior to the start of the new fiscal year. CRW utilizes the capital plan and O&M recommendations in this CEAR to assist in establishing the budget. However, it should be noted that this CEAR only serves to provide advice and recommendations regarding capital additions and amount of funds that should be expended to meet incremental O&M expenses. CRW must then establish a realistic financing plan that serves to meet these goals, which may necessitate reprioritization of projects and programs.

6.2 Historical Wastewater System Expenses CRW’s historical actual O&M expenses for FY 2014 and FY 2015 and the budgeted expenses for FY 2016 were reviewed to assess general alignment of overall system costs with the operating and capital requirements of the Wastewater System. These expenses are shown in Table 6-1. The significant increase in Contracted and Professional Services in FY 2016 was due to approximately $1.0 million for interceptor cleaning work. In addition, increases in Administrative Fee costs have resulted from staff additions that occurred as a result of CRW’s take back of operations from the City with the termination of the 1990 Management Agreement, in March 2014. In FY 2014, Shared Services included costs related to certain administrative and operational services that CRW was receiving from the City; however, as of FY 2015, the City no longer provides CRW with many of these services, with the exception of street sweeping services.

Table 6-1: Historical Wastewater System Expenses

Historical Budget Description FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 O&M Expenses: Salaries and Wages $ 1,571,499 $ 1,865,650 $ 2,115,852 Benefits and Taxes 1,074,202 1,259,488 1,346,376 Contracted and Professional Services 509,555 313,235 1,563,585 Repairs and Maintenance 41,933 43,565 170,500 Supplies 336,040 319,513 347,100 Electricity 1,106,737 940,448 1,370,211 Chemicals 296,017 261,464 590,443 Water 96,686 110,950 104,200 Refuse 323,967 370,408 566,321 Nutrient Credits 118,975 44,856 300,000 Insurance 402,849 503,905 487,984 Administrative Fee 1,347,080 2,464,472 2,877,419 Shared Services 1,278,006 360,219 532,000 Other Operating Expenses 175,943 170,193 319,845 Total O&M Expenses $ 8,679,489 $ 9,028,366 $ 12,691,836 Source: FY 2014 and FY 2015 historical actual and FY 2016 budgeted expenses provided by CRW.

arcadis.com 30 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

6.3 Additional Operations, Maintenance, and Repair Costs Based on our visual inspection and review of the existing CIP for the Wastewater System, several O&M expenses were identified for the proper maintenance, repair, and operation of the Wastewater System. These items are summarized in Table 6-2. Note that the interceptor cleaning projects have already been budgeted by CRW and are anticipated to be completed in FY 2016. In addition, CRW will likely include additional O&M costs for operation of the new biological nutrient removal processes at the AWTF.

Table 6-2: Additional O&M and Repair Costs

Category Location Description Cost AWTF AWTF Update PPC Plan n/a AWTF AWTF Clean Stormwater Catch Basins n/a AWTF AWTF Clean area in front of biosolids storage pads n/a Pump Station City Island south Repair broken Railing n/a Pump Station Market Street Repair cracks on concrete in generator building n/a Pump Station Market Street Assess functionality of pumps, piping and valves n/a Interceptor Paxton Creek Clean Interceptor segments 636,000 Interceptor Front Street Clean Interceptor segments 275,000 Interceptor Paxton Creek Relief Clean Interceptor segments 175,000 Interceptor Spring Creek Relief Clean Interceptor segments 21,400 Estimated Total Additional O&M Expenditure $ 1,107,400 *Cost estimates based on prior reports completed for CRW by others.

7 CONCLUSIONS Set forth below are the principal conclusions that have been reached regarding our review of the Wastewater System and associated information provided by CRW: 1. In 2015 and 2016 year-to-date, the AWTF has operated within its hydraulic capacity with no hydraulic or BOD overloads recorded. 2. A primary treatment effluent bypass occurred in 2016 and an unpermitted discharge of wastewater sewerage from the collection system occurred in 2015. The specific issues that have caused the bypass and unpermitted discharge have since been corrected. In addition, there were 30 secondary bypass events reported in 2015. With the completion of certain projects at the AWTF, CRW will improve its ability to monitor flows through the secondary treatment train and bypass. 3. With the completion of its BNR project at the AWTF, CRW has significantly reduced the concentration of nitrogen in its wastewater effluent. 4. Based on Arcadis’ field inspection, the AWTF was given a risk rating of 2, indicating that it is in good condition, with no known capital requirements. With the exception of the Front Street and Spring Creek Pump Stations, all the other pump stations and the combined sewer overflow regulators were also given a risk rating of 2. The Front Street and Spring Creek Pump Stations were given a risk rating of 3, indicating that these facilities were aged or worn, but generally in good operating condition, but that they may need capital investment within five years.

arcadis.com 31 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

5. Overall the Wastewater System is in fair condition with a risk rating of 2.8. However, some components of the system are aged and will require capital investment to preserve the asset and maintain appropriate system performance. These capital investments are described below. 6. The AWTF appears to be in good physical condition based on documents that were reviewed and Arcadis’ review on September 15, 2016. However, in order to keep the AWTF in compliance with effluent limits and to reduce operating costs, rehabilitation work related to onsite power generation facilities, anaerobic digesters, and primary clarifiers should be completed. In addition, additional O&M activities related to an updated PPC Plan, cleaning onsite catch basins, and cleaning of areas proximate to the bio-solids storage pads should be completed. 7. The Front Street Pump Station will require replacement of pumps, bar screens, screenings conveyance equipment, controls, and associated electrical, HVAC, and building systems improvements. The total cost of these improvements was estimated by others to be approximately $9.5 million. In addition, additional work at this pump station should include the replacement of its screening equipment, which was estimated by others to cost approximately $3.1 million. 8. The Spring Creek Pump Station will require the replacement of screening components, which is estimated to cost approximately $7.5 million. Furthermore, it is recommended that CRW repair a broken railing that was observed during the condition assessment of the pump station. 9. It is recommended that the wood platforms, electrical control boxes, and electrical gear at both City Island Pump Stations be replaced. This is estimated to cost approximately $100,000 for each pump station. 10. During the condition assessment of the Market Street Pump Station, it was noted that there were cracks on concrete surfaces in the generator building, many of the pumps were old, and piping and valves throughout the pump station may not be functioning properly due to corrosion. It is estimated that it will cost no more than $100,000 to make repairs to address these issues. 11. Prior studies completed by others have recommended that the Paxton Creek Interceptor be cleaned. This is estimated to cost approximately $636,000. The cleaning is underway and anticipated to be completed in FY 2016. These studies also recommended that 9,000 linear feet of the interceptor be rehabilitated due to structure issues, which is estimated to cost approximately $3.6 million. Furthermore, it is recommended that 40 manholes along the interceptor be lined at a cost of approximately $100,000. 12. In prior studies completed by others, cleaning is recommended for the Front Street Interceptor, at an estimated cost of $275,000. The cleaning is underway and anticipated to be completed in FY 2016. Due to structural issues, it is recommended that a section of the interceptor be rehabilitated. This is estimated to cost approximately $3.1 million. 13. It is recommended that cleaning and rehabilitation work be performed at two of the relief interceptors based on prior studies completed by others. The Paxton Creek Relief Interceptor should be cleaned at an estimated cost of $175,000. The Spring Creek Relief Interceptor is recommended to be cleaned at an estimated cost of $21,400. These cleanings are underway and anticipated to be completed in FY 2016. It is also recommended that a section of the sewer be rehabilitated due to structural issues, with the associated cost estimated to be $1.3 million.

arcadis.com 32 Consulting Engineer’s Annual Report – Wastewater System

14. Recommended rehabilitation work at the Asylum Run Interceptor is estimated to cost approximately $500,000. 15. Structural deficiencies were identified at the Green, Oxford, and Baily Streets, and Parkway Boulevard sewers. The recommended work to remedy the deficiencies includes full replacement of sewer sections, spot repairs and cured-in-place pipe lining, full replacement of manholes, the addition of manholes, the replacement of certain inlets and combined sewer laterals, and miscellaneous repairs to other manholes. The total cost to complete this work is estimated to be $1,300,000. This project has been awarded and is anticipated to be completed in FY 2017. 16. CCTV investigations at the Water Arsenal Boulevard area sewer resulted in recommendations for the replacement or rehabilitation of approximately 2,600 linear feet of sewer line, the installation of two new manholes, the replacement or reconstruction of one structure, and the abandonment of one structure. The preliminary cost estimate for Phase I of this work was estimated to be approximately $2.7 million. This CEAR summarizes the work completed up to the date of the issuance of this CEAR. Changed conditions occurring or becoming known after such date could affect the material presented to the extent of such changes. Arcadis has no responsibility for updating this CEAR for changes that occur after the date of this report. In preparation of this CEAR, Arcadis has relied upon financial, engineering and operational data, and assumptions prepared by and / or provided by CRW. In addition, information and projections have been provided by other entities working on behalf of CRW. We believe such sources are reliable and the information obtained to be appropriate for the review undertaken and the conclusions reached in this CEAR. To the best of our knowledge, information and belief, the information does not omit material facts necessary to make the statements herein. However, Arcadis has not independently verified the accuracy of the information provided by CRW and others. To the extent that the information is not accurate, the findings and recommendations contained in this CEAR may vary and are subject to change. Arcadis devoted effort in making such opinions consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under same or similar circumstances and the time and budget available for its work in its efforts to endeavor to provide such opinions. The opinions are based on information provided by and consultations with CRW. No responsibility was assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by CRW or any third party data source used in preparing such opinions. Arcadis’ opinions represent its professional judgment. Neither Arcadis nor its parent corporation, or their respective subsidiaries and affiliates, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to such opinions.

arcadis.com 33

APPENDIX A Wastewater System Service Area

A-1

Arcadis U.S., Inc.

855 Route 146

Suite 210 Clifton Park, New York 12065

Tel 518 250 7300

Fax 518 250 7301

www.arcadis.com