Wastewater treatment facility plan recommended

NEW LONDON – The New London Board of Public Works/Sewer Utility Commission has recommended to the New London Common Council the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility that has an estimated cost of $76.6 million for engineering and construction.
The recommendation came at the commission’s June 1 meeting. Also at that meeting, the commission recommended the approval of an agreement with Donohue & Associates for the final design of the facility based off the council’s approved wastewater treatment facility plan option. The estimated cost to design the recommended wastewater treatment facility is $2.9 million.
At the meeting, Mike Gerbitz, senior process engineer, for Donohue & Associates, Inc., reminded the committee that there are four main factors that are driving the city to upgrade its current wastewater treatment facility or to construct a new facility.
The main factor is the state of Wisconsin has a lower phosphorus limit that needs to be met and the city’s current wastewater treatment facility cannot meet that requirement.
The second factor is the fact the city’s current wastewater treatment facility has aging infrastructure. Much of it is 40-70 years old.

“It will become increasingly expensive and challenging to maintain that facility,” Gerbitz said. “…It’s operating well today, but it’s old, it’s tired, it’s going to take some investment.”
The third factor is the current wastewater treatment facility is becoming obsolete and it is complex. Gerbitz said the current facility was built for a collection system and wastewater that is different than today.
“That existing facility was set up for a community that has very high industrial loadings, those aren’t in your service area anymore,” Gerbitz said.
The fourth factor is the lack of flexibility of the current wastewater treatment facility to meet changes in the wastewater treatment industry. Gerbitz said at some point in the future nitrogen limits will also need to be lowered.
“Those four things are the four things that we tried to solve as we developed our treatment facility,” Gerbitz said.
He added that even though the current wastewater treatment facility is working well now, he said the city needs to invest in a wastewater treatment facility.
“I think the question is not do we need to invest. You need to invest, but should you continue reinvesting in that facility, that complex facility that doesn’t have a lot of flexibility to meet the demands of the future, or is it time to make an investment in something different that positions the community, not just today, but well into the future?” Gerbitz asked. “Is it time to make the transition to a facility that’s better configured for the future.”

Schedule
Gerbitz said the city is under a deadline to submit a final compliance alternative plan by the end of June.
“And if that requires significant improvements, a facility plan,” Gerbitz said.

He added that the city’s wastewater treatment facility needs to be in compliance for the new phosphorus limits by July 2031.
The next step in the process is choosing a final design for a new wastewater treatment facility, Gerbitz said. Once the design is completed, bids need to be requested and submitted to the city before April 30, 2027. That deadline must be met for the city to receive Clean Water Fund funds. New London is scheduled to receive $3.1 million. Some of these funds may not be available if the city delays moving forward with the new wastewater treatment facility.
Gerbitz recommended construction of the new facility be completed by the end of 2030. This would allow the city’s wastewater treatment facility staff to become familiar with the new facility prior to July 2031.

Facility alternatives
Gerbitz presented seven wastewater treatment plant alternatives, with four of them focused exclusively on the new phosphorus limit.

The first alternative is for the city to do nothing. Gerbitz said this is not a feasible alternative.
The second alternative is the multi-discharger variance. Gerbitz said this has been extended to 2035. Under this plan, the city would have to pay for each pound of phosphorus discharged, which would cost the city around $70,000 per year. Under this alternative, the city would still need to do something with its wastewater treatment facility by 2035 to meet the new phosphorus limit.
The third alternative would be for the city to use some sort of “outside the fence programs.” Gerbitz said these programs are not realistic and would be expensive.
The fourth alternative would be effluent filtration. This alternative would address only the new phosphorus limit by adding another filtration building to the existing wastewater treatment facility, Gerbitz said. This would create more complexity to an already complex facility.
Gerbitz said the final three alternatives address all four of the factors for the need of a new wastewater treatment facility.
The fifth alternative would be to add effluent filtration and upgrade all the buildings at the current wastewater treatment facility.
“The intention of this alternative is to give you all new equipment and retain the infrastructure,” Gerbitz said.
He added that this alternative would mean the facility would meet the new phosphorus limit and keep the existing plant as it is configured. But it would make the already complex facility more complex. This alternative also would not allow the facility to meet future nitrogen limits.
The sixth alternative would be the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility that would create Class B biosolids that would be hauled out.
“This is a modern day streamlined treatment facility, much simpler, much more in line with today’s effluent limits, and one that’s been tried and true all over the state, it really doesn’t get much simpler than this,” Gerbitz said.
The seventh alternative would also be the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility, but this one would produce Class A biosolids. Under this alternative, a dryer would be used to turn the biosolids into pellets.
“That becomes an unregulated fertilizer product,” Gerbitz said.
Communities who have this type of a wastewater treatment facility have found that they don’t have any hauling costs, as landowners will pick up the pellets from the facility, Gerbitz said.
He added that this alternative would achieve the phosphorus compliance limit, it is a simpler facility, is efficient to operate, and is flexible to meet other limits in the future.

Costs

The total project costs, including construction and engineering for alternatives five, six, and seven are as follows: $55,879,000 for alternative five, $73,017,000 for alternative six, and $76,652,000 for alternative seven.
“No matter what this community does, it’s a huge, huge investment,” Gerbitz said.
He added that alternative seven addresses all the factors that are leading to a new wastewater treatment facility, and would also address future needs if other limits are enacted.
“Alternative seven is the right long-term investment, generational investment for the community,” Gerbitz said. “It checks all the boxes for today and tomorrow.”

User rates

Gerbitz said the average residential rate payer in the city of New London pays $54 per month for wastewater services. If the city were to pursue alternative seven, Gerbitz said it could implement four wastewater rate increases by 2030 to pay for the new facility. The monthly wastewater rate could increase to an estimated $67 per month in 2027, $81 per month in 2028, $95 per month in 2029, and $109 per month in 2030.
If alternative five were chosen, rates would increase to an estimated $88 per month by 2030.
The actual rate structure would be determined by the city and its financial advisor, Gerbitz said.