nutrients reduction - new york new jersey … reduction cost estimation study summary report in...

NUTRIENTS REDUCTIONCOST ESTIMATION STUDY

SUMMARY REPORT

In support of theNew York-New Jersey

Harbor Estuary Program

Submitted to:New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program

Submitted on behalf of:New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group

By:

February 28, 2008

New Jersey Harbor Dischargers GroupNutrients Reduction Cost Estimation Study

Summary Report

- i -

NUTRIENTS REDUCTION COST ESTIMATION STUDYSUMMARY REPORT

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1

2.0 GENERIC PLANT DESCRIPTIONS.............................................................................3

2.1 Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant .................................................................42.2 Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant .........................................................................62.3 Generic Trickling Filter Plant..........................................................................................7

3.0 PROPOSED NUTRIENT REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES .............................................9

3.1 Recommended Nitrogen-Targeting Technologies............................................................93.2 Recommended Carbon-Targeting Technologies ............................................................10

4.0 NUTRIENT REMOVAL UPGRADE SCENARIOS.....................................................31

4.1 Basis of Original Upgrades ...........................................................................................314.2 Basis of Upgrades with Wet Weather Bypass................................................................314.3 Basis of Upgrades with Seasonal Limits........................................................................314.4 Basis of Upgrades with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass ................................324.5 Upgrade Scenario Impacts on Nitrogen-Targeting Processes at the Generic

Conventional Activated Sludge Plant ............................................................................334.6 Upgrade Scenario Impacts on Nitrogen-Targeting Processes at the

Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants .......................................344.7 Upgrade Scenario Impacts on Carbon-Targeting Processes at the

Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant ...............................................................374.8 Upgrade Scenario Impacts on Carbon-Targeting Processes at the

Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants .......................................37

5.0 GENERIC PLANT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES .....................................................38

5.1 Generic Plant Capital Cost Estimating Methodology and Assumptions..........................385.2 Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant Capital Cost Estimates ...........................395.3 Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant Capital Cost Estimates....................................435.4 Generic Trickling Filter Plant Capital Cost Estimates....................................................47

6.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY .....51

6.1 Staffing – Original Upgrade Scenario............................................................................516.2 Staffing – Additional Upgrade Scenarios ......................................................................536.3 Chemicals – Original Upgrade Scenario........................................................................546.4 Chemicals – Additional Upgrade Scenarios...................................................................546.5 Sludge Processing and Disposal – Original Upgrade Scenario .......................................556.6 Sludge Processing and Disposal – Additional Upgrade Scenarios ..................................566.7 Energy – Original Upgrade Scenario.............................................................................576.8 Energy – Additional Upgrade Scenarios........................................................................576.9 Maintenance – Original and Additional Upgrade Scenarios ...........................................58


Summary Report

- ii -

7.0 PRESENT WORTH, PRESENT COST, TOTAL ANNUALIZED PRESENT COSTAND FUTURE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY...........................................59

8.0 PLANT-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATES AND NUTRIENT REDUCTIONCOST CURVES ...........................................................................................................60

8.1 Methodology for Calculating Plant-Specific Cost Estimates ..........................................608.2 Methodology for Calculating Plant-Specific Nutrient Reduction ...................................618.3 PVSC ...........................................................................................................................658.4 MCUA .........................................................................................................................708.5 BCUA ..........................................................................................................................748.6 JMEUC ........................................................................................................................808.7 RVSA...........................................................................................................................848.8 NHSA – Adams Street ..................................................................................................898.9 LRSA...........................................................................................................................948.10 NHSA – River Road .....................................................................................................998.11 EMUA........................................................................................................................1048.12 SMUA........................................................................................................................1088.13 NBMUA.....................................................................................................................113

9.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................118

9.1 Cumulative NJHDG Cost Curves and Observations ....................................................1189.2 Environmental Impacts of Increased Energy Demand .................................................125


Summary Report

- iii -

TABLES

3-1. Technology Recommendations and Expected Effluent Quality - Generic ConventionalActivated Sludge Plant

3-2. Technology Recommendations and Expected Effluent Quality - Generic OxygenActivated Sludge Plant

3-3. Technology Recommendations and Expected Effluent Quality - Generic Trickling FilterPlant

3-4. Design Criteria Summary Table for Carbon-Targeting Removal at the GenericConventional Activated Sludge Plant

3-5. Design Criteria Summary Table for Carbon-Targeting Removal at the Generic OxygenActivated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

3-6. Design Criteria Summary Table for Nitrogen-Targeting Removal at the GenericConventional Activated Sludge Plant

3-7. Design Criteria Summary Table for Nitrogen-Targeting Removal at the Generic OxygenActivated Sludge Plant

3-8. Design Criteria Summary Table for Nitrogen-Targeting Removal at the Generic TricklingFilter Plant

4-1. Summary of existing and additional required process tankage for nitrogen-targetingupgrade scenarios at the generic conventional activated sludge plant

4-2. Summary of existing and additional required process tankage for nitrogen-targetingupgrade scenarios at the generic oxygen activated sludge plant

4-3. Summary of existing and additional required process tankage for nitrogen-targetingupgrade scenarios at the generic trickling filter plant

4-1. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimate Summary for Generic Plants4-1. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimate Summary for Generic Plants4-2. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” Required for Generic Conventional Activated Sludge

Plant Nutrient Removal Upgrades4-3. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” Required for Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant

Nutrient Removal Upgrades4-4. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” Required for Generic Trickling Filter Plant Nutrient

Removal Upgrades

5-1. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimates for Nitrogen Removal: Generic ConventionalActivated Sludge Plant

5-2. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimates for Carbon Removal: Generic ConventionalActivated Sludge Plant

5-3. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” for Nitrogen Removal Upgrades: Generic ConventionalActivated Sludge Plant

5-4. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” for Carbon Removal Upgrades: Generic ConventionalActivated Sludge Plant

5-5. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimates for Nitrogen Removal: Generic Oxygen ActivatedSludge Plant

5-6. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimates for Carbon Removal: Generic Oxygen ActivatedSludge Plant

5-7. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” for Nitrogen Removal Upgrades: Generic OxygenActivated Sludge Plant

5-8. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” for Carbon Removal Upgrades: Generic OxygenActivated Sludge Plant

5-9. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimates for Nitrogen Removal: Generic Trickling Filter Plant


Summary Report

- iv -

5-10. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimates for Carbon Removal: Generic Trickling Filter Plant5-11. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” for Nitrogen Removal Upgrades: Generic Trickling

Filter Plant5-12. Estimated Site Area “Footprint” for Carbon Removal Upgrades: Generic Trickling

Filter Plant

6-1. Anticipated Staff Needs for Conventional Activated Sludge Plants6-2. Anticipated Staff Needs for Oxygen Activated Sludge Plants6-3. Anticipated Staff Needs for Trickling Filter Plants6-4. Assumed Nitrogen Removal Performance over Winter Months at Oxygen Activated

Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

7-1. PVSC Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-2. MCUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-3. BCUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-4. JMEUC Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-5. RVSA Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-6. NHSA – Adams Street Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-7. LRSA Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-8. NHSA – River Road Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-9. EMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-10. SMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary7-11. NBMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary

8-1. Approach for Choosing Expected Effluent TSS for Carbon-Targeting Technologies Year8-2. Assumed Nitrogen Removal Pattern over Winter Season for Seasonal Limits Scenarios at

Conventional Activated Sludge Plants8-3. Assumed Nitrogen Removal Performance over Winter Months at Oxygen Activated

Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants8-4. PVSC Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-5. MCUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-6. Summary of Existing and Additional Required Aeration and Final Settling Tanks for

Nitrogen Removal Upgrade Scenarios at the BCUA Plant8-7. BCUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-8. JMEUC Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-9. RVSA Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-10. NHSA Adams Street Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-11. LRSA Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-12. NHSA River Road Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-13. EMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-14. SMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary8-15. NBMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary

9-1. Impact of Increased Energy Demand as Pounds of CO2 per Year9-2. Impact of Increased Energy Demand as Barrels of Oil per Year


Summary Report

- v -

FIGURES

3-1. Process flow diagrams for nitrogen-targeting removal at the Generic ConventionalActivated Sludge Plant

3-2. Process flow diagrams for carbon-targeting removal at the Generic ConventionalActivated Sludge Plant

3-3. Process flow diagrams for nitrogen-targeting removal at the Generic Oxygen ActivatedSludge and Trickling Filter Plants

3-4. Process flow diagrams for carbon-targeting removal at the Generic Oxygen ActivatedSludge and Trickling Filter Plants

8-1A. PVSC Nitrogen Removal8-1B. PVSC Carbon Removal8-2A. MCUA Nitrogen Removal8-2B. MCUA Carbon Removal8-3A. BCUA Nitrogen Removal8-3B. BCUA Carbon Removal8-4A. JMEUC Nitrogen Removal8-4B. JMEUC Carbon Removal8-5A. RVSA Nitrogen Removal8-5B. RVSA Carbon Removal8-6A. NHSA Adams Street Nitrogen Removal8-6B. NHSA Adams Street Carbon Removal8-7A. LRSA Nitrogen Removal8-7B. LRSA Carbon Removal8-8A. NHSA River Road Nitrogen Removal8-8B. NHSA River Road Carbon Removal8-9A. EMUA Nitrogen Removal8-9B. EMUA Carbon Removal8-10A. SMUA Nitrogen Removal8-10B. SMUA Carbon Removal8-11A. NBMUA Nitrogen Removal8-11B. NBMUA Carbon Removal

9-1. Cumulative NJHDG Nitrogen Removal9-2. Cumulative NJHDG Carbon Removal9-3. Cumulative Nitrogen Removal at Conventional Activated Sludge Plants9-4. Cumulative Carbon Removal at Conventional Activated Sludge Plants9-5. Cumulative Nitrogen Removal at Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants9-6. Cumulative Carbon Removal at Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants


Summary Report

- vi -

APPENDICES

A PVSC Plant-Specific InformationB MCUA Plant-Specific InformationC BCUA Plant-Specific InformationD JMEUC Plant-Specific InformationE RVSA Plant-Specific InformationF NHSA Adams Street Plant-Specific InformationG LRSA Plant-Specific InformationH NHSA River Road Plant-Specific InformationI EMUA Plant-Specific InformationJ SMUA Plant-Specific InformationK NBMUA Plant-Specific InformationL Generic Plant Summary TablesM Manufacturer’s Technical Information – Kruger BAFN Manufacturer’s Technical Information – IDI BAFO Manufacturer’s Technical Information – STS TETRA Denite FilterP Manufacturer’s Technical Information – IDI ABW Traveling Bridge FilterQ Manufacturer’s Technical Information – GE/Siemens MicrofilterR Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant Conceptual Capital Cost EstimatesS Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant Conceptual Capital Cost EstimatesT Generic Trickling Filter Plant Conceptual Cost Estimates


Summary Report

- 1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) was authorized by the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1987 to develop and implement a plan to protect,conserve, and restore the waters of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary that do not fullycomply with dissolved oxygen standards for the various water bodies. In an effort to increase theDO concentrations throughout the NY/NJ Harbor, the Nutrient Work Group, established by theHEP, has been working in coordination with the New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection and New York State Department of Environmental Protection to develop nutrient totalmaximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the harbor. The final TMDL is scheduled to be complete byDecember 2008.

The TMDL will establish nitrogen and carbon load reductions required by the treatment plantsdischarging to the harbor. The regulatory agencies have indicated that the cost of removingnitrogen and carbon will be considered when developing the final TMDL.

EPA has requested that the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP)and the New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group (NJHDG) develop cost curves for achieving low,medium, and high levels of nitrogen and carbon reduction at each of its treatment plants thatdischarge to the harbor. Preliminary nitrogen and carbon reduction cost curves were submitted toEPA on May 31, 2007. These original cost curves were developed based on the premise thatnutrient removal processes would be sized and operated to achieve low, medium and high levelsof nitrogen and carbon removal on a year round basis rather than seasonally, and to process thepeak wet weather flows currently received by each plant without bypassing or blending.Following the submittal of the original draft nitrogen and carbon reduction cost curves, EPArequested that the NJHDG develop cost curves for additional upgrade scenarios that allowed forbypassing of wet weather flows and/or seasonal limits. Consequently, this report presentsnitrogen and carbon reduction cost curves for the following scenarios:

o Original Upgrade Scenarioo Wet Weather Bypass Scenarioo Seasonal Limits Scenarioo Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenario

The NYCDEP has four plants that discharge to the harbor (North River, Port Richmond, OwlsHead and Red Hook), with each plant using the same basic process configuration consisting ofprimary settling followed by conventional air activated sludge operated in a step-feed mode, withanaerobic digestion for sludge stabilization and centrifuge dewatering. The NJHDG has a total of11 plants that use a much wider variety of process configurations, which can be grouped intothree categories: conventional air activated sludge, pure oxygen activated sludge and tricklingfilters. In addition, the NJHDG plants use a variety of approaches to sludge processing.

The NJHDG retained the services of M&E in response to EPA’s request for nitrogen and carbonremoval cost curves. This report summarizes the methodology employed by M&E and presentsthe plant-specific cost estimates and corresponding cost curves for achieving low, medium andhigh levels of nitrogen and carbon removal for each upgrade scenario (i.e. Original, Wet WeatherBypass, Seasonal Limits and Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass) at the eleven plantsoperated by the ten members of the NJHDG:


Summary Report

- 2 -

o Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissionerso Middlesex County Utilities Authorityo Bergen County Utilities Authorityo Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Countieso Rahway Valley Sewerage Authorityo North Hudson Sewerage Authority – Adams Street Planto Linden Roselle Sewerage Authorityo North Hudson Sewerage Authority – River Road Planto Edgewater Municipal Utilities Authorityo Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authorityo North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority

Plant-specific cost estimates were developed through a two-step process beginning withpreparation of conceptual capital cost estimates for achieving low, medium and high levels ofnitrogen and carbon removal at three “generic” plants. The three generic plants reflect theaverage conditions of the individual plants within the three categories of plant types operated bythe NJHDG, i.e. conventional air activated sludge, pure oxygen activated sludge and tricklingfilter.

In the second step, the generic plant conceptual capital cost estimates were used as the startingpoint to develop plant-specific conceptual capital cost estimates for each individual plant. Plant-specific operations and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates were also developed in the secondstep, along with total present costs and total annualized present costs. The plant-specific totalpresent cost is the sum of current plant-specific capital cost plus the present worth of annualO&M costs. Plant-specific total annualized present cost is the sum of annual debt service(associated with amortization of capital) plus annual O&M costs. Future plant-specific costs arebased on escalating the current plant-specific capital cost estimates and present worth of O&Mcosts to the estimated mid-point of construction.

Plant-specific cost curves are based on total present costs, i.e. the sum of current (2007) plant-specific capital cost estimates plus the present worth of annual O&M costs.

The generic plant descriptions are summarized below, followed by descriptions of: proposednutrient removal technologies; capital cost estimating methodology, including generic plantcapital cost estimates and plant-specific factors used to modify the conceptual costs; operationsand maintenance cost estimating methodology; and present worth, present cost, total annualizedcost, and future cost estimating methodology. The plant-specific cost estimates andcorresponding cost curves follow the background information on cost estimating methodology,along with an overview of environmental impacts associated with increased energy demandassociated with nutrient removal. Supporting information is presented in the appendices.


Summary Report

- 3 -

2.0 GENERIC PLANT DESCRIPTIONS

In order to develop conceptual nutrient removal cost estimates for achieving low, medium andhigh levels of nitrogen and carbon removal at the NJHDG’s wastewater treatment plants, genericplant descriptions were prepared based on the characterization of existing conditions andperformance of the wastewater treatment plants operated by NJHDG members. Generic plantdescriptions were prepared for each of the three categories of plant types operated by the NJHDG,i.e. conventional air activated sludge, pure oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter. Plants fallinto the three categories of plant types as identified below with the corresponding permitted flowcapacity:

Conventional Activated Sludge Plants:o Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA) – 94 mgdo Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties (JMEUC) – 75 mgdo Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority (RVSA) – 40 mgdo Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority (LRSA) – 17 mgd

Oxygen Activated Sludge Plants:o Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC) – 330 mgdo Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) – 150 mgdo Edgewater Municipal Utilities Authority (EMUA) – 6 mgd

Trickling Filter Plants:o North Hudson Sewerage Authority (NHSA) – Adams Street Plant – 21 mgdo North Hudson Sewerage Authority – River Road Plant – 10 mgdo Secaucus Municipal Utility Authority (SMUA) – 5 mgdo North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority (NBMUA) – 3 mgd

The generic plant descriptions are based on the following key information pertinent to capital andO&M cost estimate development:

o Influent flows and loadso Recycle flows and loadso Primary effluent qualityo Plant effluent qualityo Liquid treatment process parameters

o Primary and secondary clarifier surface overflow rateso Biological reactor loading and residence times

o Sludge processing parameterso Wastewater temperature

The existing conditions and performance of each plant are documented in the Site VisitMemoranda and Plant Data Summaries found in Appendices A through K. Because LRSA,NBMUA, NHSA – Adams Street, NHSA – River Road, and SMUA plant operational data wasincorporated into the Site Visit Memoranda, a separate Plant Data Summary is not included aspart of the Appendices for these plants.

Appendix L presents flow and load, treatment process parameter and sludge processing parametersummary tables for each of the generic plants. In cases where data is not available, an “NR” is


Summary Report

- 4 -

indicated. These summary tables show data for each plant, average values, and valuesrecommended by M&E for the generic plant.

In terms of effluent quality, it is important to note that while some individual plants occasionallyor consistently achieve partial to full nitrification, the generic plants are not able to reliablyachieve full nitrification year round. Considerations for individual plant nitrification performancecapabilities, as well as other significant process variances from the generic plant, will be madewhen developing the plant-specific cost estimates.

2.1 Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant

The recommended values for the generic conventional activated sludge plant are summarizedbelow. Note that flow rates are based on JMEUC, and removal percentages are cumulativerelative to plant influent concentrations.

Influent flows and loads:o 70 mgd avg annual flowo 100 mgd max month flowo 190 mgd peak wet weather hourly flowo 105 mgd peak wet weather hourly flow (with bypassing)o BOD: 200 mg/L avg annualo TSS: 200 mg/L avg annualo NH3-N: 20 mg/L avg annualo TKN: 35 mg/L avg annual

Recycle flows and loads:o Recycle streams consist of gravity thickener overflow, mechanical thickener

filtrate/centrate, and dewatering filtrate/centrate, all directed to head of primaryclarifiers

o Combined flow of recycle streams is approximately 10% of plant flowo Data on recycle streams NH3-N concentration is limited, but is expected to be

considerably higher than influent concentrationo 6 mgd avg annual flow (combined total recycle)o 9 mgd max month flow (combined total recycle)

o BOD: 350 mg/L avg annualo TSS: 600 mg/L avg annualo NH3-N: 76 mg/L avg annual

Primary clarifier overflow rates and performance:o SOR: 1,500 gpd/ft2 avg annual

2,150 gpd/ft2 max montho BOD: 135 mg/L

33% removalo TSS: 115 mg/L

43% removalo NH3-N: 25 mg/Lo TKN: 33 mg/L


Summary Report

- 5 -

Biological reactor loading, configuration, and performance:o HRT: 5.0 hrs avg annual

3.5 hrs max month

o BOD loading: 45 lb BOD/day/1000ft3 avg annual55 lb BOD/day/1000ft3 max month

o Process Parameters: MLSS 1,500 – 2,000 mg/LRAS approximately 50% plant flow

o Configuration: Generic Plant will operate in a step feed mode, consistent withNYCDEP conventional activated sludge plants

Final clarifier overflow rates and performance:o SOR: 750 gpd/ft2 avg annual

1,070 gpm/ft2 max montho BOD 10 mg/L avg annual

95% removal (overall plant)o TSS: 15 mg/L avg annual

93% removal (overall plant)o NH3-N: 18 mg/L avg annual

10% removal (overall plant)o TKN: 21 mg/L avg annual

30% removal (overall plant)

Sludge handling system components and loadingo Primary sludge gravity thickened to 2-5% solidso Secondary sludge thickened mechanically – GBT or thickening centrifugeo Dewatered sludge production at 22-25% solids by belt press or centrifugeo Anaerobic digester HRT 30 days achieving 50% VS reductiono Primary sludge production 50,000 lb/day (dry)o Secondary sludge production 25,000 lb/day (dry)o Thickened sludge production 70,000 lb/day (dry)o Dewatered sludge production 45,000 lb/day (dry)

Wastewater Temperatureo 18º C avg annualo 14º C min month (for seasonal limits)o 11º C min month (for year-round limits)


Summary Report

- 6 -

2.2 Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant

The recommended values for the generic oxygen activated sludge plant are summarized below.Note that flow rates are based on MCUA, and removal percentages are cumulative relative toplant influent concentrations.

Influent flows and loads:o 130 mgd avg annual flowo 160 mgd max month flowo 380 mgd peak wet weather hourly flowo 195 mgd peak wet weather hourly flow (with bypassing)o BOD: 200 mg/L avg annualo TSS: 210 mg/L avg annualo NH3-N: 21 mg/L avg annualo TKN: 35 mg/L avg annual

Recycle flows and loads:o Recycle streams consist of gravity thickener overflow and dewatering filtrateo 15 mgd avg annual (combined total recycle)o 18 mgd max month (combined total recycle)o BOD: 800 mg/L avg annualo TSS: 1,100 mg/L avg annualo NH3-N: 120 mg/L avg annual

Primary clarifier overflow rates and performance:o SOR: 1,550 gpd/ft2 avg annual

1,900 gpd/ft2 max montho BOD: 150 mg/L

25% removalo TSS: 115 mg/L

45% removalo NH3-N: Not measuredo TKN: Not measured

Biological reactor loading, process parameters, and performance:o HRT: 2.6 hrs avg annual

2.1 hrs max month


o Process Parameters: MLSS 2,000 – 3,000 mg/LRAS approximately 50 – 60%


Summary Report

- 7 -

Final clarifier overflow rates and effluent performance:o SOR: 610 gpd/ft2 avg annual

750 gpd/ft2 max montho BOD: 18 mg/L

91% removal (overall plant)o TSS: 16 mg/L

92% removal (overall plant)o NH3-N: 16 mg/L

20% removal (overall plant)o TKN: 21 mg/L

40% removal (overall plant)

Sludge handling system components and loadingo Combined primary and secondary sludges gravity thickened to 2–4% solids.o Thickened sludge dewatered to about 22–24% solids by belt filter presses.o Primary sludge production 220,000 lb/day (dry)o Secondary sludge production 120,000 lb/day (dry)o Thickened sludge production 320,000 lb/day (dry)o Dewatered sludge production 270,000 lb/day (dry)

Wastewater Temperatureo 19º C avg annualo 15º C min month (for seasonal limits)o 13º C min month (for year round limits)

2.3 Generic Trickling Filter Plant

The recommended values for the generic trickling filter plant are summarized below. Note thatflow rates are based on NHSA River Road Plant, and removal percentages are cumulative relativeto plant influent concentrations.

Influent flows and loads:o 10 mgd avg annual flowo 12 mgd max month flowo 20 mgd peak wet weather hourly flowo 15 mgd peak wet weather hourly flow (with bypassing)o BOD: 170 mg/L avg annualo TSS: 155 mg/L avg annualo NH3-N: 25 mg/L avg annualo TKN: 35 mg/L avg annualo Limited Nitrogen data available. Assumed NH3-N and TKN based on other plants

and typical medium strength domestic wastewater concentrations.

Recycle flows and loads:o Gravity thickening overflow or GBT filtrate directed to primary clarifier influento Limited recycle flow and load data available. Recycle flow was estimated based on

thickened sludge production.o 0.3 mgd avg annual flow


Summary Report

- 8 -

o BOD: 345 mg/L avg annualo TSS: 540 mg/L avg annual

Primary clarifier overflow rates and performance:o SOR: 500 gpd/ft2 avg annual

600 gpd/ft2 max montho Primary clarifier performance estimated based on typical removal curves.o BOD: 119 mg/L avg annual effluent concentration

30% removalo TSS: 62 mg/L avg annual effluent concentration

60% removal

Biological reactor loading, process parameters, and performance:o Hydraulic loading: 0.5 gpm/ft2 avg annual

0.6 gpm/ft2 max month0.7 gpm/ft2 avg design


o Max. Recycle: 40% design average

o Configuration: plastic media, crossflow

Final clarifier overflow rates and effluent performance:o SOR: 430 gpd/ft2 avg annual

520 gpd/ft2 max montho BOD: 20 mg/L avg annual

88% removal (overall plant)o TSS: 15 mg/L avg annual

90% removal (overall plant)o NH3-N: 21 mg/L avg annualo TKN: 26 mg/L avg annualo Assume reliable year round nitrification does not occur in the generic plant.

Sludge handling system components and loadingo Thickened sludge production 13,000 gpd at 5-6% solids to PVSC

6,500 lb/day dry at 6% solidso Sludge digesters HRT No digestion at planto Dewatered sludge production No dewatering at plant

Wastewater Temperatureo 19º C avg annualo 15º C min month (for seasonal limits)o 12º C min month (for year round limits)


Summary Report

- 9 -

3.0 PROPOSED NUTRIENT REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES

A wide range of technologies to achieve nutrient removal were presented to the NJHDG duringthe Nutrient Removal Seminar held on March 15, 2007. At the conclusion of the seminar, M&Epresented its preliminary recommendations on the specific technologies that should be utilized asthe basis for developing conceptual cost estimates for the generic plants. M&E’s final technologyrecommendations are presented in Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 for the generic conventional activatedsludge plant, generic oxygen activated sludge plant and generic trickling filter plant, respectively.In all cases, technologies were selected that were deemed suitable for reliably meeting a specificnumerical effluent limitation. These tables also present the expected effluent qualitycorresponding to each level of nutrient removal, together with current effluent quality and thecurrent annual average, maximum monthly and peak wet weather hourly flows.

Based on a request from EPA subsequent to the Nutrient Removal Seminar, Tables 3-1, 3-2 and3-3 separately address technologies for achieving nitrogen and carbon removal. EPA made thissame request to NYCDEP. For the three additional upgrade scenarios that EPA requested beevaluated following submission of the original preliminary cost curves, the expected effluentquality shown in Tables 3-1 through 3-3 is associated with the portion of the flow that is notbypassed (for upgrade scenarios involving wet weather bypass) or is discharged between the in-season start and end dates (for alternatives involving seasonal limits).

An overview of the recommended nitrogen and carbon-targeting technologies listed in Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 is presented below. Process flow schematics depicting the recommended nutrientremoval technologies are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-4.

Key design criteria for the recommended nutrient removal technologies are presented in Tables 3-4 through 3-7. Table 3-4 presents key design criteria for carbon-targeting technologies at thegeneric conventional activated sludge plant. Table 3-5 presents key design criteria for carbon-targeting technologies at the generic oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants. Tables 3-6, 3-7 and 3-8 present key design criteria for nitrogen-targeting technologies at the genericconventional activated sludge, oxygen activated sludge, and trickling filter plants, respectively.Sizing of nutrient removal process equipment was based on all units being in service at peakflow.

3.1 Recommended Nitrogen-Targeting Technologies

The technologies and related improvements for achieving low, medium and high levels ofnitrogen removal at the generic conventional activated sludge plant are consistent with thetechnologies being used by NYCDEP for upgrading its conventional activated sludge plants.However, unlike the NYCDEP plants, based on the results of process modeling (using BioWin),the generic conventional activated sludge plant will not be able to reliably nitrify and denitrifyyear round in a Step Feed Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) mode. As a result, under theoriginal upgrade scenario, the generic conventional activated sludge plant will require additionalaeration volume and additional final settling tanks in order to implement Step Feed BNR. Thedifference in performance capabilities of the NYCDEP plants and the NJHDG’s genericconventional activated sludge can be attributed to differences in a number of factors includingexisting aeration tank volume, organic loading, final settling tank surface area, and flowratethrough the secondary treatment process. The impact of seasonal limits and the bypassing ofpeak wet weather flows on the need for additional aeration volume and final settling tanks ispresented in Section 4.0.


Summary Report

- 10 -

The technologies and related improvements for achieving medium and high levels of nitrogenremoval in the generic trickling filter plant and generic oxygen activated sludge plants areessentially the same as proposed during the nutrient removal seminar. For medium levels ofnitrogen removal, attached growth upflow biological aerated filters (BAFs) will be installeddownstream of the secondary clarifiers to partially nitrify and denitrify. For high levels ofnitrogen removal, a fully nitrifying upflow BAF will be used in series with a deep bed downflowdenitrification filter. For both levels of treatment, intermediate pumping will be required due tothe headloss associated with these processes.

Nitrifying and denitrifying upflow BAFs are manufactured by both Kruger (Biostyr) and InfilcoDegremont (Biofor), and have a significant track record of performance in small and large plants.The predominant manufacturer of deep bed downflow denitrification filters is Severn TrentServices (STS). Abbreviated technical information on the Kruger Biostyr BAF, Infilco BioforBAF and STS TETRA denitrification filter are presented in Appendices M, N, and O,respectively.

As discussed during the nutrient removal seminar, the options to achieve low levels of nitrogenremoval through non-structural improvements are very limited when a plant cannot reliablyachieve nitrification and denitrification through operational modifications alone, which is the casewith all three generic plants. As previously indicated, under the original upgrade scenario,additional aeration volume and final settling tanks will be required to implement Step Feed BNRin the generic conventional activated sludge plant. With regard to the generic oxygen activatedsludge plant and generic trickling filter plant, chemical addition is not a viable option to reliablyincrease TSS removal (and thus organic nitrogen removal) to a specific numerical effluentlimitation due to the relatively low effluent TSS concentrations currently being produced by thesegeneric plants. As a result, it is recommended that shallow media, low headloss filtration be usedto achieve low levels of nitrogen removal through increased TSS removal. The result will be arelatively high cost to achieve a very modest level of nitrogen removal.

The recommended shallow media low headloss filter is the traveling bridge type, which has anextensive track record in small and large plants. The predominant traveling bridge filtermanufacturer is Infilco Degremont (IDI). Technical information on the IDI automatic backwashtraveling bridge filter is presented in Appendix P.

3.2 Recommended Carbon-Targeting Technologies

For low levels of carbon (CBOD) removal at all generic plants, non-structural improvements(such as polymer addition) are not viable for reliably reducing effluent TSS concentrations (andthus particulate CBOD concentrations) to a specific numerical effluent limitation, since thegeneric plants already achieve a relatively low effluent TSS concentration. As a result, a shallowmedia low headloss filter of the traveling bridge type was selected to achieve low levels of carbonremoval through the reduction in particulate CBOD associated with the reduction in effluent TSS.For oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, this is the same technology as proposed forthe low level of nitrogen removal.

For the generic conventional activated sludge plant, the technologies for achieving medium andhigh levels of carbon removal are consistent with what NYCDEP is assuming for its conventionalactivated sludge plants, which is deep bed filtration for the medium level of carbon removal andmicrofiltration for the high (limit of technology) level of carbon removal.


Summary Report

- 11 -

The proposed deep bed filters are the downflow, dual media type that have an extensive trackrecord in small and large plants. These types of filters are manufactured by Roberts, Leopold andothers. These filters will require intermediate pumping due to the headloss associated with thefiltration process.

The microfilters proposed for cost estimating are the same GE/Zenon microfiltration membranesbeing assumed by NYCDEP for cost estimating. In the case of microfiltration, a permeatepumping system is integral to the microfilters and thus a separate intermediate pump station is notrequired. Manufacturer’s technical information is presented in Appendix Q.

At the generic oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, the current effluent CBOD istoo high for the reduction in particulate CBOD associated with TSS removal via deep bedfiltration or microfiltration to provide an expected effluent CBOD concentration similar to that ofthe generic conventional activated sludge plant. To achieve expected effluent CBODconcentrations similar to that of the conventional activated sludge plant, reduction of solubleCBOD must be achieved in addition to removal of particulate CBOD associated with TSS.Consequently, an aerobic upflow BAF, which would be a single stage unit process, is proposed asan add-on process to achieve soluble and particulate CBOD removal for the medium level ofcarbon removal. For the high level of carbon removal, the aerobic upflow BAF will be used toremove soluble CBOD and microfiltration will follow downstream of the aerobic BAF tomaximize the removal of TSS and thus the removal of particulate CBOD. Although the aerobicBAF is targeting soluble CBOD removal, a high degree of nitrification would also occur, since aBAF sized for high levels of soluble CBOD would create the same conditions required fornitrification. Therefore, the aerobic BAFs were assumed to be of the same size and designcriteria as the fully nitrifying BAFs used as the first stage add-on process for the high level ofnitrogen removal.


Summary Report

- 12 -

Table 3-1Technology Recommendations and Expected Effluent Quality

Generic Conventional Activated Sludge PlantEffluent QualityNutrient

RemovalLevel

Technology Implemented TSS(mg/L)

CBOD(mg/L)

TN(mg/L)

Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant Effluent: Existing ConditionsAvg. Annual Flow: 70 mgd Max. Month Flow: 100 mgd PWWF-Hourly: 190 mgdExisting Current treatment level 15 10 21

Nitrogen-Targeting Removal

Low

Advanced Basic Step Feed BNR:aeration tank expansionsecondary clarifier expansionaeration tank bafflesalkalinity additionprocess air modificationsanoxic zonesRAS capability 100%No recycle stream treatment

12-15 10-15 10-12

Medium

Full Step BNR:all improvements for adv. basic BNRmethanol additionno recycle stream treatment

12-15 10-15 6-10

High

Full Step BNR with Denitrifying Filters:all improvements for full step BNRintermediate pumping stationdenitrifying filters - deep bed downflow

4-5 3-5 4-5

Carbon-Targeting Removal

LowLow Headloss Filtration:shallow media traveling bridge filterno intermediate pump station

5-8 5-8 19-20

MediumHigh Headloss Filtration:deep-bed filterintermediate pump station

4-5 3-5 19-20

HighMicrofiltration:membrane filtrationpermeate pumping system

~1 1-3 19-20


Summary Report

- 13 -


Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge PlantEffluent QualityNutrient

RemovalLevel


CBOD(mg/L)

TN(mg/L)

Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant Effluent: Existing ConditionsAvg. Annual Flow: 130 mgd Max. Month Flow: 160 mgd PWWF, Hourly: 380 mgd

Existing Current treatment level 16 18 21


Low

Low Headloss Filtration:shallow media traveling bridge filterno intermediate pump station or expansion of

existing secondary treatment facilities

5-8 9-14 19-20

Medium

Partially Nitrifying/Denitrifying Filter:biological aerated filters (BAFs) downstream

of the final clarifiers with separatenitrifying and denitrifying cells

nitrifying cells - partial nitrificationdenitrifying cells - shallow bed upflowmethanol additionalkalinity additionintermediate pump station

10-12 5-10 10-12

High

Fully Nitrifying BAF andDeep Bed Denitrifying Filter:nitrifying BAF - full nitrificationdenitrifying filter - deep bed downflowmethanol additionalkalinity additionintermediate pump station

4-5 3-5 3-5



5-8 9-14 19-20

Medium

Aerobic BAF:intermediate pump stationaerobic BAFalkalinity addition

6-12 5-9 19-20

High

Aerobic BAF w/ Microfiltration:intermediate pump stationaerobic BAFalkalinity additionmembrane filtration

~1 1-3 19-20


Summary Report

- 14 -


Generic Trickling Filter PlantEffluent QualityNutrient

RemovalLevel


CBOD(mg/L)

TN(mg/L)

Generic Trickling Filter Plant Effluent: Existing ConditionsAvg. Annual Flow: 10 mgd Max. Month Flow: 12 mgd PWWF, Hourly: 20 mgd

Existing Current treatment level 15 20 26


Low

Low Headloss Filtration:shallow media traveling bridge filterno intermediate pump station or expansion of

existing secondary treatment facilities

5-8 10-15 25

Medium

Partially Nitrifying/Denitrifying Filter:biological aerated filter (BAF) downstream of

the final clarifiers with separate nitrifyingand denitrifying cells

nitrifying cells - partial nitrificationdenitrifying cells - shallow bed upflowmethanol additionalkalinity additionintermediate pump station

10-12 5-10 10-12

High

Fully Nitrifying BAF andDeep Bed Denitrifying Filter:nitrifying BAF - full nitrificationdenitrifying filter - deep bed downflowmethanol additionalkalinity additionintermediate pump station

4-5 3-5 3-5



5-8 10-15 25

Medium

Aerobic BAF:intermediate pump stationaerobic BAFalkalinity addition

6-12 5-9 25

High

Aerobic BAF w/ Microfiltration:intermediate pump stationaerobic BAFalkalinity additionmembrane filtration

~1 1-3 24


Summary Report

- 15 -

Figures 3-1A through 3-1FProcess flow diagrams for nitrogen-targeting removal at the

Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant

Figure 3-1A. “Low” nitrogen-targeting removal

Figure 3-1B. “Low” nitrogen-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

PrimaryEffluent

To Disinfection& Discharge

ClarifierExpansion

Aeration tank expansion andmodifications for step feed BNR

Alkalinity

DiversionChamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass

PrimaryEffluent


ClarifierExpansion


Alkalinity


Summary Report

- 16 -

Figure 3-1C. “Medium” nitrogen-targeting removal

Figure 3-1D. “Medium” nitrogen-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

PrimaryEffluent


ClarifierExpansion


Alkalinity

DiversionChamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass

Methanol

PrimaryEffluent


ClarifierExpansion


Alkalinity

Methanol


Summary Report

- 17 -

Figure 3-1E. “High” nitrogen-targeting removal

Figure 3-1F. “High” nitrogen-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

PrimaryEffluent

ClarifierExpansion


Alkalinity

Methanol

IntermediatePumping

Deep-BedDenite Filter To Disinfection

& Discharge

PE

ClarifierExpansion


Alkalinity

Methanol

IntermediatePumping

Deep-BedDenite Filter

DC

JC

Wet Weather Bypass

PE = Primary EffluentDC = Diversion ChamberJC = Junction ChamberD&D = Disinfection & Discharge

D&D


Summary Report

- 18 -

Figures 3-2A through 3-2FProcess flow diagrams for carbon-targeting removal at the


Figure 3-2A. “Low” carbon-targeting removal

Figure 3-2B. “Low” carbon-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

Figure 3-2C. “Medium” carbon-targeting removal

Figure 3-2D. “Medium” carbon-targeting removal

Deep-Bed FilterSecondary

Effluent

IntermediatePumping

To Disinfection& DischargeDiversion

Chamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass

SecondaryEffluent

Shallow MediaFilter


DiversionChamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass

SecondaryEffluent

Shallow MediaFilter To Disinfection

& Discharge

Deep-Bed FilterSecondary

EffluentIntermediate

PumpingTo Disinfection& Discharge


Summary Report

- 19 -

Figure 3-2E. “High” carbon-targeting removal

Figure 3-2F. “High” carbon-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

`

SecondaryEffluent

Microfiltration

SecondaryEffluent

Microfiltration To Disinfection& Discharge

DiversionChamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass



Summary Report

- 20 -

Figures 3-3A through 3-3CProcess flow diagrams for nitrogen-targeting removal at the

Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

Figure 3-3A. “Low” nitrogen-targeting removal

Figure 3-3B. “Low” nitrogen-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

SecondaryEffluent

Shallow MediaFilter


DiversionChamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass

SecondaryEffluent


& Discharge


Summary Report

- 21 -

Figure 3-3C. “Medium” nitrogen-targeting removal

Figure 3-3D. “Medium” nitrogen-targeting removal with wet weather bypass


PartiallyNitrifying/Denitrifying

BAFIntermediatePumping

SecondaryEffluent

Alkalinity

Methanol

DiversionChamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass

PartiallyNitrifying/Denitrifying

BAFIntermediatePumping


SecondaryEffluent

Alkalinity

Methanol


Summary Report

- 22 -

Figure 3-3E. “High” nitrogen-targeting removal

Figure 3-3F. “High” nitrogen-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

Alkalinity

Methanol

IntermediatePumping


Fully NitrifyingBAF

DCJC

D&D

PE

Wet Weather Bypass

PE = Primary EffluentDC = Diversion ChamberJC = Junction ChamberD&D = Disinfection & Discharge

SecondaryEffluent



Fully NitrifyingBAF

Alkalinity

Methanol

IntermediatePumping


Summary Report

- 23 -

Figures 3-4A through 3-4FProcess flow diagrams for carbon-targeting removal at the

Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

Figure 3-4A. “Low” carbon-targeting removal

Figure 3-4B. “Low” carbon-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

SecondaryEffluent

Shallow MediaFilter


DiversionChamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass

SecondaryEffluent


& Discharge


Summary Report

- 24 -

Figure 3-4C. “Medium” carbon-targeting removal

Figure 3-4D. “Medium” carbon-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

To Disinfection& DischargeIntermediate

Pumping

AerobicBAF

Alkalinity

DiversionChamber

JunctionChamberSecondary

Effluent

Wet Weather Bypass

SecondaryEffluent

IntermediatePumping


AerobicBAF

Alkalinity


Summary Report

- 25 -

Figure 3-4E. “High” carbon-targeting removal

Figure 3-4F. “High” carbon-targeting removal with wet weather bypass

To Disinfection& DischargeSecondary

EffluentIntermediate

Pumping

AerobicBAF

Alkalinity

DiversionChamber

JunctionChamber

Wet Weather Bypass

Microfiltration

To Disinfection& DischargeIntermediate

Pumping

AerobicBAFSecondary

Effluent

Alkalinity

Microfiltration


Summary Report

- 26 -

Table 3-4Design Criteria Summary Table for Carbon-Targeting Removal at the Generic

Conventional Activated Sludge Plant

RemovalLevel

Process Description Key Sizing / Design Criteria

Carbon-TargetingLow Shallow bed filter 2.3 gpm/ft2 filtration rate @ average flow

3.6 gpm/ft2 filtration rate @ peak flow23 gpm/ft2 backwash rate42 min. backwash interval

Medium Deep bed filter 3 gpm/ft2 filtration rate @ average flow5 gpm/ft2 filtration rate @ peak flow

4 scfm/ft2 backwash scour air12 gpm/ft2 backwash water30 min. backwash interval

High Membrane filter 11 gfd @ average flow17 gfd @ peak flow

Table 3-5Design Criteria Summary Table for Carbon-Targeting Removal at the Generic

Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

RemovalLevel


Carbon-TargetingLow Shallow bed filter see Carbon-Targeting, Low, Table 3-4

Medium Aerobic BAF(will nitrify)

Hydraulic Loading: 1.76 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 4 gpm/sf @ peak flowNH3-N Loading: 47 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowProcess air: 1,150 scfm/cellBackwash air: 1,694 scfm/cellAlkalinity addition (Magnesium hydroxide): 7.14 lb alkalinity as CaCO3 per lb NH3-N oxidized 14 days storage

High Aerobic BAF(will nitrify)

Membrane filter

see Aerobic BAF, above

11 gfd @ average flow17 gfd @ peak flow


Summary Report

- 27 -

Table 3-6Design Criteria Summary Table for Nitrogen-Targeting Removal at the Generic

Conventional Activated Sludge Plant

RemovalLevel


Nitrogen-TargetingLow Advanced basic step

feed BNRAT design criteria: MLSS range = 2,300 – 3,500 mg/L SRT range = 6 – 10 daysAlkalinity addition (Magnesium hydroxide): 7.14 lb alkalinity as CaCO3 per lb NH3-N oxidized 14 days storageFST design criteria: SOR at AA 625 gpd/ft2

SOR at MM 725 gpd/ft2

SOR at PF 1,500 gpd/ft2

SLR at AA 20 lb/ft2/day SLR at MM 30 lb/ft2/day SLR at PF 40 lb/ft2/day

Medium Full step BNR see advanced basic BNR criteria aboveadd Methanol addition: 5 lb carbon per lb NO3-N removed Assumes residual soluble BOD in anoxic zone 14 days storage– below ground

High Full step BNR

Deep-bed downflowdenitrifying filter

see full step BNR criteria above

Hydraulic Loading: 1.9 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 5.1 gpm/sf @ peak flowNO3-N Loading: 26 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowBackwash water: 7,000 gpm/cell for 15 minBackwash air: 3,500 cfm/cell for 12 minMethanol addition for CAS plants: 5.0 lb carbon per lb NO3-N removed in denit. filter 3.5 lb carbon per lb NO3-N removed in anoxic zone Assumes residual soluble BOD at filter 14 days storage– below ground


Summary Report

- 28 -

Table 3-7Design Criteria Summary Table for Nitrogen-Targeting Removal at the Generic

Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant

RemovalLevel


Nitrogen-TargetingLow Shallow bed filter see Carbon-Targeting, Low

Medium Nitrifying BAF cells(partial nitrification)

Denitrifying BAF cells

Hydraulic Loading: 1.8 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 5.1 gpm/sf @ peak flowNH3-N Loading: 41 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowAlkalinity addition (Magnesium hydroxide): 7.14 lb alkalinity as CaCO3 per lb NH3-N oxidized 14 days storage

Hydraulic Loading: 2.5 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 7.3 gpm/sf @ peak flowNO3-N Loading: 73 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowMethanol addition: 3.5 lb carbon per lb NO3-N removed Assumes no soluble BOD at filter 14 days storage– below ground

High Nitrifying BAF(full nitrification)


Hydraulic Loading: 1.3 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 3.6 gpm/sf @ peak flowNH3-N Loading: 35 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowProcess air: 1,150 scfm/cellBackwash air: 1,694 scfm/cellAlkalinity addition (Magnesium hydroxide): 7.14 lb alkalinity as CaCO3 per lb NH3-N oxidized 14 days storage

Hydraulic Loading: 1.0 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 2.9 gpm/sf @ peak flowNO3-N Loading: 50 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowBackwash water: 7,000 gpm/cell for 15 minBackwash air: 3,500 cfm/cell for 12 minMethanol addition: 3.5 lb carbon per lb NO3-N removed Assumes no soluble BOD at filter 14 days storage– below ground


Summary Report

- 29 -

Table 3-8Design Criteria Summary Table for Nitrogen-Targeting Removal at the

Generic Trickling Filter Plant.

RemovalLevel


Nitrogen-TargetingLow Shallow bed filter see Carbon-Targeting, Low

Medium Nitrifying BAF cells(partial nitrification)

Denitrifying BAF cells

Hydraulic Loading: 1.8 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 3.7 gpm/sf @ peak flowNH3-N Loading: 43 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowAlkalinity addition (Magnesium hydroxide): 7.14 lb alkalinity as CaCO3 per lb NH3-N oxidized 20 days storage

Hydraulic Loading: 2.5 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 5.0 gpm/sf @ peak flowNO3-N Loading: 69 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowMethanol addition: 3.5 lb carbon per lb NO3-N removed Assumes no soluble BOD at filter 16 days storage – above ground

High Nitrifying BAF(full nitrification)


Hydraulic Loading: 1.3 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 2.5 gpm/sf @ peak flowNH3-N Loading: 33 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowProcess air: 297 scfm/cellBackwash air: 462 scfm/cellAlkalinity addition (Magnesium hydroxide): 7.14 lb alkalinity as CaCO3 per lb NH3-N oxidized 14 days storage– below ground

Hydraulic Loading: 0.8 gpm/sf @ avg flow, 1.6 gpm/sf @ peak flowNO3-N Loading: 54 lb/103 cf media/day @ avg flowBackwash water: 7,000 gpm/cell for 15 minBackwash air: 3,500 cfm/cell for 12 minMethanol addition: 3.5 lb carbon per lb NO3-N removed Assumes no soluble BOD at filter 16 days storage– above ground


Summary Report

- 30 -

The design criteria for BAFs and denitrifying filters shown in Tables 3-6 through 3-8 are basedon the size of facilities proposed by vendors to guarantee effluent qualities corresponding toMedium or High nutrient removal level for the Original Upgrade scenario.


Summary Report

- 31 -

4.0 NUTRIENT REMOVAL UPGRADE SCENARIOS

4.1 Basis of Original Upgrades

o Technologies and related improvements for upgrading the generic plants are listed inTables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3, and are sized based on the Generic Plant flows andcorresponding maximum month influent loads, without bypassing or blending of wetweather flows.

o Effluent concentrations shown in Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 are year round values, notseasonal.

o The generic conventional activated sludge plant can be operated in a step feed mode, butcannot reliably nitrify and denitrify year round without new structures.

o The generic oxygen activated sludge plant and trickling filter plant cannot reliably nitrifyand denitrify year round.

4.2 Basis of Upgrades with Wet Weather Bypass

o Technologies and related improvements for upgrading the generic plants are as listed inTables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 with the addition of diversions chambers, bypass piping andjunction chambers as required for wet weather bypass, as further described below.

o For all plants, where additional carbon removal is accomplished through add-onprocesses downstream of the secondary treatment train, existing peak flow will continueto go through the secondary process, however flow through the downstream add-onprocesses will be limited to 150% of average daily flow by way of bypassing around theadd-on carbon removal process, with secondary effluent flow in excess of 150% ofaverage daily flow blended into the main plant flow prior to disinfection.

o For conventional activated sludge plants where the nitrogen removal process is integral tothe secondary treatment train, peak flow to the secondary system is limited to 150% ofaverage daily flow, with primary effluent flow in excess of 150% of average daily flowblended with secondary effluent prior to disinfection. This is consistent with theapproach being utilized by the NYCDEP.

o For trickling filter and pure oxygen activated sludge plants where nitrogen removal isaccomplished though add-on processes downstream of the secondary treatment train, theexisting peak flow will continue to go through the secondary process, however flowthrough the downstream add-on processes will be limited to 150% of average daily flowby way of bypassing around the nitrogen removal process, with secondary effluent flowin excess of 150% of average daily flow blended with the main plant flow prior todisinfection.

4.3 Basis of Upgrades with Seasonal Limits

o For all plants, the total nitrogen effluent concentrations shown in Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3are seasonal limits for the period May 1st through October 31st of each year, withnitrogen limits not in effect during the period November 1 through April 30 of each year.


Summary Report

- 32 -

o To size the nitrogen removal processes such that a May 1 limit can be reliably met, adesign temperature was selected based on the average of the March and April plantprocess water temperatures. This was selected because to meet a May 1 permit limit, thestart up period would begin in mid-March through April.

o For nitrogen removal processes at conventional activated sludge plants, it was assumedthat swing zones would be used to achieve BNR during the summer season and toachieve full nitrification over the winter season. Achieving nitrification over the winterseason was deemed essential to avoid operational difficulties associated withtransitioning from a non-nitrifying system to nitrifying system. The aeration tank volumerequirement was calculated by accordingly.

o For carbon removal processes at conventional activated sludge plants, the effluentconcentrations shown in Table 3-1 can be achieved year-round irrespective oftemperature through process control adjustments. Therefore, seasonal limits will notreduce the extent of improvements and thus the cost of carbon removal upgrades relativeto the original upgrade scenario.

o For carbon removal processes at oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, theaerobic BAF proposed for medium and high levels of carbon removal will be sized basedon the higher design temperature associated with seasonal limits. A design temperaturewas selected based on the average of the March and April plant process watertemperatures, which is consistent with the approach for seasonal nitrogen removal.

4.4 Basis of Upgrades with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

o For conventional activated sludge plants where the nitrogen removal process is integral tothe secondary treatment train, peak flow to the secondary system is limited to 150% ofaverage daily flow, and the effluent concentrations shown in Table 3-1 are seasonal limitsin effect only during the period May 1st through October 31st of each year.

o For trickling filter and pure oxygen activated sludge plants where nitrogen removal isaccomplished though add-on processes downstream of the secondary treatment train, theexisting peak flow goes through the secondary process, but is limited to 150% of theaverage daily flow through the downstream nitrogen removal process. In addition, theeffluent concentrations shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 are seasonal limits in effect onlyduring the period May 1st through October 31st of each

o To size the nitrogen removal processes such that a May 1 limit can be reliably met, adesign temperature was selected based on the average of the March and April plantprocess water temperatures. This was selected because to meet a May 1 permit limit, thestart up period would begin in mid-March through April.

o For conventional activated sludge plants, it was assumed that swing zones would be usedto achieve BNR during the summer season and to achieve full nitrification over thewinter season. The aeration tanks volume requirement was calculated by accordingly.

o For carbon removal processes at conventional activated sludge plants, the effluentconcentrations shown in Table 3-1 can be achieved year-round irrespective of


Summary Report

- 33 -

temperature through process control adjustments. Therefore, the cost savings associatedwith this upgrade scenario are the same as with the wet weather bypass scenario.

o For carbon removal processes at oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, theaerobic BAF proposed for medium and high levels of carbon removal will be sized forthe higher temperature associated with seasonal limits, and the reduced peak flowassociated with wet weather bypassing. A design temperature was selected based on theaverage of the March and April plant process water temperatures, which is consistentwith the approach for seasonal nitrogen removal.

4.5 Upgrade Scenario Impacts on Nitrogen-Targeting Processes at theGeneric Conventional Activated Sludge Plant

For all upgrade scenarios, M&E sized the additional aeration and final settling tanks needed toimplement step feed BNR at the generic conventional activated sludge plant using BioWinVersion 3.0 process modeling software. The design criteria previously presented in Table 3-6were used to evaluate the aeration and final settling tanks. RAS rates were assumed to be 75%,60%, and 40% of forward flow at the average, maximum month, and peak flow, respectively.

M&E’s approach was to first evaluate the existing aeration and final settling tankage. If theexisting tankage was found to be inadequate, the process was then evaluated with the addition ofa unit tank of equal size to the existing tanks at the plant. In the case of the generic conventionalactivated sludge plant, which is based on JMEUC, the unit aeration tanks are 4.1 million gallonsand final settling tanks are 180’ diameter.

For Advanced Basic and Full Step BNR, the aeration tanks were modeled as having four passes(A, B, C, and D) with primary effluent flow splitting of 25%, 35%, 30%, and 10%, respectively.Anoxic zone volume was 33% of each pass. Oxic zone volume was 62% of each pass.Deoxygenation zone volume was 5% of each pass, with the exception of the final pass, which didnot have a deoxygenation zone. For Full Step BNR, methanol was added to passes B, C, and D,as applicable based on nitrogen removal level.

Deep bed downflow denitrification filters were sized by the filter manufacturer based on thefollowing design criteria:

o Filter influent of 9 mg/L NO3-N, 1 mg/L NH3-N, 15 mg/L TSS, and 4 mg/L DOo Design flow of maximum month flow plus allowance for filter backwasho Peak flow as applicable to scenarioo Minimum temperature as applicable to the upgrade scenarioo Filter effluent of 3 mg/L TN and 4 mg/L TSS

Based on the design criteria and approach described above, Table 4-1 presents a summary of theexisting and additional required aeration tanks (AT), final settling tanks (FST) and denitrificationfilters (DNF) at the generic conventional activated sludge plant. The quantity of DNF below iscorresponds to a unit filter size of 1,167 ft2 and 8-foot media depth.


Summary Report

- 34 -

Table 4-1Summary of existing and additional required process tankage for nitrogen-targeting

upgrade scenarios at the generic conventional activated sludge plant

Additional Process Tankage RequiredExistingProcessTankage

NitrogenRemoval

Level

OriginalUpgradeScenario

WetWeatherBypass

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

w/ BypassScenario

Low:TN 10-12

(Adv. Basic Step BNR)

1 AT2 FST

1 AT2 FST

0 AT2 FST

0 AT2 FST

Medium:TN 6-10

(Full Step BNR)

1 AT2 FST

1 AT2 FST

1 AT2 FST

1 AT2 FST

4 AT, each of4.1 million gal

4 FST, each of180’ diameter

High:TN 4-5

(Full Step BNRw/ Denite Filters)

1 AT2 FST

22 DNF

1 AT2 FST

22 DNF

1 AT2 FST

20 DNF

1 AT2 FST

20 DNF

Table 4-1 shows the following:o Two additional final settling tanks are required for all upgrade scenarios. These

additional settling tanks are required to meet the maximum solids loading rate criteria atthe higher MLSS concentrations that must be carried for step-feed BNR.

o For all upgrade scenarios except Seasonal Limits and Seasonal Limits with Wet WeatherBypassing, one additional unit size aeration tank is required. The exceptions arespecifically the “Low” level of nitrogen removal for Seasonal Limits and Seasonal Limitswith Wet Weather Bypass scenarios, where the existing aeration tank volume, can beused to achieve the target effluent TN concentration. Due to the size of the unit aerationtanks, there is minimal variation in the quantity of additional aeration tanks required foreach scenario.

o 20 denitrification filters are required for scenarios with seasonal limits, whereas 22 filtersare required for scenarios without seasonal limits.

Reductions in additional required process tankage associated with the Seasonal Limits andSeasonal Limits with Bypass Scenarios, as shown above, translated into capital cost savings ascompared to the Original Upgrade Scenario. Generic plant capital costs for all nitrogen-targetingupgrade scenarios are presented in Section 5.

4.6 Upgrade Scenario Impacts on Nitrogen-Targeting Processes at theGeneric Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

For the various upgrade scenarios, biological aerated filters (BAF) and deep bed downflowdenitrification filters (DNF) were sized by filter manufacturers based on the design criteriaidentified below.


Summary Report

- 35 -

For the partially nitrifying and denitrifying BAF (Medium level of nitrogen removal):o Filter influent of 26 mg/L TKN, 21 mg/L NH3-N, 15 mg/L TSS, and 15 mg/L BODo Filter influent dissolved oxygen of 2.0 mg/L at generic oxygen activated sludge plant and

0.5 mg/L at generic trickling filter planto Design flow of maximum month flow plus allowance for filter backwasho Peak flow as applicable to scenarioo Minimum month temperature as applicable to upgrade scenarioo Filter effluent of 10 mg/L TN, 12 mg/L TSS, and 5 mg/L BOD

The design criteria for dissolved oxygen were selected based on the desired configuration of anupflow BAF with bottom anoxic zone and internal recycle for nitrogen removal. Although theBAF manufacturers initially indicated that this configuration was preferred, the BAFmanufacturers ultimately would not provide conceptual design and costs for this configuration.Manufacturers cited that their equipment has yet to be designed in such a configuration and, evenif it were to be designed in such a configuration, they are not set-up to manufacture such aconfiguration. Consequently, for the Original Upgrade Scenario, M&E utilized BAF designs formedium level of nitrogen removal in the configuration of two-stage treatment with separatenitrifying and denitrifying cells.

For the fully nitrifying BAF (High level of nitrogen removal):o Filter influent of 26 mg/L TKN, 21 mg/L NH3-N, 15 mg/L TSS, and 15 mg/L BODo Filter influent dissolved oxygen of 2.0 mg/L at generic oxygen activated sludge plant and

0.5 mg/L at generic trickling filter planto Design flow of maximum month flow plus allowance for filter backwasho Peak flow as applicable to scenarioo Temperature as applicable to scenarioo Filter effluent of 1 mg/L NH3-N, 12 mg/L TSS, and 5 mg/L BOD

For the deep bed downflow DNF (High level of nitrogen removal):

o Filter influent of 25 mg/L NO3-N, 1 mg/L NH3-N, 12 mg/L TSS, and 4 mg/L DOo Design flow of maximum month flow plus allowance for filter backwasho Peak flow as applicable to scenarioo Temperature as applicable to scenarioo Filter effluent of 3 mg/L TN and 4 mg/L TSS

Based on the design criteria, Tables 4-2 and 4-3 present summaries of the required add-on processtankage (number of units, media surface area per unit, and media depth) for Medium and Highlevels of nitrogen removal at the generic oxygen activated sludge plant and generic trickling filterplant, respectively. Nitrifying and denitrifying BAF cells are shown as BAF-N and BAF-DN,respectively, and deep bed downflow denitrifying filter cells are shown as DNF. The Low levelof nitrogen removal is not shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 because at the generic oxygen activatedsludge and trickling filter plants, the technology for Low level of nitrogen removal (travelingbridge filter) is the same as for Low level of carbon removal, which was previously discussed inSection 4.5.

Any reductions in number of units, filter area, and/or media depth of the process tankageassociated with additional upgrade scenarios, as shown below, translated into capital cost savingsas compared to the Original Upgrade Scenario. Generic plant capital costs for all nitrogen-targeting upgrade scenarios are presented in Section 5.


Summary Report

- 36 -

Table 4-2Summary of required add-on process tankage for nitrogen-targeting upgrade scenarios at

the generic oxygen activated sludge plant

NitrogenRemoval

Level

Original UpgradeScenario

Wet WeatherBypass

Scenario

Seasonal LimitsScenario

Seasonal Limitsw/ BypassScenario

Medium:TN 10-12

20 BAF-N2,582 ft2

11.48 ft media

14 BAF-DN2,582 ft2

8.20 ft media

19 BAF-N2,582 ft2

11.48 ft media

14 BAF-DN2,582 ft2

8.20 ft media

20 BAF-N2,582 ft2

9.84 ft media

14 BAF-DN2,582 ft2

8.20 ft media

17 BAF-N2,582 ft2

9.84 ft media

14 BAF-DN2,582 ft2

8.20 ft media

High:TN 3-5

26 BAF-N2,582 ft2

9.84 ft media

79 DNF1,167 ft2

8 ft media

24 BAF-N2,582 ft2

11.48 ft media

66 DNF1,167 ft2

8 ft media

21 BAF-N2,582 ft2

9.84 ft media

65 DNF1,167 ft2

8 ft media

21 BAF-N2,582 ft2

9.84 ft media

52 DNF1,151 ft2

8 ft media

Table 4-3Summary of required add-on process tankage for nitrogen-targeting upgrade scenarios at

the generic trickling filter plant

NitrogenRemoval

Level

Original UpgradeScenario

Wet WeatherBypass

Scenario

Seasonal LimitsScenario

Seasonal Limitsw/ BypassScenario

Medium:TN 10-12

8 BAF-N468 ft2

11.48 ft media

6 BAF-DN468 ft2

8.20 ft media

7 BAF-N468 ft2

11.48 ft media

6 BAF-DN468 ft2

8.20 ft media

7 BAF-N468 ft2

9.84 ft media

6 BAF-DN468 ft2

8.20 ft media

6 BAF-N468 ft2

9.84 ft media

6 BAF-DN468 ft2

8.20 ft media

High:TN 3-5

8 BAF-N704 ft2

9.84 ft media

8 DNF1,167 ft2

6 ft media

5 BAF-N940 ft2

11.48 ft media

7 DNF1,120 ft2

6 ft media

6 BAF-N704 ft2

9.84 ft media

6 DNF1,120 ft2

6 ft media

6 BAF-N704 ft2

9.84 ft media

6 DNF1,027 ft2

6 ft media


Summary Report

- 37 -

4.7 Upgrade Scenario Impacts on Carbon-Targeting Processes at theGeneric Conventional Activated Sludge Plant

In the Original Upgrade Scenario, the filtration rates at peak wet weather flow governed thesizing of the downstream carbon removal process equipment. Therefore, the Wet WeatherBypass Scenario reduced the required size of the carbon removal process equipmentproportionate to the reduction in peak flow associated with the bypassing of wet weather flows.With this reduction, the filtration rates at average flow were within typical design values forfiltration rate at average flow. The reduced size of process equipment for the Wet WeatherBypass Scenario translates into capital cost savings as compared to the Original UpgradeScenario.

Generic conventional activated sludge plant capital costs for carbon-targeting removal arepresented in Section 5.2.

4.8 Upgrade Scenario Impacts on Carbon-Targeting Processes at theGeneric Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

In the Original Upgrade Scenario, the filtration rates at peak wet weather flow governed thesizing of the traveling bridge filters (for low level of carbon removal) and membrane filters (forthe high level of carbon removal). Therefore, the scenarios including bypassing of wet weatherflows reduced the required size of these carbon removal processes proportionate to the reductionin peak flow associated with the bypassing of wet weather flows. With this reduction, thefiltration rates at average flow were within typical design values for filtration rate at average flow.The reduced size of process equipment for the scenarios including bypassing of wet weatherflows translates into capital cost savings as compared to the Original Upgrade Scenario.

Also in the Original Upgrade Scenario, the aerobic BAFs required for removal of additionalsoluble CBOD were sized based on the minimum annual wastewater temperature. Under theseasonal limits scenarios, the aerobic BAFs are sized based on a higher temperature.

Because the aerobic BAFs were assumed to be of the same size as the fully nitrifying BAFs, asdiscussed in Section 3.2, the impact of wet weather bypassing, seasonal limits, and thecombination of seasonal limits and wet weather bypassing on the size of the aerobic BAFs can beseen in nitrogen-targeting Tables 4-2 and 4-3 for the generic oxygen activates sludge and tricklingfilter plants, respectively. Based on the above assumption, the size of aerobic BAFs are equal tothat of the fully nitrifying BAFs shown in these tables for the high level of nitrogen removal.The reduced size of process equipment for the scenarios including wet weather bypassing,seasonal limits, and the combination of seasonal limits and wet weather bypassing translates intocapital cost savings as compared to the Original Upgrade Scenario.

Generic oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plant capital costs for carbon-targetingremoval are presented in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, respectively.


Summary Report

- 38 -

5.0 GENERIC PLANT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES

5.1 Generic Plant Capital Cost Estimating Methodology and Assumptions

Year 2007 conceptual capital cost estimates for upgrading the generic plants are based on thefollowing conclusions, assumptions, methodology and unit costs:

o Sufficient land of suitable quality currently exists at the generic plant to construct theproposed improvements without land acquisition.

o Soil conditions at the generic plant are such that pile foundations, constructiondewatering, sheeting and rock excavation are not required.

o The improvements to achieve nutrient removal will impact the O&M and disposal costsassociated with sludge processing, but will not require the installation of new equipment.

o Budgetary quotes for major equipment items and typical installation costs based on M&Eexperience.

o Approximate quantities and unit costs for concrete, earth excavation, bedding andbackfill based on the specific geographic area:

o Concrete - $910/CYo Earth excavation, bedding and backfill - $20/CY

o Approximate sizing of new buildings and roof structures and $/SF unit costs (whichinclude HVAC) based on the specific geographic area:

o Masonry Buildings - $200/SFo Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings - $80/SFo Pre-Engineered Roof Structures - $16/SF

o Appropriate percentages for site work, piping, electrical and I&C based on the nature ofthe upgrades and specific geographic area:

o Piping – 20% for non-bypass scenarioso Piping – 30% for bypass scenarios to account for additional piping and diversion

and junction chamberso Miscellaneous Site Work – 10%o Electrical – 25% (18% for shallow media filter only, due to low connected load)o I&C – 10% (7% for shallow media filter only, due to low level of complexity)

o Contractor OH&P of 24%, including 3% for mobilization and 1% for bonds.

o Construction cost contingency of 30%, to reflect a planning level of detail.

o Engineering, legal and administrative costs equal to 20% of total construction cost.

Unit costs are based on actual geographic-specific unit costs from a recent wastewater treatmentplant upgrade project and M&E’s experience.


Summary Report

- 39 -

5.2 Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant Capital Cost Estimates

Tables 5-1 and 5-2 present summaries of the 2007 conceptual capital cost estimates (in millionsof dollars) to achieve low, medium and high levels of nitrogen and carbon removal, respectively,at the generic conventional activated sludge plant for all upgrade scenarios. For upgradescenarios without bypassing, the corresponding costs on a $/gpd of capacity basis are presentedfor both average annual flow (AAF) and peak hourly wet weather flow (PWWF-hr), since thedevelopment of plant specific costs will need to consider both of these unit costs. For scenarioswith bypassing, the corresponding costs on a $/gpd of capacity basis are only presented foraverage annual flow because the peak flows under this bypass scenarios are uniformly limited andare thus not needed for development of plant-specific cost estimates.

Detailed conceptual capital cost estimates for the generic conventional activated sludge plant canbe found in Appendix R.

Table 5-1Conceptual Capital Cost Estimates for Nitrogen Removal:


Conventional Activated Sludge Plant70 mgd AAF

190 mgd PWWF-hr105 mgd PWWF-hr (Bypass Scenarios)

Upgrade Scenarioand NutrientRemovalLevel $MM $/gpd AAF $/gpd PWWFOriginal Upgrade ScenarioLow 95.4 1.36 0.50Medium 97.5 1.39 0.51High 213 3.04 1.12Upgrade with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 101 1.44 n/aMedium 103 1.47 n/aHigh 226 3.23 n/aUpgrade with Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 65.7 0.94 0.35Medium 97.5 1.39 0.51High 207 2.96 1.09Upgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 69.7 1.00 n/aMedium 103 1.47 n/aHigh 220 3.14 n/a


Summary Report

- 40 -

Table 5-2Conceptual Capital Cost Estimates for Carbon Removal:


Conventional Activated Sludge Plant70 mgd AAF

190 mgd PWWF-hr105 mgd PWWF – hr (Bypass Scenarios)

Upgrade Scenarioand NutrientRemovalLevel $MM $/gpd AAF $/gpd PWWFOriginal Upgrade Scenario &Upgrade with Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 66.5 0.95 0.35Medium 133 1.90 0.70High 214 3.06 1.13Upgrade with Wet Weather Bypass Scenario &Upgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 41.2 0.59 n/aMedium 96.4 1.38 n/aHigh 134 1.91 n/a

Tables 5-3 and 5-4 present the approximate site area “footprint” of the new processes/structuresrequired to implement each level of nitrogen and carbon removal, respectively, for each upgradescenario at the generic conventional activated sludge plant. This information will be used toassess land acquisition needs for the plant-specific cost estimates and to develop other plant-specific costs that relate to structure size, after adjusting the areas based on differences in flowbetween the generic plant and the specific plant.


Summary Report

- 41 -

Table 5-3Estimated Site Area “Footprint” Required for Nitrogen Removal Upgrades:



WetWeatherBypass

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

Scenario

SeasonalLimits w/

BypassScenario

Nutrient Removal Leveland Site Area Item

Footprint in ft2 unless otherwise notedLowAeration tank expansion 39,000 39,000 0 0Clarifier expansion 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000Chemical building 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600

Subtotal 91,600 91,600 52,600 52,600Misc. Site @ 20% 18,320 18,320 10,520 10,520

Rounded Total, ft2 110,000 110,000 63,000 63,000Rounded Total, ac 2.5 2.5 1.4 1.4

MediumAeration tank expansion 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000Clarifier expansion 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000Chemical building 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800Methanol tank 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800



HighAeration tank expansion 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000Clarifier expansion 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000Chemical building 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800Intermediate pump station 13,100 7,725 13,100 7,725Denitrifying filter, gallery, etc. 43,650 43,650 39,700 39,700Methanol tank 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100

Subtotal 150,650 145,275 146,700 141,325Misc. site @ 20% 30,130 29,055 29,340 28,265



Summary Report

- 42 -

Table 5-4Estimated Site Area “Footprint” Required for Carbon Removal Upgrades:



&SeasonalLimits

Scenario

WetWeatherBypass

Scenario&

SeasonalLimits w/

BypassScenario


Footprint in ft2 unlessotherwise noted

LowShallow media filter 92,200 54,340

Subtotal 92,200 54,340Misc. Site @ 20% 18,440 10,868

Rounded Total, ft2 111,000 65,000Rounded Total, ac 2.5 1.5

MediumDeep bed filter, gallery, etc. 57,900 39,200Intermediate pump station 13,100 7,725

Subtotal 71,000 46,925Misc. site @ 20% 14,200 9,385


HighMicrofiltration building 68,400 40,300

Subtotal 68,400 40,300Misc. site @ 20% 13,680 8,060



Summary Report

- 43 -

5.3 Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant Capital Cost Estimates

Tables 5-5 and 5-6 present summaries of the 2007 conceptual capital cost estimates (in millionsof dollars) to achieve low, medium and high levels of nitrogen and carbon removal, respectively,at the generic oxygen activated sludge plant for all upgrade scenarios. For upgrade scenarioswithout bypassing, the corresponding costs on a $/gpd of capacity basis are presented for bothaverage annual flow (AAF) and peak hourly wet weather flow (PWWF-hr), since thedevelopment of plant specific costs will need to consider both of these unit costs. For scenarioswith bypassing, the corresponding costs on a $/gpd of capacity basis are only presented foraverage annual flow because the peak flows under this bypass scenarios are uniformly limited andare thus not needed for development of plant-specific cost estimates.

Detailed conceptual capital cost estimates for the generic oxygen activated sludge plant can befound in Appendix S.


Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant

Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant130 mgd AAF


Upgrade Scenarioand NutrientRemovalLevel $MM $/gpd AAF $/gpd PWWFOriginal Upgrade ScenarioLow 129 0.99 0.34Medium 345 2.65 0.91High 548 4.22 1.44Upgrade with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 76 0.58 n/aMedium 329 2.53 n/aHigh 488 3.75 n/aUpgrade with Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 129 0.99 0.34Medium 335 2.58 0.88High 450 3.46 1.18Upgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 76 0.58 n/aMedium 303 2.33 n/aHigh 403 3.10 n/a


Summary Report

- 44 -



Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant130 mgd AAF


Upgrade Scenarioand NutrientRemovalLevel $MM $/gpd AAF $/gpd PWWFOriginal Upgrade ScenarioLow 129 0.99 0.34Medium 294 2.26 0.77High 722 5.56 1.90Upgrade with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 76 0.58 n/aMedium 268 2.06 n/aHigh 517 3.98 n/aUpgrade with Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 129 0.99 0.34Medium 245 1.88 0.64High 623 4.79 1.64Upgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 76 0.58 n/aMedium 231 1.78 n/aHigh 479 3.68 n/a

Tables 5-7 and 5-8 present the approximate site area “footprint” of the new processes/structuresrequired to implement each level of nitrogen and carbon removal, respectively, for each upgradescenario at the generic oxygen activated sludge plant. This information will be used to assessland acquisition needs for the plant-specific cost estimates and to develop other plant-specificcosts that relate to structure size, after adjusting the areas based on differences in flow betweenthe generic plant and the specific plant.


Summary Report

- 45 -




WetWeatherBypass

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

Scenario

SeasonalLimits w/Bypass

Scenario


Footprint in ft2 unless otherwise notedLowShallow media filter 184,000 100,870 184,000 100,870



MediumNitrifying/denitrifying BAF, gallery, etc. 154,500 150,000 154,500 140,900Chemical building 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100Intermediate pump station 26,200 14,355 26,200 14,355Methanol tank 3,040 3,040 3,040 3,040



HighNitrifying BAF, gallery, etc. 118,000 109,000 95,300 95,300Denitrifying filter, gallery, etc. 129,800 108,400 106,800 85,400Chemical building 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400Intermediate pump station 26,200 14,355 26,200 14,355Methanol tank 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900




Summary Report

- 46 -




WetWeatherBypass

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

Scenario


Scenario





MediumIntermediate pump station 26,200 14,355 26,200 14,355Aerobic BAF, gallery, etc. 118,000 109,000 95,300 95,300Chemical building 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400



HighIntermediate pump station 26,200 14,355 26,200 14,355Aerobic BAF, gallery, etc. 118,000 109,000 95,300 95,300Chemical building 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400Microfiltration building 136,800 74,900 136,800 74,900




Summary Report

- 47 -

5.4 Generic Trickling Filter Plant Capital Cost Estimates

Tables 5-9 and 5-10 present summaries of the 2007 conceptual capital cost estimates (in millionsof dollars) to achieve low, medium and high levels of nitrogen and carbon removal, respectively,at the generic trickling filter plant for all upgrade scenarios. For upgrade scenarios withoutbypassing, the corresponding costs on a $/gpd of capacity basis are presented for both averageannual flow (AAF) and peak hourly wet weather flow (PWWF-hr), since the development ofplant specific costs will need to consider both of these unit costs. For scenarios with bypassing,the corresponding costs on a $/gpd of capacity basis are only presented for average annual flowbecause the peak flows under this bypass scenarios are uniformly limited and are thus not neededfor development of plant-specific cost estimates.

Detailed conceptual capital cost estimates for the generic trickling filter plant can be found inAppendix T.


Generic Trickling Filter Plant

Trickling Filter Plant10 mgd AAF


Upgrade Scenarioand NutrientRemovalLevel $MM $/gpd AAF $/gpd PWWFOriginal Upgrade ScenarioLow 7.1 0.71 0.36Medium 34.6 3.46 1.73High 59.1 5.91 2.96Upgrade with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 6.0 0.60 n/aMedium 33.9 3.39 n/aHigh 54.9 5.49 n/aUpgrade with Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 7.1 0.71 0.36Medium 31.6 3.16 1.58High 45.8 4.58 2.29Upgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 6.0 0.60 n/aMedium 30.4 3.04 n/aHigh 45.6 4.56 n/a


Summary Report

- 48 -



Trickling Filter Plant10 mgd AAF


Upgrade Scenarioand NutrientRemovalLevel $MM $/gpd AAF $/gpd PWWFOriginal Upgrade ScenarioLow 7.1 0.71 0.36Medium 29.4 2.94 1.47High 62.7 6.27 3.14Upgrade with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 6.0 0.60 n/aMedium 30.0 3.00 n/aHigh 56.3 5.63 n/aUpgrade with Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 7.1 0.71 0.36Medium 23.8 2.38 1.19High 57.0 5.70 2.85Upgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 6.0 0.60 n/aMedium 24.4 2.44 n/aHigh 52.7 5.27 n/a

Tables 5-11 and 5-12 present the approximate site area “footprint” of the newprocesses/structures required to implement each level of nitrogen and carbon removal,respectively, for each upgrade scenario at the generic trickling filter plant. This information willbe used to assess land acquisition needs for the plant-specific cost estimates and to develop otherplant-specific costs that relate to structure size, after adjusting the areas based on differences inflow between the generic plant and the specific plant.


Summary Report

- 49 -




WetWeatherBypass

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

Scenario


Scenario





MediumNitrifying/denitrifying BAF, gallery, etc. 11,400 10,590 10,590 9,770Chemical building 300 300 300 300Intermediate pump station 1,800 1,430 1,800 1,430Methanol tank 510 510 510 510



HighNitrifying BAF, gallery, etc. 9,800 8,180 7,350 7,350Denitrifying filter, gallery, etc. 17,200 14,400 12,400 11,400Chemical building 425 425 425 425Intermediate pump station 1,800 1,430 1,800 1,430Methanol tank 590 590 590 590




Summary Report

- 50 -




WetWeatherBypass

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

Scenario


Scenario





MediumIntermediate pump station 1,800 1,430 1,800 1,430Aerobic BAF, gallery, etc. 9,800 8,180 7,350 7,350Chemical building 425 425 425 425



HighIntermediate pump station 1,800 1,430 1,800 1,430Aerobic BAF, gallery, etc. 9,800 8,180 7,350 7,350Chemical building 425 425 425 425Microfiltration building 7,200 5,700 7,200 5,700




Summary Report

- 51 -

6.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

Plant-specific annual O&M cost estimates for each level of nutrient removal upgrade incorporatethe following categories of O&M costs:

o Staffingo Chemicalso Sludge Processing and Disposalo Energyo Maintenance

For each O&M cost category, the sections below present the assumptions and methodology usedfor the Original Scenario followed by those used for the additional upgrade scenarios.

6.1 Staffing – Original Upgrade Scenario

The anticipated number of additional full time staff for each level of upgrade for the conventionalactivated sludge, oxygen activated sludge, and trickling filter plants, based on input from NJHDGmembers and M&E’s experience, are summarized in Tables 6-1, 6-2 and 6-3, respectively.

Table 6-1Anticipated Additional Staffing Needs for Conventional Activated Sludge Plants

Conventional Activated Sludge PlantsLRSA RVSA JMEUC BCUA

Flow, AAF 11 30 70 87N-Targeting LowOperator 0 0 1 1Maintenance 0 0 1 1I&C Technician 0 0 0 0N-Targeting MediumOperator 0 0 1 1Maintenance 0 0 1 1I&C Technician 0 0 0 0N-Targeting HighOperator 2 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5Maintenance 1 2 2 2I&C Technician 1 1 1 1C-Targeting LowOperator 1 0 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5Maintenance 1 0 1 1I&C Technician 0 0 0 0C-Targeting MediumOperator 1 0 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5Maintenance 1 0 1 1I&C Technician 0 0 0 0C-Targeting HighOperator 2 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5Maintenance 1 2 2 2I&C Technician 1 1 1 1


Summary Report

- 52 -

Table 6-2Anticipated Additional Staffing Needs for Oxygen Activated Sludge Plants

Oxygen Activated Sludge PlantsEMUA MCUA PVSC

Flow, AAF 4 127 260N-Targeting LowOperator 1 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5Maintenance 0 1 2I&C Technician 0 0 0N-Targeting MediumOperator 1 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5Maintenance 1 2 3I&C Technician 0 1 1N-Targeting HighOperator 1 1/shift = 5 2/shift = 10Maintenance 1 2 4I&C Technician 0 1 1C-Targeting LowOperator 1 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5Maintenance 0 1 2I&C Technician 0 0 0C-Targeting MediumOperator 1 1/shift = 5 1/shift = 5Maintenance 1 2 3I&C Technician 0 1 1C-Targeting HighOperator 1 1/shift = 5 2/shift = 10Maintenance 1 2 4I&C Technician 0 1 1


Summary Report

- 53 -

Table 6-3Anticipated Additional Staffing Needs for Trickling Filter Plants

Trickling Filter PlantsNBMUA SMUA NHSA-Riv Rd NHSA-Adams

Flow, AAF 3 3 10 14N-Targeting LowOperator 1 1 2 0Maintenance 0 0 1 0I&C Technician 0 0 0 0N-Targeting MediumOperator 1 1 2 2Maintenance 1 1 1 1I&C Technician 0 0 1 1N-Targeting HighOperator 1 1 2 2Maintenance 1 1 1 1I&C Technician 0 0 1 1C-Targeting LowOperator 1 1 2 0Maintenance 0 0 1 0I&C Technician 0 0 0 0C-Targeting MediumOperator 1 1 2 2Maintenance 1 1 1 1I&C Technician 0 0 1 1C-Targeting HighOperator 1 1 2 2Maintenance 1 1 1 1I&C Technician 0 0 1 1

A total salary cost (salary plus fringe benefits) of $110,000 per year per additional full time plantstaff was utilized based on the maximum salaries reported in a salary survey of water andwastewater treatment professionals in major metropolitan areas.

For plants less than 10 mgd AAF, it was assumed the plant does not currently have an in-houseI&C technician. For “low” level upgrades to these plants, it is assumed that an I&C technicianwill not be required. For “medium” and “high” level upgrades to these plants, it is assumed thatthe plant will need to contract for I&C maintenance services at $25,000/yr.

6.2 Staffing – Additional Upgrade Scenarios

Although the wet weather bypassing and seasonal limits upgrade scenarios, as applicable,somewhat reduce the extent of additional process tankage and equipment required for nutrientremoval, essentially the same number of additional staff will be required for daily operation andscheduled maintenance as the Original Scenario. Therefore, the applicable upgrade scenarios areassumed to not change the anticipated number of additional full time staff needed for each levelof nutrient removal.


Summary Report

- 54 -

6.3 Chemicals – Original Upgrade Scenario

Chemical costs were estimated for:

o Alkalinity addition to nitrifying systems (magnesium hydroxide assumed).o Carbon addition to denitrifying systems (methanol assumed).o Polymer addition for processing additional sludge.

Magnesium hydroxide demand was calculated based on an alkalinity consumption of 7.16 lbs perpound of TKN nitrified. A unit cost of $390 per dry ton was assumed, delivered as a 60%solution.

Methanol demand was calculated based on a dose of 3.5 lbs per pound of nitrate denitrified indenitrifying filters, and a higher dose of 5 lbs per pound of nitrate denitrified in the full step BNRprocess, based on NYCDEP experience. A methanol cost of $1.25/gal was assumed.

Polymer consumption was based on 12 pounds per ton of additional sludge thickened plus 12pounds per ton of additional sludge dewatered. A polymer cost of $1.50 per pound was assumed.

Capital costs associated with compliance with chemical containment regulatory requirements areaccounted for by generic plant capital cost percentages and allowances.

6.4 Chemicals – Additional Upgrade Scenarios

Wet Weather Bypass Scenario – All Plants

For the Wet Weather Bypass Scenario, it was assumed that the annual chemical consumption,which is based on annual average load, will not change significantly due to wet weatherbypassing. Therefore, chemical consumption for the Wet Weather Bypass scenarios was assumedto be the same as that for the Original Upgrade Scenario.

Seasonal Limits and Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenarios:Conventional Activated Sludge Plants

For the Seasonal Limits Scenario and the Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenario atconventional activated sludge plants, changes in annual chemical consumption were calculatedbased on the following approach:

It was assumed that methanol addition would be suspended at the commencement of theNovember 1 winter season and restarted two months prior to the commencement of the May 1seasonal limits. Therefore, methanol would be added eight months of the year (six monthssummer plus two months startup). This corresponds to 67% of the methanol cost for the OriginalScenario.

It was assumed that nitrification would be maintained over winter months by employment ofswing zones in aeration tanks so as to avoid the operational problems associated withtransitioning into and out of nitrification. Therefore, magnesium hydroxide would not change ascompared to the Original Upgrade Scenario.


Summary Report

- 55 -

Because methanol addition would be suspended as described above, sludge generation wouldchange because biomass yield from methanol addition would cease. The corresponding change inpolymer consumption was calculated.

Seasonal Limits and Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenarios:Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

For the Seasonal Limits Scenario and the Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenario atoxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, changes in annual chemical consumption werecalculated based on the following approach:

Based on the design temperature (March and April average) for Seasonal Limit Scenarios it wasassumed that nitrification would decrease during the winter season (but not be fully lost) andsubsequently increase with the increasing temperature following the winter season. It wasassumed that methanol and magnesium hydroxide would be added to keep pace with nitrification.Therefore, nitrification and nitrogen removal would follow the same pattern over winter months,as presented in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4Assumed nitrogen removal performance over winter months

at oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants

1. For the expected effluent TN for given level of nitrogen removal

Therefore, methanol and magnesium hydroxide costs for Seasonal Limit Scenarios would be93.75% of the corresponding Original Upgrade Scenario costs.

As nitrification performance deteriorates and methanol addition is reduced, sludge generationwould be reduced due to a decrease in biomass yield from methanol addition. The correspondingchange in polymer consumption was calculated.

6.5 Sludge Processing and Disposal – Original Upgrade Scenario

The impact of each upgrade scenario on sludge production was evaluated based on the following:

o Additional TSS removed through the various filter technologies to achieve low, mediumand high levels of carbon removal, based on the difference between current averageeffluent TSS and effluent TSS associated with each level of upgrade.

o In conventional activated sludge plants:

o Change in sludge yield from operation in conventional activated sludge mode toadvanced basic BNR mode (3% reduction in WAS production based onNYCDEP experience) to full step BNR (9% increase in WAS production basedon NYCDEP experience).

Time Period Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr6-mo

WinterComposite

AnnualComposite

% of TNremoval1 100% 90% 80% 70% 85% 100% 87.5% 93.75%


Summary Report

- 56 -

o Biological growth in denitrification filters attributable to carbon (methanol)addition – 0.18 pounds of VSS produced per pound of COD applied, based on1.5 lb COD per pound of methanol added for denitrification. VSS assumed to be85% of TSS).

o In oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants:

o Additional waste sludge from removal of additional soluble BOD in BAFs –assume VSS yield of 0.5 pounds per pound of soluble BOD removed, and acorresponding TSS yield based on 85% VSS. SBOD to BAF assume to be equalto the effluent total BOD, minus the particulate BOD, which is assumed to beequal to 60% of the effluent TSS. SBOD from BAFs was assumed to be 0 mg/L.

o Growth in denitrification BAF and denitrification filter attributable to carbon(methanol) addition - 0.18 pounds of VSS produced per pound of COD applied,based on 1.5 lb COD per pound of methanol added for denitrification. VSSassumed to be 85% of TSS).

The cost to dispose of the additional sludge produced is based on the following fees, whichrepresent an average or typical value of the costs currently incurred by NJHDG plants:

o Transportation and disposal fees of $0.08/gal for thickened sludge

o Transportation and disposal fee of $90/wet CY for sludge cake

o Transportation and disposal fee of $78/ton for dried biosolids

As previously indicated, the cost of polymer to thicken and dewater the additional sludge wascalculated and included as a chemical cost.

6.6 Sludge Processing and Disposal – Additional Upgrade Scenarios

For the Wet Weather Bypass Scenario, it was assumed that the annual sludge generation, which isbased on annual average load, will not change significantly due to wet weather bypassing.Therefore, annual sludge processing and disposal costs were assumed to be the same as that of theOriginal Upgrade Scenario.

For nitrogen-targeting Seasonal Limit Scenarios, as discussed in Section 6.4, it was assumed thatmethanol addition (and associated biomass yield on methanol) will decrease in winter months.The corresponding change in sludge generation was calculated accordingly.

For carbon removal at oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, where aerobicBAFtechnology is being used, it is expected that BAF effluent soluble CBOD concentration wouldgradually increase over the winter season and return to ~1 mg/L after the winter season. Forcalculating the corresponding decrease in biomass yield on soluble CBOD, it was assumed that atthe winter low temperature, the BAF effluent soluble CBOD would increase 3 mg/L and that the6-month winter composite increase in soluble CBOD would be 1.5 mg/L. The decrease inbiomass yield (and associated sludge processing and disposal costs) was calculated accordingly.


Summary Report

- 57 -

6.7 Energy – Original Upgrade Scenario

Energy consumption, typically on a horsepower-per-mgd basis, was developed for each of thefollowing plant components:

o Intermediate pumping stations – 11 to 14 hp/mgdo RAS pump station upgrades – 12 hp/mgdo Shallow media filters (traveling bridge type) – 3 hp/mgdo Activated sludge tank mixers (for anoxic zones) – 17 hp/MGal of tank volumeo Aeration tank blowers – 0.042 hp/scfmo Secondary clarifier collector drives – 2 hp/clarifiero Deep bed sand filter systems (backwash pumps, backwash return pumps, scour air

blowers, etc.) – 1.4 to 1.8 hp/mgdo Microfiltration systems (permeate pumps, blowers, etc) – 300 kWhr/Mgalo Add-on nitrogen removal processes (nitrifying BAFs, denitrifying BAFs, deep bed

denitrifying filters) – for nitrifying and denitrifying BAFs, 13 to 18 hp/mgd depending onplant capacity and nitrogen removal target level and loading; for deep bed denitrifyingfilters, 1.1 to 2.3 hp/mgd depending on plant capacity and nitrogen loading

o Chemical feed systems – 0.05 to 1.0 hp/mgd, depending on plant capacity and nutrientremoval target level

o Allowance for miscellaneous buildings, site lighting, valve actuators, etc. – 10% of totaladditional hp

Based on the plant-specific AAF, the total horsepower was calculated using the hp-per-mgdpower consumption factors. The corresponding total annual energy cost was then calculatedbased on an assumed energy cost of $0.12 per kWhr, inclusive of demand charges.

6.8 Energy – Additional Upgrade Scenarios

Scenarios without Wet Weather Bypass

It was assumed that annual energy cost will not change significantly for the applicable additionalupgrade scenarios because annual energy cost is based on average flows and loads. Therefore,annual energy costs for the applicable additional upgrade scenarios were assumed to be equal tothat of the Original Upgrade Scenario.

Scenarios with Wet Weather Bypass

For the Wet Weather Bypass Scenario, it is anticipated that annual energy cost would be slightlyless than that of the Original Scenario due to peak flow shaving. The magnitude of the impact ofwet weather bypassing is dependent on individual plant flow. For purposes of calculating annualenergy reduction with bypassing of wet weather flows, the following assumptions were made:

o The maximum month event occurs one month of the yearo The peak day event occurs four days per year

Using these assumptions, the amount of bypassed flow was calculated for each plant. Todetermine the annual energy cost for scenarios with bypassing of wet weather flows, the annual


Summary Report

- 58 -

energy costs as calculated for the Original Upgrade were reduced by the ratio of bypassed flow toannual average flow.

6.9 Maintenance – All Upgrade Scenarios

Based on M&E experience and input from manufacturers, an annual maintenance cost for spareparts, scheduled replacement, etc. was calculated using 1% of total direct capital material costs.


Summary Report

- 59 -

7.0 PRESENT WORTH, PRESENT COST, TOTAL ANNUALIZED PRESENT COST,AND FUTURE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

The present worth of annual operating costs was calculated assuming a 25-year operating period,an interest rate of 5% an inflation of 3.5%, resulting in a discount rate of 1.5% (5%-3.5%). Ati=1.5% and n=25, the present worth is equal to 20.7 times the annual O&M cost. A 25 yearoperating period was selected because it reflects the expected useful life of most mechanicalsystems in wastewater treatment plants.

The total present cost is equal to the sum of the current capital cost estimate plus the presentworth of annual O&M costs.

The total annualized present cost is the sum of debt service corresponding to the plant-specificcapital cost plus the annual operations and maintenance cost. Debt service on capital costassumes a bond term of 30 years at an interest rate of 5%.

For consistency with NYCDEP in estimating future costs, it was assumed that construction ofplant upgrades will begin in 10 years, and that the average construction period will be 4 years.Therefore, the average mid-point of construction will be in 12 years.

Consequently, future cost was calculated assuming an inflation rate of 3.5% per year, and a 12-year period from present day to the mid-point of construction. Based on i=3.5% and n-12 years,the future cost (2019) is equal to 1.51 times the 2007 cost.


Summary Report

- 60 -

8.0 PLANT-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATES AND NUTRIENT REDUCTION COSTCURVES

Section 8 discusses the plant-specific cost estimates and corresponding nitrogen reduction costcurves. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 describe the methodology used to calculate the plant-specific costestimates and nutrient load reductions, respectively. Sections 8.3 through 8.13 present the plant-specific cost estimates and curves. The plants are arranged in order of flow capacity. Section8.14 presents cumulative cost curves for all NJHDG plants.

8.1 Methodology for Calculating Plant-Specific Cost Estimates

Plant-specific conceptual capital cost estimates were developed using the following methodology.

First, plant-specific base costs for each upgrade scenario were calculated using the $/gpd unitcosts developed for the generic plants as presented in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 for the conventionalactivated sludge plant, Tables 5-5 and 5-6 for the generic oxygen activated sludge plant, andTables 5-9 and 5-10 for the generic trickling filter plant.

Under the Original Upgrade Scenario and additional upgrade scenarios incorporating seasonallimits, for each plant, the $/gpd unit costs for both the AAF and PWWF condition were multipliedby the plant’s projected future AAF and PWWF, respectively. The flow scenario (i.e. AAFversus PWWF) that resulted in the highest cost was then utilized as the plant-specific base cost.For many plants, the service area is essentially built out and significant increases in flow are notanticipated. In these cases, the $/gpd unit costs were multiplied by the plant’s current annualaverage and peak wet weather hourly flows.

Under the additional upgrade scenarios that included bypassing of wet weather flows, for eachplant, the $/gpd unit costs for AAF condition were multiplied by the plant’s projected futureAAF, or current AAF in cases where the service area is essentially built out and significantincreases in flow are not anticipated. The resultant cost was then utilized as the plant-specificbase cost.

Adjustments to the resultant plant-specific base cost were made to reflect differences in existingprocess equipment and performance capability between the specific individual plant and thegeneric plant. Any differences in process equipment and performance capability between theindividual plant and generic plant resulting in a cost adjustment are discussed in greater detail inSections 8.3 – 8.13.

Depending on individual plant site conditions, additional plant-specific adjustments were made tothe plant-specific base cost using the following plant-specific capital cost factors. These costsinclude percentages for contractor overhead and profit and contingency, as applicable, and arealso highlighted in Sections 8.3 – 8.13, as applicable to each plant.

o Land acquisition - $200/SF ($600/sf for NHSA)

o Pile foundations - $105/SF of structure area (based on 40’ depth)

o Rock excavation - $270/CY

o Sheeting - $36/SF of sheeting area


Summary Report

- 61 -

o Dewatering

o Set up - $16.20/SF of structure area for well point dewateringo Set up - $8.10/SF of structure area for sump dewateringo Dewatering system operation - $0.33/SF of structure area per month of operation

o Reduced productivity factor for confined sites – 4.5% of total construction costs

Plant-specific O&M cost estimates were developed using the unit costs and methodologyidentified in Section 6, as applicable to each plant and nutrient removal upgrade scenario.

Sections 8.3 – 8.13 present tables that summarize the total present (2007) costs (capital pluspresent worth of annual O&M costs), annualized present costs (debt service plus annual O&Mcosts), and total future (2019) costs (future capital plus escalated PW of annual O&M costs) toachieve low, medium and high levels of nitrogen and carbon removal under the Original Upgradeand additional upgrade scenarios at each NJHDG plant.

8.2 Methodology for Calculating Plant-Specific Nutrient Reduction

Cost curves for each plant for all upgrade scenarios are presented in terms of additional poundsper day removed versus cost, rather than effluent concentration versus cost, since additionalpounds per day removed versus cost is more useful to EPA. Cost curves are presented in Sections8.3 through 8.13. This section discusses the methodology employed for calculating nutrientreduction for each upgrade scenario, as described below.

Original Upgrade Scenario

For the Original Upgrade Scenario, additional nutrient load reduction (pounds per day removed)is based on average plant flow and the difference in concentration between existing and expectedplant effluent quality for the “Low”, “Medium”, and “High” levels of nutrient removal.

For nitrogen-targeting scenarios, expected plant effluent quality was selected to be the medianvalue of the expected effluent range presented in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3, with the exception ofthe Low level of nitrogen removal at oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, wherenitrogen removal was calculated as 10% of the TSS removed by the traveling bridge filter.

For carbon-targeting scenarios, the expected plant effluent quality is heavily influenced by thedegree of particulate CBOD removal associated with TSS removal via filtration processes.Therefore, current plant-specific effluent TSS concentration was used to calculate the expectedplant-specific effluent quality.

For carbon-targeting filtration processes without integrated biological treatment (i.e., alltechnologies except aerobic BAFs), the predicted effluent CBOD concentration was calculated asthe current plant effluent CBOD concentration minus the amount of particulate CBOD removedvia TSS removal in the filtration process. The particulate CBOD fraction of TSS was assumed tobe 60%. For the traveling bridge filter and deep bed sand filter, expected effluent TSS waschosen based on current plant-specific effluent TSS, as shown in Table 8-1. For membranefiltration, expected effluent TSS was assumed to be 1 mg/L for all plants. For aerobic BAFs,which combine biological treatment with filtration, the BAF effluent soluble CBOD was assumed


Summary Report

- 62 -

to be 1-2 mg/L. BAF effluent particulate CBOD was calculated based on expected BAF effluentTSS and an assumed CBOD fraction of 60%. Expected BAF effluent TSS was chosen based oncurrent plant-specific effluent TSS, as shown in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1Approach for choosing expected effluent TSS for carbon-targeting technologies

Technology ExpectedTSS range

If current plantperformance is:

Then expectedTSS is:

Aerobic BAF 6-12 mg/L <10 mg/L10 TSS < 14 mg/L14 TSS < 18 mg/L18 TSS < 22 mg/L22 TSS < 26 mg/L26 TSS < 30 mg/L

TSS 30 mg/L

6 mg/L7 mg/L8 mg/L9 mg/L10 mg/L11 mg/L12 mg/L

Traveling Bridge Filter 5-8 mg/L TSS <15 mg/L15 TSS < 20 mg/L20 TSS < 25 mg/L

TSS 25 mg/L

5 mg/L6 mg/L7 mg/L8 mg/L

Deep Bed Filter 4-5 mg/L TSS <20 mg/LTSS 20 mg/L

4 mg/L5 mg/L

Microfiltration 1 mg/L n/a 1 mg/L

Wet Weather Bypass Scenario

For the Wet Weather Bypass Scenario, it is anticipated that nutrient load reduction would beslightly less than that of the Original Scenario due to peak flow shaving. The magnitude of theimpact of wet weather bypassing is dependent on individual plant flow and load peaking factorsand the timing of peak loading events as compared to peak flow events. For purposes ofcalculating nutrient load reductions with bypassing of wet weather flows, the followingassumptions were made:

o The maximum month event occurs one month of the yearo The peak day event occurs four days per yearo Average plant concentrations occur concurrent to the maximum month and peak day

events

Under these assumptions, the greater the plant flow peaking factors, the greater the difference innutrient load reduction will be between the Original Scenario and the Wet Weather BypassScenario.

Using these assumptions, the amount of bypassed flow (and bypassed load corresponding toaverage concentration) was calculated for each plant. The nutrient load reductions as calculatedfor the Original Upgrade were reduced by the ratio of bypassed flow (and load) to annual averageflow (and load).


Summary Report

- 63 -

Seasonal Limits Scenario for Conventional Activated Sludge Plants

As discussed in Section 6.4, for the Seasonal Limits Scenario at conventional activated sludgeplants, the operations strategy assumed that methanol addition will be suspended at the end of theseasonal limits period on November 1st until start-up (occurring in March – April of thefollowing year) for seasonal limits that become effective May 1st. Based on this approach, the“Medium” and “High” levels of nitrogen removal revert to “Low” (Basic BNR with median TNof 11 mg/L) over the winter until temperatures are cold enough to require the swing zones to beoperated in fully oxic mode to maintain nitrification. Therefore, over winter, the “Low” level ofnitrogen removal would be a best-case scenario and no nitrogen removal would be a worst-casescenario. It is reasonable to assume that Basic Step Feed BNR would not be lost immediatelyover winter and that nitrogen removal performance would follow a pattern similar to that which ispresented in Table 8-2 below.

Table 8-2Assumed nitrogen removal pattern over winter season for Seasonal Limits scenarios

at conventional activated sludge plants

Month Nitrogen removal performance Comments

Nov 1.00*(Influent TN – 11 mg/L) No longer adding methanol

Dec 0.75*(Influent TN – 11 mg/L) Losing nitrogen removal performance

Jan 0*(Influent TN – 11 mg/L) Fully oxic to maintain nitrification

Feb 0*(Influent TN – 11 mg/L) Fully oxic to maintain nitrification

Mar 0.75*(Influent TN – 11 mg/L) Beginning seasonal start-up withmethanol addition

Apr 1.00*(Influent TN – 11 mg/L) Assume 11 mg/L TN is averageeffluent TN over April

WinterComposite 0.58*(Influent TN – 11 mg/L) Weighted average over winter season

Therefore, the annual nitrogen removal was calculated as six months of removal at the “Low”,“Medium” or “High” median expected effluent quality, as dictated by the design level of removal,and six months of removal at the winter composite effluent quality.

Seasonal Limits Scenarios for Oxygen Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants

As discussed in Section 6.4, for the Seasonal Limits Scenario at oxygen activated sludge andtrickling filter plants, the operations strategy assumed that nitrification would gradually decreaseover the winter season and that methanol would be correspondingly decreased and subsequentlyincreased as the winter season ends to pace denitrification with the fluctuation in nitrification withchanges in temperature. Table 6-4 originally presented the assumed fluctuation in nitrogenremoval over winter months at oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants and is presentedagain as Table 8-3, below, for reference.


Summary Report

- 64 -

Table 8-3Assumed nitrogen removal performance over winter months

at oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants

1. For the expected effluent TN at “Medium” or “High” level of nitrogen removal

Therefore, the annual nitrogen removal for the Seasonal Limits Scenario was calculated as93.75% of the nitrogen removal calculated for the Original Scenario. Note that at oxygenactivated sludge and trickling filter plants, the Seasonal Limits adjustment for nitrogen removal isonly applicable for “Medium” and “High” levels of nitrogen removal, where nitrogen removal istemperature dependent.

For “Medium” and “High” levels of carbon removal at oxygen activated sludge and tricklingfilter plants, where aerobic BAF technology is being used, it is expected that BAF effluentsoluble CBOD would gradually increase over the winter season and subsequently return to ~1mg/L as the winter season ends. For calculating the effects of this increase in soluble CBOD, itwas assumed that at the winter low temperature, the BAF effluent soluble CBOD would increase3 mg/L and that the 6-month winter composite increase in soluble CBOD would be 1.5 mg/L.The increase in carbon discharge (or, decrease in carbon removal performance) was calculatedaccordingly.

Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenario

The nutrient reduction for Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenario was calculated byreducing the nutrient reduction as determined using the approach for the Seasonal LimitsScenario by the ratio of flow (and load) bypassed as determined using the approach for WetWeather Bypass Scenario.

Time Period Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr6-mo

WinterComposite

AnnualComposite

% of TNremoval1 100% 90% 80% 70% 85% 100% 87.5% 93.75%


Summary Report

- 65 -

8.3 Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC)Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant330 mgd Permitted Capacity, 260 mgd Current AAF

PVSC’s plant-specific costs are summarized in Table 8-4. The corresponding cost curves, basedon total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-1A and 8-1B for nitrogen-targeting and carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital and O&M costs for each level ofnitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix A along with an aerial view of the plantsite.

With regard to development of the plant-specific cost estimates, the annual average flow at PVSCis projected to increase from the approximate current AAF of 260 mgd to 300 mgd by 2025,while the corresponding influent loadings are projected to increase by only 3% due to reducedindustrial contribution. Also, to enable the treatment of additional wet weather flow, PVSC isincreasing its effluent pumping capacity from 620 mgd to 720 mgd. Therefore, the future peakflow to PVSC is projected to be 720 mgd. PVSC’s plant-specific cost estimates are based onthese projected flows and loads.

For nitrogen removal at PVSC, due to PVSC’s high effluent TN concentration compared to otherNJHDG plants, the shallow media filter technology presented for the Low level of nitrogenremoval in Table 3-2 will not be sufficient to achieve the corresponding effluent quality presentedin Table 3-2. As a result, plant-specific nitrogen removal cost estimates were determined for fourlevels of nitrogen removal at PVSC:

o Very Low (Effluent TN = 41 – 1 = 40 mg/l) using traveling bridge filters, consistentwith the Low level of Nitrogen removal at other oxygen activated sludge plants.

o Low (Effluent TN = 19-20 mg/l) using highly loaded nitrifying and denitrifyingBAFs.

o Medium (Effluent TN = 10-12 mg/l) using a greater quantity of nitrifying anddenitrifying BAFs compared to the Low level

o High (Effluent TN = 3-5 mg/l) using fully nitrifying BAFs followed by deep beddownflow denitrifying filters.

Plant-specific carbon removal cost estimates for PVSC were determined for three levels of carbonremoval, consistent with the technologies and effluent qualities presented in Table 3-2.

The plant-specific cost estimates for PVSC were developed using the generic oxygen activatedsludge plant costs previously discussed and shown in Appendix S. However, the $/gpd unit costs(AAF and PWWF) for the generic oxygen activated sludge plant shown in Tables 5-5 and 5-6were not directly used.

Because PVSC has a significantly higher influent TN load compared to the generic plant, it mustremove significantly more pounds of nitrogen for each million gallons of wastewater treated toachieve the target effluent quality. Similarly, for carbon removal, where Medium and High levelsof carbon removal use an aerobic BAF that is expected to fully nitrify to remove soluble and


Summary Report

- 66 -

particulate CBOD, because PVSC has a significantly higher NH3-N load compared to the genericplant, it must nitrify more pounds of ammonia for each million gallons of wastewater treated.

Consequently, PVSC plant-specific base costs for biological nitrogen removal processes (innitrogen removal scenarios) and aerobic BAFs (in carbon removal scenarios) were calculatedbased on the pounds of TN that must be removed or pounds of ammonia that must be nitrifiedversus that of the generic plant, rather than the gallons of wastewater that must be treated atPVSC versus the generic plant. Accordingly, the unit cost ($/lb) of maximum month TNremoved or ammonia nitrified at the generic plant was first calculated. This unit cost wasmultiplied by the projected maximum month TN load or ammonia load that must be removed atPVSC to determine the PVSC base plant-specific capital cost for biological nitrogen removalprocesses, aerobic BAFs, and associated chemical systems.

PVSC plant-specific base costs for processes that are sized based on hydraulic loading rather thanorganic loading, such as traveling bridge filters, mircofilters, and intermediate pumping, weredetermined using the generic plant unit cost in $/gpd. Accordingly, the unit cost for theseprocesses in $/gpd AAF and PWWF was calculated for the generic plant and then applied to theprojected flows at PVSC. The PVSC plant-specific costs for these processes were calculatedusing the $/gpd AAF unit costs, as these resulted in the most conservative base cost.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to the base cost the additional costs associated with the following site-specific issues and factors applicable to PVSC:

o All upgrades will be constructed on acquired land.

o An intermediate pump station is required for the shallow media filters for the Very Lowlevel of nitrogen removal and the Low level of carbon removal scenarios.

o Pile supported foundations are required for all new structures.

o Sheeting is required for all structure excavation.

o Well point dewatering is required during construction.

o Reduced productivity factor is required for work in confined acquired land.

o Improvements to the sludge handling facilities are not required, since the existing sludgehandling capacity is adequate for the additional sludge produced.

Nutrient load reduction was calculated according to the methodology previously discussed inSection 8.2. For carbon removal, based on PVSC’s current average effluent concentrations of 17mg/L CBOD and 12 mg/L TSS, the expected average effluent CBOD concentrations used incalculation of carbon removal were 12.8 mg/L, 5.7 mg/L, and 2.1 mg/L for Low, Medium, andHigh levels of carbon removal, respectively.


Summary Report

- 67 -

Table 8-4. PVSC Plant-Specific Cost Summary

Present Cost($MM, Year 2007)

Annualized Present Cost($MM/yr, Year 2007)

Future Cost($MM, Year 2019)Nutrient

RemovalLevel

EffluentQuality(mg/L) Capital PW of

O&M Total DebtService

AnnualO&M Total Capital PW of

O&M Total

Nitrogen-Targeting Original Upgrade ScenarioVery Low ~40 657 139 795 42.7 6.7 49.4 992 209 1,201Low 19-20 1,285 688 1,973 83.6 33.3 116.9 1,941 1,039 2,980Medium 10-12 1,667 864 2,531 108.4 41.8 150.2 2,517 1,305 3,822High 3-5 2,482 1,148 3,630 161.4 55.5 216.9 3,747 1,734 5,481Nitrogen-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioVery Low ~40 401 128 530 26.1 6.2 32.3 606 194 800Low 19-20 1,238 680 1,918 80.5 32.9 113.4 1,869 1,027 2,896Medium 10-12 1,628 855 2,483 105.9 41.3 147.2 2,458 1,291 3,749High 3-5 2,227 1,127 3,354 144.9 54.4 199.3 3,363 1,702 5,065Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits ScenarioVery Low ~40 657 139 795 42.7 6.7 49.4 992 209 1,201Low 19-20 1,225 657 1,883 79.7 31.7 111.5 1,850 992 2,843Medium 10-12 1,591 823 2,414 103.5 39.8 143.2 2,402 1,243 3,645High 3-5 1,982 1,080 3,062 128.9 52.2 181.1 2,992 1,631 4,623Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioVery Low ~40 401 128 530 26.1 6.2 32.3 606 194 800Low 19-20 1,141 647 1,788 74.2 31.3 105.5 1,723 977 2,700Medium 10-12 1,498 528 2,026 97.4 25.5 122.9 2,262 797 3,059High 3-5 1,837 1,064 2,900 119.5 51.4 170.9 2,773 1,606 4,379Carbon-Targeting Original Upgrade ScenarioLow 9-14 657 139 795 42.7 6.7 49.4 992 209 1,201Medium 5-9 1,265 468 1,733 82.3 22.6 104.9 1,910 706 2,616High 1-3 2,428 733 3,161 158.0 35.4 193.4 3,667 1,107 4,774Carbon-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 10-15 387 128 516 25.2 6.2 31.4 585 194 779Medium 5-9 1,175 507 1,683 76.5 24.5 101.0 1,775 766 2,541High 1-3 1,847 675 2,522 120.2 32.6 152.8 2,789 1,019 3,809Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 10-15 657 139 795 42.7 6.7 49.4 992 209 1,201Medium 5-9 1,039 501 1,540 67.6 24.2 91.8 1,569 757 2,326High 1-3 2,202 707 2,909 143.3 34.1 177.4 3,325 1,067 4,392Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 10-15 401 128 530 26.1 6.2 32.3 606 194 800Medium 5-9 1,106 492 1,598 71.9 23.8 95.7 1,670 743 2,413High 1-3 1,781 652 2,433 115.9 31.5 147.4 2,689 985 3,674


Summary Report

- 68 -

Figu

re 8

-1A

PVSC

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

0

10,0

00

20,0

00

30,0

00

40,0

00

50,0

00

60,0

00

70,0

00

80,0

00

90,0

00

100,

000

$0$5

00$1

,000

$1,5

00$2

,000

$2,5

00$3

,000

$3,5

00$4

,000

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear

2007

$M

M)

Additional PPD Removed

Orig

inal

Scen

ario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 69 -

Figu

re 8

-1B

PVSC

Car

bon

Rem

oval

0

5,00

0

10,0

00

15,0

00

20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

35,0

00

40,0

00

$0$5

00$1

,000

$1,5

00$2

,000

$2,5

00$3

,000

$3,50

0

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal

Scen

ario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 70 -

8.4 Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA)Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant150 mgd Permitted Capacity, 127 mgd Current AAF

MCUA’s plant-specific costs are summarized in Table 8-5. The corresponding cost curves, basedon total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-2A and 8-2B for nitrogen-targeting and carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital and O&M costs for each level ofnitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix B along with an aerial view of the plantsite.

The plant-specific cost estimates for MCUA were developed by first calculating the base plant-specific capital costs shown in Appendix B by using the $/gpd unit costs (AAF and PWWF) forthe generic oxygen activated sludge plant shown in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. Since significant flowincreases are not expected at MCUA, base capital costs were calculated using the current annualaverage and peak hourly flows of 127 mgd and 380 mgd, respectively.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to the base cost the additional costs associated with the following site-specific issues and factors applicable to MCUA.

o Sufficient land exists within the plant site to construct all new structures.

o An intermediate pump station is required for the shallow media filters due to inadequatehead available between the secondary clarifiers and diversion structure.

o Pile supported foundations are not required.


o Sheeting is required for all new structure excavation.

o Improvements to the sludge handling facilities are not required.

o Rock excavation is not required.

o Reduced productivity factor related to work in confined sites is not required.

Nutrient load reduction was calculated according to the methodology previously discussed inSection 8.2. For carbon removal, based on MCUA’s current average effluent concentrations of15 mg/L CBOD and 16 mg/L TSS, the expected average effluent CBOD concentrations used incalculation of carbon removal were 9.0 mg/L, 6.3 mg/L, and 2.1 mg/L for Low, Medium, andHigh levels of carbon removal, respectively.


Summary Report

- 71 -

Table 8-5. MCUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total

Nitrogen-Targeting Original Upgrade ScenarioLow 19-20 195 83 278 12.70 3.99 16.69 295 125 420Medium 10-12 352 208 560 22.87 10.06 32.93 531 315 845High 3-5 556 336 892 36.16 16.25 52.41 839 508 1,347

Nitrogen-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 19-20 112 79 191 7.27 3.83 11.10 169 120 289Medium 10-12 327 206 532 21.24 9.95 31.19 493 311 804High 3-5 484 329 813 31.46 15.90 47.36 730 497 1,227

Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 19-20 195 83 278 12.70 3.99 16.69 295 125 420Medium 10-12 339 202 542 22.07 9.77 31.84 512 305 818High 3-5 455 318 773 29.58 15.37 44.95 687 480 1,167

Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 19-20 112 79 191 7.27 3.83 11.10 169 120 289Medium 10-12 301 180 480 19.57 8.67 28.24 454 271 725High 3-5 400 313 713 26.02 15.12 41.14 604 472 1,076

Carbon-Targeting Original Upgrade ScenarioLow 9-14 195 83 278 12.70 3.99 16.69 295 125 420Medium 5-9 297 153 451 19.33 7.41 26.74 449 232 680High 1-3 731 265 996 47.53 12.81 60.34 1,103 400 1,504

Carbon-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 10-15 112 79 191 7.27 3.83 11.10 169 120 289Medium 5-9 266 172 437 17.28 8.29 25.57 401 259 660High 1-3 512 243 754 33.29 11.73 45.01 773 367 1,139Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 10-15 195 83 278 12.70 3.99 16.69 295 125 420Medium 5-9 247 168 415 16.07 8.10 24.17 373 253 626High 1-3 631 258 889 41.06 12.45 53.51 953 389 1,342Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 10-15 112 79 191 7.27 3.83 11.10 169 120 289Medium 5-9 231 165 396 15.03 7.99 23.02 349 250 599High 1-3 474 237 711 30.81 11.45 42.27 715 358 1,073


Summary Report

- 72 -

Figu

re 8

-2A

MC

UA

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

0

2,00

0

4,00

0

6,00

0

8,00

0

10,0

00

12,0

00

14,0

00

16,0

00

18,0

00

20,0

00

$0$1

00$2

00$3

00$4

00$5

00$6

00$7

00$8

00$9

00$1

,000

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Ye

ar 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal

Scen

ario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 73 -

Figu

re 8

-2B

MC

UA

Car

bon

Rem

oval

0

2,00

0

4,00

0

6,00

0

8,00

0

10,0

00

12,0

00

14,0

00

16,0

00

$0$2

00$4

00$6

00$8

00$1

,000

$1,2

00

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear

2007

$M

M)


Orig

inal

Scen

ario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 74 -

8.5 Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA)Conventional Activated Sludge Plant94 mgd Permitted Capacity, 87 mgd Current AAF

BCUA’s plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-7. The corresponding costcurves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-3A and 8-3B, for nitrogen-targeting and carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital and O&M costs foreach level of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix C along with an aerial viewof the plant site.

With regard to development of the plant-specific costs estimates, BCUA’s annual average flow isprojected to increase from 87 mgd to 94 mgd. Based on maintaining the same maximum monthlyand peak wet weather flow peaking factors, the corresponding maximum monthly and peakhourly flows are projected to be 125 mgd and 265 mgd, respectively. BCUA’s plants-specificcosts are based on these projected flows.

For carbon removal upgrades, plant-specific base capital costs shown in Appendix C for theBCUA plant were calculated using the $/gpd PWWF unit costs for the generic conventionalactivated sludge plant shown in Table 5-2, as this resulted in the most conservative base cost. Apeak wet weather flow of 265 mgd was used in the calculation.

For carbon removal scenarios, the following site-specific issues and factors applicable to BCUAwere included in the plant-specific cost estimates.

o An intermediate pumping station will be required for all add-on carbon removalprocesses due to insufficient available head.

For nitrogen removal upgrades, the plant-specific base capital costs were modified due todifferences in the BCUA plant and the generic conventional activated sludge plant. One keydifference is that the BCUA plant’s organic loading rate per existing aeration tank volume(volumetric organic loading rate) is greater than the generic plant. The fact that volumetricorganic loading rate at the existing BCUA plant is greater than at the generic plant means that, allother things being equal, the BCUA plant will require a greater percentage of aeration tankexpansion (compared to existing aeration tank volume) than required for the generic plant.Another key difference is that plant data indicates that BCUA is subject to lower wastewatertemperatures for year-round and seasonal limit upgrade scenarios (9-deg C and 13 deg-C atBCUA versus 11-deg C ad 14-deg C at the generic plant), respectively. The lower designtemperature at BCUA results in the need to carry a greater relative biomass inventory, whichimpacts the sizing of aeration tanks and final clarifiers.

Because of these significant differences between the BCUA plant and the generic plant, M&Eused BioWin process modeling software to evaluate the ability of the BCUA plant to achieveAdvanced Basic BNR (Low level of nitrogen removal) and Step Feed BNR (Medium and Highlevels of nitrogen removal) for the upgrade scenarios. Based on the design criteria presented inTable 3-6 and the evaluative approach described in Section 4.5, Table 8-6 presents a summary ofthe existing and additional required aeration tanks (AT) and final settling tanks (FST) required atthe BCUA plant.


Summary Report

- 75 -

Table 8-6Summary of existing and additional required aeration and final settling tanks for

nitrogen removal upgrade scenarios at the BCUA plant

Additional Process Tankage Required

ExistingProcessTankage

Nitrogen RemovalLevel

(and associatedBNR Process)


WetWeatherBypass

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

Scenario

SeasonalLimits

w/ BypassScenario

Low(Adv. Basic BNR)

13 AT8 FST

13 AT8 FST

7 AT8 FST

7 AT8 FST

13 AT, each of1.04 million gal

(300’ x 31’ x15’)

16 FST, each of6,290 sf

(170’ x 37’)Medium and High(Full Step BNR)

13 AT8 FST

13 AT8 FST

9 AT8 FST

9 AT8 FST

Similar to the generic plant, as discussed in Section 4.5, eight (8) additional final settling tanksare required at BCUA to meet the maximum solids loading rate criteria at the higher MLSSconcentrations that must be carried for step-feed BNR. As compared to the generic plant, BCUAhas a broader range in the quantity of additional unit-size aeration tanks required, which isprimarily because the BCUA aeration tanks are of a smaller unit size.

Consequently, to calculate the base cost for BCUA, the generic plant cost estimates weremodified by removing the generic plant Step Feed BNR upgrades and include only the upgradesapplicable to BCUA (RAS pumping, chemical storage and pumping systems, intermediatepumping, and denitrification filters). The base cost for BCUA was calculated on a $/gpd PWWFbasis using the modified generic plant base costs.

Separate cost estimates were calculated for the modifications and expansions required toimplement the given levels of BNR, as applicable to the nitrogen removal scenarios shown abovein Table 8-6. The cost of these facilities was determined using the following assumptions:

o Additional aeration tank volume at the same cost per gallon of tank as that of the genericplant.

o Modifications to the existing aeration tanks to achieve BNR using the same cost pergallon of tank as that of generic plant.

o Additional final settling tanks at the same cost per square foot as that of the generic plant.

o Provide blowers to support the new BNR process using the same cost per gallon ofadditional aeration tank volume as that of the generic plant.

o Interconnect the new aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers to the existing facilities bygravity flow-splitting and piping – no intermediate pumping is assumed.


Summary Report

- 76 -

The costs for these modifications and expansions were included as a plant-specific capital costaddition for the BCUA plant, as shown for all nitrogen removal scenarios in Appendix C.

For both carbon and nitrogen removal, the following site-specific issues and factors applicable toBCUA were included in the plant-specific cost estimates:

o Sufficient BCUA-owned land on which to construct these facilities currently exists to thesouthwest of the existing plant. However, based on NJ DEP GIS data, the majority ofthis area is classified as wetlands. Therefore, an allowance for wetlands mitigation andpermitting was included at $40/sf, or 20% of the unit cost for land acquisition as definedin Section 8.1.

o Pile foundations required for all new structures.

o Dewatering required during construction of all new structures.

o Existing sludge handling facilities were assumed to be sufficient to handle the increasedsludge production.

o Reduced productivity factor required due to work in confined site.

Nutrient load reduction was calculated according to the methodology previously discussed inSection 8.2. For carbon removal, based on BCUA’s current average effluent concentrations of 14mg/L CBOD and 20 mg/L TSS, the expected average effluent CBOD concentrations used incalculation of carbon removal were 6.2 mg/L, 5.0 mg/L, and 2.6 mg/L for Low, Medium, andHigh levels of carbon removal, respectively.


Summary Report

- 77 -

Table 8-7. BCUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total

Nitrogen-Targeting Original Upgrade Scenario

Low 10-12 208 86 294 13.50 4.17 17.67 313 130 444

Medium 6-10 211 120 331 13.74 5.79 19.53 319 181 500

High 4-5 394 189 584 25.66 9.15 34.81 596 286 882

Nitrogen-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass Scenario

Low 10-12 217 85 303 14.12 4.13 18.25 328 129 457

Medium 6-10 221 119 340 14.36 5.75 20.11 333 180 513

High 4-5 382 188 571 24.87 9.10 33.96 577 284 861

Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits Scenario

Low 10-12 162 85 247 10.53 4.10 14.63 244 128 373

Medium 6-10 176 109 285 11.47 5.26 16.73 266 165 431

High 4-5 352 172 524 22.88 8.31 31.18 531 260 791

Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenario

Low 10-12 167 84 251 10.87 4.06 14.92 252 127 379

Medium 6-10 181 108 289 11.80 5.22 17.02 274 163 437

High 4-5 334 171 504 21.70 8.25 29.95 504 258 761

Carbon-Targeting Original Upgrade Scenario &Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits Scenario

Low 5-8 172 75 247 11.17 3.62 14.78 259 113 372

Medium 3-5 216 84 300 14.07 4.05 18.12 327 127 453

High 1-3 382 126 508 24.82 6.09 30.91 576 190 766

Carbon-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass Scenario &Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Scenario

Low 5-8 106 73 179 6.91 3.52 10.43 160 110 270

Medium 3-5 153 89 242 9.95 4.31 14.26 231 135 366

High 1-3 232 115 347 15.08 5.56 20.65 350 174 524


Summary Report

- 78 -

Figu

re 8

-3A

BC

UA

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,00

0

12,00

0

14,00

0

$0$1

00$2

00$3

00$4

00$5

00$6

00$7

00

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal S

cena

rioW

et W

eath

er B

ypas

sSe

ason

al L

imits

Seas

onal

Lim

its w

ith B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 79 -

Figu

re 8

-3B

BC

UA

Car

bon

Rem

oval

0

1,00

0

2,00

0

3,00

0

4,00

0

5,00

0

6,00

0

7,00

0

8,00

0

9,00

0

10,0

00

$0$1

00$2

00$3

00$4

00$5

00$6

00

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal S

cena

rio a

ndSe

ason

al L

imits

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

and

Seas

onal

Lim

its w

ith B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 80 -

8.6 Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties (JMEUC)Conventional Activated Sludge Plant75 mgd Permitted Capacity, 70 mgd Current AAF

JMEUC’s plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-8. The corresponding costcurves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-4A and 8-4B for nitrogen-targetingand carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital and O&M costs for eachlevel of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix D along with an aerial view ofthe plant site.

The plant-specific cost estimates for JMEUC were developed by first calculating the base plant-specific capital costs shown in Appendix D by using the $/gpd unit costs for the genericconventional activated sludge plant shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. In the case of JMEUC, the$/gpd unit costs yielded base plant-specific capital costs similar to the generic plant, since thegeneric plant’s flows and loads are essentially equal to JMEUC’s current flow and loads, andsince significant flow increases are not expected at JMEUC.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to the base cost the additional costs associated with the following sitespecific issues and factors applicable to JMEUC:

o Land acquisition is required for all major nutrient removal equipment, including aerationtank and secondary clarifier expansion.

o Based on excavation elevations in previous design drawings for some existing facilities,no rock excavation will be required for the new facilities

o Dewatering is assumed to be required for all structures under all alternatives

o Sheeting and pile foundations are assumed to be required for all new structures, sincethey are proposed to be located on acquired land to the east of the plant. The basis of thisassumption is that piles were used in construction of the existing JMEUC outfall pipe andthe solids handling facilities, which are located on the eastern part of the site.

o No improvements to the solids handling processes will be needed as a result of theproposed upgrades

o An intermediate pump station is required for the low level carbon alternative (shallowmedia filters) due to hydraulic head limitations.

o Sludge drying is no longer performed at JMEUC so removal of additional dewateredsludge cake was included in the O&M cost estimate in lieu of dried sludge.

Nutrient load reduction was calculated according to the methodology previously discussed inSection 8.2. For carbon removal, based on JMEUC’s current average effluent concentrations of 9mg/L CBOD and 11 mg/L TSS, the expected average effluent CBOD concentrations used incalculation of carbon removal were 5.4 mg/L, 4.8 mg/L, and 3.0 mg/L for Low, Medium, andHigh levels of carbon removal, respectively.


Summary Report

- 81 -

Table 8-8. JMEUC Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total


Low 10-12 137 54 191 8.94 2.60 11.54 207 81 289

Medium 6-10 140 76 216 9.13 3.66 12.79 212 114 326

High 4-5 285 133 418 18.52 6.42 24.94 430 201 631


Low 10-12 143 54 197 9.32 2.59 11.90 216 81 297

Medium 6-10 146 75 222 9.51 3.64 13.16 221 114 335

High 4-5 296 132 429 19.28 6.39 25.68 448 200 647


Low 10-12 107 53 160 6.99 2.55 9.53 162 80 242

Medium 6-10 140 68 208 9.13 3.27 12.40 212 102 314

High 4-5 277 120 397 18.04 5.78 23.81 419 181 599


Low 10-12 111 52 163 7.22 2.53 9.75 168 79 247

Medium 6-10 146 67 214 9.51 3.25 12.77 221 102 322

High 4-5 288 119 407 18.75 5.75 24.50 435 180 615


Low 5-8 144 45 189 9.37 2.16 11.54 218 68 285

Medium 3-5 169 52 221 10.96 2.52 13.48 254 79 333

High 1-3 253 70 322 16.43 3.37 19.80 381 105 487


Low 5-8 88 43 132 5.74 2.09 7.83 133 65 199

Medium 3-5 121 57 177 7.84 2.73 10.57 182 85 267

High 1-3 156 61 218 10.17 2.96 13.14 236 93 329


Summary Report

- 82 -

Figu

re 8

-4A

JMEU

C N

itrog

en R

emov

al

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,00

0

12,00

0

$0$5

0$1

00$1

50$2

00$2

50$3

00$3

50$4

00$4

50$5

00

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal S

cena

rioW

et W

eath

er B

ypas

sSe

ason

al L

imits

Seas

onal

Lim

its w

ith B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 83 -

Figu

re 8

-4B

JMEU

C C

arbo

n R

emov

al

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

$0$5

0$1

00$1

50$2

00$2

50$3

00$3

50

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

and

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass a

ndSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 84 -

8.7 Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority (RVSA)Conventional Activated Sludge Plant40 mgd Permitted Capacity, 30 mgd Current AAF

RVSA’s plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-9, and are based on the effluentquality expected to exist after completion of the plant improvements currently under construction.The corresponding cost curves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-5A and 8-5B for nitrogen-targeting and carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capitaland O&M costs for each level of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix E alongwith an aerial view of the plant site.

The plant-specific cost estimates for RVSA were developed by first calculating the base plant-specific capital costs shown in Appendix D by using the $/gpd (AAF and PWWF) unit costs forthe generic conventional activated sludge plant shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. In the case ofRVSA, the $/gpd PWWF unit cost yielded the more conservative base capital cost.Consequently, base capital costs were established based on the $/gpd PWWF unit cost andcurrent flowrate of 105 mgd PWWF, since significant flow increases are not expected.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to the base cost the additional costs associated with the following site-specific issues and factors applicable to RVSA:

o RVSA’s plant is currently being upgraded to treat a peak wet weather flow of 105 mgdand to provide traveling bridge filtration of secondary flows up to 55 mgd. Therefore, forthe Low level of carbon removal without bypassing of wet weather flows and to beconsistent with NJHDG cost estimating methodology, the RVSA plant-specific costestimate will be based on the need to expand the filters to treat 100% of the peak wetweather flow. For the Low level of carbon removal with bypassing of wet weather flows,the filters have capacity for 150% of AAF, and therefore, no upgrades are required.Consequently, the Low level of carbon removal with bypassing is a no-cost, no-additionalremoval scenario.

o For Medium and High levels of carbon removal, it was assumed that processes must besized at peak flow and that the traveling bridge filter associated with the current plantupgrades cannot be retrofitted to provide tankage for other proposed nutrient removalprocesses.

o Other components of the current plant improvements project relevant to nutrient removalcost estimates are:

o Expansion of RAS capacityo Two additional secondary clarifiers

o Based on BioWin modeling performed as part of the design of the current upgrade, theexisting aeration tanks, new clarifiers and RAS system will have sufficient capacity toimplement Step Feed BNR for the Original Upgrade scenario. However, the followingmodifications will be required:

o Aeration tanks must be retrofitted with baffleso Aeration tanks must be retrofitted with mixers in anoxic zoneso One additional blower must be installed


Summary Report

- 85 -

o 25,300 additional membrane disc diffusers must be installedo Chemical addition systems per proposed treatment level upgrades

o Because the RVSA plant has adequate capacity to implement Step Feed BNR for theOriginal Upgrade scenario, it will inherently have adequate capacity for the additionalupgrade scenarios with less stringent design criteria. Based on the assumption that allexisting aeration tanks would be uniformly modified for Step Feed BNR for theadditional upgrade scenarios, there is no difference in capital cost for implementing StepFeed BNR between the Original Upgrade and additional upgrade scenarios.Consequently, to calculate the base cost for RVSA, the generic plant cost estimates weremodified by removing the generic plant Step Feed BNR upgrades and include only theupgrades that would be required at RVSA (chemical storage and pumping systems,intermediate pumping, and denitrification filters). A separate cost estimate for thebulleted items above that are required to implement Step Feed BNR at RVSA wasgenerated and included as a plant-specific cost addition at RVSA for all nitrogen removalscenarios, as shown in Appendix E. Thus, the total capital cost differences between theOriginal Upgrade and additional upgrade scenarios for nitrogen removal are associatedwith differences in capital costs associated with chemical systems, intermediate pumping,and denitrification filters.

o Land acquisition is required for construction of all new structures

o Since all add-on processes will be off-site, intermediate pumping was assumed to be arequirement for all add-on processes, including the traveling bridge filter expansion in thecase of the Low level of carbon removal for the Original Upgrade.

o Some of the new structures are on pile foundations. However, since it is assumed thatintermediate pumping is required to newly acquired site area, it is also assumed thatfacilities located on acquired site space will be elevated or shallow and not require pilefoundations.

o Since the add-on facilities will be not be deep, and based on the historic geotechnicalexperience at the current plant upgrades, rock excavation is assumed to be unnecessary atRVSA.

o Dewatering is required for all new structures.

o Sheeting is required for all new structures.

o Sludge handling processes are sufficient for the additional sludge produced.

o Reduced productivity factor required due to work on tight site to minimize landacquisition costs.

Nutrient load reduction was calculated according to the methodology previously discussed inSection 8.2. For carbon removal, based on assumed average effluent concentrations of 6 mg/LCBOD and 6 mg/L TSS following the upgrades at RVSA currently under construction, theexpected average effluent CBOD concentrations used in calculation of carbon removal were 5.4mg/L, 4.8 mg/L, and 3.0 mg/L for Low, Medium, and High levels of carbon removal,respectively.


Summary Report

- 86 -

Table 8-9. RVSA Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total


Low 10-12 16 20 36 1.07 0.95 2.02 25 30 54

Medium 6-10 18 30 48 1.18 1.44 2.61 27 45 72

High 4-5 98 62 160 6.35 3.01 9.36 147 94 241


Low 10-12 16 19 36 1.04 0.94 1.98 24 29 54

Medium 6-10 17 30 47 1.13 1.43 2.56 26 45 71

High 4-5 81 62 143 5.29 2.99 8.28 123 93 216


Low 10-12 16 19 36 1.07 0.92 1.99 25 29 54

Medium 6-10 18 27 45 1.18 1.32 2.50 27 41 69

High 4-5 93 58 151 6.07 2.81 8.88 141 88 229


Low 10-12 16 19 35 1.04 0.92 1.96 24 29 53

Medium 6-10 17 27 45 1.13 1.31 2.44 26 41 67

High 4-5 78 58 136 5.06 2.79 7.85 118 87 205


Low 5-8 38 7 44 2.45 0.32 2.77 57 10 67

Medium 3-5 93 9 101 6.03 0.42 6.45 140 13 153

High 1-3 159 42 201 10.36 2.04 12.40 241 64 304


Low 5-8 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

Medium 3-5 51 11 62 3.35 0.51 3.86 78 16 94

High 1-3 77 38 115 4.99 1.85 6.84 116 58 174


Summary Report

- 87 -

Figu

re 8

-5A

RV

SA N

itrog

en R

emov

al

0

500

1,00

0

1,50

0

2,00

0

2,50

0

3,00

0

3,50

0

4,00

0

4,50

0

$0$2

0$4

0$6

0$8

0$1

00$1

20$1

40$1

60$1

80

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 88 -

Figu

re 8

-5B

RV

SA C

arbo

n R

emov

al

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

$0$5

0$1

00$1

50$2

00$2

50

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Year

200

7 $M

M)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

and

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass a

ndSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 89 -

8.8 North Hudson Sewerage Authority (NHSA) – Adams Street WWTPTrickling Filter Plant21 mgd Permitted Capacity, 14 mgd Current AAF

NHSA’s Adams Street plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-10. Thecorresponding cost curves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-6A and 8-6Bfor nitrogen-targeting and carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital andO&M costs for each level of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix F along withan aerial view of the plant site.

The plant-specific cost estimates for the Adams Street WWTP were developed by first calculatingthe base plant-specific capital costs shown in Appendix F by using the $/gpd (AAF and PWWF)unit costs for the generic trickling filter plant shown in Tables 5-9 and 5-10. In the case of NHSAAdams Street, the $/gpd PWWF unit cost yielded the more conservative base capital cost.Consequently, base capital costs were established based on the $/gpd PWWF unit cost andcurrent flowrate of 52 mgd PWWF, since significant flow increases are not expected.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to the base costs the additional costs associated with the following site-specific issues and factors applicable to the Adams Street WWTP:

o For the low nitrogen-targeting and low carbon-targeting scenarios, it was assumed that nochanges would be required to the existing plant since the plant already achieves theeffluent standards specified for these scenarios.

o There is no available space at the existing site. Therefore, the land to the north of theAdams Street WWTP, on the other side of the light rail tracks, was considered forlocating the various add-on processes for medium and high levels of nitrogen and carbonremoval. This location is approximately 200 ft from the existing secondary treatmentfacilities.

o For the medium and high levels and nitrogen and carbon removal, effluent from thePURAC® dissolved air flotation/filtration facility would be pumped to the tertiarytreatment facility by an intermediate pump station. The effluent from the tertiarytreatment facility would also be pumped back to the existing disinfection facilities. As aresult, the costs for an intermediate pump station with two sets of pumps and theadditional land were included in the cost estimate.

o The costs for 80-ton structural piles were included for the Adams Street WWTP site-specific cost estimate since the existing structures are built on 85 ft piles. A pilefoundation unit cost of $210/sf was used, since the depth of pile foundations at AdamsStreet WWTP is slightly greater than twice that of the pile foundations discussed insection 8.1.

o The cost for sheeting was included for all excavation since this site is adjacent to a railline as well as existing structures.

o The water table at the site is approximately 8 ft below the ground surface. Therefore, thecost for installing and maintaining a dewatering system for the sub-surface structures wasincluded in the cost estimates.


Summary Report

- 90 -

o The existing sludge thickening and storage facilities have sufficient capacity for theadditional sludge produced.

o Reduced productivity factor required due to work on tight site.

o Increased land acquisition cost of $600/SF

Nutrient load reduction was calculated according to the methodology previously discussed inSection 8.2. For carbon removal, based on Adams Street WWTP’s current average effluentconcentrations of 12 mg/L CBOD and 7.2 mg/L TSS, the expected average effluent CBODconcentrations used in calculation of carbon removal were 5.1 mg/L and 2.1 mg/L for Mediumand High levels of carbon removal, respectively. Since no upgrades are proposed for the Lowlevel of carbon removal, no additional carbon removal is expected.


Summary Report

- 91 -

Table 8-10. NHSA – Adams Street Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total

Nitrogen-Targeting Original Upgrade ScenarioLow ~25 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Medium 10-12 144 35 180 9.39 1.71 11.10 218 54 271High 3-5 253 45 298 16.45 2.18 18.63 382 68 450

Nitrogen-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow ~25 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Medium 10-12 75 35 110 4.86 1.69 6.55 113 53 166High 3-5 123 44 167 8.01 2.13 10.14 186 67 253

Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow ~25 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Medium 10-12 134 35 169 8.72 1.67 10.39 202 52 255High 3-5 197 43 240 12.83 2.07 14.90 298 65 363

Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow ~25 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Medium 10-12 68 26 94 4.44 1.24 5.69 103 39 142High 3-5 104 42 146 6.76 2.05 8.81 157 64 221

Carbon-Targeting Original Upgrade ScenarioLow 9-14 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Medium 5-9 125 14 140 8.15 0.69 8.84 189 22 211High 1-3 235 36 271 15.30 1.73 17.04 355 54 409

Carbon-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 10-15 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Medium 5-9 65 17 82 4.22 0.84 5.06 98 26 124High 1-3 112 34 146 7.26 1.66 8.92 169 52 220Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 10-15 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Medium 5-9 104 25 129 6.74 1.22 7.96 156 38 195High 1-3 213 35 248 13.85 1.71 15.56 322 53 375Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 10-15 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Medium 5-9 60 25 85 3.87 1.21 5.08 90 38 128High 1-3 114 34 148 7.44 1.64 9.08 173 51 224


Summary Report

- 92 -

Figu

re 8

-6A

NH

SA -

Ada

ms

Stre

et N

itrog

en R

emov

al

0

500

1,00

0

1,50

0

2,00

0

2,50

0

3,00

0

$0$5

0$1

00$1

50$2

00$2

50$3

00

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Ye

ar 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al Li

mits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 93 -

Figu

re 8

-6B

NH

SA -

Ada

ms

Stre

et C

arbo

n R

emov

al

0

200

400

600

800

1,00

0

1,20

0

1,40

0

$0$5

0$1

00$1

50$2

00$2

50$3

00

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 20

07 $

MM

)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 94 -

8.9 Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority (LRSA)Conventional Activated Sludge Plant17 mgd Permitted Capacity, 11 mgd Current AAF

LRSA’s plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-11. The corresponding costcurves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-7A and 8-7B for nitrogen-targetingand carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital and O&M costs for eachlevel of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix G along with an aerial view ofthe plant site.

The plant-specific cost estimates for LRSA were developed by first calculating the base plant-specific costs estimates shown in Appendix G by using the $/gpd (AAF and PWWF) unit costsfor the generic conventional activated sludge plant shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. In the case ofLRSA, the $/gpd PWWF unit cost yielded the more conservative base capital cost.Consequently, base capital costs were established based on the $/gpd PWWF unit cost andcurrent flowrate of 51 mgd PWWF, since significant flow increases are not expected.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to or subtracting from the base costs the additional costs associatedwith the following site-specific issues and factors applicable to LRSA:

o Based on preliminary BioWin modeling of the Original Upgrade scenario, the LRSAplant has adequate tankage to implement Step Feed BNR without expansion of aerationtanks or clarifiers. Preliminary modeling indicates that if the roughing filter is takenoffline, there is sufficient BOD for denitrification, and methanol would not be required.However, for purposes of the cost estimates, it was assumed that a methanol systemwould still be required.

o LRSA has a planned rehabilitation of aeration tank process air distribution inapproximately 2 years. For the proposed nitrogen-targeting upgrades, the retrofit ofaeration tank diffusers and piping with a BNR-ready configuration was included inaddition to baffle walls and mixers for all tanks. It was also assumed that thereplacement of all existing blowers would be required. Since the LRSA plant achievesnitrification with a moderate decrease in performance over the winter months, it wasassumed that an alkalinity addition system would not be required. It was also assumedthat the LRSA plant has a current RAS capacity of 50%, and that RAS upgrades to 100%capacity would be installed to achieve full nitrification during winter months.

o Because the LRSA plant has adequate capacity to implement Step Feed BNR for theOriginal Upgrade scenario, it will inherently have adequate capacity for the additionalupgrade scenarios with less stringent design criteria. Based on the assumption that allexisting aeration tanks would be uniformly modified for Step Feed BNR for theadditional upgrade scenarios, there is no difference in capital cost for implementing StepFeed BNR between the Original Upgrade and additional upgrade scenarios.Consequently, to calculate the base cost for LRSA, the generic plant cost estimates weremodified by removing the generic plant Step Feed BNR upgrades and include only theupgrades that would be required at LRSA (chemical storage and pumping systems,intermediate pumping, and denitrification filters). A separate cost estimate for the itemsidentified in the previous bulleted paragraph (above) that are required to implement StepFeed BNR at LRSA was generated and included as a plant-specific cost addition at LRSA


Summary Report

- 95 -

for all nitrogen removal scenarios, as shown in Appendix G. Thus, the total capital costdifferences between the Original Upgrade and additional upgrade scenarios for nitrogenremoval are associated with differences in capital costs associated with chemical systems,intermediate pumping, and denitrification filters.

o Although there is an existing deep bed sand filter on the LRSA plant site, it is owned andoperated by the public utilities end user. Land is leased from LRSA. Therefore, thecarbon removal cost estimates are based on the need to construct new filtration processesas applicable to the upgrade scenario.

o Based on the LRSA plant hydraulic profile, intermediate pumping is required for all add-on nutrient removal processes.

o Based on the LRSA site plan, there is approximately 100,000 square feet of available sitearea, which is sufficient for all proposed nutrient removal upgrades.

o Pile foundations are required.

o Sheeting and dewatering during construction are required.

o Existing sludge handling processes have sufficient capacity for the additional sludgeproduced.

o Reduced productivity factor required due to confined site.

Nutrient load reduction was calculated according to the methodology previously discussed inSection 8.2. For carbon removal, based on current average effluent concentrations of 7 mg/LCBOD and 12 mg/L TSS, the expected average effluent CBOD concentrations used in calculationof carbon removal were 2.8 mg/L, 2.2 mg/L, and 1.0 mg/L for Low, Medium, and High levels ofcarbon removal, respectively.


Summary Report

- 96 -

Table 8-11. LRSA Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total


Low 10-12 22 10 32 1.41 0.49 1.89 33 15 48

Medium 6-10 22 16 38 1.42 0.76 2.18 33 24 57

High 4-5 57 33 90 3.68 1.60 5.29 86 50 136


Low 10-12 21 9 29 1.35 0.41 1.76 31 13 44

Medium 6-10 21 14 35 1.36 0.69 2.05 31 22 53

High 4-5 42 31 73 2.75 1.51 4.25 64 47 111


Low 10-12 22 10 32 1.41 0.48 1.88 33 15 48

Medium 6-10 22 13 35 1.42 0.65 2.07 33 20 53

High 4-5 55 30 85 3.61 1.45 5.06 84 45 129


Low 10-12 21 8 29 1.35 0.40 1.75 31 13 44

Medium 6-10 21 12 33 1.36 0.58 1.93 31 18 49

High 4-5 42 28 70 2.70 1.35 4.05 63 42 105


Low 5-8 31 12 43 2.03 0.56 2.59 47 18 65

Medium 3-5 40 13 53 2.62 0.63 3.25 61 20 80

High 1-3 72 21 93 4.67 1.00 5.68 109 31 140


Low 5-8 11 11 22 0.74 0.51 1.25 17 16 33

Medium 3-5 17 13 30 1.11 0.62 1.73 26 19 45

High 1-3 26 19 45 1.71 0.89 2.60 40 28 68


Summary Report

- 97 -

Figu

re 8

-7A

LRSA

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

0

200

400

600

800

1,00

0

1,20

0

1,40

0

1,60

0

$0$1

0$2

0$3

0$4

0$5

0$6

0$7

0$8

0$9

0$1

00

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 98 -

Figu

re 8

-7B

LRSA

Car

bon

Rem

oval

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

$0$1

0$2

0$3

0$4

0$5

0$6

0$7

0$8

0$9

0$1

00

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Year

200

7 $M

M)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

and

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass a

ndSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 99 -

8.10 North Hudson Sewerage Authority (NHSA) – River Road WWTPTrickling Filter Plant10 mgd Permitted Capacity, 10 mgd Current AAF

NHSA’s River Road WWTP plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-12. Thecorresponding cost curves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-8A and 8-8Bfor nitrogen-targeting and carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital andO&M costs for each level of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix F along withan aerial view of the plant site.

The plant-specific cost estimates for the River Road WWTP were developed by first calculatingthe base plant-specific capital costs shown in Appendix F by using the $/gpd unit costs for thegeneric trickling filter plant shown in Tables 5-9 and 5-10. In the case of River Road WWTP, the$/gpd unit costs yielded base plant-specific capital costs similar to the generic plant, since thegeneric plant’s flows and loads are essentially equal to River Road WWTP’s current flow andloads, and since significant flow increases are not expected at River Road WWTP.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to the base cost the additional costs associated with the following sitespecific issues and factors applicable to the River Road WWTP:

o There is no available space at or immediately adjacent to the existing site. Therefore, theunused land at the intersection of River Road and Port Imperial Boulevard wasconsidered for locating the tertiary treatment facility. This land is approximately 500 ftfrom the secondary clarifiers and approximately 25 vertical feet below the existing site.

o In this configuration, effluent from the secondary clarifiers would flow by gravity to theadd-on process for nutrient removal.

o Since the disinfection system at the River Road WWTP is scheduled to be upgraded inthe near future, it was assumed that effluent from the tertiary treatment facility would bepumped back up to the River Road WWTP for disinfection prior to being discharged tothe Hudson River.

o Sheeting is required to support the earth surrounding the structures requiring excavation.

o Rock excavation will be required.

o Retaining wall will be required.

o Pile foundations are not required.

o Dewatering is not required.

o The existing sludge thickening and storage facilities have sufficient capacity for theadditional sludge produced.

o Reduced productivity factor required for work in confined site.


Summary Report

- 100 -

o Increased land acquisition cost of $600/SF



Summary Report

- 101 -

Table 8-12. NHSA – River Road Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total








Summary Report

- 102 -

Figu

re 8

-8A

NH

SA -

Riv

er R

oad

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

0

200

400

600

800

1,00

0

1,20

0

1,40

0

1,60

0

1,80

0

2,00

0

$0$2

0$4

0$6

0$8

0$1

00$1

20$1

40

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Ye

ar 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal S

cena

rioW

et W

eath

er B

ypas

sSe

ason

al Li

mits

Seas

onal

Lim

its w

ith B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 103 -

Figu

re 8

-8B

NH

SA -

Riv

er R

oad

Car

bon

Rem

oval

0

500

1,00

0

1,50

0

2,00

0

2,50

0

3,00

0

$0$2

0$4

0$6

0$8

0$1

00$1

20

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 20

07 $

MM

)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 104 -

8.11 Edgewater Municipal Utilities Authority (EMUA)Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant6 mgd Permitted Capacity, 4 mgd Current AAF

EMUA’s plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-13. The corresponding costcurves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-9A and 8-9B for nitrogen-targetingand carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital and O&M costs for eachlevel of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix I along with an aerial view of theplant site.

The plant-specific cost estimates for the EMUA plant were developed by first calculating thebase plant-specific capital costs shown in Appendix I by using the $/gpd (AAF and PWWF) unitcosts for the generic trickling filter plant shown in Tables 5-9 and 5-10. Although the EMUAplant is a oxygen activated sludge plant, the generic trickling filter plant unit costs were usedbecause the EMUA plant’s flowrates are closer to those of the generic trickling filter plant ratherthan those of the generic oxygen activated sludge plant and because the same technologies arebeing proposed for the trickling filter and oxygen activated sludge plants. Thus, the generictrickling filter plant unit costs provide more accurate economies of scale applicable to the EMUAplant. In the case of the EMUA plant, the $/gpd PWWF unit costs yielded the more conservativebase capital cost. Consequently, base capital costs were established based on $/gpd PWWF unitcost and current PWWF of 12 mgd since significant flow increases are not expected.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to the base cost the additional costs associated with the following sitespecific issues and factors applicable to the EMUA plant:

o Land acquisition will be required for construction of all new structures.

o An intermediate pumping station is required for the shallow media filters.

o Assuming acquired land is in the vicinity of the existing treatment plant and the Palisadescliff, 50% of the excavation is in rock and 50% excavation requires sheeting.

o Retaining wall required for expansion along the Palisades cliff.



o Reduced productivity factor required due to work on confined acquired land.



Summary Report

- 105 -

Table 8-13. EMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total








Summary Report

- 106 -

Figu

re 8

-9A

EMU

A N

itrog

en R

emov

al

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

$0$1

0$2

0$3

0$4

0$5

0$6

0$7

0

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 20

07 $

MM

)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 107 -

Figu

re 8

-9B

EMU

A C

arbo

n R

emov

al

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$0$1

0$2

0$3

0$4

0$5

0$6

0

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 20

07 $

MM

)


Orig

inal

Scen

ario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 108 -

8.12 Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authority (SMUA)Trickling Filter Plant5 mgd Permitted Capacity, 3.3 mgd Current AAF

SMUA’s plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-14. The corresponding costcurves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-10A and 8-10B for nitrogen-targeting and carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital and O&M costs foreach level of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix J along with an aerial viewof the plant site.

The plant-specific cost estimates for the SMUA plant were developed by first calculating thebase plant-specific capital costs shown in Appendix K by using the $/gpd (AAF and PWWF) unitcosts for the generic trickling filter plant shown in Tables 5-9 and 5-10. In the case of the SMUAplant, the $/gpd PWWF unit cost yielded the more conservative base capital cost. Consequently,base capital costs were established based on the $/gpd PWWF unit cost and the current PWWF of10.3 mgd since significant flow increases are not expected.

The SMUA plant has a second stage nitrifying trickling filter, and consequently achieves fullnitrification year round with only a minor decrease in performance during winter months.Consequently, the following assumptions and modifications to the base plant-specific costestimates were made for nitrogen removal scenarios:

o For Medium levels of nitrogen removal, assume only the denitrifying portion of thepartially nitrifying/denitrifying BAF would be installed. For Medium levels of nitrogenremoval, deductions for the nitrifying portion of the nitrifying/denitrifying BAF areshown in the cost breakdowns in Appendix J. The deduction for the nitrifying portion ofthe BAF was scaled from the generic plant $/gpd unit cost. The nitrifying portion of theBAF was calculated as a percentage of the total BAF cost based on the ratio of nitrifyingvolume to total (nitrifying plus denitrifying) volume.

o For High levels of nitrogen removal without seasonal limits, assume that a deep beddownflow denitrifying filter would be installed, consistent with Table 3-3, but that itwould be installed downstream of a “polishing nitrifying BAF” smaller than a fullynitrifying BAF, but large enough to fully remove ammonia during winter months. Thepolishing nitrifying filter was assumed to be 1/3 the cost of a fully nitrifying BAF.Accordingly, deductions of 2/3 of the generic plant base costs associated with the fullynitrifying BAF were taken for High levels of nitrogen removal without seasonal limitsand are shown in Appendix J.

o For High levels of nitrogen removal with seasonal limits, the SMUA plant alreadyachieves nitrification and does not need a fully nitrifying BAF. Accordingly, deductionsfor the fully nitrifying BAF were taken for High levels of nitrogen removal with seasonallimits are shown in Appendix J.

Because the SMUA plant effluent has a low level of soluble CBOD due the nitrification that takesplace year round, the plant already achieves the Low level of carbon removal as defined by Table3-3. Consequently, the Low level of carbon removal scenarios at SMUA are “zero-cost, zero-reduction” scenarios. To achieve a Medium level of carbon removal, SMUA could installshallow media traveling bridge filters, consistent with the Low level of carbon removaltechnology shown in Table 3-3. To achieve a High level of carbon removal, SMUA could install


Summary Report

- 109 -

microfilters, consistent with the High level of carbon removal technology shown in Table 3-3, butwithout the aerobic BAF. Therefore, the following approach was used for calculating SMUAplant-specific carbon removal costs:

o The Low level of carbon removal is already achieved at SMUA. These scenarios are“zero-cost, zero-reduction” upgrades.

o The SMUA base cost for the Medium level of carbon removal was calculated using the$/gpd unit costs for the generic plant Low level of carbon removal, where shallow mediatraveling bridge filters are proposed.

o The SMUA base cost for the High level of cabon removal was calculated using the $/gpdunit costs for the generic plant High level of carbon removal, where aerobic BAFs andmicrofilters are proposed. Because the SMUA plant currently nitrifies to a high degreeyear-round, the cost associated with the aerobic BAFs was deducted from the genericplant base cost.

For both carbon and nitrogen removal upgrades, the following site-specific issues and factorsapplicable to SMUA were included in the plant-specific cost estimates:

o Land acquisition required for construction of all new structures. Based on NJ DEP GISdata, there is vacant land near the site that is not classified as wetlands. Since the site isin a “low” area, it was assumed that wellpoint dewatering would be required for newstructures.

o Based on the assumption that all add-on processes would be located off-site, it wasfurther assumed that intermediate pumping would be required for all add-on processes,including low-headloss filtration.

o Since intermediate pumping is being installed upstream of all add-on processes, it islikely that filter facilities will not be particularly deep, and thus would not requiresheeting for excavation support. Since filter facilities will not likely be deep, and basedon the historic geotechnical experience in the Secaucus area, rock excavation is assumedto be unnecessary.

o Alkalinity system not necessary since plant already achieves nitrification; however,alkalinity system capital cost negligible compared to overall upgrade capital costs.Therefore, do not deduct alkalinity system capital costs; however, do not includealkalinity chemical costs in O&M costs.

o Existing sludge handling processes have sufficient capacity for the additional sludgeproduced.

o Reduced productivity factor required due to work in confined acquired land.

Nutrient load reduction was calculated according to the methodology previously discussed inSection 8.2. For carbon removal, based on current average effluent concentrations of 7 mg/LCBOD and 13 mg/L TSS, the expected average effluent CBOD concentrations used in calculationof carbon removal were 3.4 mg/L and 2.1 mg/L for Medium and High levels of carbon removal,respectively.


Summary Report

- 110 -

Table 8-14. SMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total

Nitrogen-Targeting Original Upgrade ScenarioLow ~25 7.4 4.3 11.6 0.48 0.21 0.69 11.1 6.5 17.6Medium 10-12 9.0 10.6 19.6 0.58 0.51 1.10 13.6 16.0 29.5High 3-5 26.0 13.1 39.1 1.69 0.63 2.32 39.3 19.7 59.0

Nitrogen-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow ~25 3.9 4.2 8.1 0.25 0.21 0.46 5.9 6.4 12.3Medium 10-12 5.8 10.5 16.3 0.38 0.51 0.88 8.7 15.9 24.6High 3-5 16.0 12.9 28.9 1.04 0.62 1.66 24.2 19.4 43.6

Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow ~25 7.4 4.3 11.6 0.48 0.21 0.69 11.1 6.5 17.6Medium 10-12 9.4 10.3 19.7 0.61 0.50 1.11 14.1 15.6 29.7High 3-5 16.2 12.5 28.7 1.05 0.60 1.66 24.5 18.9 43.4

Nitrogen-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow ~25 3.9 4.2 8.1 0.25 0.21 0.46 5.9 6.4 12.3Medium 10-12 6.1 8.2 14.2 0.39 0.39 0.79 9.2 12.3 21.5High 3-5 9.8 12.4 22.2 0.64 0.60 1.24 14.7 18.8 33.5

Carbon-Targeting Original Upgrade ScenarioLow 10-15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0Medium 5-9 7.2 4.3 11.5 0.47 0.21 0.67 10.8 6.5 17.3High 1-3 21.1 9.2 30.3 1.37 0.45 1.82 31.9 13.9 45.8

Carbon-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 10-15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0Medium 5-9 3.9 4.2 8.1 0.25 0.21 0.46 5.9 6.4 12.3High 1-3 11.4 8.9 20.3 0.74 0.43 1.17 17.2 13.5 30.7Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits ScenarioLow 10-15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0Medium 5-9 7.4 4.3 11.6 0.48 0.21 0.68 11.1 6.4 17.5High 1-3 21.0 9.1 30.1 1.37 0.44 1.81 31.7 13.7 45.4Carbon-Targeting Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass ScenarioLow 10-15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0Medium 5-9 3.9 4.2 8.1 0.25 0.20 0.46 5.9 6.4 12.2High 1-3 11.4 8.9 20.3 0.74 0.43 1.17 17.2 13.4 30.6


Summary Report

- 111 -

Figu

re 8

-10A

SMU

A N

itrog

en R

emov

al

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$0$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Year

200

7 $M

M)


Orig

inal

Scen

ario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 112 -

Figu

re 8

-10B

SMU

A C

arbo

n R

emov

al

020406080100

120

140

160

$0$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 20

07 $

MM

)


Orig

inal S

cena

rioW

et W

eath

er B

ypas

sSe

ason

al Li

mits

Seas

onal

Lim

its w

ith B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 113 -

8.13 North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority (NBMUA) – Woodcliff WWTPTrickling Filter Plant2.91 mgd Permitted Capacity, 3.0 mgd Current AAF

NBMUA’s plant-specific cost estimates are summarized in Table 8-15. The corresponding costcurves, based on total present costs, are presented in Figures 8-11A and 8-11B for nitrogen-targeting and carbon-targeting scenarios, respectively. Breakdowns of capital and O&M costs foreach level of nitrogen and carbon removal are presented in Appendix K along with an aerial viewof the plant site.

The plant-specific cost estimates for NBMUA were developed by first calculating the base plant-specific capital costs shown in Appendix K by using the $/gpd (AAF and PWWF) unit costs forthe generic trickling filter plant shown in Tables 5-9 and 5-10. In the case of NBMUA, the $/gpdPWWF unit cost yielded the more conservative base capital cost. Consequently, base capitalcosts were established based on the $/gpd PWWF unit cost and the current PWWF of 9.3 mgdsince significant flow increases are not expected.

After calculation of the base plant-specific cost estimates, the total plant-specific cost estimateswere developed by adding to the base cost the additional costs associated with the following sitespecific issues and factors applicable to the NBMUA:

o All new structures will require acquired land.

o There is about 3 feet head available between the downstream end of the secondaryclarifiers and upstream of the chlorine contact tanks. It is assumed that secondary clarifiereffluent will flow by gravity to the new add-on processes (assuming they are in thevicinity of the existing treatment plant) and an intermediate pump station will be requiredto pump the effluent back to the chlorine contact tank for disinfection and discharge.

o Pile foundations are required.

o Dewatering is required during construction.

o Rock excavation is not required.

o Sheeting is required.


o Reduced productivity factor is required due to work on confined acquired land.



Summary Report

- 114 -

Table 8-15. NBMUA Plant-Specific Cost Summary




RemovalLevel




O&M Total








Summary Report

- 115 -

Figu

re 8

-11A

NB

MU

A N

itrog

en R

emov

al

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

$0$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 200

7 $M

M)


Orig

inal S

cena

rioW

et W

eath

er B

ypas

sSe

ason

al Li

mits

Seas

onal

Lim

its w

ith B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 116 -

Figu

re 8

-11B

NB

MU

A C

arbo

n R

emov

al

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$0$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 20

07 $

MM

)


Orig

inal

Sce

nario

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

itsSe

ason

al L

imits

with

Byp

ass


Summary Report

- 117 -

8.14 Cumulative NJHDG Cost Curves and Observations

Cumulative cost curves for nitrogen removal and carbon removal at NJHDG member plants arepresented in Figures 8-12 and 8-13, respectively. Cumulative cost curves for nitrogen removaland carbon removal at NJHDG conventional activated sludge plants are presented in Figures 8-14and 8-15, respectively. Cumulative cost curves for nitrogen removal and carbon removal atNJHDG oxygen activated sludge plants and trickling filter plants, where common nutrientremoval technologies are proposed, are presented in Figures 8-16 and 8-17, respectively.

Cumulative cost curves are presented in terms of nutrient removal (pounds per day) versus cost.

Based on the curves presented in Figures 8-12 through 8-17, the following general observationsare made:

o For cumulative NJHDG nitrogen and carbon removal, for any cluster of pointscorresponding to “Low”, “Medium”, and “High” nutrient removal levels, the OriginalUpgrade Scenario typically provides the greatest nutrient removal but at the highest cost,while the Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Upgrade Scenario results in thelowest cost but provides the lowest nutrient removal.

o Nutrient removal on a dollar (present cost) per pound per day removal basis can beobtained by dividing the x-axis value by the y-axis value. This value for $/ppd removedis useful in evaluating the relative cost-effectiveness of a particular nutrient removalupgrade scenario.

Based on nitrogen removal curves in Figures 8-12, 8-14, and 8-16, the following observations aremade:

o Cost for nitrogen removal ranges from $28,000/ppd - $61,000/ppd, with typical costs inthe $35,000/ppd - $45,000/ppd range.

o For the oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, the minimum $/ppd isapproximately $34,000/ppd, which corresponds to the “Medium” level of nitrogenremoval and the Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Upgrade Scenario.

o For conventional activated sludge plants, the minimum $/ppd is approximately$28,000/ppd, which corresponds to the “Medium” level of nitrogen removal and theOriginal Upgrade Scenario.

Based on carbon removal curves in Figures 8-13, 8-15, and 8-17, the following observations aremade:

o Cost for carbon removal ranges from $39,000/ppd - $84,000/ppd, with typical costs in the$50,000/ppd - $65,000/ppd range.

For all plants, the minimum $/ppd occurs under the the Wet Weather Bypass Upgrade Scenarioand at the “Low” level of carbon removal.. For the conventional activated sludge plants, theminimum $/ppd removal is approximately $39,000/ppd. For the oxygen activated sludge andtrickling filter plants, the minimum $/ppd removal is approximately $42,000/ppd.


Summary Report

- 118 -

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 Cumulative NJHDG Cost Curves and Observations

Cumulative cost curves for nitrogen removal and carbon removal at NJHDG member plants arepresented in Figures 9-1 and 9-2, respectively. Cumulative cost curves for nitrogen removal andcarbon removal at NJHDG conventional activated sludge plants are presented in Figures 9-3 and9-4, respectively. Cumulative cost curves for nitrogen removal and carbon removal at NJHDGoxygen activated sludge plants and trickling filter plants, where common nutrient removaltechnologies are proposed, are presented in Figures 9-5 and 9-6, respectively.

Cumulative cost curves are presented in terms of nutrient removal (pounds per day) versus cost.

Based on the curves presented in Figures 9-1 through 9-2, the following general observations aremade:

o For cumulative NJHDG nitrogen and carbon removal, for any cluster of pointscorresponding to “Low”, “Medium”, and “High” nutrient removal levels, the OriginalUpgrade Scenario typically provides the greatest nutrient removal but at the highest cost,while the Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Upgrade Scenario results in thelowest cost but provides the lowest nutrient removal.

o Nutrient removal on a dollar (present cost) per pound per day removal basis can beobtained by dividing the x-axis value by the y-axis value. This value for $/ppd removedis useful in evaluating the relative cost-effectiveness of a particular nutrient removalupgrade scenario.

Based on nitrogen removal curves in Figures 9-1, 9-3, and 9-5, the following observations aremade:

o Cost for nitrogen removal ranges from $28,000/ppd - $61,000/ppd, with typical costs inthe $35,000/ppd - $45,000/ppd range.

o For the oxygen activated sludge and trickling filter plants, the minimum $/ppd isapproximately $34,000/ppd, which corresponds to the “Medium” level of nitrogenremoval and the Seasonal Limits with Wet Weather Bypass Upgrade Scenario.

o For conventional activated sludge plants, the minimum $/ppd is approximately$28,000/ppd, which corresponds to the “Medium” level of nitrogen removal and theOriginal Upgrade Scenario.

Based on carbon removal curves in Figures 9-2, 9-4, and 9-6, the following observations aremade:

o Cost for carbon removal ranges from $39,000/ppd - $84,000/ppd, with typical costs in the$50,000/ppd - $65,000/ppd range.

For all plants, the minimum $/ppd occurs under the the Wet Weather Bypass Upgrade Scenarioand at the “Low” level of carbon removal.. For the conventional activated sludge plants, the


Summary Report

- 119 -

minimum $/ppd removal is approximately $39,000/ppd. For the oxygen activated sludge andtrickling filter plants, the minimum $/ppd removal is approximately $42,000/ppd.

Figu

re 9

-1C

umul

ativ

e N

JHD

G N

itrog

en R

emov

al

0

20,00

0

40,00

0

60,00

0

80,00

0

100,

000

120,

000

140,

000

160,

000

$0$1

,000

$2,0

00$3

,000

$4,0

00$5

,000

$6,0

00$7

,000

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Year

200

7 $M

M)


Orig

inal

Upg

rade

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Seas

onal

& B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 120 -

Figu

re 9

-2C

umul

ativ

e N

JHD

G C

arbo

n R

emov

al

0

10,0

00

20,0

00

30,0

00

40,0

00

50,0

00

60,0

00

70,0

00

80,0

00

$0$1

,000

$2,0

00$3

,000

$4,0

00$5

,000

$6,0

00

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 20

07 $

MM

)


Orig

inal

Upg

rade

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Seas

onal

& B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 121 -

Figu

re 9

-3C

umul

ativ

e N

itrog

en R

emov

al a

t Con

vent

iona

l Act

ivat

ed S

ludg

e Pl

ants

0

5,00

0

10,0

00

15,0

00

20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

$0$2

00$4

00$6

00$8

00$1

,000

$1,20

0$1

,400

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Year

200

7 $M

M)


Orig

inal

Upg

rade

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Seas

onal

& B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 122 -

Figu

re 9

-4C

umul

ativ

e C

arbo

n R

emov

al a

t Con

vent

iona

l Act

ivat

ed S

ludg

e Pl

ants

0

2,00

0

4,00

0

6,00

0

8,00

0

10,0

00

12,0

00

14,0

00

16,0

00

$0$2

00$4

00$6

00$8

00$1

,000

$1,2

00

Tot

al P

rese

nt C

ost (

Yea

r 20

07 $

MM

)


Orig

inal

Upg

rade

and

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

and

Seas

onal

& B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 123 -

Figu

re 9

-5C

umul

ativ

e N

itrog

en R

emov

al a

tO

xyge

n A

ctiv

ated

Slu

dge

and

Tric

klin

g Fi

lter P

lant

s

0

20,00

0

40,00

0

60,00

0

80,00

0

100,

000

120,

000

140,

000

$0$1

,000

$2,00

0$3

,000

$4,00

0$5

,000

$6,00

0

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear

2007

$M

M)


Orig

inal

Upg

rade

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Seas

onal

& B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 124 -

Figu

re 9

-6C

umul

ativ

e C

arbo

n R

emov

al a

tO

xyge

n A

ctiv

ated

Slu

dge

and

Tric

klin

g Fi

lter P

lant

s

0

10,0

00

20,0

00

30,0

00

40,0

00

50,0

00

60,0

00

$0$5

00$1

,000

$1,5

00$2

,000

$2,5

00$3

,000

$3,5

00$4

,000

$4,5

00$5

,000

Tota

l Pre

sent

Cos

t (Y

ear 2

007

$MM

)


Orig

inal

Upg

rade

Wet

Wea

ther

Byp

ass

Seas

onal

Lim

its

Seas

onal

& B

ypas

s


Summary Report

- 125 -

9.2 Environmental Impacts of Increased Energy Demand

While nutrient removal from wastewater treatment plant discharges may improve the waterquality of the Harbor Estuary, it must be recognized that the technologies required to removenutrients will consume substantial energy, resulting in the increased emission of “greenhouse”gases which has an adverse environmental impact.

In an effort to preliminarily quantify the potential environmental impacts of increased energyconsumption associated with nutrient removal upgrades, Tables 9-1 and 9-2 convert increasedannual energy demand to barrels of oil and pounds of carbon dioxide per year, respectively.Conversions are based on the following factors:

o 1 barrel of oil per 510 kWh, based on 33% power plant efficiency and 90% distributionefficiency, per US Department of Energy

o 1.4 lb CO2 per kWh, based on EPA Emissions Calculator

Tables 9-1 and 9-2 are based on annual additional energy requirement for upgrades withoutbypassing of wet weather flows. As discussed in Section 6.8, for scenarios with bypassing of wetweather flows, annual energy demand is assumed to decrease proportionate to the ratio ofbypassed flow to annual average flow. For most NJHDG member plants, this amounts to a lessthan 5% reduction. Therefore, the barrels of oil and pounds of carbon dioxide per year associatedwith scenarios with bypassing of wet weather flows would be approximately 5% less than thevalues presented in Tables 9-1 and 9-2.

Tables 9-1 and 9-2 attempt to quantify environmental impacts of increased energy demand“inside the fence” of the NJHDG plants. Note that additional energy demand and emissions notaccounted for in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 would be associated with increased chemical production anddelivery as well as increased sludge hauling and disposal.

Another environmental consideration pertaining to greenhouse gas emission is that carbon-starved denitrification processes have greater potential to release intermediate NxO instead ofnitrogen gas. These intermediate NxO gasses have a significantly greater adverse impact from a“greenhouse gas” perspective compared to carbon dioxide (on the order of 200 times that ofcarbon dioxide). This is an emerging issue in wastewater treatment, and more research is neededto accurately quantify the amount of NxO that could be generated via denitrification.


Summary Report

- 126 -

Table 9-1. Impact of Increased Energy Demand as Barrels of Oil per Year

Additional oil consumption year(x103 barrels of oil)

Nitrogen-Targeting Carbon-TargetingLow Med High Low Med High

PVSC 93.9 104.4 134.6 77.0 124.6 195.4MCUA 35.8 44.2 57.0 35.8 52.7 82.7BCUA 47.9 48.3 64.4 25.8 20.2 36.8JMEUC 21.0 21.3 33.3 18.9 14.9 16.5RVSA 9.1 9.3 14.4 4.3 6.9 11.7NHSA – Adams St. 0.0 8.3 9.7 0.0 9.2 12.5LRSA 7.3 7.4 9.7 4.3 3.2 4.8NHSA – River Rd. 2.8 3.9 4.9 2.8 4.6 7.0EMUA 1.3 1.6 2.0 1.3 1.8 2.8SMUA 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.0 1.1 1.4NBMUA 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.4 2.1

TOTAL 221.3 250.6 332.4 171.1 240.6 373.8

Table 9-2. Impact of Increased Energy Demand as Pounds of CO2 per Year

Additional CO2 emissions per year(x106 pounds of CO2)

Nitrogen-Targeting Carbon-TargetingLow Med High Low Med High

PVSC 67.1 74.5 96.1 54.9 88.9 139.5MCUA 25.5 31.5 40.7 25.5 37.7 59.1BCUA 34.2 34.5 46.0 18.4 14.4 26.3JMEUC 21.0 21.3 33.3 18.9 14.9 16.5RVSA 6.5 6.6 10.3 3.1 4.9 8.4NHSA – Adams St. 0.0 5.9 6.9 0.0 6.6 8.9LRSA 5.2 5.3 6.9 3.1 2.3 3.4NHSA – River Rd. 2.0 2.8 3.5 2.0 3.3 5.0EMUA 0.9 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.3 2.0SMUA 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.8 1.0NBMUA 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.5

TOTAL 164.0 185.0 246.9 127.6 176.1 271.6

Therefore, achieving high levels of nitrogen removal would result in an aggregate emission ofapproximately 247 million pounds per year of carbon dioxide, and achieving a high level ofcarbon removal would result in an aggregate emission of approximately 272 million pounds peryear of carbon dioxide. The corresponding oil consumption would be approximately 332,000barrels per year and 374,000 barrels per year, respectively. The conclusion is that improvementsto enhance water quality will degrade air quality and produce significant greenhouse gasemissions that are a concern relative to global warming.

NUTRIENTS REDUCTION COST ESTIMATION STUDYFOR

NEW JERSEY HARBOR DISCHARGERS GROUP

FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX A

PVSC Plant-Specific Information

Metcalf & Eddy1140 Route 22 East, suite 101, Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807T 908.707-8874 F 908.707-8894 www.m-e.aecom.com

Memorandum

Date: March 18, 2007

To: Distribution

From: Greg Bowden

Subject: PVSC Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Tim BradleySteve BiusoMark LaquidaraBeverley Stinson

This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with PVSC personnelduring a site visit on February 23, 2007. Steve Biuso and Greg Bowden conducted the sitevisit, and met with Bridget McKenna (Process Control Engineer), Sheldon Lipke(Superintendent of Plant Operations) and Phil Habrukowich (Assistant Superintendent ofPlant Operations) to discuss the items presented in the attached Checklist for Site Visits. Aplant tour was provided by Bridget McKenna.

The site visit findings are summarized below.

1. Information Request form status:• The form was emailed to PVSC’s NJHDG representative, Bridget McKenna• Additional data and general information was identified and was subsequently e-mail to

M&E by Bridget McKenna.

2. Influent Flows and Loads:• Design average flow: 330 MGD• Current annual average flow: 260 MGD• Max 30-day average flow: 310 MGD; very close to the design average flow of 330

MGD• Typical dry day peak hourly flow: 270 MGD• Maximum wet day peak hourly flow: 620 MGD – Note: PVSC plans on accepting up

to 700 MGD in the future• Influent BOD and TSS concentration: 180 mg/L (140 mg/L cBOD) and 170 mg/L,

respectively (Note: the facility began using cBOD measurements in August 2006 forthe plant influent and plant effluent analyses).

• Influent ammonia is not measured.

http://www.m-e.aecom.com

PVSC Site Visit Report2

3. Recycle Flows and Loads:• Gravity thickener overflow:

o 15 MGD (average)o GTO is combined with excess decant supernatant (from Zimpro solids

processing area), which is the portion of the supernatant not fed to thesupernatant treatment plant. This combined stream, referred to as the SludgeTrain Recycle, is pumped to the influent of the Oxygenation Tanks

o BOD and TSS concentrations in the Sludge Train Recycle (monthly averages):1,050 mg/L (± 350 mg/L) and 780 mg/L (± 575 mg/L), respectively.

o Ammonia/TKN not routinely analyzed.

• Recessed plate filter press filtrate from the Zimpro solids processing area:o Flow is calculated from the Decant Tank underflow rate and the daily volume

of dewatered sludge cake; the average flow is ~ 0.26 MGD.o Filtrate is pumped to the inlet of the primary clarifiers, after the plant influent

sampling location.o BOD and TSS data are available; average BOD and TSS are 9,200 mg/L (±

1,600 mg/L) and 1,250 mg/L (± 1,320 mg/L), respectively.o Ammonia/TKN not routinely analyzed, but should be similar to the

supernatant from the Decant Tanks (see below).

• Supernatant Treatment Plant (STP) effluento STP treats supernatant from the Zimpro Decant Tanks. The decant tanks are

used to settle and thicken solids from the waste sludge stream treated by theZimpro reactor system

o Limited ammonia and TKN data is available, but the data does indicate thatthe STP mixed liquor does not nitrify; loss of ammonia-N across the STP isdue to assimilation and some air-stripping

o Average STP effluent ammonia-N concentration was ~ 1,170 mg/L (± 400mg/L) (data from 20 samples collected during January through April 2004)

o TSS concentration in STP effluent was highly variable for the period of 2004-2006, with a monthly average of ~ 2,400 mg/L (± 2,300 mg/L). During 2006,the solids were substantially reduced to 840 mg/L (± 250 mg/L). Thevariability is due to the intentional buildup of solids in the STP clarifiers sosolids can be lost over the weirs

o If sufficient dissolved oxygen is provided, the BOD removal across the STPtrains is substantial, resulting in effluent BOD < 500 mg/L

o pH ~ 7 to 8o Temperature ~ 100 to 110°F due to high COD concentration in the supernatant

(i.e. high metabolic heat generation); the supernatant also enters the STPwarm.

o STP effluent is pumped to the influent of the Oxygenation Tanks

4. Plant Performance:


• Key effluent limitso Monthly average cBOD: 25 mg/L (as of August 2006; before August 2006,

PVSC had a monthly average BOD effluent limit of 30 mg/L)o Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/Lo Monthly average percent cBOD and TSS removal: 85%o Monthly cBOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value of 369

MGD.o Weekly average cBOD: 45 mg/Lo Weekly average TSS: 45 mg/Lo Weekly cBOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value of 369

MGDo The NJPDES permit does not contain maximum daily limitso Daily maximum ammonia-N: 53.2 mg/L (24-hour composite, once per

month)

• Effluent quality:o BOD5, monthly average: 17.5 mg/L (± 3.3 mg/L) (< 10 mg/L cBOD)o TSS, monthly average: 12.2 mg/L (± 2.7 mg/L)o Ammonia (2006 data): 32 mg/L (± 5.5 mg/L)

• Effluent ammonia is monitored weekly, with some additional daily sampling for oneweek periods; permit requires monthly reporting; there is no TKN monitoringrequirement.

• Nitrification does not occur in this plant• Plant consistently and reliably achieves effluent limits.

5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:• Primary and secondary sludges are combined and gravity thickened to 2-4% solids.• Gravity thickened sludge is further thickened to about 4 to 6 wt% solids with

centrifuges.• Thickened sludge from centrifuges is combined with sludges from outside sources and

fed to the Zimpro sludge oxidation process.• Solids in the Zimpro process effluent are separated from the liquid via gravity settling

in the Decant Tanks and thicken to 8 wt%.• Thickened sludge from the Decant Tanks is dewatered to ~ 55% with recessed plate

filter presses; the cake is used as landfill daily cover in New Jersey.

6. Outside wastes received:• Trucked septage is discharged at the headworks• Trucked wastewater sludge is typically discharged to the primary clarifier sludge box• Barged sludges are accepted and discharged to the Zimpro feed sludge wet wells• Monthly barged sludge is ~ 2.5 to 3.0 million pounds of solids with a total volume of ~

10 MG.

7. Description of Liquid Stream unit processes:• Screening and Grit Removal


o Bar screens (7/8”)o Six grit chambers; 16’W x 136’L x 12’ max SWD

• Influent Pumping: six screw pumps; 90 MGD/pump• Primary Clarifiers

o There are 12 rectangular clarifiers with traveling bridge type collectors.Typically, 6 are online providing average daily surface overflow rates of ~1,600 to 2,000 gpd/ft2

o Tank dimensions: 280’x 90’o Primary effluent is sampled, although data collection before September 15th

2006 is questionable due to sampling problems; BOD and TSS concentrationsand loadings to the primary clarifiers are calculated based on plant influentsampling point data and filter press filtrate data (i.e. filtrate is added to theinfluent to the primary clarifiers after the plant influent sampling point); theplant influent sampling point includes the flow streams from Jersey City,Bayonne and South Kearny.

o Typical TSS removal is 35% and BOD removal is 20%, although the data islimited to September 15th through December 31st, 2006.

o There are 4 sludge pumps for a group of two primary clarifiers; 2.5 MGD/pumpo Underflow rate is ~ 5.5 MGD with a TSS concentration of ~ 0.5%

• Oxygenation Tanks:o There are a total of 12 oxygenation tanks; 9-10 were in operating from 2004

through mid-2006; 11 in operation since mid-2006.o Each oxygenation tank has four stages (A/B/C/D) in serieso Stage volume = 755,000 gallons (56’x56’x30’); tank volume = 3 MG; current

hydraulic retention time (with 11 tanks) ~ 3 hours (based on primary effluentflow) or ~ 2 hours (based on primary effluent flow + return activated sludgeflow)

o Step-feed capability to stages A, B and C in each tank; tanks cannot be operatedin series

o Aeration equipment is being changed from submerged turbine to surfaceaerators due to the age and maintenance costs associated with the former andthe higher energy efficiency of the latter.

• Secondary clarificationo There are a total of 12 rectangular secondary clarifiers, each with 3 bays; 10-11

tanks are used.o Dimension of each tank: 363’ x 120’o Solids Loading Rate ~ 16 to 19 lbs/day/ft2

o Each bay in each tank contains a circular slip tube sludge rake mechanism (i.e.three sludge collectors per clarifier).

o Baffles were installed in the influent of each tank and between the bays.

• In plant pumpingo None.


• Tertiary Treatmento None.

• Disinfectiono Sodium hypochlorite is used for disinfection. There are five 30,000-gallon

tanks and three metering pumps.o There is a chlorine contact tank used for wet weather flows in excess of 550

MGD.o Dechlorination is not required.o A supplemental outfall is used when flows exceed about 550 MGD.

• Supernatant Treatment Planto Biological treatment system to remove the bulk of the soluble BOD from the

liquid stream (supernatant) from the Zimpro system; effluent from SupernatantTreatment Plant is blended with the primary effluent after the Primary ClarifierEffluent sampling point.

o Four reactors, each consisting of four compartments: compartment liquidvolume = 234,600 gallons (56’ x 56’ x 10’); reactor volume = 938,400 gallons

o Three of the four reactors are operational and were being operated in parallel;hydraulic retention time (with three reactors and 1.3 MGD supernatant flow) ~2.2 days (based only on supernatant flow)

o Step-feed capability for the first three compartments or stages in each reactor,but supernatant is being fed only to the first compartment.

o Designed as a pure oxygen system, but is being aerated with purge blowers,which are inadequate to keep the tanks fully aerated; DO concentrations aretypically low (< 1 mg/L).

o Four circular clarifiers with six Return Activated Sludge pumps and eightwaste sludge pumps; thickened sludge is returned to the first compartment ofeach reactor; however, wasting via the Waste Sludge pumps is not done.Solids wastage is achieved by allowing solids to accumulate in the clarifiersand overflow the weirs.

o Dilution water (plant effluent) can be added to control reactor temperature.o Severe fouling of the decant supernatant lines occurs and is limiting the

maximum flow to the Supernatant Treatment Plant; a new line is beinginstalled that will have the capability to transport all of the supernatant to theSupernatant Treatment Plant (operational in May 2007).

o Supernatant characteristics:• pH ~ 4.5 to 5.0 due to volatile fatty acids (e.g. acetic acid) generated in

the Zimpro reactors• Temperature is typically high, up to 90°F.• Soluble COD is ~ 15,000 mg/L (BOD5 ~ 8,000 mg/L)• TSS concentration is highly variable; typically averages ~ 800 mg/L

(monthly average), but daily average can be up to ~ 7,000 mg/L


• Ammonium-N ~ 1,000 mg/L; soluble TKN ~ 1,900 mg/L; total TKN ~2,200 mg/L (data from 2001)

8. Available operating modes and process control practices for the High Purity OxygenActivated Sludge Tanks:• MLSS: 2,500 – 3,000 mg/L• SRT: 2 - 3 days.• Mixed liquor pH: 6.2 (not controlled)• Temperature: 19.9°C (annual average); 14°C (minimum); 27°C (maximum)• RAS rate is about 50% and is constant.• WAS rate is only adjusted to maintain MLSS in the desired range, to control the

sludge blanket levels in the secondary clarifiers and control flow and solids loading todownstream solids processing train

• Dissolved Oxygen concentration in the range of 10-15 mg/L; deck pressure used tocontrol oxygen delivery to tanks (i.e. pressure changes as influent BOD load changes)

• The Air Products unit has a capacity of ~ 500 tons/day of oxygen. The current usage isabout 200 - 250 tons at the plant. Any oxygen in excess of demand is vented to theatmosphere.

• The oxygenation tanks are operated in parallel; no step-feed or tanks-in-seriesoperational capability

• The plant does not add hypochlorite to return sludge.• Sludge Volume Index is typically less than 100 mL/gram MLSS

9. Description of sludge handling processes:• Gravity thickeners:

o Twelve thickeners; seven are typically in operation.o The thickened sludge solids concentration varies between 2 and 4%.o Secondary effluent is used for dilution water

• Thickening Centrifuges:o Three centrifuges; two are typically in operationo Solids concentration is ~ 4 to 6 wt%

• Zimpro Thermal Oxidation Process:o Twelve reactor trains; five to six trains are used dailyo Continuous operation; 260 GPM per reactor @ ~ 4-5 wt% solidso VSS destruction efficiency is 60 to 65%o Effluent contains high ammonium-N and soluble TKN; data from 2001 shows

the soluble TKN to be roughly twice the ammonia-N concentration.

• Decant Tanks:o Six tanks; three to four tanks are in use

• Recessed Plate Filter Presseso Five units, each equipped with 126 plates; plate size is 2 meters x 2 meters


• Centrifuges (Stand-by Capacity)o Seven centrifuges; none in operationo Stand-by capacity for dewatering gravity-thickened sludges that would be

normally fed to the thickening centrifuges or the Zimpro solids treatmentprocess

10. Operational challenges:• Implementation of nitrification and denitrification in the future will be challenging.• Potential transition from Zimpro to anaerobic digestion

11. Current plans for plant improvements:• PVSC is upgrading wet weather flow handling capability to increase its treatment

capacity to 720 MGD

12. Future flow/load projections:• In-district flow is projected to increase to 300 MGD by 2025, but loadings are

projected to only increase by 3% due to reduced industrial loadings.• Wastewater Management Plan was approved by the NJDEP in January 2007.• Higher wet weather flows will be accepted in the future to reduce overflows from the

sewer system• No changes in the amount of liquid wastes brought into the facility are anticipated.• Sludge from outside sources is anticipated to increase by 5%.

13. Site constraints• Space within the plant boundary is limited; available space south of the Zimpro

building has been earmarked as the potential site for future sludge processing facilities.• Areas immediately outside the plant boundary are occupied.• There are no wetland issues.

14. Foundation requirements:• The entire facility is built on piles.

NJHDG Nutrient Reduction Cost Estimation StudyPVSC Plant Data Summary

Ref. No. 60022871

Table I. Plant Flows, Concentrations, and Loads (Detailed)1

Flow(mgd) mg/L lb/day mg/L lb/day mg/L lb/day mg/L lb/day

Plant InfluentAnn Avg 2003-04

2004-05 264 197 434000 175 385000 n/a n/a n/a n/a2005-06 256 178 380000 160 342000 n/a n/a n/a n/a2006-07 259 170 369000 161 345000 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Max 264 197 434000 175 385000 0 0 0 0Max Mo 2003-04

2004-05 433 894000 902000 n/a n/a2005-06 494 619000 698000 n/a n/a2006-07 467 535000 839000 n/a n/a

Max 494 894000 902000 0 0PWWF Hour 620 - - - - - - - -Recycle (only includes streams added to secondary treatment - STP effluent and Sludge Train Recycle)Ann Avg 2003-04

2004-05 13.2 1171 96700 1869 119000 120 13000 n/a n/a2005-06 14.66 1071 114400 861 101000 120 15000 n/a n/a2006-07 14.65 903 96000 518 61500 120 15000 n/a n/a

Max 14.66 1171 114400 1869 119000 120 15000 0 0Max Mo 2003-04

2004-05 21.1 962000 1035000 n/a n/a2005-06 20.12 379000 778000 n/a n/a2006-07 19.4 300000 260000 n/a n/a

Max 21.1 962000 1035000 0 0Primary Clarifier Influent (includes one recycle stream - Zimpro filter press filtrate)Ann Avg 2003-04

2004-05 264 206 450000 177 391000 n/a n/a n/a n/a2005-06 256 187 389000 162 341000 n/a n/a n/a n/a2006-07 259 177 380000 161 366000 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Max 264 206 450000 177 391000 0 0 0 0Max Mo 2003-04

2004-05 433 918000 917000 n/a n/a2005-06 494 632000 700000 n/a n/a2006-07 467 583000 1424000 n/a n/a

Max 494 918000 1424000 0 0Primary Clarifier Effluent (sampling problem discovered by PVSC; only data since Sept 15, 2006 is valid)Ann Avg 2003-04

2004-05 259 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a2005-06 251 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a2006-07 257 135 284000 103 223000 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Max 259 135 284000 103 223000 0 0 0 0Max Mo 2003-04

2004-05 428 n/a n/a n/a n/a2005-06 489 n/a n/a n/a n/a2006-07 461 978000 1551000 n/a n/a

Max 489 978000 1551000 0 0Plant EffluentAnn Avg 2003-04

2004-05 17 37400 12 26400 29 63900 n/a n/a2005-06 17 36300 13 27800 34 72600 n/a n/a2006-07 18 38900 12 25900 32 69100 n/a n/a

Max 18 38900 13 27800 34 72600 0 0

1. Based on operational data provided by utility authority.

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871

Table II. Plant Flows, Concentrations, and Loads (Summary)1

Flowrate(mgd) mg/L lb/day mg/L lb/day mg/L lb/day mg/L lb/day

Plant InfluentAnn Avg 260 182 394000 165 357000 n/a n/a n/a n/aMax Mo 494 - 894000 - 902000 - n/a - n/aPWWF(hr) 620 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 14.2 1050 103000 1080 94000 120 15000 n/a n/aMax Mo 21.1 962000 1035000 n/a n/a n/a n/aPrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 260 190 407000 170 366000 n/a n/a n/a n/aMax Mo 494 918000 1424000 n/a n/a n/a n/aPrimary Clarifier Effluent (limited data: Sept 15th, 2006 through December 31st, 2006)Ann Avg 259 135 284000 103 223000 n/a n/a n/a n/aMax Mo 489 n/a n/a n/a n/aPlant EffluentAnn Avg - 17 38000 12 26700 32 68500 n/a n/a

1. Based on operational data provided by utility authority. Annual average and maximum monthly values shown are the maximum values for any annual reporting period or any month, respectively, in the data set provided.

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871

Table III. Treatment Process Parameters1

PrimarySOR

SecondarySOR HRT* BOD

Loading**gpd/sf gpd/sf hr lb/d/1000 ft 3

Ann Avg:Operational 1690 570 1.9 86

Max Mo:Operational 2600 1200 n/a n/a

DesignAverage

1. Based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority.* Includes RAS flow; RAS flow is ~ 50% of the influent flow** Limited data: September 15, 2006 through December 31, 2006

Clarifiers Oxygenation Tank


Ref. No. 60022871

Table IV. Sludge Processing Parameters1

Process Ann Avg:Operational

Ann Avg:Design Units

Primary Sludge Production 5500000 gpdPrimary Sludge Production 284000 lb/day

WAS Production 5000000 gpdWAS Production 332000 lb/day

Sludge Thickening Load* 10 lb/day/sf*Gravity thickeners used for WAS + PS; underflow fed to thickening centrifugesThickened Sludge Production* 1700000 gpdThickened Sludge Production* 620000 lb/day*Thickening centrifuges; Includes sludges barged to PVSC from other facilitiesSludge Digesters HRT not applicable hr

Dewatered Sludge Production cy/dayDewatered Sludge Production 230000 lb/day

1. Based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority.2. NA = process not applicable to plant.

Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners

©2007 Google - Imagery ©2007 Bluesky, TerraMetrics, Map data ©2007 NAVTEQTM

N

ProposedLand Acquisition

PVSC NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter Very LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

Plant-specific base capital cost(1):Base capital cost per generic plant 298,150,000$

subtotal 298,150,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 116,534,880$Pile foundations 61,180,812$Dewatering 14,054,107$Sheeting 429,945$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 138,000,000$

subtotal 330,199,743$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Capital cost deduction -$

subtotal -$Reduced productivity adjustment 28,276,000$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST 656,626,000$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST 991,506,000$

Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 770,000$Additional chemical costs 57,533$Additional energy costs 4,709,876$Additional sludge disposal costs 520,642$Additional maintenance costs 636,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 6,695,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 138,587,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 209,267,000$

GRAND TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST 795,213,000$GRAND TOTAL FUTURE WORTH COST 1,200,773,000$

(1) See basis and assumptions for generic plant conceptual cost estimate.(2) For plant-specific costs not included in generic plant conceptual cost estimate.(3) For generic plant costs not required in plant-specific cost estimate.

PVSC NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

Plant-specific base capital cost(1):Base capital cost per generic plant 1,012,950,000$

subtotal 1,012,950,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 131,411,232$Pile foundations 68,990,897$Dewatering 15,848,195$Sheeting 612,509$Rock excavation -$Other capital cost additions -$


subtotal -$Reduced productivity adjustment 55,342,000$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST 1,285,155,000$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST 1,940,585,000$

Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 990,000$Additional chemical costs 21,402,480$Additional energy costs 5,748,119$Additional sludge disposal costs 3,364,044$Additional maintenance costs 1,748,302$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 33,253,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 688,338,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 1,039,391,000$

GRAND TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST 1,973,493,000$GRAND TOTAL FUTURE WORTH COST 2,979,976,000$


PVSC NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 1,650,000$Additional chemical costs 37,476,768$Additional energy costs 8,234,520$Additional sludge disposal costs 4,166,007$Additional maintenance costs 3,941,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 55,469,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 1,148,209,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 1,733,796,000$



PVSC CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 990,000$Additional chemical costs 14,111,621$Additional energy costs 4,709,876$Additional sludge disposal costs 800,650$Additional maintenance costs 1,982,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 22,595,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 467,717,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 706,253,000$



PVSC CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 1,650,000$Additional chemical costs 14,160,935$Additional energy costs 11,959,989$Additional sludge disposal costs 1,246,915$Additional maintenance costs 6,403,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 35,421,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 733,215,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 1,107,155,000$



PVSC NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter Very LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT






GRAND TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST 529,621,000$GRAND TOTAL FUTURE WORTH COST 799,729,000$


PVSC NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 983,850,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 121,528,764$Pile foundations 63,802,601$Dewatering 14,656,369$Sheeting 575,328$Rock excavation -$Other capital cost additions -$






PVSC NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter Very LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 990,000$Additional chemical costs 20,070,355$Additional energy costs 5,748,119$Additional sludge disposal costs 3,203,832$Additional maintenance costs 1,732,423$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 31,745,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 657,122,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 992,255,000$



PVSC NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter Very LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








PVSC CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 1,650,000$Additional chemical costs 13,280,862$Additional energy costs 11,448,822$Additional sludge disposal costs 1,214,101$Additional maintenance costs 3,915,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 31,509,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 652,237,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 984,878,000$





FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX B

MCUA Plant-Specific Information

Metcalf & Eddy1140 Route 22 East, Suite 101, Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807T 908.707-8874 F 908.707-8894 www.m-e.aecom.com

Memorandum

Date: February 26, 2007

To: Distribution

From: Mridula Deshpande

Subject: MCUA Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Tim BradleySteve BiusoBob SobeckMark LaquidaraBeverly Stinson

This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with MCUA personnelduring a site visit on February 20, 2007. Tim Bradley, Bob Sobeck and Mridula Deshpandeconducted the site visit, and first met with Victor Santamarina, Process Control Engineer, todiscuss the items presented in the attached Checklist for Site Visits, and subsequently touredthe plant with Robert Piszczek, Assistant Process Control Engineer.

The site visit findings are summarized below. The Basic Design Data Summary for thetreatment plant is presented in Attachment A.

1. Information Request form status:• The form was emailed to MCUA’s NJHDG representative, Kevin Aiello, on February

15, 2007• Victor Santamarina had not seen the form.• At the end of the site visit, Robert Piszczek provided a CD containing the information

requested in Items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Information Request Form.

2. Influent Flows and Loads:• Design average flow: 147 mgd, originally 120 mgd, plant re-rated in 1992.• Current annual average flow: 120 mgd• Max 30 day average flow: very close to the design average flow of 147 mgd (159 mgd

10/2005)• Typical dry day peak hourly flow: 130 MGD• Maximum wet day peak hourly flow: 380 MGD (this is the maximum pumping

capacity)• Influent BOD and TSS concentration: 200 - 230 mg/l range (the design BOD was

about 450 mg/l due to industrial contribution).• Influent ammonia is about 35 – 45 mg/l (slightly higher than effluent).


MCUA Site Visit Report2


o About 9 mgd - is introduced to the primary clarifiers.o BOD and TSS data are available.o Ammonia/TKN not routinely analyzed.

• Belt filter press filtrate and washwater:o Flow can be calculated/estimated based on the number of BFPs in service,

sludge feed rate and washwater flow rate.o BOD and TSS data are available.o Ammonia/TKN not routinely analyzed.

• Sludge dryer condensate (future recycle load after new dryer facility is placed intooperation within the next few months):

o This condensate will be introduced into the primary clarifiers.o Recycle load is now known at this time but is expected to be significant

4. Plant Performance:• Key effluent limits

o Monthly average BOD: 30 mg/lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/lo Monthly average percent BOD and TSS removal – 85%o Monthly BOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value of 147 mgd.o Weekly average BOD: 45 mg/lo Weekly average TSS: 45 mg/lo Weekly BOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value of 147 mgdo The NJPDES permit does not contain max day limits

• Typical effluent quality:o BOD: 10 – 15 mg/lo TSS: 10 – 15 mg/lo Ammonia: 30 – 40 mg/l

• Effluent ammonia is monitored daily and TKN in monitored weekly.• Partial nitrification can occur in the summer• Plant consistently and reliably achieves effluent limits. Only challenge is during a

severe wet weather event coupled with a period of relatively poor sludge settleability,which can result in very high final clarifier sludge blanket depths and solids carryover.

5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:• Primary and secondary sludges are gravity thickened to 2-4% solids.• Gravity thickened sludge is dewatered to about 22 – 24% solids with belt filter presses.• Dewatered sludge is chemically stabilized with quicklime and lime kiln dust.• Part of the stabilized sludge is used as landfill daily cover in New Jersey and the

remaining is hauled to Virginia for land application.• By summer of this year, MCUA will begin indirect drying of the dewatered sludge to

achieve 50%-55% solids.


6. Outside wastes received:• Only septage is received. It is introduced to the aerated grit chambers.• Estimated quantity: about 4 truck loads (20,000 gallons) per day.• Lab data on septage is available.


o All screening is done at the off-site pumping stations (Sayreville, Edison, SouthAmboy, Green Brook and Bound Brook). There are no influent screens at theplant.

o There are 3 aerated grit chambers that use a clamshell bucket for grit removal.

• Primary Clarifierso There are 6 rectangular clarifiers with traveling bridge type collectors.

Typically 5 are online. In the summer, normally 4 are used.o Primary influent and effluent is sampled.o Typical TSS removal is 70% and BOD removal is 25 – 30%.o There are 3 sludge pumps for a group of two primary clarifiers, one serves as a

scum pump.o At one point the plant co-settled WAS in the primary clarifiers, but this practice

was discontinued in 1992.

• Oxygenation Tanks:o There are a total of 6 oxygenation tanks - 4 for pure oxygen activated sludge

treatment and 2 for aerobic digestion. MCUA stopped aerobically digestingsludge in 1992. The two tanks originally intended for aerobic digestion couldbe used for pure oxygen activated sludge treatment but would require pipingmodifications and upgrade of mechanical equipment.

o All 4 oxygenation tanks intended for activated sludge treatment are inoperation.

o Each oxygenation tank has four stages in series. The first stage contains 6surface aerator/mixers while the second, third and fourth stages each containtwo aerator/mixers. All the oxygen is sparged into the first stage, and theprocess is controlled using vent purity signal in the fourth stage of each train.

• Secondary clarificationo There are a total of 16 (12 original and 4 new) circular secondary clarifiers, and

all are used. Diameter is 150 feet.o There are no peripheral density current baffles, however the effluent launder

extends about 4 feet into the tank.

• In plant pumpingo None.



• Disinfectiono Sodium hypochlorite is used for disinfection. There are 5 12,000-gallon tanks

and 6 metering pumps.o There is no chlorine contact tank - the outfall provides the required disinfection

contact time.o Dechlorination is not required.o A supplemental outfall is used when flows exceed about 150 mgd.

8. Available operating modes and process control practices:• Typical MLSS: 2,000 - 2,500 mg/l• Typical SRT: 3 - 4 days.• Typical pH in mixed liquor: 6.8• RAS rate is about 60% (not regularly varied).• WAS rate varies with sludge blanket, sludge settling characteristics.• Typical DO in fourth stage: > 10 mg/l in winter, 7 – 8 mg/l in summer.• The Praxair unit generates about 250 tons/day of oxygen. The current usage is about

60 – 80 tons at the plant. The rest of the oxygen is distributed to other users by Praxair(who operates the Cryo unit). If the plant has use for it, up to 200 tons/day oxygen canbe made available to MCUA (200 tons/day would likely be adequate for carbon andammonia removal).

• The oxygenation tanks can only be operated in a plug flow mode.• There is capability to isolate aeration tanks 1 and 2 from tanks 3 and 4.• Based on studies done, the plant could operate with an anaerobic selector for filament

control, however a surface spray of sodium hypochlorite solution has been foundeffective for the control of Nocardia-type foam when it periodically appears. Pipingmodifications would have to be done for the plant to operate in an anaerobic selectormode.

• The plant does not add hypochlorite to return sludge.


o There are 8 covered thickeners; all are in service.o The thickened sludge averages about 3% solids, but can vary between 2 and

4%, depending primarily on temperature.o Secondary effluent is used for dilution watero Sodium hypochlorite is dosed to help maintain aerobic conditions during the

warmer months.

• Belt filter presses:o There are 10 2-meter BFPs, out of which typically 8 are in service.o Polymer is continuously added (target is 6.6 lb/dry ton, but typically about 9

lb/dry ton is required)o Potassium permanganate continuously dosed for hydrogen sulfide control


• Sludge Dryers:o The new indirect sludge dryers are expected to be operational this summer.o The dryers will produce a 50 to 55% solids product, which will be blended with

pulverized quicklime and used exclusively for landfill cover.

• Aerobic digesters:o There are 2 aerobic digesters, which are not currently used.o These tanks were not upgraded with new equipment when the 4 oxygenation

tanks were upgraded several years ago.o The original M&E design made provisions for these tanks to be utilized for

pure oxygen activated sludge treatment, however large diameter piping andvalves would need to be installed, and the mechanical equipment upgraded forthis to occur. In addition, primaries would have to be constructed or theprimary effluent channel extended.

10. Operational challenges:• As previously indicated, the only significant operational challenge is when high wet

weather flows occurs during periods when the SVI is higher than normal.

11. Current plans for plant improvements:• Sludge dryers discussed above are constructed and being tested.• Construction of new force main under the Raritan river.

12. Future flow/load projections:• Since the county is essentially nearly fully built out, significant increases in flow are

not expected.• A flow projection study and/or development of a NJDEP capacity assurance plan may

have been done recently

13. Site constraints• MCUA owns significant land around the treatment plant, so space for the possible

future construction of new structures would not be a problem• There are no wetland issues.

14. Foundation requirements:• The Cryo plant was constructed on piles. All other structures have conventional slab-

type foundations.• There have been issues with differential settlement. The plant is a built on reclaimed

land.• Significant dewatering is required during construction.

NJHDG Nutrient Reduction Cost Estimation StudyMCUA Plant Data Summary

Ref. No. 60022871



Plant InfluentAnn Avg 2004 127 210 218493 254 262,741 20 20,793 35 34,719

2005 122 204 198990 228 224,455 21 20,310 34 32,1062006 120 205 198321 224 218,128 20 19,574 32 32,987

Max 127 210 218493 254 262,741 21 20,793 35 34,719Max Mo 2004 143 285,659 319,440 22,135 39,872

2005 159 239,889 265,569 21,623 37,2862006 150 218,434 260,039 22,827 38,414

Max 159 285,659 319,440 22,827 39,872PWWF Hour 380 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 2004 15 641 80,097 955 110,061 NR NR NR NR

2005 15 528 65,554 863 112,196 NR NR NR NR2006 16 558 74,934 1072 144,662 NR NR NR NR

Max 16 641 80,097 1072 144,662 - - - -Max Mo 2004 16 239,862 348,957 NR NR

2005 15 154,033 278,904 NR NR2006 18 134,701 322,020 NR NR

Max 18 239,862 348,957 - -Primary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 2004 141 262 306,295 332 390,294 NR NR NR NR


Max 141 273 306,295 385 424,089 - - - -Max Mo 2004 158 474,912 634,958 NR NR

2005 174 407,634 764,218 NR NR2006 164 381,610 812,885 NR NR

Max 174 474,912 812,885 - -Primary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg 2004 139 160 185,148 113 130,333 NR NR NR NR


Max 139 166 185,148 130 153,329 - - - -Max Mo 2004 158 288,303 188,747 NR NR

2005 166 279,170 577,678 NR NR2006 160 305,682 184,603 NR NR

Max 166 305,682 577,678 - -Plant EffluentAnn Avg 2004 12 13,266 16 17,951 16 16,428 21 21,355

2005 12 12,654 13 15,249 16 15,737 20 19,2692006 15 15,107 13 14,290 15 14,595 19 19,465

Max 15 15,107 16 17,951 16 16,428 21 21,355

1. Based on operational data provided by utility authority.2. NR = not reported by utility authority.

TKNBOD TSS NH3-N

X:\PVSC-NJHDG\400-Technical Information\Generic O2 Plant\MCUA\MCUA Data in Template Form 3/27/2007


Ref. No. 60022871



Plant InfluentAnn Avg 127 210 218,493 254 262,741 21 20,793 35 34,719Max Mo 159 - 285,659 - 319,440 - 22,827 - 39,872PWWF(hr) 380 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 16 641 80,097 1072 144,662 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 18 - 239,862 - 348,957 - NR - NRPrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 141 273 306,295 385 424,089 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 174 - 474,912 - 812,885 - NR - NRPrimary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg 139 166 185,148 130 153,329 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 166 - 305,682 - 577,678 - NR - NRPlant EffluentAnn Avg - 15 15,107 16 17,951 16 16,428 21 21,355

1. Based on operational data provided by utility authority. Annual average and maximum monthly values shown are the maximum

values for any annual reporting period or any month, respectively, in the data set provided.

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN



Ref. No. 60022871

Table III. Treatment Process Parameters1

Primary SOR SecondarySOR HRT2 BOD

Loadinggpd/sf gpd/sf hr lb/d/1000 ft 3

Ann Avg:Operational 1231 499 2.2 77

Max Mo:Operational 1345 599 2.7 128

DesignAverage 893 565 2.7 (with 33%

return)160

1. Based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority.

2. Design average HRT with no return = 3.6 hours




Ref. No. 60022871




Primary Sludge Production4 2,909,758 930,811 gpdPrimary Sludge Production 221,743 203,000 lb/day

WAS Production4 3,248,355 1,160,889 gpdWAS Production 117,045 213,000 lb/day

Sludge Thickening Load4 11 14 lb/day/sf

Thickened Sludge Production 1,200,235 1,200,000 gpdThickened Sludge Production 330,000 400,320 lb/day

Sludge Digesters HRT NA NA hr

Dewatered Sludge Production 161 900 cy/dayDewatered Sludge Production 271,989 400,000 lb/day

1. Based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority.2. NA = process not applicable to plant.3. ND = No data available from plant4. Calculated from mass balance on "calcs" sheet


Middlesex County Utilities Authority

©2007 Google - Imagery ©2007 State of New Jersey, DigitalGlobe, Map data ©2007 NAVTEQTM

NPotential onsite locationsfor nutrient removalupgrade facilities.Max. 6.5 acres required.Each location shown isapproximately 11 acres.

MCUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 129,200,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 6,084,029$Sheeting 282,883$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pumping station 59,730,000$


subtotal -$Reduced productivity adjustment -$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST 195,297,000$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST 294,899,000$




MCUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 345,800,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 5,350,009$Sheeting 359,851$Rock excavation -$Other capital cost additions -$



Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 880,000$Additional chemical costs 3,550,504$Additional energy costs 2,703,745$Additional sludge disposal costs 1,944,987$Additional maintenance costs 982,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 10,062,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 208,284,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 314,509,000$



MCUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 880,000$Additional chemical costs 2,555,593$Additional energy costs 2,188,454$Additional sludge disposal costs 928,745$Additional maintenance costs 859,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 7,412,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 153,429,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 231,678,000$



MCUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT




subtotal -$Reduced productivity adjustment -$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST 730,670,000$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST 1,103,312,000$




MCUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








MCUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT










FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX C

BCUA Plant-Specific Information


Memorandum


To: Distribution

From: Charlie Hurst, Roy Tsuchihashi, Bryce Figdore

Subject: BCUA Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Tim BradleySteve BiusoMark LaquidaraBeverley StinsonCharlie HurstRoy TsuchihashiBryce Figdore

This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with Bergen CountyUtilities Authority (BCUA) personnel during a site visit on February 27, 2007. Tim Bradley,Charlie Hurst and Roy Tsuchihashi conducted the site visit, and first met with John Dinice,Industrial Pretreatment Program Coordinator, to discuss the items presented in the attachedChecklist for Site Visits, and subsequently toured the plant with the Assistant Process ControlEngineer.


1. Information Request form status:The form was emailed to BCUA’s John Dinice on February 21, 2007In the meeting John Dinice provided the information requested in Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8and 10 of the Information Request Form.

2. Influent Flows and Loads:Design flow: 109 mgdCurrent annual average flow is approximately 87 mgd – It is noteworthy that thisslightly exceeds the current permitted capacity. BCUA is working to have the permitincreased to 109 mgd.Permitted flow for capacity assurance purposes if 94 mgd.Permitted flow associated with permitted loads is 84.28 mgd in the winter season and75 mgd in the summer season.Max 30 day average flow: over 110 mgdInfluent BOD and TSS concentration: 170-250 mg/L typical.Influent ammonia is about 20 mg/L.


BCUA Site Visit Report2

Wastewater characteristics: 95% domestic, 5% industrial, including pharmaceuticalsand food processing.The industrial wastewater includes the cooling tower blowdown from the coolingtower which is utilizing the BCUA effluent.The industrial wastewater also includes some pharmaceutical plants, food processorsand very few remaining plating facilities.Currently Wastewater Management Plan is being updated. The flow developmentportion of the plan will be sent to M&E.

3. Recycle Flows and Loads:Gravity thickener overflow:

o Introduced to the plant influent wet well.o Flow is calculated (not directly measured).o BOD and TSS data are available and will be presented in the data summary.o Ammonia/TKN not routinely analyzed.

Digested sludge centrate:o Introduced to the plant influent wet well.o Flow is calculated (not directly measured).o BOD and TSS data are available and will be presented in the data summary..o Ammonia/TKN not routinely analyzed.

Gravity thickener and centrate flow and constituent concentrations are subtracted fromthe influent data

4. Plant performance:Key effluent limits – The discharge permit is being renewed, so the limits are subjectto change. John Dinice commented that the resolution includes adjudication.

o Monthly average BOD: 25 mg/lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/lo Monthly average percent BOD and TSS removal – 85%o Monthly BOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value of 75 mgd.o Weekly average BOD: 40 mg/lo Weekly average TSS: 45 mg/lo Weekly BOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value of 75 mgd.o The NJPDES permit does not contain max day limits

Typical effluent quality (annual average):o BOD: 15 mg/lo TSS: 20 mg/lo Ammonia: 15 mg/l

Effluent ammonia is monitored daily and TKN in monitored weekly.Partial nitrification can occur in the summerPlant consistently and reliably achieves effluent limits. Only challenge is during asevere wet weather event coupled with a period of relatively poor sludge settleability,which can result in very high final clarifier sludge blanket depths and solids carryover.


5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:Part of waste activated sludge (WAS) is mixed with primary sludge and gravitythickened. The rest of WAS is thickened by centrifuge. Thickened sludge typicallyhas a solids concentration of approximately 4 to 5%, depending on season.Thickened sludge is anaerobically digested in 5 anaerobic digesters.Generally all tanks are in operation.Anaerobic digestion typically reduces 20% of volatile solidsAnaerobically digested sludge typically has solids concentration of approximately 3%,which is dewatered with centrifuge dewatering to approximately 7%.Anaerobically digested sludge and centrifuge thickened digested sludge are mixed toproduce sludge of approximately 4 to 6% solids.The sludge is pumped to two 100’ diameter sludge holding tanks, before being bargedto PVSC treatment works in Newark, NJ.

6. Outside wastes received:The BCUA receives no outside sludge or flow.

7. Description of Liquid Stream unit processes:Screening and Grit Removal

o There are two bar screens facilities in parallel. The screens in both are beingreplaced with new screens. The spacing of the new screens was not determined,but the plant operator confirmed that they are not fine screens.

o Screened raw wastewater is pumped from wet well, where gravity thickeneroverflow and centrate flows are returned.

o Grit is removed downstream of the pumps, prior to primary settling. There arefour gravity grit settling tanks, ranging 35’ to 45’ in diameter.

Primary Clarifierso There are 16 rectangular clarifiers with 2 bays each. One clarifier is out of

service due to subsidence.o Primary influent and effluent is sampled.o Typical TSS removal is 50% and BOD removal is 35%.o There are 3 sludge pumps for a group of two primary clarifiers.o Each tank has dimensions of 100’ to 115’ long, 29’ to 33’ width, and 7.5’

depth.

Aeration Tanks:o The activated sludge process is operated in a contact stabilization mode.o There are six reactors: five with two passes, and one with three passes. There

are 13 tanks total.o First pass is to stabilize return activated sludge (RAS), which is combined with

the primary effluent (PE) to be oxygenated in the second and third passes.o The reactors are equipped to step-feed the PE; however, step-feed process is

currently not utilized.


o All tanks are currently in operation.o Each aeration tank is 300’ long, 31’ wide, and 15’ deep.o Foaming occurs in certain aeration tanks. Foaming is believed to be biological,

as it is not dispersed throughout all the aeration tanks and MBAS samplingduring foaming events has consistently given negative results for surfactants.

Secondary clarificationo There are a total of 16 rectangular secondary clarifiers, and all are used.o Each tank is 170’ long, 37’ wide, and 12’ deep.

Tertiary Treatmento None.

Disinfectiono Sodium hypochlorite is used for disinfection.o Sodium bisulfite is used for dechlorination.o There are four fiber glass reinforced tanks for sodium hypochlorite and sodium

bisulfite (2 each). Each tank has a 8,000 gallons capacity. The solutions arefed by positive displacement metering umps that are controlled by a chlorineresidual meter.


8. Available operating modes and process control practices:MLSS: 1500 mg/L typicalRAS: 5500 mg/L typical, returned at 50 – 60%Existing operation mode is contact stabilizationContact tanks receive primary effluent in step feed modeAll ATs are operational, unless maintenance or repair is requiredAT Nos. 1 and 6 are operated solely as stabilization tanksAT Nos. 3 and 4 are operated solely as contact tanks.AT Nos. 2, 5, and 7-13 can be operated as stabilization or contact tanksRefer to the following table for “normal” AT operating modeTypical DO in ATs is about 2 mg/l (per operators, though not recorded in SCADA)

Available Operating Mode of Aeration TanksBattery AT No. Normal Mode Alternate Mode

1 Stabilization -2 Contact Stabilization

A (East)

3 Contact -4 Contact -5 Contact Stabilization

B (East)

6 Stabilization -7 Stabilization Contact8 Contact Stabilization9 Contact Stabilization

C (West)

10 Stabilization Contact11 Contact Stabilization12 Contact Stabilization

D (West)

13 Stabilization Contact

9. Description of sludge handling processes:Gravity thickeners:

o There are 4 gravity thickeners; all are in service.o Each thickener has 65’ diameter.o Sludge is screened and degritted upstream of the gravity thickeners.o Polymer is added to enhance sludge thickening.

Centrifuges:o There are two centrifuges.o One is used primarily to thicken WAS, another is to thicken digested sludge.o Polymer is continuously added to enhance thickening.

Anaerobic digesters:o There are 5 anaerobic digesterso Part of digested sludge is thickened by centrifuge, and mixed with the rest of

the sludge to produce approximately 4 to 6% solids concentration before beingpumped to the sludge holding tank.


10. Operational challenges:As previously indicated, the aeration tanks occasionally suffer from extensivefoaming. The operations staff believe that it is likely caused by constituents in theindustrial wastewater.

11. Current plans for plant improvements:There is no major plant improvement plan in place.

12. Future flow/load projections:[Updated 11/7/07… John Dinice indicated that the 20-year projected annual averageflow is approximately 94 mgd].

13. Site constraintsThere is land available for plant expansion and/or additional treatment facilities withinthe existing plant boundary.

14. Foundation requirements:There have been issues with differential settlement. As described previously, there isone primary settling tank currently out of service due to severe subsidence. It is likelythat new construction will require foundation to prevent subsidence of the new facility.

15. Use of plant effluent:The PSE&G electric utility across the bay is currently utilizing the plant effluent forcooling water, at a typical rate of 0.7 to 2.7 mgd, with a permit maximum flow of 81mgd.

NJHDG Nutrient Reduction Cost Estimation StudyBCUA Plant Data Summary

Ref. No. 60022871



Plant InfluentAnn Avg 2003-04 86 199 142,000 223 160,000 19 13,500 NR NR

2004-05 87 171 125,000 203 148,000 19 14,000 NR NR2005-06 87 225 158,000 254 176,000 20 13,900 NR NR2006-07 84 198 139,000 210 148,000 19 13,100 NR NR

Max 87 225 158,000 254 176,000 20 14,000 NR NRMax Mo 2003-04 113 181,000 243,000 15,800 NR

2004-05 95 141,000 196,000 16,400 NR2005-06 109 230,000 317,000 17,800 NR2006-07 99 160,000 208,000 14,300 NR

Max 113 230,000 317,000 17,800 NRPWWF Hour 240 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 2003-04 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

2004-05 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR2005-06 10 98 8,200 276 23,000 NR NR NR NR2006-07 9 350 9,800 1,133 89,000 NR NR NR NR

Max 10 350 9,800 1,133 89,000 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 2003-04 NR NR NR NR NR

2004-05 NR NR NR NR NR2005-06 12 9,800 35,000 NR NR2006-07 10 68,000 224,000 NR NR

Max 12 68,000 224,000 NR NRPrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 2003-04 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

2004-05 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR2005-06 101 179 150,000 200 169,000 NR NR NR NR2006-07 94 214 167,000 306 237,000 NR NR NR NR

Max 101 214 167,000 306 237,000 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 2003-04 NR NR NR NR NR

2004-05 NR NR NR NR NR2005-06 117 176,000 192,000 NR NR2006-07 109 218,000 432,000 NR NR

Max 117 218,000 432,000 NR NRPrimary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg 2003-04 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

2004-05 NR 121 94,000 113 88,000 NR NR NR NR2005-06 99 136 97,000 118 84,000 NR NR NR NR2006-07 92 130 92,000 118 83,000 NR NR NR NR

Max 99 136 97,000 118 88,000 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 2003-04 NR NR NR NR NR

2004-05 NR 103,000 95,000 NR NR2005-06 115 109,000 101,000 NR NR2006-07 107 99,000 97,000 NR NR

Max 115 109,000 101,000 NR NRPlant EffluentAnn Avg 2003-04 84 18 13,000 26 37,000 15 10,200 NR NR

2004-05 85 13 9,500 20 21,000 15 10,700 NR NR2005-06 85 14 10,000 21 28,000 15 10,800 NR NR2006-07 83 12 8,600 19 19,000 13 9,300 NR NR

Max 85 18 13,000 26 37,000 15 10,800 NR NR


BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871



Plant InfluentAnn Avg 87 225 158,000 254 176,000 20 14,000 NR NRMax Mo 113 - 230,000 - 317,000 - 17,800 - NRPWWF(hr) 240 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 10 350 9,800 1,133 89,000 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 12 - 68,000 - 224,000 - NR - NRPrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 101 214 167,000 306 237,000 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 125 - 218,000 - 432,000 - NR - NRPrimary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg - 136 97,000 118 88,000 NR NR NR NRMax Mo - - 109,000 - 101,000 - NR - NRPlant EffluentAnn Avg 85 18 13,000 26 37,000 15 10,800 NR NRWastewater TemperatureAnn Avg 17.9 ºCMin Mo 9.0 ºC

1. Based on operational data provided by utility authority. Annual average and maximum monthly values shown are the maximum values for any annual reporting period or any month, respectively, in the data set provided.

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871

Table III. Treatment Process Parameters1,2,3

PrimarySOR

SecondarySOR HRT BOD


Ann Avg: Operational 1,900 1,000 3.2 53Max Mo: Operational 2,200 1,160 2.8 60Design Average 1,360 780 4.5 50

1. Operational values based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority. Annual average and maximum monthly values shown are based on the maximum values for any annual reporting period or any month, respectively, in the data set provided.2. Based on influent flow + recycle flow3. Based on plant design data dated 2002. Design data indicates capacity for 100 mgd design flow.

Clarifiers Aeration Tank


Ref. No. 60022871




Primary Sludge Production - 2.3 mgdPrimary Sludge Production 90000 67000 lb/day

WAS Production 630000 800000 gpdWAS Production 29000 31000 lb/day

Sludge Thickening Load 9 12.8 lb/day/sf

Thickened Sludge Production 378000 346000 gpdThickened Sludge Production 119000 169000 lb/day

Sludge Digesters HRT 16 14 day

Digested Sludge to Disposal 76000 NA lb/dayDewatered Sludge Production NA NA lb/day

1. Based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority.2. NA = data not applicable to plant - dewatering centrifuges offline.

Bergen County Utilities Authority

©2007 Google - Imagery ©2007 Bluesky, DigitalGlobe, Map data ©2007 NAVTEQTM

N

Proposed onsitelocation of nutrientremoval upgradefacilities(310,000 sf max)

BCUA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

Plant-specific base capital cost(1):Generic plant is not applicable -$

subtotal -$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Aeration tank expansion 98,020,000$Aeration tank modifications 20,960,000$Final settling tank expansion 28,100,000$RAS pumping 12,130,000$Chemical pumping, storage, buildings 3,770,000$Flow splitting/piping between new/existing ATs 5,000,000$Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 4,162,838$Pile foundations 21,854,899$Dewatering 4,608,262$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$






BCUA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








BCUA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal -$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Aeration tank expansion 98,020,000$Aeration tank modifications 20,960,000$Final settling tank expansion 28,100,000$RAS pumping 12,130,000$Chemical pumping, storage, buildings 6,940,000$Flow splitting/piping between new/existing ATs 5,000,000$Intermediate pump station 41,600,000$Denitrification filter 119,500,000$Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 6,139,459$Pile foundations 32,232,159$Dewatering 6,796,381$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$






BCUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 92,750,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 3,524,779$Pile foundations 18,505,089$Dewatering 3,901,930$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Interconnect piping 4,000,000$Intermediate pumping station 41,600,000$



Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 660,000$Additional chemical costs 16,740$Additional energy costs 1,577,722$Additional sludge disposal costs 1,189,413$Additional maintenance costs 172,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 3,616,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 74,852,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 113,027,000$



BCUA CarbonDeep Bed Filter MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 185,500,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 2,376,632$Pile foundations 12,477,316$Dewatering 2,630,931$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Interconnect piping 4,000,000$






BCUA CarbonMicrofiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 299,450,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 2,728,105$Pile foundations 14,322,553$Dewatering 3,020,013$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Interconnect piping 4,000,000$Intermediate pump station 41,600,000$



Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 880,000$Additional chemical costs 24,465$Additional energy costs 2,250,620$Additional sludge disposal costs 1,738,373$Additional maintenance costs 1,193,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 6,087,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 126,001,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 190,262,000$



BCUA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal -$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Aeration tank expansion 98,020,000$Aeration tank modifications 20,960,000$Final settling tank expansion 28,100,000$RAS pumping 12,130,000$Chemical pumping, storage, buildings 3,770,000$Flow splitting/piping between new/existing ATs 5,000,000$Bypass piping and diversion/junction chambers 5,000,000$Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 8,321,691$Pile foundations 21,844,440$Dewatering 4,606,056$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$






BCUA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








BCUA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal -$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Aeration tank expansion 98,020,000$Aeration tank modifications 20,960,000$Final settling tank expansion 28,100,000$RAS pumping 12,130,000$Chemical pumping, storage, buildings 6,940,000$Intermediate pump station 25,400,000$Denitrification filter 115,000,000$Flow splitting/piping between new/existing ATs 5,000,000$Bypass piping and diversion/junction chambers 5,000,000$Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 11,781,429$Pile foundations 30,926,250$Dewatering 6,521,021$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$






BCUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 55,460,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 4,000,533$Pile foundations 10,501,398$Dewatering 2,214,295$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Interconnect piping 4,000,000$Intermediate pumping station 25,400,000$






BCUA CarbonDeep Bed Filter MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 129,720,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 3,024,651$Pile foundations 7,939,710$Dewatering 1,674,145$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Interconnect piping 4,000,000$






BCUA CarbonMicrofiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 179,540,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 3,095,554$Pile foundations 8,125,830$Dewatering 1,713,389$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Interconnect piping 4,000,000$Intermediate pump station 25,400,000$






BCUA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








BCUA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








BCUA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal -$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Aeration tank expansion 67,860,000$Aeration tank modifications 20,960,000$Final settling tank expansion 28,100,000$RAS pumping 12,130,000$Chemical pumping, storage, buildings 6,940,000$Flow splitting/piping between new/existing ATs 5,000,000$Intermediate pump station 41,600,000$Denitrification filter 111,200,000$Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 10,228,876$Pile foundations 26,850,799$Dewatering 5,661,683$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$






BCUA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








BCUA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








BCUA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal -$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Aeration tank expansion 67,860,000$Aeration tank modifications 20,960,000$Final settling tank expansion 28,100,000$RAS pumping 12,130,000$Chemical pumping, storage, buildings 6,940,000$Intermediate pump station 25,400,000$Denitrification filter 107,100,000$Flow splitting/piping between new/existing ATs 5,000,000$Bypass piping and diversion/junction chambers 5,000,000$Land acquisition -$Wetlands mitigation/permitting 9,741,223$Pile foundations 25,570,710$Dewatering 5,391,767$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$








FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX D

JMEUC Plant-Specific Information


Job - 60022871

Memorandum


To: Distribution

From: Matt Formica

Subject: Joint Meeting Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Tim BradleySteve BiusoBo BodniewiczMark LaquidaraBeverley StinsonFile

This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with the Joint Meeting personnelduring a site visit on February 26, 2007. M&E staff met with Jack Kennedy, Assistant superintendent,Ralph LaMendola, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer, as well as Operations Staff Ramonand Process Specialist Alex to discuss the information request previously sent to the Joint Meeting.M&E attendees included Tim Bradley, Bo Bodniewicz, and Matt Formica. Bo and Matt subsequentlytoured the facility with Ramon.

Site visit photos and a site plan drawing can be found in the PVSC - Harbor Discharges Groupdirectory on the Bridgewater server.


1. Information Request Form Status:The information request form was emailed to the Joint Meetings’s NJHDG representative onFebruary 15, 2007As of the date of the meeting, the Information Request Form was not received. [Informationrequest form and supplementary data sent was received by Tim Bradley on March 15, 2007.]

2. Influent Flows and Loads:Design average flow: 85 mgdTypical dry weather flow: 55-60 mgdPeak hourly wet weather flows can reach 190 mgd.Typical minimum and peak day instantaneous flows are 40 mgd and 80 mgd.During the wettest period of the year the flow to the plant typically stays below the 85 mgddesign flow (approximate 30 day average).Influent loads during dry flow are typically 150 mg/l TSS and 180 mg/l BOD.During or right after wet weather events the influent concentrations for TSS and BOD can dropbelow 100 mg/l.Influent and effluent nitrogen concentrations to be provided.It should be noted that plant flow metering is done on the effluent only.


Joint Meeting Site Visit Report2

3. Recycle Flows and Loads:It was indicated that the recycle streams were independently monitored and that there should be dataavailable in the three (3) years of data requested.

Gravity Thickener Overflow:o This overflow recycle stream is returned to the head of the primary clarifiers. The

process stream is sampled and the flow can be estimated.Digester Supernatant.

o Not applicable.Gravity Belt Thickener Filtrate

o The filtrate recycle stream is returned to the head of the primary clarifiers with thegravity thickener overflow. The process stream is sampled and the flow can beestimated.

Dewatering Centrate:o The centrate stream is returned to the head of the primary clarifiers. The process

stream is sampled and the flow can be estimated.Sludge Dryer Condensate

o When the dryers were in operation the condensate was combined with the centrateand returned to the head of the primary clarifiers. The dryers have not been in usedfor some time but the condensate stream was sampled. This condensate data willnot show up in the last three (3) years of data.

4. Plant Performance:Key effluent limits

o See permit (to follow in requested information).Typical effluent quality:

o BOD: less than 20 mg/lo TSS: less than 20 mg/lo Ammonia: ~ 20 mg/l

It was reported that partial nitrification can occur in both the summer and winter monthsPlant consistently and reliably achieves effluent limits, although it has challenges meeting %BOD/TSS removal after wet-weather events, when influent concentrations are relatively low.

5. Sludge Quantities and Sludge Processing Practices:Primary sludge and secondary mixed liquor are gravity thickened together.Gravity thickened sludge is digested anaerobically. ~ 52% VSS reduction is observed.Gravity belt thickeners are used to supplement the gravity thickener treatment capacity.Gravity thickened sludge is fed to the gravity belt thickeners thence to the anaerobic digesters.Anaerobically digested sludge is dewatered by centrifuges.Dewatered, lime stabilized sludge is land applied.See process data for additional information.

6. Outside Wastes Received:No outside wastes are received.

7. Description of Liquid Stream Unit Processes:Screening and Grit Removal

o There are two (2) 4-inch coarse bars racks follow by two (2) ¾-inch fine screens thatare run continuously during high flows but are controlled by head loss under normalcircumstances.

o There are four (4) grit chambers with grit screws and collectors. Three (3) of the four(4) grit chambers are typically in service with the 4th brought on-line during wet weatherevents.

Primary Clarifiers


o There are four (4) rectangular clarifiers with traveling bridge type collectors. Typicallytwo (2) primary clarifiers are in service and two (2) are kept empty and out of service.

o Each clarifier is 75 ft x 280 ft x 12 ft.o Two (2) clarifiers are left empty and out of service at all times to allow for storage of

wastewater during a power failure. This storage is provided to prevent the flooding ofthe lift station which could, if allowed, result in an undesired and un-permittedemergency bypass of primary effluent to the receiving water. The storage is requiredto allow time for the set up and sequencing required to bring the backup power on line.

o The 2 empty clarifiers also allow greater process capacity during the onset of high wetweather flows during which time other process changes are made in order to be ableto process all incoming wastewater through secondary treatment.

o Additionally it was indicated that the aeration tanks are carbon under loaded.Therefore the use of only two (2) primary clarifiers helps to improve the carbon loadingcharacteristics to the aeration basins.

o Typical TSS removal across the primary clarifiers was estimated at 40%.o There are four (4) centrifugal primary sludge pumps. Two (2) primary sludge pumps

are typically in service and operated in a continuous withdrawal mode.o Primary sludge is discharged to the gravity thickeners with the waste mixed liquor.

Lift Stationo All collection system flows and plant flows are by gravity to this point. From the lift

station primary effluent is pumped to the secondary process. Flow from the lift stationdischarge continues by gravity through the rest of the facility and to the outfall.

o There are two (2) VFDs and 3 mechanical speed controlled (5 positions) driven liftingpumps each rated at 64 MGD. Under dry weather conditions typically two (2) pumpsare in service. Often only one (1) pump is needed for overnight and early morning lowflows. Under wet weather conditions as many as four (4) pumps have been used. Theremaining 3 pumps are scheduled to be converted to VFD within 18 months.

Aeration Basins:o There are a total of four (4) aeration basins each with a capacity of 4.16 mgal (15 ft

deep x 295ft per pass x 61ft wide per pass, 4 stages per pass).o Each basin contains eight (8) stages and eight (8) two (2) speed (Hi/Lo) surface

aerators – 5 are set to Hi, remainder on Lo. Target 1.0 mg/L DO in mixed liquor. Eachof the eight stages of a basin contains one (1) aerator.

o There are no walls or baffles between adjacent stages. The basins are arranged tohave aerators in Stages 1 through 4 on the influent pass and aerators in Stages 5through 8 on the effluent pass.

o Current configuration is all flow to gate 1 + RASo DO probes in aeration basin are for monitor onlyo The aeration basins are 15 ft deep and 4.16 Mgal each.o High aerosol effect noted, however, odor not an issue.

Secondary Clarificationo There are four (4) 180 ft diameter circular secondary clarifiers, and all are used. The

clarifiers are 15 ft deep at the spring line and 16.8ft center depth.o Stamford baffles were installed to improve performance.o John Esler of CPI had provided some service and recommendations to the plant in the

recent past.

Return Sludge Pumpingo Fixed rate of RAS pumping at 32 mgd (8 mgd per aeration tank)..

WASo Continuous MLSS wasting; plant utilizes performance based process control and

targets MLSS ~1500 mg/L during warm weather and between ~1700 and 1800 mg/Lduring cold weather.



Disinfectiono Sodium hypochlorite is used for disinfection. There are two (2) chlorine contact tanks

(CCTs). Both are typically in service. The NaOCl is added upstream of the CCTso Dechlorination is by sodium bisulfite. Sodium bisulfite is added at the last baffled

section of the CCTs right before the effluent weir.o Discharge to the Arthur Kill by gravity.

8. Available Operating Modes and Process Control Practices:Process control is achieved by monitoring effluent quality and adjusting the plant accordingly.Normal parameters (SRT, F/M, etc) are measured and the system is run based on operatorexperience with the effluent quality and the plant specific operational changes required toimprove performance.Primary effluent can be added to each aeration basin at stages 1, 2, 3, and 4 via sluice gateoperators.In the 1970s the system was briefly run in step-feed, but has been run in a convention modesince.The current operation is all of the primary effluent goes to stage 1 of each aeration basin. Allfour (4) basins are run. All of the aerators in each basin are run on low speed with theexception of aerators 6 and 7 in each basin which are run at high speed.The RAS is continually returned at a rate of 32 MGD. The only time the RAS rate is changedis under extreme wet weather events.All of the RAS is returned to stage 1 (only operating configuration option) of each basin.Mixed liquor is wasted continuously instead of RAS. The facility did waste RAS forapproximately 14 months ending in March of 2006. The mixed liquor and primary sludgeunderflow are combined and introduced to the gravity thickeners.Typical MLSS concentrations are 1500 mg/l in warm weather and 1700-1800 mg/l in coldweather.Sludge settling is typically 250-350 ml/l for 30 minute settling test.The plant does experience some bulking problems at lower MLSS concentration withfilamentous organisms both in cold and warm weather. Solutions to bulking includechlorinating the RAS as a short term solution and increasing the sludge age as a long termsolution.It is suspected that the system slips into nitrification in both warm and cold weather.There are two (2) DO probes in each aeration basin located at stages 4 and 8. The DOmeters are for monitoring only (no auto control). The operators try to maintain a DOconcentration of 2.0 mg/l at stage 8.

9. Description of Sludge Handling Processes:Gravity Thickeners:

o There are four (4) thickeners; typically all are in service.Anaerobic Digesters:

o There are four (4) primary anaerobic digesters, which are all currently operated.o The plant achieves approximately 52% VS destruction.

Gravity Belt Thickenerso There are three (3) 2-meter gravity belt thickeners, two of which are currently operated

at a time.Dewatering Centrifuges

o There are three (3) dewatering centrifuges. Two (2) of the three (3) centrifuges areoperated.

Sludge Dryers:o Sludge dryers were installed as part of the last major plant upgrade. The dryers have

not been used in the recent past having been shut down in 2002, mothballed in early2003.


10. Operational Challenges:The most significant challenge for the plant is to meet the percent removal requirements in thepermit during or after wet weather conditions as influent becomes diluted (TSS and BOD < 100mg/l).Other challenges noted include intermittent Nocardia foaming and sludge bulking.

11. Current Plans for Plant Improvements:There is a laboratory upgrade currently under construction.The plant is considering the construction of an effluent pump station for reuse. See the siteconstraints discussion below.The facility is also constructing a cogeneration facility for beneficial use of the digester gas.The current plan is to install four (4) – 825 kW engines to supply about 85% of plant powerrequirements, utilizing utility power as back-up. Currently the digester gas is beneficially usedto fuel plant boilers and generate about 30% of plant electricity. Excess gas is flared.

12. Future Flow/Load Projections:Previous and recent projection performed as part of the NJDEP capacity assurance planupdated in 2001 indicated that significant increases in flow to the facility are not expected.Currently evaluating the possibility of treating/blending additional wet weather flow duringstorm events

13. Site constraintsThere is some land available within the plant fence line for expansion or new construction.The areas identifies include land south of the primary clarifiers as well as land between thegravity thickeners and the secondary clarifiers.The area east of the secondary clarifiers is currently reserved for a reuse pump station. Theplant has been in discussions to provide 18 MGD of plant effluent for reuse in cooling towermakeup water for a proposed power plant. These discussions are ongoing. Any additionaltreatment of the reuse water would be conducted off-site.The facility is currently investigating blending of primary and secondary effluent with input fromthe regulating agencies. The plant’s feeling is that the blending will ultimately be rejected.However they are currently reserving space adjacent to the effluent end of the primaryclarifiers for a structure to allow blending.Soil conditions within the fence line were indicated to be uncontaminated with the exception ofthe soils in the north east corner of the site which are known to be contaminated.If land needs to be acquired for future construction, there is a former junk yard to the south thefacility on the south side of the rail road tracks that might be considered.

14. Foundation requirements:The staff indicated that some of the structures at the facility had been constructed on piles.The ground water elevation at the facility was unknown but it was indicated that there arepressure relief valves in all of the process tanks (an indication of potential high ground water).High ground water may require the use of pressure relief valves or soil anchors for futuresubsurface structures.

15. Other / MiscellaneousPower – it was indicated that there are two utility power feeds to the facility and that powerdoes not seem to be a facility limitation now and in the future.It was indicated that the last major upgrade to the facility was the dewatering and dryingfacilities located across the street.

NJHDG Nutrient Reduction Cost Estimation StudyJMEUC Plant Data Summary

Ref. No. 60022871



Plant InfluentAnn Avg 2004 69 169 96,000 161 92,000 16 9,200 NR NR

2005 67 166 90,000 159 87,000 16 8,800 NR NR2006 69 147 84,000 148 84,000 16 9,300 NR NR

Max 69 169 96,000 161 92,000 16 9,300 NR NRMax Mo 2004 79 118,000 102,000 9,800 NR

2005 79 97,000 96,000 9,700 NR2006 99 121,000 124,000 13,900 NR

Max 99 121,000 124,000 13,900 NRPWWF Hour 190 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 2004 NR NR NR NR NR 76 5,800 NR NR

2005 NR NR NR NR NR 76 5,600 NR NR2006 NR NR NR NR NR 76 7,600 NR NR

Max NR NR NR NR NR 76 7,600 NR NRMax Mo 2004 NR NR NR 6,900 NR

2005 NR NR NR 6,900 NR2006 NR NR NR 10,300 NR

Max NR NR NR 10,300 NRPrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 2004 76 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

2005 73 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR2006 76 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Max 76 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRMax Mo 2004 87 NR NR NR NR

2005 86 NR NR NR NR2006 109 NR NR NR NR

Max 109 NR NR NR NRPrimary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg 2004 NR 122 77,000 102 65,000 21 13,500 NR NR

2005 NR 130 78,000 105 65,000 21 13,000 NR NR2006 NR 120 75,000 92 58,000 22 13,600 NR NR

Max NR 130 78,000 105 65,000 22 13,600 NR NRMax Mo 2004 NR 85,000 82,000 14,500 NR

2005 NR 85,000 77,000 14,100 NR2006 NR 107,000 77,000 19,800 NR

Max NR 107,000 82,000 19,800 NRPlant EffluentAnn Avg 2004 NR 9 5,300 12 7,000 17 9,600 NR NR

2005 NR 10 5,700 15 8,400 17 9,400 NR NR2006 69 9 5,000 11 6,300 18 10,000 NR NR

Max 69 10 5,700 15 8,400 18 10,000 NR NR

1. Based on operational data provided by utility authority.2. NR = not reported by utility authority.3. Recycle flows and loads reported on summary sheet.

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871

Table II. Plant Flows, Concentrations, and Loads1


Plant InfluentAnn Avg 70 147 84,000 161 92,000 16 9,300 N/A N/AMax Mo 100 - 121,000 - 124,000 - 13,900 - N/APWWF(hr) 190 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 6 220 11,000 600 30,000 76 7,600 N/A N/AMax Mo 9 - 16,000 - 45,000 - 10,300 - N/APrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 76 153 95,000 196 122,000 N/A N/A N/A N/AMax Mo 109 - 137,000 - 169,000 - N/A - N/APrimary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg 76 130 82,000 105 66,000 22 14,000 N/A N/AMax Mo 109 - 118,000 - 95,000 - 20,000 - N/APlant EffluentAnn Avg - 10 5,700 15 8,400 18 10,000 N/A N/AWastewater TemperatureAnn Avg 18.4 ºCMin Mo 11.6 ºC

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871

Table III. Treatment Process Parameters1,2

Primary SOR SecondarySOR HRT BOD


Ann Avg: Operational 1,830 720 5.0 37Max Mo: Operational 2,620 1,030 3.5 50Design Average 1,010 795 4.5 48

1. Operational values based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority. Annual average and maximum monthly values shown are based on the maximum values for any annual reporting period or any month, respectively, in the data set provided.2. Based on influent flow + recycle flow



Ref. No. 60022871


ProcessAnn Avg:

Operational3Ann Avg:Design Units

Primary Sludge Production 34,000 N/A lb/day (dry)

WAS Production 35,200 N/A lb/day (dry)

Sludge Thickening Load N/A N/A lb/day/sf

Thickened Sludge Production 62,300 114,000 lb/day (dry)

Sludge Digesters HRT 48 19 day

Dewatered Sludge Production 36,000 69,000 lb/day (dry)

1. Based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority.2. Plant sludge processing designed for 114,000 lb/day but currently well underloaded because of weaker influent3. Estimated per "EPA Sludge Treatment and Disposal Design Process Manual" dated September 1979

Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties

©2007 Google - Imagery ©2007 Bluesky, DigitalGlobe, Map data ©2007 NAVTEQTM

N

Proposed LandAcquisition(2 Options,Max. requiredfootprint shown)

JMEUC NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 220,000$Additional chemical costs 873,095$Additional energy costs 1,285,296$Additional sludge disposal costs -$Additional maintenance costs 225,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 2,604,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 53,903,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 81,394,000$



JMEUC NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC CarbonDeep Bed Filter MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC CarbonMicrofiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC CarbonDeep Bed Filter MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC CarbonMicrofiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 880,000$Additional chemical costs 38,356$Additional energy costs 998,316$Additional sludge disposal costs 480,397$Additional maintenance costs 566,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 2,964,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 61,355,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 92,647,000$



JMEUC NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








JMEUC NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT










FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX E

RVSA Plant-Specific Information

Metcalf & Eddy1700 Market Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103T 215.399-4370 F 215.399-4371 www.m-e.aecom.com

Memorandum


To: Distribution

From: Bryce Figdore

Subject: RVSA Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Tim BradleySteve BiusoMark LaquidaraBeverly Stinson

Because M&E has prior experience at the RVSA plant, a site visit was not conducted for thepurpose of this study. This memorandum summarizes M&E’s understanding of the RVSAplant operation.

RVSA is currently undergoing construction of CSP improvements, which are anticipated to becomplete in December 2008. This memo addresses the pre-CSP and post-CSP facilities, asapplicable.

1. Information Request form status:The form was emailed to RVSA’s NJHDG contact Anthony Gencarelli on February15, 2007RVSA began emailing information and data to M&E (Tim Bradley) on February 21,2007.

2. Current Influent Flows and Loads:Design average flow: 40 mgdCurrent annual average flow: 31 mgdMax 30 day average flow: 41 mgdWet day peak hourly flow: Currently limited to approximately 60 mgd due to influentpumping system capacity. Capacity will increase to 105 mgd upon completion of CSPProject.Influent BOD concentration: 150 – 180 mg/l (typical)Influent TSS concentration: 210 – 240 mg/l (typical)Influent ammonia is about: 16 – 22 mg/l (typical).


RVSA Site Visit Report 2

3. Recycle Flows and Loads:Gravity thickener overflow

o Waste mixed liquor and primary sludge are currently directed to the gravitythickener. Dilution water is not required due to the current practice of wastingmixed liquor.

o Thickener overflow is not metered and samples are not currently analyzed.However, based on the feed rate of waste mixed liquor (1.7 mgd atapproximately 1500 mg/L) and primary sludge (0.8 mgd at 0.6% solids), andthe typical thickened sludge concentration of 2.8%, the calculated overflow rateis approximately 2.2 mgd.

o After the CSP project is complete, the gravity thickeners will process primarysludge only, and spent filter backwash water will be used for dilution water.Based on solids loading rate, it is likely that RVSA will utilize only one gravitythickener. Assuming dilution water is used to maintain a hydraulic loading rateof 400 gpd/sf, the future thickener overflow rate will be approximately 1.1mgd. However, the recycle BOD, TSS and NH3 load is expected to beapproximately 30% less than the current recycle load, since MLSS will nolonger be wasted to the gravity thickeners.

Sludge thickeningo GBT filtrate and washwater is not metered and samples are not currently

analyzed. However based on a total feed rate of approximately 270,000 gpd totwo 2-meter GBTs at 2.75% solids and a thickened sludge concentration of4.5%, and a washwater flow rate of 50 gpm per GBT, the thickener filtrate andwashwater flowrate is expected to be approximately 300,000 gpd. RVSA iscurrently searching for some older data on GBT filtrate and washwater quality.

o The GBTs will be replaced with rotary drum thickeners (RDTs) through theCSP project. The RDTs will thicken only waste activated sludge, not primarysludge. Since the RDTs do not use washwater, the flowrate will be reduced byapproximately 50%, and the concentration will double (because of the lack ofdilution) resulting in the same recycle BOD, TSS and NH3 load as with theGBTs.

Dewateringo One centrifuge, generally operated 5 days per week, capacity 375,000 gpdo Two (2) new centrifuges recently installed to serve as backup. The old belt

filter presses have been removed.o Centrate is directed to Woodbridge trunk sewer for return to the plant

headworkso Centrate typically is 0.22 mgd, 240 mg/l BOD, 3000 mg/l TSS

Future Additional Recycle Loadso Future: Effluent filter backwash - this will not impose an additional recycle

flow as spent backwash water will be used for thickener dilution watero Dryer condensate – the expected flow rate and quality of condensate should be

obtained from the dryer manufacturer.


4. Plant Performance:Key effluent limits

o Monthly average BOD: 25 mg/lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/lo Monthly average percent BOD and TSS removal – 85%o Monthly BOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value of 40 mgd.o Weekly average BOD: 40 mg/lo Weekly average TSS: 45 mg/lo Weekly BOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value of 40 mgdo The NJPDES permit does not contain max day limits

Typical effluent quality:o BOD: 10 – 15 mg/lo TSS: 15 – 25 mg/lo Ammonia: 15 – 20 mg/l

Effluent ammonia and TKN are monitored weekly.Plant has consistently and reliably achieved effluent limitations during the majorconstruction project currently ongoing. In past years, the plant was periodicallychallenged by industrial discharges that lead to temporary deflocculation of the mixedliquor solids and high effluent TSS concentrations. However, this problem has notoccurred recently.

5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices (Post-CSP improvements):Primary will be gravity thickened (tank).WAS will be thickened by RDTs.Thickened sludge is anaerobically digested.Digested sludge at less than 2% solids is dewatered by one centrifuge (primary) andtwo backup centrifuges of equal capacity to the primary centrifuge to 22–24% solids.Dewatered sludge cake is hauled offsite to disposal lications in Pennsylvania.In the future, dewatered sludge cake will be dried to approximately 95% solids.

6. Outside wastes received:Approximately 2 to 3 trucks of industrial washwater/grey water are processed eachmonth.


o Screening and grit removal is accomplished by two coarse bar screens and gritchambers at the plant headworks, followed by two mechanical fine bar screensinside the service building upstream of the raw sewage pumps.

o Future: All existing facilites will be removed and replaced with three influentchannels, each with a coarse and fine mechanical screen. Four new aerated gritchambers will be constructed.


Primary Service Buildingo Existing firm capacity of approximately 55 mgd.o Future: will be converted to headworks with a firm capacity of 105 mgd.

Primary Clarifierso There are three rectangular clarifiers with chain and flight collectors.o Typical TSS removal is 65% and BOD removal is 35%.o Primary sludge is pumped at an average rate of approximately 0.8 mgd at 0.6%

solids through two cyclone degritters and a mechanically screened bar screen togravity thickener tanks.

o Future: one clarifier of equal size and configuration to the existing clarifierswill be constructed.

Aeration Tanks:o There two aeration tanks at approx 469,000 ft3 per tank, six compartments per

tank – pass “A” through “F” – with fine bubble dome diffusers that will bereplaced with fine bubble membrane diffusers as part of the CSP project.

o Currently operated in a contact stabilization mode (primary effluent to Pass E),but can be operated in plug flow or step feed modes.

o Return sludge pumped at rate of approximately 12 mgd.o Secondary treatment capacity is currently 55 mgd.o Flows in excess of 55 mgd are bypassed from the primary clarifiers to upstream

of the disinfection system, where they blend with the filtered secondaryeffluent.

o Future: Flows up to approximately 70 mgd can be directed through the aerationtanks.

Secondary clarificationo Four 120-foot diameter settling tanks with 11-foot side water deptho Stamford type baffleso Future: two additional 120-foot diameter clarifiers with baffles.

RAS/WAS Pumpingo RAS: Three vertically mounted centrifugal pumps, each 6,075 gpm @ 15.2 ft.,

30-hp VFD-driven, typically returning 12 mgd (23% of max secondary flow).o Future RAS: new RAS pump station with firm capacity of 13,890 gpm.o WAS: Two vertically mounted centrifugal pumps, each 3,200 gpm @ 25.3 ft,

30-hp VFD-driven. Currently waste mixed liquor not return sludge.o Future WAS: new VFD-driven WAS pumps with firm capacity of 700 gpm.

Waste secondary sludge not mixed liquor.

Tertiary Treatmento None existing.o Future: traveling bridge filters capable of maximum BOD/TSS effluent of

15/10 mg/L at 55 mgd 40/45 mg/L peak loading.


Disinfectiono Currently, sodium hypochlorite is used for disinfection in outfall 001.o Future: UV disinfection for all flows up to 105 mgd.

Effluent Dischargeo Currently two gravity outfalls: Outfall 001 to Arthur Kill and Outfall 002 to

Rahway River.o Future: effluent pump station to be used to assist gravity outfalls in high-head

scenarios such as high flow and/or high tide conditions. Cascade aerationprovided.

8. Available operating modes and process control practices:Typical Pass F MLSS: 1500 mg/LTypical SRT: 7.5 days.Typical RAS rate: 25%The aeration tanks currently operated in contact stabilization mode, but can beoperated in step feed or plug flow modes

9. Description of sludge handling processes:Gravity thickeners

o Three uncovered circular thickeners – 2,800 sf settling area eacho Primary sludge and waste mixed liquor fed to thickeners. In future, primary

sludge will be fed to gravity thickeners, and WAS will be fed to RDTs.o Average thickened sludge concentration - 2.8% solids, but this reflects current

practice of combined Primary and WAS thickening, which will change infuture.

o Future: thickening of primary by existing gravity thickeners that will becovered for odor control

o Future: Separate thickening of WAS using rotary drum thickeners. ExistingGBTs to be replaced with rotary drum thickeners (RDTs) to provide separatemechanical thickening of WAS

Anaerobic Digesters:o Average 50% volatile solids reduction,o Typical solids: ~2%o Typical SRT: 18 – 24 dayso Digested sludge typically pumped to four sludge storage tanks at 130,000 gpd.

Dewateringo Three Two centrifuges. One or two centrifuge generally operated 5 days per

week, capacity 375,000 gpd, produces 22 – 25% solids cake. [One Westfaliacentrifuge at 375,000 gpd or two Centrysis centrifuges at 430,000 gpd total].

o Average 9 dry tons/day (40 wet tons/day) sludge disposal rate


10. Operational challenges:Plant is currently challenged by construction of the CSP project.Plant is currently challenged when a primary clarifier or final clarifier must beremoved from service for maintenance.Hypochlorite addition to RAS is practiced to help prevent filament and Nocardiagrowth.

11. Current plans for plant improvements:Major plant upgrade – the CSP project - currently under construction.

12. Future flow/load projections:20-year (2024) annual average flow projection: 34.4 mgd

13. Site constraintsEssentially all available land is currently being utilized for construction of the CSPproject.

14. Foundation requirements:Existing site has high groundwater generally requiring temporary dewatering duringconstruction.Some of the existing structures have pile foundations – primarily dependent uponstructure depth.

NJHDG Nutrient Reduction Cost Estimation StudyRVSA Plant Data Summary

Ref. No. 60022871



Plant InfluentAnn Avg 2004 31 144 37,000 240 62,000 15 3,800 29 7,500

2005 31 162 40,000 256 63,000 17 4,300 32 8,0002006 31 142 37,000 229 58,000 20 5,200 34 8,900

Max 31 162 40,000 256 63,000 20 5,200 34 8,900Max Mo 2004 37 46,000 86,000 4,900 8,900

2005 37 56,000 124,000 5,800 10,7002006 41 42,000 70,000 6,400 10,300

Max 41 56,000 124,000 6,400 10,700PWWF Hour 105 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 2004 2.7 571 13,000 681 15,000 NR NR NR NR

2005 2.7 571 13,000 681 15,000 NR NR NR NR2006 2.7 571 13,000 681 15,000 NR NR NR NR

Max 2.7 571 13,000 681 15,000 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 2004 2.7 13,000 15,000 NR NR

2005 2.7 13,000 15,000 NR NR2006 2.7 13,000 15,000 NR NR

Max 2.7 13,000 15,000 NR NRPrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 2004 34 179 50,000 276 77,000 NR NR NR NR


Max 34 195 53,000 291 78,000 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 2004 40 59,000 102,000 NR NR

2005 40 69,000 140,000 NR NR2006 44 55,000 85,000 NR NR

Max 44 69,000 140,000 NR NRPrimary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg 2004 34 91 26 93 26 27 7,600 16 4,500

2005 33 101 28 88 25 19 5,100 30 8,1002006 34 96 27 88 25 20 5,500 30 8,300

Max 34 101 28 93 26 27 7,600 30 8,300Max Mo 2004 40 33 36 8,900 5,300

2005 40 32 31 6,000 9,1002006 40 33 31 7,100 9,500

Max 40 33 36 8,900 9,500Plant EffluentAnn Avg 2004 31 14 3,700 20 5,300 22 6,800 16 4,000

2005 31 13 3,300 19 5,000 17 5,500 23 5,7002006 31 13 3,300 21 5,600 18 6,000 23 6,000

Max 31 14 3,700 21 5,600 22 6,800 23 6,000


BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871

Table II. Plant Flows, Concentrations, and Loads1


Plant InfluentAnn Avg 30 174 43,500 248 62,200 17 4,500 32 8,400Max Mo 40 - 62,300 - 79,100 - 5,700 - 10,800PWWF(hr) 105 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg 2.7 571 13,100 681 15,400 N/A N/A N/A N/AMax Mo 3.5 - 19,000 - 23,900 - N/A - N/APrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 33 207 56,600 284 77,600 N/A N/A N/A N/AMax Mo 43 - 81,300 - 103,000 - N/A - N/APrimary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg 32 156 41,400 154 40,900 N/A N/A N/A N/AMax Mo 42 - 60,700 - 59,400 - N/A - N/APlant EffluentAnn Avg - 5 1,250 5 1,250 19 5,000 21 5,500Wastewater TemperatureAnn Avg 13.0 ºCMin Mo 18.7 ºC

1. Based on Comprehensive Strategic Plan Preliminary Design Report prepared for RVSA, dated April 2003, by PS&S in association with CDM and M&E. Exceptions: plant effluent NH3-N and plant influent TKN based on 2005-2006 plant operational data.

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871

Table III. Treatment Process Parameters1,2

Primary SOR SecondarySOR HRT BOD


Ann Avg: Operational 1,280 710 5.3 44Max Mo: Operational 1,680 930 4.0 65Design Average 1,000 670 5.6 40

1. Operational values based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority. Annual average and maximum monthly values shown are based on the maximum values for any annual reporting period or any month, respectively, in the data set provided.2. Based on influent flow + recycle flow3. Based on RVSA Contract #85 Phase I Study by Metcalf & Eddy, August 10, 1994 Revision.



Ref. No. 60022871




Primary Sludge Production 0.5 2 N/A mgdPrimary Sludge Production 41,800 N/A lb/day (dry)

WAS Production 1.7 N/A mgdWAS Production 20,300 N/A lb/day (dry)

Sludge Thickening Load 7.3 N/A lb/day/sf

Thickened Sludge Production - Gravity Tanks 230,000 2 N/A gpd (wet)Thickened Sludge Production - Gravity Belt Press 130,000 2 N/A gpd (wet)Thickened Sludge Production 62,100 N/A lb/day (dry)

Sludge Digesters HRT 21 N/A day

Dewatered Sludge Production 80,000 N/A lb/day (wet)Dewatered Sludge Production 18,000 N/A lb/day (dry)

1. Based on plant operational data and design information provided by utility authority.2. Based on Solids Handling Alternatives Evaluation by M&E dated November 2001.

Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority

©2007 Google - Imagery ©2007 Bluesky, State of New Jersey, Map data ©2007 NAVTEQTM

N

ProposedLand

Acquisition

RVSA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

Plant-specific base capital cost(1):Base capital cost per generic plant as applies to RVSA 1,575,000$

subtotal 1,575,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 212,211$Pile foundations 111,411$Dewatering 12,796$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$RVSA-specific Step Feed BNR modifications 13,800,000$


subtotal -$Reduced productivity adjustment 708,000$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST 16,420,000$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST 24,795,000$

Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs -$Additional chemical costs 447,622$Additional energy costs 404,566$Additional sludge disposal costs -$Additional maintenance costs 96,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 949,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 19,645,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 29,664,000$



RVSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 2,730,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 477,474$Pile foundations 250,674$Dewatering 28,792$Sheeting 15,101$Rock excavation -$RVSA-specific Step Feed BNR modifications 13,800,000$



Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs -$Additional chemical costs 726,516$Additional energy costs 567,600$Additional sludge disposal costs 44,638$Additional maintenance costs 99,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 1,438,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 29,767,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 44,949,000$



RVSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 66,675,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 8,044,105$Pile foundations 4,223,155$Dewatering 485,060$Sheeting 168,596$Rock excavation -$RVSA-specific Step Feed BNR modifications 13,800,000$






RVSA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 36,750,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 6,650,526$Pile foundations 3,491,526$Dewatering 401,027$Sheeting 102,693$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pumping station (50 mgd) 7,850,000$Expansion of existing filter to 105 mgd peak capacity 17,500,000$

subtotal 35,995,773$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Deduct filter cost per generic plant base cost 36,750,000$

subtotal 36,750,000$Reduced productivity adjustment 1,620,000$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST 37,616,000$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST 56,801,000$

Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs -$Additional chemical costs -$Additional energy costs 264,946$Additional sludge disposal costs -$Additional maintenance costs 59,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 324,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 6,707,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 10,128,000$



RVSA CarbonDeep Bed Filter MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 73,500,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 9,416,842$Pile foundations 4,943,842$Dewatering 567,836$Sheeting 280,881$Rock excavation -$Other capital cost additions -$



Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs -$Additional chemical costs 3,288$Additional energy costs 264,946$Additional sludge disposal costs 7,498$Additional maintenance costs 144,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 420,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 8,694,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 13,128,000$



RVSA CarbonMicrofiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 118,650,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 10,809,474$Pile foundations 5,674,974$Dewatering 651,811$Sheeting 152,446$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 16,500,000$






RVSA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








RVSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








RVSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








RVSA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

Plant-specific base capital cost(1):Base capital cost per generic plant -$

subtotal -$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations -$Dewatering -$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Other capital cost additions -$

subtotal -$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Capital cost deduction -$

subtotal -$Reduced productivity adjustment -$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST -$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST -$

Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs -$Additional chemical costs -$Additional energy costs -$Additional sludge disposal costs -$Additional maintenance costs -$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS -$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS -$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS -$

GRAND TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST -$GRAND TOTAL FUTURE WORTH COST -$


RVSA CarbonDeep Bed Filter MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 41,400,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 4,826,571$Pile foundations 2,533,950$Dewatering 291,042$Sheeting 201,549$Rock excavation -$Other capital cost additions -$






RVSA CarbonMicrofiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 57,300,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 4,939,714$Pile foundations 2,593,350$Dewatering 297,865$Sheeting 103,059$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 8,100,000$

` 16,033,988$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Capital cost deduction -$





RVSA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








RVSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








RVSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








RVSA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








RVSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








RVSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT










FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX F

NHSA Adams Street Plant-Specific Information


Memorandum


To: Distribution

From: Bo Bodniewicz/Gabriel Giles

Subject: NHSA (Adams Street WWTP) Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Tim BradleySteve BiusoMark LaquidaraBeverley StinsonBohdan BodniewiczGabriel Giles

This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with Adams Street WWTPpersonnel during a site visit on February 23, 2007. Bo Bodniewicz and Gabriel Gilesconducted the site visit, and first met with Gary Fournier, OMI Project Director, to discuss theitems presented in the attached Checklist for Site Visits, and subsequently toured the plantwith Thomas McAndrew, Assistant Project Manager.


1. Information Request form status:The completed Information Request form was received by M&E on February 16, 2007and completed by William E. McMillin of (CH2M HILL).

2. Influent Flows and Loads:Design average flow: 24 MGDCurrent annual average flow: 14 MGDMax 30 day average flow: 16.1 MGDTypical dry day peak hourly flow: 20 MGDMaximum wet day peak hourly flow: 52 MGDAverage influent BOD concentration: 160 mg/L (109 – 230 mg/L for 8/2003 – 7/2006)Average Influent TSS concentration: 176 mg/L (92 – 333 mg/L for 8/2003 – 7/2006)Influent ammonia: not measured


Adams Street WWTP Site Visit Report2

3. Recycle Flows and Loads:The belt press overflow is introduced downstream of the grit chambers before theventuri meter that is upstream of the primary settling tanks. This flow is neithermeasured nor quantified.

The recycle flow on the trickling filters is currently not measured. A new SCADAsystem is being installed which will monitor recycle flows.

4. Plant Performance:Key (permit) effluent limits

o Monthly average BOD: 30 mg/Lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/Lo Effluent limits based on a flow of 20.8 MGD:

Monthly BOD mass loading: 2,365 kg/day (30 mg/L)Weekly BOD mass loading: 3,550 kg/day (45 mg/L)Monthly TSS mass loading: 2,365 kg/day (30 mg/L)Weekly TSS mass loading: 3,550 kg/day (mg/L)Minimum monthly average BOD % removal: 85%Minimum monthly average TSS % removal: 85%

Typical effluent quality:o Monthly average BOD: 12 mg/L (<6 – 18.6 mg/L for 8/2003 – 7/2006)o Monthly average TSS: 7.2 mg/L (2.6 – 13.8 mg/L for 8/2003 – 7/2006)o Monthly average percent removals:

BOD: 91%TSS: 95%

o Ammonia: 0.7 – 5.7 mg/LThe influent ammonia concentration is not measured.

The Adams Street WWTP consistently achieves effluent limits.

5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:Primary and secondary sludges are thickened to 5-6% total solids with a belt filterpress. The plant only uses the upper belt of the filter press. Polymer is used toenhance the thickening process.

The Adams Street WWTP sends its thickened sludge to the PVSC treatment plant foradditional processing/treatment and disposal.

Seventeen 7,000 gal loads of sludge at 5-6% solids are sent to PVSC each week.The current contract with PVSC only allows for an 8 % solids maximum on all solidshauled from the Adams Street plant.

6. Outside wastes received:The plant does not receive any outside wastes.



o There are three new (replaced 2006), 3/4” spaced model FT42SB severe dutyMensch Crawler Screens in the headworks of the Adams Street WWTP. Aconveyer system discharges accumulated material to a dumpster for ultimatedisposal.

o There are two 22 ft diameter grit chambers with a design capacity of 24 MGDeach. Grit is pumped to cyclone grit separators and classifiers and thendischarged into a dumpster for landfill disposal.

Primary Settling Tankso There are 3 rectangular clarifiers with longitudinal chain-and-flight sludge

collectors that convey sludge towards chain-and-flight cross collectors. Oil andgrease that accumulates on the top of the PSTs is conveyed to scum pits andeither mixed with the sludge or hauled directly offsite for disposal.

o Two of the three PSTs are typically online. The third is used to handle stormflows.

o The primary sludge is pumped to the sludge storage tank.

o Each of the three PSTs is 208 ft long and 58 ft wide. The SWD is 10 ft.

Trickling Filters:o The primary effluent is pumped by four VFD controlled submersible pumps to

the three deep-bed trickling filters.o The trickling filters are configured to operate in parallel. The trickling filters

have a diameter of 106 ft and a depth of 34 ft.o The peak flow per unit is 24 MGD.

o All piping associated with the trickling filters is underground and anymodifications will involve excavation.

o The trickling filter media consists of 34 ft of cross-flow plastic media modules(approximately 30 square feet per cubic feet).

o Two of the three trickling filters are being used. The third is operational but hasnot been online for at least two years.

PURAC® (Dissolved Air Flotation/Filtration)o There are 10 combined dissolved air flotation (DAF) and granular media

filtration units that clarify the effluent from the trickling filters prior todisinfection.

o Eight of the ten units are typically in operation.

o Each unit has a capacity of 4 MGD.


o The floated sludge is pumped to the sludge storage tank and combined with theprimary sludge before thickening.

o The filter backwash is returned to the PSTS.

In-plant pumpingo Trickling Filter Pump Station

Currently undergoing upgrade for enhanced control – ongoing.Trickling Filter Influent:

Four pumps with VFDs pump the primary effluent and recycledtrickling filter effluent to the top of the trickling filters. Eachpump has a capacity of 16 MGD.

Trickling Filter Effluent:

Four pumps with VFDs pump the trickling filter effluent to thesecondary clarification/filtration system. Each pump has acapacity of 16 MGD.

o Effluent Pump Station:

During high tide in the Hudson River gravity discharge of the plant’seffluent is not possible, therefore, there are four 16 MGD pumps thatare brought online as needed.


Disinfectiono IDIs AQAUAROY UV disinfection system is used for disinfection. There are

two channels of lamps with a capacity of 18 MGD each.

8. Available operating modes and process control practices:Based on the existing piping configuration, the trickling filters can only operate inparallel mode.

With piping configuration changes, the two existing TF’s could be operated in parallelfor organic removal and the third could be brought on-line for operation in series forpartial nitrification.


9. Description of sludge handling processes:Primary and secondary sludge is combined in a 0.5 million gallon sludge holding tankprior to thickening by BFP.Belt filter presses:

There are two BFPs, out of which only one is operational. One is a 2.5meter Enviroquip BFP and the operational one is a 2 meter Ashbrook HartlypressPolymer is added to facilitate thickening.

10. Operational challenges:There are no major operational challenges at the Adams Street WWTP.

11. Current plans for plant improvements:The mechanical bars screens were replaced in the summer of 2006.A new SCADA system is being implemented as part of a controls upgrade project –this includes new VFDs in the Trickling Filter Pump Station and Effluent PumpStation.Replacement of the sludge draw-off pumps (from the PSTs and the sludge holdingtank) and the belt filter press feed pumps.Repairs are planned to the cracked concrete wall between PST #1 and #2.Otherwise, there are no plans for additional improvements to the unit processes that weare aware of.

12. Future flow/load projections:The Adams Street plant is considerably under loaded and could receive additionalflows. Work is currently being done to investigate the feasibility of diverting flows(~1 MGD) from the NHSA’s other plant in West New York to the Adams Street plant.[Updated 11/07/07… William McMillan (CH2M Hill, representing NHSA) indicatedthat flow projection studies have not been done for the NHSA plants and that, in theabsence of flow projections, it can be assumed that current flows are not expected toincrease significantly].

13. Site constraintsThe Adams Street WWTP is confined on all sides and little space exists on the currentsite for expansion. The Hoboken Light Rail confines it on the north, a commercialproperty to the west, a PSE&G substation is located immediately to the east of theplant, and 16th Street and bus depots border the plant to the south.

14. Foundation requirements:The plant’s main structures are built on piles with concrete slabs. There is considerablesettling in the parking lot where piles were not used.Any new construction would have to be pile supported.Dewatering would be required during construction due to a high water table.

North Hudson Sewerage Authority Adams Street WWTP

©2007 Google - Imagery ©2007 Bluesky, State of New Jersey, Sanborn, Map data ©2007 NAVTEQTM

N


NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 89,960,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 28,356,480$Pile foundations 9,924,768$Dewatering 952,778$Sheeting 169,693$Rock excavation -$Re-pump station 8,720,000$






NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 153,920,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 57,204,720$Pile foundations 20,021,652$Dewatering 1,922,079$Sheeting 230,495$Rock excavation -$Re-pump station 8,720,000$





(1) See basis and assumptions for generic plant conceptual cost estimate. d(2) For plant-specific costs not included in generic plant conceptual cost estimate.(3) For generic plant costs not required in plant-specific cost estimate.

NHSA - Adams Street CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 440,000$Additional chemical costs 3,542$Additional energy costs -$Additional sludge disposal costs 125,846$Additional maintenance costs 118,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 688,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 14,242,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 21,506,000$



NHSA - Adams Street CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT





Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 440,000$Additional chemical costs 3,542$Additional energy costs -$Additional sludge disposal costs 125,846$Additional maintenance costs 271,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 841,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 17,409,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 26,288,000$



NHSA - Adams Street CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - Adams Street CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT










FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX G

LRSA Plant-Specific Information


Memorandum

Date: March 9, 2007 (Rev. March 15, 2007)

To: Distribution

From: Eugene DeStefano and Greg Bowden

Subject: LRSA Site Visit Memorandum


This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with LRSA personnelduring a site visit on Monday February 26, 2007. Eugene DeStefano and Greg Bowdenconducted the site visit, and first met with Mr. Gary Fare, Executive Director, Ms. JudySpadone, Environmental Compliance Officer and Mr. David Walsh, Plant Superintendent.The purpose of the site visit was to review the items presented in the provided Checklist forSite Visits, and subsequent toured the plant with Mr. Dave Walsh.


1. Information Request form status:• The form was emailed to LRSA’s Judy Spadone, Environmental Compliance Officer,

on February 15, 2007• Upon our arrival, LRSA had assembled a package of information, which contained

most of the items on the information check-list form.• Based on the information obtained at the site visit, LRSA has agreed to follow-up with

the following by March 9th; Influent Ammonia Data, Plant Yard Piping and drawings(plan and section views) for the primaries, aeration tanks, secondaries and digestercomplex, Planned Capital Projects List and Copies of the sludge handling facilitiesreport. This will complete the information request. The last of the requestedinformation was provided on March 15, 2007.

2. Influent Flows and Loads:• Plant Permitted Design average flow: 17 MGD• Design Maximum Flow: 51 MGD• Actual annual average flow: 10.8 MGD (2005-2006)


LRSA Site Visit Report2

• Max 30 day average flow: 34.2 MGD• Typical dry day peak hourly flow: ~ 10-12 MGD.• Maximum wet day peak hourly flow: 51 MGD (this is the maximum pumping

capacity with largest pump out of service)• Influent BOD and TSS concentration: 246 ± 43 mg/L and 160 ± 21 mg/L, respectively;

Note - the design BOD was about 500 mg/L due to industrial contribution• BOD daily loading: 20,480 ± 1,900 lbs/day (51,077 lbs/day maximum loading)• Influent ammonia for 2006 was about 10 – 20 mg/L and effluent ammonia generally

very low in the range of 0.01 mg/L to 10 mg/L. There is no ammonia limit, but theplant generally does a good job removing it.

• Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is monitored: average = 100 ± 20 mg/L; maximum =369 mg/L

3. Recycle Flows and Loads:• Grit Classifier Wash is returned to the head of the plant at the Screen House• Gravity Thickener overflow:

o Approximately 1 MGD of combined GTO and GBTO flow is introduced tothe aeration tanks

o BOD and TSS concentrations are measured on Monday and Thursday; 245 ±71 mg/L and 146 ± 57 mg/L, respectively.

o Ammonia is not analyzed• Gravity Belt Thickener Overflow

o Sent to aeration tankso BOD and TSS concentrations are measured on Monday and Thursday; 56 ± 42

mg/L and 142 ± 84 mg/L, respectively.• Digested Sludge Storage Tank Decant:

o Flow can be calculated/estimated based on the number of BFPs in service,sludge feed rate and washwater flow rate.

o BOD and TSS data are not available.o Ammonia data is not available; however, it is likely to be in the range of 1,000

to 1,500 mg/L based on the anaerobic VSS destruction efficiency and thesolids concentration in the digester feed


o Monthly average BOD5: 30 mg/Lo Weekly average BOD5: 45mg/Lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/Lo Weekly average TSS: 45 mg/Lo Monthly average percent BOD and TSS removal – 85%o Monthly and weekly BOD and TSS mass loading limits based on a flow value

of 17 MGD.o The NJPDES permit does not contain max day limits for BOD and TSS.

• Typical effluent quality (Monthly Averages):o BOD: 6.8 ± 3.1 mg/L – 97% Removalo TSS: 12.3 ± 3.2 mg/L - 93% Removal


o TOC: 9.1 ± 1.9 mg/L – 91% Removalo Ammonia: not in permit, but averages between 0.01 mg/L to 10 mg/L in 2006;

concentrations above 1 mg/L were common during the winter period andwhen one aeration tank was removed from service

• Effluent ammonia monitoring varies; typically monitored four to eight times per month• Plant does consistently achieve nitrification, although it is reduced during the winter

period and substantially reduced to completely lost when one aeration tank has beenremoved from service.

• Plant consistently and reliably achieves effluent limits. The BOD loadings havegradually decreased over the years due to a reduction in the industrial component offlow.

• Peak flows appear to be a challenge in terms of high wet-weather flows to the influentpumps, but this does not appear to impact treatment.

5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:• Primary sludge is gravity thickened to ~ 5 wt% solids; waste activated sludge is

thickened in the Gravity Belt Thickeners to ~ 5 wt% solids.• Combined GT and GBT thickened sludges are digested and held in the Sludge Holding

Tanks prior to pumping to a barge. The barged sludge has a solids content of ~ 3%solids.

• The plant was initially designed with the capability to further dewater the sludge in abelt filter press building that presently exists on site. However it was not economicallyfeasible to press the sludge when compared to barging.

• The barged sludge is sent to Spectraserv, who dewaters the sludge and then transportsit to approved municipal landfills for cover.

6. Outside wastes received:• There is no outside septage receiving.

7. Description of Liquid Stream treatment unit processes:• Screening and Grit Removal

o Screening is done at the Screen House, which is co-located with the raw waterpumping station. The plant uses climbing mechanical bar screens (1” clearopening) to remove screenings.

o A grit collection mechanism is situated at the bottom of the raw wastewater wetwells. Grit is scraped and route to a hopper. The collected grit, which is sent toa landfill.

• Primary Clarifierso There are 2 rectangular clarifiers with conventional type collectors and scum

skimmingo Typical TSS removal was designed to remove 40 - 60% and BOD removal

designed to remove 25 – 35%; currently, the average BOD and TSS removalefficiencies are 17% and 40%, respectively (2005 – 2006).

o Primary sludge is sent to two cyclonic grit classifiers. The degritted sludge thenflows to the gravity sludge thickener.


o There are 3 sludge pumps for a group of two primary clarifiers.o At one point the plant co-settled WAS in the primary clarifiers, but this practice

was discontinued many years ago.

• Roughing Filterso Primary effluent is sent via three (3) pumping units and distributed by

hydraulic rotating distribution arms to two roughing filterso The roughing filters are comprised of a PVC media, underdrain and

ventilation system.o Capacity of the roughing filters is ~ 25 MGDo There exists a bypass of the roughing filters for flow in excess of 25 MGDo BOD removal efficiency is 52%o BOD and TSS concentrations in the RF recycle are 105 ± 29 mg/L and 85 ±

20 mg/L, respectively.

• Aeration Tanks:o There are two aeration tanks. Each tank has three (3) passes and can be step-

fed; primary effluent is currently fed to the first pass.o Tank volume ~ 3.1 MG/each; dimensions of one tank: 16’x90’x288’o DO levels gradually increase across the tanks ranging from 1 mg/L in pass one

to 6-8 mg/L in the third pass.o LRSA indicates that they have excess aeration capacity because the plant

loadings are significantly lower than anticipated when designed.o Three blowerso Receives a BOD loading of 7,763 ± 2,370 lbs/day (32,582 lbs/day, maximum)

• Secondary clarificationo There are a total of 3 circular secondary clarifiers, and all are used. Diameter is

106 feet having a side water depth of approximately 12 ft.o There are no peripheral density current baffles.o The secondary clarifiers were formerly use as primary settling tanks but were

converted to secondary units when the rectangular primary clarifiers wereconstructed.

• Tertiary Treatmento Sand filtration for plant effluent sent to P.S.E.&G.

• Disinfectiono A low pressure, low intensity Ultraviolet Disinfection (IDI System) was

installed several years ago.o Permit fecal limits are 400 (weekly)/200 (monthly) colonies per 100 mlo There is no chlorine contact tanko Dechlorination is not required.


8. Available operating modes and process control practices:• MLSS: 2035 ± 350 mg/L• Typical SRT: 6 to 12 days; decreases below 6 days when one aeration tank is removed

from service.• Typical pH in mixed liquor: data not available; pH in the plant effluent is in the range

of 6.3 to 7.3 (measured five times/day)• RAS rate is about 50% of the influent flow (not regularly varied).• WAS rate is adjusted to maintain desired MLSS concentration and sludge blanket

level.• Typical DO: ~ 1 mg/L in the first pass and 6-8 mg/L in the third pass.• The plant does not add hypochlorite to return sludge.

9. Description of sludge handling processes:• Gravity Belt thickeners:

o GBT replaced DAF thickening in 2005.o There are 2 covered thickeners; both are in service.o Used for thickening Waste Activated Sludgeo The thickened sludge averages about 5% solids.o Polymer is used in the GBT system.o Filtrate flows back to the head of the aeration tankso GBT Thickened sludge is combined with Primary sludge and this mixture is

pumped to the sludge digesters.

• Gravity Thickenero One circular tank; 45’ diameter and 12’ SWDo Capacity: 51 MGDo Used to thicken primary degritted sludge; sludge concentration of combined

GT and GBT thickened sludge is ~ 4.5 to 5 wt%

• Anaerobic digestion and sludge storage:o There are two anaerobic digesters currently in use.o The digester units employ mechanical draft tubes for mixing.o These units are each 80 ft in diameter with a normal depth of 29 ft.o Primary and thickened WAS is send to the digesters for further stabilization.o There are 4 sludge storage tanks that hold the digested sludge prior to pumping

to barges. Two are 58 ft in diameter (SWD of 22.5 ft) and two are 67 ft indiameter (SWD of 22 ft).

o The sludge holding tanks utilize jet mixers for blending.o Decanted water from the holding tanks is sent back to the head of the plant to

the screen house.

10. Current plans for plant improvements:• A general plant upgrade is being planned for design in 2008. This would entail

replacing equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. This project will notresult in an increase in plant capacity.


11. Future flow/load projections:• Since the service areas essentially built out, increases in flow are not expected.

12. Site constraints• LRSA’s site is bounded by wetlands and contaminated land areas. There is minimal

space on the site to construct additional facilities. There is a vacant area to the south ofaeration tank 3.

13. Foundation requirements:• All existing facilities were reported to be constructed on pile foundations due to soft

soils.• Significant dewatering would be expected during construction.

Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority

©2007 Mapquest Inc. ©2007 i-cubed ©2007 NAVTEQTM

N

Potential OnsiteNutrient RemovalFacility Locations

LRSA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

Plant-specific base capital cost(1):Base capital cost per generic plant as applies to LRSA 2,417,400$

subtotal 2,417,400$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations -$Dewatering -$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$LRSA-specific Step Feed BNR modifications 18,300,000$






LRSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 2,529,600$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations 60,878$Dewatering 5,844$Sheeting 10,524$Rock excavation -$LRSA-specific Step Feed BNR modifications 18,300,000$






LRSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 33,583,500$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations 1,990,369$Dewatering 191,075$Sheeting 117,500$Rock excavation -$LRSA-specific Step Feed BNR modifications 18,300,000$






LRSA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 17,850,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations 3,561,357$Dewatering 341,890$Sheeting 103,715$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pumping station 8,010,000$



Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 220,000$Additional chemical costs 1,507$Additional energy costs 264,823$Additional sludge disposal costs 53,533$Additional maintenance costs 22,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 562,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 11,634,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 17,568,000$



LRSA CarbonDeep Bed Filter MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 35,700,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations 2,401,295$Dewatering 230,524$Sheeting 195,755$Rock excavation -$Other capital cost additions -$






LRSA CarbonMicrofiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 57,630,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations 2,756,416$Dewatering 264,616$Sheeting 106,244$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 8,010,000$






LRSA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








LRSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








LRSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








LRSA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 6,490,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations 1,228,887$Dewatering 117,973$Sheeting 60,927$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pumping station 2,970,000$






LRSA CarbonDeep Bed Filter MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 15,180,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations 929,115$Dewatering 89,195$Sheeting 122,044$Rock excavation -$Other capital cost additions -$






LRSA CarbonMicrofiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 21,010,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition -$Pile foundations 950,895$Dewatering 91,286$Sheeting 62,405$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 2,970,000$






LRSA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








LRSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








LRSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








LRSA NitrogenAdvanced Basic Step Feed BNR LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








LRSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








LRSA NitrogenFull Step Feed BNR & Deep Bed Denite Filters HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT










FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX H

NHSA River Road Plant -Specific Information

* Note: The current concentrations are significantly lower: approximately 141 mg/L for BOD and 115 mg/L forTSS.


Memorandum


To: Distribution

From: Bo Bodniewicz/Gabriel Giles

Subject: NHSA (River Road [formerly West New York] WWTP) Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Tim BradleySteve BiusoMark LaquidaraBeverley StinsonBohdan BodniewiczGabriel Giles

This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with the River RoadWWTP personnel during a site visit on February 23, 2007. Bo Bodniewicz and Gabriel Gilesconducted the site visit, and first met with Gary Fournier (OMI, Project Director) at theAdams Street plant to discuss the items presented in the attached Checklist for Site Visits, andsubsequently toured the plant with Thomas McAndrew, Assistant Project Manager, and BobLane, NJDEP Licensed Operator.


1. Information Request form status:The completed Information Request form was received by M&E on February 16, 2007and completed by William E. McMillin of CH2M HILL.

Gary indicated that no nitrogen data was available for any of the process streams.

2. Influent Flows and Loads:Design average flow: 10 MGDCurrent annual average flow: 9.94 MGDMax 30 day average flow: 11.79 MGDTypical dry day peak hourly flow: 12 MGDMaximum wet day peak hourly flow: 20 MGDAverage influent BOD concentration: 162* mg/L (mg/L for 8/2003 – 7/2006)Average Influent TSS concentration: 177* mg/L (mg/L for 8/2003 – 7/2006)Influent ammonia: not measured


River Road WWTP Site Visit Report2

3. Recycle Flows and Loads:The belt press overflow is returned to the headworks of the plant however this flow isnot measured.The recycle flow on the trickling filters is measured.

4. Plant Performance:Key permit effluent limits

o Monthly average BOD: 25 mg/Lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/Lo Effluent limits based on a flow of 10 MGD:

Monthly CBOD mass loading: 950 kg/day (25 mg/L)Weekly BOD mass loading: 1,500 kg/day (40 mg/L)Monthly TSS mass loading: 1,136 kg/day (30 mg/L)Weekly TSS mass loading: 1,703 kg/day (45 mg/L)Minimum monthly average BOD % removal: 85%Minimum monthly average TSS % removal: 85%

Typical effluent quality:o Monthly average CBOD: 27.6 mg/L (17.4 mg/L for 8/2003 – 7/2006)o Monthly average TSS: 29 mg/L (15.7 mg/L for 8/2003 – 7/2006)o Monthly average percent removals:

BOD: 78% (8/2005 – 7/2006)TSS: 72% (8/2005 – 7/2006)

o Ammonia: not measuredThe influent ammonia concentration is not measured.

The River Road plant is designed for 10 MGD and currently has trouble meetingsecondary treatment requirements at flows above 8.1 MGD due to limitations of thecurrent secondary clarifiers that were originally designed as primary clarifiers andhave a shorter SWD than is typically found in secondary settling tanks.

Also of note is the fact that the influent concentrations of BOD and TSS haveweakened considerably while flows have increased over the past three years.Infiltration on the order of 2 MGD is suspected in the collection system and OMI iscurrently identifying and correcting major sources of infiltration with the water utility.

5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:Primary and secondary sludges are thickened to 5-6% total solids with a belt filterpress. The plant only uses the upper belt of the filter press. Polymer is used toenhance the thickening process.The River Road WWTP sends its thickened sludge to the PVSC treatment plant foradditional processing/treatment and disposal.Thirteen 7,000 gal loads of sludge at 5-6% solids are sent to PVSC each week.

Current contract with PVSC only allows for an 8% solids maximum on all solidshauled from the River Road plant.


6. Outside wastes received:The plant does not receive any outside wastes.

7. Description of Liquid Stream unit processes:Rotary ScreensThere are no primary clarifiers at the WNY plant.

Raw influent passes through two mechanical bar screens and then two Pista Gritchambers to remove screenings and grit.

Flow is then processed by 6 rotary screens to remove screenings.Screenings are pressed and conveyed via Hyro-rams to dumpsters for landfill disposal.Grit is run through a classifier and discharged to a dumpster for landfill disposal.Effluent from the screens is pumped to two trickling filters.

Recycle flow on the TF is metered.

Trickling Filters:o There are two TFs and both are in operation.o Due to residential proximity, TFs are covered and have an odor control system.

o Each of the two TFs are 100 ft in diameter, have a media depth of 28 ft, and13.3 million square feet of surface area.

Secondary Clarifiers:o There are two square FSTs.o The FSTs are 90 ft by 90 ft with a SWD of 10 ft. The total weir length for both

tanks is 670 ft.o Stamford baffles are planned to be added to the clarifiers to minimize density

currents.

In-plant pumpingo Intermediate Pump Station

4 vertical non-clog centrifical pumps (5,000 gpm @ 49ft) that sendthe effluent from the rotary screens to the top of the TFs.

o Recirculation Pump Station3 submersible pumps (3,500 gpm @ 26ft) that form the recycle loopon the TFs.


Disinfectiono Currently using a chlorine contact chamber.


o A UV system in addition to disc filters are under investigation and anticipatedas part of a plant upgrade in near future.

8. Available Operating Modes:The plant currently has two trickling filters operating in parallel. There are no othermodifications available for this plant.

9. Description of sludge handling processes:Belt filter presses:

o There are two 2-meter BFPs. Both are in operation.

o Polymer is added to facilitate thickening.

10. Operational challenges:The secondary clarifiers are limited by hydraulics and previous operationaladjustments (i.e. chemical enhancement) have been unsuccessful at improving theperformance of the clarifiers.The plant has difficulty meeting secondary effluent limits for either TSS or BOD andoccasionally fails for Fecal Coliform counts as well.NJDEP is aware of the permit failures and a tentative interim plan has been proposed

11. Current plans for plant improvements:¾” Mensch Crawler Screens in the headworks in 2007.UV system and disc filter in the near future (no definite date set).

12. Future flow/load projections: [Updated 11/07/07… William McMillan (CH2M Hill, representing NHSA) indicatedthat flow projection studies have not been done for the NHSA plants and that, in theabsence of flow projections, it can be assumed that current flows are not expected toincrease significantly].

13. Site constraintsThe River Road WWTP is confined on all sides and little space exists on the currentsite for expansion.The plant was built into the side of a rock outcropping and is in the immediate vicinityof residential housing which prevent it from being “built-up”. The plant is alsobordered by an existing roadway preventing any further expansion.

There have been discussions to re-route a portion of the influent for treatment at theAdams Street WWTP.

14. Foundation requirements:Although this facility was built on rock that was blasted away, there are extensivestructural/settling problems at this facility.

Any upgrade to this facility MUST include a detailed foundation analysis.

North Hudson Sewerage Authority – River Road WWTP


N


NHSA - River Road NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 7,200,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 8,280,000$Pile foundations -$Dewatering -$Sheeting 67,470$Rock excavation 1,150,000$Retaining wall 379,000$Intermediate pump station 3,430,000$






NHSA - River Road NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 34,600,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 10,087,200$Pile foundations -$Dewatering -$Sheeting 100,652$Rock excavation 1,781,400$Retaining wall 742,000$






NHSA - River Road NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 6,000,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 6,652,800$Pile foundations -$Dewatering -$Sheeting 60,420$Rock excavation 924,000$Retaining wall 379,000$Intermediate pump station 2,820,000$






NHSA - River Road NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NHSA - River Road CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT










FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX I

EMUA Plant -Specific Information


Memorandum

Date: March 2, 2007

To: Distribution

From: Mridula Deshpande

Subject: Edgewater MUA Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Grant DaviesTim BradleySteve BiusoMark LaquidaraBeverly Stinson

This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with Edgewater MunicipalUtilities Authority personnel during a site visit on February 28, 2007. Grant Davies andMridula Deshpande visited the Edgewater/Lotepro Clean Water Plant to meet with KevinBilin, Plant Superintendent. First the items presented in Checklist for Site Visits (attachmentA) were discussed and subsequently a site tour was conducted.

Kevin Bilin informed us that Edgewater MUA has sold the plant to Bergen County UtilitiesAuthority, and BCUA will become the owner/operator in the next couple of months. Thismeans that BCUA will be signing the agreement with NJHDG and performing any futureplant improvements.

The site visit findings are summarized below. A description of the process units and designcriteria is presented in Attachment B.

1. Information Request form status:• Kevin Bilin went through the list and indicated what information is, is not, and may be

available.• The DMRs for 2005 and 2006, effluent ammonia concentrations for Nov 04 – Dec

2006 (in electronic format), process control data for 2004 – 2006 (in electronicformat), design basis flows and loads and design criteria summary for the UNOXsystem and secondary clarifiers, and descriptions of the process units were provided atthe site visit.

• The rest of the available items will be sent to the M&E Bridgewater office.


Edgewater MUA Site Visit Report2

2. Influent Flows and Loads:• Average day flow: 2.8 MGD (initial average flow associated with 1987 UNOX

upgrades); Design flow: 6 mgd (design year not verified, and assumed to be 2007).The plant was never re-rated.

• Current annual average flow: 3.4 mgd, Summer avg flow drops to 3.0 mgd.• Typical dry day peak hourly flow: 6 mgd• Typical dry day minimum hourly flow: 2 mgd• Maximum wet day peak hourly flow: 12.15 mgd (maximum pumping capacity from

influent wetwell to fine screens is 12.15 mgd)• The collection system was CSO until the early 90s, when they started separating the

domestic sewers. Currently, 75% of the collection area is separated, however,Cliffside Park is a residential community with closely spaced homes. The runoff andsump pump discharges from these homes are believed to enter the sewer system andare conveyed to the plant.

• Flows greater than 12.15 mgd overflow a fixed weir to the outfall after coarsescreening and chlorination. The overflow is metered (an overflow event exceedingplant influent pumping capacity occurred once in the year 2006).

• Influent BOD and TSS: between 150 and 200 mg/l (design BOD was 180 mg/l anddesign TSS was160 mg/l). The RWW influent sample is taken from the influent pumpstation wet well and includes recycled streams.

• Influent ammonia: not analyzed.• Currently there are no significant industries discharging to the plant. Unilever was the

last SIU which was closed down last year.• Two thirds of the plant influent flow comes from the Town of Cliffside Park, the

remaining one third of plant influent flow comes from the Borough of Edgewater.• The influent flow meter does not read accurately. It has a very short horizontal run

and there is no favorable place to relocate it. Therefore effluent flow should be used incalculating influent flows and loads.


o Introduced to the influent pump station wet well.o The recycle flow is not measured and quality not analyzed. However, the

flow and quality are reflected in the influent load.

• Gravity Belt Thickener filtrate and washwater:o Introduced to the influent pump station wet well.o The recycle flow is not measured and quality not analyzed. However, the

flow and quality are reflected in the influent load.


o Monthly average BOD: 30 mg/lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/lo Weekly average BOD: 45 mg/lo Weekly average TSS: 45 mg/l


o Minimum D.O. 4.0 mg/L• Typical effluent quality:

o BOD: 10 – 20 mg/l in summer, 5 - 10 mg/l in wintero TSS: 10 – 20 mg/l in summer, 5 - 10 mg/l in wintero Ammonia: 7-20 mg/l

• Effluent ammonia is monitored twice a month.• TKN, nitrates and nitrites are not monitored.• Plant consistently and reliably achieves effluent limits.

5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:• Waste activated sludge, along with secondary clarifier scum, are gravity thickened to

1.3 - 5% solids.• Gravity thickened sludge is pumped to the the gravity belt thickener for further

thickening to about 6% solids. The GBT is operated 8-hrs/day 5-days per week.• GBT thickened sludge is pumped to a frac tank for storage prior to being hauled off-

site.• All the thickened sludge (about 200,000 gallons/month) is hauled off to PVSC. The

sludge is hauled off about once a day.• There is limited sludge storage volume in the frac tank, enough for maybe two days

storage requiring daily removal when GBT is operating.• On occasion, the gravity thickened sludge approaches 5% TS and a decision is made to

bypass the GBT to the frac tank to save energy.

6. Outside wastes received:• None

7. Description of Liquid Stream unit processes:The plant was originally constructed in the 1950s as a primary treatment plant. RBCswere added thereafter. In 1987, the plant was converted from RBCs into a pure oxygenfacility. A description of the process units is given below.• Screening and Grit Removal

o There is one mechanically cleaned bar screen with 1-inch bar spacing upstreamof the influent pump station.

o The coarse-screened wastewater enters the influent pump station wet wellwhere it is pumped via dry pit submersible pumps (two duty and one standby)equipped with VFDs (lead lag off off level control) to the mechanically cleanedfine screen equipped with 10-mm diameter openings. Screenings arecompacted and hauled off.

o There is one Smith & Loveless vortex grit chamber. Grit is pumped to a gritconcentrator, where the grit is screened and dewatered.

• Primary Clarifierso None. The plant was designed without primary clarifiers due to space

constraints.

• Oxygenation Tanks (UNOX tanks):


o There are two reactor trains in parallel. Both are in use.o Each reactor train has three stages in series.o Each 28’-6” wide x 22’-10” long x 13’-0” SWD stage contains one

aerator/mixer equipped with a surface aerator and lower mixing impellor. TheHP steps down in each stage from 15 hp in first, 10 hp in second, and 7.5 hp inthird..

o All the oxygen gas is introduced into the first stage in the head space above theliquid surface. The three stages are connected by the head space, thereforeoxygen flows to the next two stages.

o There were issues with the automatic oxygen feed controls due to significantfluctuations in influent flow. The automatic controls have been disabled.Currently oxygen flow is regulated manually by throttling the oxygen feedvalve. The valve position is typically left at approximately 30% open and notnormally adjusted. DO of about 20 mg/l is maintained in the mixed liquor, inorder to achieve a minimum DO of 4 mg/l at the outfall. Since the DO meter iscalibrated only up to 20 mg/l, excess oxygen is likely being dosed.

o MLSS is kept thin 1200-1500 mg/l in winter and 1000 mg/L in summer fornocardia control. SRT is 1.5 to 2.0 days. RAS rate is 60% of Q.

• Secondary clarificationo There are a total of 6 secondary clarifiers, and all are in use. Flow is split with

52% distributed to clarifier Nos 1 – 5 and 48% feeding clarifier No. 6.o Secondary clarifier Nos. 1 through 5 are original rectangular primary clarifiers

converted to secondary clarifiers with dimensions of 70’ long x 14’-4” wide x 9feet SWD with chain and flight collector mechanisms. Former primary clarifierNo. 5 was previously converted to an RBC unit and then to a secondary clariferso is open top, whereas the other four are covered.

o Clarifier No. 6 is “squarical” – a square tank equipped with a centerwell,circular collector mechanism and circular peripheral launder.

o There are a total of 7 RAS pumps. Each rectangular clarifier has a dedicatedRAS pump with one uninstalled spare available to swap out with a failed dutypump. The squarical clarifier has two RAS pumps (one duty and one standby).All RAS is pumped from the clarifiers to the common RAS Box. Sludge iswasted from the RAS box to the gravity thickener.

o There were issues with solids carryover from both the rectangular and circularclarifiers, for which dye testing was performed. The test results showedsignificant short circuiting and disturbance of the sludge blanket by densitycurrents. Baffles were subsequently installed as described below.

o Each rectangular tank contains three baffles spaced at third points along thetank length (first two consisting of slotted upper half and solid lower halfwooden planks and third consisting of slotted full height wooden planks).Significant improvement in the performance of the rectangular clarifiers wasnoticed after installing the baffles.

o The squarical tank was installed with baffles all around the perimeter, belowthe effluent launder to mitigate sidewall currents. However, no improvement inperformance was noticed after installing the baffles.


• In plant pumpingo From influent wet well (downstream of coarse screen) to fine screen chamber.o There are 2 - 60 hp dry pit submersible pumps (by Scan), with VFDs.


• Disinfectiono Sodium hypochlorite is added at the chlorine contact chamber influent. There

are 2 – 2,000 gallon storage tanks (for 15% sodium hypochlorite) and 2metering pumps (1 duty and 1 standby). The dose is controlled by flow andresidual chlorine signals. About 125 gallons/day of sodium hypochlorite isconsumed.

o There is a Bracket and Green fine screen (looked to be approximately 2 mmopenings) within the chlorine contact tank, which was added uponrecommendation from the Hackensack Riverkeeper for screening algae (it waslater concluded that the algae at the outfall were accumulated from the riverwater and not the plant effluent).

o The plant bypass (flow greater than 12.15 mgd) is disinfected using a thirdsodium hypochlorite pump before discharge.

o Sodium bisulfite is added to the chlorine contact chamber effluent fordechlorination. There are 2 -750 gallon storage tanks (for 38% sodiumbisulfite) and 2 metering pumps (1 duty and 1 standby). The dose is controlledby flow signal only.

o The outfall discharges to the receiving water at a bulkhead just off of theshoreline adjacent Edgewater Commons. There is a consent degree to modifythe outfall and extent it 600’ further into the Hudson River. Attempts toexecute this project under a design/build project delivery system have not beensuccessful due to bid prices far exceeding the engineers estimate.

• There is no plant water system.

8. Available operating modes and process control practices:• Typical MLSS: 1,000 – 1,200 mg/l in summer, 2200 – 2400 mg/l in winter• Typical SRT: 1 ½ - 2 days.• Typical pH in mixed liquor: 6.4 – 6.5• RAS rate is about 60% (Totalized RAS flow from meter in common RAS header to

RAS box is paced from plant effluent flow signal. Individual RAS pumps are notmetered).

• WAS pumps are set on timer and flow is calculated based on run time and pump rate.• Liquid oxygen is brought into the plant by trucks about 2 to 3 times/week and stored in

a 9,000 gallon tank. There are two vaporizers to convert the oxygen into gas.• Typically, an average of about 7,000 lbs/day of oxygen is consumed (average

consumption for December 2006 was 10,000 lbs/day at the raised MLSS).• The oxygenation tanks can only be operated in a plug flow mode.


• For the control of Nocardia, the MLSS concentration is significantly reduced in thesummer. The resultant effluent BOD in summer is around 15 – 20 mg/l (unlike 5 – 10mg/l in the winter when the MLSS is high).

• The RAS box has the ability to be chlorinated in case there is an excessive filamentproblem. However, the plant is reluctant to use this control measure due to concern ofoverdosing chlorine. Filament control has been successful with thin MLSS and lowSRT control.


o Waste activated sludge is pumped using RAS pumps (1 duty and 1 standby)from the RAS box to 2 covered gravity thickeners. Both thickeners are inservice.

o The gravity thickened sludge is about 1.3 to 5% solids, depending primarily ontemperature.

o The thickener overflow is directed to the grit chamber.

• Gravity belt thickener:o The gravity thickened sludge is pumped to a gravity belt thickener (by Roto-

Kone) using two thickened sludge pumps (1 duty and 1 standby).o The sludge thickened in the GBT is about 6% solids and stored in a frac tank,

from where it is hauled off to PVSC. The sludge haulers prefer to have 6% orless solids in the sludge.

o Polymer is continuously added. The GBT is usually operated during the dayshift five days/week. When the gravity thickened sludge is about 5% solids, theGBT is not operated.

10. Operational challenges:• Kevin Bilin considers the plant simple to operate and that there are no operational

challenges.• There are occasional pH spikes, which last for a very short time.• Although this is not an operational challenge, the plant faces issues with redundancy –

there is only one each of coarse screen, fine screen, grit chamber and gravity beltthickener. Each rectangular clarifier has one dedicated RAS pump. If a pump fails,then it is replaced with an off the shelf spare within about 8-hours.

• The plant has no on-site electrical or I&C maintenance staff. If a problem occurs ineither of these two disciplines, then off-site assistance is requested – and resolution ofthe problem is predicated on response time.

11. Current plans for plant improvements:• The existing outfall is not submerged at all times, and dilution is not sufficient. The

outfall needs to be extended 600’ further into the Hudson river. The job was bid twice.The estimated cost for the project was about $2M, the first round of bids came it atabout $11M, and next came in at about $6M. There is a consent decree for thismodification, however, due to the BCUA purchase of the plant, this item will be anissue for the new owner in the coming months.


12. Future flow/load projections:• There have been no future flow/load projection studies.• The area is not fully built out.

13. Site constraints• The treatment plant site is relatively small, with no space for possible future

construction.• The site is bound by roads on the east and south, a DPW operations site on the north

and the Palisades cliff on the west.

14. Foundation requirements:• Not known. Kevin Bilin will try to locate the plant upgrade drawings from 1987 and

forward a copy to M&E Bridgewater office.

NJHDG Nutrient Reduction Cost Estimation StudyEMUA Plant Data Summary

Ref. No. 60022871



Plant Influent2,3

Ann Avg 2004 4 216 6071 208 5,873 NR NR NR NR2005 4 158 4466 169 4,862 NR NR NR NR2006 4 158 4964 177 5,614 NR NR NR NR

Max 4 216 6071 208 5,873 - - - -Max Mo 2004 4 7,412 6,866 NR NR

2005 4 6,782 8,220 NR NR2006 5 6,070 6,334 NR NR

Max 5 7,412 8,220 - -PWWF Hour 12.15 - - - - - - - -Recycle3

Ann Avg 2004 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR2005 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR2006 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Max - - - - - - - - -Max Mo 2004 NR NR NR NR NR

2005 NR NR NR NR NR2006 NR NR NR NR NR

Max - - - - -Primary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg 2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Max - - - - - - - - -Max Mo 2004 NA NA NA NA NA

2005 NA NA NA NA NA2006 NA NA NA NA NA

Max - - - - -Primary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg 2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Max - - - - - - - - -Max Mo 2004 NA NA NA NA NA

2005 NA NA NA NA NA2006 NA NA NA NA NA

Max - - - - -Plant Effluent6

Ann Avg 2004 18 511 16 455 12 365 NR NR2005 18 537 20 573 14 420 NR NR2006 22 720 18 571 11 356 NR NR

Max 22 720 20 573 14 420 - -

1. Based on operational data provided by utility authority.2. Effluent flows used for calculating influent flows and loads. Reported influent flow erroneous due to flow meter problems.3. The influent flows and loads contain recycle streams. No sampling on raw influent upstream of recycle, or on any recycles is performed.4. NR = Not reported by utility authority.5. NA = Process not applicable.6. Effluent NH3-N analyzed twice a month from Nov 2004 onwards. Av. Mo. load=average monthly flow x average monthly conc x 8.34

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871



Plant InfluentAnn Avg 3.9 216 6,071 208 5,873 NR NR NR NRMax Mo 4.6 - 7,412 - 8,220 NR NR NR NRPWWF(hr) 12.15 - - - - - - - -RecycleAnn Avg NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRMax Mo NR - NR - NR - NR - NRPrimary Clarifier InfluentAnn Avg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAMax Mo NA - NA - NA - NA - NAPrimary Clarifier EffluentAnn Avg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAMax Mo NA - NA - NA - NA - NAPlant EffluentAnn Avg - 22 720 20 573 14 420 - -

1. Based on operational data provided by utility authority. Annual average and maximum monthly values shown are the maximum

values for any annual reporting period or any month, respectively, in the data set provided.

BOD TSS NH3-N TKN


Ref. No. 60022871

PrimarySOR

SecondarySOR3 HRT4 BOD

Loading5

gpd/sf gpd/sf hr lb/d/1000 ft 3

Ann Avg:Operational

NA 752 2.7 120

Max Mo:Operational

NA 897 3.1 146

DesignAverage NA 720 1.5 178


2. NA = Process not applicable.

3. Actual secondary clarifier surface area not known. Area calculated using design flows and design SOR at various conditions

4. HRT values do not account for RAS flow. (Operational HRTs, including RAS flow are 1.8 hrs annual avg and 2.3 hrs max mo.)

5. Design BOD loading calculated using influent BOD and tank volume.



Ref. No. 60022871


ProcessAnn Avg:Operation

al


Primary Sludge Production NA NA gpdPrimary Sludge Production NA NA lb/day

WAS Production4 134,085 67,363 gpdWAS Production 5,326 8,090 lb/day

Sludge Thickening Load5 6 8 lb/day/sf

Thickened Sludge Production6 12,301 ND gpdThickened Sludge Production6 7,062 ND lb/day

Sludge Digesters HRT NA NA hr

Dewatered Sludge Production NA NA cy/dayDewatered Sludge Production NA NA lb/day


2. NA = process not applicable to plant.

3. ND = No data available from plant

4. Design WAS production gpd calculated from design WAS prod lb/day and design RAS TSS.

5. Design sludge thickening load to gravity thickener calculated from design WAS prod.

6. Thickened sludge is from the Gravity Belt Thickener effluent. (GBT Influent is 30025 gpd or 7075 lb/d)

Edgewater Municipal Utilities Authority

©2007 Google - Imagery ©2007 Bluesky, Map data ©2007 NAVTEQTM

N

Proposed LandAcquisition(Recycling drop-offstation to berelocated)

EMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 4,320,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 1,656,000$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 150,530$Sheeting 26,131$Rock excavation 345,000$Retaining wall 316,000$Intermediate pump station 2,050,000$






EMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 20,760,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 1,978,560$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 179,851$Sheeting 38,214$Rock excavation 529,320$Retaining wall 316,000$






EMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 2,400,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 887,040$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 80,632$Sheeting 19,106$Rock excavation 184,800$Retaining wall 316,000$Intermediate pump station 1,130,000$






EMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 12,000,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 963,360$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 87,569$Sheeting 37,147$Rock excavation 387,495$Retaining wall 316,000$






EMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








EMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT










FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX J

SMUA Plant -Specific Information

Metcalf & Eddy1700 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103T 215.399-4300 F 215.399-4301 www.m-e.aecom.com

Memorandum


To: Distribution

From: Tushar Roy

Subject: Secaucus MUA Site Visit Memorandum

Distribution: Tim BradleySteve Biuso

This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with SMUA personnelduring a site visit on March 2, 2007. Tushar Roy, Steve Biuso and Mary Martis conductedthe site visit and first met with Brian Bigler, Plant Superintendent, to discuss the itemspresented in the attached Checklist for Site Visits. Subsequent to the meeting, M&Eperformed a tour to assess the plant and site.


1. Information Request form status:• The form was emailed to SMUA’s NJHDG representative, Brian Bigler, on February

15, 2007• Following the site visit, Brian Bigler emailed the available data and information

requested in the form.

2. Influent Flows and Loads:• Design average flow: 5.12 mgd• Current annual average flow: 3.3 mgd• Max 30 day average flow: 4.6 mgd• Typical dry day peak hourly flow: 3.3 MGD• Maximum wet day peak hourly flow: 10.3 MGD• Influent BOD and TSS concentration: BOD = 169 mg/l, TSS = 135 mg/l.• Influent ammonia: Not analyzed.


SMUA Site Visit Report2


o About 60,000 gallons per day is returned to the wet well and subsequentlypumped to the primary clarifiers.

• Belt filter press filtrate and washwater: Not applicable


o Monthly average BOD: 16 mg/lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/lo Monthly average percent BOD and TSS removal – 85%o Monthly BOD and TSS mass loading limits based on 5.12 mgd.o Weekly average BOD: Reporto Weekly average TSS: Reporto Weekly BOD and TSS mass loading limits: Reporto The NJPDES permit does not contain max day limitso Monthly avg. and daily max. NH3-N conc.: 3.5 mg/l and 7.5 mg/l, respectively

from May thru October.o Monthly av. and daily max. NH3-N conc.: 8 mg/l and 16 mg/l, respectively

from November thru April.• Typical effluent quality:

o BOD: 7 – mg/lo TSS: 13 mg/lo Ammonia: 1.3 mg/l

• Effluent ammonia is monitored twice per week.• Plant consistently and reliably achieves effluent limits. Only challenge is during a

severe wet weather event coupled flow needs to be bypassed.

5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:• Primary and secondary sludges are gravity thickened to 2-4% solids.• Gravity thickened sludge is stored in a sludge holding tank and disposed offsite

(PVSC) at approximately 225,000 gallons per month.

6. Outside wastes received:• Approx. 50,000 gal/month of domestic septage from within service area


o 3 each: coarse screens, fine screens and grit collectors• Primary Clarifiers

o There are 5 rectangular Envirex clarifiers with chain and flight collectors.Typically 3 clarifiers are online.

o Primary influent and effluent is sampled.o Typical TSS removal is 70% and BOD removal is 25 – 30%.o There are 2 sludge pumps for a group of two primary clarifiers.


• Trickling Filters:o There are a total of three (3) trickling filters; two (2) first stage TFs to remove

BOD and one (1) second stage TF to remove ammonia nitrogen.

First Stage Trickling Filters:o Type: High rateo Size: 65’ diameter X 20’ media deptho Loading: 50.2 lbs BOD per day/1000 ft3o Media volume, each: 66,400 ft3o Hydraulic Loading: 0.6 gpm/ft2o BOD reduction: approximately 79%

Second Stage Trickling Filter:o Type: Nitrifyingo Size: 85’ diameter X 20’ media deptho Loading: 13.5 lbs BOD/day/1000 ft3, 1088 lbs of NH3-N per dayo Media volume: 138,000ft3o Hydraulic loading rate: 0.7 gpm/ft2o NH3 reduction: 84%o BOD reduction: 55%

• Secondary clarificationo There are a total of three (3) secondary clarifiers, each of 65’ diameter with 12’

SWD. Typically all clarifiers are online.o There are no peripheral density current baffles.

• In plant pumpingo There are 3 plant pumping stations located w/in the compoundo PS#1 pumps wastewater up to the primary clarifierso PS#2 pumps primary clarifier effluent to stage I trickling filterso PS#3 pumps stage I effluent to stage II trickling filters

• Tertiary Treatmento Second stage trickling filter for nitrification.

• Disinfectiono Sodium hypochlorite is used for disinfection. Contact time is provided in a

chlorine contact tank.o Sodium bisulfite is used for dechlorination.o There is separate post aeration tank following the chlorine contact tank.

8. Available operating modes and process control practices:

• Not applicable



o There is one covered and ventilated gravity thickener.o The thickened sludge can vary between 3 and 6%, depending primarily on

temperature.o Secondary effluent is used for dilution watero Thickened sludge is stored in an aerated holding tank, from which it is removed

for offsite disposal. Sludge in the aerated holding tank can very between 3 and5% total solids.

10. Operational challenges:• As previously indicated, the only significant operational challenge occurs during

severe wet weather events when flows in excess of plant pumping/treatment capacitymay occur.

11. Current plans for plant improvements:• None.

12. Future flow/load projections:• Since the county is essentially fully built out, significant increases in flow are not

expected.

13. Site constraints• SMUA has very limited space for the possible future construction of new structures.• The site is in a wetlands area.

14. Foundation requirements:• Significant dewatering is required during construction.

Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authority


NLand Acquisition(only portionrequired)

SMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 3,708,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 1,435,200$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 130,460$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 1,760,000$



Plant-specific annual O&M cost additions:Additional personnel costs 110,000$Additional chemical costs 723$Additional energy costs 66,508$Additional sludge disposal costs 25,696$Additional maintenance costs 4,000$TOT. PLANT-SPECIFIC ANN. O&M COSTS 207,000$TOT. PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS 4,285,000$TOT. FUTURE WORTH O&M COSTS 6,471,000$



SMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 17,819,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 898,529$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 81,676$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$

subtotal 980,205$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Nitrifying BAF cells 10,200,000$

subtotal 10,200,000$Reduced productivity adjustment 387,000$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST 8,987,000$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST 13,571,000$




SMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 30,488,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 2,859,268$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 259,907$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$

subtotal 3,119,175$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Deduct 2/3 of cost assoc. w/ nitrifying BAF 8,720,000$

subtotal 8,720,000$Reduced productivity adjustment 1,120,000$TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CAPITAL COST 26,008,000$TOTAL FUTURE WORTH CAPITAL COST 39,273,000$




SMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT



subtotal 1,262,019$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Deduction for nitrifying BAF 13,400,000$





SMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 1,980,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 731,808$Pile foundations -$Dewatering 66,521$Sheeting -$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 931,000$






SMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT



subtotal 1,690,978$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Deduct 2/3 of cost assoc. w/ nitrifying BAF 4,490,000$





SMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT



subtotal 652,747$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Deduction for nitrifying BAF 8,320,000$





SMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








SMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT



subtotal 652,747$Plant-specific capital cost deductions(3):Deduction for nitrifying BAF 7,130,000$







FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX K

NBMUA Plant -Specific Information


Memorandum


To: Distribution

From: Eugene DeStefano, Mary Martis

Subject: North Bergen MUA Site Visit Memorandum


This memorandum summarizes the findings of M&E’s discussions with North Bergen MUApersonnel during a site visit on Thursday March 1, 2007. Eugene DeStefano and Mary Martisconducted the site visit, and met with Mr. David Guest (Operations Supervisor) and Mr. JohnBartoli (Maintenance Supervisor). The purpose of the site visit was to review the itemspresented in the provided Checklist for Site Visits, and subsequent tour of the plant.


1. Information Request form status:• The form was provided to Mr. Frank Pestana NBMUA Executive Director and

subsequently provided to David Guest, who compiled the information. A copy of theform is provided as an attachment to this memorandum.

• Upon our arrival, a brief discussion was held to review the purpose of the project withNBMUA and to acquaint plant staff with the information request. At the time of themeeting NBMUA did not have an opportunity to assemble the information, butindicated that based on the check-list much of the information could be made availablewithin one to two weeks after the site visit. We were however provided with a Table ofdesign criteria from the last major upgrade dated September 1991.

• During the site visit, plans of the most recent upgrade were made shown to M&E.From this we flagged certain drawings for copies to be made by NBMUA.

2. Influent Flows and Loads:• Plant Permitted Design average flow: 2.91 mgd (rated capacity: 2.6 mgd)• Average daily flow: 3.0 mgd. Operators report that over time, the average daily flow

has gradually increased. NBMUA indicates they are in the process of re-rating theplant capacity to an averaged daily flow of 2.91 mgd.

• The effluent is discharged to the Hudson River via an outfall pipe.


NBMUA Site Visit Report2

• Design/Hydraulic Maximum Flow: 9 mgd. It should be noted that the plant is on thereceiving end of a combined sewer system. For this reason any flows in excess of 9mgd bypass the plant and are discharged via CSO outfalls. The CSOs are permitted todischarge with end-of-pipe solids and floatables netting systems in service.

• Influent BOD and TSS generally average a concentration: 150 mg/L and 100 mg/L,respectively; Note - the design BOD/TSS was about 177 mg/L and 92 respectively.

• Influent ammonia is not monitored because the WWTP does not have an effluentammonia limit. However, coincident with quarterly acute toxicity testing, effluentammonia levels are taken. Based on a review of acute toxicity data, effluent ammonialevels ranged from 5.60 mg/L to 7.64 mg/L for a July 2006 sample event to 12.6 mg/Lto 13.10 mg/L in April 2006.

• Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is not monitored.

3. Recycle Flows and Loads:• Sludge holding tank supernatant:

o Returned to primary clarifier influento Volume per day and feed method not knowno Wastewater quality data not available

• Belt filter press filtrate (note: upper gravity drainage portion of belt press filter used tothicken sludge; lower section of belt filter press not operated):

o Returned to primary clarifier influento Polymer added in thickening operation: ZTAG8818o Use one tote (2500 lbs) of polymer every three monthso Thicken 8 hours per day, 5 days per weekWastewater quality data not available

• Trickling filter effluent can be recycled to the head of the trickling filters.


o Monthly average BOD5: 30 mg/Lo Weekly average BOD5: 45mg/Lo Monthly average TSS: 30 mg/Lo Weekly average TSS: 45 mg/Lo Monthly average percent BOD and TSS removal – 85%o The NJPDES permit does not contain max day limits for BOD and TSS.o DO 4.0 mg/Lo Fecal Coliform 200/400 colonies/100 mL (average monthly/weekly)o Oil and Grease 10 mg/L (average monthly)/15 mg/L (at any time)

• Typical effluent quality:o BOD5: 20-25 mg/lo TSS: 10 – 15 mg/l

• Effluent ammonia is not monitored except occasionally sample during quarterly acutetoxicity samples.

• Plant was not designed for nitrification, but the plant currently achieves partialnitrification.


5. Sludge quantities and sludge processing practices:• Sludge from the primaries and secondary clarifiers is sent to a sludge holding tank.

Decanted water is sent back to the head of the plant.• Sludge is thickened to 8% by using the gravity drainage portion of the belt filter press.• Thickened sludge is hauled to two bridges sewerage authority.

6. Current plans for plant improvements:

A general plant upgrade is being planned for design in 2008. This would entail replacingequipment that has reached the end of its useful life. This project will not result in anincrease in plant capacity.

7. Outside Wastes Received

• No outside wastes reported to be received.

8. Description of Liquid Stream unit processes:

• Screening and Grit Removal

Bar Screenso Quantity: 3 (2 mechanically cleaned, 1 manually cleaned)o Bar size, spacing: 3/8” x 2”, ¾” openingo Approximately 4 yards of screenings are removed per week (2 small

dumpsters)

Grit Chamberso Quantity: 2o Type: Pista Grito Capacity: 12 mgd; Diameter: 12’-0”; Influent channel width: 2’-6”o Minimum flow velocity: 2 fpso Grit chamber mechanics are not operational. Grit chamber is manually cleaned

on a weekly basis

• Primary ClarifiersDesign Criteria Data:o Quantity: 2o Size: 55’ x 55’ x 6’ SWDo Surface Overflow Rate: 480 gpd/sf at design average flow; 1,539 gpd/sf at

design peak flowo Total weir length (2 tanks): 395’o Weir Loading: 7,373 gpd/ft at design average flow; 23,544 gpd/ft at design

peak flowo Head over weir: 1.06” at design average flow; 1.69” at design peak flow


o Detention Time: 2.47 hours at design average flow; 0.77 hours at design peakflow

o Design effluent BOD5: 3,938 lbs/dayo Design effluent TSS: 1,531 lbs/dayInterview Data:o Achieve approximately 50% TSSRo Maintain 1’ sludge blanket depth at center of clarifiero 12” effluent laundero Small center well baffle approximately 3-3.5’ diametero 16” diameter center feedo Conventional rake arms and scraperso Tip speed 18-20 minutes per revolutiono One rectangular hopper approximately 4’ x 3’o Clarifier bottoms were regrouted in 1990o Two sludge pumps total; each 175 gpmo 6” diameter sludge lineo Sampling around the clarifiers is not routinely performed

• Intermediate Pump Stationo Type: submersible pumpo Number of pumps: 4 (1 standby)o Pump horsepower: 60o Wet well capacity: 3,500 cubic feet

• Trickling Filterso Type: plastic mediao Quantity: 2o Diameter: 50 ft.o Media Depth: 26 ft.o Total Surface Area: 3.1 million square feeto Application Rate: 0.65 gpm/sf (at 3.67 mgd)o BOD5 Loading Rate: 3,988 lbs/day or 39.06 lbs/day/1,000 ft.3 of mediao Design Influent BOD5: 153 lbs/dayo Design Influent TSS: 1,684 lbs/dayo Recirculation Flow: Design Influent BOD5: 153 lbs/day Design Influent TSS: 153 lbs/day Design Recirculation Capacity: 0.76 mgd

• Secondary clarificationo Type: Lamella Plate Settlerso Quantity: 4 (1 standby)o Total Settling Area: 7,200 square feeto Hydraulic Loading: 403 gpd/sf at design average flow; 1,250 gpd/sf at design

peak flow


• Chlorine Contact Tankso Quantity: 2o Length: 42 ft.o Width: 15’-6”o SWD: 10’o Volume: 6,500 cubic feet each, 13,000 cubic feet totalo Detention time: 20 minutes at design peak flowSodium Hypochlorite Storage Tankso Quantity: 2o Capacity: 2 @ 2,200 gallons, 2 @ 4,400 gallonso 2 metering pumps at 5-65 gph @ 100 psig; 1/3 hp, manual control

9. Future flow/load projections:

The service area is built-out, but due the re-development of the waterfront and construction ofhighly occupied residential apartments and condominiums flows seem to gradually be on theincrease.

10. Available operating modes and process control practices

Based on exiting plant configuration, the trickling filters can only operate in a parallel mode.

11. Site constraints

The NBMUA WWTP is bounded by River Road directly east of the plant, a car wash on thenorth side and a commercial property on the south side slated to be developed with high-riseapartments. Immediately behind the plant (west side) is a steep rocky hill/cliff. There is noroom to expand the plant at the current location and the surrounding area is fully developed.

12. Foundation requirements:

Soil borings provided with the 1991 upgrade drawings indicate silt and clay down to 30 ft.Existing facilities were constructed on pile foundations due to soft soils. Significantdewatering would be expected during construction.

North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority


N


NBMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 3,348,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 1,297,200$Pile foundations 681,030$Dewatering 117,915$Sheeting 46,255$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 1,590,000$






NBMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 16,089,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 1,547,280$Pile foundations 812,322$Dewatering 140,648$Sheeting 67,513$Rock excavation -$






NBMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 27,528,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 3,321,720$Pile foundations 1,743,903$Dewatering 301,944$Sheeting 93,649$Rock excavation -$






NBMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighOriginal Upgrade

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 1,800,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 665,280$Pile foundations 349,272$Dewatering 60,474$Sheeting 33,093$Rock excavation -$Intermediate pump station 846,000$






NBMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT


subtotal 10,170,000$Plant-specific capital cost additions(2):Land acquisition 923,760$Pile foundations 484,974$Dewatering 83,970$Sheeting 52,273$Rock excavation -$






NBMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA NitrogenShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA NitrogenPartially Nitrifying & Denitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA NitrogenFully Nitrifying BAF & Deep Bed Denite Filter HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonShallow Media Traveling Bridge Filter LowUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF MediumUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT








NBMUA CarbonNitrifying BAF and Microfiltration HighUpgrade with Seasonal Limits and Wet Weather Bypass

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT










FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX L

Generic Plant Summary Tables

Table I. Conventional Activated Sludge Generic Plant: Flows and Loads

ConditionLindenRoselle

RahwayValley

JointMeeting

BergenCounty Average units

Generic PlantValue Chosen

Comments

Flowrate Ann Avg 11 30 70 87 50 mgd 70 based on JMEUCFlowrate Max Mo 34 40 100 113 72 mgd 100 based on JMEUCFlowrate PWWF, hr 51 105 190 240 147 mgd 190 based on JMEUCBOD Ann Avg 250 174 147 225 199 mg/L 200BOD load Ann Avg 23,000 40,000 84,000 158,000 76,250 lb/dayBOD load Max Mo 71,000 62,300 121,000 230,000 121,075 lb/dayTSS Ann Avg 160 248 161 254 206 mg/L 200TSS Load Ann Avg 15,000 62,200 92,000 176,000 86,300 lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo 45,000 79,100 124,000 317,000 141,275 lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg 20 17 16 20 18 mg/L 20NH3-N Load Ann Avg 1,800 4,500 9,300 14,000 7,400 lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo 5,700 5,700 13,900 17,800 10,775 lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR 32 NR NR ----- mg/L 35TKN Load Ann Avg NR 8,400 NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR 10,800 NR NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg 1 2.7 6 10 5 mgd 6Flowrate Max Mo 1 3.5 9 12 6 mgd 9BOD Ann Avg 250 571 220 350 348 mg/L 350 used ~3x influent conc where data unavailBOD load Ann Avg 2,100 13,000 11,000 9,800 8,975 lb/dayBOD load Max Mo 2,100 19,000 15,000 68,000 26,025 lb/dayTSS Ann Avg 150 681 600 1,133 641 mg/L 600 used ~3x influent conc where data unavailTSS Load Ann Avg 1,300 15,400 30,000 89,000 33,925 lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo 1,300 23,900 40,000 224,000 72,300 lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg NR NR 76 NR ----- mg/L 76 calc'd based on mass bal on primary clarifierNH3-N Load Ann Avg NR NR 7,600 NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR NR 10,300 NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/LTKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg 12 33 76 101 56 mgd 76 based on JMEUCFlowrate Max Mo 35 43 109 117 76 mgd 109 based on JMEUCBOD Ann Avg 250 207 153 217 207 mg/L 210BOD load Ann Avg 25,100 56,600 95,000 167,000 85,925 lb/dayBOD load Max Mo 73,100 81,300 137,000 218,000 127,350 lb/dayTSS Ann Avg 160 284 196 306 237 mg/L 260 LRSA skews avg lowTSS Load Ann Avg 16,300 77,600 122,000 237,000 113,225 lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo 46,300 103,000 169,000 432,000 187,575 lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg NR NR 22 NR ----- mg/L 25NH3-N Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/LTKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg 12 32 77 99 55 mgdFlowrate Max Mo 35 42 107 115 75 mgdBOD Ann Avg 105 156 130 136 132 mg/L 135 assumed 30% removal for JMEUCBOD load Ann Avg 10,500 41,400 82,000 97,000 57,725 lb/dayBOD load Max Mo 30,700 60,700 118,000 109,000 79,600 lb/dayBOD removal Ann Avg 58% 10% 12% 40% 30% % 33% LRSA high BOD removal (roughing filter)TSS Ann Avg 96 154 105 118 118 mg/L 115TSS Load Ann Avg 9,600 40,900 66,000 88,000 51,125 lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo 28,000 59,400 95,000 101,000 70,850 lb/dayTSS removal Ann Avg 40% 38% 35% 54% 42% % 43%NH3-N Ann Avg NR NR 22 NR ----- mg/L 25NH3-N Load Ann Avg NR NR 14,000 NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR NR 20,000 NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/L 33TKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/day

BOD Ann Avg 7 5 9 18 10 mg/L 10BOD load Ann Avg 700 1,250 3,300 13,000 4,563 lb/dayBOD removal Ann Avg 97% 97% 94% 92% 95% % 95%TSS Ann Avg 12 5 11 26 14 mg/L 15TSS Load Ann Avg 1,200 1,250 6,300 37,000 11,438 lb/dayTSS removal Ann Avg 93% 98% 93% 90% 93% % 93%NH3-N Ann Avg 10 19 18 15 16 mg/L 18 LRSA skews avg lowNH3-N Load Ann Avg 1,000 5,000 10,000 10,800 6,700 lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR 21 NR NR ----- mg/L 21TKN Load Ann Avg NR 5,500 NR NR ----- lb/day

Removal percentages are cumulative relative to plant influent concentrationsNA = Process not applicable at plantNR = Value not reported on plant data summary

Plant Effluent

Plant Influent

Recycle

Primary Clarifier Influent

Primary Clarifier Effluent

calc'd based on centrate data, assume centrateload makes up 66% recyc load

from PCE assuming no NH3 removal across PCrounded up because JMEUC low influent NH3

assumed 50% of organic N removed in PC(=25 NH3-N + 0.5*15 Org N)

X:\PVSC-NJHDG\500-Submittals-Deliverables\Summary Report w Alts Jan2008\Appendices\L - GP summary tables\generic_AS_plant_summary.xls

Table II. Conventional Activated Sludge Generic Plant: Treatment Process Parameters

LindenRoselle

RahwayValley

JointMeeting

BergenCounty

Average Generic PlantValue Chosen

Comments

Ann Avg: Operational 970 1,280 1,830 1,900 1,495 1,500Max Mo: Operational 3,000 1,680 2,620 2,200 2,375 2,150 consistent with generic plant MM PFDesign Average NR 1,000 1,010 1,360 1,123 1,100

Ann Avg: Operational 460 710 720 1,000 723 750Max Mo: Operational 1,350 930 1,030 1,160 1,118 1,070 consistent with generic plant MM PFDesign Average NR 670 795 780 748 750

Ann Avg: Operational 12.4 5.3 5.0 3.2 6.5 5.0 LRSA skews averageMax Mo: Operational 4.3 4.0 3.5 2.8 3.7 3.5Design Average NR 5.6 4.5 4.5 4.9 5.0

Ann Avg: Operational 13 44 37 53 37 45 LRSA skews averageMax Mo: Operational 37 65 50 60 53 55Design Average NR 40 48 50 46 45

Ann Avg NR 18.7 18.4 17.9 18.3 18Min Month NR 13.0 11.6 9.0 11.2 11

NA = Process not applicable at plantNR = Value not reported on plant data summaryParameters include plant and recycle flow. HRT excludes RAS flow.

Wastewater Temperature (ºC)

Primary Clarifier SOR (gpd/sf) (based on units typically in use)

Secondary Clarifier SOR (gpd/sf)

Aeration Tank HRT (hr)

Aeration Tank BOD load (lb/day/1000 ft3)


Table III. Conventional Activated Sludge Generic Plant: Sludge Processing Parameters

LindenRoselle

RahwayValley

JointMeeting

BergenCounty


Comments

6,400 41,800 53,000 90,000 47,800 50,000 see note below

16,800 20,300 63,000 29,000 32,300 50,000

21,000 62,100 104,000 119,000 76,600 100,000

43 21 29 16 27 30 see note below

NA 18,000 61,000 76,000 51,700 60,000 RV seems low, but direct from plant data

NA = Process not applicable at plantNR = Value not reported on plant data summary

JMEUC sludge production estimated based on BOD removal. Calculations can be found in project directory.JMEUC primary clarifiers are operated at a high SOR. Primary sludge production is lower that expected based on plant capacity.JMEUC digesters designed for HRT of 19 days at load of 114,000 lb/day. Plant currently underloaded because of weaker influent.L-R digester HRT calculated based on estimates of sludge production and 5% solids in thickened sludge per site memo.L-R calculated values seem high, but site memo does not give indication of current digester load vs. design digester load.

Anaerobic Digester HRT (days)

Dewatered Sludge Production (lb/day - dry)

Primary Sludge Production (lb/day - dry)

WAS Production (lb/day - dry)

Thickened Sludge Production (lb/day - dry)


Table I. Oxygen Activated Sludge Generic Plant: Flows and Loads

Condition Edgewater MiddlesexCounty

PassaicValley

Average units Generic PlantValue Chosen

Comments

Flowrate Ann Avg 4 127 260 130 mgd 130Flowrate Max Mo 5 159 494 219 mgd 160Flowrate PWWF, hr 12 380 620 337 mgd 380BOD Ann Avg 216 210 182 203 mg/L 200BOD load Ann Avg 6,100 218,000 394,000 206,033 lb/dayBOD load Max Mo 7,400 286,000 894,000 395,800 lb/dayTSS Ann Avg 208 254 165 209 mg/L 210TSS Load Ann Avg 5,900 263,000 357,000 208,633 lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo 8,200 319,000 902,000 409,733 lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg NR 21 NR ----- mg/L 21 PVSC - no data, but will be higherNH3-N Load Ann Avg NR 21,000 NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR 23,000 NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR 35 NR ----- mg/L 35 PVSC - no data, but will be higherTKN Load Ann Avg NR 35,000 NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR 40,000 NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg NR 16 14 ----- mgd 15Flowrate Max Mo NR 18 21 ----- mgd 18BOD Ann Avg NR 641 1,050 ----- mg/L 800BOD load Ann Avg NR 80,000 103,000 ----- lb/dayBOD load Max Mo NR 240,000 962,000 ----- lb/dayTSS Ann Avg NR 1,070 1,080 ----- mg/L 1100TSS Load Ann Avg NR 145,000 94,000 ----- lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo NR 349,000 1,035,000 ----- lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg NR NR 120 ----- mg/L 120NH3-N Load Ann Avg NR NR 15,000 ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NR ----- mg/LTKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR NR NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg NA 141 260 ----- mgdFlowrate Max Mo NA 174 494 ----- mgdBOD Ann Avg NA 273 190 ----- mg/LBOD load Ann Avg NA 306,000 407,000 ----- lb/dayBOD load Max Mo NA 475,000 918,000 ----- lb/dayTSS Ann Avg NA 385 170 ----- mg/LTSS Load Ann Avg NA 424,000 366,000 ----- lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo NA 813,000 1,424,000 ----- lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg NA NR NR ----- mg/LNH3-N Load Ann Avg NA NR NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NA NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NA NR NR ----- mg/LTKN Load Ann Avg NA NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NA NR NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg NA 139 259 ----- mgdFlowrate Max Mo NA 166 489 ----- mgdBOD Ann Avg NA 166 135 ----- mg/L 150BOD load Ann Avg NA 185,000 284,000 ----- lb/dayBOD load Max Mo NA 306,000 NR ----- lb/dayBOD removal Ann Avg NA 21% 26% ----- % 25%TSS Ann Avg NA 130 103 ----- mg/L 115TSS Load Ann Avg NA 153,000 223,000 ----- lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo NA 578,000 NR ----- lb/dayTSS removal Ann Avg NA 49% 38% ----- % 45%NH3-N Ann Avg NA NR NR ----- mg/LNH3-N Load Ann Avg NA NR NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NA NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NA NR NR ----- mg/LTKN Load Ann Avg NA NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NA NR NR ----- lb/day

BOD Ann Avg 22 15 17 18 mg/L 18BOD load Ann Avg 720 15,000 38,000 17,907 lb/dayBOD removal Ann Avg 90% 93% 91% 91% % 91%TSS Ann Avg 20 16 12 16 mg/L 16TSS Load Ann Avg 570 18,000 26,700 15,090 lb/dayTSS removal Ann Avg 90% 94% 93% 92% % 92%NH3-N Ann Avg 14 16 32 21 mg/L 16 PVSC per site memoNH3-N Load Ann Avg 420 16,400 68,500 28,440 lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR 21 NR ----- mg/L 21 PVSC - no data, but will be higherTKN Load Ann Avg NR 21,400 NR ----- lb/day

Removal percentages are cumulative relative to plant influent concentrationsNA = Process not applicable at plantNR = Value not reported on plant data summary

Plant Effluent

Plant Influent

Recycle

Primary Clarifier Influent


X:\PVSC-NJHDG\500-Submittals-Deliverables\Summary Report w Alts Jan2008\Appendices\L - GP summary tables\generic_O2_plant_summary.xls

Table II. Oxygen Activated Slidge Generic Plant: Treatment Process Parameters

Edgewater MiddlesexCounty

PassaicValley


Comments

Ann Avg: Operational NA 1,230 1,810 1,520 1,550Max Mo: Operational NA 1,350 3,400 2,380 1,900 consistent with generic plant MM PFDesign Average NA 890 NR 890 890

Ann Avg: Operational 750 505 520 600 610Max Mo: Operational 900 630 985 840 750 consistent with generic plant MM PFDesign Average 720 565 NR 650 650

Ann Avg: Operational 2.0 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.6Max Mo: Operational 1.6 2.4 1.5 1.8 2.1 consistent with generic plant MM PFDesign Average 1.5 3.6 NR 2.6 2.6

Ann Avg: Operational 120 77 86 94 95Max Mo: Operational 146 128 NR 137 135Design Average 178 160 NR 169 170

Ann Avg 19.0 19.0 19Min Month 13.0 13.0 13

NA = Process not applicable at plantNR = Value not reported on plant data summaryParameters are based on plant influent + recycle flow for number of units typically in use. HRT excludes RAS flow.


Primary Clarifier SOR (gpd/sf)


Oxygenation Tank HRT (hr)

Oxygenation Tank BOD load (lb/day/1000 ft3)


Table III. Oxygen Activated Sludge Generic Plant: Sludge Processing Parameters

Edgewater MiddlesexCounty

PassaicValley


Comments

NA 222,000 284,000 253,000 220,000

5,300 117,000 332,000 152,000 120,000

7,100 320,000 620,000 315,700 320,000

NA NA NA ----- NA

NA 272,000 230,000 251,000 270,000


Anaerobic Digester HRT (days)


Primary Sludge Production (lb/day - dry)

WAS Production (lb/day - dry)



Table I. Trickling Filter Generic Plant: Flows and Loads

Condition NorthBergen

Secaucus N. HudsonRiver Road

N. HudsonAdams St.

Average units Generic PlantValue Chosen

Comments

Flowrate Ann Avg 3.0 3.3 9.9 13.8 8 mgd 10 based on NHSA-RRFlowrate Max Mo NR 4.6 11.8 16.1 ----- mgd 12 based on NHSA-RRFlowrate PWWF, hr 9.0 10.3 20 27 17 mgd 20 based on NHSA-RRBOD Ann Avg 150 169 162 175 164 mg/L 170BOD load Ann Avg 3,753 4,700 4,701 18,800 7,989 lb/dayBOD load Max Mo NR 6,484 15,943 30,500 ----- lb/dayTSS Ann Avg 100 135 177 205 154 mg/L 155TSS Load Ann Avg 2,502 3,700 14,614 21,100 10,479 lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo NR 5,179 17,419 34,400 ----- lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/L 25 typ of other plants, medium strengthNH3-N Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/L 35 typ of other plants, medium strengthTKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg NR 0.06 0.28 0.38 0.24 mgd 0.3 see notes below tableFlowrate Max Mo NR 0.08 0.33 0.44 ----- mgdBOD Ann Avg 300 338 324 350 328 mg/L 345 assumed 2x plant influentBOD load Ann Avg NR 169 757 1109 ----- lb/dayBOD load Max Mo NR 236 902 1,294 ----- lb/dayTSS Ann Avg 300 405 531 615 463 mg/L 540 assumed 3x plant influentTSS Load Ann Avg NR 203 1,240 1,949 ----- lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo NR 370 1,712 1,711 ----- lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/LNH3-N Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/LTKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg NR 3.4 10.2 14.2 9.2 mgd 9.4Flowrate Max Mo NR 4.7 12.1 16.5 11.1 mgd 10.3BOD Ann Avg NR 172 166 180 173 mg/L 185BOD load Ann Avg NR 4,869 5,458 19,909 10,079 lb/dayBOD load Max Mo NR 6,719 16,845 31,794 18,453 lb/dayTSS Ann Avg NR 140 187 216 181 mg/L 210TSS Load Ann Avg NR 3,903 15,854 23,049 14,269 lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo NR 5,550 19,131 36,111 20,264 lb/dayNH3-N Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/LNH3-N Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/LTKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR NR NR NR ----- lb/day

Flowrate Ann Avg NR 3.4 NA 14.2 ----- mgdFlowrate Max Mo NR 4.7 NA 16.5 ----- mgdBOD Ann Avg 105 118 NA 123 ----- mg/L 119BOD load Ann Avg NR 3,315 NA 14,487 ----- lb/dayBOD load Max Mo NR 4,621 NA 16,901 ----- lb/dayBOD removal 30 30 NA 30 ----- % 30TSS Ann Avg 40 54 NA 82 ----- mg/L 62TSS Load Ann Avg NR 1,513 NA 9,697 ----- lb/dayTSS Load Max Mo NR 2,109 NA 11,314 ----- lb/dayTSS removal 60 60 NA 60 ----- % 60NH3-N Ann Avg NR NR NA NR ----- mg/LNH3-N Load Ann Avg NR NR NA NR ----- lb/dayNH3-N Load Max Mo NR NR NA NR ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NA NR ----- mg/LTKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NA NR ----- lb/dayTKN Load Max Mo NR NR NA NR ----- lb/day

BOD Ann Avg 25 7 32 16 20 mg/L 20BOD load Ann Avg 626 193 2400 1900 1,280 lb/dayBOD removal 83% 96% 80% 91% 88% % 88%TSS Ann Avg 15 13 31 9 17 mg/L 15 NHSA-RR skews averageTSS Load Ann Avg 375 358 2300 1100 1,033 lb/dayTSS removal 85% 90% 82% 96% 88% % 90%NH3-N Ann Avg 13 1 NR 5 ----- mg/L 21NH3-N Load Ann Avg 325 28 NR 600 ----- lb/dayTKN Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- mg/L 26TKN Load Ann Avg NR NR NR NR ----- lb/day

Removal percentages are cumulative relative to plant influent concentrationsNA = Process not applicable at plantNR = Value not reported on plant data summaryNHSA -RR and NHSA-AS: recycle flow rates were estimated based on dewatered sludge volumetric sludge production reported. Assumes raw sludgeat 0.5% solids is thickened to 6% solids. Assumes a wash water allowance of 10 gpm wash water flow per 1 mgd of plant flow.SMUA: recycle flow rate based on site visit memo.

Per effluent critera to BAF vendors.Although some plants do nitrify, butothers do not. Choose conservativevalue and then adjust site specific

Plant Influent

Primary Clarifier Influent / Combined Plant Infleunt and Recycle


Plant Effluent

Recycle

removal 35% per removal curves,say 30% of influent to allow for recyc load

removal 65% per removal curves,say 60% of influent to allow for recyc load

Table II. Trickling Filter Generic Plant: Treatment Process Parameters

NorthBergen

Secaucus N. HudsonRiver Road

N. HudsonAdams St.


Comments

Ann Avg: Operational 500 379 NA 580 490 500Max Mo: Operational NR 529 NA 660 600 600 consistent w gen. plant MM PFDesign Average 480 588 NA 687 590 590

Ann Avg: Operational 417 332 537 NA 430 430Max Mo: Operational 583 462 617 NA 560 520 consistent w gen. plant MM PFDesign Average 400 578 629 NA 540 540

Type plastic PVC plast X-flow plast X-flow ----- plast X-flow

Ann Avg: Operational 0.53 0.60 0.39 0.51 0.51 0.5Max Mo: Operational 0.74 0.84 0.44 0.63 0.66 0.6 consistent w gen. plant MM PFDesign Average 0.65 NR 0.44 1.00 0.70 0.7

Ann Avg: Operational NR 50 27 9 29 30Max Mo: Operational NR 69 42 17 43 40Design Average 40 NR 30 46 39 40

Design Average 25 NR 50 50 42 40

Ann Avg NR NR 18.7 18.3 18.5 19Min Month NR NR 12.2 11.9 12.1 12

NA = Process not applicable at plantNR = Value not reported on plant data summarySMUA hydraulic and BOD load reported based on first stage trickling filter.


Trickling Filter BOD load (lb/day/1000 ft3)

Maximum Recycle Rate (%)

Primary Clarifier SOR (gpd/sf)


Media

Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)

Table III. Trickling Filter Generic Plant: Sludge Processing Parameters

NorthBergen

Secaucus N. Hudson RiverRoad

N. Hudson AdamsSt.

Average GenericPlant Value

Comments

NR 2,500 6,500 8,500 4,500 6,500calc'd based on volumetric production

and percent solids per site memo

NA NA NA NA ----- NA no digestion at plants

NA NA NA NA ----- NA no dewatering at plants


Sludge Digesters HRT (days)





FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX M

Manufacturer’s Technical Information – Kruger BAF

.��(��9.(�:

.�-/�;%<

�� !��"�� !�� !��

��

�� $ (��%#�� 1 /�$'1�#'(#%'%&4-*1 �*�1�'� %* �3�/354'1��#**14#%

�� 6�'*7��'��8��9�� )�� :��

1�/3�#�/3(#&�'

�� #%#™� �� #%#"��6;<��)��=7��

�('�% >>1#-1'$#(#%

�� #%#�� ,,�� 0 �� ,,��0��,,��9�� ,,��

#'�# * -#�'� %

�� -1$��,��$'&'��

'&?'%$#&�� 1 /�$'1�#'(#%'%&*�1�'� %

�� @

��

��

*1#2��1#�$ (-'$* -��%

�� !��!��3��

��(-1#�'$.�'�3

�� &��0�� !�� 0��:��0��0��"��

Treated Water

Nozzle Deck

BIOSTYRENE® Media

Air Grid

Backwash Header

Feed PipeCell Feed/Backwash Collection Channel

Influent Water

Plenum

Treated Water

Nozzle Deck

BIOSTYRENE Media

Air Grid

Backwash Header

Feed PipeCell Feed/Backwash Collection Channel

Influent Water

Plenum

��

�#$ %&'��#'(#%

�� )��

#��'��%��*�$'� %

�� !�� %��

#��'��&#%��*�$'� %

�� +

'��!�� ,��

'�� !��

-'$.'/#��#(�

*�� 0�� &�� 0�� )��

'--1�$'� %�

��

�� !��!��"��#�� $��%�� %��"��&'�� (��!��)��#��(��

4%-��//��-"�%-=��(�>%�/

(��/�($(��0?$��3?$��>��4��4��?��?��#��!��0,?��+��=��#™��/��

�*�+��*,'&��-�#��.�!�*�/��&''�� "��012&3

4��5&5*611*73&'��5&5*611*''708��*#��*��



FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX N

Manufacturer’s Technical Information – IDI BAF

BIOFOR™ BiologicalFiltration System

Carbonaceous BOD removal Nitrification Denitrification TSS removal

Truly advanced microbiologicscience comes in a smallpackage.Infilco Degremont combines fine-

bubble diffused aeration and upflow

filtration to efficiently process water

and filter solids in one compact, high-

rate system: the BIOFOR Biological

Filtration System.

BIOFOR, a submerged biological filter, is

applied individually or in separate stages.

Highly efficient, it is well-suited to multiple

applications, including:

• carbonaceous BOD reduction

• nitrification

• denitrification

• cold and dilute wastewaters

• waters with wide flow and load swings

• tertiary treatment for nutrient removal

The Biofor processBIOFOR’s dense granular media bed

serves as both biological support and

filter, eliminating the need for clarification.

Called Biolite™, the media bed is made

from natural materials.

For aerated systems, Oxazur™ air diffusers

produce fine bubbles that dissolve oxygen

into the water. Microorganisms that grow

on and in the media use this oxygen

while they feed on the pollution that is

dissolved in the water.

An anoxic BIOFOR can achieve denitrification

before or after the nitrification stage.

BIOFOR™ Biological Filtration System

TreatedWater

WashWaterOutlet

Wash Water

Water to be Treated

Process Air

MediaAirWater

Scour Air

1.

2.

With co-current air and water upflow,

the majority of pollutants are removed

before water reaches the top of the filter

cell. This flow pattern allows high filtration

rates and improved mass transfer so the

ensuing biomass has ready access to

oxygen and pollutants.

BIOFOR’s unique backwashing sequences

are automated and optimized for each

application. Sequences of simultaneous

air scour and water effectively remove

excess biomass and captured particulates.

A system that complementsowners and communitiesBIOFOR’s small footprint and

uncomplicated retrofitting make it

the ideal solution for either new or existing

plants where real estate is at a premium.

Plant owners and operators benefit

from BIOFOR’s complete automation.

Each system is initially programmed

for local conditions, and thereafter

requires only routine monitoring, saving

man-hours and money.

BIOFOR is community-friendly and

virtually odor-free. Since there is

always treated water above the

media bed, odors are minimized.

Call Infilco Degremont to find

out more.

Multiple cells reduce energy costs and enable easy upgrades. On-duty

cells operate at optimum filtration rates with off-duty cells either in a

backwash cycle or idle, awaiting flow or load increases. Add more cells

to increase capacity and upgrade capability.

Influent Water in Green Treated Water in Blue Backwash Waste in Brown Process Air & Air Scour Bubbles in White

3.

4.

P.O. Box 71390Richmond, VA 23255-1390 USAPhone: (800) 446-1150

(804) 756-7600Fax: (804) 756-7643www.infilcodegremont.com

Contact us for information oncost-effective water treatmentsolutions.

Put the BIOFORTM

Biological FiltrationSystem to work:• Carbonaceous BOD reduction, nitrification,

denitrification

• Cold and dilute wastewaters

• Tertiary treatment for nutrient removal

• Total suspended solids removal

Copyright © 2002 Infilco Degremont, Inc. 12/2002 DB965



FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX O

Manufacturer’s Technical Information – STS TETRA Denite Filter

www.severntrentservices.com

Severn Trent Services offers the TETRA Denite® System, a practical process for the removal of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and suspended solids (SS) in a single treatment step. Denite is a fixed-film biological denitrification process that also serves as a deep bed filtration system capable of removing suspended solids to virtually any final effluent requirement. The TETRA Denite system integrates well with other plant treatment processes to provide superior total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorous removal. Denite is used as the final treatment step in the total nitrogen removal process to help each facility meet stringent TN discharge limits of 3 mg/l.

Denite Process Description Biological denitrification processes can be of the fixed-film or suspended growth type. The TETRA Denite system requires one-tenth of the space used with suspended growth systems, greatly facilitating expansion or retrofitting requirements. With Denite, the denitrification process and the filtration process are combined in a single system and provide superior process synergy. NO3-N is converted to nitrogen gas and captured within the media bed along with suspended solids and biomass formed from the denitrification reaction. The Denite gravity filter system operates in a downflow mode to maintain excellent suspended solids removal, thus avoiding the necessity for clarifiers or additional effluent polishing filters.

The specially sized and shaped granular media used in the fixed-film biological reactors is an excellent support medium for denitrifying bacteria and the deep bed environment is conducive to efficient NO3-N and solids removal. The specific surface of the 2-3 mm sand is high, 300 square feet per cubic foot. A 4-6 foot depth of media is used that prevents short-circuiting and premature solids breakthrough. The contact between wastewater and biomass is excellent and hydraulic short-circuiting is negligible even during plant upsets.

The media allows for heavy capture of solids of at least 1.0 pound of solids per square foot of filter surface area before backwashing is required. The high solids capture permits operating for extended periods of time and easily handles peak flow periods or plant upsets.

As solids are captured increasing the head loss in the filters, a backwash is required to remove the solids. Because of the heavy loading capacity and media depth, DeepBed vessels require heavy-duty backwashing. Concurrent backwash air and water are used during the backwash cycle. The solids slurry removed from the filter media are typically returned to the upstream biological process. Due to the filters high solids loading capacity, the percent of return is less than 4% (<2% typical) of the plant’s forward flow.

During the denitrification reaction, nitrogen gas accumulates in the media bed and wastewater is forced to flow around the gas bubbles in the media voids. This reduces the apparent size of the media and also improves the biomass contact and filtration efficiency. The effect of the gas bubbles increases head loss and requires periodic removal in between backwashes. Removing a reactor from service and applying backwash water for a short period of time accomplish this. This nitrogen release cycle, or bump, releases the entrapped nitrogen gas into the atmosphere, reducing the head loss. The TETRA SpeedBump® technology is utilized to conduct a complete system bump cycle without stopping flow to the reactors.

TETRA® Denite® SystemDeepBed Denitrifi cationDeepBed Denitrifi cation

Severn Trent ServicesPark West 1, Ste. 600 Cliff Mine Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15275Tel 412 788 8300Toll 800 364 1600

Fax 412 788 [email protected]

650.

0001

.1

www.severntrentservices.com

Suspended Solids Removal The removal of suspended solids from wastewater effluent also lowers BOD since each mg/l of TSS contains 0.4-0.5 mg/l of BOD. Effluent suspended solids also contain nitrogen, phosphorous, and heavy metals. The removal of these solids often decreases 1 mg/l or more of these materials. With proper chemical treatment, effluent total phosphorous concentrations <0.3 mg/l are consistently achieved. Denite filters can easily meet <2 NTU or < 5 mg/l TSS (<2 mg/l TSS typical). Table 1 demonstrates the final effluent quality reported by the City for the Howard Curren AWTP in Tampa, Florida during the period of 1980-2001

where the Denite system is operating.

Nitrogen RemovalThe denitrification reaction is time-dependent, and the time required for a specific removal efficiency varies according to the temperature of the wastewater being treated. In practice, filtration rates of 1-3 gpm/ft2 are designed for water temperatures down to 8 degrees Celsius and 2-5 gpm/ft2 in warmer waters. Table 2 demonstrates the Denite system’s capability to denitrify to low NO3-N concentrations at low wastewater temperatures. Table 1 demonstrates the consistency of yearly Denite operations for NO3-N and SS removal.

Denite System Components and Specifi cations• Filter Vessel: concrete or steel, round or rectangular- usually 18-20 feet deep with free board. • Filter Bottom: Nozzleless design; stainless steel air headers and pipe laterals; plastic jacketed 5000 psi concrete T Block

underdrains. • Filter Media: monomedia granular sand with 2-3 mm effective size at depths of 4-to-6 feet. • Support Layers: gravel in five layers totaling 18 inches deep in a reverse graded fashion. • Filter Controls: consist of split flow influent over Curvilinear Weir™ blocks and standpipe effluent control. The mode is a uniform rate

with open or closed valves. • Backwash Air: distributed across the entire area of the filter bottom, supplied by a positive displacement blower at a rate of 3-5

icfm/ft²• Backwash Water: supplied at a rate of 5-6 gpm/ft² with a low head centrifugal pump. The head loss across the filter bottom is 4.0

inches water column. • Filter Valves: pneumatic or electric control valves with double acting cylinders. Isolation valves can be included. • Chemical Feed Systems: includes a methanol storage and feed system with TetraPace™ automatic dosing control. This can be

used for other chemical feeds as well. • Instrumentation: PLC with human machine interface and multiple screens included. Also includes outputs for a centralized computer

control and/or SCADA system. It also includes flow meters, analyzers, level switches, local panels and system alarms. • Filter Operation: automatic with manual overrides. Backwashing and bumping are time based. • Head Requirement: typically 6-8 feet of water but can be more or less depending on the specific application.• System Integration: works well with other treatment plant processes such as overall nitrogen removal, phosphorous removal and

virus removal.

650.0001.1 05/05

Table 1: Howard Curren AWTP – Tampa, FL (100 MGD)

Period MGD BOD (mg/l)

SS(mg/l)

TN(mg/l)

TKN(mg/l)

NH3-N(mg/l)

NOx-N(mg/l)

1980-1988 51.3 3.4 2.8 2.8 1.7 0.17 1.061989-1998 55.5 2.4 1.6 2.4 1.56 0.18 0.871999 50.45 2.6 0.9 2.52 1.46 0.13 1.012000 48.5 3.1 0.7 2.24 1.29 0.14 0.952001 49.7 2.3 0.8 2.28 1.21 0.15 1.06Average 51.0 2.76 1.4 2.4 1.5 0.15 0.99

Table 2. Cold Weather Performance Data – Northeast US (Monthly Averages)

MGDWastewater Temperature degrees C

Influent NO3-Nmg/l

Effluent NO3-Nmg/l

Nov 2003 1.01 14.9 11.56 0.45Dec 2003 1.77 11.6 8.25 0.47Jan 2004* 1.13 8.5 10.91 0.48

ADF Design 1.0 8 13 0.5Peak-Day Design 2.36 8 11 0.5* 15 days were measured <8 degrees C with average effluent NO3-N of 0.45 mg/l @ 1.09 MGD



FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX P

Manufacturer’s Technical Information – IDI ABW Traveling Bridge Filter

ABW®AutomaticBackwash Filter

Rapid gravity filter Tertiary filtration Reuse

The ABW Automatic Backwash Filter

means economical traveling bridge

performance for municipal and industrial

applications. The low-head, shallow-bed

design takes advantage of surface

filtration to dramatically reduce

construction and maintenance

costs. Our exclusive seven-

stage backwash process lets

the filter remain on-line

during cleaning for optimum

performance without

shutdowns.

Suitable for tertiary treatment

of municipal wastewater, potable

water treatment, industrial water

treatment, aquafir recharge, and

water reuse, the ABW Automatic

Backwash Filter is proven in thousands

of installations worldwide.

The ABW Filter means savingsand safety for your facility:• Shallow penetration and low driving head

prevent solids from packing in media for

easier removal.

• Unique backwash design eliminates

backwash storage tank, control valves, pipe

gallery, surge storage, and large-horsepower

pumps.

• Low head operation simplifies basin and

piping specifications for less expensive

excavation and installation.

• Regular, short-duration backwash reduces

hydraulic loading rates for lower operating

costs.

• Carriage-mounted assembly is easy to

inspect and service, and can usually remain

on-line during maintenance.

• Carefully controlled fluidization provides

bed regeneration by eliminating solids

breakthrough.

ABW® Automatic Backwash Filter

WASHWATERDISCHARGE PIPEAND LAUNDER

WASHWATERDISCHARGE

EFFLUENT

WASHWATERHOOD ASSEMBLY

DRIVE MOTOR

CONTROL PANEL

TRAVELING BACKWASHMECHANISM

BACKWASHSUPPORT ARM

BACKWASHASSEMBLY

EFFLUENTCHANNEL

EFFLUENT ANDBACKWASH PORTS

INFLUENT CHANNELINFLUENT

PORTSINFLUENT

Exclusive, seven-stage backwashCarefully controlled media cleaning focuses

on one cell at a time to optimize solids

removal.

Filter flow through the cell is gradually reduced.

A quiescent period of several seconds allows the cell to stabilize.

Backwash flow is gradually introduced.

Backwash flow reaches peak rate.

Backwash flow is gradually reduced to allow even settlement of the media bed.

Backwash flow stops to let media settle completely.

Filtration is gradually reintroduced.

OptionsCreate the most efficient, cost-effective

system for your municipal or industrial

needs.

Programmable Floating Skimmer

For applications that involve extensive

surface scum. Operates only as needed

for minimal energy consumption.

Dual Backwash Carriages

Reduce backwash duration by up to

50 percent for heavy solids or large basin

applications with our special tandem-

operating design.

Pre-wash System

Our patented pre-wash system allows the

periodic introduction of a strong cleaning

agent and/or a biocide prior to backwash.

Filtrate-to-waste Mode

This continually operating pump-and-piping

system is kept separate from the backwash

assembly to eliminate possible contamination

of backwash water. When operated with

this patented option, ABW is the only

traveling bridge filter approved by the EPA

for potable water treatment.

Package Filter System

Easy to install on a concrete pad and

self-contained in a steel tank, the ABW

Package Filter requires only pipe connections,

electrical power, and media. Additional

package filters can be installed for large

capacities with minimal site preparation.

ABW Filters are field-tested in

hundreds of communities and

industries worldwide. We

remain the leader in traveling

bridge filter technology through

patented and proprietary

improvements designed with

WWTP contractors, engineers,

and end users in mind.

Corrosion Resistant Materials

Fiberglass and stainless steel

underwater components are

light, easy to handle, and fit

together with precision.

Polyethylene Porous Plates

Pioneered to support the filter

media, these durable, light-

weight plates are manufactured

with lap joints to prevent leaks.

Advance Control Systems

Allow extended cleaning

over individual cells with our

programmable system.

New! ABW Filter Underdrain

We’ve improved our under-

drain with a unique, two-piece

cell design that virtually

eliminates media leaks and

offers increased strength,

greater media-depth flexibility,

and reduced maintenance.

Easy to install, it directly replaces

current configurations.

Details developed in the field

ABW Filter Underdrain

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

The seven phases ofABW Filter backwashfor cell A in relationshipto cells B, C and D.

P.O. Box 71390Richmond, VA 23255-1390 USAPhone: (800) 446-1150

(804) 756-7600Fax: (804) 756-7643www.infilcodegremont.com

Contact us for information oncost-effective water treatmentsolutions.

Copyright © 2002 Infilco Degremont, Inc. 12/2002 DB370

ABW®

Automatic Backwash FilterAutomatic, on-line cleaning for economy and performance

• Continual operation without downtime

• Reduced construction and maintenance costs

• Optimal solids removal



FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX Q

Manufacturer’s Technical Information – CE/Siemens Microfilter

Contact Us | Sitemap

ZeeWeed Tertiary Ultrafiltration (UF) Systems are designed to operate downstream of a conventional activatedsludge process, where no further biological treatment is necessary, but where high quality water is required. Thesystem features a small footprint that can be placed virtually anywhere or can even be used to retrofit existinggranular filter media.

When compared to conventional granular filter media, ZeeWeed ultrafiltration systems consistently produce ahigh-quality water, are easy to operate, are capable of handling solids spikes, and are less vulnerable to processupsets. The ultrafiltration membrane system is also ideal for reverse osmosis (RO) pretreatment as it produces ahigh quality feed water that improves the reliability, performance and service life of the RO membranes.

Proven Immersed Membrane Technology

As the pioneer of low-pressure immersed membrane technology, ZENON offers what no other membranevendor can: a family of ultrafiltration membrane products that are engineered for specific applications to ensurethe most cost-effective and optimized system for your needs.

ZeeWeed 500 Series

The ZeeWeed 500 series offers a reinforced ultrafiltration membrane fiber for unmatched durability andoperating life. The rugged fibers are ideal for applications with variable and extremely high levels of suspendedsolids.

ZeeWeed 1000 Series

The ZeeWeed 1000 series offers an ultra efficient design, which results in an extremely small system footprintand makes the system ideal for retrofitting existing sand filters or granular filter media.

ZeeWeed Tertiary Ultrafiltration Systems


l Physical ultrafiltration (UF) barrierProvides superior product water quality and regulatory compliance

l Modular design allows for simple and efficient sand filter retrofitsReduces capital costs through use of existing infrastructure

l Hollow fiber geometryProvides a greater filtration surface area which reduces plant footprint and effectively distributes cleaningsolutions

l Effective backpulse cleaningMaintains long-term, peak system performance and provides a simple, rapid method of recovery in theevent of a plant upset

l Low operating pressuresReduces life cycle costs

l Immersed membrane systemProvides a more robust system, with less fouling potential

l Compact designSmaller plant footprints reduce capital costs

l Lowers chemical requirementsCoagulation and cleaning chemical usage can be dramatically reduced

l Proven system performanceSuccessful track record of operation in hundreds of municipal and industrial applications provides youwith peace of mind

ZeeWeed 1000 Features and Benefits






FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX R

Generic Conventional Activated Sludge PlantConceptual Capital Cost Estimates

03:02 PM JOB #: 60022871 METCALF & EDDY ENGINEERS CLIENT : NJHDGDATE: December 31, 2007 Construction Cost Estimate PROJECT : Nutrient RemovalLOCATION: New Jersey Nutrient Removal Cost Estimates ACCURACY: ± 25 %PREPARED BY: R. Mastrogiacomo Conceptual ENR CCI: 7879CHECKED BY: T. Bradley *********************************

G R A N D S U M M A R Y

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION Avg Annual FlowMax. Monthly

FlowPWWF Hourly

Flow TOTAL(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)

70 100 190

Nitrogen Targeting

-1- Original Scenario (LOW) $95,380,334-2- Original Scenario (MEDIUM) $97,515,850-3- Original Scenario (HIGH) $213,201,082

-4- Wet Weather Bypass (LOW) $101,194,392-5- Wet Weather Bypass (MEDIUM) $103,425,910-6- Wet Weather Bypass (HIGH) $226,122,359

-7- Seasonal Limits (LOW) $65,651,898-8- Seasonal Limits (MEDIUM) $97,515,850-9- Seasonal Limits (HIGH) $207,296,357

-10- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (LOW) $69,664,234-11- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (MEDIUM) $103,425,910-12- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (HIGH) $219,859,770

Carbon Targeting




Page 1 of 20 Generic CAS_12.31.2007.xls

03:02 PM JOB #: 60022871 METCALF & EDDY ENGINEERS CLIENT : NJHDG

DATE: December 31, 2007 Construction Cost Estimate PROJECT : Nutrient RemovalLOCATION: New Jersey Nutrient Removal Cost Estimates ACCURACY:± 25 %

PREPARED BY: R. Mastrogiacomo Conceptual ENR INDEX: 7879

M A N H O U R S M A T E R I A L L A B O R E Q U I P M E N T TOTALACCOUNT ESTIMATE BASIS MHR/ TOTAL UNIT TOTAL WAGE TOTAL UNIT TOTAL DIRECT

NO. UNIT MH COST MATL RATE LABOR RATE EQUIP COST

THIS CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON:

1. BASED ON GENERIC PLANT DESCRIPTION.

2. PRICING IS BASED ON 2nd QUARTER 2007

3. CONTINGENCY SHOWN IS CONTRACTOR CONTINGENCY BASED ON LEVEL OF DESIGN.

4. OVERHEAD & PROFIT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL 3% FOR MOBILIZATION and 1% FOR BID BOND.

5. ESCALATION NOT CONSIDERED.

6. IN PROVIDING OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST, THE CLIENT UNDERSTANDS THAT M&E HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE COST OR AVAILABILITY OF LABOR,EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS OR OVER MARKET CONDITIONS OR THE CONTRACTOR'S METHOD OF PRICING. M&E MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED THATTHE BIDS WILL NOT VARY FROM THIS ESTIMATE.

7. Average wage rate calculated from 2007 Means Labor rates for Construction Industry (ENR 7879). Used Newark, NJ ($55.77) escalated at to time of estimate and added 33.2% for0.0% to time of estimate and added:SS Tax 7.7%Workers Comp Ins 12.9%Builders Risk 0.4%Other Negotiated fringe 1.6%UnEmployment Ins 6.5%TOTAL 29.1%

AVERAGE WAGE RATE -----> 71.99$

Page 2 of20 Generic CAS_12.31.2007.xls


DATE: 12/31/07 Construction Cost Estimate PROJECT : Nutrient RemovalLOCATION: New Jersey Nutrient Removal Cost Estimates ACCURACY:± 25 %

PREPARED BY: R. Mastrogiacomo Nitrogen Targeting ENR. INDEX:7879

M A N H O U R S M A T E R I A L L A B O R E Q U I P M E N T TOTALACCOUNT DESCRIPTION QUAN UN MHR/ TOTAL UNIT TOTAL WAGE TOTAL UNIT TOTAL DIRECT


Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-1- Original Scenario (LOW)

Advanced Basic BNR

Aeration Tank Expansion: (4.1 MG Vol, 295'L x 124'W x 15'D)

New AT concrete 5,555 CY 10.00 55,550 190.00 1,055,450 71.99$ 3,999,239 0.00 0 $5,054,689New AT Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 36,700 CY 0.20 7,340 2.00 73,400 71.99$ 528,432 3.00 110,100 $711,932New AT Mixers 1 LS 700.00 700 400,000.00 400,000 71.99$ 50,395 0.00 0 $450,395New AT train blower 1 EA 1,300.00 1,300 825,000.00 825,000 71.99$ 93,592 8,250.00 8,250 $926,842Diffusers (with process air piping) 18,300 EA 0.60 10,980 60.00 1,098,000 71.99$ 790,489 0.00 0 $1,888,489Concrete Baffles 476 CY 6.00 2,856 160.00 76,160 71.99$ 205,613 0.00 0 $281,773

Modifications to existing Aeration Tanks:Mixers 1 LS 2,800.00 2,800 1,603,000.00 1,603,000 71.99$ 201,582 0.00 0 $1,804,582Diffusers (without process air piping) 73,200 EA 0.40 29,280 40.00 2,928,000 71.99$ 2,107,969 0.00 0 $5,035,969Concrete Baffles 1,900 CY 6.00 11,400 160.00 304,000 71.99$ 820,726 0.00 0 $1,124,726

Secondary Clarifier Expansion (2 @ 180' dia):New SC concrete 7,550 CY 10.00 75,500 190.00 1,434,500 71.99$ 5,435,509 0.00 0 $6,870,009New SC Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 46,000 CY 0.20 9,200 2.00 92,000 71.99$ 662,340 3.00 138,000 $892,340New SC internals (180' dia) 2 EA 500.00 1,000 275,000.00 550,000 71.99$ 71,993 2,750.00 5,500 $627,493Clarifier troughs/weirs/baffles/spray system/handrail/etc. 1 AL 500.00 500 275,000.00 275,000 71.99$ 35,997 2,750.00 2,750 $313,747Density current baffles 1 AL 500.00 500 162,379.46 162,379 71.99$ 35,997 1,623.79 1,624 $200,000

RAS pumping upgrades to 100% 1 AL 11,112.12 11,112 2,000,000.00 2,000,000 71.99$ 800,000 20,000.00 20,000 $2,820,000

Alkalinity System 1 LS 160.00 160 749,000.00 749,000 71.99$ 11,519 7,490.00 7,490 $768,009Chemical Building 3,300 SF 1.20 3,960 90.00 297,000 71.99$ 285,094 20.00 66,000 $648,094

subtotal 224,138 13,625,889 15,851,392 293,714 $29,770,995Piping 20% % 224,138.12 44,828 13,625,889.46 2,725,178 71.99$ 3,227,297 293,713.79 58,743 $6,011,218Misc Site 10% % 224,138.12 22,414 13,625,889.46 1,362,589 71.99$ 1,613,649 293,713.79 29,371 $3,005,609Electrical 25% % 224,138.12 56,035 13,625,889.46 3,406,472 71.99$ 4,034,121 293,713.79 73,428 $7,514,022I/C 10% % 224,138.12 22,414 13,625,889.46 1,362,589 71.99$ 1,613,649 293,713.79 29,371 $3,005,609

subtotal 145,690 8,856,828 10,488,716 190,914 $19,536,458

SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS 369,828 22,482,718 26,340,107 484,628 $49,307,453

GENERAL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD&PROFIT 24.00% $11,833,789SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR $61,141,240

CONTINGENCY 30.00% $18,342,372

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $79,483,612

Engineering/Legal/Administration 20.00% $15,896,722grand total $95,380,334




PREPARED BY: R. Mastrogiacomo Nitrogen Targeting ENR. INDEX: 7879



Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-2- Original Scenario (MEDIUM)

Full Step BNR





RAS pumping upgrades to 100% 1 AL 11,112.12 11,112 2,000,000.00 2,000,000 71.99$ 800,000 0.00 0 $2,800,000

Methanol System 1 LS 160.00 160 112,000.00 112,000 71.99$ 11,519 1,120.00 1,120 $124,639Methanol tank excavation, bedding and backfill 867 CY 0.20 173 2.00 1,734 71.99$ 12,484 3.00 2,601 $16,819Concrete slab for methanol tank excavation 15 CY 8.00 119 180.00 2,667 71.99$ 8,533 0.00 0 $11,199Alkalinity System 1 LS 0.00 0 749,000.00 749,000 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $749,000Chemical Building 3,400 SF 1.20 4,080 90.00 306,000 71.99$ 293,733 20.00 68,000 $667,733


subtotal 145,958 9,131,389 10,507,992 219,664 $19,859,045



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $18,753,048





DATE: 12/31/07 Construction Cost Estimate PROJECT : Nutrient RemovalLOCATION: New Jersey Nutrient Removal Cost Estimates ACCURACY: ± 25 %




Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-3- Original Scenario (HIGH)

Full Step BNR w/ Denitrifying Filters






Methanol System 1 LS 0.00 0 166,000.00 166,000 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $166,000Methanol tank excavation, bedding and backfill 1,206 CY 0.20 241 2.00 2,412 71.99$ 17,365 3.00 3,618 $23,395Concrete slab for methanol tank excavation 19 CY 8.00 148 180.00 3,333 71.99$ 10,666 0.00 0 $13,999Alkalinity System 1 LS 0.00 0 749,000.00 749,000 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $749,000Chemical Building 3,400 SF 1.20 4,080 90.00 306,000 71.99$ 293,733 20.00 68,000 $667,733

Intermediate Pump Station (Mechancial) 1 LS 36,808.88 36,809 2,650,000.00 2,650,000 71.99$ 2,650,000 0.00 0 $5,300,000Concrete 2,320 CY 10.00 23,200 190.00 440,800 71.99$ 1,670,249 0.00 0 $2,111,049Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 11,800 CY 0.20 2,360 2.00 23,600 71.99$ 169,905 3.00 35,400 $228,905Pump Station Building 8,740 SF 1.20 10,488 90.00 786,600 71.99$ 755,068 20.00 174,800 $1,716,468

Denitrifying Filter (STS) 1 LS 15,500.0 15,500 11,100,000.0 11,100,000 71.99$ 1,115,899 111,000.00 111,000 $12,326,899DNF Concrete 10,213 CY 10.00 102,130 190.00 1,940,470 71.99$ 7,352,695 0.00 0 $9,293,165DNF Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 82,745 CY 0.20 16,549 2.00 165,490 71.99$ 1,191,420 3.00 248,235 $1,605,145Gallery Building 18,053 SF 1.46 26,357 90.00 1,624,770 71.99$ 1,897,560 5.00 90,265 $3,612,595


subtotal 297,622 21,342,987 21,426,881 648,402 $43,418,271

SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS 755,503 54,178,352 54,391,314 1,645,944 $110,215,610


CONTINGENCY 30.00% $41,000,208









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-4- Wet Weather Bypass (LOW)

Advanced Basic BNR








subtotal 168,104 10,219,417 12,102,364 220,285 $22,542,067



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $19,460,460









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-5- Wet Weather Bypass (MEDIUM)

Full Step BNR








subtotal 168,413 10,536,218 12,124,606 253,459 $22,914,282



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $19,889,598









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-6- Wet Weather Bypass (HIGH)











subtotal 343,411 24,626,524 24,723,325 748,156 $50,098,005



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $43,485,069









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-7- Seasonal Limits (LOW)

Advanced Basic BNR


New AT concrete 0 CY 10.00 0 190.00 0 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $0New AT Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 0 CY 0.20 0 2.00 0 71.99$ 0 3.00 0 $0New AT Mixers 0 LS 700.00 0 400,000.00 0 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $0New AT train blower 0 EA 1,300.00 0 825,000.00 0 71.99$ 0 8,250.00 0 $0Diffusers (with process air piping) 0 EA 0.60 0 60.00 0 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $0Concrete Baffles 0 CY 6.00 0 160.00 0 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $0






subtotal 94,518 6,563,622 6,804,672 113,986 $13,482,280



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $12,625,365



Page 9 of20 Generic CAS_12.31.2007.xls






Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-8- Seasonal Limits (MEDIUM)

Full Step BNR








subtotal 145,958 9,131,389 10,507,992 219,664 $19,859,045



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $18,753,048









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-9- Seasonal Limits (HIGH)











subtotal 292,274 20,543,460 21,041,858 630,460 $42,215,778



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $39,864,684









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-10- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (LOW)

Advanced Basic BNR


New AT concrete 0 CY 10.00 0 190.00 0 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $0New AT Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 0 CY 0.20 0 2.00 0 71.99$ 0 3.00 0 $0New AT Mixers 0 LS 700.00 0 400,000.00 0 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $0New AT train blower 0 EA 1,300.00 0 825,000.00 0 71.99$ 0 8,250.00 0 $0Diffusers (with process air piping) 0 EA 0.60 0 60.00 0 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $0Concrete Baffles 0 CY 6.00 0 160.00 0 71.99$ 0 0.00 0 $0






subtotal 109,059 7,573,410 7,851,545 131,523 $15,556,477



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $13,396,968









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-11- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (MEDIUM)

Full Step BNR








subtotal 168,413 10,536,218 12,124,606 253,459 $22,914,282



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $19,889,598









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-12- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (HIGH)











subtotal 337,240 23,703,992 24,279,067 727,454 $48,710,513



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $42,280,725






PREPARED BY: R. Mastrogiacomo Carbon Targeting ENR. INDEX:7879



Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-13- Original Scenario (LOW)

Shallow Media Filtration

Traveling Bridge Sand Filter (IDI) 1 LS 12,000.00 12,000 5,400,000.00 5,400,000 71.99$ 863,922 54,000.00 54,000 $6,317,922Concrete 15,000 CY 10.00 150,000 190.00 2,850,000 71.99$ 10,799,024 0.00 0 $13,649,024Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 46,000 CY 0.20 9,200 2.00 92,000 71.99$ 662,340 3.00 138,000 $892,340Filter Roof 83,790 SF 0.12 10,055 7.00 586,530 71.99$ 723,880 0.50 41,895 $1,352,305

subtotal 181,255 8,928,530 13,049,166 192,000 $22,211,591Piping 20% % 181,254.80 36,251 8,928,530.00 1,785,706 71.99$ 2,609,833 192,000.00 38,400 $4,433,939Misc Site 10% % 181,254.80 18,125 8,928,530.00 892,853 71.99$ 1,304,917 192,000.00 19,200 $2,216,970Electrical 18% % 181,254.80 32,626 8,928,530.00 1,607,135 71.99$ 2,348,850 192,000.00 34,560 $3,990,545I/C 7% % 181,254.80 12,688 8,928,530.00 624,997 71.99$ 913,442 192,000.00 13,440 $1,551,879

subtotal 99,690 4,910,692 7,177,041 105,600 $12,193,333



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $12,798,633









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-14- Original Scenario (MEDIUM)

Deep Bed Filtration

Deep Bed Filter (Roberts Filter) 1 LS 11,000.00 11,000 10,400,000.00 10,400,000 71.99$ 791,928 104,000.00 104,000 $11,295,928Concrete 7,400 CY 10.00 74,000 190.00 1,406,000 71.99$ 5,327,518 0.00 0 $6,733,518Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 38,400 CY 0.20 7,680 2.00 76,800 71.99$ 552,910 3.00 115,200 $744,910

Backwash pumps/mechanical 1 LS 550.00 550 400,000.00 400,000 71.99$ 39,596 4,000.00 4,000 $443,596Backwash pump station concrete 170 CY 10.00 1,700 190.00 32,300 71.99$ 122,389 0.00 0 $154,689Backwash pump station excavation 870 CY 0.20 174 2.00 1,740 71.99$ 12,527 3.00 2,610 $16,877Backwash blowers 1 LS 315.00 315 230,000.00 230,000 71.99$ 22,678 2,300.00 2,300 $254,978

Backwash return pumps/mechanical 1 LS 550.00 550 400,000.00 400,000 71.99$ 39,596 4,000.00 4,000 $443,596Backwash return pump station concrete 170 CY 10.00 1,700 190.00 32,300 71.99$ 122,389 0.00 0 $154,689Backwash return pump station excavation 870 CY 0.20 174 2.00 1,740 71.99$ 12,527 3.00 2,610 $16,877

Spent backwash water tank internals 1 LS 225.00 225 170,000.00 170,000 71.99$ 16,199 1,700.00 1,700 $187,899Spent backwash water tank concrete 1,440 CY 10.00 14,400 190.00 273,600 71.99$ 1,036,706 0.00 0 $1,310,306Spent backwash water tank excavation 9,000 CY 0.20 1,800 2.00 18,000 71.99$ 129,588 3.00 27,000 $174,588

Filter gallery concrete 7,020 CY 10.00 70,200 190.00 1,333,800 71.99$ 5,053,943 0.00 0 $6,387,743Filter gallery excavation 24,200 CY 0.20 4,840 2.00 48,400 71.99$ 348,449 3.00 72,600 $469,449Filter galler building 18,200 SF 1.46 26,572 90.00 1,638,000 71.99$ 1,913,011 5.00 91,000 $3,642,011



subtotal 187,679 13,236,392 13,511,665 414,193 $27,162,250



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $25,649,520






PREPARED BY: R. Mastrogiacomo Carbon Targeting ENR. INDEX: 7879



Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-15- Original Scenario (HIGH)

Microfiltration

Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 60,000.00 60,000 55,100,000.00 55,100,000 71.99$ 4,319,610 551,000.00 551,000 $59,970,610Concrete 1,600 CY 10.00 16,000 190.00 304,000 71.99$ 1,151,896 0.00 0 $1,455,896Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 10,800 CY 0.20 2,160 2.00 21,600 71.99$ 155,506 3.00 32,400 $209,506

Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 68,400 SF 0.50 34,200 40.00 2,736,000 71.99$ 2,462,177 5.00 342,000 $5,540,177

subtotal 112,360 58,161,600 8,089,189 925,400 $67,176,189Piping 20% % 112,360.00 22,472 58,161,600.00 11,632,320 71.99$ 1,617,838 925,400.00 185,080 $13,435,238Misc Site 10% % 112,360.00 11,236 58,161,600.00 5,816,160 71.99$ 808,919 925,400.00 92,540 $6,717,619Electrical 25% % 112,360.00 28,090 58,161,600.00 14,540,400 71.99$ 2,022,297 925,400.00 231,350 $16,794,047I/C 10% % 112,360.00 11,236 58,161,600.00 5,816,160 71.99$ 808,919 925,400.00 92,540 $6,717,619

subtotal 73,034 37,805,040 5,257,973 601,510 $43,664,523



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $41,232,744









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-16- Wet Weather Bypass (LOW)


Traveling Bridge Sand Filter (IDI) 1 LS 7,100.00 7,100 3,210,000.00 3,210,000 71.99$ 511,154 32,100.00 32,100 $3,753,254Concrete 8,600 CY 10.00 86,000 190.00 1,634,000 71.99$ 6,191,440 0.00 0 $7,825,440Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 27,300 CY 0.20 5,460 2.00 54,600 71.99$ 393,084 3.00 81,900 $529,584Filter Roof 49,400 SF 0.12 5,928 7.00 345,800 71.99$ 426,777 0.50 24,700 $797,277

subtotal 104,488 5,244,400 7,522,456 114,000 $12,905,556Piping 30% % 104,488.00 31,346 5,244,400.00 1,573,320 71.99$ 2,256,737 114,000.00 34,200 $3,864,257Misc Site 10% % 104,488.00 10,449 5,244,400.00 524,440 71.99$ 752,246 114,000.00 11,400 $1,288,086Electrical 18% % 104,488.00 18,808 5,244,400.00 943,992 71.99$ 1,354,042 114,000.00 20,520 $2,318,554I/C 7% % 104,488.00 7,314 5,244,400.00 367,108 71.99$ 526,572 114,000.00 7,980 $901,660

subtotal 67,917 3,408,860 4,889,596 74,100 $8,372,556



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $7,915,458









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-17- Wet Weather Bypass (MEDIUM)

Deep Bed Filtration

Deep Bed Filter (Roberts Filter) 1 LS 6,500.00 6,500 6,220,000.00 6,220,000 71.99$ 467,958 62,200.00 62,200 $6,750,158Concrete 7,400 CY 10.00 74,000 190.00 1,406,000 71.99$ 5,327,518 0.00 0 $6,733,518Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 38,400 CY 0.20 7,680 2.00 76,800 71.99$ 552,910 3.00 115,200 $744,910

Backwash pumps/mechanical 1 LS 275.00 275 200,000.00 200,000 71.99$ 19,798 2,000.00 2,000 $221,798Backwash pump station concrete 90 CY 10.00 900 190.00 17,100 71.99$ 64,794 0.00 0 $81,894Backwash pump station excavation 440 CY 0.20 88 2.00 880 71.99$ 6,335 3.00 1,320 $8,535Backwash blowers 1 LS 315.00 315 110,000.00 110,000 71.99$ 22,678 1,100.00 1,100 $133,778

Backwash return pumps/mechanical 1 LS 275.00 275 200,000.00 200,000 71.99$ 19,798 2,000.00 2,000 $221,798Backwash return pump station concrete 90 CY 10.00 900 190.00 17,100 71.99$ 64,794 0.00 0 $81,894Backwash return pump station excavation 440 CY 0.20 88 2.00 880 71.99$ 6,335 3.00 1,320 $8,535

Spent backwash water tank internals 1 LS 225.00 225 170,000.00 170,000 71.99$ 16,199 1,700.00 1,700 $187,899Spent backwash water tank concrete 1,440 CY 10.00 14,400 190.00 273,600 71.99$ 1,036,706 0.00 0 $1,310,306Spent backwash water tank excavation 9,000 CY 0.20 1,800 2.00 18,000 71.99$ 129,588 3.00 27,000 $174,588

Filter gallery concrete 4,200 CY 10.00 42,000 190.00 798,000 71.99$ 3,023,727 0.00 0 $3,821,727Filter gallery excavation 14,500 CY 0.20 2,900 2.00 29,000 71.99$ 208,781 3.00 43,500 $281,281Filter galler building 11,000 SF 1.46 16,060 90.00 990,000 71.99$ 1,156,215 5.00 55,000 $2,201,215



subtotal 157,475 9,698,093 11,337,139 327,030 $21,362,262



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $18,542,442









Generic Conventional Activated Sludge Plant-18- Wet Weather Bypass (HIGH)

Microfiltration

Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 35,400.00 35,400 32,500,000.00 32,500,000 71.99$ 2,548,570 325,000.00 325,000 $35,373,570Concrete 940 CY 10.00 9,400 190.00 178,600 71.99$ 676,739 0.00 0 $855,339Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 6,400 CY 0.20 1,280 2.00 12,800 71.99$ 92,152 3.00 19,200 $124,152

Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 40,300 SF 0.50 20,150 40.00 1,612,000 71.99$ 1,450,669 5.00 201,500 $3,264,169


subtotal 49,673 25,727,550 3,576,097 409,275 $29,712,922



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $25,790,817






FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX S

Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge PlantConceptual Capital Cost Estimates




FlowPWWF Hourly


130 160 380

Nitrogen Targeting





Carbon Targeting



-19- Seasonal Limits Scenario (LOW) $129,210,026-20- Seasonal Limits Scenario (MEDIUM) $244,524,400-21- Seasonal Limits Scenario (HIGH) $672,700,220



Page 1 of 26 Generic OX_12.31.2007.xls















Page 2 of26 Generic OX_12.31.2007.xls






Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-1- Original Scenario (LOW)


Refer to Carbon-Targeting Original Scenario (LOW)







Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-2- Original Scenario (MEDIUM)

Partially Nitrifying /Denitrifying Filter

Partially Nitrifying/Denitrifying BAF 1 LS 53,500.00 53,500 38,400,000.00 38,400,000 71.99$ 3,851,652 384,000.00 384,000 $42,635,652Concrete 34,720 CY 10.00 347,200 190.00 6,596,800 71.99$ 24,996,141 0.00 0 $31,592,941Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 54,935 CY 0.20 10,987 2.00 109,870 71.99$ 790,993 3.00 164,805 $1,065,668Gallery building 66,718 SF 1.46 97,408 90.00 6,004,620 71.99$ 7,012,762 5.00 333,590 $13,350,972

Methanol System 1 LS 400.00 400 278,000.00 278,000 71.99$ 28,797 2,780.00 2,780 $309,577Methanol tank excavation, bedding and backfill 1,914 CY 0.20 383 2.00 3,828 71.99$ 27,559 3.00 5,742 $37,129Concrete slab for methanol tank excavation 31 CY 8.00 249 180.00 5,600 71.99$ 17,918 0.00 0 $23,518Alkalinity System 1 LS 140.00 140 206,000.00 206,000 71.99$ 10,079 2,060.00 2,060 $218,139Chemical Building 1,000 SF 1.20 1,200 90.00 90,000 71.99$ 86,392 20.00 20,000 $196,392

Intermediate Pump Station (Mechancial) 1 LS 73,617.76 73,618 5,300,000.00 5,300,000 71.99$ 5,300,000 0.00 0 $10,600,000Concrete 4,640 CY 10.00 46,400 190.00 881,600 71.99$ 3,340,498 0.00 0 $4,222,098Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 23,600 CY 0.20 4,720 2.00 47,200 71.99$ 339,809 3.00 70,800 $457,809Pump Station Building 17,480 SF 1.20 20,976 90.00 1,573,200 71.99$ 1,510,136 20.00 349,600 $3,432,936

subtotal 657,181 59,496,718 47,312,737 1,333,377 $108,142,832Piping 20% % 657,180.73 131,436 59,496,718.00 11,899,344 71.99$ 9,462,547 1,333,377.00 266,675 $21,628,566Misc Site 10% % 657,180.73 65,718 59,496,718.00 5,949,672 71.99$ 4,731,274 1,333,377.00 133,338 $10,814,283Electrical 25% % 657,180.73 164,295 59,496,718.00 14,874,180 71.99$ 11,828,184 1,333,377.00 333,344 $27,035,708I/C 10% % 657,180.73 65,718 59,496,718.00 5,949,672 71.99$ 4,731,274 1,333,377.00 133,338 $10,814,283

subtotal 427,167 38,672,867 30,753,279 866,695 $70,292,840

SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS 1,084,348 98,169,585 78,066,015 2,200,072 $178,435,672


CONTINGENCY 30.00% $66,378,069









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-3- Original Scenario (HIGH)

Nitrifying BAF and Deep Bed Denitrifying Filter

Nitrifying BAF 1 LS 46,900.00 46,900 33,700,000.00 33,700,000 71.99$ 3,376,495 337,000.00 337,000 $37,413,495Concrete 25,867 CY 10.00 258,670 190.00 4,914,730 71.99$ 18,622,557 0.00 0 $23,537,287Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 40,929 CY 0.20 8,186 2.00 81,858 71.99$ 589,324 3.00 122,787 $793,969Gallery building 51,020 SF 1.46 74,489 90.00 4,591,800 71.99$ 5,362,738 5.00 255,100 $10,209,638

Denitrifying Filter 1 LS 57,500.00 57,500 41,257,000.00 41,257,000 71.99$ 4,139,626 412,570.00 412,570 $45,809,196Concrete 18,876 CY 10.00 188,760 190.00 3,586,440 71.99$ 13,589,492 0.00 0 $17,175,932Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 159,785 CY 0.20 31,957 2.00 319,570 71.99$ 2,300,696 3.00 479,355 $3,099,621Gallery building 64,745 SF 1.46 94,528 90.00 5,827,050 71.99$ 6,805,379 5.00 323,725 $12,956,154




subtotal 593,313 67,281,902 42,714,707 1,584,285 $111,580,894



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $105,366,696









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-4- Wet Weather Bypass (LOW)


Refer to Carbon-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass (LOW)







Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-5- Wet Weather Bypass (MEDIUM)


Partially Nitrifying/Denitrifying BAF 1 LS 52,100.00 52,100 37,500,000.00 37,500,000 71.99$ 3,750,861 375,000.00 375,000 $41,625,861Concrete 33,713 CY 10.00 337,130 190.00 6,405,470 71.99$ 24,271,166 0.00 0 $30,676,636Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 53,342 CY 0.20 10,668 2.00 106,684 71.99$ 768,055 3.00 160,026 $1,034,765Gallery building 64,783 SF 1.46 94,583 90.00 5,830,470 71.99$ 6,809,374 5.00 323,915 $12,963,759




subtotal 427,998 41,316,176 30,813,086 839,942 $72,969,203



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $63,337,269









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-6- Wet Weather Bypass (HIGH)







subtotal 588,193 64,382,525 42,346,095 1,478,810 $108,207,429



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $93,924,048









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-7- Seasonal Limits (LOW)









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-8- Seasonal Limits (MEDIUM)


Partially Nitrifying/Denitrifying BAF 1 LS 53,500.00 53,500 38,400,000.00 38,400,000 71.99$ 3,851,652 384,000.00 384,000 $42,635,652Concrete 31,491 CY 10.00 314,910 190.00 5,983,290 71.99$ 22,671,471 0.00 0 $28,654,761Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 49,826 CY 0.20 9,965 2.00 99,652 71.99$ 717,430 3.00 149,478 $966,560Gallery building 66,718 SF 1.46 97,408 90.00 6,004,620 71.99$ 7,012,762 5.00 333,590 $13,350,972




subtotal 405,515 38,267,444 29,194,427 856,733 $68,318,603



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $64,513,782









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-9- Seasonal Limits (HIGH)







subtotal 499,107 54,381,399 35,932,473 1,337,603 $91,651,474



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $86,547,192









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-10- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (LOW)









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-11- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (MEDIUM)


Partially Nitrifying/Denitrifying BAF 1 LS 49,400.00 49,400 35,500,000.00 35,500,000 71.99$ 3,556,479 355,000.00 355,000 $39,411,479Concrete 28,540 CY 10.00 285,400 190.00 5,422,600 71.99$ 20,546,943 0.00 0 $25,969,543Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 45,157 CY 0.20 9,031 2.00 90,314 71.99$ 650,202 3.00 135,471 $875,987Gallery building 60,847 SF 1.46 88,837 90.00 5,476,230 71.99$ 6,395,659 5.00 304,235 $12,176,124




subtotal 381,638 38,801,066 27,475,455 791,766 $67,068,286



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $58,215,273









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-12- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (HIGH)







subtotal 474,488 53,923,931 34,160,082 1,246,191 $89,330,203



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $77,538,618









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-13- Original Scenario (LOW)


Traveling Bridge Sand Filter (IDI) 1 LS 17,000.00 17,000 10,900,000.00 10,900,000 71.99$ 1,223,889 109,000.00 109,000 $12,232,889Concrete 29,000 CY 10.00 290,000 190.00 5,510,000 71.99$ 20,878,113 0.00 0 $26,388,113Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 92,700 CY 0.20 18,540 2.00 185,400 71.99$ 1,334,759 3.00 278,100 $1,798,259Filter Roof 167,580 SF 0.12 20,110 7.00 1,173,060 71.99$ 1,447,760 0.50 83,790 $2,704,610


subtotal 190,107 9,772,653 13,686,487 212,905 $23,672,045



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $24,848,082









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-14- Original Scenario (MEDIUM)

Nitrifying BAF


Nitrifying BAF 1 LS 46,900.00 46,900 33,700,000.00 33,700,000 71.99$ 3,376,495 337,000.00 337,000 $37,413,495Concrete 25,867 CY 10.00 258,670 190.00 4,914,730 71.99$ 18,622,557 0.00 0 $23,537,287Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 40,929 CY 0.20 8,186 2.00 81,858 71.99$ 589,324 3.00 122,787 $793,969Gallery building 51,020 SF 1.46 74,489 90.00 4,591,800 71.99$ 5,362,738 5.00 255,100 $10,209,638Alkalinity System 1 LS 425.00 425 661,000.00 661,000 71.99$ 30,597 6,610.00 6,610 $698,207Chemical Building 3,300 SF 1.20 3,960 90.00 297,000 71.99$ 285,094 20.00 66,000 $648,094


subtotal 349,923 33,831,452 25,192,211 785,133 $59,808,796



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $56,477,907









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-15- Original Scenario (HIGH)

Nitrifying BAF w/ Microfiltration

Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000 110,000,000.00 110,000,000 71.99$ 8,639,219 1,100,000.00 1,100,000 $119,739,219Concrete 3,200 CY 10.00 32,000 190.00 608,000 71.99$ 2,303,792 0.00 0 $2,911,792Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 21,600 CY 0.20 4,320 2.00 43,200 71.99$ 311,012 3.00 64,800 $419,012Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 136,800 SF 0.50 68,400 40.00 5,472,000 71.99$ 4,924,355 5.00 684,000 $11,080,355




subtotal 495,991 109,311,532 35,708,157 1,986,853 $147,006,542



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $138,819,408









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-16- Wet Weather Bypass (LOW)


Traveling Bridge Sand Filter (IDI) 1 LS 9,300.00 9,300 5,950,000.00 5,950,000 71.99$ 669,539 59,500.00 59,500 $6,679,039Concrete 16,000 CY 10.00 160,000 190.00 3,040,000 71.99$ 11,518,959 0.00 0 $14,558,959Excavation/Bedding/Backfill/Bedding/Backfill 50,800 CY 0.20 10,160 2.00 101,600 71.99$ 731,454 3.00 152,400 $985,454Filter Roof 91,700 SF 0.12 11,004 7.00 641,900 71.99$ 792,216 0.50 45,850 $1,479,966

subtotal 190,464 9,733,500 13,712,169 211,900 $23,703,419Piping 30% % 190,464.00 57,139 9,733,500.00 2,920,050 71.99$ 4,113,651 211,900.00 63,570 $7,097,271Misc Site 10% % 190,464.00 19,046 9,733,500.00 973,350 71.99$ 1,371,217 211,900.00 21,190 $2,365,757Electrical 18% % 190,464.00 34,284 9,733,500.00 1,752,030 71.99$ 2,468,190 211,900.00 38,142 $4,258,362I/C 7% % 190,464.00 13,332 9,733,500.00 681,345 71.99$ 959,852 211,900.00 14,833 $1,656,030

subtotal 123,802 6,326,775 8,912,910 137,735 $15,377,420



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $14,538,072









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-17- Wet Weather Bypass (MEDIUM)

Nitrifying BAF




subtotal 355,766 32,954,807 25,612,847 718,279 $59,285,933



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $51,460,191









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-18- Wet Weather Bypass (HIGH)


Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 66,000.00 66,000 60,300,000.00 60,300,000 71.99$ 4,751,571 603,000.00 603,000 $65,654,571Concrete 1,750 CY 10.00 17,500 190.00 332,500 71.99$ 1,259,886 0.00 0 $1,592,386Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 11,800 CY 0.20 2,360 2.00 23,600 71.99$ 169,905 3.00 35,400 $228,905Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 74,900 SF 0.50 37,450 40.00 2,996,000 71.99$ 2,696,156 5.00 374,500 $6,066,656




subtotal 448,249 80,693,882 32,270,986 1,477,954 $114,442,821



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $99,336,369









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-19- Seasonal Limits Scenario (LOW)









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-20- Seasonal Limits Scenario (MEDIUM)

Nitrifying BAF




subtotal 300,177 27,499,870 21,610,755 686,623 $49,797,248



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $47,023,923









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-21- Seasonal Limits Scenario (HIGH)


Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000 110,000,000.00 110,000,000 71.99$ 8,639,219 1,100,000.00 1,100,000 $119,739,219Concrete 3,200 CY 10.00 32,000 190.00 608,000 71.99$ 2,303,792 0.00 0 $2,911,792Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 21,600 CY 0.20 4,320 2.00 43,200 71.99$ 311,012 3.00 64,800 $419,012Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 136,800 SF 0.50 68,400 40.00 5,472,000 71.99$ 4,924,355 5.00 684,000 $11,080,355




subtotal 446,245 102,979,950 32,126,700 1,888,343 $136,994,993



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $129,365,427









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-22- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (LOW)


Refer to Carbon-Targeting Wet Weather Bypass Scenario (LOW)







Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-23- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (MEDIUM)

Nitrifying BAF




subtotal 292,430 29,375,756 21,053,088 649,757 $51,078,601



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $44,336,226









Generic Oxygen Activated Sludge Plant-24- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (HIGH)


Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 66,000.00 66,000 60,300,000.00 60,300,000 71.99$ 4,751,571 603,000.00 603,000 $65,654,571Concrete 1,750 CY 10.00 17,500 190.00 332,500 71.99$ 1,259,886 0.00 0 $1,592,386Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 11,800 CY 0.20 2,360 2.00 23,600 71.99$ 169,905 3.00 35,400 $228,905Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 74,900 SF 0.50 37,450 40.00 2,996,000 71.99$ 2,696,156 5.00 374,500 $6,066,656




subtotal 384,913 77,114,831 27,711,226 1,409,432 $106,235,489



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $92,212,404






FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX T

Generic Trickling Filter PlantConceptual Capital Cost Estimates




FlowPWWF Hourly


10 12 20

Nitrogen Targeting





Carbon Targeting






Page 1 of 26 Generic TF_12.31.2007.xls















Page 2 of26 Generic TF_12.31.2007.xls






Generic Trickling Filter Plant-1- Original Scenario (LOW)









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-2- Original Scenario (MEDIUM)


Partially Nitrifying/Denitrifying BAF 1 LS 6,000.00 6,000 4,300,000.00 4,300,000 71.99$ 431,961 43,000.00 43,000 $4,774,961Concrete 4,214 CY 10.00 42,140 190.00 800,660 71.99$ 3,033,806 0.00 0 $3,834,466Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 6,668 CY 0.20 1,334 2.00 13,336 71.99$ 96,011 3.00 20,004 $129,351Gallery building 4,300 SF 1.46 6,278 90.00 387,000 71.99$ 451,975 5.00 21,500 $860,475

Methanol System 1 LS 110.00 110 87,000.00 87,000 71.99$ 7,919 8,700.00 8,700 $103,619Methanol tank concrete pad 20 CY 8.00 161 180.00 3,627 71.99$ 11,604 0.00 0 $15,231Alkalinity System 1 LS 12.00 12 10,000.00 10,000 71.99$ 864 100.00 100 $10,964Chemical Building 150 SF 1.20 180 90.00 13,500 71.99$ 12,959 20.00 3,000 $29,459

Intermediate Pump Station (Mechancial) 1 LS 4,167.04 4,167 300,000.00 300,000 71.99$ 300,000 0.00 0 $600,000Concrete 240 CY 10.00 2,400 190.00 45,600 71.99$ 172,784 0.00 0 $218,384Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 1,240 CY 0.20 248 2.00 2,480 71.99$ 17,854 3.00 3,720 $24,054Pump Station Building 1,180 SF 1.20 1,416 90.00 106,200 71.99$ 101,943 20.00 23,600 $231,743

subtotal 64,446 6,069,403 4,639,680 123,624 $10,832,707Piping 20% % 64,445.83 12,889 6,069,402.67 1,213,881 71.99$ 927,936 123,624.00 24,725 $2,166,541Misc Site 10% % 64,445.83 6,445 6,069,402.67 606,940 71.99$ 463,968 123,624.00 12,362 $1,083,271Electrical 25% % 64,445.83 16,111 6,069,402.67 1,517,351 71.99$ 1,159,920 123,624.00 30,906 $2,708,177I/C 10% % 64,445.83 6,445 6,069,402.67 606,940 71.99$ 463,968 123,624.00 12,362 $1,083,271

subtotal 41,890 3,945,112 3,015,792 80,356 $7,041,260



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $6,649,116









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-3- Original Scenario (HIGH)


Nitrifying BAF 1 LS 4,900.00 4,900 3,500,000.00 3,500,000 71.99$ 352,768 35,000.00 35,000 $3,887,768Concrete 3,529 CY 10.00 35,290 190.00 670,510 71.99$ 2,540,650 0.00 0 $3,211,160Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 5,584 CY 0.20 1,117 2.00 11,168 71.99$ 80,402 3.00 16,752 $108,322Gallery building 3,696 SF 1.46 5,396 90.00 332,640 71.99$ 388,488 5.00 18,480 $739,608

Denitrifying Filter 1 LS 6,100.00 6,100 4,375,000.00 4,375,000 71.99$ 439,160 43,750.00 43,750 $4,857,910Concrete 2,872 CY 10.00 28,720 190.00 545,680 71.99$ 2,067,653 0.00 0 $2,613,333Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 23,726 CY 0.20 4,745 2.00 47,452 71.99$ 341,624 3.00 71,178 $460,254Gallery building 6,126 SF 1.46 8,944 90.00 551,340 71.99$ 643,907 5.00 30,630 $1,225,877

Methanol System 1 LS 146.00 146 112,000.00 112,000 71.99$ 10,511 1,120.00 1,120 $123,631Methanol tank concrete pad 27 CY 8.00 218 180.00 4,907 71.99$ 15,700 0.00 0 $20,607Alkalinity System 1 LS 70.00 70 74,000.00 74,000 71.99$ 5,040 740.00 740 $79,780Chemical Building 600 SF 1.20 720 90.00 54,000 71.99$ 51,835 20.00 12,000 $117,835



subtotal 67,988 6,976,435 4,894,708 167,031 $12,038,174



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $11,367,741









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-4- Wet Weather Bypass (LOW)









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-5- Wet Weather Bypass (MEDIUM)




Intermediate Pump Station (Mechancial) 1 LS 2,800.00 2,800 248,418.00 248,418 71.99$ 201,582 0.00 0 $450,000Concrete 195 CY 10.00 1,950 190.00 37,050 71.99$ 140,387 0.00 0 $177,437Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 990 CY 0.20 198 2.00 1,980 71.99$ 14,255 3.00 2,970 $19,205Pump Station Building 950 SF 1.20 1,140 90.00 85,500 71.99$ 82,073 20.00 19,000 $186,573

subtotal 58,473 5,702,865 4,209,667 113,330 $10,025,862Piping 30% % 58,472.89 17,542 5,702,864.67 1,710,859 71.99$ 1,262,900 113,330.00 33,999 $3,007,759Misc Site 10% % 58,472.89 5,847 5,702,864.67 570,286 71.99$ 420,967 113,330.00 11,333 $1,002,586Electrical 25% % 58,472.89 14,618 5,702,864.67 1,425,716 71.99$ 1,052,417 113,330.00 28,333 $2,506,465I/C 10% % 58,472.89 5,847 5,702,864.67 570,286 71.99$ 420,967 113,330.00 11,333 $1,002,586

subtotal 43,855 4,277,149 3,157,250 84,998 $7,519,396



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $6,526,836









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-6- Wet Weather Bypass (HIGH)


Nitrifying BAF 1 LS 4,300.00 4,300 3,050,000.00 3,050,000 71.99$ 309,572 30,500.00 30,500 $3,390,072Concrete 3,437 CY 10.00 34,370 190.00 653,030 71.99$ 2,474,416 0.00 0 $3,127,446Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 5,439 CY 0.20 1,088 2.00 10,878 71.99$ 78,315 3.00 16,317 $105,510Gallery building 3,084 SF 1.46 4,503 90.00 277,560 71.99$ 324,161 5.00 15,420 $617,141

Denitrifying Filter 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000 3,550,000.00 3,550,000 71.99$ 359,967 35,500.00 35,500 $3,945,467Concrete 2,585 CY 10.00 25,850 190.00 491,150 71.99$ 1,861,032 0.00 0 $2,352,182Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 21,353 CY 0.20 4,271 2.00 42,706 71.99$ 307,455 3.00 64,059 $414,220Gallery building 5,513 SF 1.46 8,049 90.00 496,170 71.99$ 579,474 5.00 27,565 $1,103,209




subtotal 71,004 6,892,012 5,111,831 168,893 $12,172,736



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $10,565,934









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-7- Seasonal Limits (LOW)









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-8- Seasonal Limits (MEDIUM)





subtotal 56,531 5,707,703 4,069,830 116,799 $9,894,332Piping 20% % 56,530.53 11,306 5,707,702.67 1,141,541 71.99$ 813,966 116,799.00 23,360 $1,978,866Misc Site 10% % 56,530.53 5,653 5,707,702.67 570,770 71.99$ 406,983 116,799.00 11,680 $989,433Electrical 25% % 56,530.53 14,133 5,707,702.67 1,426,926 71.99$ 1,017,458 116,799.00 29,200 $2,473,583I/C 10% % 56,530.53 5,653 5,707,702.67 570,770 71.99$ 406,983 116,799.00 11,680 $989,433

subtotal 36,745 3,710,007 2,645,390 75,919 $6,431,316



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $6,073,140









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-9- Seasonal Limits (HIGH)


Nitrifying BAF 1 LS 4,000.00 4,000 2,820,000.00 2,820,000 71.99$ 287,974 28,200.00 28,200 $3,136,174Concrete 2,647 CY 10.00 26,470 190.00 502,930 71.99$ 1,905,668 0.00 0 $2,408,598Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 4,188 CY 0.20 838 2.00 8,376 71.99$ 60,302 3.00 12,564 $81,242Gallery building 2,770 SF 1.46 4,044 90.00 249,300 71.99$ 291,156 5.00 13,850 $554,306

Denitrifying Filter 1 LS 4,400.00 4,400 3,100,000.00 3,100,000 71.99$ 316,771 31,000.00 31,000 $3,447,771Concrete 2,211 CY 10.00 22,110 190.00 420,090 71.99$ 1,591,776 0.00 0 $2,011,866Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 18,269 CY 0.20 3,654 2.00 36,538 71.99$ 263,050 3.00 54,807 $354,395Gallery building 4,717 SF 1.46 6,887 90.00 424,530 71.99$ 495,806 5.00 23,585 $943,921




subtotal 53,162 5,369,618 3,827,311 133,371 $9,330,300



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $8,810,673









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-10- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (LOW)









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-11- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (MEDIUM)





subtotal 50,491 5,241,487 3,635,058 105,498 $8,982,043Piping 30% % 50,491.49 15,147 5,241,486.67 1,572,446 71.99$ 1,090,518 105,498.00 31,649 $2,694,613Misc Site 10% % 50,491.49 5,049 5,241,486.67 524,149 71.99$ 363,506 105,498.00 10,550 $898,204Electrical 25% % 50,491.49 12,623 5,241,486.67 1,310,372 71.99$ 908,765 105,498.00 26,375 $2,245,511I/C 10% % 50,491.49 5,049 5,241,486.67 524,149 71.99$ 363,506 105,498.00 10,550 $898,204

subtotal 37,869 3,931,115 2,726,294 79,124 $6,736,532



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $5,847,309









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-12- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (HIGH)


Nitrifying BAF 1 LS 4,000.00 4,000 2,820,000.00 2,820,000 71.99$ 287,974 28,200.00 28,200 $3,136,174Concrete 2,647 CY 10.00 26,470 190.00 502,930 71.99$ 1,905,668 0.00 0 $2,408,598Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 4,188 CY 0.20 838 2.00 8,376 71.99$ 60,302 3.00 12,564 $81,242Gallery building 2,770 SF 1.46 4,044 90.00 249,300 71.99$ 291,156 5.00 13,850 $554,306

Denitrifying Filter 1 LS 3,900.00 3,900 2,800,000.00 2,800,000 71.99$ 280,775 28,000.00 28,000 $3,108,775Concrete 2,010 CY 10.00 20,100 190.00 381,900 71.99$ 1,447,069 0.00 0 $1,828,969Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 16,608 CY 0.20 3,322 2.00 33,216 71.99$ 239,134 3.00 49,824 $322,174Gallery building 4,288 SF 1.46 6,260 90.00 385,920 71.99$ 450,714 5.00 21,440 $858,074




subtotal 57,132 5,849,623 4,113,130 142,281 $10,105,033



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $8,771,169









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-13- Original Scenario (LOW)


Traveling Bridge Sand Filter (IDI) 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500 570,000.00 570,000 71.99$ 179,984 5,700.00 5,700 $755,684Concrete 1,500 CY 10.00 15,000 190.00 285,000 71.99$ 1,079,902 0.00 0 $1,364,902Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 4,880 CY 0.20 976 2.00 9,760 71.99$ 70,266 3.00 14,640 $94,666Filter Roof 8,820 SF 0.12 1,058 7.00 61,740 71.99$ 76,198 0.50 4,410 $142,348

subtotal 19,534 926,500 1,406,350 20,340 $2,357,600Piping 20% % 19,534.40 3,907 926,500.00 185,300 71.99$ 281,270 20,340.00 4,068 $470,638Misc Site 10% % 19,534.40 1,953 926,500.00 92,650 71.99$ 140,635 20,340.00 2,034 $235,319Electrical 18% % 19,534.40 3,516 926,500.00 166,770 71.99$ 253,143 20,340.00 3,661 $423,574I/C 7% % 19,534.40 1,367 926,500.00 64,855 71.99$ 98,444 20,340.00 1,424 $164,723

subtotal 10,744 509,575 773,492 11,187 $1,294,254


GENERAL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD&PROFIT 24.00% $876,445SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR $4,528,300

CONTINGENCY 30.00% $1,358,490









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-14- Original Scenario (MEDIUM)

Nitrifying BAF


Nitrifying BAF 1 LS 4,900.00 4,900 3,500,000.00 3,500,000 71.99$ 352,768 35,000.00 35,000 $3,887,768Concrete 3,529 CY 10.00 35,290 190.00 670,510 71.99$ 2,540,650 0.00 0 $3,211,160Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 5,584 CY 0.20 1,117 2.00 11,168 71.99$ 80,402 3.00 16,752 $108,322Gallery building 3,696 SF 1.46 5,396 90.00 332,640 71.99$ 388,488 5.00 18,480 $739,608Alkalinity System 1 LS 70.00 70 74,000.00 74,000 71.99$ 5,040 740.00 740 $79,780Chemical Building 600 SF 1.20 720 90.00 54,000 71.99$ 51,835 20.00 12,000 $117,835

subtotal 55,724 5,096,598 4,011,766 110,292 $9,218,656Piping 20% % 55,724.00 11,145 5,096,598.00 1,019,320 71.99$ 802,353 110,292.00 22,058 $1,843,731Misc Site 10% % 55,724.00 5,572 5,096,598.00 509,660 71.99$ 401,177 110,292.00 11,029 $921,866Electrical 25% % 55,724.00 13,931 5,096,598.00 1,274,150 71.99$ 1,002,941 110,292.00 27,573 $2,304,664I/C 10% % 55,724.00 5,572 5,096,598.00 509,660 71.99$ 401,177 110,292.00 11,029 $921,866

subtotal 36,221 3,312,789 2,607,648 71,690 $5,992,126



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $5,658,411









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-15- Original Scenario (HIGH)


Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 12,000.00 12,000 8,700,000.00 8,700,000 71.99$ 863,922 87,000.00 87,000 $9,650,922Concrete 170 CY 10.00 1,700 190.00 32,300 71.99$ 122,389 0.00 0 $154,689Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 1,140 CY 0.20 228 2.00 2,280 71.99$ 16,415 3.00 3,420 $22,115Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 7,200 SF 0.50 3,600 40.00 288,000 71.99$ 259,177 5.00 36,000 $583,177




subtotal 47,614 9,177,466 3,427,884 153,863 $12,759,212



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $12,048,621









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-16- Wet Weather Bypass (LOW)


Traveling Bridge Sand Filter (IDI) 1 LS 2,000.00 2,000 460,000.00 460,000 71.99$ 143,987 4,600.00 4,600 $608,587Concrete 1,200 CY 10.00 12,000 190.00 228,000 71.99$ 863,922 0.00 0 $1,091,922Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 3,900 CY 0.20 780 2.00 7,800 71.99$ 56,155 3.00 11,700 $75,655Filter Roof 7,100 SF 0.12 852 7.00 49,700 71.99$ 61,338 0.50 3,550 $114,588

subtotal 15,632 745,500 1,125,402 16,300 $1,890,752Piping 30% % 15,632.00 4,690 745,500.00 223,650 71.99$ 337,621 16,300.00 4,890 $566,161Misc Site 10% % 15,632.00 1,563 745,500.00 74,550 71.99$ 112,540 16,300.00 1,630 $188,720Electrical 18% % 15,632.00 2,814 745,500.00 134,190 71.99$ 202,572 16,300.00 2,934 $339,696I/C 7% % 15,632.00 1,094 745,500.00 52,185 71.99$ 78,778 16,300.00 1,141 $132,104

subtotal 10,161 484,575 731,511 10,595 $1,226,681


GENERAL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD&PROFIT 24.00% $748,184SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR $3,865,620

CONTINGENCY 30.00% $1,159,686









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-17- Wet Weather Bypass (MEDIUM)

Nitrifying BAF



subtotal 51,138 4,492,416 3,681,635 96,947 $8,270,998Piping 30% % 51,138.44 15,342 4,492,416.00 1,347,725 71.99$ 1,104,490 96,947.00 29,084 $2,481,299Misc Site 10% % 51,138.44 5,114 4,492,416.00 449,242 71.99$ 368,163 96,947.00 9,695 $827,100Electrical 25% % 51,138.44 12,785 4,492,416.00 1,123,104 71.99$ 920,409 96,947.00 24,237 $2,067,749I/C 10% % 51,138.44 5,114 4,492,416.00 449,242 71.99$ 368,163 96,947.00 9,695 $827,100

subtotal 38,354 3,369,312 2,761,226 72,710 $6,203,248



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $5,384,421









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-18- Wet Weather Bypass (HIGH)


Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 9,650.00 9,650 7,000,000.00 7,000,000 71.99$ 694,737 70,000.00 70,000 $7,764,737Concrete 134 CY 10.00 1,340 190.00 25,460 71.99$ 96,471 0.00 0 $121,931Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 910 CY 0.20 182 2.00 1,820 71.99$ 13,103 3.00 2,730 $17,653Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 5,700 SF 0.50 2,850 40.00 228,000 71.99$ 205,181 5.00 28,500 $461,681




subtotal 48,870 8,810,772 3,518,346 148,633 $12,477,751



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $10,830,687









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-19- Seasonal Limits (LOW)









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-20- Seasonal Limits (MEDIUM)

Nitrifying BAF


Nitrifying BAF 1 LS 4,000.00 4,000 2,820,000.00 2,820,000 71.99$ 287,974 28,200.00 28,200 $3,136,174Concrete 2,647 CY 10.00 26,470 190.00 502,930 71.99$ 1,905,668 0.00 0 $2,408,598Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 4,188 CY 0.20 838 2.00 8,376 71.99$ 60,302 3.00 12,564 $81,242Gallery building 2,770 SF 1.46 4,044 90.00 249,300 71.99$ 291,156 5.00 13,850 $554,306Alkalinity System 1 LS 70.00 70 74,000.00 74,000 71.99$ 5,040 740.00 740 $79,780Chemical Building 600 SF 1.20 720 90.00 54,000 71.99$ 51,835 20.00 12,000 $117,835

subtotal 44,373 4,162,886 3,194,556 94,674 $7,452,116Piping 20% % 44,372.84 8,875 4,162,886.00 832,577 71.99$ 638,911 94,674.00 18,935 $1,490,423Misc Site 10% % 44,372.84 4,437 4,162,886.00 416,289 71.99$ 319,456 94,674.00 9,467 $745,212Electrical 25% % 44,372.84 11,093 4,162,886.00 1,040,722 71.99$ 798,639 94,674.00 23,669 $1,863,029I/C 10% % 44,372.84 4,437 4,162,886.00 416,289 71.99$ 319,456 94,674.00 9,467 $745,212

subtotal 28,842 2,705,876 2,076,461 61,538 $4,843,875



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $4,574,109









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-21- Seasonal Limits (HIGH)


Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 12,000.00 12,000 8,700,000.00 8,700,000 71.99$ 863,922 87,000.00 87,000 $9,650,922Concrete 170 CY 10.00 1,700 190.00 32,300 71.99$ 122,389 0.00 0 $154,689Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 1,140 CY 0.20 228 2.00 2,280 71.99$ 16,415 3.00 3,420 $22,115Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 7,200 SF 0.50 3,600 40.00 288,000 71.99$ 259,177 5.00 36,000 $583,177



subtotal 61,901 13,185,466 4,456,458 221,094 $17,863,018Piping 20% % 61,900.84 12,380 13,185,466.00 2,637,093 71.99$ 891,292 221,094.00 44,219 $3,572,604Misc Site 10% % 61,900.84 6,190 13,185,466.00 1,318,547 71.99$ 445,646 221,094.00 22,109 $1,786,302Electrical 25% % 61,900.84 15,475 13,185,466.00 3,296,367 71.99$ 1,114,114 221,094.00 55,274 $4,465,754I/C 10% % 61,900.84 6,190 13,185,466.00 1,318,547 71.99$ 445,646 221,094.00 22,109 $1,786,302

subtotal 40,236 8,570,553 2,896,698 143,711 $11,610,962



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $10,964,319









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-22- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (LOW)









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-23- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (MEDIUM)

Nitrifying BAF



subtotal 42,230 4,081,554 3,040,271 89,324 $7,211,149Piping 30% % 42,229.80 12,669 4,081,554.00 1,224,466 71.99$ 912,081 89,324.00 26,797 $2,163,345Misc Site 10% % 42,229.80 4,223 4,081,554.00 408,155 71.99$ 304,027 89,324.00 8,932 $721,115Electrical 25% % 42,229.80 10,557 4,081,554.00 1,020,389 71.99$ 760,068 89,324.00 22,331 $1,802,787I/C 10% % 42,229.80 4,223 4,081,554.00 408,155 71.99$ 304,027 89,324.00 8,932 $721,115

subtotal 31,672 3,061,166 2,280,203 66,993 $5,408,362



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $4,694,457









Generic Trickling Filter Plant-24- Seasonal Limits with Bypass (HIGH)


Microfilter (GE/Zenon) 1 LS 9,650.00 9,650 7,000,000.00 7,000,000 71.99$ 694,737 70,000.00 70,000 $7,764,737Concrete 134 CY 10.00 1,340 190.00 25,460 71.99$ 96,471 0.00 0 $121,931Excavation/Bedding/Backfill 910 CY 0.20 182 2.00 1,820 71.99$ 13,103 3.00 2,730 $17,653Micro Filtration Building (pre-engineered) 5,700 SF 0.50 2,850 40.00 228,000 71.99$ 205,181 5.00 28,500 $461,681




subtotal 42,189 8,502,626 3,037,323 142,916 $11,682,864



CONTINGENCY 30.00% $10,140,726




nutrients reduction - new york new jersey … reduction cost estimation study summary report in...

Documents