BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS
BASELINE INFORMATION: ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Environmental Evaluation Section
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Submitted by
CE Maguire, Inc.
One Oavol Square
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
July 16, 1984
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 SUMMARY 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 SDEIS Alternatives Considered 1
2.0 DEVELOPIIENT OF ENGINEERING AND SITING ALTERNATIVES 3
2.1 Evaluation of MDC Alternatives from the Nut, Island
Site Options Study (1982) 3
2.2 Alternatives Considered from Other Studies 4
2.3 New Alternatives Not Previously Studied 6
3.0 FACILITIES DESIGN CRITERIA 8
4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL PRELIMINARY COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES 9
4.1 Capital and O&M Costs Update 9
4.2 Costs of New Alternatives 9
4.3 Assumptions Made on Engineering Cost Analysis 12
4.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs 12
5.0 REVISED COSTS FOR SCREENED ALTERNATIVES 14
5.1 Updated Costs from Site Options Study 14
5.2 Use of EXEC/OP Computer Model for Verification 14
5.3 Survey of Existing Facilities and Other Cost Sources 17
5.4 Revised Cost Estimates 19
5.5 Costs to be Developed During Impact Assessment 23
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
1. Summary of Options and Their Costs
2. Treatment Facility Dimensions
3. Updated Capital Costs by Option
4. Updated O M Costs by Option
5. Revised Capital Costs by Option
Figures
1. Wastewater Treatment Components by Treatment Level
2. Typical Multi—Option Flow Diagram
Bthliogr by
Attachments
1. Assumptions followed in developing cost tables
U3 Examples of EXEC/OP Model Outputs
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This report describes the basis of the preliminary cost estimates
for the wastewater treatment facility alternatives being proposed for
Boston Harbor. It identifies the method followed for initial develop-
ment of costs being studied in the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) for a
wide range of options considered by the MDC or proposed by others
during the EIS process, and explains the methods and assumptions
applied to revise these initial cost estimates once a smaller set of
alternatives was reached. At the conclusion of this report is a
description of the impact analysis to be made in the SDEIS which will
further refine these costs to reflect such factors as sludge disposal
methods, barging of equipment, site constraints, and mitigation mea-
sures.
1.2 SDEIS Alternatives Considered
The preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities in Boston Harbor began with a review of the
facility engineering requirements and the development of associated
preliminary costs for all viable treatment alternatives. The deter-
mination of which alternatives were to be considered in the SDEIS
required the review of all potential siting alternatives for Boston
Harbor wastewater treatment facilities.
1
-------
This review was comprised of:
• Alternatives studied by the MDC and their consultants in the
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) report;
• Other siting alternatives and treatment options which were
previously studied; and
• New alternatives not previously considered which have been
identified.
Preliminary analysis of these siting alternatives defined such
criteria as the level of treatment, acreage required, site environment
(including the neighboring community), and the number of sites and
facilities involved. Costs for construction and for operation and
maintenance (O&M) were developed initially as a means of comparing the
alternatives within a single level of treatment.
To compare the relative viability of the options at this stage of
analysis, a general screening process was used to reduce the number of
alternatives for further, more detailed study. Costs of the options
were found not to be a principal determinant in the screening process.
A separate report describes the screening process and its results.
Eight alternatives were selected from the screening process and
were then reanalyzed to independently affirm in greater detail capital
costs and O&M costs for both primary and secondary options. In certain
2
-------
instances, revisions were made to the preliminary costs based on the
findings of this reanalysis. Table 1, which follows, summarizes these
costs as they now stand, recognizing that further revisions will be
made as the data from the impact analysis is developed and factored
into the SDEIS.
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING AND SITING ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Evaluation of MDC Alternatives from the Nut Island Site Options
Study (1982 )
The MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) report was the
principal source of facility design criteria and cost data applicable
to the possible sites being considered. It presented capital and O&M
cost tables for 12 options analyzed in detail for the MDC by their
consultants, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The review process required the
examination of each alternative to verify the level of treatment
proposed, acreage required, site environment (including the neighboring
community), and the number and type of facilities involved. Evaluation
of facilities siting also included the determination of individual unit
processes requirements, the treatment facilities for north and south
system flows, and the overall usage and characteristics of the sites.
For example, the Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) “Option 5”
provides secondary treatment. Under this option, a primary-secondary
treatment facility for the north system flows would be located on Deer
Island, a primary treatment facility for south system flows would be
3
-------
TABLE 1
BOSTON HARBOR SDEISS SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND THEIR C )STS
Sites, Level of Treatment, and Co8ts in
( Acreage Required) $Hillions _____ Annualized
Other Coats***
Option No. Nut Island Deer Island Long Island Island** Capital 06K ( SMillions )
Secondary Options
ic (36) (104)
is
•
( 2)
•
(115)
668.28
4.3.7
112.4
lb*
•
(18)
•
(115)
752.97
45.2
122.6
2b.l
( 2)
•
( 2)
•
(115)
820.40
42.7
127.0
2b.3
I
( 2)
•
( 52)
•
( 81)
830.85
48.5
133.9
Primary Options
4a.2 D
•
( 2)
•
( 62)
757.08
21.1
98.9
4b.2*D
S
(18)
•
( 52)
( 18)
834.91
22.0
107.8
Sa.2 D
I
( 2)
5
( 52)
•
827.72
21.7
106.8
5b.2 D
I
( 2)
I
( 2)
• ( 62)
917.82
20.5
114.9
KEYs — headworks only primary treatment • secondary treatment
D — deep ocean outfall * — HDC’e preferred options
• Assumes 8—1/8% interest rate over 20 years.
1. Revised costs reflect baseline construction factors with reduction in
previously estimated secondary treatment costs and deletion (for the
time being) of sludge handling and disposal costs; see discussion in
section 5.0 of this report. These revised costs will increase upon ad-
dition of costs for sludge facilities, as well as added costs for barg-
ing, workforce transportation, other construction practices, and mit-
igation measures. These total costs by option will be presented in
the SDEIS.
Source: CE Maguire, Inc. (July 6, 1984)
-------
located on Nut Island, and a companion secondary treatment facility for
south system flows would be located on Long Island. Therefore, three
distinct sites with varying levels of treatment would be involved under
this option. The use of Deer Island could impact neighboring Port
Shirley in Winthrop, the use of Nut Island could impact neighboring
Houghs Neck in Quincy, and the use of Long Island could impact neigh-
boring Squantum also in Quincy. Such combinations of wastewater
treatment engineering and siting considerations were evaluated during
the initial review of alternatives.
In general, the alternatives presented in the Nut Island Site
Options Study (1982) involved both primary and secondary treatment.
They involved the use of Deer and Nut Islands to varying degrees in all
cases, and the use of Long Island for three options, all of which are
secondary treatment options. Subsequent developments, notably the
opportunity to apply for a waiver from secondary treatment, resulted in
the need to reconsider these MDC facility plan options, and in certain
instances, develop new ones as described in Section 2.3 below.
2.2 Alternatives Considered from Other Studies
Other studies conducted prior to the MDC Nut Island Site Options
Study (1982) also examined options for wastewater treatment facilities
siting in Boston Harbor. These included:
4
-------
• MDC, Wastewat.er Engineering and Management Plan for Boston
Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area, EMMA Study ,
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., March, 1976.
• EPA, Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upgrading
of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System , Greeley and
Hansen and Environmental Assessment Council, Inc., August,
1978.
The MDC EMMA Study (1976) recommended a plan which provided
wastewater treatment at four sites. Secondary and advanced treatment
facilities would be located at Deer Island, Nut Island, the Middle
Charles River, and Upper Neponset River. The study also considered
siting along the Aberjona River.
The EPA Draft EIS (1978) written in response to the EMMA Study
plan, initially considered eleven sites in the vicinity of Boston
Harbor for the location of wastewater treatment facilities. These
sites were: Deer Island, Spectacle Island, Long Island, Moon Island,
Squantuin, Peddocks Island, Nut Island, Broad Meadows, Kings Cove, Lower
Neck, and Broad Cove. Of these sites, only Deer Island, Long Island,
Squaritum Point, Nut Island and Broad Meadows were found to be suitable
for further consideration.
As is apparent, conditions had changed sufficiently from the date
of these studies, and particularly the Draft EIS , to warrant a new
facility planning effort by the MDC, as evidenced by the Nut Island
5
-------
Site Options Study (1982), and a supplemental environmental review by
EPA in the SDEIS.
Chief among the options developed in these prior plans to be
analyzed in the SDEIS were the proposal from the EMMA Study to site
“satellite” advanced treatment facilities on the Charles and Neponset
Rivers, and the recommendation from the Draft EIS for consolidated
secondary treatment facilities on Deer Island.
2.3 New Alternatives Not Previously Studied
After reviewing the range of alternatives presented in the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982), the MDC EMMA Study (1976), and
the EPA Draft EIS (1978), public and agency comment was invited during
the EPA scoping period for the SDEIS. It became apparent from the
comments received that several additional options should also be
considered. Some of these options involved variations of treatment
process locations for both primary and secondary treatment. Sites
considered were primarily those at Deer, Nut, and Long Islands. These
included:
Primary treatment at Deer and Nut Island with a combined
secondary facility on Long Island,
Converting Nut Island to a headworks and providing primary
treatment at Long Island,
6
-------
• Converting both Deer and Nut Islands to either headworks or
pumping facilities and providing either primary or secondary
treatment facilities on Long Island.
Other new alternatives considered looked at utilization of other
sites in Boston Harbor including Thompson Island, Lovell Island, or the
Brewster Islands.
Besides the presentation of new options relating to siting of
facilities, the comments received suggested optional treatment pro-
cesses as possible additional alternatives to be examined. For
example, an intermediate level of treatment greater than primary, but
less than secondary, could be achieved through chemically assisted
primary treatment (or advanced primary). Though initially considered,
these intermediate treatment levels were dropped because no proposal to
utilize such treatment had been made.
After reviewing all of the existing and new siting and treatment
alternatives, twenty-two options (including some similar options having
only slight variations in their facility layout)were analyzed for
preliminary screening. This screening reduced the number of viable
alternatives to eight. A separate report describing the screening
process and the results was distributed in June, 1984. These eight
were then reanalyzed to establish independent and revised costs as
appropriate.
7
-------
3.0 FACILITIES DESIGN CRITERIA
The Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) presented in detail the
individual facility components required for each treatment alternative.
These components are designed to provide optimum removal of coarse
solids, suspended and floating solids, grease, and organic matter.
Other components also provide for disinfection and odor control. Land
acquisition and other associated site development costs were also
developed in the prior study.
After reviewing established design guidelines, the generalized
design criteria presented in the Nut Island Site Options Study (1982)
were found to be accurate for the treatment alternatives presented.
These design criteria applied to such treatment components as screens,
grit chambers, primary tanks, aeration tanks and equipment, secondary
tanks, sludge pumps and thickeners, and digesters.
Design criteria used to determine the individual component dimen-
sions were shown in Table 5-5 of the Nut Island Site Options Study
(1982) for each option presented. In order to facilitate the compari-
son of the treatment alternatives in the SDEIS, the component dimen-
sions established for a given volume were carried over to the new
options, when applicable. Otherwise, new component dimensions were
derived based on the established design criteria and assumptions
presented in the MDC study. The dimensions of these major treatment
facility components utilized in the SDEIS are presented in Table 2. A
general comparison of treatment components is presented in Figure 1.
8
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPONENTS BY TREATMENT LEVEL
COMPONENT FLOWS
NORTH SOUTH COMBINED
SYSTEM SYSTEM
Aer
>1
>1
Primary
Sedimentation 20(2) 12 28(2)
Tanks
.
.
0
o
0
C l ,
=
.
Gravity
Sludge 2 1O
Thickeners
Anaerobic 4(4)
Digestors
Aeration 16 6 22
Tanks
Secondary
Sedimentation 38 12 50
Tanks
(1) 2 of these are existing at Deer Island
(2) 8 of these are existing at Deer Island
(3) 4 of these are existing at Deer Island (4) 4 of these are existing
at Nut Island
(5) 4 of these are existing at Deer Island and 4 at Nut Island
Source: Based on MDC, Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) Volume 1,
Table 5-5.
FIgure 1
-------
4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL PRELIMINARY COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Capital and O&M Costs Update
The Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) included a table of
capital costs for each option. The cost table presented detailed costs
for each option component, as well as other construction-related costs
such as removal of unsuitable materials and land acquisition. Since
this study was completed in June 1982, the costs presented in that
report were based on an Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost
Index of 3600, reflecting then current prices.
In order to facilitate the presentation of relative costs for all
of the options under consideration in the SDEIS, the Nut Island Site
Options Study (1982) cost table was first updated to an ENR Construc-
tion Cost Index of 4200, reflecting 1984 prices. Table 3 presents
these costs for all options considered.
Operation and maintenance (O&}1) cost tables were similarly pre-
sented in the Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) to reflect prices
then in effect. Therefore, these costs were also updated to 1984
prices. Table 4 presents these costs by option.
4.2 Costs of New Alternatives
In developing costs for new options, individual component charac-
teristics for each option were compared with those presented in the
9
-------
UPDATED OPTION CAP OSTS Table 3
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
Tanks
Electrical Generator
Building
Engine Generators
Administration &
Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
to Site
Pier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
Tunnel
Effluent Pump Station
Outfalls
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
Materials
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acqu]sition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
Option la
Deer Nut
29,677
315
30,051
3,506
22,059
3,150
80,317
44,743
248,614
2,066
6,080
7,560
7,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
— 1,772
11,528
29,4 13
47,723
756
3,141 275
27,353
- 2,835
639,670 98,973
138,643
2,077
111,924
852,644
Option lb
Deer Nut
- 1,540
1,216 4,864
6,615
3,623
3,443
13,857
— 1,969
11,528 8,892
- 82,819
29,413 -
47,723
709 -
3,141 6,297
2,442
- 15,730
- 1,575
588,470 184,880
773,350
2,077
111,924
887,351
Option Ic
Deer Nut
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
- 1,540
1,216 4,864
6,615
3,623
2,835
10,409
- 2,048
11,528 8,892
20,731 -
- 13,262
- 49,167
- 1,575
452,312 318,364
770,676
1,820
111,924
884,420
Option 2a.1’
Deer Nut
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
1,216
6,615
3,623
2,835
10,409
— 1,772
11,528 -
20,731
46,459
- 2,835
452,312 65,606
783,081
1 ,820
111,924
897,875
2,066
4,864
6,615
3,623
17,073
2,066
3,469
8,234
8,710
53,019
552
I ,245
973
2,008
5,689
265,163
1,050
Long
10,432
2,993
9,129
-
9,129
29,677
315
2,993
9,129
16,881
315
2,993
9,129
16,881
315
—
-
—
-
18,031
2,921
12,920
3,150
17,918
1,169
-
17,918
1,169
-
—
-
-
-
17,918
1,169
12,920
3,150
-
-
80,317
44,743
-
.-
59,012
31,319
21,307
13,422
59,012
31,319
-
-
21,307
13,422
-
248,614
-
183,974
64,639
183,974
-
64,639
741
1,402
4,442
3,885
17,814
I ,402
5,355
3,885
17,814
1,591
3,469
741
1,402
82,819
22,411
8,710
22,411
41,265
49,397
41,265
599
552
599
3,141
15,666
3,141
- 26,514
275
I
-------
Option 2a.2* ion 2b.1* Option 2b.2
Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long
Influent Pump Station 16,881 2,993 10,432 16,881 2,993 37,589 16,881 2,993 37,589
Screens & Grit Chambers 315 9,129 - 315 9,129 — 315 9,129 -
Primary Sedimentation
Tanks 18,031 17,918 — - 45,077 18,031 17,918 -
Gravity Thickeners 2,337 1,169 810 - 4,675 2,337 1,169 2,429
Anaerobic Digesters 12,920 - - - 33,089 12,920 — -
Gas Storage 3,150 - 3,150 3,150
Secondary Aeration
Tanks 59,012 - 21,307 - 80,317 — 80,317
Blower Building 31,319 - 13,423 - 44,743 - 44,743
Secondary Sedimentation
Tanks 183,914 - 64,639 - 248,614 — 248,614
Electrical Generator
Building - 1,540 2,066 - 1,540
Engine Generators 1,216 4,864 6,080 1,216 4,864
Administration &
Maintenance Building 6,615 4,442 4,725 8,978 5,670 4,442 8,978
Scum Incinerator 3,623 3,885 - — - 7,245 3,623 3,886 -
Odor Control Facilities — 17,814 — 223 741 17,073 - 17,814 —
Chlorination Equipment 2,835 1,402 2,066 189 1,402 3,443 189 1,402 3,443
Chlorine Contact Tanks 10,409 - 3,469 - - 13,851 - — 13,857
Utility Company Power
to Site - 1,969 - 1,772 - - 1,969 -
Pier Facilities 11,528 8,892 8,234 - 8,234 11,528 8,892 8,234
Interisland Wastewater
Tunnel - 45,892 - 68,156 46,459 - 68,156 44,990 -
Effluent Pump Station 22,411 - 8,710 - - 29,413 - - 29,413
Outfalls 41,265 - 53,019 - 91,855 - — 91,855
Miscellaneous Civil 599 158 394 - - 630 410 158 630
Channels and Dikes 3,141 6,297 687 642 275 11,118 1,260 6,297 11,118
Removal Unsuitable
Materials 20,731 - 973 2,270 1,462 —
Earth Fill - 2,442 2,008 4,679 - 2,442 -
Foundation Preparation - 15,730 5,689 — - 11,359 - 15,730 11,359
Demolition - 1,575 - 6,606 2,835 - - 1,575 —
Subtotal by Site 452,312 148,111 200,585 93,012 65,606 715,554 147,148 147,210 592,579
Capital Cost 801,008 874,172 886,937
Land Acquisition 1,820 735 2,450 607 2,380
Sludge Processing 111,924 111,924 111,924
Total Capital Cost 915,487 998,546 1,001,848
*See footnotes
2
-------
Option 3a*
Nut
2,993
9,129
Love 11
DeIL
37,589 16,881
- 315
Option 3b
Option
4a.1 Opti
Nut Brewsters Deer
Nut Deer
37,589 29,677
- 315
Deer
16,881
315
223
189
— 45,077
- 4,675
- 33,089
- 3,150
- 80,317
- 44,743
- 248,614
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
Tanks
Electrical Generator
Building
Engine Generators
Administration &
Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
to Site
Pier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
Tunnel
Effluent Pump Station
Outfal is
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
Mate na Is
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
2,066
6,080
8,978
7,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
741
1,402
.2
Nut
9,129
741
1,402
1,772
82,819
275
2,993
9,129
— 45,071
- 4,675
- 33,089
- 3,150
- 80,317
- 44,743
- 248,614
- 2,066
- 6,080
- 8,978
— - 7,245
223 741 17,073
189 1,402 3,443
— - 13,857
— 1,772 *
— - 11,528
102,850 86,400 -
— - 29,413
— - 91,855
642 275 11,118
-U-
: 992,500
6,606 2,835 ______
127,706 105,547
1,925,663
2,037,587
30,051
3,506
22,059
3,150
2,066
6,080
6,615
7 ,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
2,363
11 ,528
29,413
47,723
457
1,517
2,190
- 29,677
9,129 315
- 30,051
- 3,506
- 22,059
— 3,150
- 2,066
- 6,080
- 6,615
- 7,245
741 17,073
1,402 3,443
- 6,940
1,772 2,363
— 11,528
82,819 -
- 41,252
- 411,847
- 457
275 1,517
2,190
1,772 *
— 11,528
45,375 67,200
642
6,606
70,231
29,413
- 91,855
275 11,118
-U..
547,500
2,835 -
86,347 1,247,410
1,403,988
111,924
1,515,912
- - 2,835
1,692,410 240,328 98,973
- 339,301
* 840
111,924 50,388
390,529
- 2,835
609,374 98,973
708,347
840
50,388
759,575
3
-------
Option 4b.1 Option 4b.2 Option 5a.1* Option Sa
Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long
Influent Pump Station 16,881 2,993 16,881 2,993 16,881 2,993 10,432 16,881 2,993 10,432
Screens & Grit Chambers 315 9,129 315 9,129 315 9,129 - 315 9,129 -
Primary Sedimentation
Tanks 18,031 17,918 18,031 17,918 18,031 - 17,918 18,031 - 17,918
Gravity Thickeners 2,337 1,169 2,337 1,169 2,337 — 1,169 2,337 - 1,169
Anaerobic Digesters 12,920 - 12,920 - 12,920 - 12,920 12,920 - 12,920
Gas Storage 3,150 3,150 3,150 - 3,150 3,150 - 3,150
Secondary Aeration
Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
Tanks
Electrical Generator
Building - 1,540 - 1,540 - 2,066 — 2,066
Engine Generators 1,216 4,864 1,216 4,864 1,216 4,864 1,216 4,864
Administration &
Maintenance Building 5,670 4,442 5,670 4,442 5,670 6,615 5,670 6,615
Scum Incinerator 3,623 3,886 3,623 3,886 3,623 - 3,623 3,623 - 3,623
Odor Control Facilities - 17,814 - 17,814 - 741 17,073 — 741 17,073
Chlorination Equipment 2,835 1,591 2,835 1,591 2,835 1,402 2,066 2,835 1,402 1,402
Chlorine Contact Tanks 10,409 3,469 6,940 - 10,409 - 3,469 6,940 - -
Utility Company Power
to Site 2,363 2,204 2,363 1,772 2,363 1,772 - 2,363 1,772 -
Pier Facilities 11,528 8,892 11,528 8,892 11,528 - 8,234 11,528 - 8,234
Interisland Wastewater
Tunnel - - - 77,433 - 46,459 - - 46,459 36,049
Effluent Pump Station 22,411 8,710 41,462 - 22,411 - 8,710 41,462 - -
Outfalls 41,265 49,397 411,847 - 41,265 - 53,019 411,847 - -
Miscellaneous Civil 410 158 394 158 410 - 158 394 - 158
Channels and Dikes 1,260 6,297 1,260 6,297 1,260 275 1,245 1,260 275 1,245
Removal Unsuitable
Materials 1,359 - 1,359 - 1,359 487 1,359 487
Earth Fill - 3,256 - 2,442 - 1,004 — 1,004
Foundation Preparation - 15,730 - 15,730 - 2,849 - - 2,849
Demolition -_— 1,575 - 1,575 - 2,835 - - 2,835 -
Subtotal by Site 157,983 165,034 544,131 179,645 157,983 65,606 161,071 544,131 65,606 131,258
Capital Cost 323,017 723,776 384,660 740,995
Land Acquisition 607 607 607 525 607 525
Sludge Processing 50,388 50,388 50,388 50,388
Total Capital Cost 374,012 774,771 436,180 792,515
*See footnotes
4
-------
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
Tanks
Electrical Generator
Building
Engine Generators
Administration &
Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
to Site
Pier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
Tunnel
Effluent Pump Station
Outfalls
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
Materials
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
*See footnotes
— 45,077
- 4,675
- 33,089
- 3,150
2,066
4,864
6,615
3,623
17,073
3,443
13,857
8,234
29,413
91,855
368
642 275 11,118
1,135
2,339
6,638
326,221
I ,225
50,388
- 45,077
- 4,675
- 33,089
- 3,150
2,066
4,864
6,615
3,623
17,073
3,443
6,940
1,772 -
- 8,234
41,252
- 411,857
- 368
642 275 11,118
1, 135
2,339
6,638
651,145
1 ,225
50,388
Sb. 1’
Nut
2,993
9,129
Long
Deer
37,589 16,881
- 315
5b.2*
Nut
2,993
9,129
Long
37,589
Deer
16,881
315
223
189
741
1 ,402
1,772
223
189
741
1,402
68,156 46,459
68,156 46,459
6,606
93,012
2,835
65,606
484,839
536,452
6,606
93,012
2,835
65,606
809,763
861,376
S
-------
page 1 of 3
Annual Operation & Ilaintenance Costs 0 Table 4
(thousands of dollars per year)
Option Ia.1&.2 lb.1&.2 lc. 2a.1 2a.2 2b.1 2b.2
Item/Site Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long
Power 24,700 279 24,382 363 19,927 2,693 19,927 279 4,748 19,927 363 4,339 650 279 24,050 9,317 279 17,019
Ch1orine(2 5) 2,454 480 2,454 480 2,030 879 2,030 480 399 2,030 480 399 1,120 480 1,334 1,120 480 1,334
Labor 6,971 607 6,522 2,518 5,642 3,761 5,642 607 3,428 5,642 2,518 1,790 208 607 5,772 3,579 2,518 4,429
Materials and
Supplies 1,353 212 1,320 512 1,117 674 1,117 212 470 1,117 579 268 319 212 1,035 807 512 845
Subtotal by
Site 35,484 1,518 34,618 3,873 28,716 8,007 28,716 1,578 9,045 28,716 3,940 6,796 2,297 1,578 32,191 14,833 3,789 23,627
Subtotal by
Option 37,062 38,551 36,723 39,339 39,452 36,066 42,299
Solids
Handling 6,633 6,633 6,633 6,633 6,633 6,633 6,633
TOTAL 43,695 45,184 43,356 45,972 46,085 42,699 48,932
(1) Based on Site Options Study , Table 7-13; Updated to ENR 4200.
(2) Based on a unit cost of chlorine at $350/ton.
(3) Based on Site Options Study , Table 1-13 and Table 7-15, revised to reflect updated facility components.
(4) Does not include the anticipated additional cost of transporting workers.
(5) These chlorine costs reflect seasonal post-chlorination for deep ocean options.
-------
page 2 of 3
Option 2b.3 3a. 3b. 4a.I 4 a.2 4b.1 4b.2
item/Site Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Love!! Deer Nut Brewster Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut
Power 9,377 279 17,229 650 279 24,050 650 279 24,050 9,423 219 9,623 219 7,632 489 8,633 363
ChIorine 2 1,120 480 982 1,120 480 1,334 1,120 480 1,334 4,319 480 2,711 480 3,360 1,439 2,231 959
Lahor 3,579 607 6,067 208 607 5,772 208 2,518 5,712 4,125 607 4,125 607 3,579 2,518 3,579 2,518
Flalerials and
Supplies 807 212 1,145 319 212 1,035 319 512 1,035 995 203 995 203 807 512 933 512
Siihtota I by
Site 14,883 1,578 25,423 2,297 1,578 32,191 2,297 1,578 32,391 18,862 3,569 17,260 1,569 15,378 4,958 15,382 4,352
Subtotal by
Option 41,884 36,066 36,066 20,43! 18,829 20,336 19,734
Sol ida
handling 6,633 6,633 6,633 2,275 2,275 2,215 2,275
TOTAL 48,517 42,699 42,699 22,706 21,104 22,613 22,009
-------
page 3 of 3
Option 5a.l 5a.2 5b.1 5b.2
Item/Site Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long
Power 7,632 279 210 8,633 279 84 650 279 8,750 650 279 8,750
Chlorine(2 5) 3,360 480 959 2,237 480 480 1,120 480 3,199 1,120 480 1,598
Labor 3 3,519 607 1,638 3,579 601 1,638 208 607 3,328 208 607 3,328
Platerials and
Supplies 80? 212 300 933 212 300 319 212 677 319 212 677
Subtotal by
Site 15,378 1,578 3,107 15,382 1,518 2,502 2,291 1,518 15,954 2,297 1,578 14,353
Subtotal by
Option 20,063 19,462 19,829 18,228
Solids
Handling 2,275 2,275 2,275 2,275
TOTAL 22,338 21,737 22,104 20,503
-------
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982). When an identical process
capacity was involved, the cost from the MDC study (updated) was
carried over and assigned to that component for the new option. For
cases where identical process capacities did not exist, costs were
developed utilizing the MDC study data applied as a ratio of volume to
costs. In such cases, the resultant figures were examined to assure
consistency. It was determined that for this stage of preliminary
conceptual design and associated cost analysis such an approach was
reasonable.
For example, under SDEIS Option 2b.1 at Long Island, the influent
pump station would be identical to that required for “Option 11” of the
Site Options Study (1982). Therefore, the costs were assumed to be the
same. However, under Option 2b.1 at Long Island, 30 primary tanks
would be required. The greatest number of tanks to be constructed at
any location for any MDC study alternative was twenty; therefore, the
estimated preliminary cost for primary tanks at Long Island was calcu-
lated based on a proportionate cost.
Some cost items from the Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) did
not have associated sizes or quantities specified, such as removal of
unsuitables. Therefore, the cost for removal of unsuitables and other
similar site requirements was estimated based on comparative facility
sizing and/or land area. In all cases, at this stage of the analysis,
no unique site problems which affect estimation of preliminary con-
struction costs were established for any of the new alternatives
developed (with the exception of the man-made island option which was
10
-------
dropped from further consideration due to higher costs and construction
problems).
It was recognized, further, that certain cost items established
could be more dependent on site-specific conditions. For example,
removal of the drumlin at Deer Island would increase the cost of site
preparation in relation to the resultant acreage. At Nut Island,
construction on piles would increase the cost of foundation preparation
there. Therefore, cost comparisons for individual components were made
with those for the same site whenever possible to reflect such known
conditions or circumstances. Where base costs were utilized to estab-
lish costs at other sites, adjustment was made to provide consistent
estimating or reflect known variations in sites. Again, such adjust-
ment was made within the broad limits of accuracy for preliminary costs
developed in the Nut Island Site Options Study .
In the case of Long Island, some uncertainty exists with regard to
site subsurface conditions and construction/foundation requirements.
Because access to the site has not been forthcoming, it has not been
possible to investigate these conditions in order to verify their
existence. Since the Site Options Study located secondary treatment
facilities on Long Island in the same general location as the options
now being considered, it is assumed that such facilities are, in
general, feasible at this site with no special problems that could
significantly affect site costs. When access is granted, this condi-
tion will be verified.
11
-------
4.3 Assumptions Ilade on Engineering Cost Analysis
Reflecting the preliminary nature of the cost estimates being
made, as noted above, many basic assumptions were made in order to
estimate the costs of these alternatives. The foremost assumption is
that costs for new options can be reasonably developed, at this stage
of the analysis, based on a comparative ratio of design criteria
involving flow, acreage, or quantity (of tanks) to a given cost as
developed in the prior MDC study. Other assumptions which were made,
involving elements of site or operations, are described in Attachment I
to this report.
4.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance (0th) costs for the new options were
developed similarly to the capital costs. That is, each cost item
under a new or different option was compared to those for the Nut
Island Site Options Study (1982) alternatives, and costs were developed
based on applicable ratios. Revised operation and maintenance costs
are presented in Table 4. The following description highlights the key
elements of 0th costs.
4.4.1 Chlorine
Costs established in the Site Options Study (1982) for chlorine
were found to be inconsistent with the description of the chlorine
volume estimates at the given price per ton. These were therefore
12
-------
adjusted to reflect the corrected and updated estimates. Preliminary
O&M costs were established based on the further assumption that post-
chlorination will take place 6 months per year for deep ocean outfalls.
4.4.2 Staffing
Operation costs for each option are directly related to the number
of personnel required, which in turn is dependent upon the size of the
facility and number of locations involved. Staffing requirements were
estimated for the new alternatives based on the staffing requirements
and costs presented in Nut Island Site Options Study (Table 7-15).
4.4.3 Power
Costs presented for power are based on those presented in the
Site Options Study (1982) updated to ENR 4200. Power costs for new
options were calculated by proportioning flows for similar facilities.
4.4.4 Materials and Supplies
Cost estimates for this item were also based on those presented in
the Site Options Study updated to ENR 4200. Estimates for new options
were calculated by proportioning flows for similar facilities.
13
-------
5.0 REVISED COSTS FOR SCREENED ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Updated Costs from Nut Island Site Options Study(1982 )
In reviewing the preliminary component list and associated cost
estimates (as shown in Table 3) for the various options being con-
sidered in the SDEIS, it was not feasible to study each of the more
than twenty alternatives in detail. Therefore, as described in
previous sections of this report, initial review focused only on
updating of these costs from the previous MDC study or developing
comparable facility costs where necessary with minimal recosting of
components. The costs developed in the Site Options Study (1982)
were, therefore, accepted as reasonable at this stage of preliminary
analysis. These were found, moreover, to be comparable within treat-
ment. levels and thus not a major screening criteria.
5.2 Use of EXEC/OP Computer Model for Verification
Once the alternatives were screened down to eight options--four
primary and four secondary--more detailed analysis and verification of
the cost estimates could proceed. One method of cost verification used
was a computer model entitled “EXEC/OP”. This model was applied to
develop independent, hypothetical construction costs for the key unit
processes involved in both primary and secondary treatment facilities.
The model was developed by the EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory in Cincinnati and utilized as its basis the experience of
more than sixty separate treatment facilities across the country (see
14
-------
Bibliography). EXEC/OP was used to compare such treatment component
costs as settling tanks, digesters, thickeners, and screening/degrit-
ting facilities. It was also considered for site-specific issues like
foundation work, excavation, and energy costs. Odor control, sludge
disposal, and land acquisition was not an output of the model.
The first step in using EXEC/OP is the preparation of a multi-
option flow diagram of the system being analyzed. Such a typical
multi-option flow diagram is shown in Figure 2.
From this, the E.XEC/OP model then develops costs based on data
from selected recently built treatment plants in the U.S. Costs are
developed using input such as current construction cost index (ENR 4200
used), wholesale price index, interest rate (a rate of 8-1/8% was
used), and cost escalator for engineering and contingencies (a rate of
35% was used). Other input parameters include flow quantity plus
wastewater quality indicators such as BOD 5 , suspended solids, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and alkalinity. While these latter inputs can vary, the
parameters applied were not expected to significantly affect the basic
focus of comparing such hypothetical costs with the estimates made in
the MDC study.
EXEC/OP can be utilized in two ways. When the specific unit pro-
cesses at a location are known, the model can supply a detailed per-
formance report of the facility in terms of facility output in volume
or costs or energy produced. If, however, it is questionable as to the
benefits of utilizing a particular unit process, or if two processes
15
-------
TYPICAL MULTI-OPTION FLOW DIAGRAM
SCREENING & PRIMARY SECONDARY
PUMPING CHLORINATION
DEGRITTING TREATMENT TREATMENT
FLOTATION ANAEROBIC
THICKENING — - DIGESTION
I CONDITIONING &
I INCINERATION
___________ I DEWATERING
GRAVITY L__ NULL
THICKENING PROCESS
Fiqure 2
-------
are to be compared, E EC/OP will select the combination of unit pro-
cesses that best meets a stipulated set of prioritized criteria of
cost, energy, land utilization, a subjective index of system desir-
ability, and/or effluent quality. Sample outputs of both of these
situations are shown in Attachment 2 and 3. These are provided as
examples of the model’s output only. Not every value derived from
EXEC/OP is applicable to the costing process.
Because the basis of the EXEC/OP model was treatment facilities
between 1 and 100 MGD of flow and since not all components identified
by the MDC study are covered by EXEC/OP, it was decided to apply the
model solely as a method of initial cost comparison with the MDC
facility costs. None of the other performance parameters of EXEC/OP
were considered, although, as the examples of the model’s output show,
these are readily produced and provide useful indications of a
facility’s performance.
While some bias in results may be introduced from the case studies
used in the model due to their smaller size, the application of a cost
comparison based on unit processes should, it was felt, still provide
reasonably comparable costs for the process components being compared.
It should be pointed out, moreover, that cost graphs developed for the
wastewater treatment facilities which were the basis of the model,
showed that facility process costs become linear for plants over 20
MGD. Therefore, the assumption of the model’s applicability to larger
facilities was considered valid.
16
-------
Utilizing the model, cost comparisons were generated for the
facility process components as noted above. In most cases, the costs
provided from EXEC/OP were within a reasonable range (about 25%) of the
original cost estimates from the MDC study. Where the updated MDC
costs were within this range, the figures derived from the Site
Options Study were utilized. In a few cases, however, the variation
between the two cost sources was greater than this limit indicating the
need for additional review and clarification from the MDC and their
consultants, as well as further verification of costs from other
sources.
5.3 Survey of Existing Facilities and Other Sources
As a follow-up to the EXEC/OP model, several telephone surveys
were made of other secondary and primary facilities to establish their
actual construction Costs for the most significant discrepancies found
to exist. One item that was signalled by the comparison with EXEC/OP
to be a significant discrepancy involved the costs of secondary sedi-
mentation tanks. The information compiled from the survey of treatment
plants (most of which varied in size, yet were smaller than the pro-
posed 1,240 MGD plant of the MDC) indicated a range of consistent and
comparable costs well below the initial MDC estimates. A summary of
these costs plus those developed from the Site Options Study are as
follows:
17
-------
Secondary
Primary or Settling Tank
Facility Secondary Unit Cost
Location Flow in MGD 1984
Providence, R.I. 210P, 77 S $ 40/Sq. Ft.
Meriden, Cona. 10 S $ 51/Sq. Ft.
Philadelphia, Pa. 210 S $ 89/Sq. Ft.
1978 EPA DEIS
(Greeley & Hansen) 1240 S $112/Sq. Ft.
1982 MDC Site Options
Study (Metcalf & Eddy) 1240 S $230/Sq. Ft.
Recognizing the variability of these facilities, their charac-
teristics, and their construction costs, it is possible, nonetheless,
to consider the range of costs shown above versus the significantly
higher magnitude of costs represented by the costs estimated for the
M DC. The range of costs for other plants did include projects with
unique construction and siting problems which resulted in higher costs
than usual at the cited facilities. A higher cost approaching the cost
developed in Site Options Study may, in fact, be generated when such
factors as barging, construction schedule delays, other special con-
tingencies, or mitigation measures are applied to the costs of the
project overall. However, it was deemed not appropriate to include
such outside costs in the preliminary estimate of sedimentation tank
costs. Any such additional cost factors should be factored in sepa-
rately to show their specific influence on costs at all levels of
treatment.
Based on a review of the information available, it was estimated
that a total cost of $241.5 million for secondary treatment be used.
This estimated total cost is derived from the data developed in the
1978 Draft EIS based on secondary sedimentation tanks valued at $116.5
18
-------
million (updated costs equal to $112/sq. ft.) and aeration tanks and
blower building valued at $125 million. The costs utilized for set-
tling tanks are derived from an established method of engineering
estimating which independently sizes the tanks, their volume of con-
crete and steel, and cost per cubic yard. The Costs for aeration tanks
and blower building remain consistent with the estimates from the
Site Options Study .
In addition to this source, other component costs considered to be
a significant variation were reexamined. Such costs were revised
utilizing similar engineering approaches as noted above for the sedi-
mentation tanks as well as established cost tables (see Bibliography).
The specific components thus revised are discussed in the following
section.
5.4 Revised Cost Estimates
Based on the reanalysis and revision of costs for the remaining
eight options, as described above, a final set of “revised” preliminary
costs was developed. Table 5 presents these costs consolidated for all
sources utilized. Table 1 summaries these same construction costs,
adds annual O&N, and the calculates amortized annual costs for these
eight options. As apparent from a comparison pf Tables 3 and 5 (and as
noted below), in most cases MDC derived costs were used with only a few
instances of costs developed from other sources.
19
-------
TABLE 5
1
Revised Capital Costs (Mill $ )
Option la.2 Option lb.2
Deer Nut Deer Nut
Prechlorjnatjon* 3.43 1.47 3.43 1.47
Screen & Degrit* 1.86 9.94 1.86 9.94
Influent Puinping* 81.81 -- 81.81 23.76
Primary Settling 30.05 18.03 17.92
Secondary Settling* 116.38 116.38 -—
Aeration 80.32 80.32
Blower Building 44.74 44.74
Chlorination 17.11 —- 17.11 --
Piers* 11.81 -- 11.81 12.49
Tunnels - - 82.82 -- 82.82
Outfalls 47.72 —- 47.72 - -
Channels & Dikes 3.14 .28 3.14 6.30
Power to Site 1.77 -- 1.97
Demolition -- 2.84 -- 1.58
Remove Unsuitables 27.35 -- 26.51 --
Generators & Bldg. 8.15 1.22 6.40
Admin. Bldg. 7.56 6.62 4.44
Effluent Pumping* 59.83 59.83 - -
Misc. Civil .76 .71 -—
Earth Fill -- - - 2.44
Foundations -- -- 15.73
Land 2.08 -- 2.08 --
Odor Control 17.07 .74 17.07 17.81
Scum Incinerator 7.25 —- 3.62 3.89
Subtotal by Site 568.42 99.86 544.01 208.96
Option Total 668.28 752.97
*These costs were revised based on initial review of EXEC/OP estimates
followed by verification or substitution using other sources (see
Bibliography).
1
Costs originally estimated in the Site Options Study for sludge
handling and disposal facilities which appeared in Table are
no longer being carried due to the current range of sludge
options being considered by the State. These costs will be
estimated separately and added to the total costs of each
option under the iz pact assessment in the SDEIS.
-------
Capital Costs (Mill $)
Option 2b.1
Deer Nut ____
July, 1984
Option 2b.3
Long
Subtotal by Site
Option Total
138.97 63.50
820.40
617.93 185.16 63.50
830.85
582.19
Long
Deer
Prechlorjnation*
3.43
1.47
--
3.43
1.47
--
Screen & Degrit*
1.86
9.94
—-
1.86
9.94
--
Influent Pumping*
58.05
--
74.76
58.05
--
74.76
Primary Settling
45.08
18.03
17.92
Secondary settling*
--
“
116.38
116.38
Aeration
--
--
80.32
--
--
80.32
Blower Building
44.74
44.74
Chlorination
--
-—
17.11
--
——
17.11
Piers*
--
-
13.93
11.81
-—
13.93
Tunnels
68.16
46.46
--
68.16
46.46
--
Outfalls
--
-—
91.86
—-
-—
91.86
Channels & Dikes
.64
.28
11.12
1.26
.28
11.12
Power to Site
--
1.77
--
--
1.77
--
Demolition
6.61
2.84
2.84
Remove Unsuitables
--
--
2.23
1.46
--
.97
Generators & Bldg.
--
8.15
6.93
Admin. Bldg.
--
--
8.98
--
--
8.98
Effluent Pumping*
--
--
59.83
--
--
59.83
Misc. Civil.
--
--
.63
.41
--
.63
Earth Fill
--
--
4.68
--
--
2.01
Foundations
-—
-—
11.36
--
--
11.36
Land
-—
-—
2.45
--
--
2.38
Odor Control
.22
.74
17.07
17.07
.74
17.07
Scum Incinerator
-—
-—
7.25
3.62
--
3.89
-------
Capital Costs (Mill $)
July, 1984
Option 4a.2 Option 4b.2
Deer Nut Deer Nut
Prechlorination* 343 1.47 3.43 147
Screen & Degrit* 1.86 9.94 1.86 9.94
Influent Puznping* 81.81 -- 81.81 23.76
Primary Settling 30.05 -- 18.03 17.92
Secondary Settling* -- -- - -
Aeration
Blower Building - - --
Chlorination 10.19 9.59 --
Piers* 11.81 - - 11.81 12.49
Tunnels -- 82.82 -- 77.43
Outfalls 411.85 -- 411.85 --
Chaanels & Dikes 1.52 .28 1.26 6.30
Power to Site 2.36 1.77 2.36 1.77
Demolition -- 2.84 -- 1.58
Remove Unsuitables 2.19 -- 1.36 --
Generators & Bldg. 8.15 1.22 6.40
Admin. Bldg. 6.62 5.67 4.44
Effluent Pumping* 59.83 -- 59.83 --
Misc. Civil -- .39 .16 --
Earth Fill -- -- 2.44
Foundations -- -- 15.73
Land .84 -- .61 --
Odor Control 17.07 .74 17.07 17.81
Scum Incinerator 7.25 -- 3.62 3.89
Subtotal by Site 656.83 100.25 631.54 203.37
Option Total 757.08 834.91
-------
Capital Costs (Mill $)
Option 5a.2
Nut Long
July, 1984
Option 5b.2
Deer Nut
Long
Subtotal by Site
Option Total
631.77 63.50
827.72
132.45 138.97 63.50
917.82
715.35
Deer
Prechlorination*
3.43
1.47
—-
3.43
1.47
--
Screen & Degrit*
1.86
9.94
1.86
9.94
Influent Pumping*
81.81
--
23.76
58.05
74.76
Primary Settling
18.03
--
17.92
--
--
45.08
Secondary Settling*
- -
- -
- -
Aeration
Blower Building
- -
- -
- -
- -
Chlorination
9.59
10.19
Piers*
11.81
——
13.93
—-
--
13.93
Tunnels
--
46.46
36.05
68.16
46.46
--
Outfalls
411.85
450.85
Channels & Dikes
1.26
.28
1.25
.64
.28
11.12
Power to Site
2.36
1.77
—-
--
1.77
Demolition
--
2.84
--
6.61
2.84
--
Remove Unsuitables
1.36
--
.49
--
-
1.14
Generators & Bldg.
1.22
6.93
6.93
Admin. Bldg.
5.67
6.62
6.62
Effluent Puinping*
59.83
--
--
59.83
Misc. Civil
.39
.16
-—
.37
Earth Fill
--
1.00
--
2.34
Foundations
2.85
--
6.64
Land
.61
—-
.53
—-
-—
1.23
Odor Control
17.07
.74
17.07
.22
.74
17.07
Scum Incinerator
3.62
—-
3.89
--
--
7.25
-------
Upon comparison of EXEC/OP cost estimates with those from the
updated Site Options Study , several component categories were found to
vary. Chief among these were the following: prechiorination, screen-
ing and degritting, influent pumping, secondary sedimentation tanks,
digestion, flotation thickening, and effluent pumping. Upon considera-
tion of the reasons for these variations, it was determined that the
EXEC/OP figure or some other available cost basis (see Bibliography)
was a more reasonable estimate. For example, the following factors
influenced the revision of costs in some of the more significant
component categories:
Influent and Effluent Pumping, Prechiorination - The costs
from the NBC study included “credit” for reuse of existing
treatment facilities. In order to maintain consistency among
siting options at this stage of analysis, such site-specific
influences (as well as others) are not being included as part
of the option capital costs. It is assumed for comparative
purposes that all sites will be evaluated on an equalized
facility cost basis. Any further revisions to this assulnp-
tion will be made in the assessment of impacts by option.
Secondary Settling - A major difference in the estimate of
the cost of secondary settling tanks is a result of differing
cost factors as described in the previous section. As a
result of further analysis, a revised cost was arrived at.
20
-------
Piers-—These costs were increased at Nut Island to reflect
the view that added dredging would be needed due to the
shallower depths encountered there.
Screening and Degritting--The original estimates were found
to be somewhat lower than other sources indicated were
appropriate. This difference was relatively small overall;
however, to maintain consistency, the costs were adjusted.
In addition, based on the State’s newly proposed sludge disposal
alternatives, several component categories costed originally in the
Site Options Study and carried in the preliminary SDEIS cost update
(Table 3) were subsequently eliminated because they no longer would be
required under some of the disposal choices. This resulted in further
revisions to costs (as now shown in Table 5) from the preliminary
figures released previously. These component costs were previously
among those revised due to differences shown between EXEC/OP and
Site Options Study estimates. Even though these components have now
been deleted from the base cost table, the revisions made to their
costs are being retained so that they can be reinserted in the option
total costs under the impact assessment.
For example, if either ocean dumping or composting were selected
as the method of sludge disposal, sludge thickening, digestion, and gas
storage facilities would not be required. Therefore, final cost
estimates for the options including sludge handling and disposal will
vary according to the sludge disposal method to be selected. At this
21
-------
stage of the analysis, each of the possible sludge handling and dis-
posal methods will be costed separately, and this cost will be added to
the overall cost of the treatment facilities by option.
At this stage of the analysis, as the figures summarized in Table
1 show, the primary treatment options are estimated to cost between
$757.08 million and $917.82 million; the secondary treatment options
are estimated to cost between $668.28 million and $830.85 million.
Annualized costs combining 0&M costs with the amortized construction
debt payback are estimated to be between $99 million and $134 million
for all the options remaining.
This range of costs should not be compared between treatment
levels since, as has been stated from the outset of this project, the
decision on whether secondary or primary treatment would be required
rests solely with the review by EPA of the 301(h) waiver application of
the MDC. However, some clarification of these estimated costs is
needed.
The significant reduction in secondary treatment costs for all
options is a result of two factors: reduction of estimated costs for
secondary sedimentation tanks as noted in the previous section, and the
elimination of additional sludge handling components due to influence
of the range of sludge disposal options other than incineration. By
comparison, primary treatment costs are not as significantly reduced
since the question of sedimentation tank costs did not affect the
primary options as the original estimates of primary tanks were con-
22
-------
sidered reasonable. Moreover, the added costs of a long outfall--
estimated to be $411.85 million--affecting only the primary options
increases these alternatives’ costs dramatically relative to the secon-
dary options.
It must be remembered that the costs for all options will increase
from those presented in Table 5 by the addition of costs for the
various sludge disposal facilities involving either composting, incin-
eration, ocean disposal, landfilling, or some combination of these
(plus any associated handling components). Likewise, there may be
added contingency costs from the need to barge equipment and materials,
stagger the construction work force, provide shuttle bus service for
workers, or otherwise mitigate potential adverse impacts during
facility construction and operations. These costs will be added to
each option’s total estimated project cost during the impact analysis
of the options. At the present time, the costs presented in Table 5
are intended to reflect updated and revised facility costs equalized
across all sites and consistent with the assumptions noted in Attach—
ment 1. Such a baseline analysis was a necessary preparation for the
SDEIS in order to verify the costs presented in Site Options Study ,
establish a consistent cost basis for all options being studied in
detail, and provide a framework for the upcoming impact assessment.
5.5 Costs to be Developed During Impact Assessment
The types of costs to be developed further involve several key
parameters. Foremost among these is the estimate of costs for the two
23
-------
major sludge disposal options being considered by the State involving
incineration or composting. Final costs of this option will be made as
part of a later EPA supplemental environmental review and MDC facility
plan. The SDEIS will establish a preliminary cost estimate of each
sludge option as it influences siting of treatment plants only .
Costs for landfilling or ocean disposal are not well developed at
this stage since no plans for such operations have been developed by
the MDC, and the permitting uncertainties for either option are numer-
ous. Costs to be estimated for these operations will therefore con-
sider only the sludge handling portions associated with conveyance from
a treatment plant site.
Other costs to be examined in a preliminary fashion given the
limited facility plans presented involve an estimate of additional
costs resulting from construction and operation mitigation measures for
an MDC treatment plant located in Boston Harbor. These could encompass
such things as major barging operations to reduce the need for trucking
through local communities, other traffic measures such as roadway
repaving, new traffic signals, or added safety measures, possible
financial compensation or payments in lieu of taxes to local communi-
ties, improvements to land areas around the treatment plants including
buffer areas and screening, possible varied construction schedules, or
special worker transportation. All such applicable costs will be
factored into the cost estimates and presented under each applicable
option.
24
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Rossman, Lewis A., “Computer-Aided Synthesis of Wastewater Treat-
ment and Sludge Disposal Systems”, EPA-600/2-79--158, U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio (1979):
2. Rossman, Lewis A., “Exec/Op Reference Manual”, Version 1.2, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio (1980).
3. Patterson, W.L. and Banker, R.F., “Estimating Costs and Manpower
Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Facilities”, Water Pollution Control Research Series
17090 DAN 10/71, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
(1971).
4. Huang, Dr. Wen H., et al., “Construction Costs for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1978”,
EPA/430/9-80-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C.
(April 1980).
5. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., “Wastewater Engineering - Treatment,
Disposal, Reuse” Second Edition, (1972).
6. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., “Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options
Study.” Volumes I and II, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Metropolitan District Commission, (June
1982).
7. Havens & Emerson, Inc., “Wastewater Sludge Management Update,
Summary Report”, Metropolitan District Commission,
(August, 1982).
8. Technical Advisory Board of the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission, “Guides for the Design of
Wastewater Treatment Works”, TR-16, (1980).
-------
Attachment 1
ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN COSTING THE ALTERNATIVES
1. MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) hereafter referred to as
the Site Options Study , is the basis for the preliminary engin-
eering and cost analysis carried out by CE Maguire, Inc. in the
initial review of available information leading to the first-tier
screening of alternatives. All inherent assumptions and engin-
eering factors in the MDC’s facility planning for the sites
considered by their consultants are maintained in the assessment
of new sites and/or facilities.
2. Capital costs developed by the MDC’s facility planner, as pre-
sented in Section 7 of the Site Options Study (and appearing in
Table 7-12) which utilized an ENR of 3600, have been updated to
ENR of 4200.
3. For alternatives being considered which were also considered
previously (by MDC or EPA), the approach used was to review the
basic engineering and cost parameters presented in order to verify
available criteria and assumptions utilized previously. Once
accepted, these factors were updated as necessary and then util-
ized to develop the list of both established and new alternatives.
4. Construction costs utilized are based on wastewater flow volumes
and capacities developed by the MDC in the Site Options Study ; any
25
-------
changes to the assumptions on volumes and capacities for treatment
facilities will affect those costs accordingly either up or down.
5. Costing of facilities associated with new options assumes that
construction of similar treatment facilities at different loca-
tions will be of a comparable nature; no abnormal variations in
surface/subsoil/geologic conditions or other factors are factored
in unless these are stated in the Site Options Study . Any such
variations if identified will be factored into the impact analy-
sis.
6. Costs for power to the site of treatment facilities is not added
unless it was included in the criteria used in the Site Options
Study .
7. Costs utilized for channels, and dikes in all alternatives where
applicable are based on conservative costs developed and presented
in the Site Options Study for these construction elements.
8. Inter—island tunnel costs for transport of effluent were developed
from Site Options Study based on a unit cost of appproximately
$3,200/ft for 10-foot diameter and $6,050/ft for 16-foot diameter
tunnels. These costs will be updated in the impact analysis.
9. Construction costs of new facilities on Long Island assume no
additional costs for foundation preparation beyond those utilized
in Site Options Study .
26
-------
10. Costs do not reflect any additional land acquisition Costs, should
these prove necessary, beyond those assumed in the Site Options
Study .
11. Costs do include movement of materials by barge (based on assump-
tions in Site Options Study) ; however, they do not include move-
ment of personnel by barge.
12. Assumptions on manpower and staffing contained in the Site
Options Study have been maintained in the update of alternatives.
13. Assumptions in the Site Options Study regarding staff vehicle
trips and construction worker vehicle trips are maintained in the
analysis carried out for the screening. Similarly, construction
truck trips per day are carried forward based on the presentations
in the MDC study.
14. Costs for chlorine contact tanks are carried forward from the
Site Options Study based on the apparent facility criteria util-
ized.
15. Costs for chlorine (annual) are likewise carried forward based on
the assumptions presented in the MDC study; however, there is an
apparent inconsistency in the unit cost factor used by the
facility planner which has been adjusted to be consistent with the
volumes presented.
27
-------
16. Apparent instances of errors in the presentation of data in the
M DC Site Options Study have not as yet been verified or corrected;
this will be done at the earliest opportunity.
28
-------
pj pp p p tt *t itt p
F ‘ I c
ATTACHMENT 2 EXEC /OP
p 1 ’
* VERSION 1.2 *
+ . 4 .
tttFf Ftp *+tttt*
EXECUTIVE PROGRAM
(OPTIMIZATION VERSION)
FOR
PRELIMINARY SYNTHESIS OF WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
U .S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
SYSTEMS AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SECTION
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45260
*
* OPTION IS & 49.2 — HUT ISLAND PRIMARY +
$ *
* P Ict4 b***44 b$*+****** Plc l.********* b***** P*t1 .**4*****+***** * *4 i cip I. l.**t*** P******* P itt
-------
PROCESS MLTERNATIVE
OPTION PROCESS STAGE SIDESTREAM
MO . 110 , MO. DESTINATION REtIc iRKS
1 12 — I 5 PRECHLORIIIATION
2 I - 2 5 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
3 15 3 5 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
4 2 4 5 PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
5 8 5 4 GRAVITY THICKENING
6 6 6 4 DIGESTION OF PRIMARY SLUDGE
-------
EFFLUE IIT DISCHARGE ST
5-DAY GOD, MC/L 200.00
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, NC/I 200.00
AMMONIA — 11, MG/L 10000.00
NITRATE — N, MG/L 10000.00
PHOSPHORUS. MG/L 10000.00
SELECTION CRITERIA
CRITERION LIMIT
1. INITIAL CONSTR. COST, MS 10000.00
2. ANNUAL 0 & P1 COST, S/NC 100000.00
3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST, S/MG 100000.00
4. ENERGY CONSUMED, KWH/MG 10000.00
5. ENERGY PRODUCED, KWH/MG .00
6. NET ENERGY CONSUMED, KWH/MG 10000.00
7. LAND REQUIRED, ACRES 10000.00
8. UNDESIREABILITY INDEX 10000.00
COIISTRUCTION COST INDEX 2.1770
WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX 3.0630
DIRECT HOURLY WAGE, S/HR 45.0000
FRACTION CHARGED TO INDIRECT WAGES .6667
COST ESCALATOR FOR MISC. FEES 1.3500
COST OF ELECTRICITY, S/KWH .0 120
BTU 10 KWH CONVERSION EFF. .0900
DISCOUNT RATE .08 12
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR .1028
NET ENER LAND REOD UNDESIRE-
KWH/NC ACRES ABILITY
34.71 .00 .00
1.74 .Qfl .00
42.85 .00 .00
7.64 .00 .00
.26 .00 .Ofl
—347.30 .00 .00
—260.09 .00 .00
WEIGHT
00
00
.00
.00
.Q0
00
.00
.00
ECONOMIC DATA
3TAGE PROCESS
SLUDGE
COHSTR
ANN
O&M
TOTAL ANN
ENER USE
ENER PROD
110. OPTION
TONS/DAY
COST P15
COST
S/MG
COST S/MG
KWH/HG
KWH/NC
I fè 4 ’(L1 0 ( I
.00
1.4699
38.26
41.02
34.71
.00
25c.r4Dcv 2
3 - 1
4 4
5 ( pao 5
.00
.00
91.12
91.12
3.2734
23.7575
7.8493
.6822
37.38
12.14
21.10
1.84
43.52
56 ,75
35.83
3.12
1.74
42 ,85
7.64
.26
.00
.00
.00
.00
6 6
88.38
11.9435
29.87
52.29
111.71
459.01
?STEM WILUES
91.12
— 48.98
140.58
232.54
198.91
45 Q.0I
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES MIXED AT STAGE IS
-------
PROCESS PERFORMANCE CHARACT CS
VOLUME FLOkI , MCD
CONCENTRATION, PIG/L
CONSULT PROGRAM REFERENCE MANUAL FOR MEANING OF PROCESS IHPLIT ’ AND OUTPUT DESIGN DATA.
STAGE 1 PROCESS OPTION I
INPUT DESIGN
DATA:
3
5
6
7
320.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
II
12
13
14
15
.000
.000
.000
.000
2.070
12.000
.500
.000
9
10
16
.000
.000
1.000
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
1
2
3 4 5 7
8
9
10
6963.013
2736.405
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.000
11
12
13 14 15 16 I?
18
19
20
.000
.000
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.000
INFLUENT:
0
150.000
INFLUENT / EFFLUENT / SIDESTREAM CHARACTERISTICS:
SOC St4BC SON SOP SF11
105,000 30.000 15.000 3.000 55.000
SBOD
.150.000
VSS
205.000
TSS
220.000
EFFLUENT:
150.000
105.000 30.000 15,000 3.000 55.000
150.000
205.000
220.000
SIDESTRM:
.000
DOC
.000 .000 ;000 .000 .000
DNBC OH DP DFM ALK
.000
DBOD
.000
NH3
.000
N03
INFLUENT
43 000
II 000 25 000 5 000 300 000 100 000
55 000
25 000
ouo
EFFLUENT
43 000
Ii 000 25 000 5 000 300 000 100 000
55 000
5 000
OuO
SIDESTRM:
.000
.OOó .000 .000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.000
STAGE 2 PROCESSOPTION 2
.
.
1.000
9
.000
- INPUT DESIGN DATA:
2 3 4 5 6
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
10 II 12 13 14
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
7
.000
15
.000
8
.000
16
2.070
I
2
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
.000
.000
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.000
11
12
13 14 15 16 I?
18
19
20
000
.000
• 000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.000
INFLUEHT:
0
150.000
INFLIIENT / EFFLUENT / SIDESTREAM CHARACTERISTICS:
SOC SNBC SON SOP SFM
105.000 30.000 15.000 3.000 55.000
SBOD
150.000
YSS
205,000
1 5 5
220.000
EFFLUENT:
150.000
105.000 30.000 15.000 3.000 55,000
150.000
205.000
220.000
SIDESTRM :
.000
DOt:
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
( ‘USC OH OP OF I1 ALI(
.000
DSOO
.000
tlH3
.00’)
1 103
INFLUENT:
43.000
11.000 25.000 5.000 300.000 1 00.000
55.000
25.000
.000
EFFLUENT:
43,000
11.000 25.000 5.00( 1 3( 10.000 100.000
55.000
25.000
.000
SIDE STRII:
.000
.000 .000 .000 .000 coo
.000
000
-------
STAGE 3 PROCESS DI 3
INPUT DESIGN DATA:
I.
2 3 4 5 6
7 8
10.200
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000 .000
9
10 Ii 12 13 14
15 16
.000
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000 2.600
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
1
2
3 4 5 6 7
8 9
10
178,823
.000
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000 .000
.000
11
12
13 14 15 16 I?
18 19
20
000
.000
.000 - .000 .000 ‘ .000 .000
.000 -. .000
.000
II4FLUENT :
EFFLUENT:
SIDESTRN:
Q
150.000
150.811
.000
DOC
II4FLUEHT / EFFLUENT / SIDESTREAPI CHARACTERISTICS:
SOC SNBC SON SOP SFM
105.000 30.000 15.000 3.000 55.000
106.512 30.432 15.216 3.043 55.792
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
DNBC DH DP DFM ALK
SBOD VSS
150.000 205,000
t52.160 207.952
.000 .000
OBOD NH3
18 5
220.000
223.168
.000
N03
INFLUENT:
43.000
11.000 25.000 5.000 300.000 100.000
55.000 25.000
.000
EFFLUENT:
43.000
11.000 25.000 5.000 300.000 100.000
55.000 25.000
.000
‘S IDESTRII;
.000
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000 .000
.000
NOTE
INFLUENT
STAGE 4 PROCESS OPTION 4
(EFFLUENT FROM PREVIOUS STAGE) INCLUDES RETURN SIDESTREANS
FROM SLUDGE TREATMENT
I
.650
9
.000
INPUT DESIGN DATA:
2 3 4 5 6
2.000 168.000 .000 .000 .000
10 I I 12 13 14
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
- 7 8
.000 .000
IS 16
2.400 1,000
I
2
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA!
3 • 4 5 6 7
-
8 9
10
645.876
233.498
1823.036 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000 .000
.000
Ii
12
13 14 15 16 1?
18 19
20
.000
.000
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.000 .000
.000
IIIFLUENT:
Q
150.811
INFLUENT / EFFLUENT / SIDESTREAM CHARACTERISTICS:
SOC SNBC SON SOP SF1 1
106.512 30,432 15.216 3.043 55.792
SBOD VSS
152.160 207.952
18$
223.168
EFFLUENT:
149.717
37 .551 10.729 5.365 1.073 19.670
53.645 73.315
78.679
3IDESTR I I:
1.094
DOC
9545.455 2727.273 1363.637 272.727 5000.001
DNBC D l i OP DFM MLI<
13636.36? 18636.36?
0800 NH3
20000.004
N 03
IHFLUENT:
4.3.000
11.000 25.000 5.000 300.000 100.000’
55.000 25.000
.000
EFFLUENT:
43.000
11.000 25.000 5.000 300.000 100.000
55.000 25.000
.000
SIDESTRM:
43.000
11.000 25.000 5.000 300.000 100.000
55.000 25.000
.000
-------
STAGE 5 PROCESS 4 5
STAGE 6 PROCESS OPTION 6
II4FLUENT / EFFLUENT / SIDESTREAPI CHARACTERISTICS:
3
4
5
6
7
7.500
.000
.000
25 ,000
.000
I I
12
13
14
IS
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
4
OUTPUT
DESIGN
5
DATA;
6
7
8
25.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
14
15
16
I ?
18
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
2
800.000
I0
25.000•
3
7.500
13
000
SOC .
9545. 455
35795.445
386. 282
DNBC
II .000
II • 000
i i .000
INFLUENT / EFFLUENT / SIDESTREAN CHARACTERISTICS:
SNOC
2727.273
1022?.2?3
1 10. 366
OH
25. 000
23.000
25.000
SON
1363. 637
5113.637
55.183
DP
5.000
5.000
5.000
- OP
272.72?
1022.727
I I . 03?
DFM
300.000
300. OOO
300.000
.970
9
7.500
2
000
12
.000
0
I • 094
.283
.811
DO C
43. 000
43t009 -
43.000
- !_5.000
9
.500
2
15. 000
12
000
0
.283
.283
.000
DOC
43. 000
256?. 816
.000
13849.529
II
000
I NFLUENT:
EFFLUENT:
S IDESTRN:
INFLUENT:
EFFLUENT;
S IDESTRN:
.500
11
.000
INFLUENT:
EFFLUENT:
SIDESTRN:
INFLUENT:
EFFLUENT:
S IDESTRI I:
SFI’ I
5000. 001
18750.000
202.338
ALK
100.000
100. 000
100.000
8
.000
16
1.900
9
.000
19
000
4 /SB
18636.36 ?
69886. 359
754.170
NN3
25.000
25.000
25.000
8
7.500
16
1.500
9
.000
‘9
.000
4 /95
69886.359
34943.180
000
NN3
25.000
1686. 932
00 (1
INPUT DESIGN
DATA;
3
4
5
6
.000
1.000
.300
II
12
13
14
.000
.000
.000
.000
4
OUTPUT DESIGN
5
DATA: -
6
7
809964.250
425373.250
.000
.000
14
IS
16
I ?
.000
.000
.000
.000
2
32.000
10
15.000
3
851.075
13
000
SOC
35795 • 445
17897.723
000
DN BC
II .000
11 . 000
000
SBOD
13636.36?
51136.36?
55, .83k
D8O D
55. 000
55.000
55.0
7
.500
Is
000
8
000
18
000
S B OD
51136.36?
15340.904
000
DROD
- 55.000
4394.527
000
I0
.000
20
000
TSS
20000.004
75000.000
8 09.353
1103
• 000
000
.000
10
.000
20
.000
TSS
75000.000
53693.180
.000
1103
.000
.000
.000
SHBC
I 0227 • 273
10227.273
.000
DN
25.000
1686.932
.000
SON
5113.637
3451 .705
.000
DP
5.000
51€. 364
000
SOP
1022.72?
511 .364
000
DFN
300.000
300.000
000
SF11
18750.000
18750.000
.000
AL V
100.000
6033. 097
.000
-------
ATTACHMENT 3 * EXEC/OP *
* VERSION 1.2 *
* *
EXECUTIVE PROGRAM
(OPTIMIZATION VERSION)
FOR
PRELIMINARY SYNTHESIS OF VASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
SYSTEMS AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SECTION
C 1NCINNATI. OHIO 45268
* *
* OPiIOH IA_t — DEER iSLAND_.SE(0NDARY WITH DIGESTIOPLOPTION W/ECF
* S
-------
PROCESS ALTERNATIVE
OPTION PROCESS STAGE SIDESTREAN
NO. NO. 1 10. DESTINATION REMARKS
1 2 I 5 PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
2 3 2 4 ACTIVATED SLUDGE — FINAL SETTLING
3 12 3 0 CHLORINATION
4 13 4 2 FLOTATION THICKENING
5 8 5 2 GRAVITY THICKENING
6 6 6 2 DIGESTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES
9 0 6 2 NULL PROCESS
7 7 7 2 CONDITIONING AND DEIJATERIHG
8 14 8 2 INCINERATION
-------
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE ST
5-DAY SOD, MG/L
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, MCtL
AMMOHIA - H. MG/L
NITRATE — H. tlG/L
PHOSPHORUS. P?G/L
SELECTION CRITERIA
30.00
30.00
10000.00
10000.00
10000.00
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
CRITERION
INITIAL COHSTR. COST, MS
ANNUAL 0 1 N COST. S/MG
TOTAL ANNUAL COST, S/MG
ENERGY CONSUMED, KWH/MG
ENERGY PRODUCED. KWH/MG
NET ENERGY CONSUMED , KWH/MG
LAHD REQUIRED, ACRES
UNDESIREABILITY INDEX
LIMIT
10000. 00
100000.00
100000.00
10000. 00
00
10000.00
10000. 00
10 000.00
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX
DIRECT HOURLY WAGE, S/HR
FRACTION CHARGED TO INDIRECT WAGES
COSL ESCALATOR_FOR MISC. FEES
COST OF ELECTRICITY, S/KWH
BTU TO KWH CONVERSION EFF.
DISCOUNT RATE
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR
2.1770
3.0630
45. 0000
.666 ?
1.3500
0720
0900
• 0812
.1028
WE I GNT
00
.00
I • 00
.00
_ 4 S0.
• 00
00
— . 00
ECONOMIC DATA
-------
2 BEST DESIGNS
DESIGN I
EXACT SYSTEM VALUE
374.29?
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES MIXED AT STAGE 6
BEST DESIGN IS NUMBER I
STAGE PROCESS
SLUDGE CONSTR ANN 0th TOTAL ANN ENER USE ENER PROD
NET ENER LAND REQO
UNDESIRE—
NO. OPTION
TONS/DAY COST IS COST S/PIG COST S/MG KUH/MG KWH/MG
KWH/MG ACRES
ABILITY
tt’r. I
297.80 22.5798 - 11.14 23.86 8.87 - — .00
—— 8.8? - .00
.00
2 S4c 2
164.95 69.569? 26,62 65.81 135.89 .00
135.89 .00
.00
3 CJJ - 3
.00 17.3294 15.62 25.38 14.81 .00
14.81 .00
.00
4 ct. - 4
164.95 19.1220 - 34.28 45.05 62.38 .00
62.38 .00
.00
5 5
297.80 2.0189 1.16 2.30 .20 .00
.20 - .00
.00
6 6
- 7 7
440.62 51.9390 31.49 60.74 163.93 607.84
283.40_..__i0.0349 96 6_ 102.01 — 24.25_ .00
—443.91 .00
24.25 -- - .00
.00
- .00
8 8
339.08 18.8882 38.51 49.18 58.17 184.71
—126.54 .00
.00
SYSTEM VALUES
-- 2lI.48.. _255.I? 374.30. - .468.50 - 792.55
—324,05 .00
.00
- PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGE MIXED AT STAGE 6
- --
-,
DESIGN 2
Use 4es.
STAGE PROCESS
Cosh EXACT SYSTEM VALUE 387.110
‘C
SLUDGE CONSTR ANN 0th TOTAL ANN . EHER USE ENER PROD
NET ENER LARD REOD
UNDESIRE—
NO. OPTION
TONS/DAY COST MS COST S/MG COST $/HG© KWH/NC KWH/MG
KWH/PIG ACRES
ABILITY
1 PrIv’fl 1
297.80 22.5798 11.14 23.86 8.87 .00
8.87 .00
.00
2 S .c 2
154.53 68.036? 26.06 64.39 130.15 .00
130 ,15. - .00
.00
3 CU. . 3
.00 17.3259 15.62 25.38 14.80 .00
14.80 .00
.00
4 Fi 4
154.53 17.9701 31.76 41.89 59.16 .00
59.16 .00
.00
5 -./ 5
297.80 2.0189 1.16 2.30 .20 .00
.20 .00
.00
7 te.. ’ 7
431.03 6.5737 119.63 123.33 15.47 .00
15.4? .00
.00
8 I 8
478.72 23.2223 92.89 105.98 46.40 397.99
—351.59 .00
.00
SYSTEM VALUES
452.32 157.73 298.26 387.11 275.05 397.99
—122.94 .00
.00
SEARCH EFFORT WAS 369.7369?. OF TOTAL ENUMERATION
------- |