Appendixes To
Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimation
For Point Sources
In The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
November 2002
-------
List of Appendixes
Appendix A List of NRT Cost Task Force Members
Appendix B Point Source NRT Cost Survey
Part 1: Point Source Survey
Part 2: Point Source Survey Results
Appendix C Correspondences Used to Develop Costs for Municipalities
Appendix D Description of CSO Tiers for Blue Plains
Appendix E Capital Cost Data for Tier 1 for Nitrogen Removal
Appendix F Statistical Analyses of Tier 2 Cost Data
Appendix G Details of Cost Assumptions Used in the Tier 3 and 4 Methodology
Appendix H References and Data Contacts for Industrial Costs
Appendix I Communications, Decisions, and References for Cost and Load Data Compiling
Part 1: Communications and Decisions for Cost Methodology Applications
Part 2: Communications and Decisions for Load Calculations by Tier
Part 3: References for Section IX Summary Cost Tables
-------
Appendix A:
List of NRT Cost Task Force Members
A-i
-------
Appendix A: List of NRT Cost Task Force Members
NRT Cost Task Force Membership
Allison Wiedeman EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Bob Ehrhart
Bob Steidel
Chris Pomeroy
Cliff Randall
Dave Waltrip
Glen Harvey
Jerusalem Bekele
John Kennedy
John Murtha
Lisa Bacon
Marya Levelev
Mike Kyle
Ning Zhou
Tanya Spano
Ta-shon Yu
Thor Young
Tom Sadick
VA Department of Environmental Quality
Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility
AQUALAW
Virginia Tech
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Alexandria Sanitation Authority
DC Department of Health
VA Department of Environmental Quality
PA Department of Environmental Protection
CH2M HILL
MD Department of the Environment
Lancaster Area Sewer Authority
Virginia Tech
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
MD Department of the Environment
Stearns & Wheler
CH2M HILL
A-ii
-------
Appendix B:
Point Source NRT Cost Survey
Part 1: Point Source Survey Letter and Attachment
Part 2: Point Source Survey Responses (Part II is available in hard copy by contacting Ning Zhou
at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office at 410-267-5727 or zhou.ning@epa.gov)
B -i
-------
Appendix B, Part 1: The Survey Letter and Attachment
Dear Wastewater Treatment Plant Contact:
Attached please find a cost estimate for implementation of nutrient reduction technology at your
facility. This information was obtained either from previous correspondence with your facility,
grant agreement information, or state reports. This information reflects only the incremental
costs necessary to remove nitrogen.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is currently performing an analysis of data to estimate costs for all
municipal facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to implement Nutrient Removal
Technology. Nutrient Removal Technology (NRT) is considered to be any method employed to
remove nitrogen from wastewaters including, but not limited to, Biological Nutrient Removal
(BNR). Critical information as a part of this work is site specific cost to achieve Biological
Nutrient Removal (BNR is defined for_this study as: an annual average, non regulatory, final
effluent nitrogen concentration of 8 mg/1 Total Nitrogen). Information on cost to obtain Limit of
Technology (LOT is defined for this study as an annual average, non regulatory, final effluent
concentration of 3 mg/1 Total Nitrogen) is also desired if available. Estimates for your facility
will be a part of this analysis to determine NRT costs Bay-wide; thus, it is important the
information be reviewed to ensure its accuracy. Please note, this information will be used in a
Bay-wide cost analysis and is not intended to be used for other purposes such as grant
applications, etc.
The Bay program is required to provide these cost estimates by May of this year. In order to
complete this requirement it is necessary that all cost data that will be used be finalized by March
2002. If data is not available for your facility then your cost will have to be estimated based
upon typical values. In addition to the dollar amounts provided in the attachment, there are a
number of assumptions that are related to the derivation of costs that need confirmation as well.
Please take a look at the attachment and provide a response by March 1, 2002 to the contact
provided on the attachment. Your assistance in this matter would be very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
B -ii
-------
Attachment
Wastewater Treatment Facility NRT Cost Information
Name of Facility:
Facility Contact (name and phone #)
Design Flow MGD 2000 Annual Ave Flow What is your current
treatment process? (circle one)
BNR Activated Sludge Trickling Filter SBR RBC Other (Please specify)
Is this facility currently designed to allow year round nitrification? Yes No
Are there significant site or design constraints that influence the cost to obtain BNR at your facility?
Yes No
If yes provide short explanation (example: HPO plant with no available land for expansion) and an
estimate of the additional costs to compensate for this constraint:
Please confirm, or provide, the following information:
The costs to implement BNR (around annual average 8 mg/1 TN) at your facility is :
$ in Capital Costs, (in (year)dollars), and
$ per year in Operation and Maintenance Costs
The costs to implement LOT (annual average 3 mg/1 TN) at your facility would be :
$ in Capital Costs, (in (year)dollars), and
$ per year in Operation and Maintenance Costs
The items included in the derivation of these cost values include the following (please put a check by all
that apply):
Capital Costs
Tanks, Channels and Buildings
Yard Piping
Pumps and Mechanicals
Sitework
Solids Handling
Electrical & Instrumentation
Construction Phase Changes
Engineering Design
Grant Application
Legal Fees
Administration
Methanol Addition Systems
Other?
Is this a cost value based on voluntary or regulatory implementation? (Circle one)
Please send a response by March 1,2002 to: Ning Zhou, Point Source Database Manager, Chesapeake Bay Program, 410
Severn Ave, Annapolis, MD 21403 410-267-5727 (phone) 410-267-5777 (fax), zhou.ning@epa.gov
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Power
Methanol
Other Chemicals
Labor
Solids Handling
Equipment
Other?
B - iii
-------
Appendix C
Correspondences used in developing costs for municipalities
This Appendix is organized by state and available in hard copy only by contacting Ning Zhou at
the Chesapeake Bay Program Office at 410-267-5727 or zhou.ning@epa.gov
C-i
-------
Appendix D
Description of CSO Tiers for Blue Plains
D-i
-------
Appendix D: CBP's Tiered Scenarios for CSO in DC (as 2/22/02)
CSO Assumptions
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4 (E3)
Note: CSO
loadings have
been updated to
reflect latest
estimates from
DC-WASA's
CSO LTCP study
(2001). These
recalculated
loads are: Total
Nitrogen -
123,329 Ib/yr;
Total
Phosphorus -
26,894 Ib/yr; and
Total Suspended
Solids - 4.23
million Ib/yr.
Assumptions
(Note: All tiers
are assumed to
be defined in
year 2010.)
Assumes an
approximately 43%
reduction in CSOs, and
therefore assumes an
equal % reduction in TN,
TP, &TSS. This
scenario is based on: 1)
Use of updated CSO
loading figures; and 2)
implementation of
specific projects
authorized under DC-
WASA's existing CIP
budget. These project
are expected to be
completed in
approximately 8 years
(i.e., 2010) and have
therefore been
incorporated as 'phase 1'
of the DC-WASA Draft
CSO LTCP currently
under review by EPA.
Assumes an
approximately 43%
reduction in CSOs,
and therefore
assumes an equal %
reduction in TN, TP,
&TSS. This
scenario is based on:
1) Use of updated
CSO loading figures;
2) implementation of
specific projects
authorized under
DC-WASA's existing
CIP budget
(implemented in 8
years); and 3)
approval of the DC-
WASA CSO LTCP
by EPA.
Assumes an
approximately 43%
reduction in CSOs,
and therefore
assumes an equal %
reduction in TN, TP,
&TSS. This
scenario is based on:
1) Use of updated
CSO loading figures;
2) implementation of
specific projects
authorized under
DC-WASA's existing
CIP budget
(implemented in 8
years); and 3)
approval of the DC-
WASA CSO LTCP
by EPA.
CBP Assumed Zero Overflows. Notel: This
scenario was not supported by COG staff or DC-
WASA even for the E3 scenario because: 1) Zero
CSO overflows requires complete separation of
sewer and stormwater flows that could only be
accomplished by tearing up the majority of the
District of Columbia over a 30-40 vear period -
regardless of political will and unlimited funding,
and therefore exceeds even the 'extreme'
definition of E3; and 2) The impact of the diverted
stormwater would result in increased stormwater
loads and which water quality modeling has
shown to actually result in making water quality
worse in the receiving waterbody. Note 2: The
current draft of the DC-WASA CSO LTCP
outlines a 20-vear implementation period (i.e.,
year 2022) due to the physical time required to
construct the significant tunnel infrastructure that
is proposed and the complexity of such projects.
Even the 93% reductions planned under the
LTCP would exceed the Tier 4 (E3) definition.
Calculated
Load
Total Nitrogen: 70,298
Ib/yr
Total Nitrogen:
70,298 Ib/yr
Total Nitrogen:
70,298 Ib/yr
Total Nitrogen: 0 Ib/yr from CSOs (Stormwater
loads increase by an unqualified amount.)
Total Phosphorus:
15,330 Ib/yr
Total Phosphorus:
15,330 Ib/yr
Total Phosphorus:
15,330 Ib/yr
Total Phosphorus: 0 Ib/yr from CSOs
(Stormwater loads increase by an unquantified
amount.)
Total Suspended
Sediment: 2.41
million Ib/yr
Total Suspended
Sediment:
2.41 million Ib/yr
Total Suspended
Sediment:
2.41 million Ib/yr
Total Suspended Sediment: 0 million Ib/yr from
CSOs (Stormwater loads increase by an
unquantified amount.)
D-ii
-------
Appendix E
Capital Cost Data for Tier 1 for Nitrogen Removal
E-i
-------
Appendix E: Nitrogen Removal Capital Cost Data for Tier 1 Me
STATE
FACILITY
DESIGN
FLOW
CC@8($)
Year of Cost
Estimate
Source of
Estimate *
CC@8 (2000$)
MD
ABERDEEN
4
2,388,974
1998
CC
$2,493,241
MD
ANNAPOLIS
10
13,550,000
1999
CC
$13,875,420
MD
BALLENGER CREEK
6
2,000,000
1995
CC
$2,275,153
MD
BOWIE
3.3
225,532
1991
CC
$290,134
MD
BROADNECK
6
2,163,794
1994
CC
$2,461,481
MD
BROADWATER
2
5,911,212
1998
CC
$6,169,207
MD
CAMBRIDGE
8.1
9,934,376
2002
CC
$9,817,860
MD
CELANESE
1.25
5,791,500
2002
DE
$5,723,574
MD
CHESAPEAKE BEACH
1.18
1,360,000
1992
CC
$1,698,320
MD
COX CREEK
15
$9,476,780
2002
CC
$9,365,631
MD
CRISFIELD
1
4,052,200
2002
DE
$4,004,673
MD
CUMBERLAND
15
10,367,450
2001
CC
$10,265,922
MD
DAMASCUS
1.5
1,661,200
1998
CC
$1,733,703
MD
DELMAR
0.65
1,030,000
2002
DE
$1,017,920
MD
DENTON
0.8
3,611,714
1999
CC
$3,698,454
MD
DORSEY RUN
2
2,500,000
1992
CC
$3,121,912
MD
EASTON
2.35
5,800,000
1993
CC
$6,851,202
MD
ELKTON
2.7
6,360,000
2002
DE
$6,285,406
MD
EMMITSBURG
0.75
7,900,000
1996
CC
$8,728,723
MD
FREDERICK CITY
8
8,816,824
2002
CC
$8,713,415
MD
FREEDOM DISTRICT
3.5
1,000,000
1994
CC
$1,137,576
MD
HAVRE DE GRACE
1.89
6,278,550
2002
CC
$6,204,912
MD
INDIAN HEAD
0.5
656,000
2002
DE
$648,306
MD
JOPPATOWNE
0.95
1,739,998
1996
CC
$1,922,527
MD
KENT ISLAND
2.135
$20,742,570
2002
DE
$20,499,289
MD
LA PLATA
1
4,120,970
2002
CC
$4,072,637
MD
LEONARDTOWN
0.68
1,840,000
2002
CC
$1,818,419
MD
MARYLAND CITY
2.5
823,000
1990
CC
$1,077,941
MD
MARYLAND CORR. INST.
1.23
1,870,000
1995
CC
$2,127,268
MD
MATTAWOMAN
15
7,935,800
2002
DE
$7,842,724
MD
MOUNT AIRY
1.2
4,010,000
1999
CC
$4,106,305
MD
NICODEMUS
1.6
200,000
2002
CC
$197,654
MD
NORTHEAST RIVER
2
1,800,000
2002
DE
$1,778,889
MD
PARKWAY
7.5
15,500,000
1992
CC
$19,355,857
MD
PATUXENT
7.5
1,260,200
1990
CC
$1,650,573
MD
PISCATAWAY
30
19,485,416
2000
CC
$19,485,416
MD
SOD RUN
20
17,300,000
1999
CC
$17,715,480
MD
TANEYTOWN
1.1
3,166,000
2000
CC
$3,166,000
MD
THURMONT
1
2,216,504
1996
CC
$2,449,019
MD
WESTERN BRANCH
30
32,596,340
1991
CC
$41,933,278
MD
WESTMINSTER
5
4,231,847
2001
CC
$4,190,405
PA
ELIZABETHTOWN BOROUGH
3
8,400,000
2002
CC
$8,301,480
PA
HARRISBURG SEW. AUTH.
37.7
25,448,000
1999
DE
$26,059,164
PA
LANCASTER AREA SEW. AUTH.
15
4,249,333
2002
FP
$4,199,494
PA
LANCASTER CITY
29.73
2,500,000
2002
FP
$2,470,679
PA
WYOMING VALLEY
50
763,000
2002
FP
$754,051
E-ii
-------
Appendix E (continued): Nitrogen Removal Capital Cost Data for Tier 1 Methodology
STATE
FACILITY
DESIGN
FLOW
CC@8($)
Year of Cost
Estimate
Source of
Estimate *
CC@8 (2000$)
VA
ALEXANDRIA
54
40,295,000
1999, 2000
CC"
$40,470,807
VA
AQUIA
6.5
704,000
1990
CC
$922,078
VA
ARLINGTON
40
21,633,946
1999, 2000
CC"
$21,710,798
VA
CULPEPER
4.5
3,147,100
2000
PER/FP
$3,147,100
VA
DALE CITY #1
4
6,929,000
2000
CC
$6,929,000
VA
DALE CITY #8
4
7,122,000
2000
CC
$7,122,000
VA
FMC
5.4
3,800,000
2000
DE
$3,800,000
VA
FWSA OPEQUON
8.4
5,388,236
1998
CC
$5,623,405
VA
H.L. MOONEY
18
18,188,676
1999, 2000
CC/DE"
$18,394,217
VA
HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM
REG.SA
16
5,743,094
1995, 1999
CC"
$6,057,948
VA
HENRICO COUNTY
75
17,970,000
1994, 1999
CC"
$19,108,369
VA
LEESBURG
4.85
12,955,468
1998
CC
$13,520,909
VA
LITTLE FALLS RUN
4
3,979,981
1990, 2001
CC"
$5,098,611
VA
MASSAPONAX
8
8,766,902
2000
CC
$8,766,902
VA
MIDDLE RIVER
6.8
2,598,866
1999
CC
$2,661,281
VA
NOMAN M. COLE POLUTN.
CONTR. PLNT.
67
20,799,000
1995, 1997
CC"
$22,159,902
VA
PROCTORS CREEK
21.5
1,931,120
1991
CC
$2,484,273
VA
PURCELLVILLE
1
3,030,059
2000
CC
$3,030,059
VA
REMINGTON REGIONAL
2
1,640,276
1995, 2001
CC/DE"
$1,805,477
VA
STUARTS DRAFT
1.4
2,730,249
2000
CC
$2,730,249
VA
TOTOPOTOMOY
5
4,219,540
2000
CC
$4,219,540
* Sources include: Construction cost (CC), Engineering Design Estimate (DE), and Facilities
Plan (FP)
Note: Other cost estimates have been eliminated from the data table.
** Project costs were estimated for phases occuring in different years. Each phase cost was
converted to 2000$ and the total cost is shown.
E-iii
-------
Appendix F
Statistical Analyses of Tier 2 Cost Data
F-i
-------
Tier 2 Cost Estimate Model
Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Task Force
The project team developed estimates of Tier 2 costs using a regression model where costs are a function of facility
design flow. Three alternative models were evaluated and the diagnostics used in the final model selection are
provided. The recommended equation is presented below, along with supplementary analysis that compares the
model's predicted results (and uncertainty estimates) with the observed data. A discussion of the model's limitations
also is provided.
The recommended equation to estimate capital costs for Tier 2 for facilities in all Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions is:
Y = - 5986.7330X2 + 704350.8039X +2023829
Sufficient data were available to develop defensible cost equations for Maryland and Virginia, but it was not possible
to develop jurisdiction equations for the other states because an insufficient number of data points were available.
Therefore, the project team elected to use one equation for all Bay states.
Data Used for Analysis and Model Development
The recommended equation was developed from a data set of 66 records. The original file of capital cost data
represented approximately 132 records. In addition to normalizing the full set to present costs in 2000$, the data were
also screened to limit data to estimates which were considered "reliable". Consequently, preliminary evaluations on
the 2000$- adjusted, more reliable subset of 66 records were conducted to examine the effects of potentially major
factors on the relative cost per mgd.
The Chesapeake Bay Program provided the data for this analysis with input and review of the data from
representatives of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The datum from the Maryland
Kent Island facility (2.135 mgd and $20,499,289-adjusted 2000 dollars) was removed because this was based upon an
atypical expansion cost, following task force discussion. The final file consists of 66 facility-specific records. State
representation is: MD (40 records), PA (5 records), and VA (21 records).
A new variable, coded CF. was calculated as the ratio of adjusted cost by flow, resulting in a cost per mgd per
facility. The range of CF over the 66 observations is: $15,081 to $11,638,297 per mgd. The median value is
$1,020,901 per mgd, with lower 5th and upper 95th percentiles of $117,544 and $3,401,086 per mgd, respectively. The
skew in the ratio is indicative of highly divergent costs which may be attributable to: date of cost (even with
adjustment for absolute 2000$), differences in facility size (economies of scale), state differences, as well as other
unknown factors. Preliminary evaluations relied upon the CF measure to compare states, year of costs incursion and
changes over time in order to inform model development.
Alternative Models Evaluated
Three different models were evaluated to establish a predictive equation for adjusted 2000 cost dollars, based upon
facility flow (mgd). The first was a simple linear regression with flow and cost as independent and dependent
variables, respectively. The second added a quadratic term (flow2) which improves predictive behavior at the
extremes of the range of flows. The third used a transformed (square root) independent variable. Log transformations
were not evaluated beyond a preliminary stage given because the diagnostic results showed a lack of fit (i.e., poor
predictive capability). Figures 1 through 3 show the fits versus observed adjusted capital cost dollars from the three
regression models of the "pooled" data from all jurisdictions.
F-ii
-------
Among the three models, the quadratic equation displayed the best fit overall. The following bullets
summarize results from the model fitting. The equations and diagnostic information for the various models are
provided in Table 1.
¦ Most of the information in Table 1 documents model attributes which are used to compare models. While R2 -
values are often cited in support of goodness of fit (the higher the value, the more useful the fit), conventional
regression diagnostics focus an ANOVA which compares the mean square attributable to the regression to the
mean square of the residuals. The ratio of those two values is distributed as an F-statistic, which indicates the
probability of the linear function in rejecting the null hypothesis of no correlation. High F-values correspond to
low probability (for fixed degrees of freedom), meaning that the relationship is "statistically significant."
¦ While there are increases in the cases of outliers and leverage points, behavior of the estimates suggested an
overall improvement with the addition of the quadratic term. (The "leverage" measures test for the effect of
individual points on the slope-intercept estimates. This relates to sufficiency and/or completeness of an equation.)
¦ The final terms in table—SE/FIT and CI/FIT—document the relative percent that the estimated standard error of
the model exhibits over the range of predicted values. A confidence interval on a regression line does not parallel
the best fit. Rather, the confidence interval exhibits wider divergence from the predicted values at the upper and
lower bounds of the range of the independent variable. These terms give the range (percentage) spanned for the
ratio of the standard error to the predicted values on the fit line and the range (percentage) spanned by the width
of a 95% confidence interval (as a portion of the predicted value) over the range of observed flows. In general,
the lower the standard error, the less uncertain the predicted values derived from the regression equation.
¦ Results of this analysis indicated a modest improvement to the linear model with addition of the quadratic term,
and no improvement with the square root term.
TABLE 1. MODEL DIAGNOSTICS FOR POOLED DATA (ALL STATES, 66 DATA POINTS)
Equation Type
Linear
Quadratic
Square Root
Equation
R
R2 ADJ
Fdf
p[F]
Outlier
Leverage
SE/FIT
CI/FIT
Y = 351071.9793X
3648055
0.43
0.42
48.1164
<0.001
CASES 5 & 66
CASES 14 & 19
8.7 => 25.1
45 => 100
Y = -5986.7330X -
704350.8039X +
2023829
0.48
0.47
52.22,63
<0.001
Cases 5, 33, & 66
Cases 14 & 19
10 => 45
31 => 182
Y =3028405.129 SQRT(X)
679550
0.46
0.45
48.11,64
<0.001
CASES 5, 33 & 66
NA
8 => 77
40 =>309
F - iii
-------
5*10A6 10A7 1.5*10A7 2*10A7 2.5*10A7 3*10A7
Fitted : FLOW
FIGURE 1: UNTRANSFORMED LINEAR FIT
F - iv
-------
5*10A6 10A7 1.5*10A7 2*10A7
Fitted : FLOW + (FL0WA2)
FIGURE 2: UNTRANSFORMED QUADRATIC FIT
F-v
-------
Fitted : sqrt(FLOW)
FIGURE 3: SQUARE ROOT EQUATION
Selection of Preferred Model
Overall, the quadratic equation provides a best fit for the available data. None of the models is ideally representative
over the range of values. The recommended model was selected on the basis of a comparison of the predictive
capabilities of the three alternative models in addition to the modest improvement of equation fit described above.
Table 2 provides comparison of predicted values from the three models (with estimates of uncertainty) to observed
values for a subset of flows which span the range observed in available data: 0.5, 1, 5, 15, 30, 50/54 and 75 mgd. The
table lists counts of observations, the range of reported adjusted costs, the best estimate (and standard error as a
percent of the estimate at that flow), and the 95 percent confidence interval for each flow for the three models.
Figure 4 graphically compares the estimates produced by the three equations over the flow range, 0 to 30 mgd, for
which the equation will be used. The quadratic equation provides the most conservative estimates over the broadest
range of values for which the equation will be used. The project team used this feature, in conjunction with the
statistical analysis discussed above, to help determine that this was the best equation to use for this study.
F - vi
-------
TABLE 2: MODEL PREDICTION COMPARISONS
Example
Flow
(MGD)
OBSERVATIONS
Number of RANGE
Data ($Mil)
Points at
the MGD
LINEAR
BEST Est. [%
SE],
95% Confidence
Interval ($ Mil)
QUADRATIC
BEST Est. [%
SE],
95%
Confidence
Interval ($ Mil)
SQUARE ROOT
BEST Est. [%
SE],
95% Confidence
Interval ($ Mil)
0.5
1
0.6
3.8 [25%]
2.4 [46%]
1.5 [77%]
1.9-5.7
2.1-4.5
2.6-4.4
1
4
2.4-4.1
4.0 [23%]
2.7 [38%]
2.3 [44%]
2.1-5.9
0.6-4.8
0.3-4.4
5
2
4.20-4.22
5.4 [16%]
5.4 [15%]
6.1 [13%]
3.7-7.1
3.8-7.0
4.5-7.7
15
4
4.2-10.4
8.9 [9%]
11.2 [11%]
11.0 [ 8%]
7.3 - 10.6
8.8 - 13.7
9.2 - 12.9
30
2
19.5-32.6
14.2 [8%]
17.8 [10%]
15.9 [ 9%]
11.7- 16.7
14.1-21.5
13.1 - 18.7
50*
1
0.8
21.2 [10%]
22.3 [9%]
20.7 [9%]
16.9-25.5
18.1-26.5
16.8-24.6
54*
1
40.3
22.6 [10%]
22.6 [10%]
21.6 [10%]
18.0-27.3
18.1-27.1
17.5-25.7
75
1
18
30.1 [11%]
21.2 [22%]
25.5 [10%]
23.2-36.7
K
20.4-30.7
The lines representing the single observations for 50 and 54 mgd have been italicized to point out the extremes in
values which occur throughout the range of flows. The single value at 50 mgd is the datum from the Wyoming
PA facility and represents the minimum CF ratio in the dataset. The less extreme value at 54 mgd represents the
Alexandria VA facility with a CF of $759,459 per mgd.
F - vii
-------
Flow (MGD)
FIGURE 4: COMPARISON OF EQUATION ESTIMATES OVER THE 0 TO 30 MGD FLOW RANGE
F - viii
-------
Appendix G
Details of Cost Assumptions Used in the Tier 3&4 Methodology
G-i
-------
Summary of Costs for TN=5 Capital and Operating for Plant Sizes 0.1 to 30 MGD
Facility/component
0.1 mad
Plant annual averaqe flow
1.0 mad 10 mad
30 mad Comments/assumptions
Secondary anoxic reactor
Mixing/misc mechanical
11
10
105
50
1,040
200
3,125 1 hr HRT using $ 2.50 per gallon installed w/ baffles
500 Allowance
Nitrification improvements allowance
50
250
1,000
Guesstimate based on flow per gallon - $.50 for 0.1 rrgd, $.25 for 1
rrgd, and $0.10 for 10 and 30 rrgd for improvements to achieve more
3,000 reliable nitrification for LOT. E.g., Q splits, aeration, tankage
Methanol facility
75
250
500
Used in-house estimates and judgement. 55 Gallon drums for 0.1 rrgd,
800 bulk storage for others
Clarifier improvements
40
200
1,050
Assumed clarifiers added for 25% of flow. E.g. for 1 rrgd cost use
clarifier cost for 250k flow. Used EPA l/A curve for circular clarifier @
2,100 600 apd/sa ft includes WAS & RAS - ENR 2475
Total Construction
186
855
3.790
9.525
30 % Program Implementation Cost
56
257
1,137
2,858
Total Capital Cost
$241
$1,112
$4,927
$12,383 Sx 1.000
Annual O&M Costs
$7,046
$29,218
$157,469
$293,938 Actual dollars at design flow
update 4/4/02 tes
G-ii
-------
Capital Costs for TN=5 By Components ($000)
Facility/component
0.1 mqd
Plant annual averaqe flow
1.0 mqd 10 mqd
30 mqd Comments/assumptions
Secondary anoxic reactor
Mixing/misc mechanical
11
10
105
50
1,040
200
3,125 1 hr HRT using $ 2.50 per gallon installed w/ baffles
500 Allowance
Nitrification improvements allowance
50
250
1,000
Guesstimate based on flow per gallon - $.50 for 0.1 mgd, $.25 for 1
mgd, and $0.10 for 10 and 30 mgd for improvements to achieve more
3,000 reliable nitrification for LOT. E.g., Q splits, aeration, tankage
Methanol facility
75
250
500
Used in-house estimates and judgement. 55 Gallon drums for 0.1 mgd,
800 bulk storage for others
Clarifier improvements
40
200
1.050
Assumed clarifiers added for 25% of flow. E.g. for 1 mgd cost use
clarifier cost for 250k flow. Used EPA l/A curve for circular clarifier @
2.100 600 aod/sa ft includes WAS & RAS - ENR 2475
Total Construction
186
855
3.790
9.525
30 % Program Implementation Cost
56
257
1,137
2,858
Total Capital Cost
$241
$1,112
$4,927
$12,383 $x 1,000
$/gallon
$2.41
$1.11
$0.49
$0.41
N removed lbs/ day 3 25
N removed lbs/year 913 9,125
Note: These are incremental costs to go from 8 to 5 mg/L TN
updated 4/4/02 tes
250
91,250
750 8 mg/L TN to 5 mg/L TN
273,750
G-
iii
-------
Cost Component
Methanol
Solids production
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
Annual O&M Costs for TN = 5 mg/L for 0.1 MGD of Flow
Quantity Units Cost/unit Cost /year
1.175 gal/day
0.93 Ibs/MG
3 kW/day
0 hrs/day
$2.00 $858 1/10 of 1 mgd - use $2 /gal for 55 gallon drums
$0.15 $51 1/10 of 1 mgd
$0.05 $1,314 Estimate for mixing and other electrical needs
$30.00 $0 No extra labor
$4,823 $241 Use 2% of the capital cost
Total Annual Cost $7,046 Actual dollars at design flow
Updated 4/4/02
G - iv
-------
Cost Component
Annual O&M Costs for TN
Quantity Units Cost/unit Cost /year
Methanol
11.75 gal/day
1 $4,289
Solids production
9.3 Ibs/MG
0.15 $509
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
5 kW
0 hrs/day
0.05 $2,190
30 $0
$22,230
Total Annual Cost
Updated 4/4/02
$29,218
G-v
5 mg/L for 1 MGD of Flow
8 mg/L to 5 mg/L, 3 mg/L N03 removed*3.1 mg/Me0H/mg/N03*1*8.34 =
77.56 lbs MeOH /day / 6.6 lbs /gal = 11.75 gal/day (5) $1.00/gal
0.12 lbs /lb MeOH: 77.5 lbs MeOH * 0.12 = 9.3 lbs /MG and use cost of $
300/dt or $0.15 /dlb
use 50 HP/MG - EPA Nitrogen Control Manual - pg 216, anoxic volume of
41,667/1,000,000 x 50hp/MG = 2.1 HP*.746kWHP = 1.56 kWsay 2 also
add 3 kWforclarifier mechanism, metering pumps, lights = 5
No extra Labor
$1,112 Use 2% of the capital cost with capital cost
Actual dollars at design flow
-------
Annual O&M Costs for TN = 5 mg/L for 10 MGD of Flow
Quantity Units Cost/unit Cost /year
Cost Component
Methanol
Solids production
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
117.5 gal/day $1.00 $42,888 10x1mgd
93 Ibs/MG $0.15 $5,092 10x1mgd
25 kW $0.05 $10,950 0.4 MG anoxic x 50 HP/MG = 20 HP = 15 KW + 5 for other electrical
0 hrs/day $30.00 $0 No extra labor
$98,540 $4,927 Use 2% of the capital cost with capital cost of denite facility
Total Annual Cost $157,469 Actual dollars at design flow
updated 4/4/02
G - vi
-------
Annual O&M Costs for TN = 5 mg/L for 30 MGD of Flow
Quantity Units Cost/unit Cost /year
Cost Component
Methanol
Solids production
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
352.5 gal/day $1.00 $353 30x1 mgd
279 Ibs/MG $0.15 $15,275 30x1 mgd
70 kW $0.05 $30,660 1.25 MG x 50 = 75 HP*.746= 56 use 70 with other electrical needs
0 hrs/day $30.00 $0 no extra labor
$247,650 $12,383 Use 2% of the capital cost with capital cost of denite facility
Total Annual Cost $293,938 Actual dollars at design flow
updated 4/4/02
G - vii
-------
Summary of Costs for TN=3 Capital and Operating for Plant Sizes 0.1 to 30 MGD
Facility/component
0.1 mad
Plant annual averaqe flow
1.0 mqd 10mqd
30 mqd Comments/assumptions
Pumping station
140
350
1,400
Using approximate average for two sets of EPA cost curves -1A
manual and Construction Cost Curves for Muni WW Conveyance
3,200 Systems - Used 3x ADF for costs e.g., 0.1 = 0.3 peak capacity
Denite filters
100
625
6.000
Used 2 gpm/sq ft with various redundancy (BW and O/S) based on
flow. 50% for 0.1 mgd, 20% for 1 mgd, 15% for 10mgd and 10% for
17,200 30mad. Used flat $1500/sa ft
Total Construction Costs
$240
$975
$7,400
$20,400
30 % Program Implementation Cost
$72
$293
$2,220
$6,120 Includes administration, engineering, CM, bonding,legal
Total capital cost
$312
$1,268
$9,620
$26,520 $ x 1.000
Annual O&M costs
$22,993
$69,925
$311,634
$841,120 Actual $ at design flow
updated 4/4/02
G - viii
-------
Capital Costs for TN=3 By Components ($000)
Plant annual averaqe flow
Facility/component O.lmqd 1.0 mqd 10mqd 30 mqd Comments/assumptions
Pumping station
140
350
1,400
Using approximate average for two sets of EPA cost
curves - IA manual and Construction Cost Curves for
3,200 Muni WW Conveyance Systems - Used 3x ADF for costs
Denite filters
100
625
6.000
Used 2 gpm/sq ft with various redundancy (BW and O/S)
based on flow. 50% forO.lmgd, 20% for 1 mgd, 15% for
17,200 10mad and 10% for30mad. Used flat $1500/sa ft
Total Construction Costs
$240
$975
$7,400
$20,400
30 % Program Implementation Cost
$72
$293
$2,220
$6,120 Includes administration, engineering, CM, bonding,legal
Total capital cost
$312
$1,268
$9,620
$26,520
$/gallon
$3.12
$1.27
$0.96
$0.88
N removed lbs/ day
N removed lbs/ year
2
621
17
6,096
167
60,955
500 5 to 3 mg/L TN
182,500
Note: these are incremental costs to get from 5mg/L to 3 mg/L TN
Annual O&M costs
G - ix
-------
Annual O&M Costs for TN = 3 mg/L for 0.1 MGD of Flow
Quantity Units Cost/unit Cost/year
Cost Component
Methanol
Solids production
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
1.175 gal/day
0.93 lbs/day
13.4 kW
2 hrs/day
$2.00 $858
$0.15 $51
$0.05 $245
$30.00 $15,600
1/10 of 1 mgd
1/10 of 1 mgd
1/10 of 1 mgd
5 days/week
$6,240 $312 Use 2% of the capital cost with capital cost of denite facility
Total Annual Cost
$22,993 Actual dollars at design flow
G-x
-------
Annual O&M Costs for LOT TN=3 mg/L for 1 MGD of Flow
Quantity Units Cost/unit Cost /year
Cost Component
(5 to 3 mg/L TN) - assume operating at 2 therefore use 3 mg/L N03 -
Methanol 11.75 gal/day 1 $4,289 3x3.1*8.43*1 mgd = 77.5/6.6 lbs per gal=11.75 gpd
Yield 0.12 lbs /lb MeOH: 77.5 lbs MeOH * 0.12 = 9.3 lbs /MG and use cost
Solids production 9.3 lbs/day 0.15 $509 of $300/dtor$0.15/dlb
Energy 134 kW 0.05 $8,578
Labor 4 hrs/day 30 $31,200
Maintenance $25,350
Total Annual Cost $69,925
Updated 4/4/02 tes
30 ft TDH for PS & misc elec -1140 * 30 ft* 1 mgd/.7 eff = 48857 kW/yr or
134 kW/Day - use $ 0.05/kW hr
5 days per week
$1,268 Use 2% of the capital cost with capital cost
Actual dollars at design flow
G - xi
-------
Annual O&M Costs for TN = 3 mg/L for 10 MGD of Flow
Quantity Units Cost/unit Cost /year
Cost Component
Methanol
Solids production
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
117.5 gal/day
93 lbs/day
1340 kW
6 hrs/day
$1.00 $42,888
$0.15 $5,092
$0.05 $24,455
$30.00 $46,800
$192,400
10x1 mgd
10x1 mgd
10x1 mgd
5 days/week
$9,620 Use 2% of the capital cost with capital cost of denite facility
Total Annual Cost $311,634 Actual dollars at design flow
updated 4/4/02
G - xii
-------
Annual O&M Costs for TN = 3 mg/L for 30 MGD of Flow
Quantity Units Cost/unit Cost /year
Cost Component
Methanol
Solids production
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
352 gal/day
279 lbs/day
4020 kW
12 hrs/day
$1.00 $128,480
$0.15 $15,275
$0.05 $73,365
$30.00 $93,600
30X1 mgd
30X1 mgd
30X1 mgd
5 days/week
$530,400 $26,520 Use 2% of the capital cost with capital cost of denite facility
Total Annual Cost $841,120 Actual dollars at design flow
updated 4/4/02
G - xiii
-------
Appendix H
References and Data Contacts for Industrial Costs:
This appendix is organized by facility and available in hard copy by contacting Ning Zhou at the Bay
Program Office, 410-295-6892 or zhou.ning@epa.gov
H-i
-------
Appendix I
Communications, Decisions, and References
for Cost and Load Data Compiling
Part 1: Communications and Decisions for Cost Methodology Applications
Part 2: Communications and Decisions for Load Calculations by Tier
Part 3: References for Section X Summary Cost Tables
I - i
-------
Part 1: Communications and Decisions for Cost Methodology Applications
Attachment 1: Messages concerning the workgroup decision to use survey data for facilities >30MGD.
Marya Levelev
kcollini@chesapeakebay.net, jbekele@dchealth.com, jmkennedy@deq.state. va.us,
rwehrhart@deq.state.va.us, Allison Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ning
04/05/02 02:28 PM Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA, DWaltrip@hrsd.dst.va.us,
bsteidel@hrwtf.org, mkyle@lasa-wpcf.org, cpomeroy@mcguirewoods.com,
Ta-Shon Yu , tspano@mwcog.org, jmurtha@state.pa.us,
tayoung@stearnswheler.com, cliff@vt.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: facilities with design flow>30
Allison, for MD we would like to use cost curves for Back River and
Patapsco. Western Branch already can achieve 3 mg/1.
>>> 04/05/02 12:21PM >>>
hey folks - as we have agreed to in previous meetings, we will try to calculate
costs for nrt for the larger facilities (= or greater than 30 MGD) individually based
on site specific information where available, instead of using cost curves. Ning has
assimilated a table below which lists all of the facilities in the watershed that are
greater than 30, and has provided what data we have on them, whether it be the recent
survey data, randall data, grant data, or info from MDE, or directly from the
facility. Note that we could use info for some of them, in
particular:
Tashon - why did you not include a cost for western branch to go to 3
on your original cost spread sheets??
Bob E. or Tanya - can you see if you can get capital costs to go to
3 for the following facilities - we did not receive surveys from them,
or they did not provide this information
arlington
richmond
henrico county
hrsd-vip
hrsd nansemond
hopewell - i believe that bob stiedel said that it is not feasible to
even consider going to 3 for hopewell at this time.
Allison Wiedeman
410-267-5733
wiedeman.allison0epa.gov
410-267-5777 (f)
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
I-ii
-------
Attachment 2: Message concerning applying actual TN@3 cost data to Tier 3 and Tier 4
Allison
Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
05/03/02 11:55 AM
To: gbharvey@alexsan.com, bsteidel@hrwtf.org,
DWaltrip@hrsd.dst.va.us, cpomeroy@mcguirewoods.com,
jmkennedy@deq.state.va.us, tspano@mwcog.org,
jmurtha@state.pa.us, jbekele@dchealth.com,
mlevelev@mde.state.md.us, kcollini@chesapeakebay.net,
rwehrhart@deq.state.va.us, mkyle@lasa-wpcf.org, cliff@vt.edu,
lbacon@ch2m.com, tsadick@ch2m.com, tyu@mde.state.md.us,
Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA, tayoung@stearnswheler.com
costing between 8 and 3
OK folks - based on your comments which i very much appreciated, i
think this is the best way to go, based on two reasons:
1) Applying the KISS principle
2) I want to be able to keep the actual numbers provided by the sources
in tact to the extent we can so that they will appear as provided in our
database. Halfing them or whatever will then not allow the actual
numbers to be reflected in the database and i fear that the database
will loose credibility even though there were some very thoughtful ideas
behind it.
We will use option 1 which is, wherever we got costs for 8 and 3 only
for TN, we apply the costs to go to 3 in Tier 3 (for 5 mg/1 TN). This
will in the long run be close enough. We will put zero cc for Tier 4.
This only applies for TN and not for TP. We will use the calculated
approach for TP.
I liked your idea Glenn and almost used it but i felt that based upon
reason 2 above, i wanted to find a way to put the actual numbers in the
database.
unless anyone violently objects, Ning is proceeding this way. He will
put the final numbers together and have them ready for our next meeting
on the 8th.
Allison Wiedeman
410-267-5733
wiedeman.allison0epa.gov
410-267-5777 (f)
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Ave
Annapolis, MD 21403
I-iii
-------
Attachment 3: Message from MDE concerning the TN Cost Estimates for Tier 3 and 4.
Ta-Shon Yu jo: Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
cc: Allison Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA, George Keller ,
Marya Levelev ,
Subject: Re: Cost Estimates for Tier 3 - N and Tier 4 - N
05/15/02 08:33 AM
Ning:
This will confirm that your understanding on the Maryland's position with
respect to the subject matter is correct.
It is reasonably to assume that future allocations of federal grants
among jurisdictional states and Washington D.C., in the matter of reducing
nutrient loadings to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, would be pro-
rated on the basis of the ultimate discharge limits on Total Nitrogen and
Total Phosphorus. The State of Maryland has exemplified itself with great
effort and success in the past, and has continued to pursue the ultimate goal
of discharge limit 0 TN = 3 mg/1 within the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary
basin.
Thank you.
Ta-Shon Yu
>>> 05/14/02 05:29PM >>>
Dr Yu,
Thank you for the information. So, MDE decided to use the calculated
Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN cost numbers for ALL MD municipal facilities, not only
for Back River and Patapsco, and not to use any existing cost@3 estimates from
your BNR cost report. Please confirm that.
Thanks, Ning
From: Ta-Shon Yu
To: Allison Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US0EPA, Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US0EPA
cc:George Keller,Marya Levelev, 05/14/02 04:52 PM
Subject: Cost Estimates for Tier 3 - N and Tier 4 - N
Allison / Ning:
This is to inform you that the State of Maryland agrees to the application of
the adopted equations or formulas, known as Tom's Method, to estimate costs
for Tier 3 -N and Tier 4 -N.
The decision is made on the grounds of seeking equity and consistency in the
cost comparison with other States.
Marya and I, as Maryland representatives, certainly enjoyed working with you
and representatives from other States. We were benefitted a great deal from
you all through the process of discussions and deliberations of issues of
paramount importance.
Thank you
I-iv
-------
Appendix I. Part 2: Communications and Decisions for Load Calculations by Tier
Attachment 1: Message concerning the TN concentrations for Hopewell
To: "Ehrhart.Bob" ,
Allison Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
cc: Erika Bailey , Bill M'Coy ,
"Kennedy,John" , Mark Haley
Subject: Re: loads for tier 1
Allison: we will support our DEQ colleagues on this issue: 21.0 mg/ L TN performance for Tier 1 and 8.0 mg/L TN
performance for Tier 2. And as Bob stated, we will provide very clear information to break out the cost for further
evaluation. Bob
Robert C. Steidel
Environmental Manager
Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, Virginia
231 Hummel Ross Road, P.O. Box 969
Hopewell, Virginia 23860
804-541-2210
804-541-2441 (fax)
bsteidel0hrwtf.org
Original Message
From: "Ehrhart,Bob"
To:
Cc: ; "Kennedy,John"
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: loads for tier 1
Alison,
I spoke w/ both John & Bob Steidel.
In speaking w/ Bob Steidel, he stated that in 2004 the HRWWTF will include a written
commitment to achieve 8.0 mg/1 TN by 2010 either thru a voluntary or permit based
action; this would seem to further align itself w/ the tier 2 definition. He also
indicated cost to go from 21.0 mg/1 to 8.0 mg/1 could be easily broken out for which
ever tier they are assigned.
Given the fact the current grant and "level of effort" both reflect 21.0 mg/1, we
suggest that tier one be based on 21.0 mg/1 TN and that tier 2 be based on 8.0 mg/1
TN, which reflects the tier 2 definition - "mix of regulatory and voluntary programs"
and "motivated by incentives". Thus, assigning 21.0 mg/1 for tier 1 and the current
level of effort/cost, followed by the escalating cost to "reach and maintain" 8.0 mg/1
for TN of tier 2 seems to be the most appropriate scenario.
However, as long as it is recorded that the Bay office and the owner
(HRWWTF) are comfortable/agreeable w/ 8.0 mg/1 TN for tier 1, we do not
object to 8.0 mg/1 being assigned to tier 1.
Bob Steidel
03/11/02 02:27 PM
Please respond to Bob Steidel
I - v
-------
Bob Ehrhart
DEQ-Chesapeake Bay Program
804-698-4466
rwehrhart0deq.state.va.us
http://www.deq.state.va.us/bay/wqif.html
Original Message
From: Wiedeman.Allison0epamail.epa.gov
[SMTP:Wiedeman.Allison0epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:44 AM
To: Ehrhart,Bob
Cc: bsteidel0hrwtf.org; Kennedy,John
Subject: Re: loads for tier 1
Bob - there can be an argument for both, however, i feel compelled to
go with what the facility operators say,. Can you live with 8 mg/1 for
tier 1??
Allison Wiedeman
410-267-5733
wiedeman.allison0epa.gov
410-267-5777 (f)
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Ave
Annapolis, MD 21403
"Ehrhart,Bob"
To: Allison Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US0EPA,
Bob Steidel ,"Kennedy,John"
03/11/02 08:46 AM cc:
Subject: loads for tier 1
Allison/Bob,
Would it not be better and/or more reflective of the current situation
to show Hopewell as 21.0 mg/1 TN for tier 1 & 8.0 mg/1 for tier 2? The
21.0 mg/1 is consistent w/ the existing grant agreement and commitment
level; the 8.0 mg/1 for tier 2 is consistent and shown for other
localities (such as Petersburg, Falling Creek, etc.).
Thus, I suggest tier 1 be 21.0 mg/1 and tier 2 be 8.0 mg/1 for Hopewell.
Bob Ehrhart
DEQ-Chesapeake Bay Program
804-698-4466
rwehrhart0deq.state.va.us
http://www.deq.state.va.us/bay/wqif.html
I-vi
-------
Attachment 2: Message for 2010 Flow of Hopewell:
Allison Wiedeman To:"Ehrhart,Bob"
09/25/02 12-57 PM CC: Bob Steidel , "Kennedy,John"
_ , "HaleyMark (E-mail)"
SubjectRe: Hopewell Flows , , '.7 „ K1. '
, Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
Bob, Mark Haley and I discussed the flow issue. We determined that it is most appropriate to
use a 2010 flow projection of 35.12 MGD. This flow comes from the average flow used in their
1995 - 2000 permit. Even though the current 2000 - 2005 permit uses an average flow of about
29 MGD, Mark believed it is more realistic to use a flow from the previous permit to estimate
2010 flows. WE need to note in the cost report, however, that this flow could go beyond 35.12
due to regional cooperation and economic development in the area. Remember that this flow will
only be used for load estimation purposes, and the 50 MGD will be used for costing purposes.
Allison Wedeman
410-267-5733
wiedeman.allison@epa.gov
410-267-5777 (f)
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Ave
Annapolis, MD 21403
"Ehrhart.Bob"
08/26/02 08:10 AM
Subject: Hopewell Flows
To:Bob Steidel , Allison
Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ning
Zhou/CBP/U SEP A/U S@EP A
cc: "HaleyMark (E-mail)" ,
"Kennedy,John"
Well, I hope this email will bring clarity and resolution to the
aspects of flow w/ respect to the NRT cost analysis. As I see it,
there are two distinct issues summarized as follows.
1) Design flow - This POTW has a design flow of 50 MGD; the
current upgrade for NRT to 21.0 mg/1 for TN is based on the design
flow. Any future installation of NRT to meet an annual average of
8.0 mg/1 would probably also be based on the current design flow
(use of the design flow is consistent with other WQIF projects,
such as ASA, Mooney, Noman-Cole, Henrico).
2) 2010 flow- For the purpose of determining loads, this
flow is independent of the design flow and is based on flows
projected to be discharging (and/or equivalent to the current
industrial flow) in the year 2010 . In all municipal facilities
(such as the facilities listed in item #1, UOSA, etc.), the 2010
flow used for estimating the load is considerably less than the
design flow (for facilities listed in item #1, the 2010 flow ranged
from 63 to 87% of the design flow w/ the larger increases generally
in NoVA).
I - vii
-------
In summary, I am not opposed to developing costs based upon the
facility design flow of 50 MGD; however, the flow projected to be
discharging in 2010 should be revised (i.e. 30 MGD) .
Bob Ehrhart
DEQ-Chesapeake Bay Program
804-698-4466
rwehrhart0deq.state.va.us
http://www.deq.state.va.us/bay/wqif.html
I - viii
-------
Attachment 3: 2010 Flows: Broad Run Water Reclamation Facility
To:Allison Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
cc: jmkennedy@deq.state.va.us, tom.broderick@lcsa.org,
tim.coughlin@lcsa.org
Subject:2010 Flows: Broad Run Water Reclamation Facility
Allison:
As we just discussed, the name of the facility to be added to "Table 2: New Facilities by 2010" of the report
entitled "Data Compiling Description for Revised 2005 and 2010 Scenarios" (February 1, 2001) is the Broad
Run Water Reclamation Facility in Loudoun County, Va. 2010 flow is currently projected at 2.4 mgd.
Christopher D. Pomeroy
McGuireWoods LLP
One James Center
901 East Cary Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804.775.1028 (Direct Line)
804.698.2246 (Direct FAX)
cpomeroy@mcguirewoods.com
cpomeroy@mcg u i rewoods.com
03/07/02 01:41 PM
I-ix
-------
Attachment 4: 2010 flow projections for Ashland, Doswell
cpomeroy@mcguirewoods.com
r-r\ i—ira To:Allison Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
03/11/02 01:59 PM ^
cc:Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA,
DWaltrip@hrsd.dst.va.us
Subject:RE: 2010 Flows: Broad Run Water Reclamation
Facility
Allison:
For the Hanover County, VA plants:
1. Totopotomoy shows no flow for 2005. The flow should be 2.5 mgd.
2. Ashland should be 1.4 mgd in 2005 and 1.55 in 2010.
3. Doswell is a special case. It is a combined discharged point for the Doswell WWTP effluent and the Bear Island paper
mill effluent. The paper mill has a right to 5.75 mgd. You may need to take this into account with planning industry
controls. The flows should be 6.75 mgd for both 2005 and 2010, unless for some reason Bear Island won't be using that
capacity.
Chris
I - x
-------
Attachment 5: Message for 2010
Steve Bennett
03/12/02 05:36 PM
flow of H. L. Mooney
To: Allison Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
cc:
Subject: FW: Flow Projection
Allison and Ning,
Dave Waltrip and I have not connected. I need you help. Did you get
flow projections for the H. L. Mooney WWTP in Prince William County?
WashCOG should have forwarded them as well as Waltrip. If you don't
have them, they are: Year Flow
2005 12.130 MGD
2010 14.630 MGD
Please let me know if you did not get them, ok? Thanks.
STEVE BENNETT
I-xi
-------
Attachment 6: Message for Henrico 2010 Flow
rwehrhart@deq. state.
va.us (Robert W.
Ehrhart)
To: Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allison
Wiedeman/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
cc:jmkennedy@deq.state.va.us (John M. Kennedy)
Subject: Henrico Flows (Final)
02/06/02 04:18 PM
Please respond to
rwehrhart
Ning
To summarize our conversation, the facility master plan completed in 1997
projected the WWTF to be operating at about 65 MGD in 2010 (per Keith
Cramer). However, the economy - including housing starts and the
semiconductor industry driving the rapid growth in Eastern Henrico - have
slowed drastically. Pump station flows which would have driven the high
daily flows are also not materializing and they could be delayed until
I also spoke with one of the design engineers working for the County & he
does not believe the flow level of 65 MGD will occur by 2010.
So in summary for the 2010 run, we suggest that a flow of 50 MGD be used
as a compromise between the population projection method and the 1997
Facility Plan. With that revision in mind, I also suggest flow
allocations of 89% for Henrico Co., 10% for Hanover Co., and 1% for
Goochland Co. in 2010.
Flow allocations of 86% for Henrico, 13% for Hanover, and 1% for Goochland
were previously suggested for the 2000 run.
Bob Ehrhart
DEQ-Chesapeake Bay Program
804-698-4466
804-698-4116 (fax)
rwehrhart0deq.state.va.us
http://www.deq.state.va.us/bay
2012-15.
I - xii
-------
Attachment 7: Message for 2010 flow of majors plants around DC area
Tanya Spano
To:Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
03/13/02 12 01 PM cc:Timothy Murphy , Mukhtar Ibrahim
Subject:Updated Flow Projections for COG Region's Major WWTPs
Ning,
Attached is an Excell table with updated flow projections for our major plants.
Thanks for working with us on this. Call if you have any questions.
Tanya
«CBPvsCOGflow projections.final.031302.xls»
CBP
COG
CBP
Jursidiction
CBP
Jurisdiction
FACILITY
NPDES
2000 Flow
2000 Flow
2005 Flow
2005 Flow
2010 Flow
2010 Flow
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
BOWIE
MD0021628
1.903
1.903
2.002
2.086
PARKWAY
MD0021725
5.962
5.966
6.271
6.200
6.536
6.200
WESTERN BRANCH
MD0021741
18.293
18.301
19.241
21.000
20.054
23.000
ALEXANDRIA
VA0025160
36.824
36.842
37.384
37.384
37.943
37.943
AQUIA
VA0060968
3.326
3.327
3.542
3.758
ARLINGTON
VA0025143
27.464
27.467
27.699
33.570
27.934
35.290
BALLENGER CREEK
MD0021822
3.437
3.440
3.785
4.120
BELTSVILLE USDA EAST
MD0020842
0.215
0.215
0.226
0.236
BELTSVILLE USDA WEST
MD0020851
0.113
0.113
0.119
0.124
BLUE PLAINS
DC0021199
317.899
317.948
333.619
330.920
348.486
341.710
DALE CITY #1
VA0024724
2.561
2.546
2.811
3.061
DALE CITY #8
VA0024678
2.382
2.383
2.615
2.847
DAMASCUS
MD0020982
0.881
0.892
0.927
0.840
0.974
0.860
FORT DETRICK
MD0020877
0.924
0.969
1.018
1.108
H.L. MOONEY
VA0025101
9.632
9.633
10.572
12.130
11.513
14.630
LEESBURG
MD0066184
2.677
2.678
2.817
2.958
MATTAWOMAN
MD0021865
7.058
7.052
7.612
8.172
NOMAN M. COLE JR.
VA0025364
42.889
42.893
44.859
46.670
46.828
53.000
PISCATAWAY
MD0021539
21.052
21.062
22.144
24.200
23.080
25.300
POOLESVILLE
MD0023001
0.601
0.593
0.632
0.664
PURCELLVILLE
VA0022802
0.352
0.353
0.388
0.424
QUANTI CO-MAI NSIDE
VA0028363
1.159
1.159
1.272
1.385
SENECA CREEK
MD0021491
6.494
6.492
6.835
17.100
7.177
18.800
UPPER OCCOQUAN
VA0024988
24.391
24.398
25.511
29.500
26.631
34.000
TOTAL
512.330
512.455
536.388
532.314
559.423
561.533
NOTE: Yellow colored raws indicate projected flow was not verified
Use jurisdictions flow for all WWTPs except for Alexandria. ASA agreed to use of CBP projected flows.
Some wastewater flows in the Blue Plains service area are now off-loaded to the Seneca Creek wwtp. The quantity of diverted flow
will increase significantly in the future as the Seneca wwtp expands. Both Blue Plains wwtp and Seneca Creek wwtp projected flows
have been adjusted to reflect those changes.
I - xiii
-------
Attachment 8: 2010 Flow Projection from HRSD revised by VADEQ
Chesapeake Bay Program
Flow Projections for HRSD Facilities
The attached table provides flow projections currently being used for treatment plants in Virginia.
These projections are based upon the local planning associated with each of these facilities and provide
more accurately projected 2010 flows than the existing EPA data as they take into account know industrial
and residential development as well as planned service area expansion. I am most familiar with the HRSD
projections and offer the following information to explain these projections.
HRSD has provided flow projection data from our 1990 development plan. All of these projections
are expected to change within the next two months with the completion of our 2002 development plan.
Furthermore it should be noted that our multiple treatment facilities are tied together allowing flow to be
diverted between treatment plants. As a result no single plant flow projection will ever be accurate although
the total flow for HRSD should be a reasonably accurate estimate as discussed below.
HRSD currently serves seventeen localities in southeastern Virginia with thirteen regional
wastewater treatment plants. Being a regional utility, none of our facilities are necessarily intended to treat
the wastewater flows from any one locality. They are all regional facilities and handle flows from several
localities. In fact, one of the strengths of our system is that we can actually divert flows from one facility to
another. This can even mean diverting wastewater flows from one river basin to another.
On the previous page, we laid out the projected 2005 - 2010 flows from our 1990 Development
Plan. Some of these flows are higher than those projected in the Chesapeake Bay Program figures and some
are actually lower. This is due mainly to the fact discussed above, where flows can be diverted between
facilities to best utilize the assets that we have available, thus delaying the need for treatment plant
expansions. We are currently in the process of updating our development plan and anticipate having new
flow projections within the next couple of months. When those projections are done, we will forward a
copy of the most up to date projections for all of our facilities. Also note that the four treatment plants on
the Middle Peninsula are currently planned to be piped into our York River Plant in the future.
Because of these diversion capabilities within HRSD's system, we would like to suggest that a
"bubble" be created grouping the plants together that are within the different major watersheds going into
the bay. We would suggest that all of our plants fall within either the James River or York River basins.
The York River Basin would include our King Williams Plant, Matthews Plant, Urbana Plant, West Point
Plant and York River Plant. The James River Basin would include our Army Base Plant, Boat Harbor Plant,
Chesapeake-Elizabeth Plant, James River Plant, Nansemond Plant Williamsburg Plant and VIP Plant.
Using our 1990 Development Plan flows and recent estimates for Middle Peninsula Plants, we would
suggest that the total flows for the York River system would be 13.185 MGD, and total flows for the James
River system would be 158.75 MGD. In our 1990 Development Plan, we had envisioned diverting flows
I - xiv
-------
away from our York River Plant to the James River Plant to avoid expanding the York River Treatment
Plant until a later date. We are reevaluating that as part of our current development plan work and may
request that those flows be reallocated back towards the York River Wastewater Treatment Plant.
We appreciate the effort that it takes to make all the flow projections necessary for the Chesapeake
Bay Program efforts. Again, because of the strengths and the flexibility of being able to divert flows
between wastewater treatment plants, it is recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Program adopt a "bubble"
methodology that would allow HRSD to group our plants into these two river basins as discussed above.
We recognize that the Chesapeake bay program is operating with a deadline that does not allow waiting
until data updates can be completed. We would however request that EPA note that the numbers provided
are based upon a 12 year old analysis and that new more accurate numbers will be available by the end of
May. Both the newer numbers and the bubble approach should be used any HRSD load allocation that
ultimately is developed as a result of this process.
I - XV
-------
CBP_BASIN
FACILITY
NPDES
98Flow
99Flow
OOFlow
05Flow
lOFlow
JAMES
HRSD-ARMY BASE
VA0081230
12.519
13.000
12.749
17.250
17.450
RIVER
JAMES
HRSD-BOAT HARBOR
VA0081256
14.825
14.885
14.318
22.500
23.050
RIVER
JAMES
HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/ELIZABETH
VA0081264
20.112
20.265
19.056
25.530
26.300
RIVER
JAMES
HRSD-JAMES RIVER
VA0081272
15.475
14.436
14.467
21.280
20.00
RIVER
JAMES
HRSD-NANSEMOND
VA0081299
17.098
19.400
18.948
18.980
20.150
RIVER
JAMES
HRSD-PINNERS POINT
VA0025003
RIVER
(PORTSMOUTH)
JAMES
HRSD-VIP
VA0081281
33.716
33.182
31.535
35.700
35.900
RIVER
JAMES
HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG
VA0081302
12.261
13.077
15.344
12.700
15.900
RIVER
JAMES
HENRICO COUNTY
VA0063690
38.659
34.045
37.096
57.000
65.000
RIVER
JAMES
LYNCHBURG
VA0024970
13.609
13.012
13.216
17.400
17.400
RIVER
JAMES
PETERSBURG
VA0025437
12.563
12.111
12.035
11.950
12.930
RIVER
RAPPAHANN
LITTLE FALLS RUN
VA0076392
2.475
2.271
2.618
3.300
4.160
OCK RIVER
RAPPAHANN
URBANNA
VA0026263
0.044
0.047
0.056
0.081
0.113
OCK RIVER
YORK RIVER
HRSD-YORK
VA0081311
10.663
10.868
11.329
11.980
12.700
YORK RIVER
MATHEWS COURTHOUSE
VA0028819
0.051
0.044
0.047
0.060
0.080
YORK RIVER
WEST POINT
VA0075434
0.605
0.543
0.623
0.644
0.600
YORK RIVER
KING WILLIAM
VA0088102
0.042
0.050
POTOMAC
AQUIA
VA0060968
3.731
3.202
3.326
4.210
5.290
RIVER
POTOMAC
FISHERSVILLE
VA0025291
1.294
0.717
0.798
1.520
1.710
RIVER
POTOMAC
HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM
VA0060640
10.671
8.973
8.571
10.630
11.650
RIVER
(NORTH RIVER REGIONAL)
POTOMAC
MIDDLE RIVER
VA0064793
5.393
3.599
3.597
5.100
5.650
RIVER
POTOMAC
NOMAN M. COLE JR. POLLUTION
VA0025364
45.257
41.616
42.889
47.000
53.000
RIVER
CONTROL PLANT
POTOMAC
STUARTS DRAFT
VA0066877
1.187
0.767
0.836
1.150
1.500
RIVER
POTOMAC
UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAGE
VA0024988
24.114
23.684
24.391
29.500
34.000
RIVER
AUTHORITY
POTOMAC
WEYERS CAVE STP
VA0022349
0.116
0.360
0.400
RIVER
I - xvi
-------
Attachment 9: Message concerning 2010 flow for Moores Creek.
"Waltrip, David"
To:Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
CC'
03/11/02 04:55 PM 'u.
Subject:FW: Moores Ck WWTP flows
I just returned to my office and received the following e-mail. These are
minor changes but I though I would give you the chance to incorporate these
values if you have not yet started the run. If you already have started the
run well change is so small it likely will not change anything.
G. David Waltrip
Original Message
From: Potter, Eugene
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:35 AM
To: Waltrip, David
Subject: Moores Ck WWTP flows
Dave. I have reviewed subject flows and w/o knowing how DEQ made their
projections, would offer the following projections for Moores Ck based on
20 years of data and least squares averaging:
2005 11.433 MGD
2010 11.888 MGD
Not too different from the DEQ numbers, but probably better numbers.
I - xvii
-------
Attachment 10: Message concerning 2010 flow for Patapsco
Marya Levelev
03/13/02 04:32 PM
To: Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US@EPA
cc: George Keller , Jeff Rein
Subject: Re: McKenny BNR By 2010?
Ning, Sorry. We should use 73 mgd for Patapsco.
>>> 03/13/02 03:04PM >>>
Marya,
Thank you! We will use the design flow of 63 for patapsco for 2010.
Ning
Marya Levelev
To: Ning Zhou/CBP/USEPA/US0EPA
cc: Jeff Rein
Subject: Re: McKenny BNR By 2010?
03/13/02 02:44 PM
There are currently no plans for Mckenny. We should not consider it. For Patapsco we
could use as high as 70 mgd or at least 63 -design capacity. Even though Baltimore
City may not show growth, Patapco serves more than one jurisdiction: Howard County,
Baltimore County. Arundel County. Flow may increase as a result of growth there. Let
me know if you need additional information. Thanks
>>> 03/12/02 05:27PM >>>
Marya,
We do not have BNR status for McKenny. Should we put it as BNR by 2010 for it?
Thanks,
Ning
I - xviii
-------
Attachment 11: Blue Plain Flow Allocation Rate from MWCOG
Chesapeake Bay Program Bay-wide Use Attainability Analysis
Cost Allocation Methodology for the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant
COG staff document (Approved by BPTC, 4/14/02)
Capital Costs
Allocate the estimated capital costs for each Tier based on the IMA's 370 MGD wastewater flow allocations
because that is how capital costs are allocated to the jurisdictions. However, for the non-signatory jurisdictions
(i.e., Potomac Interceptor Users), their share of the capital costs would be attributed to the District rather than the
individual states as DC-WASA pays those capital costs and works out payment with those non-signatory parties
according to individual service agreements.
O&M Costs
Allocate the estimated O&M costs for each Tier based on the projected flows from each of the jurisdictions using
the latest BPSA flow projections. For the non-signatory jurisdictions (i.e., Potomac Interceptor Users), use the
BPSA 2010 flow projections and attribute their O&M costs to the respective state - using the same protocol used
to allocate Blue Plains' nutrient loads for the CBP and states. These wastewater flows are based on the
projections from COG's Cooperative Forecast Round 6.2 (6/25/01 run), updated to reflect known flow
management impacts through 2025 (4/9/02 update).
ALLOCATIONS
CAPITAL COSTS
(IMA-based Flows)
O&M COSTS
(2010 BPS A Adj. Flows)
JURISDICTION
Flows
(MGD)
% Costs
Flows
(MGD)
% Costs
Maryland
wssc
169.60
0.4584
129.43
Naval Ship R&D & NPS*
0.040
MD subtotal
169.60
0.4584
129.47
0.3819
Virginia
Fairfax Co.
(& Arlington Co.)
31.00
0.0838
31.00
LCSA*
13.80
Vienna*
1.15
Dulles Airport*
1.05
VA subtotal
31.00
0.0838
47.00
0.1386
District
District & PI
Users (*) subtotal
169.4
0.4578
District subtotal
162.54
0.4795
TOTAL
370.00
100.00
339.01
100.00
I - xix
-------
Appendix I: Part 3: References for Section IX Summary Cost Tables
The following references for the cost tables are available in hard copy by contacting Ning Zhou at the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 410-295-6892 or zhou.ning@epa.gov
1 = Calculated from the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M
Hill.
2 = NRT eligible cost report from MDE,4/23/02, where cost=0, MDE has indicated funds already appropriated
2a = NRT Cost report, from MDE 3/6/2002
3 = Randall 51 Facility Report, 1999 for BNR @8 and additional 3/2001 report with 60 facilities.
4 = Paid for by Corp of Engineers
5 = From VA 2000 Annual Report and VA 2002 annual Report - Assumes that the cost share information equals
1/2 of total BNR cost to get 8, and that funds are already made available for these facilities to go to 8, except
for FMC and Henrico where no funds have been spent as of 2002.
6 = Email from Bob Ehrhart to Allison Wiedeman, 3/7/02
7 = BNR funded under federal funds.
8 = No cost is applied, because TN or TP =current level for Tier 1 for this facility
8a = The 2010 TP concentration of 1.5 mg/l shown for these facilities reflects the specific effluent concentration
targeted by Virginia either under WQIF Grant program and/or the Tributary Strategy Plan for the Lower River
Tributaries.
9 = Cost survey from Seaford WWTP, 3/22/02
10 = From 4/2/01 letters from Eastern Snyder County Regional Authority to Senator Specter. Also, costs not
calculated to 8 because they are currently designing only to 3 (4/26/01 Telephone conversation between
CBPO and Gannett Hemming)
11 = Message from WVDEP, cost=0 due to irrigation.
12 = Email message from Paul Janiga, DE DNREC, 3/28/02.
13 = Cost survey from Mike Kyle, LASA, 3/6/02
14 = C CSO & Blue Plains Cost Estimates- UAA cost analysis, from Tanya spano, WMCOG, 4/10/02
15 = Telephone conversation with Sunberry WWTP, 6/21/01
16 = Cost Summary: City of Hopewell, from Bob Steidel, Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility.
8/7/2002.
17 = Message from Tanya Spano concerning Broad Run, 3/13/02
18 = Message from Marya Levelev, 4/5/02, Western Branch already can achieve 3 mg/l.
I - XX
-------
19 = Message from Marya Levelev, 8/12/02, to add $10 million TN cc in Tier 2 for Back River
20 = Message from Bob Steidel, 9/17/02, to remove the Tier 1 cost for Hopewell.
21 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/4/02, to remove Tier 1 costs for FMC and Hopewell.
22 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/19/02, to add SIL which replaced Broadway Lagoons, Timberville, Rocco
Quality Foods and Wampler Foods-Timberville.
23 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 11/14/02, No Tier 2 TP cost due to chemical feed facilities have been funded.
A= The capital costs at TN =3 from sources other than calculation are applied to Tier 3 for TN. And, in these
cases, the Tier 4 TN capital costs are set to zero. Message from Allison Wiedeman, 5/3/02.
B = The value is set to zero, because this plant's TN or TP level have been lower than the defined level in this
Tier for more than five years.
C14 = Message from W. Hunley, HRSD, 10/3/02
C15 = Cost shown represent an order of magnitude planning level estimate as transmitted by HRSD on October 3,
2002. A less costly alternative, which provides for only seasonal nitrification and/or an annual average TN
concentration greater than 8.0 mg/l, does potentially exist as discussed in the September 1989 Technical
Memoranda C.22 and C. 25 prepared by CH2M Hill. Message from Bob Ehrhart, 11/4/02
C6 = Letter from City of Lynchburg to Allison Wiedeman, 7/14/2001
C9 = Bos, Robert E, PE, Public Utility Administrator with County of Stafford, letter to Allison Wiedeman, EPA, re:
Nitrogen Removal Costs, 7/31/01
M = For facilities with existing capital costs and no O&M costs available, the O&M costs are calculated from
exiting capital costs adjusted by the cost ratio between calculated O&M and capital cost from the
methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill.
N = NRT facilities that currently have or will install NRT by 2010, It is assumed that no additional cost is needed.
S = From NRT cost survey results.
I - xxi
------- |