Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRF) in the watershed and a provision to study
the feasibility of reaching a limit of 0.5
. Several technologies
exist to meet these effluent limits both chemically and biologically, but one technology is
not the always the best. The characteristics of each WRRF must be used to determine
the best process for that plant because each facility has: different influent fractions
(nitrogen, BOD, and phosphorus), different hydraulic profiles, different land available to
expand the WRRF, different projected growth, and different existing process. These
differences mean that a detailed study is necessary to choose the best process to meet
future phosphorus limits. Also, the cost estimates included for meeting phosphorus
removal standards are a rough guideline that can be used until an individual plant study
has been completed. The primary sources for this report are: Nutrient Removal by
WEF, Nutrient Control Design Manual (EPA/600/R-10/100), Sustainable Technology
For Achieving Very Low Nitrogen and Phosphorus Effluent Levels (WERF/IWA), and
Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and Costs (EPA-823-R-07-002).
8/22/2014
Page |1
Revision 3
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6
1.1
Purpose/Context ................................................................................................ 6
1.2
2.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1
2.1.1
Struvite ...................................................................................................... 11
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
Bardenpho (four-stage).............................................................................. 15
3.3
3.3.1
Phoredox (A/O).......................................................................................... 16
3.3.2
3.3.3
Filtration ..................................................................................................... 17
3.3.4
Phostrip ..................................................................................................... 18
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
8/22/2014
Page |2
Revision 3
3.4.8
Pearl Process.......................................................................................... 22
3.4.9
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
SHARON ................................................................................................... 24
3.5.3
Anammox .................................................................................................. 24
3.5.4
3.6
4.0
Considerations ................................................................................................. 27
5.0
5.1
Qualifiers .......................................................................................................... 29
5.2
6.0
Conclusions...................................................................................................... 37
6.0
References: ...................................................................................................... 38
7.0
7.1
8/22/2014
Page |3
Revision 3
Glossary
Anammox
AOB
BNR
BPR
DEMON
Deammonification
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
EBPR
ENR CCI
FRIP
HAc
IFAS
MBBR
MBR
Membrane Bioreactor
MLSS
NOB
O&M
PHB
Poly-Hydroxyl-Butyrate
RAS
SHARON
SND
SRT
8/22/2014
Page |4
Revision 3
Treatment Levels
Treatment
Level
Effluent
Total
Nitrogen
(TN) (
Effluent
Total
Phosphorus
)
(TP), (
0.5
0.1
VFA
WAS
WRRF
8/22/2014
Page |5
Revision 3
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose/Context
This report on current technologies and cost of biological nutrient removal (BNR)
was created, for the Fox River Implementation Plan (FRIP) Project. The FRIP will be
the roadmap for watershed decision makers that will define the reduction in pollutant
discharges needed and in-stream projects to be executed that, when implemented, will
improve water quality of the Fox River.9 The goals of the FRIP are meant to replace a
traditional TMDL plan by using recommendations from local stakeholders.9 Most of the
Fox Rivers watershed is in the developed area around Milwaukee and Chicago.
Therefore, detailed stream models have been or will be developed to determine the total
nutrient loading reductions from both point and non-point sources. The main goal is to
increase dissolved oxygen in the Fox River by reducing algal impairments. In order to
reduce algae growth, phosphorus and possibly nitrogen loading to the Fox River will
need to be reduced. Currently, WRRFs discharging to the Fox River watershed are
expected to be able to meet a 1
NPDES permit. In the new permit, special conditions are presently asking WRRF to
perform a study to determine the technical and financial feasibility of meeting a
seasonal 0.5
are known.
For the FRIP model, the lowest effluent concentration of phosphorus being
examined is below 0.10
standard are highly variable due to the different makeup of various plants influent.
Nevertheless, treatment processes exist to reach 0.10
plants.3 pg4-5
The purpose of this report is to be a resource to give WRRFs in the Fox River
watershed an understanding of what treatment technologies are available to meet
anticipated limits. Many different processes can allow a plant to reach the nutrient
limits, so the processes described below are best thought of as a toolbox. Each
process can be placed in part, full, or in combination with other processes in a plant
currently performing secondary treatment. Moreover, when designing a plant to meet a
1.0
limit, the plant should ideally be designed with the flexibility to reach lower
nutrient limits without substantial redesign of existing processes. This report includes a
range of technologies spanning from mature processes to cutting edge ideas. The
8/22/2014
Page |6
Revision 3
Chapter 2.0 is a summary of the basic chemical and biological process of nutrient
removal.
Chapter 3.0 gives a summary of various nutrient removal technologies to meet
various nutrient limits.
Chapter 4.0 provides rough cost information for BNR facilities.
Chapter 5 summarizes likely technologies for Fox River WRRFs.
Chapter 6 provides the reports references.
Appendix 1 gives a list of WRRF based upon their limits and rated capacity.
Appendix 2 contains a sample cost calculation.
8/22/2014
Page |7
Revision 3
. Most biodegradable soluble TKN is broken down into ammonia and then
nitrified. Nitrification is an aerobic process that converts ammonia to nitrite and then to
8/22/2014
Page |8
Revision 3
nitrate using carbon dioxide, alkalinity, and oxygen. The process is shown in the
equations below.2 pg4-6
Equation 1 Ammonia Oxidation2 pg4-6
The anammox process is a different path for the removal of nitrogen. Ammonia
nitrite, and alkalinity are used to generate nitrogen gas and nitrate. The following
equation describes the anammox process.2 pg4-34
Equation 4 Anammox2 pg4-34
8/22/2014
Page |9
Revision 3
8/22/2014
P a g e | 10
Revision 3
P a g e | 11
Revision 3
phosphorus molecules then positively charged magnesium is often taken up to keep the
cell neutral. Therefore, WAS from an EBPR plant will have a higher phosphate and
magnesium content increasing the chances of struvite formation. In some cases,
magnesium is added in order to purposely form struvite into pellets, rather than form
scale, which allows for the removal of phosphorus and ammonia.
8/22/2014
P a g e | 12
Revision 3
Effluent
Total
Nitrogen
(TN) (
Effluent
Total
Phosphorus
)
(TP), (
0.5
0.1
Aerobic Tank
Clarifier
Anaerobic Tank
Filters
Figure 3 Tank Symbols
3.2 Nitrogen Removal Systems
3.2.1 Step Feed
8/22/2014
P a g e | 13
Revision 3
A step feed process for nitrogen removal involves the creation of a series of
paired anoxic and aerobic zones - see the figure below.3 pg4-14,15,16 Influent flow is split
to each anoxic zone. Return activated sludge (RAS) is sent to the first anoxic zone.
Each aerobic zone should be sized to convert most of the influent ammonia to nitrate.
Anoxic zones should be sized to convert most of the nitrate to nitrogen gas. This is
easier said than done. A WRRF has variable influent loadings, and tanks can only be
sized ideally for one set of nitrogen loadings. As a result, some step feed systems have
varying nitrogen removal due to changing influent nitrogen concentration and nitrogen
fractions.3 pg2-2 One advantage of step-feed systems is that they can be implemented
without adding large recycle lines. The major process changes involve the influent flow
being partially redirected and mixers added to select tanks. The step feed process can
reach 1N limits.3 pg2-14,ES-2
Figure 4 Process Flow Diagram for Step Feed Nitrogen Removal1 pg69
3.2.2 MLE (modified Ludzack-Ettinger)
The MLE process involves recycling RAS and a portion of an activated sludge
basins effluent back to the first (anoxic) tank.13 pg2-11 The recycled nitrate is converted to
nitrogen gas in the anoxic tank(s), and the influent ammonia is converted to nitrate in
the aerobic tanks. Higher recycle flow results in additional nitrogen removal, but the
process can never remove all nitrate from a plants effluent. It is not possible to recycle
100% of a plants effluent because a plant would not discharge any water and would be
a holding tank that would need to increase in size each day. Also, the recycle flow
dilutes the influent flow slowing down biological process in the activated sludge tanks,
and less nitrogen is removed for each gallon recycled. There is a point of diminishing
returns with increased recycle flows due to the increased pumping costs. Typically,
plants do not recycle more than 80% of the effluent back to the anoxic basin.13 pg2-11
Therefore, the MLE process is able to reach level 1N and 2N depending upon the
amount of nitrogen in a plants influent.1 pg86 The MLE process is shown on Figure 5
below.
8/22/2014
P a g e | 14
Revision 3
8/22/2014
P a g e | 15
Revision 3
The Phoredox or A/O process is the simplest scheme that uses EBPR. RAS
is mixed with plant influent which contains high levels of VFAs allowing the PAO
bacteria to grow.13 pg2-27,28 The A/O process is capable of reaching level 1P in most
WRRF, unless the community has major industrial sources.1 pg86 WRRF with good
settling sludge (SVI<90) can reach level 2P. The main advantage of this method is that
no chemicals are necessary and no additional sludge is generated. The drawbacks of
an A/O process are: the additional tankage required, recycle lines need to be
constructed, increased chance or severity of struvite formation in digested sludge, and
periodic failure of EBPR can occur. Also, the effluent particulate phosphorus increases
as EBPR becomes more effective, because each milligram of the plants MLSS and
effluent solids contains more phosphorus. Therefore, reaching effluent limits without
filters becomes more difficult as EBPR performs better. A process flow diagram is
shown in figure below:
P a g e | 16
Revision 3
P a g e | 17
Revision 3
P a g e | 18
Revision 3
generally meet level 1 treatment for both nitrogen and phosphorus. If the clarifiers
perform above average, level 2 treatment is possible.1 pg87 The figure below shows a
diagram of the A2O process.
8/22/2014
P a g e | 19
Revision 3
8/22/2014
P a g e | 20
Revision 3
8/22/2014
P a g e | 21
Revision 3
8/22/2014
P a g e | 22
Revision 3
8/22/2014
P a g e | 23
Revision 3
.3 pg4-39
SND can occur in a conventional activated sludge plant, or a plant using media to grow
a biofilm (MBBR or IFAS). When the bulk dissolved oxygen concentration drops
sufficiently, dissolved oxygen cannot fully penetrate the sludge floc or biofilm.
Therefore, anoxic or anaerobic conditions exist within the floc depending on how far
nitrate or nitrite can diffuse into the floc. When sufficient ammonia and BOD is present
in the bulk solution, the outer layers of a floc can oxidize ammonia to nitrate or nitrite.
The nitrate or nitrite can diffuse into the inner layers of a floc where denitrification can
occur if the bulk BOD concentration is high enough. Generally, the first aerobic tanks in
a conventional activated sludge plant can generate these conditions if the dissolved
oxygen is lowered sufficiently. However, lowering the dissolved oxygen will decrease
the nitrification rate in the aerobic tanks based upon the oxygen concentration profile in
activated sludge flocs. Since activated sludge tanks are sized to be able to maintain
nitrification in winter, a reduced nitrification rate will result in an increase in the
necessary tankage for a BNR plant. The increased volume is not easy to calculate
because it is nearly impossible to determine the oxygen profile in an activated sludge
floc in a functioning plant. To determine the SND rates, a pilot is generally used or
kinetic tests are performed using full-scale activated sludge tanks.
3.5.2 SHARON
SHARON stands for Single Reactor System for High Activity Ammonium
Removal over Nitrite. The process involves creating conditions where (AOB) ammonia
oxidizing bacteria are present and nitrate oxidizing bacteria (NOB) are not present.13 pg225 The ammonia is converted to nitrite rather than nitrate, resulting in a lower oxygen
demand and methanol demand if supplementary carbon is being used. The effluent is
then fed to a reactor, where it can be denitrified to nitrogen gas. Sharon is generally
used to treat digester supernatant that is warm (>30C) and has high ammonia levels.1
pg63 The higher temperatures result in a higher growth rate for AOB allowing for the
process to run at SRTs below 2 days.1 pg63 In these conditions, AOBs will grow quickly
enough to avoid being washed out unlike NOBs.1 pg63
3.5.3
Anammox
8/22/2014
P a g e | 24
Revision 3
less sludge is produced which reduces sludge disposal costs. Anammox can often be
paired with a SHARON process, which generates the nitrite necessary to metabolize the
remaining ammonia. Anammox processes typically treat industrial waste streams and
anaerobic digested sludge filtrate. The process is known as DEMON when the
ammonia oxidization and Anammox process occur in the same unit process. The net
equation for the DEMON (deammonification) is shown below:6
Equation 5 Demon Process
The DEMON process results in no alkalinity and BOD consumption and limited
oxygen demand with low sludge production. The DEMON process was successfully
piloted at the Egan WRRF for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago.6
3.5.4 Algae Reactors
Algae reactors are a promising technology to remove nutrient from wastewater
streams. Algae reactors make use of the organisms that cause water quality issues in
the receiving streams.7 pg5 Algae growth and the diurnal dissolved oxygen concentration
cycling is the primary impairment caused by phosphorus in water bodies. The
technology is currently finishing lab scale testing with pilot scale tests planned using a
50 to 200 gallon reactor.7 pg23 Therefore, the technology will not be ready for use in a
full-scale WRRF for several years.
8/22/2014
P a g e | 25
Revision 3
(1
1N
(8
1 (NP)
(1
and 8
2P
( 0.5
Probable
Possible
A/O
chemical addition
Step Feed
MLE
A2O
UCT
VIP
OWASA
SBR
Oxidation Ditches
Phostrip
2N
(5
1P and 2N
(1
and 5
)
2 (NP)
(0.5
and 5
)
) Bardenpho 4 stage
Bardenpho 5 stage
3N
3 (NP)
(0.1
(3
and 3
SND
Sharon
Anammox
A/O
chemical addition
MLE
A2O
SBR
Oxidation Ditches
Bardenpho 5 stage
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
A2O
UCT,
VIP
OWASA
SBR
Oxidation Ditches
Bardenpho 4 stage
MBR
Add On
Process
Pearl
Denitrification
Filters
Algae
Reactors
8/22/2014
P a g e | 26
Revision 3
4.0 Considerations
Many plant specific factors are involved in determining a facilitys improvements
necessary to perform BNR (Biological Nutrient Removal) of phosphorus. The cost for
treating a plants biosolids is a factor in deciding whether a Plant removes phosphorus
biologically or chemically. Chemical addition for phosphorus removal will result in
increased solids production, which increases biosolids processing and disposal costs
and can stress aeration basins, clarifiers, and biosolids handling equipment. As a
result, WWTPs near their design capacity may require facility upgrades.
In some cases, even a plant with high biosolids costs might decide to implement
chemical addition as a stopgap, before additional work is done to meet more stringent
limits depending on the results of the FRIP. A difficulty with this plan is that plants will
need to dial back their chemical dosage in order to establish EBPR(Enhanced Biological
Phosphorus Removal) without exceeding a WRRFs initial permit of 1.0
in
only the solids. Appendix 1 contains the information about individual WRRF as well.
When enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) is implemented, the effluent
solids phosphorus can contain 5% phosphorus or more versus 2% for conventional
plants.10 pg540 In EBPR, the effluent particulate phosphorus can reach 0.6 to 1.25
which could cause a plants effluent to exceed proposed limits without considering the
effluent soluble phosphorus (phosphate) concentration. Also, chemical addition causes
the formation of phosphate containing solids which should increase the effluent solids
fraction. Poor clarifier performance and poor biomass settleablility could cause the
need to add effluent filters to a plant to meet proposed phosphorus limits. The addition
of effluent filtration could require additional hydraulic head potentially requiring an
intermediate pump station.
EBPR is another process that can be chosen to remove phosphorus. To initially test
the feasibility of using EBPR, a plants influent BOD to total phosphorus (TP) ratio
should be examined, especially seasonal variations. Next, the soluble BOD or readily
biodegradable COD (rbCOD) to phosphorus ratio should be established to determine if
there is sufficient available BOD/COD. The influent BOD/TP ratio can be misleading if
the influent contains a good deal of slowly biodegradable BOD/COD (sbCOD). The
8/22/2014
P a g e | 27
Revision 3
and 0.50
recycle streams allow for the most phosphorus to be removed with the least chemical
usage. If more phosphorus removal is required, chemical will need to be added in the
main treatment process and/or limits after secondary clarifiers and before effluent filters,
where the phosphate concentration is lowest.
8/22/2014
P a g e | 28
Revision 3
Costs as presented are for adding additional tankage and equipment, and not
retrofitting existing facilities.
4.3 Cost Information
The cost estimating information below is meant to only give rough guidelines on the
costs of implementing certain levels of treatment.
A major factor that influences the cost of biological nutrient removal is the amount of
flow treated at a plant. For example, the cost of treating a gallon of water to level 1
(Nitrogen and Phosphorus) was ten times more expensive per gallon for a 0.1 mgd
WRRF versus a 100 mgd WRRF.3 pg5-14 This ratio stays relatively consistent for lower
effluent limits.3 pg5-18 Additionally, larger facilities have higher staffing levels. These
levels would allow the larger WRRFs to handle the startup and troubleshooting of the
additional biological and chemical processes required of a BNR plant. In addition, the
staffing costs are a higher percentage of the operations and maintenance costs at
smaller plants. For example, staffing consumes 40% of the O&M budget for 1 mgd
facilities versus 20% at 10 mgd plants.13 pg4-34 Overall, BNR is typically easier and more
cost effective to implement at larger facilities.
BNR is also easier at facilities with well settling sludge. Facilities with poor settling
sludge will require filtration to meet a 2P or 0.50
significant costs to a plant. BNR facilities with filtration were found to be 20% to 40%
more expensive per gallon than systems performing secondary treatment.4 pg21
8/22/2014
P a g e | 29
Revision 3
limit. Effluent filtration and its associated costs will impact only facilities and
communities with poorly settling sludge and not necessarily all Fox River WRRFs.
Phosphorus limits are expected to come to Fox WRRFs before nitrogen limits. The
cost estimating information will focus on the cost of implementing phosphorus limits for
effluent phosphorus levels of 1.0
, 0.50
, and 0.1
8/22/2014
P a g e | 30
Revision 3
8/22/2014
P a g e | 31
Revision 3
Figures 21: Capital Costs for Adding an A/O Process with Fermenters3 pg 4-22
8/22/2014
P a g e | 32
Revision 3
Figures 22: Capital Costs for Adding an A/O Process with Fermenters and Filters.3 pg 4-22
8/22/2014
P a g e | 33
Revision 3
Figures 23: Capital Costs for Adding an A/O Process with Fermenters, Filters, and
Chemical addition. 3 pg 4-22
The five figures above give a range of construction costs per mgd of plant
capacity for different treatment processes and flow ranges. The large size of the bands
of construction costs are reflective of the cost variability of implementing even similar
treatment technology. For example, two 1 mgd WRRF in Maryland were modified to a
MLE system, and one facilities capital costs were 60% higher.5 pg9
The figures suggest that chemical addition is the most cost effective method of
phosphorus removal. However, the cost of chemical addition does not take into account
the costs of the additional sludge generated. Waste sludge digestion, stabilization, and
disposal costs vary from facility to facility. Total costs, including solids handling costs,
should be taken into consideration for any facility before choosing to only use chemical
addition even as a stopgap.
Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) processes such as A/O were
found to have five times the construction costs of chemical addition. Part of the
8/22/2014
P a g e | 34
Revision 3
difference between the life-cycle costs for chemical and biological nutrient removal is
that the tanks and pipes, which are the main cost of EBPR, have a service life of 50
years and in extreme cases tanks have been in service for more than 80 years.
USEPAs life-cycle analysis is for 20 years or the standard life-cycle for mechanical
equipment.13 pg 4-6 Therefore, USEPAs method does not take into account the
advantage of EBPR over the full service life of a tank.
Adding a fermenter for VFA production was found to be a small additional cost, and
adding filters was found to add 10% to 20% to the life-cycle costs of a facility. If a
facility needs to reach a limit below 0.50
clarifiers and before filters will probably be required. A WRRF may not need filters if the
facility has well settling.
P a g e | 35
Revision 3
A/O process are shown to be marginal, but the costs of biosolids are not included.
Therefore, the O&M costs for chemical treatment should be seen as floor for the bestcase scenario.
8/22/2014
P a g e | 36
Revision 3
5.0 Conclusions
Many biological and chemical treatment process exist to enable Fox River
WRRFs to meet an effluent limit of 1P or 1.0
The majority of WRRF will require effluent filters and chemical addition to reach
limits below 0.5
Over a 20 year period, effluent filters increase the cost of a BNR facility by
approximately 20%.4 pg21
Similar plants with similar capacities in the same region can have significantly
different capital costs for the same upgrades.
Larger facilities have up to one tenth of the treatment costs per gallon of a
smaller facility.
8/22/2014
P a g e | 37
Revision 3
6.0 References:
1) Nutrient Removal. WEF. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
2) The Cadmus Group, Inc. Nutrient Control Design Manual. Rep. no. EPA/600/R10/100. USEPA, 2010. Web. April. 2014.
3) Pagilla, Krishna R., Ph.D.,P.E., and Meltem Urgun-Demirtas, Ph.D. Sustainable
Technology For Achieving Very Low Nitrogen and Phosphorus Effluent Levels.
Tech. no. 02-CTS-1. WERF, IWA, 2009. Web. Apr. 2014.
4) Colorado Water Quality Control Division. Technologies, Performance and Costs
for Wastewater Nutrient Removal and Implementation Recommendations. Rep.
N.p., Nov. 2010. Web. Apr. 2014.
5) Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and Costs. Rep. no. EPA-823-R-07-002.
USEPA, June 2007. Web. Apr. 2014.
6) Qin, Donqi, Ph.D. "Sidestream Nitrogen Removal at the John E. Egan Water
Reclamation Plant by DEMON Process." Watercon 2013. Illinois, Springfield.
Lecture.
7) Pramanik, Amit, Ph.D., Margaret R. Mulholland, Ph.D., Katherine C. Filippino,
Ph.D., Chris Wilson, Ph.D., and Chalres Bott, Ph.D. "Algae Bioreactors as a
Cost-Effective Approach for Enhanced Nutrient Removal." Webinar. 29 Apr.
2014. Web.
8) Bott, Charles B., Ph.D., P.E., BCEE. "Nitrogen Removal 3.0: Integration of
Anammox into Sidestream and Mainstream BNR Processes." Science and
Technology Advisory Committee. Chesapeake Bay Program. Web. Apr. 2014.
9) "Mission Statement." Fox River Implementation Plan. Fox River Study Group,
n.d. Web. 05 June 2014.
10) Rittmann, Bruce E., and Perry L. McCarty. Environmental Biotechnology:
Principles and Applications. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2001. Print.
11) McFarlane, Austin. "BNR CHALLENGES AT START-UP." Nutrient Removal and
Recovery Workshop. IWEA. 2013. Lecture.
12) Tchobanoglous, George, Franklin L. Burton, and H. David. Stensel. Wastewater
Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
13) USA. EPA. Ann Arbor Michigan. Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies
Reference Document. By Shin Joh Kang, Ph.D., P.E, Kevin Olmstead, Ph.D.,
P.E.,, Krista Takacs, P.E., and James Collins. R08 ed. Vol. 832. N.p.: n.p., n.d.
Ser. 006. Web. Apr. 2014
14) "The Pearl Process." Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies. Ostara, n.d.
Web. 2 June 2014.
8/22/2014
P a g e | 38
Revision 3
NPDES
Number
Facility
Issue
Date
Expiration
Date
Receiving
Stream
Discharge
Number
Design
Average Flow
Monthly
Average
BOD mg
Summer
Monthly
Ammonia
Nitrogen Limit
as mg N/L
3.68 MGD
10
1.2
Phosphorus
Monthly
Average
TSS mg/L
Barrington
Wastewater
Treatment Facility
02/22/2008
IL0045110
Lake Barrington
Community
Homeowners
Association
09/5/2008
IL0022543
02/23/2007
IL0028282
5/1/2012
4/30/2017
IL0053457
1/25/2008
2/28/2013
IL0027944
Carpentersville
Main STP
City of St Charles
East Side WWTF
City of St Charles
West Side WWTF
IL0021598
03/31/2013
Unnamed Tributary
of Flint Creek
09/30/2013
Fox River
0.455 MGD
25
04/30/2012
Fox Fiver
4.2 MGD
20
1.5
5.8 MGD
10
1.1
1.0
12
1.7 MGD
10
1.2
1.0
12
4.5 MGD
20
1.5
9 MGD
20
1.5
25
12
12
-
Crystal Creek
Unnamed Tributary
of Sleepy Hollow
Creek
25
08/3/2007
09/30/2012
Fox River
6/23/2006
6/30/2011
Fox River
6/7/2012
5/31/2017
Fox River
0.7 MGD
10
1.2
Village of Cary
WWTP
City of Earlville STP
01/11/2006
02/28/2011
Fox River
2.8 MGD
20
1.5
0.3764 MGD
10
1.5
ILG640231
Elgin Water
Treatment Plant
05/15/2012
04/30/2017
N/A
IL0020818
02/08/2007
03/31/2012
Fox River
IL0022705
IL0026808
25
IL0020516
IL0020877
8/30/2012
8/31//2017
Indian Creek
25
12
15
42 MGD
10
1.5
12
8/22/2014
Page |1
Revision 3
NPDES
Number
Facility
Issue
Date
Expiration
Date
Receiving
Stream
Discharge
Number
Design
Average Flow
Monthly
Average
BOD mg
Summer
Monthly
Ammonia
Nitrogen Limit
as mg N/L
25.0 MGD
10
1.5
Phosphorus
Monthly
Average
TSS mg/L
IL0028657
Fox River
Reclamation
District South
STP
01/26/2007
02/29/2012
Fox River
IL0020583
04/11/2008
04/30/2013
Fox River
1.25 MGD
20
4.8
IL0028665
01/5/2007
02/29/2012
Fox River
7.75 MGD
20
1.5
IL0035891
12/21/2006
01/31/2012
Fox River
5.0 MGD
20
1.5
IL0020087
Geneva WWTP
Hanson Material
Service Yard 591
Hoover Outdoor
Education Center
STP
IWC Terra Cotta
STP
Lafarge Aggregates
Illinois, Inc. Fox
River Quarry
10/13/2006
10/31/2011
Fox River
5.0 MGD
20
1.5
12
25
-
ILG840090
ILG551014
IL0038202
ILG840060
IL0078352
ILG640090
IL0021733
Lafarge Elburn,
LLC Elburn Pit
Lake Holliday
Utilities WTP
Lake in the Hills SD
STP
3/23/2012
2/28/2017
12/11/2002
2/28/2008
1/26/2009
1/31/2014
3/23/2012
2/28/2017
5/29/2009
4/30/2014
5/15/2012
4/30/2017
5/2/2011
4/30/2016
25
25
25
24
Sleepy Hollow
Creek
0.0784 mgd
16
0.1 MGD
10
35
-
Unnamed Ditch
Tributary to
Blackberry Creek
001, 002
4.5 MGD
10
1.5
8/22/2014
35
Page |2
Revision 3
15
12
NPDES
Number
IL00277286
IL0027260
ILG580153
IL0024716
IL0031933
IL0020052
IL0070874
ILG840083
IL0068292
Facility
Mount Saint
Joseph Home
STP
Mooseheart Child
City and School
STP
Newark Sanitary
District STP
North Barrington
Elementary School
STP
Northern Moraine
Wastewater
Reclamation
District WWTP
City of Plano STP
Port Barrington
Shores STP
Prairie Material
Sales, Inc. Yard
93 Elgin
Radco Industries,
Inc.
IL0024732
IL0072010
Safety-Kleen
Systems, Inc.
Elgin
IL0030970
City of Sandwich
STP
ILG580139
ILIL0031062
IL00020265
Shabbona STP
Sheridan Sanitary
District STP
Somonauk STP
Issue
Date
Expiration
Date
Receiving
Stream
Discharge
Number
Design
Average Flow
Monthly
Average
BOD mg
Summer
Monthly
Ammonia
Nitrogen Limit
as mg N/L
1.2
Phosphorus
Monthly
Average
TSS mg/L
12
9/6/2013
8/31/2018
Unnamed Tributary
to Flint Creek
0.0125 MGD
10
7/2/2012
6/30/2017
Fox River
0.154 MGD
25
Monitor
12/11/2003
12/31/2007
0.11 MGD
23
7/20/2012
7/31/2017
Unnamed Tributary
to Flint Creek
0.005 MGD
10
1.1
11/12/2008
11/30/2013
Fox River
2.0 MGD
20
1.5
1/24/2011
2/29/2016
2.44
10
1.4
1.0
9/20/2013
8/31/2018
Fox River
0.012 MGD
25
30
34
12
30
6/27/2013
05/31/20/18
10/30/2008
10/31/2013
9/28/2012
9/30/2017
12/13/2011
12/11/2003
12/31/2016
Unnamed Tributary
to Mill Creek
Unnamed Tributary
of Fox River
Unnamed Ditch
Tributary to Fox
River
Harvey Creek
Tributary to the
Little Rock Creek
8/29/2012
8/31/2017
10/31/2017
0.008 MGD
10
1.2
001 Stormwater
Overflow from
Retention Pond
12
12
1.5 MGD
10
0.120 MGD
25
Fox River
0.368 MGD
25
Somonauk Creek
0.30 MGD
10
12/31/2007
11/20/2012
001 Non-contact
Cooling Water
0.9
0.9
8/22/2014
25
Page |3
Revision 3
37
30
12
NPDES
Number
IL0026123
IL0020516
IL0062260
IL0068764
IL0050628
ILG580213
ILG580236
IL0038229
Facility
US Dept. Of
Energy
Village of Cary
WWTP
Village of Elburn
Village of Gilberts
WWTP
Village of Hinckley
STP
Village of Paw Paw
STP
Village of
Waterman STP
Waubonsee
Community College
- STP
Issue
Date
7/17/2008
Expiration
Date
7/31/2013
Receiving
Stream
Discharge
Number
1/11/2006
2/28/2011
Fox River
10/19/2006
11/30/2011
Welch Creek
7/26/2011
7/31/2016
Tyler Creek
2/7/2013
1/31/2018
12/11/2003
12/31/2007
12/11/2002
12/31/2007
Design
Average Flow
Monthly
Average
BOD mg
Summer
Monthly
Ammonia
Nitrogen Limit
as mg N/L
Phosphorus
Monthly
Average
TSS mg/L
2.8 MGD
20
1.5
1.266 MGD
10
1.1
1.0 MGD
10
1.4
0.2 MGD
10
1.1
0.15 mgd
31
0.18 mgd
38
12
46
56
IL0020109
Wauconda WWTP
9/13/2011
9/30/2016
IL0034843
Wayne Grade
School STP
7/24/2013
7/31/2018
IL0001759
Wedron Plan
8/23/1996
8/31/2001
IL0036412
Yorkville-Briston
Sanitary District
STP
5/14/2007
5/31/2012
Fiddle Creek
North Branch
Norton Creek
Buck Creek, Fox
Riverm, Unamed
tributary to Fox
River
Fox River
1.9 MGD
10
1.1
0.030 MGD
10
1.2
12
12
3.62 MGD
20
1.5
8/22/2014
12
12
Page |4
Revision 3
25
1 mgd
5 mgd
10 mgd
$0.30
$0.07
$0.05
$2.46
$1.70
$1.52
$2.46
$1.70
$1.52
$3.04
$2.13
$1.89
Table 9 Capital Costs per MGD for various treatment systems for reaching 1.0
0.50
to
.13 pg4-23
The calculation below are based upon USEPAs methodology of roughly estimating
the upgrade costs of meeting a 1P limit for a 1 mgd WRRF using the cost information in
chapter 4 for biological or chemical removal. This sample calculation should only be
done to give a ballpark guess of the costs of upgrading a facility. The first step is to
determine the total flow treated during the 20 year life cycle.
Equation 6
Volume
= Flow
Volume
=1
Years
%&'
365 days
year
Million Gallons
365 days
20 years
= 7,300 Million gallons
day
year
Next, the present worth of retrofitting the plant as well as loan financing to fund
20 years of operations and maintenance will be determined. We will assume the plant is
8/22/2014
Page |1
Revision 3
using chemical addition or A/O process. The calculation for chemical addition does not
include sludge handling.
Equation 7
Present Worth:;
= Volume
Present Worth:;
,?@
Present Worth:;
,D
%? >
Cost =%>>%&'
>>&'
$243
= $1,800,000
Million Gallon
$1126
= $8,200,000
Million Gallon
The present worth is multiplied by 1.6 as a safety factor to account for variable
site differences.
Equation 8
Present Worth:;
,?@
%? >,E%' >
= Present Worth:;
,?@
%? >
1.6
Present Worth:;
,?@
%? >,E%' >
= Present Worth:;
,?@
%? >
1.6 = $2,800,000
Present Worth:;
,D ,E%' >
= Present Worth:;
,D
1.6 = $13,000,000
To determine the capital costs, equation 9 below is used with the same safety
factor as the present worth analysis.
Equation 9
GHIJKHLMNOPO = GQRK
ST,UVSVUWPX
GHIJKHLMNOPO,Ude
= 0.30 1
WUVf
GHIHYJKZ[\],
^H_`KZ]VUPNa = $ bJLLJQc
gJLLJQc hHLLLQcR
1.6 = $ 0.5 bJLLJQc
iHZ
GHIJKHLMNOPO,\/k = 2.46 1
8/22/2014
gJLLJQc hHLLLQcR
1.6 = $ 3.9 bJLLJQc
iHZ
Page |2
Revision 3