HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 89G - Solids Handling Master Plan Phase 1 Technical MemorandumComprehensive Solids Master Plan
Volume 1, Phase 1 Technical
Memoranda
Table of Contents
TM 1 MSD O&M Management
TM 2 Facilities Summaries and Solids Projections
TM 3 Solids Disposal / Reuse Alternatives
TM 4 Summary of Regulatory Issues
TM 5 Condition Assessment Report
TM 6 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation
TM 7 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies
TM 8 Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility
TM 9 Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life with Recommendations
TM 10 Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites
Public Perception Focus Group
TM1–MSDO&MManagementVOLUME 1
PHASE 1
TM 1 –MSD O&M
Management
TM2–FacilitiesSummariesandSolidsProjectionsVOLUME 1
PHASE 1
TM 2 –Facilities
Summaries and
Solids Projections
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 1 of 21
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2 – FACILITY SUMMARIES AND SOLIDS
PROJECTIONS
To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
From: Ben Freese, Trish Scanlan, Matt Bond
This Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 2 summarizes the existing solids processing
facilities and current solids production for each of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District’s seven treatment facilities. Information on the existing facilities was obtained
from existing plant records, interviews with MSD staff, and plant permits. Plant
historical solids productions were summarized for existing operational conditions based
on current solids production records and wastewater treatment flows. Based on
anticipated treatment expansions or modifications and input from MSD staff, solids
projections were estimated for future conditions at each treatment facility.
The location of the wastewater treatment facilities and their sewersheds are shown in
Figure 1. Summaries of operations data from each of the plants are included in Appendix
A.
Table of Contents
1. Lemay Wastewater Treatment Facility....................................................................... 1
2. Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Facility.............................................................. 7
3. Coldwater Wastewater Treatment Facility............................................................... 10
4. Missouri River Wastewater Treatment Facility........................................................ 12
5. Lower Meramec Wastewater Treatment Facility ..................................................... 14
6. Grand Glaize Wastewater Treatment Facility........................................................... 16
7. Fenton Wastewater Treatment Facility..................................................................... 18
Appendix A - Summary of Operations Data
Appendix B - Bissell Point Hauled Waste Summary
1. Lemay Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Lemay WWTP is an activated sludge plant with an existing average design capacity
of 167 mg and peak hydraulic design capacity of 233 mgd. The annual daily average
flow rate is approximately 121 mgd. The plant began operating in 1968 as a primary
treatment facility with incineration for solids. Construction of the secondary treatment
facilities began with the aeration basins in 1977 and secondary clarifiers in 1980. The
entire secondary treatment process was completed and full secondary treatment began in
Figure 1 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Locations
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 2 of 21
1985. Expansion of the primary treatment facilities to handle future wet weather flows is
currently in construction that will increase the primary treatment capacity to 340 mgd.
Future wet weather expansion phases are anticipated that would further increase the
overall primary treatment capacity to 800 mgd. The secondary treatment capacity is to
remain at 167 mgd.
The major treatment components consist of four detritus grit tanks, five comminutors,
two pre-aeration tanks, eight primary clarifiers, eight step-feed aeration tanks, and twelve
final clarifiers. The wet weather expansion will include construction of four additional
primary clarifiers, two grit basins with channel grinders; a primary sludge pump station
and a grit handling facility.
The Lemay WWTP has a design sludge production of 73,000 dry tons per year. The
solids processes include:
Co-thickening of primary and secondary solids in primary clarifiers.
Six high-solids Ashbrook Winklepresses belt filter presses for dewatering.
Two live-bottom feed bins with screw conveyor conveyance.
Four multiple hearth incinerators with heat recovery.
Three ash slurry ponds.
Ash disposal at Prospect Hill landfill.
Figure 2 is a schematic of the solids processes.
a. Current Solids Production
Plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant produces approximately 17,198 dry tons
of raw sludge per year for incineration.
Shown on Figure 3 are plots of the monthly average influent flow, total dry solids
production, and estimated ash remaining after incineration. Ash production was
estimated by assuming that all volatile solids in the feed to the incinerators were
destroyed. The effect of high river levels and high influent flows to the plant in the spring
can be observed. With high flows, the volatile solids concentration of the sludge is much
lower, and carry through inorganics can be observed in the ash quantities.
Table 1 summarizes the historical solids production for the three year period, 2006
through 2008. The maximum month solids production occurred in April 2007, and the
volatile solids concentration was 50 percent during the maximum month. Summarized
data for all the treatment facilities are included in Appendix A.
165186.103-2c ADI 7/23/09Figure 2METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTLEMAYWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTPrimary Clarifiers(8 Total)Final Clarifiers(12 Total)ActivatedSludge Wells(2 total)Sludge Wells(3 Total)Belt Filter Presses (6 Total)Ash Slurry Ponds(3 total)RASWASDisposal to Prospect Hill LandfillMultiple Hearth Incinerators(4 Total)Sludge Feed Pumps (3 total)WH boilerHeat Recovery systemNon-Potable WaterWater ConditioningPotable WaterCondenserTurbineCooling Heat Exchanger
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 3 of 21
Table 1
Lemay WWTP
Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production
Year
Average
Influent
Flow
(mgd)
Primary
Solids
(tpd)
WAS
Solids
(tpd)
Total
Solids
(dtpd)
Volatile
Solids
(dtpd)
Ash
Production
(dtpd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
2006 100 12.9 19.5 32.5 18.1 21.6 0.33
2007 119 22.3 29.8 52.1 27.6 20.9 0.44
2008 145 15.6 41.0 56.6 29.4 18.7 0.39
MM 201 21.0 64.0 85.0 42.87 35.5 0.42
AA 121 17.0 30.1 47.1 25.8 20.4 0.38
b. Future Solids Production
The Lemay WWTP serves a mature watershed with little growth expected. The MSD is
planning to make modifications to the collection system to increase the amount of wet
weather influent captured for treatment. These collection system modifications are likely
to impact the characteristics of the influent to the WWTP, in terms of both quantity (i.e.
hydraulic and solids loads) and quality (i.e. solids concentrations). The collection system
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 4 of 21
modifications may also play a large role in determining the duration of wet weather
impacts. It will be several years before planning and design of the collection system
modifications are finalized, and very little collection system data is available at this time
on future wet weather influent characteristics. Therefore, historical hydraulic and solids
loads at the WWTP were used to estimate future wet weather influent characteristics.
From the plot of historical data shown on Figure 4, it appears that the Mississippi River
level has a major impact on the flow and influent characteristics to the WWTP and the
resulting solids production.
Figure 4
Influent Flow vs. River Level
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
River Level, ftInfluent Flow, mgd0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
Solids, dtpdPlant Flow Solids
The District is in the process of rehabilitating portions of the collection system and
believes that the rehabilitation will significantly decrease inflow and infiltration from
high Mississippi River levels. Twice during the past three years the river remained high,
over river Elevation 15, for extended periods, causing significant inflow and infiltration
to enter the plant. To lessen the impact of high-river flow conditions on the development
of projections of future solids production , the following dates were eliminated from the
data:
March 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007.
March 1, 2008 through July 31, 2008.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 5 of 21
Removing these dates adjusted the dry weather conditions to an average flow of 99 mgd
and an average total solids production of 42.0 dtpd (0.42dt/MG). Therefore, it was
estimated that wet weather flows contributed on average approximately 22 mgd of flow
to the plant to achieve the historical annual average flow of 121 mgd. During the wet
weather, high river months, the plant had an average influent flow of 186 mgd and dry
sludge production of 62.3 dtpd (0.33dt/MG). Therefore, assuming that the water
characteristics of the River Des Peres will be similar to the flow captured with the
improvements in the collection system, wet weather flows produced approximately 20.3
dtpd of largely inorganic solids at an average flow of 87 mgd (0.23dt/MG).
Without an extensive review of the collection system, it is difficult to predict the
frequency and volume of future wet weather events. The existing treatment wet weather
capacity is 233 mgd. After completion of the Phase 1 wet weather facilities, the plant
will have a new wet weather capacity of 340 mgd. Therefore, the following assumptions
were used to predict future solids production:
The base solids production will remain unchanged at the current level of 42
dtpd.
Wet weather flow will contribute additional solids production at the rate of
0.23dt/MG, and will consist of essentially inert solids.
The annual average flow to the plant will increase by 20% of the new wet
weather capacity (20% of 107 mgd). Therefore, the total annual average flow
to the plant will increase to 142 mgd (99mgd base + 22mgd existing + 21mgd
future).
Maximum month flows will increase to one half of the peak wet weather flow.
The current practice of co-thickening in the primary clarifiers will remain
unchanged. (Although, as noted below, this practice should be re-examined in
Phase 2 of the master planning.)
Shown on Figure 5 are plots of the volatile solids content of the influent solids and the
combined dewatered solids to incineration at the Lemay WWTP for the three-year period,
2006 through 2008. The volatile content (%VS) is an indicator of the potential for energy
recovery from wastewater solids through both the biodegradation (anaerobic digestion)
and thermal conversion (incineration) pathways but, in particular the latter. The VS data
indicate a consistent, but somewhat variable pattern of loss (2 to 15%) of volatile content
through the liquid stream and solids concentration processes. The annual average volatile
solids lost through the treatment process was 3.8 dtpd. This phenomenon most likely is a
result of the following:
Diminished solids capture in the primary clarifiers from using them for co-
thickening, resulting in solids carryover and stabilization via aerobic digestion in
the downstream aeration tanks.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 6 of 21
Solubilization of a portion of the settled solids through hydrolysis as they are
being concentrated in the primary clarifiers.
Both factors result in increased organic loading and oxygen demand (and, potentially,
energy consumption) in the secondary treatment facilities, and a reduced energy content
of the solids wasted to the solids processing facilities. Therefore, continued use of co-
thickening should be evaluated in Phase 2 of the master planning for all facilities where
this practice is employed, with adjustments made as needed in projections of solids
quantities and characteristics at that time based on the outcome of the evaluation.
Table 2 summarizes the estimates of future flows and solids loadings after completion of
Phase 1 expansion of the plant. Phase 2 and Phase 3 wet weather expansion are not
included in the totals, but future increases may be mitigated somewhat as sewer
improvements are made to reduce combined sewer overflows.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 7 of 21
Table 2
Lemay WWTP
Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning
Average
Influent
Flow
(mgd)
Primary
Solids
(tpd)
WAS
Solids
(tpd)
Total
Solids
(dtpd)
Dewatered
Volatile
Solids
(dtpd)
Ash
Production
(dtpd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
MM 241 30 64 94 42.8 51.4 0.39
AA 142 21 30.1 52 25.8 26.8 0.36
2. Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Bissell Point WWTP was commissioned in 1970 with a permitted design flow of 250
mgd. The plant has a design sludge production of 74,369 dry tons per year. The plant has
both trickling filters and activated sludge for secondary treatment. However, the plant
has not operated with the activated sludge system since January 2008 because industrial
loads were reduced to the plant and the activated sludge system is not needed. The solids
processes include:
Co-thickening of primary and secondary solids in primary clarifiers.
Gravity belt thickeners for WAS (not used).
Belt filter press dewatering (15 Andritz units, 12 converted to high solids
machines).
Six sludge bins and six Schwing high pressure piston pumps, plus a
seventh bin and piston pump for off-site solids.
Six multiple hearth incinerators.
Two ash slurry ponds.
Dissolved flotation thickening system for grease (not used).
Ash disposal at Prospect Hill landfill.
Receives gravity thickened solids from Coldwater WWTP though sewer
system for incineration.
Bissell Point is the only plant in MSD’s system that receives hauled waste from industrial
and commercial sources. Hauled wastes are received and distributed to different parts of
the treatment plant for processing. Hauled waste volumes for fiscal year 2006 through
2008 are summarized in Appendix B. MSD commissioned a report on the Unloading
Station grease separation, which is included in Appendix B.
Refer to Figure 6 for a general schematic of the solids processes.
165186.103-2b ADI 7/23/09Figure 5Raw WastewaterPrimary Clarifiers(8 Total)Final Clarifiers(12 Total)Pump Station No. 1Preliminary Treatment/Grit RemovalGrit to Landfill Disposal or IncinerationSludge Wells(2 total)Storage TanksBelt Filter Presses (14 Total)Equalization Bins (6 Total)Scrubbers(6 Total)GasesMultiple Hearth Incinerators(6 Total)Stack GassesFinal Effluent to RiverAsh Settling Basins(2 total)Ash SlurryWet Ash Disposal to LandfillTo Primary EffluentAsh Pumping StationMETROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTBISSELL POINTWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTPiston Pumps (6 Total)CakeSludge Pumps(3 total)Cake Receiving BinPiston Pump Cake
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 8 of 21
a. Current Solids Production
Plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow
127 mgd and produces approximately 33,810 dry tons of raw sludge per year for
incineration.
Shown on Figure 7 are plots of the monthly average influent flow to treatment, total dry
solids production, and estimated ash production at the plant. Ash production was
estimated by assuming that all volatile solids to the incinerators were destroyed. The
effect of high river levels and high flows in the spring can be observed on both the flows
and the solids production. With high flows, the volatile solids concentration of the sludge
is much lower, and carry through inorganics can be observed in the ash quantities.
Table 3 summarizes the historical solids production at the plant. The maximum month
solids production occurred in June 2008, when the volatile solids concentration in the
feed solids to incineration was 32 percent.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 9 of 21
Table 3
Bissell Point WWTP
Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production
Year
Average
Plant Flow,
(mgd)
WAS/TF
(tpd)
Primary
Sludge
(tpd)
Cake to
Incinerator
(dtpd)
Volatile
Solids
(dtpd)
Ash
Production
(dptd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
2006 109.7 34.0 52.7 86.7 53.7 33.0 0.79
2007 116.7 41.6 41.5 83.1 44.4 39.9 0.71
2008 153.9 27.9 80.2 108.1 51.3 60.0 0.70
MM 211.3 127.8 44.9 172.7 114.0 117.5 0.82
AA 126.8 34.5 58.1 92.6 50.3 44.4 0.73
Notes:
1. Aeration basins out of service since January 2008.
2. Coldwater sludge changed from digested to raw sludge December 17, 2008.
b. Future Solids Production
The Bissell Point WWTP serves a mature watershed with little growth expected. Data
after January of 2008 is most representative of plant operations with the aeration basins
out of service. In mid December 2008, solids from Coldwater changed from digested to
raw solids as the Coldwater digesters were taken out of service. Estimates of future
solids production are presented in Table 4, based on 2008 averages only. Higher solids
loadings are expected from Coldwater because there is no longer volatile solids reduction
from the digestion process. Alternatives will be developed in later stages that may or
may not have Coldwater WWTP sludge. Future tightening of the combined sewer
overflow system should reduce flows and inorganic materials in the solids, but it will take
a long time before these benefits are realized and it is too difficult to estimate that
reduction for this study.
Table 4
Bissell Point WWTP
Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning
Year
Primary
Solids
(tpd)
TF
Solids
(tpd)
Total
Solids
(dtpd)
Volatile
Solids
(dtpd)
Ash
Production
(dtpd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
MM 135.7 37.0 177.3 59.0 117.5 0.99
AA 80.2 27.9 111.7 54.1 60.0 0.38
Notes:
1. Annual average based on 2008 with no activated sludge. An allowance is
included for the additional Coldwater WWTP sludge as raw sludge (MM
4.6 dtpd total, 3.7 dtpd volatile, and AA 3.6 dtpd total and 2.8 dtpd
volatile). Ash production is expected to stay the same.
2. The maximum month volatile solids production was 64.21 dtpd, occurring
in March 2009.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 10 of 21
3. Coldwater Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Coldwater WWTP is an activated sludge plant that was commissioned in 1965 with
an original design capacity of 40 mgd. Recent improvements at the plant have increased
the secondary treatment capacity to 55 mgd and the primary treatment capacity to 100
mgd. The plant has a design sludge production of 7,556 dry tons per year. The solids
processes include:
Three Eutek primary grit/sludge separators.
One primary sludge gravity thickener.
Six WAS gravity thickeners.
Pumping of Raw Sludge to Bissell Watershed.
Six anaerobic digesters (not used).
Secondary sludge is no longer conveyed to the primary clarifiers for co-thickening. Prior
to December 2008, sludge was digested at the plant prior to being pumped to the Bissell
Watershed. The digesters were removed from service in 2008 and now all thickened
sludge is pumped directly to the Bissell Watershed.
Figure 8 illustrates the sludge handling facilities at the plant.
a. Current Solids Production
Plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow
of 24 mgd and produces approximately 3,848 dry tons of sludge per year.
Shown on Figure 9 are plots of the monthly average influent flow to treatment, and raw
and digested solids production at the plant. Table 5 summarizes the historical solids
production at the plant. The maximum month raw sludge production occurred in
December 2008, but the second highest maximum month in May 2007 will be used as the
basis for future planning because December 2008 values would have been affected by
digester shutdown operations.
Primary Clarifiers(4 Total)165186.103-1b ADI 7/23/09Figure 7 MFinal Clarifiers(7 Total)Raw WastewaterPrimary Sludge Pumps (5 Total)WAS PumpsRAS PumpStationTo Aeration BasinsWAS Thickener(7 Total)Primary Sludge Thickener(1 Total)Grit DumpsterGrit/Sludge Separators(3 Total)To Bissel WWTP Sewer SystemPrimary Sludge METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTCOLDWATERWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT2-Stage Pumps(4 Total)Anaerobic Digesters(6 Total, Not Used)
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 11 of 21
Table 5
Coldwater WWTP
Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production
Year
Average
Plant Flow
(mgd)
Raw
Sludge
(dtpd)
Volatile
Raw
Sludge
(dptd)
Total
Digested
Sludge
(dtpd)
Volatile
Solids
Digested
(dtpd)
Solids Production
(dt/MG)
2006 19.5 14.5 11.6 10.2 6.22 0.74
2007 22.1 13.0 10.1 10.8 6.39 0.59
2008 30.4 14.7 11.2 10.6 5.91 0.48
MM 26.5 18.5 15.0 13.9 8.45
AA 24.0 14.1 11.0 10.5 6.18 0.59
Note: Note after December 17, 2008, raw sludge (vs. digested sludge) pumped to Bissell
Watershed.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 12 of 21
b. Future Solids Production
The Coldwater watershed is mature and no dry weather growth is expected. Therefore,
the solids projections for raw sludge are based on the annual average and maximum
month projections from Table 6 as follows.
Table 6
Coldwater WWTP
Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning
Year
Average Plant
Flow (mgd)
Raw Sludge
(dtpd)
Volatile Raw
Sludge (dptd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
MM 18.5 15.0
AA 24.0 14.1 11.0 0.59
Note:
1. Solids currently discharged to Bissell Point watershed and are included in
the Bissell Point projections.
4. Missouri River Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Missouri WWTP was commissioned in 1989 and has a permitted design flow of 28
mgd. The plant is currently undergoing improvements to increase the secondary and wet
weather capacity of the plant. Upon completion of the wet weather expansion, the fine
screens and grit removal facilities will be sized to handle a peak flow of 190 mgd.
Primary treatment (including preaeration basins and primary clarifiers) will be sized to
handle 80 mgd. The secondary treatment facilities will also be expanded to handle 80
mgd and include replacement of the trickling filters with an activated sludge treatment
process. The new average day permitted design flow will be 38 mgd.
Currently, the plant has a design sludge production of 7,556 dry tons per year. Significant
changes to the solids processing are anticipated to be completed within the next several
years. Secondary sludge will no longer be co-thickened in the primary clarifiers. The
secondary sludge will be thickened by rotary drums before combining with primary
sludge for anaerobic digestion. It is anticipated that the belt filter presses will be replaced
with three dewatering centrifuges.
The digesters will be rehabbed. Sludge is currently disposed off site to the St. Peters
composting facility, with disposal at a landfill as backup. Refer to Figure 10 for an
illustration of the major sludge components.
165186.103-2a ADI 7/23/09Figure 9Final Clarifiers(6 Total)Raw WastewaterDigesterReceiving WellTo Primary EffluentPrimary Clarifiers(4 Total)WAS Holding BasinRAS Wetwell & Pump Station (4 Pumps)Thickener Feed Pumps (4 Total)Rotary Drum Thickeners(4 Total)Digesters(4 Primary& Secondary)CentrifugeReceiving WellCentrifuges (3 Total)Sludge Storage Silo(2 Total)Primary SludgePump Station(2 Pumps)Primary SludgeMETROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTMISSOURI RIVERWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTSludge Cake Pumps (3 Total)Centrifuge Feed Pumps (6 Total)Truck to Compost or Landfill
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 13 of 21
a. Current Solids Production
Plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow
of 27.5 mgd and produces approximately 3,025 dry tons of digested sludge per year.
Shown on Figure 11 are plots of the monthly average influent flows to treatment, and raw
and digested solids production at the plant. Table 7 summarizes the historical solids
production. The maximum month solids production occurred in July 2008, when the
volatile solids concentration was 14 percent.
Table 7
Missouri River WWTP
Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production
Year
Average
Plant
Flow
(mgd)
Raw
Solids
(tpd)
Volatile
(dtpd)
Total
Digested
Solids
(dtpd)
To
Compost
(dtpd)
To
Landfill
(dtpd)
Land
Applied
(dtpd)
Raw
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
2006 26.5 13.3 11.2 7.7 5.3 0.0 2.4 0.50
2007 27.2 12.2 11.0 8.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.45
2008 28.9 13.3 12.3 9.0 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.46
MM 29.3 23.0 15.9 14.1
AA 27.5 12.9 11.5 8.3 7.4 0.1 0.8 0.47
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 14 of 21
b. Future Solids Production
Future solids production were developed using a BioWin Model as part of the secondary
treatment expansion currently in design to estimate year 2030 solids. A summary of the
future solids production are included in Table 8.
Table 8
Missouri River WWTP
Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning
Year
Average
Plant Flow
(mgd)
Raw
Solids (tpd)
Influent
Volatile
Solids (tpd)
Digested Solids
(dtpd)
Raw Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
MM 43.0 58.0 46.5 36.1
AA 38.0 47.7 38.2 29.6 1.25
5. Lower Meramec Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Lower Meramec WWTP is a trickling filter plant that was commissioned in 2007
with a permitted design capacity of 15 mgd. A plant expansion study is currently
underway that will likely lead to converting the plant to an activated sludge process.
In its current configuration, the plant has a design sludge production of 3,450 dry tons per
year. The solids processes include:
Primary and activated sludge are degritted and then co-thickened.
Two gravity thickeners for concentrating combined sludge after grit
removal.
Two dewatering belt filter presses (high-solids Ashbrook Winklepresses).
Stabilization of solids is not performed at the plant; dewatered raw sludge is trucked
offsite for disposal in a landfill. Refer to Figure 12 for an illustration of the major sludge
components.
a. Current Solids Production
Plant data from March 2007 to May 2009 indicates the plant operates at an annual
average daily flow of 12.3 mgd and produces approximately 2,205 dry tons of raw sludge
per year. Shown on Figure 13 are plots of the monthly average influent flow to
treatment and raw solids production at the plant. Table 9 summarizes the historical solids
production at the plant. The maximum month solids production occurred in May 2008,
when the volatile solids concentration was 66 percent.
METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTLOWER MERAMECWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT165186.103-1a ADI 7/23/09Raw WastewaterFrom Baumgartner PSFigure 11Primary Clarifiers(2 Total)Secondary Clarifiers(2 Total)Sludge Gravity Thickeners(2 Total)Recycle to Primary TreatmentBelt Filter Press Dewatering(2 Total)Sludge TruckLoading Hoppers(2 total)GritTruckLoading HopperPrimary Sludge and Grit Pumps(3 Total)Secondary Sludge Pumps(3 total)Truck to Compost or LandfillMGrit/Sludge Separators(3 Total)Truck to LandfillThickened Sludge Pumps(3 Total)
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 15 of 21
Figure 13
Lower Meramec WWTP Flow and Solids Production
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Feb-07 May-07 Aug-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
DateFlow (mgd) 0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Total Solids (dtpd)Flow (mgd)Total Solids (dtpd)
Table 9
Lower Meramec WWTP
Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production
Year
Average
Plant Flow
(mgd)
Total
Solids
(tpd)
Volatile
Solids
(tpd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
2007 9.6 5.0 3.8 0.52
2008 14.3 6.8 4.7 0.48
2009 12.9 6.2 4.8 0.48
MM 16.7 10.1 6.7 0.61
AA 12.3 6.0 4.4 0.49
b. Future Solids Production
MSD’s long-term plans are to decommission the Grand Glaize WWTP and Fenton
WWTP and convey the flows now received at those facilities to the Lower Meramec
WWTP for treatment. These additional flows are anticipated to increase the average
design flow at Lower Meramec to 42.75 mgd. Additional development within the three
sewersheds is anticipated that will increase the future ultimate treatment capacity to 56
mgd.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 16 of 21
Table 10 presents estimates of the future solids production with all flow from Fenton and
Grand Glaize treated at Lower Meramec, plus the increased flow within the sewersheds.
Projections assume that the plant is converted to activated sludge with resultant higher
sludge production.
Table 10
Lower Meramec WWTP
Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning
Year
Average
Plant Flow
(mgd)
Total
Solids
(tpd)
Volatile
Solids
(tpd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
MM 76.0 53.2 39.9 0.7
AA 56.0 39.2 29.4 0.7
Notes:
1. Projections include Grand Glaize and Fenton WWTPs.
2. Future total solids and volatile solids were estimated
using 0.7 (dt/MG) sludge production ratio and 75%
volatile solids.
6. Grand Glaize Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Grand Glaize WWTP is an oxidation basin plant that was commissioned in 1986
with a permitted design capacity of 16 mgd. The plant was recently expanded to
accommodate a design flow to 21 mgd. The improvements include addition of primary
clarifiers, additional aeration basins and final clarifiers to meet the increased flows. A
second belt filter press was also installed with the improvements.
The plant has a design sludge production of 3,250 dry tons per year. Major sludge
process systems at the plant include gravity sludge thickeners and belt filter presses.
There is no dewatered sludge storage except in trucks. Stabilization of solids is not
performed at the plant. Sludge is disposed offsite by truck to landfill, incineration,
composting, or land application. Refer to Figure 14 for an illustration of the major sludge
components.
a. Current Solids Production
Historical plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average
daily flow of 15.4 mgd and produces approximately 3,280 dry tons of raw sludge per
year.
165186.103-1c ADI 7/23/09Figure 13Primary Clarifiers(4 Total)Raw WastewaterPrimary Sludge Pump Station (6 Pumps)Final Clarifiers(7 Total)WAS Pump Station(3 Pumps)Gravity Thickener(2 Total)Belt Filter Press Dewatering(2 Total)To Aeration BasinsRAS Pump Station(8 Pumps)Truck Conveyor (2 Bays Total)METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTGRAND GLAIZEWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTRaw Solids to Landfill
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 17 of 21
Shown on Figure 15 are plots of the monthly average influent flow to treatment and total
dry (raw) solids production at the plant. The new primary clarifiers began operation in
November 2008, which has altered the solids process at the plant. Therefore, data are
shown in Table 11 for before and after the primary clarifiers were placed into operation.
The maximum month solids production occurred in May 2008, when the volatile solids
concentration was 78 percent.
Table 11
Grand Glaize WWTP
Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production
Year
Average
Plant
Flow
(mgd)
Primary
Solids
(dtpd)
WAS
Solids
(tpd)
Total
Solids
(dtpd)
Volatile
Solids
(tpd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
2006 15.0 - - 9.2 7.6 0.61
2007 15.0 - - 8.5 7.1 0.57
2008 16.1 - - 9.3 7.4 0.57
Nov 08 to May 09 14.7 5.1 3.2 8.4 6.5 0.57
MM 20.4 - - 11.1 8.6 -
AA 15.4 - - 9.0 7.4 0.58
Notes:
1. Annual Average and Maximum Month based on 2006 to 2008 plant data.
2. November 2008 to May 2009 data after primary clarifiers in service.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 18 of 21
b. Future Solids Projections
MSD intends to eliminate the facility in the future with the flow going to the Lower
Meramec WWTP. Please see the discussion in the preceding Section 6.
7. Fenton Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Fenton WWTP was commissioned in 1987 and has a current permitted design flow
of 6.75 mgd. Major treatment components include screening, primary settling, aeration
basin, final settling, and disinfection. The plant has a design sludge production of 2,750
dry tons per year. Solids handling facilities include one gravity thickener and one belt
filter press. The existing sludge holding tank is no longer in service at the plant.
Disposal of the solids consists of truck transport to other MSD facilities, land application,
or landfill. Refer to Figure 16 for an illustration of the major sludge components.
a. Current Solids Production
Historical plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average
daily flow of 4.6 mgd and produces approximately 1,075 dry tons of partially stabilized
sludge per year. Figure 17 illustrates the monthly historical treatment plant flow and
monthly average total dry solids production at the plant. Table 12 presents the historical
solids production at the plant. The maximum month solids production occurred in
December 2008.
165186.103-1d ADI 7/20/09Figure 15Primary Clarifier(1 Total)Raw WastewaterPrimary Sludge Pump Station (4 Pumps)Gravity Thickener(1 Total)Belt Filter Press Dewatering(1 Total)Truck Conveyor (1 Total)Final Clarifiers(7 Total)WAS Pump Station(2 Pumps)To Aeration BasinsRAS Pump Station(4 Pumps)Sludge Holding Tank(Not in Use)METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTFENTONWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 19 of 21
Table 12
Fenton WWTP
Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production
Year
Average
Plant Flow
(mgd)
Total
Solids
(dtpd) Solids Production (dt/MG)
2006 4.0 2.7 0.66
2007 4.4 2.6 0.58
2008 5.2 3.4 0.65
MM 4.5 5.0
AA 4.6 2.9 0.63
Notes:
1. No data available for volatile solids.
b. Future Solids Projections
MSD intends to decommission this facility in the future with the flow conveyed instead
to the Lower Meramec WWTP.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page - 20 - of 21
Appendix A
Summary of Operations Data
Plant Influent Flow(MGD)Average River Level, ftMonthly Rainfall, inchesSolids Filtered(dtpd)Secondary Solids Wasted(dtpd)Grit & Cake Solids Incinerated(dtpd)Water Fed Incinerators(tpd)Volatile Solids to Incinerators(tpd)Volatile Solids Concentration to Filters(%)Plant Influent Volitale ConcentrationPlant Influent Vol atile Solids (tpd)Volatile Solids Lost Through Plant, dtpdBissell Volatile Solids for Comparison(dtpd)Estimated Ash Production(dtpd)Estimated "Wet" Ash at % Solids Below(wtpd)Estimated "Wet" Ash at Density Below(cf/d)30%60Jan-06105.6 1.2 1.416.7 3.8 33.5 61.7 10.765%75% 12.6 1.8 63 22.7 75.72523Feb-06 87.2 1.2 0.5 18.3 24.9 44.4 126.1 12.267%78% 14.2 2.1 66 32.2 107.33575Mar-06 113.9 4.2 2.9 37.9 28.2 62.4 182.1 22.961%71% 26.9 4.0 64 39.5 131.84394Apr-06 102.6 13.7 1.9 11.5 21.1 46.5 106.9 7.059%74% 8.5 1.5 56 39.5 131.64385May-06 111.3 13.7 2.4 21.0 25.4 52.2 137.4 12.057%72% 15.1 3.1 61 40.2 133.94462Jun-06 96.0 6.0 2.3 34.1 16.6 58.0 127.2 19.357%70% 23.9 4.5 61 38.7 129.04300Jul-06 96.6 1.1 1.9 31.5 21.1 50.9 115.1 16.457%65% 20.4 4.1 61 34.5 115.13835Aug-06 92.4 -0.1 1.5 63.8 20.3 52.8 117.5 34.855%63% 40.2 5.4 64 18.0 59.91996Sep-06 85.2 1.5 1.2 58.8 17.6 48.0 117.4 35.261%67% 39.4 4.2 60 12.8 42.61419Oct-06 92.5 0.0 3.7 39.5 19.2 38.5 107.2 24.764%71% 28.0 3.4 62 13.9 46.21541Nov-06 95.1 -1.3 4.3 27.514.434.178.9 17.865%69% 19.01.26316.354.21807Dec-06 117.6 4.4 1.7 29.221.837.389.6 18.563%71% 20.72.36218.862.72090Jan-07 123.4 6.8 3.1 36.833.441.9103.2 22.461%71% 26.23.76219.564.82161Feb-07 123.9 3.1 2.0 39.542.441.8115.1 25.665%68% 26.91.25916.253.91798Mar-07 136.2 16.6 3.2 44.063.642.5119.0 24.957%61% 26.91.95617.658.61953Apr-07 201.3 22.1 3.2 85.064.078.3199.3 42.951%62% 52.79.84635.5118.23941May-07 184.2 23.2 4.0 57.624.052.4102.5 26.647%55% 31.75.13625.785.72857Jun-07 110.4 15.8 2.9 61.421.062.7136.9 32.755%66% 40.57.85630.099.93330Jul-0799.0 10.1 3.1 58.118.654.8116.1 29.652%64% 37.27.65325.283.92796Aug-07 91.0 8.7 1.6 53.417.150.4113.3 31.560%68% 36.34.85518.963.02100Sep-07 92.6 9.5 1.7 48.621.446.5115.8 28.358%68% 33.04.85318.360.92030Oct-07 89.4 11.0 2.0 47.515.445.6105.6 31.466%73% 34.73.35614.247.41581Nov-07 80.1 5.8 1.3 35.615.639.892.7 23.567%71% 25.31.85616.454.61819Dec-07 95.2 4.1 2.8 58.021.050.9131.7 37.765%70% 40.62.95313.244.11470Jan-08 79.9 8.1 2.0 45.412.938.589.5 31.068%71% 32.21.2617.524.9832Feb-08 118.6 12.0 4.6 54.721.045.8101.0 32.159%67% 36.64.55813.745.71525Mar-08 186.0 21.2 8.4 45.217.436.369.5 23.552%50% 22.6 -0.94012.842.81427Apr-08 218.0 27.1 3.8 40.999.437.485.2 17.743%45% 18.40.74119.765.82193May-08 204.1 27.8 10.8 71.1 164.572.8183.2 28.340%48% 34.15.84144.5148.34943Jun-08 220.9 33.1 1.9 76.534.659.3116.5 27.737%45% 34.46.72831.6105.33511Jul-08 180.4 27.8 7.5 72.836.557.9115.1 29.641%50% 36.46.83228.394.33143Aug-08 104.0 13.1 1.6 51.820.542.691.7 27.855%66% 34.26.45014.849.21642Sep-08 154.5 18.0 9.8 67.123.545.187.6 30.547%49% 32.92.44214.648.71622Oct-08 86.0 9.8 1.2 57.125.052.1134.2 34.162%68% 38.84.75917.959.81993Nov-08 82.4 6.7 1.9 45.317.738.4102.9 30.868%75% 34.03.1617.625.3844Dec-08 107.2 4.7 4.6 51.218.544.7107.8 32.868%72% 36.84.05611.939.613192006 99.7 3.8 2.1 32.519.546.5113.9 19.3 61% 71% 22.43.161.927.290.83027.42007 118.9 11.4 2.6 52.129.850.6120.9 29.8 59% 66% 34.34.653.420.969.62319.52008 145.2 17.5 4.8 56.641.047.6107.0 28.8 53% 59% 32.63.847.418.762.52082.7MM 201.3 22.1 3.2 85.064.078.3199.3 42.9 51% 62% 52.79.846.035.5118.23940.7AA121.2 10.9 3.2 47.130.148.3114.0 26.0 58% 65% 29.83.854.322.374.32476.5YearAverage Influent Flow (mgd)Primary Solids (tpd)WAS Solids (tpd)Total Solids (dtpd)Estimated Ash Production(dtpd)Solids Production (dt/MG)Filter Volatile Solids %Fitler Volatile Solids (dtpd)2006 100 12.9 19.5 32.527.20.3361%19.782007 119 22.3 29.8 52.120.90.4459%30.592008 145 15.6 41.0 56.618.70.3953%30.18MM 201 21.0 64.0 85.035.50.4251%43.33AA121 17.0 30.1 47.122.30.3858%27.13Monthly TotalsLemay WWTP Solids SummaryTable SummaryAppendix ALemay WWTP Solids Summary
Date Influent Flo WAS Flow WAS TSS WAS TSS WAS VSS Pri Sludge Press feed Cake solids Cake Volatl Wet Tons Dry Tons Polymer Inc6 Inc2 Inc3 Inc4 Inc5 Inc6Estimated Ash Production(dtpd)Estimated "Wet" Ash at % Solids Below(wtpd)Estimated "Wet" Ash at Density Below(cf/d)mgd mgd Avg mg/l lbs/day Avg mg/l mgd solids, Avg % Avg % % of solids Cake Cake Avg lb/Dry T Wet Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons30%60Jan-06 114.81.745,458 79,292 3,734 0.48 3.90 21.1 63.0 376.9 79.5 5.00 142.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.38 30.15 29.498.13,270Feb-06 102.31.863,505 54,496 2,432 0.60 3.60 20.8 66.0 423.0 88.0 8.18 135.56 0.00 0.00 42.33 17.46 28.20 29.999.73,324Mar-06 115.52.013,007 50,319 2,034 0.52 4.20 23.5 64.0 400.4 94.1 5.55 129.41 0.00 50.44 13.23 0.00 30.41 33.9112.93,763Apr-06 132.71.893,673 57,896 2,300 0.46 4.80 24.9 56.0 373.7 93.0 4.26 189.83 0.00 45.77 0.00 0.00 47.27 40.9136.54,549May-06 104.71.764,382 64,250 2,780 0.53 4.10 23.7 61.0 392.5 93.0 4.55 190.10 0.00 33.31 14.66 0.00 45.05 36.3120.94,031Jun-06 104.41.524,263 53,923 2,765 0.58 3.50 23.8 61.0 334.6 79.6 7.48 173.11 0.00 0.00 38.43 0.00 41.20 31.1103.53,451Jul-06 107.61.543,498 44,889 2,284 0.64 3.60 24.0 61.0 372.7 89.5 6.05 147.19 0.00 28.23 25.90 0.00 35.32 34.9116.33,876Aug-06 107.25.432,463 111,586 1,630 0.67 3.20 24.0 64.0 346.7 83.2 6.13 165.73 0.00 15.04 28.39 0.00 39.78 30.099.83,328Sep-06 98.25.733,471 165,776 2,347 0.54 3.40 24.4 60.0 355.6 86.8 5.44 0.00 0.00 50.56 36.21 0.00 0.00 34.7115.73,857Oct-06 103.55.651,230 57,909 7650.61 3.50 24.3 62.0 392.6 95.4 4.32 68.22 0.00 63.08 15.74 0.00 16.58 36.3120.84,028Nov-06 108.55.54909 41,999 5480.43 3.60 24.9 63.0 307.2 76.5 4.87 0.00 0.00 36.02 40.46 0.00 0.00 28.394.33,144Dec-06 117.55.94658 32,572 3870.41 4.00 25.7 62.0 316.4 81.3 4.78 0.00 0.00 46.34 34.98 0.00 0.00 30.9103.03,433Jan-07 123.76.10621 31,609 3620.36 4.00 25.9 62.0 307.4 79.6 3.70 0.00 0.00 51.67 27.95 0.00 0.00 30.3100.93,362Feb-07 126.05.86781 38,197 4420.35 5.20 25.9 59.0 325.5 84.3 4.36 0.00 5.16 14.54 51.13 13.47 0.00 34.6115.23,840Mar-07 117.09.20869 66,700 5200.37 5.00 27.2 56.0 330.4 89.9 3.14 15.40 34.92 0.00 5.47 45.29 4.19 39.5131.84,393Apr-07 135.312.72910 96,562 4880.36 7.20 29.7 46.0 429.5 127.6 3.36 220.07 58.97 0.00 3.24 0.00 65.36 68.9229.67,654May-07 164.611.881,235 122,336 5350.33 8.60 33.9 36.0 395.1 133.9 3.58 206.73 2.32 0.00 61.54 0.00 70.08 85.7285.79,524Jun-07 115.713.78934 107,314 5410.41 4.40 26.9 56.0 307.2 82.6 5.54 0.00 11.98 0.00 57.95 12.71 0.00 36.4121.24,040Jul-07 112.013.39781 87,218 5100.43 4.30 27.3 53.0 253.3 69.2 5.28 178.31 4.09 6.09 10.30 0.00 48.68 32.5108.43,612Aug-07 106.49.451,249 98,454 7840.36 3.60 26.7 55.0 191.2 51.1 8.21 111.95 19.23 0.00 1.93 0.00 29.89 23.076.62,553Sep-07 99.714.052,181 255,624 1,170 0.43 3.80 27.7 53.0 266.9 73.9 6.04 80.34 32.49 0.00 19.19 0.00 22.26 34.7115.83,861Oct-07 96.27.33605 36,964 4060.37 3.90 27.5 56.0 226.2 62.2 5.28 0.00 11.18 16.07 34.96 0.00 0.00 27.491.23,041Nov-07 91.83.391,203 34,045 7260.29 3.70 25.6 56.0 190.7 48.8 5.69 1.48 0.00 48.44 0.00 0.00 0.38 21.571.62,387Dec-07 112.23.15911 23,921 5410.40 4.60 28.3 53.0 334.3 94.6 4.86 122.86 0.00 24.68 0.00 35.16 34.77 44.5148.24,941Jan-08 104.12.00446 7,451 2720.42 4.10 26.4 61.0 311.2 82.2 5.40 119.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.62 31.54 32.0106.83,560Feb-08 136.90.20677 1,129 3670.41 4.70 30.8 58.0 304.7 93.9 3.94 49.04 0.00 0.00 34.23 44.53 15.11 39.4131.44,380Mar-08 199.59.30966 74,899 3940.40 7.40 34.7 40.0 410.7 142.5 3.58 114.76 13.11 28.13 47.80 13.65 39.82 85.5285.09,501Apr-08 206.711.54925 89,000 3810.37 6.90 31.9 41.0 357.7 114.1 3.80 77.82 1.09 46.95 41.25 0.00 24.83 67.3224.47,481May-08 211.311.83810 79,910 3850.47 6.60 32.7 41.0 409.1 133.8 3.25 120.19 0.00 45.98 48.48 0.00 39.30 78.9263.18,769Jun-08 210.211.401,220 116,027 3530.29 10.70 38.1 28.0 339.7 129.4 3.89 97.38 7.54 39.99 0.00 44.80 37.10 93.2310.610,354Jul-08 174.011.71758 74,025 2750.47 8.70 39.4 32.0 438.4 172.7 2.89 67.60 11.48 65.80 0.00 68.81 26.63 117.5391.513,050Aug-08 118.211.70502 48,984 2740.47 5.10 31.2 50.0 310.2 96.8 4.16 0.00 0.00 50.35 0.00 46.43 0.00 48.4161.35,377Sep-08 162.79.34791 61,637 3000.40 6.70 34.7 42.0 340.4 118.1 3.49 74.49 0.00 37.49 0.00 54.78 25.85 68.5228.37,612Oct-08 101.69.15437 33,342 2810.43 3.50 28.5 59.0 230.5 65.7 6.74 10.76 25.67 0.09 26.76 10.09 3.07 26.989.82,992Nov-08 98.39.19534 40,943 3440.35 3.90 28.4 61.0 230.0 65.3 6.75 0.00 14.59 10.09 11.47 29.17 0.00 25.584.92,831Dec-08 123.79.16562 42,938 3510.35 4.60 30.4 56.0 271.7 82.6 6.36 148.37 0.04 21.10 16.31 0.04 45.10 36.3121.24,038Jan-09 111.07.65752 48,009 4170.42 4.00 28.2 62.0 283.6 80.0 4.65 79.46 0.03 28.03 29.50 0.01 22.41 30.4101.33,377Feb-09 123.99.28622 48,132 3820.37 5.60 29.4 59.0 331.6 97.5 4.47 170.32 0.03 15.85 31.53 0.01 50.07 40.0133.24,441Mar-09 132.29.201,003 76,931 4900.37 6.60 30.6 52.0 403.5 123.5 4.37 194.62 0.13 21.90 41.79 0.11 59.55 59.3197.66,586Apr-09 177.49.25946 72,953 4420.44 6.00 31.6 51.0 384.5 121.5 3.52 223.76 0.34 35.25 13.16 2.04 70.71 59.5198.56,615May-09 173.29.251,129 87,051 4340.32 8.40 34.9 38.0 405.3 141.4 3.15 53.23 0.29 39.50 0.74 82.33 18.58 87.7292.39,7432006 109.73.383,043 67,909 2,001 0.54 3.78 23.8 61.9 366.0 86.7 5.55 111.84 0.00 30.73 24.19 5.57 26.16 33.04110.133,6712007 116.79.191,023 83,245 5850.37 4.86 27.7 53.4 296.5 83.1 4.92 78.10 15.03 13.46 22.80 8.89 22.97 39.91133.024,4342008 153.98.88719 55,857 3310.40 6.08 32.3 47.4 329.5 108.1 4.52 73.32 6.13 28.83 18.86 30.24 24.03 59.96199.866,662MM 174.011.7758.0 74025.3 275.0 0.58.739.4 32.0 438.4 172.7 2.9 67.6 11.5 65.8 0.0 68.8 26.6 117.5391.513050.4AA 126.87.151,595 69,004 9720.44 4.91 27.9 54.3 330.7 92.6 5.00 87.75 7.05 24.34 21.95 14.90 24.39 44.30147.674,922YearInfluent Flow, mgdWAS/Humus (tpd)Primary Sludge (tpd)Cake to Incinerator (dtpd)Total Solids (dtpy)Solids Production (dt/MG)Volatile Solids (tpd)Ash Production (dtpd)2006 109.734.05387 31,631 0.79 53.7332007 116.741.64283 30,347 0.71 44.4402008 153.927.980108 39,453 0.70 51.360MM 174.037.0136173 63,045 0.99 55.3117AA 126.834.55893 33,810 0.73 50.3441. Digesters removed December 17, 2008 so alll sludge pumped to Bissell is raw instead of digested2. Averaging $408 per 10 cubic yard container of grit removed.3. Natural Gas prices fluctuate widely4. Future considerations: Aeration would only be restarted if required by regulatory or if nutrient removal was required. 5. Bissell can accept hauled sludge cake from other plants. Disposal costs are slightly more per ton than Bissell cake after press operation6. Polymer prices are not constant over the life of this table. Current prices are $0.094 per lb.7. Bissell watershed is likely not to grow in flow or strength except for capture of more CSO.Monthly TotalsBissell WWTP Solids SummaryAppendix ABissell WWTP Solids Summary
Total Flow Plant FlowDiverted Raw FlowTotal Flow Monthly Average Waste FlowTotal Raw Sludge FlowBissell Sludge FlowRaw Sludge % TSRaw Sludge TSRaw Sludge TS PoundsRaw Sludge % VSRaw Sludge VSRaw Sludge VS PoundsRaw Sludge pHDigested SludgeDigested Sludge Removed Digested Sludge % TSDigested Sludge TSDigested Sludge % VSDigested Sludge VSDigested Sludge Vol mg/LRaw Sludge (dtpd)Month MG MG MG MGD MG MG MG % mg/L lbs/day % mg/L lbs/day SU MG DT % mg/L % % mg/LJan-06 19.71 19.71 1.05 0.18 0.18 1.99 19,903 29,856 81.94 16,292 24,445 6.38 0.19 8.06 1.00 10,019 61.97 0.63 6,256.00 14.9Feb-06 18.83 18.83 0.00 527.37 0.81 0.17 0.17 1.95 19,546 27,052 82.96 16,186 22,404 6.32 0.18 8.95 1.23 12,264 58.89 0.73 7,302.57 13.5Mar-06 22.98 22.98 0.00 712.48 0.88 0.22 0.22 1.76 17,606 31,633 80.87 14,222 25,577 6.41 0.25 10.70 1.08 10,768 59.84 0.65 6,468.81 15.8Apr-06 22.37 22.37 0.00 671.21 1.10 0.23 0.23 1.50 15,000 29,348 81.67 12,260 24,025 6.38 0.31 10.62 0.84 8,430 60.03 0.51 5,141.87 14.7May-06 21.36 21.36 0.00 662.06 0.83 0.21 0.21 1.68 16,752 29,800 79.97 13,352 23,753 6.44 0.26 8.61 0.78 7,829 58.23 0.46 4,629.42 14.9Jun-06 18.57 18.57 0.00 556.97 0.81 0.20 0.20 1.78 17,757 29,428 81.20 14,329 23,720 6.47 0.22 9.47 1.04 10,362 61.59 0.64 6,397.93 14.7Jul-06 18.06 17.80 8.10 18.06 0.88 0.22 0.22 1.79 17,945 32,550 80.48 14,407 26,160 6.36 0.25 8.99 0.86 8,552 62.58 0.54 5,434.61 16.3Aug-06 16.97 16.97 0.00 16.97 0.80 0.22 0.22 1.48 14,839 26,755 81.06 12,013 21,641 6.46 0.27 9.77 0.89 8,913 62.42 0.56 5,585.39 13.4Sep-06 16.40 16.40 0.00 16.40 0.74 0.17 0.17 1.43 14,260 20,051 81.33 11,597 16,301 6.62 0.28 11.53 0.97 9,723 63.57 0.62 6,219.50 10.0Oct-06 17.57 17.57 0.00 17.57 0.66 0.17 0.17 2.01 20,126 28,831 77.55 14,838 21,133 6.48 0.22 11.16 1.15 11,520 60.37 0.70 6,990.10 14.4Nov-06 18.13 18.13 0.00 18.13 0.80 0.21 0.21 1.94 19,430 34,762 79.53 15,356 27,504 6.52 0.25 12.32 1.12 11,224 57.21 0.64 6,440.34 17.4Dec-06 23.64 23.15 15.00 23.64 0.93 0.18 0.18 1.75 17,471 26,801 79.35 13,815 21,246 6.56 0.24 12.79 1.26 12,574 61.29 0.77 7,689.55 13.4Jan-07 25.45 25.45 0.00 25.45 0.80 0.18 0.18 1.50 14,987 22,954 79.65 12,000 18,342 6.53 0.25 12.06 1.10 11,003 60.19 0.67 6,687.90 11.5Feb-07 24.82 24.82 0.00 24.82 0.84 0.18 0.18 1.57 15,700 23,210 78.54 12,334 18,247 6.41 0.25 9.64 0.93 9,286 58.96 0.55 5,542.54 11.6Mar-07 23.89 23.89 0.00 23.89 0.81 0.18 0.18 1.50 15,010 22,786 80.06 11,976 18,172 6.44 0.26 11.06 1.03 10,323 58.65 0.61 6,093.32 11.4Apr-07 31.26 31.26 0.00 31.26 0.85 0.16 0.16 1.61 16,107 21,847 76.10 12,146 16,422 6.38 0.22 10.18 1.12 11,207 56.07 0.63 6,292.93 10.9May-07 32.84 32.84 0.00 32.84 0.71 0.18 0.18 2.30 23,042 35,032 72.90 15,622 23,652 6.39 0.21 10.55 1.22 12,229 54.45 0.67 6,739.13 17.5Jun-07 21.42 21.42 0.00 21.42 0.82 0.18 0.18 2.14 21,360 32,381 79.23 16,884 25,563 6.38 0.19 11.74 1.45 14,500 58.38 0.84 8,425.69 16.2Jul-07 18.83 18.83 0.00 18.83 0.80 0.20 0.20 1.71 17,061 28,430 79.35 13,244 22,223 6.39 0.25 11.80 1.09 10,877 59.58 0.65 6,483.29 14.2Aug-07 17.79 17.79 0.00 17.79 0.83 0.20 0.20 1.88 18,813 31,018 81.74 15,387 25,349 6.34 0.22 11.32 1.23 12,345 61.90 0.76 7,643.97 15.5Sep-07 17.24 17.24 0.00 17.24 0.74 0.18 0.18 1.68 16,773 25,050 79.83 13,353 19,905 6.36 0.22 9.21 0.99 9,900 61.40 0.63 6,250.97 12.5Oct-07 17.48 17.48 0.00 17.48 0.77 0.17 0.17 1.65 16,461 23,856 78.32 12,905 18,686 6.50 0.23 10.52 1.08 10,816 62.10 0.68 6,773.45 11.9Nov-07 16.01 16.01 0.00 16.01 0.77 0.16 0.16 1.76 17,550 23,419 78.47 13,515 18,051 6.48 0.23 11.21 1.14 11,360 61.40 0.70 6,952.80 11.7Dec-07 18.74 18.74 0.00 18.74 0.81 0.15 0.15 1.84 18,423 23,186 78.39 14,190 17,879 6.43 0.23 9.89 1.05 10,452 59.32 0.63 6,313.42 11.6Jan-08 18.61 18.61 0.00 18.61 0.70 0.15 0.15 1.84 18,365 22,519 80.74 14,571 17,899 6.40 0.22 9.96 1.10 11,013 61.13 0.67 6,724.32 11.3Feb-08 27.64 27.64 0.00 27.64 0.81 0.19 0.19 1.85 18,466 28,759 78.38 14,091 21,959 6.21 0.23 11.88 1.22 12,210 57.97 0.70 7,039.07 14.4Mar-08 42.69 42.69 0.00 42.69 0.73 0.19 0.19 1.58 15,790 24,382 75.16 12,014 18,522 6.25 0.22 9.74 1.10 11,045 58.58 0.66 6,607.03 12.2Apr-08 45.26 45.26 0.00 45.26 0.61 0.20 0.20 1.94 19,410 31,936 73.93 14,392 23,817 6.17 0.21 11.04 1.27 12,677 51.90 0.68 6,772.20 16.0May-08 42.09 42.07 0.64 42.09 0.60 0.20 0.20 2.04 20,387 34,494 73.19 14,339 24,262 6.40 0.21 9.09 0.98 9,757 53.50 0.53 5,295.50 17.2Jun-08 30.37 30.37 0.00 30.37 1.33 0.20 0.20 1.84 18,443 30,940 78.47 14,400 24,168 6.40 0.22 12.75 1.43 14,317 50.47 0.72 7,167.43 15.5Jul-08 30.13 30.13 0.00 30.13 0.77 0.20 0.20 1.87 18,716 31,359 75.81 13,742 23,049 6.36 0.23 10.21 1.04 10,429 54.06 0.57 5,653.90 15.7Aug-08 23.08 23.08 0.00 23.08 0.80 0.20 0.20 1.70 17,045 28,799 78.97 13,161 22,279 6.47 0.23 8.53 0.90 9,010 54.32 0.48 4,782.35 14.4Sep-08 35.84 35.01 25.00 35.84 0.59 0.19 0.19 1.94 19,387 30,397 72.63 13,623 21,435 6.49 0.22 9.85 1.05 10,480 51.60 0.54 5,441.10 15.2Oct-08 23.06 23.06 0.00 23.06 0.53 0.20 0.20 1.51 15,097 25,338 80.52 12,108 20,345 6.46 0.22 11.15 1.20 12,035 55.71 0.67 6,733.65 12.7Nov-08 20.20 20.20 0.00 20.20 0.71 0.20 0.20 1.57 15,737 26,671 81.10 12,739 21,603 6.45 0.23 9.23 0.97 9,663 58.87 0.58 5,808.57 13.3Dec-08 26.49 26.49 0.00 26.49 0.67 0.36 0.36 1.39 13,886 37,100 81.25 11,276 29,994 6.51 0.37 13.87 0.91 9,132 60.88 0.54 5,385.65 18.5Jan-09 23.79 23.79 0.00 23.79 0.38 0.65 0.65 0.43 4,310 23,306 49.60 2,137 11,580 6.51 0.65 11.65 0.43 4,310 11.7Feb-09 28.33 28.33 0.00 28.33 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.40 3,986 17,419 67.19 2,939 12,926 6.69 0.52 8.71 0.40 3,986 8.7Mar-09 27.47 27.47 0.00 27.47 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.46 4,616 22,546 73.35 3,476 16,984 6.70 0.59 11.27 0.46 4,616 11.3Apr-09 37.03 37.03 0.00 37.03 0.50 0.53 0.53 0.45 4,487 19,352 66.60 3,205 13,742 6.67 0.53 9.68 0.45 4,487 9.7May-09 29.14 29.14 0.00 29.14 0.42 0.50 0.50 0.40 3,971 16,503 67.10 2,735 11,337 6.83 0.50 8.25 0.40 3,971 8.32006 19.55 19.49 2.10 294.62 0.86 0.20 0.20 1.76 17,553 28,906 80.66 14,056 23,159 6.45 0.24 10.25 1.02 10,182 60.66 0.62 6,213.01 14.452007 22.15 22.15 0.00 22.15 0.79 0.18 0.18 1.76 17,607 26,097 78.55 13,630 20,208 6.42 0.23 10.76 1.12 11,191 59.37 0.67 6,683.28 13.052008 30.45 30.38 2.14 30.45 0.74 0.21 0.21 1.76 17,561 29,391 77.51 13,371 22,444 6.38 0.23 10.61 1.10 10,981 55.75 0.61 6,117.56 14.70MM 26.49 26.49 0.00 26.49 0.67 0.36 0.36 1.39 13,885.71 37,099.81 81.25 11,276.29 29,994.04 6.51 0.37 13.87 0.91 9,132.14 60.88 0.54 5,385.65 18.55AA 24.05 24.01 1.39 110.63 0.80 0.19 0.19 1.76 17,574 28,131 78.91 13,686 21,937 6.42 0.24 10.54 1.08 10,785 58.59 0.63 6,337.95 14.07YearAverage Influent Flow (mgd)Raw Sludge (dtpd)Total Digested Sludge (dptd)Raw Solids Production (dt/MG)Raw Sludge Volatile Solids (tpd)Inorganic "Ash" Volume (tpd)200619.5 14.5 10.2 0.74 11.58-1.332007 22.1 13.0 10.8 0.59 10.100.662008 30.4 14.7 10.6 0.48 11.22-0.61MM 26.5 18.5 13.9 0.70 15.00-1.12AA 24.0 14.1 10.5 0.59 10.97-0.431. Used Digested Sludge for total VS2. Ignored Dec-)08 Max Month due to startupColdwater WWTP Solids SummaryMonthly Totals
Total FlowDiverted Plant FlowPrimary Effluent Diverted Plant FlowRaw Sludge Feed FlowRaw Sludge to Digesters Monthly Raw Sludge % TSRaw Sludge TS mg/LRaw Sludge TS PoundsRaw Sludge % VSRaw Sludge VS mg/LRaw Sludge VS PoundsRaw Sludge pHDigester Gas ProducedDigester Gas WastedDigester Gas UsedDigested Sludge Volatile Feed Sludge FlowFeed Sludge TS mg/LFeed Sludge TS % MonthMonth MG MG MG MG MG MG % mg/L lbs/day % mg/L lbs/day SU KCF KCF KCF % MG mg/L %Jan-06 26.47 0.00 0.00 26.47 0.11 0.11 4.13 41,273 26,703 73 29,595 19,248 6.13 237.8 0.5 237.3 43.3 0.1 21,043 2.1 Jan-06Feb-06 24.17 0.00 0.00 24.17 0.11 0.11 4.00 40,000 26,886 81 32,205 21,642 6.03 227.6 0.0 227.6 46.9 0.1 19,333 1.9 Feb-06Mar-06 27.44 0.00 0.00 27.44 0.11 0.11 4.23 42,304 29,529 79 33,221 23,180 6.07 236.9 0.0 236.9 45.7 0.1 26,261 2.6 Mar-06Apr-06 26.61 0.00 0.00 26.61 0.11 0.11 4.36 43,550 26,866 81 35,058 21,628 5.93 247.9 0.1 247.8 68.8 0.2 24,950 2.5 Apr-06May-06 27.36 0.00 0.00 27.36 0.11 0.11 4.19 41,913 30,321 77 32,010 23,113 5.79 182.5 45.6 136.9 54.8 0.1 22,783 2.3 May-06Jun-06 26.47 0.00 0.00 26.47 0.12 0.12 4.17 41,682 30,483 77 31,981 23,481 5.75 218.0 18.0 200.0 38.8 0.1 28,130 2.8 Jun-06Jul-06 27.05 0.00 0.00 27.05 0.11 0.11 3.91 39,143 25,156 78 30,503 19,603 5.79 232.9 7.1 225.8 40.2 0.1 21,048 2.1 Jul-06Aug-06 27.15 0.00 0.00 27.15 0.11 0.11 3.53 35,304 24,915 76 26,982 19,053 5.89 231.5 6.5 225.0 56.5 0.1 21,182 2.1 Aug-06Sep-06 25.53 0.00 0.00 25.53 0.10 0.10 4.02 40,200 24,211 76 30,610 18,450 5.84 125.7 9.4 116.3 39.4 0.1 17,727 1.8 Sep-06Oct-06 25.48 0.00 0.00 25.48 0.12 0.12 3.73 37,318 26,149 75 27,572 19,301 6.02 234.2 9.2 225.0 36.9 0.1 18,545 1.9 Oct-06Nov-06 25.53 0.00 0.08 25.53 0.11 0.11 4.03 40,273 27,997 76 30,468 21,181 6.12 234.4 9.4 225.0 47.3 0.1 23,190 2.3 Nov-06Dec-06 29.03 0.00 0.00 29.03 0.11 0.11 3.24 32,350 19,714 74 23,859 14,538 6.25 226.6 1.7 225.0 54.5 0.1 23,571 2.4 Dec-06Jan-07 29.38 0.00 0.00 29.38 0.12 0.12 3.41 34,087 24,549 75 24,912 17,901 6.18 225.0 0.0 225.0 60.1 0.1 19,522 2.0 Jan-07Feb-07 28.49 0.00 0.00 28.49 0.11 0.11 3.95 39,450 26,996 77 30,407 20,809 6.08 225.0 0.0 225.0 46.8 0.1 20,850 2.1 Feb-07Mar-07 27.25 0.00 0.00 27.25 0.11 0.11 4.57 45,727 28,909 77 34,827 21,973 5.95 207.7 0.0 207.7 42.3 0.1 28,864 2.9 Mar-07Apr-07 30.28 0.00 0.00 30.28 0.11 0.11 4.29 42,905 26,581 74 31,420 19,393 6.04 208.2 0.0 208.2 45.9 0.1 21,850 2.2 Apr-07May-07 31.56 0.00 0.00 31.56 0.10 0.10 4.63 46,304 30,627 69 30,975 20,389 6.03 181.8 0.0 181.8 44.4 0.1 23,636 2.4 May-07Jun-07 29.85 0.00 0.00 29.85 0.11 0.11 4.44 44,429 27,667 71 30,354 18,754 5.95 163.6 2.4 161.2 55.2 0.1 21,000 2.1 Jun-07Jul-07 27.35 0.00 0.00 27.35 0.11 0.11 5.15 51,455 31,766 67 30,238 18,765 5.94 179.5 9.6 169.9 51.9 0.1 26,727 2.7 Jul-07Aug-07 28.07 0.00 0.00 28.07 0.11 0.11 3.23 32,261 20,259 74 24,102 15,032 6.02 92.9 0.8 92.1 58.3 0.1 25,565 2.6 Aug-07Sep-07 24.62 0.00 0.00 24.62 0.11 0.11 3.35 33,450 19,797 74 24,420 14,433 5.96 185.3 0.0 185.3 44.9 0.1 26,350 2.6 Sep-07Oct-07 22.47 0.00 0.00 22.47 0.09 0.09 3.32 33,217 18,441 79 26,092 14,491 5.99 192.5 0.0 192.5 46.5 0.1 17,870 1.8 Oct-07Nov-07 22.18 0.00 0.00 22.18 0.09 0.09 3.60 36,045 20,910 80 28,795 16,681 5.90 228.8 0.0 228.8 38.9 0.1 14,857 1.5 Nov-07Dec-07 25.15 0.00 0.00 25.15 0.08 0.08 3.82 38,190 17,191 80 30,288 13,628 6.00 228.8 0.0 228.8 47.6 0.1 19,238 1.9 Dec-07Jan-08 24.14 0.00 0.00 24.14 0.08 0.08 4.07 40,652 18,979 79 32,039 14,931 5.98 231.5 0.0 231.5 43.4 0.1 20,087 2.0 Jan-08Feb-08 28.06 0.00 1.58 28.06 0.08 0.08 4.50 44,952 20,357 73 32,242 14,502 5.97 233.0 0.0 233.0 46.2 0.1 30,381 3.0 Feb-08Mar-08 29.95 2.00 0.25 29.89 0.08 0.08 5.23 52,286 26,887 67 32,631 16,372 6.01 218.7 0.0 218.7 55.5 0.1 25,333 2.5 Mar-08Apr-08 32.93 0.00 0.00 32.93 0.11 0.11 5.51 55,143 34,803 72 37,316 23,286 5.88 238.5 0.0 238.5 78.2 0.1 32,864 3.3 Apr-08May-08 34.32 0.00 0.00 34.32 0.10 0.10 5.41 54,091 31,969 68 34,010 19,956 5.96 238.5 0.0 238.5 49.4 0.1 24,045 2.4 May-08Jun-08 30.61 0.00 0.00 30.61 0.10 0.10 5.03 50,286 30,921 66 33,069 20,332 5.86 235.4 0.0 235.4 71.1 0.1 33,238 3.3 Jun-08Jul-08 29.35 0.00 0.00 29.35 0.09 0.09 8.05 80,522 46,025 45 32,022 17,913 5.78 222.6 0.0 222.6 13.7 0.1 31,542 3.2 Jul-08Aug-08 26.74 0.00 0.00 26.74 0.09 0.09 6.02 60,190 28,178 54 30,485 14,443 5.92 214.8 0.0 214.8 44.0 0.1 31,381 3.1 Aug-08Sep-08 31.83 0.00 10.43 31.83 0.09 0.09 4.73 47,318 26,079 63 26,718 14,667 5.97 222.9 0.0 222.9 73.6 0.1 26,850 2.7 Sep-08Oct-08 25.60 0.00 0.00 25.60 0.08 0.08 3.69 36,913 18,711 73 26,736 13,564 6.03 212.2 0.0 212.2 67.7 0.1 26,565 2.7 Oct-08Nov-08 25.03 0.00 0.00 25.03 0.08 0.08 3.74 37,350 17,229 80 29,871 13,812 6.04 220.8 0.0 220.8 51.5 0.1 18,150 1.8 Nov-08Dec-08 27.86 0.00 0.00 27.86 0.08 0.08 4.05 40,522 19,588 75 30,097 14,587 6.10 222.3 0.0 222.3 38.4 0.1 23,348 2.3 Dec-08Jan-09 24.39 0.00 0.00 24.39 0.08 0.08 4.10 40,955 19,435 82 33,702 15,988 5.81 179.6 0.0 179.6 77.1 0.1 26,053 2.6 Jan-09Feb-09 26.68 2.00 0.00 26.60 0.08 0.08 4.13 41,250 19,021 80 32,768 15,118 6.02 198.6 0.0 198.5 46.4 0.1 28,650 2.9 Feb-09Mar-09 26.10 0.00 0.00 26.10 0.07 0.07 4.61 46,091 19,575 77 35,530 15,102 5.84 225.9 0.0 225.9 42.5 0.1 20,318 2.0 Mar-09Apr-09 30.23 0.00 0.00 30.23 0.07 0.07 4.42 44,190 17,519 77 34,119 13,522 5.98 218.7 0.0 218.7 45.5 0.1 22,619 2.3 Apr-09May-09 29.41 0.00 0.00 29.41 0.12 0.12 3.92 39,190 23,498 73 28,963 17,618 6.08 195.9 0.0 195.8 37.8 0.1 24,000 2.4 May-092006 26.52 0.00 0.01 26.52 0.11 0.11 3.96 39,609 26,577 77 30,339 20,368 5.97 219.7 9.0 210.7 47.8 0.1 22,314 2.2 20062007 27.22 0.00 0.00 27.22 0.10 0.10 3.98 39,793 24,474 75 28,902 17,687 6.00 193.3 1.1 192.2 48.6 0.1 22,194 2.2 20072008 28.87 0.17 1.02 28.86 0.09 0.09 5.00 50,019 26,644 68 31,436 16,530 5.96 225.9 0.0 225.9 52.7 0.1 26,982 2.7 2008MM 29.35 0.00 0.00 29.35 0.09 0.09 8.05 80,522 46,025 45 32,022 17,913 5.78 222.6 0.0 222.6 13.7 0.1 31,542 3.2 MMAA27.54 0.06 0.34 27.54 0.10 0.10 4.31 43,140 25,899 73 30,226 18,195 5.98 213.0 3.3 209.6 49.7 0.1 23,830 2.4 AAYearAverage Influent Flow (mgd)Raw Sludge (tpd)Feed Sludge (tpd))Compost (dtpd)Landfill (dtpd)Land Applied (dtpd)Solids Production (dt/MG)Volatile Solids (dtpd)Total Digested Solids (dtpd)Tons2006 26.5 13.3 11.2 5.3 0.0 2.4 0.5 3.7 7.72007 27.2 12.2 11.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 8.22008 28.9 13.3 12.3 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 4.8 9.0MM 29.3 23.0 15.914.1AA27.5 12.9 11.5 7.4 0.1 0.8 0.5 4.1 8.3Monthly TotalsMissouri River WWTP Solids Summary (Page 1 of 2)Appnendix AMissouri River Solids SummaryPage 1 of 2
Feed Sludge TS PoundsFeed Sludge % VSFeed Sludge VS mg/LFeed Sludge VS PoundsFeed Sludge pHBP Polymer AddedBP Polymer $/DTBelt Press Hours of OperationBelt Press Yield Dry Tons/HourSludge Cake Produced Sludge Cake Produced Sludge Cake Produced Total Dry Sludge Cake Produced Land App Total Wet TonsLand App Total Dry TonsCompost Total Wet TonsCompost Total Dry TonsIncineration Total Wet TonsIncineration Total Dry TonsLandfill Total Wet TonsLandfill Total Dry TonsTotal WT DisposedTotal DT Disposedlbs/day % mg/L lbs/day SU lbs/Day $/DT Hours DT/hr % Wet Tons Dry Tons Lbs Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons17,822 51.0 10,733 9,028 7.9 225.3 22.3 6.0 1.1 27.2 23.0 6.2 46,056 22.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 6.017,675 54.9 10,608 9,638 7.8 233.1 22.4 7.4 0.9 27.5 23.0 6.4 45,975 24.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 6.723,931 54.4 14,477 13,148 7.9 286.3 21.5 9.5 1.0 28.4 34.0 9.6 68,029 34.8 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8 9.934,740 47.8 11,659 17,273 7.8 245.8 23.0 7.7 0.9 29.8 22.7 6.8 45,437 3.4 0.9 20.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.7 7.223,536 49.6 11,171 11,563 7.7 288.4 20.2 8.7 1.0 29.8 29.7 8.9 59,450 16.1 5.0 13.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 9.124,278 55.5 15,709 13,536 7.7 324.1 18.9 8.8 1.4 27.6 39.0 10.7 77,928 0.0 0.0 39.8 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.8 11.020,555 55.6 11,630 11,184 7.7 269.5 21.9 7.3 1.0 25.6 29.8 7.7 59,524 0.0 0.0 30.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 7.822,932 48.8 10,063 10,813 7.7 301.0 22.2 8.3 1.0 27.6 29.6 8.2 59,196 0.0 0.0 30.4 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 8.520,068 54.6 9,605 10,777 7.8 208.8 25.0 4.4 1.0 24.0 21.1 5.1 42,290 0.0 0.0 21.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 5.219,098 54.8 10,163 10,440 7.8 322.1 31.0 7.4 0.9 26.4 26.2 7.0 52,321 0.0 0.0 26.6 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 6.923,532 51.8 11,978 12,118 7.8 298.0 27.4 8.8 0.9 27.5 23.7 6.5 47,390 0.0 0.0 25.6 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 7.121,714 47.8 11,266 10,325 7.8 265.3 31.6 6.5 1.1 29.0 23.9 6.9 47,716 0.0 0.0 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 7.021,635 47.1 9,083 10,005 7.7 294.7 33.8 8.0 0.9 29.5 24.5 7.1 48,970 0.0 0.0 24.6 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 7.218,919 52.4 10,947 9,938 7.8 289.0 30.5 7.3 1.1 27.6 27.1 7.4 54,205 0.0 0.0 27.9 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.9 7.725,024 53.9 15,658 13,505 7.9 332.6 27.1 8.4 1.9 27.4 38.4 10.4 76,704 0.0 0.0 38.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 10.523,009 50.5 10,919 11,513 7.8 337.2 38.4 7.4 1.0 25.9 26.2 7.1 52,455 0.0 0.0 26.8 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 7.323,760 48.0 11,151 11,223 7.8 374.7 32.9 7.6 1.2 28.4 33.0 9.4 66,065 0.0 0.0 32.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 9.122,234 45.8 9,422 9,867 7.8 308.0 29.8 8.0 1.4 29.6 29.7 8.9 59,368 0.0 0.0 29.9 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 9.027,655 44.3 11,828 12,228 7.7 303.1 28.1 7.9 1.2 30.9 29.0 9.0 58,071 0.0 0.0 29.4 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.4 9.128,013 46.9 11,299 12,633 7.6 305.3 34.6 9.2 1.2 29.5 26.9 8.0 53,841 0.0 0.0 28.3 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 8.526,233 50.9 13,534 13,455 7.7 308.9 29.6 8.8 1.0 27.9 35.0 9.6 70,087 0.0 0.0 35.8 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.8 9.915,345 53.6 9,499 8,240 7.6 263.1 29.2 6.0 0.9 27.4 26.9 7.4 53,705 0.0 0.0 26.9 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 7.415,808 57.7 8,637 9,091 7.5 267.6 35.5 7.6 0.9 25.2 24.3 6.2 48,575 0.0 0.0 23.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 6.016,383 53.9 10,339 8,966 7.6 265.3 38.7 6.4 2.5 26.4 22.0 5.7 44,018 0.0 0.0 23.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 6.217,322 54.9 10,972 9,578 7.6 275.8 65.6 6.2 1.1 26.9 25.8 7.0 51,692 0.0 0.0 25.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 6.826,158 50.2 15,515 13,348 7.6 310.5 24.3 7.9 1.8 28.9 38.9 11.2 77,807 0.0 0.0 39.3 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 11.320,899 43.3 10,870 8,933 7.7 405.5 46.1 7.0 1.1 31.2 24.1 7.6 48,206 0.0 0.0 25.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 7.930,941 40.5 13,107 12,209 7.6 428.4 32.9 8.2 1.2 31.0 33.6 10.4 67,158 0.0 0.0 34.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 10.619,464 45.8 10,774 8,841 7.7 309.5 30.2 7.3 1.2 28.7 30.0 8.6 60,067 0.0 0.0 29.8 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 8.429,967 38.8 12,664 11,424 7.6 304.5 22.0 7.6 1.5 33.6 33.5 11.3 67,083 0.0 0.0 33.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 11.131,771 39.6 12,491 12,249 7.6 383.1 32.7 10.1 1.2 33.8 39.7 13.2 79,346 0.0 0.0 38.7 12.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.2 42.6 14.130,062 37.4 11,074 10,485 7.7 309.5 31.8 7.0 3.3 34.3 23.4 8.1 46,848 0.0 0.0 24.7 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 8.626,839 36.1 9,318 9,314 7.8 311.1 26.3 8.8 1.1 33.7 28.7 9.8 57,370 0.0 0.0 27.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 29.0 9.826,212 43.4 11,197 11,045 7.8 290.5 33.9 6.8 1.1 28.9 24.9 7.2 49,745 0.0 0.0 25.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 7.415,046 52.6 9,543 7,878 7.6 211.0 35.1 5.4 1.3 24.8 19.8 5.2 39,610 0.0 0.0 21.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 5.520,620 53.9 12,596 11,158 7.8 275.8 33.7 5.7 1.1 28.0 22.9 6.4 45,755 0.0 0.0 20.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.2 23.7 6.617,133 46.5 11,562 7,673 7.6 271.6 34.0 5.8 1.3 28.6 25.6 7.4 51,251 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 20.6 5.9 25.4 7.325,860 54.9 15,923 14,197 7.5 331.0 30.0 8.8 1.2 26.9 40.3 11.2 80,691 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.5 11.4 41.5 11.419,948 54.1 11,434 11,313 7.5 336.8 44.7 7.9 1.0 26.2 30.3 8.1 60,641 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 8.7 32.6 8.720,370 53.0 12,011 10,837 7.6 293.7 35.1 7.5 0.9 26.1 25.3 6.6 50,543 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 24.5 6.4 25.9 6.822,859 53.1 12,584 11,996 7.6 286.3 33.8 8.4 0.9 24.0 27.3 6.9 54,501 0.0 0.0 8.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 20.4 5.1 28.5 7.222,490 52.2 11,588 11,654 7.8 272.3 23.9 7.6 1.0 27.5 27.1 7.5 54,276 8.4 2.4 19.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.7 7.722,001 50.4 11,026 10,889 7.7 304.1 32.4 7.7 1.3 28.0 28.6 8.0 57,172 0.0 0.0 29.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 8.224,608 44.7 11,677 10,539 7.7 317.9 34.6 7.3 1.4 30.3 28.8 8.8 57,557 0.0 0.0 28.7 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 29.5 9.031,771 39.6 12,491 12,249 7.6 383.1 32.7 10.1 1.2 33.8 39.7 13.2 79,346 0.0 0.0 38.7 12.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.2 42.6 14.123,033 49.1 11,431 11,027 7.7 298.1 30.3 7.5 1.2 28.6 28.2 8.1 56,335 2.8 0.8 25.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 28.7 8.3Missouri River WWTP Solids Summary (Page 2 of 2)Monthly TotalsAppnendix AMissouri River Solids SummaryPage 2 of 2
Plant FlowSRT RAS FlowRAS Composite SSRAS SS Reportable WAS FlowBFP1 Sludge FlowFeed Sludge TS %BFP2 Sludge FlowSludge Cake % SolidsSludge Cake Produced Total Wet TonsSludge Cake Produced Total Dry TonsTotal Wet Tons DisposedTotal Dry Tons DisposedMonthMGDays MGmg/Lmg/LMGMG%MG%wtpddtpdwtpddtpdJan-0616.34 2.417.44 3,370.77 3,390.000.540.102.7019.20 50.259.6250.289.67Feb-0614.36 3.166.57 3,532.50 3,565.540.440.092.7019.93 52.359.9652.369.98Mar-0616.34 2.807.58 3,577.41 3,593.060.510.092.8419.49 46.059.2146.169.19Apr-0614.82 2.976.80 3,307.69 3,345.060.470.073.1319.20 53.2810.4354.4310.72May-0614.77 2.637.09 3,996.54 3,989.760.460.082.8920.22 46.308.8846.338.87Jun-0614.77 2.797.06 3,701.92 3,700.690.460.092.6020.78 45.649.2045.599.18Jul-0615.80 2.677.36 3,267.69 3,223.390.560.082.8620.52 44.499.2344.259.30Aug-0613.78 2.946.95 3,007.41 2,984.520.510.122.3719.90 43.438.9043.398.83Sep-0612.83 3.296.39 2,592.80 2,610.170.490.092.7619.78 43.558.6842.838.65Oct-0613.89 2.896.31 3,012.69 3,027.660.500.082.9620.28 42.358.3543.088.46Nov-0614.37 3.156.59 3,293.46 3,314.330.440.082.9919.12 43.928.9343.078.78Dec-0617.56 3.037.96 3,868.52 3,915.400.420.073.2419.34 44.118.4544.948.64Jan-0717.65 2.678.02 4,499.62 4,506.130.460.073.1619.04 46.879.7047.269.80Feb-0716.70 2.757.58 3,955.29 3,969.710.470.082.7820.19 45.719.3546.619.50Mar-0716.13 3.067.35 3,722.59 3,707.900.460.102.5719.28 48.289.6749.609.92Apr-0717.62 5.708.00 3,983.60 4,042.580.510.073.4620.57 46.869.0645.808.89May-0718.01 2.538.18 3,735.56 3,735.810.550.073.1920.41 45.389.3243.808.98Jun-0714.31 4.686.55 3,826.92 3,821.920.440.082.9019.84 44.869.1444.779.08Jul-0713.06 3.315.98 3,471.15 3,464.030.480.073.2519.71 43.488.6743.298.64Aug-0713.09 2.546.20 2,959.63 2,975.650.640.093.1018.91 39.017.7138.287.58Sep-0713.11 2.165.73 3,348.08 3,293.500.720.102.0619.24 39.237.6737.747.40Oct-0712.85 2.205.88 3,338.46 3,326.130.730.032.150.1120.23 34.746.7133.546.62Nov-0712.80 5.205.87 3,480.38 3,542.830.660.023.190.0319.69 37.257.5736.787.46Dec-0714.69 1.806.69 3,713.85 3,707.580.770.072.350.0218.90 40.838.0039.637.80Jan-0813.01 2.035.95 3,411.85 3,384.190.720.022.250.0919.97 47.728.9950.949.63Feb-0816.16 2.367.27 3,905.60 3,979.480.670.002.470.1020.61 50.2210.0849.229.80Mar-0824.21 1.78 11.12 4,704.62 4,753.060.700.003.100.0922.61 47.509.6547.249.29Apr-0821.54 1.86 10.00 4,382.31 4,362.670.770.003.380.0821.81 42.359.3242.439.33May-0820.44 1.869.98 4,352.22 4,385.240.690.003.230.0821.32 50.5811.1050.6711.21Jun-0814.11 2.055.89 4,160.80 4,087.000.520.003.370.0823.27 45.319.5745.109.48Jul-0815.16 2.613.85 3,278.70 3,236.180.570.003.330.0825.25 44.1110.2844.1410.34Aug-0814.19 3.391.08 1,452.33 1,448.910.600.003.770.0729.88 37.229.3536.919.15Sep-0814.85 3.380.00 1,604.40 1,591.440.580.004.570.0730.33 32.459.7131.889.25Oct-0812.83 12.02 0.00 1,850.77 1,849.170.310.004.050.0530.42 32.279.6732.179.78Nov-0812.28 15.73 0.00 3,014.23 3,019.670.150.004.760.0431.21 23.807.2423.827.25Dec-0814.84 15.86 0.00 4,606.54 4,588.230.160.004.690.0431.02 20.076.2719.275.99Jan-0912.63 13.94 0.00 4,967.41 4,995.650.200.004.380.0627.07 26.878.3227.428.57Feb-0914.23 18.98 0.00 5,843.04 5,881.090.150.005.130.0530.37 34.099.2532.448.82Mar-0914.50 24.94 0.00 4,387.31 4,376.850.150.004.700.0530.70 30.329.1031.779.47Apr-0917.79 14.97 0.00 4,471.92 4,399.830.200.005.220.0629.45 32.139.8832.149.87May-0916.53 10.82 0.00 5,002.96 4,949.110.170.004.870.0629.07 29.368.6530.899.06200614.97 2.907.01 3,377.45 3,388.300.490.092.8419.81 46.319.1546.399.19200715.00 3.226.84 3,669.59 3,674.480.570.072.850.0519.67 42.718.5542.268.47200816.13 5.414.60 3,393.70 3,390.440.540.003.580.0725.64 39.479.2739.489.21Nov 08 to May 09 14.69 16.48 0.00 4,603.92 4,591.790.170.004.810.0529.75 28.018.3728.198.43MM20.44 1.869.98 4,352.22 4,385.240.690.003.230.0821.32 50.5811.1050.6711.21AA15.37 3.846.15 3,480.25 3,484.410.530.053.090.0621.71 42.838.9942.718.96YearAverage Influent Flow (mgd)Primary Solids (dtpd)WAS Solids (tpd)Total Solids (dtpd)Volatile Solids (tpd)Solids Production (dt/MG)2006 15.0 9.2 7.6 0.612007 15.0 8.5 7.1 0.572008 16.1 9.3 7.4 0.57Nov 08 to May 09 14.7 5.1 3.2 8.4 6.5 0.57MM 20.4 11.1 8.6 -AA 15.4 9.0 7.4 0.581. Primary Sludge VS used reportable ML % VS for Concentration2. Assume WAS has VS percentage equal to primaryTable SummaryMonthly TotalsGrand Glaize WWTP Solids SummaryAppendix AGrand Glaize WWTP Solids Summary
Lift Station Total FlowFeed Sludge TS mg/LFeed Sludge TS %Feed Sludge TS PoundsFeed Sludge % VSFeed Sludge VS PoundsDelivery #1 Wet TonsDelivery #1 % SolidsDelivery #1 Dry TonsDelivery #2 Wet TonsDelivery #2 % SolidsDelivery #2 Dry TonsDelivery #3 Wet TonsDelivery #3 % SolidsDelivery #3 Dry TonsDelivery #4 Wet TonsDelivery #4 % SolidsDelivery #4 Dry TonsIncineration Total Wet TonsIncineration Total Dry TonsLandfill Total Wet TonsLandfill Total Dry TonsTotal WT DisposedTotal DT DisposedMonthMG mg/L% lbs/day% lbs/dayWT % DT WT % DT WT % DT WT % DT WT DT WT DT TonTonMar-07 8.04 37,050.00 3.71 1,170.11 72.06 882.25 1.94 34.17 0.68 1.40 29.25 0.41 0.000.00 0.000.00 1.31 0.44 2.03 0.66 3.34 1.09Apr-07 10.85 37,984.62 3.80 3,506.63 79.43 2,770.56 7.95 33.61 2.66 3.61 33.58 1.21 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 11.56 3.87 11.56 3.87May-07 13.20 42,175.00 4.22 1,741.15 72.43 1,338.14 10.26 33.33 3.42 3.72 31.44 1.17 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 13.98 4.59 13.98 4.59Jun-07 10.10 44,223.08 4.42 9,037.71 77.02 6,963.78 14.90 28.78 4.30 4.84 28.50 1.37 1.55 30.45 0.47 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 21.29 6.14 21.29 6.14Jul-07 9.98 46,530.77 4.65 6,071.01 75.66 4,555.69 11.95 30.24 3.61 4.64 30.15 1.40 2.93 32.03 0.94 0.71 31.10 0.22 0.00 0.00 20.23 6.17 20.23 6.17Aug-07 8.41 38,850.00 3.89 6,200.11 79.86 4,983.55 12.48 30.77 3.84 4.50 29.98 1.36 1.38 30.25 0.42 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.36 5.62 18.36 5.62Sep-07 8.08 33,045.45 3.30 1,601.91 75.98 1,258.98 9.69 31.21 3.02 3.95 30.94 1.22 2.21 30.63 0.68 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 15.86 4.93 15.86 4.93Oct-07 7.97 42,285.71 4.23 2,008.55 78.51 1,587.94 10.68 32.34 3.45 4.57 33.23 1.52 2.62 31.13 0.81 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 17.87 5.78 17.87 5.78Nov-07 8.79 42,615.38 4.26 3,300.50 79.87 2,645.06 11.93 30.82 3.67 5.95 31.64 1.88 0.85 31.50 0.27 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.73 5.82 18.73 5.82Dec-07 10.53 44,407.69 4.44 5,925.31 80.37 4,762.73 12.90 32.78 4.22 4.70 32.74 1.54 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 17.61 5.76 17.61 5.76Jan-08 9.88 40,984.62 4.10 6,603.95 80.55 5,294.23 12.22 31.64 3.87 5.85 31.76 1.85 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.08 5.72 18.08 5.72Feb-08 12.13 36,915.38 3.69 8,963.29 80.41 7,128.20 11.15 33.97 3.79 5.08 34.12 1.73 0.68 30.60 0.21 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 16.91 5.74 16.91 5.74Mar-08 19.76 45,230.77 4.52 9,175.59 74.34 6,517.33 7.80 36.40 2.84 2.21 35.57 0.79 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 10.01 3.63 10.01 3.63Apr-08 16.85 48,392.31 4.84 9,909.08 72.71 6,941.95 10.12 36.55 3.67 6.89 38.04 2.61 1.69 37.80 0.64 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.70 6.92 18.70 6.92May-08 16.67 54,523.08 5.45 14,719.31 66.29 9,685.40 16.32 31.27 5.12 11.08 30.16 3.35 3.96 30.46 1.21 1.55 29.65 0.46 0.00 0.00 32.91 10.13 32.91 10.13Jun-08 21.99 64,023.08 6.40 12,492.22 58.40 7,375.52 14.70 31.19 4.58 7.56 31.47 2.37 3.40 31.00 1.06 2.36 31.97 0.76 0.00 0.00 28.02 8.77 28.02 8.77Jul-08 16.58 64,238.46 6.42 10,671.09 58.82 5,736.14 15.65 32.97 5.14 4.78 29.60 1.41 2.24 29.20 0.66 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 22.67 7.21 22.67 7.21Aug-08 10.83 69,576.92 6.96 11,169.06 51.75 5,372.55 13.82 30.74 4.28 12.01 30.56 3.67 2.32 35.20 0.82 1.54 29.65 0.46 0.00 0.00 29.69 9.23 29.69 9.23Sep-08 16.11 70,061.54 7.01 11,504.40 54.28 6,063.26 13.80 32.78 4.53 9.04 35.23 3.16 3.72 31.42 1.17 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 26.55 8.86 26.55 8.86Oct-08 9.71 42,015.38 4.20 7,267.74 75.55 5,504.57 8.59 34.42 2.96 5.57 35.22 1.96 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 14.16 4.92 14.16 4.92Nov-08 9.33 38,708.33 3.87 6,069.86 79.54 4,804.51 10.03 34.10 3.42 3.19 34.35 1.10 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 13.23 4.52 13.23 4.52Dec-08 11.52 53,835.71 5.38 11,112.93 69.23 6,960.59 13.78 35.93 4.98 4.28 35.48 1.52 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.05 6.50 18.05 6.50Jan-09 9.99 40,646.15 4.06 7,207.38 79.22 5,730.02 10.62 37.23 3.96 3.09 37.33 1.16 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 13.71 5.12 13.71 5.12Feb-09 12.12 43,975.00 4.40 8,775.98 80.89 7,102.47 11.34 35.40 4.00 4.52 36.47 1.65 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 15.85 5.65 15.85 5.65Mar-09 12.04 39,907.69 3.99 7,459.82 77.98 5,474.73 11.33 32.38 3.66 5.04 32.59 1.64 1.55 32.20 0.50 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 17.91 5.80 17.91 5.80Apr-09 14.63 46,669.23 4.67 9,287.82 76.21 7,091.78 12.68 34.31 4.34 3.82 34.80 1.33 0.87 33.40 0.29 0.61 33.90 0.21 0.00 0.00 17.98 6.17 17.98 6.05May-09 15.82 49,066.67 4.91 9,470.54 70.97 6,704.72 14.04 29.31 4.11 10.34 28.30 2.92 4.02 28.94 1.16 0.81 29.80 0.24 0.00 0.00 29.21 8.42 29.21 8.422007 9.59 40,916.77 4.09 4,056.30 77.12 3,174.87 10.47 31.81 3.29 4.19 31.15 1.31 1.15 31.00 0.36 0.07 31.10 0.02 0.13 0.04 15.75 4.93 15.88 4.982008 14.28 52,375.47 5.24 9,971.54 68.49 6,448.69 12.33 33.50 4.10 6.46 33.46 2.13 1.50 32.24 0.48 0.45 30.42 0.14 0.00 0.00 20.75 6.85 20.75 6.852009 12.92 44,052.95 4.41 8,440.31 77.05 6,420.74 12.00 33.73 4.01 5.36 33.90 1.74 1.29 31.51 0.39 0.28 31.85 0.09 0.00 0.00 18.93 6.23 18.93 6.21MM 16.67 54,523.08 5.45 14,719.31 66.29 9,685.40 16.32 31.27 5.12 11.08 30.16 3.35 3.96 30.46 1.21 1.55 29.65 0.46 0.00 0.00 32.91 10.13 32.91 10.13AA 12.29 46,590.30 4.66 7,497.15 73.27 5,230.99 11.58 32.91 3.78 5.42 32.68 1.75 1.33 31.64 0.42 0.28 31.01 0.09 0.05 0.02 18.56 6.02 18.61 6.04YearAverage Plant Flow (mgd)Total Solids (dtpd)Volatile Solids (tpd)Solids Production (dt/MG)2007 9.6 5.0 3.8 0.522008 14.3 6.8 4.7 0.482009 12.9 6.2 4.8 0.48MM 16.7 10.1 6.7 0.61AA 12.3 6.0 4.4 0.49MM 76.0 46.2 30.6AA 56.0 27.5 20.1 0.47Future ConditionsMonthly TotalsLower Meramec WWTP Solids SummarySummaryAppendix ALower Meramec WWTP Solids Data
FENTON
Total WT
Disposed
Total DT
Disposed
Sludge Cake %
Solids Plant Flow WAS Flow RAS SS
Month wtpd dtpd % MG MG mg/L
Jan-06 10.21 2.42 25.50 3.51 0.06 4,489.67
Feb-06 12.45 2.98 24.99 3.55 0.08 4,290.96
Mar-06 14.84 3.33 24.21 4.51 0.08 4,173.55
Apr-06 12.09 2.74 24.93 3.95 0.08 4,226.67
May-06 15.05 3.13 22.92 4.30 0.12 4,283.00
Jun-06 12.88 2.97 26.63 4.11 0.09 3,935.67
Jul-06 8.87 2.14 27.21 3.94 0.08 2,955.81
Aug-06 10.70 2.62 26.60 3.96 0.08 3,185.81
Sep-06 8.50 2.00 27.32 3.83 0.07 2,611.67
Oct-06 8.84 1.91 23.90 3.99 0.07 3,563.87
Nov-06 12.91 2.80 26.57 4.07 0.07 4,195.33
Dec-06 14.57 3.00 25.66 4.84 0.08 4,662.90
Jan-07 11.49 2.44 27.49 5.08 0.07 4,898.71
Feb-07 10.81 2.15 26.53 4.60 0.06 4,926.79
Mar-07 12.36 2.67 24.15 4.61 0.08 4,819.35
Apr-07 11.92 2.46 26.25 5.39 0.07 4,496.67
May-07 13.73 2.78 25.44 5.56 0.09 4,272.26
Jun-07 11.42 2.48 27.95 4.31 0.08 3,666.67
Jul-07 9.33 2.21 29.25 3.88 0.06 3,120.32
Aug-07 11.25 2.91 28.55 3.83 0.08 3,083.87
Sep-07 10.04 2.65 28.75 3.92 0.09 2,445.33
Oct-07 10.46 2.85 29.06 3.69 0.07 2,337.10
Nov-07 10.08 2.61 28.39 3.69 0.07 2,615.67
Dec-07 10.53 2.75 27.19 4.40 0.07 3,650.97
Jan-08 12.98 3.10 27.33 3.97 0.09 4,053.87
Feb-08 13.85 3.35 26.56 4.98 0.10 3,559.66
Mar-08 13.89 3.86 28.82 7.64 0.08 6,132.90
Apr-08 17.10 4.68 29.09 7.29 0.10 5,805.67
May-08 12.22 3.08 26.63 6.41 0.08 5,403.23
Jun-08 13.67 3.42 26.33 6.74 0.07 4,292.41
Jul-08 12.11 3.20 28.86 5.11 0.06 4,261.94
Aug-08 10.13 2.71 27.40 3.94 0.06 4,167.10
Sep-08 11.28 3.07 30.60 5.35 0.05 5,007.00
Oct-08 10.11 2.54 26.37 3.39 0.05 3,576.21
Nov-08 10.55 2.65 26.61 3.71 0.06 3,680.33
Dec-08 12.88 4.99 25.80 4.45 0.07 4,339.03
2006 11.83 2.67 25.54 4.05 0.08 3,881.24
2007 11.12 2.58 27.42 4.41 0.07 3,694.47
2008 12.56 3.39 27.53 5.25 0.07 4,523.28
MM 12.88 4.99 25.80 4.45 0.07 4,339.03
AA 11.84 2.88 26.83 4.57 0.07 4,033.00
Year
Average
Influent Flow
(mgd)
Total Solids
(dtpd)
Solids
Production
(dt/MG)
2006 4.0 2.7 0.66
2007 4.4 2.6 0.58
2008 5.2 3.4 0.65
MM 4.5 5.0
AA 4.6 2.9 0.63
1. No data provided for VS.
Monthly Totals
Fenton WWTP Solids Summary
Table Summary
Appendix A
Fenton WWTP Solids Summary
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009
Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page - 21 - of 21
Appendix B
Bissell Point Hauled Waste Summary
BISSELL POINT UNLOADING STATION GREASESEPARATIONFISCAL YEAR 2010INFRASTRUCTUISSELL POINTWWTPPROJECT PROBLEMPROJECT NO: 2008117 jMUNICIPALITY: \. Louis City IMAJOR SERVICE AREA: JVariousWATERSHED:VariousFUND:660 SANITARY REPLACEMENTDESIGNER:MSDCOST: $370,000GREASE FROM THE WASTE UNLOADING STATION GETS TRAPPED IN THE CROSS COLLECTORS AND PRIMARY EFFLUENT WEIRS ICREATES OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS FOR THE PRIMARY TANKS.PROJECT SOLUTIONDESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A GREASE SEPARATOR ON THE DISCHARGE LINE OF THE WASTE UNLOADING STATION LEADING TO TH8PRIMARY TREATMENT TANKS, SIZED FOR INTERMITTENT PUMP OUT AND TO ACHIEVE ACCEPTABLE GREASE FOR RECYCLING. ™SCHEDULESTARTENDPRELIMINARY DESIGNDESIGN6/1/200811/1/2009EASEMENT ACQUISITIONBID/CONTRACT AWARD12/1/20093/1/2010CONSTRW4/1/20L—JL11/1/23FUNDING SOURCEREMARKSFEDERAL$0STATE$0LOCAL$0MSD$370,000DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT WAS ADDRESSED VIA A GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District - Fiscal Year 201052ID = 8213EXPENSE 1
JACOBSJacobs501 North BroadwaySt. Louis, Missouri 63102314-335-4000MemorandumDate April 22, 2007To Gary T. Moore, PEFrom James Coll, PESubject Bissell Point Unloading Station GreaseSeparationProject No.: 20081171. IntroductionA preliminary study has been prepared for the subject project, which is not currently programmedin the 5-year Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP). The project is located at theBissell Point WWTP (see figure 1-Keyplan), in the Bissell Point Service Area in the City of St.Louis. The purpose of this study is to provide a preliminary design and cost estimate for providinga grease separator on the discharge line of the waste unloading station to the preaeration/primarytreatment tanks for greasy wastes transported by trucks to the plant.2. HistoryThe wastes transported by trucks from grease trap sources are currently being disposed of directlyto the unloading station at the WWTP, but this is causing problems due to a high amount of greaseincluded in the disposed waste. The grease from the waste unloading station gets trapped in thecross collectors and primary effluent weirs and creates operational and maintenance problems forthe primary tanks. Grease could potentially be separated from sewage, captured and recycled tovenders for alternative boiler fuel, etc.3. Origin of ProjectThe project was initiated after requests from plant staff for a permanent solution to the problem ofthe grease from the waste unloading station getting trapped in the cross collectors and primaryeffluent weirs, creating operational and maintenance problems.4. Existing ConditionsThe waste from grease trap sources is being collected by trucks and disposed at the wasteunloading station through 5 manholes. The waste flow travels through two VCP pipes, 10-inchand 15-inch, and then to a mechanical grinder, which grinds and crushes hard objects that comewith waste sewage (see Figure 1). Then, the waste enters the influent conduit for the pre-aerationtank. From the pre-aeration tank, the flow then enters the (8) primary clarifiers. Due to a highamount of the grease included in the disposed waste, the grease gets trapped in the cross collectors
JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 2 of6and primary effluent weirs and creates operational and maintenance problems for the primarytanks. The plant staff normally cleans the cross collectors and primary effluent weirs on a regularbasis and, at that time, must also clean out the large agglomerations of grease. In addition, plantstaff must rebuild the grinder equipment every 12-13 months at the cost of $13,000 -$15,000,mostly due to rocks damaging the grinder blades.The flow rate entering the grinder and primary tanks, through both sewer lines, is approximately1,100 gpm. This is a conservative estimate based on a worst-case hauled waste volume andservice water volume discharge, assuming trucks are simultaneously dumping at one time at allfive manholes at the waste unloading station. The typical unloading rate per truck is 150 gpm. Themaximum service water contribution (when both valves are open) is 350 gpm. Therefore, the totalpeak flow rate is equal to 5 trucks multiplied by 150 gpm/truck plus 350 gpm service water and isequal to 1,100 gpm.In FY2007 alone, the plant had received a total volume of 16M gallons of grease-based sewage.Based on MSB's lab sample testing of the different grease trap sources that have been taken fromthe hauling trucks over July and August of 2007, the amounts of the grease were significant andhad an average concentration of 52,240 mg/1. The samples were as follows:SampleDate07/03/0707/03/0708/09/0708/03/0708/04/07AverageSampleTime11:1810:2410:4511:3011:30Sample TypeTanker Top,Middle &BottomTanker Top,Middle &BottomTanker Top,Middle &BottomTanker Top,Middle &BottomTanker Top,Middle &BottomSample Grease Trap Source1 Chinese Restaurant & 1High School Cafeteria1 BBQ Restaurant3 Different Wai - MartGrease Traps1 Italian Restaurant1 Office Building CafeteriaO&G (mg/1)66,90073,10066,70027,90026,60052,240Test MethodEPA 1664EPA 1664EPA 1664EPA 1664EPA 1664From the available data for FY2007, the grease volume rate indicates that the total mixed greasewaste (Septic Tanks and other food related grease traps, etc.) was 4,370,207 gallons and the totalsingle food related grease waste (vegetable oil, fat oil, and water) was 3,529,480 gallons. AirOperating Permit Regulations mandate the firms that use recycled grease for boiler fuel to be
JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 3 of6single food related grease. The flow rate and grease volume calculations for the single foodrelated grease volume of 3,529,480 gallons per year are determined as follows:FLOW RATE CALCULATIONSHauled waste operational hours per year = [(10 hr/day) (260weekday/year) + (5hr/day)(26Sat/year)] = 2,730 hr/yrGrease wastewater flow rate - (3,529,480 gal/yr) (yr/2,730 hr) (hr/60min) = 22 GPMService water flow rate = 350 GPM/2 lines = 175 GPM/lineGrease wastewater and service water flow rate = 22 GPM + 175 GPM = 197 GPMGREASE ONLY VOLUMEThe density of vegetable oil is about 7.65 Ib/galHauled grease - (52,240 mg/L) (3,529,480 gal) ((1L / lOOOmL) (2.205E-3 Ib /1 g) (3.785L /1gal) = 1,538,823 Ib grease/yrVolume of grease = (1,538,823 Ib/yr) (gal/7.65 Ib) (yr/52week) = 3,869 gal/week5. Proposed SolutionThe proposed solution provides a dedicated area and equipment for separating solid and greasebefore entering the grinder and primary tanks and collects the grease for recycling and includesthe following:a. The single food related grease waste shall be dumped through MH1 and MH2 located atthe east side of the unloading station and flow through the existing 15" VCP pipe to theproposed underground grease separator structure.b. Mixed waste (food related grease) shall be dumped through manhole CB1, CB2 and MH4located at the west side of the unloading station and flow through the existing 10" VCPpipe to the grinder tank.c. Installation of a new 12-inch pipe as a standby for the existing 10-inch and 15-inch pipesduring maintenance or blockage. The upstream end of this new pipe will be connected tothe existing 10-inch VCP pipe located between MH2 and structure CB2 through a newMH6, and the downstream will be connected to the existing 15-inch pipe through a newMH5.d. Installation of a 12,000-gallon (8' 0 X 32' L) underground, heated grease separationsystem on the existing 15 inch VCP line. (See Figure 1).e. The proposed 12,000-gallons capacity is conservatively sized for future needs.f. Installation of two, 24-inch diameter manway extensions for maintenance purposes.g. Installation of al0,000-gallon underground, heated grease storage tank for recycling. (SeeFigure 1).h. The proposed 10,000-gallon capacity is conservatively sized to account for emergencyoperation as well as future needs,i. The collected grease should be recycled to a grease recycling vender for use as boiler fuel,etc.
JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 4 of 6j. Installation of 10-inch removable plug at MH2 on the existing 10-inch pipe between MH2and CB2 to prevent cross-flow from MH2. Remove the plug during grease separatormaintenance for bypass purposes,k. Installation of 15-inch removable plug at MH2 on the existing 15-inch pipe between MH2and the new grease separator system during grease separator maintenance.1. Installation of 12-inch removable plug at MH6 on the proposed 12-inch pipe betweenMH5 and MH6. Remove the plug during the existing 10-inch pipe or grease separatormaintenance for bypass purposes,m. Installation of 10-inch removable plug at MH CB2 on the existing 10-inch pipe betweenMH3 and CB2 during maintenance,n. Installation of signage to identifyControls will be local with alarms tied into the plant.The waste grease from the separation system will be automatically pumped to the storage tank.It is anticipated that the storage tank will be pumped out periodically by the grease recyclingvendor and the waste grease will be taken off-site. It will be important to maintain lowmoisture content for the grease to be usable as boiler fuel.The total preliminary estimated cost for this project is $ 442,280. An exhibit that illustrates thescope of the work and a preliminary itemized cost estimate are attached. The estimated cost isfor the construction of the new facility and does not allow for the ongoing costs that will beincurred when the material is collected for recycling.Self-contained, septage receiving stations were reviewed as a possible alternative, howeverthis option was eliminated for two reasons: 1) the cost of these units is on the order of$125,000 for equipment only, so 5 units would cost $625,000 plus site work and hookupcosts; and 2) septage receiving stations are not designed to handle the high grease content ofgrease trap waste. Fouling and clogging are concerns, making this option unfeasible.6. Constructability IssuesThe discharge from the unloading station to the existing MH3, located east of the grinder, flowsthrough 10-inch and 15-inch sewer pipes. The flow from the above mentioned manhole dischargesto the grinder through an 18-inch pipe. The location of the new underground grease separator andthe underground grease storage tank for recycling will be bounded by the existing roadway to thenorth, existing 24-inch storm sewer, 6-inch water line, and 36-inch abandoned storm sewer to thesouth and several electrical conduits to the east and west. Therefore, there are concerns as to thenumber of underground utilities falling in the footprint of the project. The proximity of theseutilities will need to be considered during final design and construction to ensure they are notdamaged. The relocation of several utilities may be involved in the final design and constructionphases of the project. Also, as the work is to be carried out at an operational facility, carefulconsideration of traffic movements and flow from the unloading station to the primary tanks willbe needed to allow for the normal operation of the plant to continue without disruption.
JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 5 of 67. Priority PointsThe project provides for enhanced operational efficiency by minimizing the amount of the greaseentering the cross collectors and the primary effluent weirs. It will dispose the trapped solid wasteat the bottom of the grease separator prior to reaching the waste solid grinder to reduce the wearand tear on the grinder and maximizing the grinder operational life and reducing maintenancecost. The captured grease will be recycled to vendors for alternate boiler fuel, etc. Therefore, thewaste grease will have less environmental impacts. Priority ranking calculations resulted in 6.00Total Weighted Benefits Points for the project. The Benefit to Log- Cost Ratio was calculated tobe 1.06.8. RecommendationsThe proposed project is recommended for further design and implementation. The operationprocedures for the grease waste and solid separator should be detailed in an operation andmaintenance plan that should include the following:a. Who is responsible for disposal or recycling of the grease after it has been processed andseparated at the WWTP?b. When should disposal and/or recycling be initiated and what is the procedure?c. Who is responsible for removal of the grease separator?d. Frequency and method for cleaning the grease separator unite. Additional items that should be given further consideration during the detailed designinclude:• A flushing system that could either manually or automatically periodically cleanthe grease separator and piping• The type need for intermediate storage to hold the grease prior to hauling by arecycling firm• The design of the grease separation system shall comply with the UniformPlumbing Code (UPC).• The grease separation system shall be designed to remove up to 95 percent of freewater and 75 percent of total solids to supply grease for boiler fuel.• Highland Tank Company/Low Engineering Company is a potential supplier for thegrease separator system and the underground grease storage tank for recycling.Other manufacturers make similar equipment.• ACE Grease Service, Inc is a potential resource for recycling the grease.• ACE Grease Service, Inc will accept the separated grease with no cost forrecycling if the water content is up to 5 percent, and will charge the MSD if thewater content is above 5 percent.• Darling International, Inc. and Kostelac Grease Service, Inc. will accept theseparated grease with no cost for recycling if the water content and insolubleimpurities do not exceed 2%.• Verde Holdings LLC (PO Box 157, Imperial Beach, CA, Contact Larry Zajohnc,408-205-3939) expressed an interest in MSD's waste grease.
JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 6 of 6These items were not included in the estimate of the cost prepared in this preliminary. An analysisof the cost effectiveness and pros and cons of these items should be prepared as part of detaileddesign.Attachments:Project Cost EstimateProject Extent FigurePriority Ranking SheetAppendix
Pre-CIPRO: Engineer's Cost EstimateProject: Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease SeparationNumber: 2008117Estimated By: JACOBSChecked By: MSDWatershed: 1 BissellDate: April 22Date: April 22,2008,2008Line#12345678910111213141516171819202122Pay-ItemDescriptionENCASEMENT - CLASS "A" CONCRETEEXCAVATION CLASS "C"GRANULAR BACKFILLGREASE SEPARATION SYSTEMGREASE STORAGE TANKMANHOLE - STANDARD CONSTRUCTIONPIPE SEWER 12 INCH (SANITARY/COMBINED)PLUG END 10 INCHPLUG END 12 INCHPLUG END 15 INCHREINFORCED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONSHORING LEFT IN PLACESODDING - ZOYSIASTREET PAVEMENT - CONCRETE REM. AND REP.Preceding Pay Items Total:MOBILIZATIONSubtotal:UTILITY RELOCATIONPROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF SITEMSD Construction Estimate:ContingenciesMSD Engineering, Legal, And AdministrationProject Total:EstimatedQuantity10.00400215116109211302366570881UnitCYCYCYLSLSLFLFEAEAEACYSFSYSYLSUnitPrice$260$19$39$99,500$61,500$210$100$115$140$160$725$9$12$73$9,938ExtendedPrice$2,600$7,600$8,385$99,500$61,500$1,260$10,900$230$140$160$21,589$21,294$6,840$6,448$248,446$9,938$258,384$25,000$51,677$335,061$33,506$73,713$442,280MSD CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE & CONTINGENCIES: \7
* /
'
\
\ J -
\\\T
ENCMEER
OFFICE
\" winr etnrutAi v
\"S"W ^PLAN-VIEW.
t* J-
s 3
I ta:iU
0) 9
OKjJNiL- p«». MH 3Si.r - ..re "51 «.oc
P«>P.~W-ST* »5S l?plF- 15"e O.<W
2
EXISTING 15" VCP PROFILE
EXISTING 10" VCP PROFILE
WASTE DRAIN PROFILE
HORI2. 1"=20' VERT. 1"=5'
r
TM3–SolidsDisposal/ReuseAlternativesVOLUME 1
PHASE 1
TM 3 –Solids
Disposal /Reuse
Alternatives
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 1 -
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3 – SOLIDS DISPOSAL/REUSE
ALTERNATIVES
To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
From: Patricia Scanlan, Bob Pepperman, Yinan Qi, Lewis Naylor, Tom Gredell
This Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 3 summarizes the disposal/reuse alternatives and
technologies for municipal wastewater solids and incinerator ash produced by the
Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) of the City of St. Louis. A number of solids
processing technologies are available, including thickening, dewatering, and stabilization.
Potential stabilization technologies include aerobic/anaerobic digestion, composting, heat
drying, lime stabilization, incineration, or gasification. Disposal/reuse alternatives
included in this review are landfill disposal, land application, distribution and marketing
of a fertilizer product, incinerator ash use as construction material, and energy
production. Regulatory requirements and preliminary cost estimates for each final
use/disposal alternative are also discussed. Cost information does not include costs
associated with treatment and processing requirements prior to final use/disposal.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 1
1. Landfill Disposal......................................................................................................... 3
a. Regulatory Requirements........................................................................................ 3
b. Landfill availability................................................................................................. 4
i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options............................................................ 4
ii) Unit disposal costs.............................................................................................. 4
2. Bulk Land application of Class A and Class B cake .................................................. 5
a. Regulatory requirements......................................................................................... 6
b. Land availability..................................................................................................... 8
i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options............................................................ 8
ii) Unit disposal costs.............................................................................................. 8
3. Compost Distribution and Marketing......................................................................... 8
a. Regulatory Requirements...................................................................................... 10
b. Long term outlook................................................................................................. 11
c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options.............................................................. 12
d. Unit disposal costs................................................................................................ 12
e. Incinerator ash....................................................................................................... 12
f. Regulatory requirements....................................................................................... 13
g. Disposal/beneficial use options............................................................................. 13
h. Flexibility of outlets and backup options.............................................................. 15
i. Unit disposal costs................................................................................................ 15
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 2 -
4. Heat Dried Material.................................................................................................. 15
a. Regulatory requirements....................................................................................... 16
b. Disposal/beneficial use options............................................................................. 16
c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options.............................................................. 17
d. Unit disposal costs................................................................................................ 17
5. Fuel Product.............................................................................................................. 18
a. Regulatory requirements....................................................................................... 18
b. Options/outlets...................................................................................................... 18
c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options.............................................................. 18
d. Unit disposal costs................................................................................................ 19
6. Results of Screening ................................................................................................. 19
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 3 -
1. Landfill Disposal
Landfilling has commonly been used as a disposal method for dewatered solids. In
locations where tipping fees are low and the hauling distance is relatively short,
landfilling can be a cost effective disposal option. Sludge landfilling options include
disposal in a monofill (a landfill dedicated to wastewater treatment plant sludge, typically
owned and operated by the generating entity) or by co-disposal in a municipal solid waste
landfill (a landfill that may accept a variety of wastes, including sewage sludge and
municipal solid waste). Although co-disposal of biosolids is more common than
monofilling, sewage sludge typically represents only a small percentage of the total waste
in a co-disposal landfill. Landfill disposal does not typically require stabilization;
however, requirements for individual landfills can vary.
a. Regulatory Requirements
Sewage sludge use or disposal, including monofilling, is regulated by the USEPA under
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of
Sewage Sludge. The design and operation of municipal solid waste landfills is Federally
regulated by the USEPA under 40 CFR Subpart I, Part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) Landfills. Missouri and Illinois have been delegated the authority to
administer federal MSW landfill requirements. Additionally, each state or local
jurisdiction will have additional requirements for municipal and industrial solids wastes
that go beyond federal requirements. Prior to disposal of biosolids to a MSW landfill, the
material must meet both a paint filter test and a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) test. Dewatered municipal biosolids can typically meet both the TCLP and the
paint filter test requirements. Liquid sludge cannot pass the paint filter test and cannot be
discharged into MSW landfills.
There is no Federal regulatory requirement for stabilization prior to landfill disposal;
however, individual landfills can impose requirements that are more stringent than state
and Federal regulations. Accepting wastewater solids at a co-disposal landfill generally
does not add significant regulatory hurdles or permit constraints to the landfill operator.
Landfilling of biosolids in monofills is regulated by the USEPA under 40 CFR, Subpart
C, Part 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge as Surface Disposal.
The Part 503 Regulations establish maximum concentrations of arsenic, chromium, and
nickel in biosolids that can be landfilled in a monofill without a liner.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 4 -
b. Landfill availability
A number of landfills are available within a 30 mile radius of the MSD facilities as
indicated in Table 1. Based on conversations with local landfills, many of the landfills
anticipate long term availability for dewatered cake, on the order of 50 years or longer.
Table 1. St. Louis Area Landfills
Name Location Distance Lifetime
Remaining
Milam RDF East St. Louis, IL < 10 miles 20 years
Cotton Wood Hills RDF East St. Louis, IL 40 miles 50 years
Fred Weber Sanitary
Landfill
Maryland Heights, MO 20 miles 60+ years
Landfill operating schedules vary from site to site, but many landfills accept biosolids
one shift per day, 5 days per week. Storage must be provided for solids that are
dewatered during backshifts and on weekends.
MSD currently hauls sludge from the Lower Meramec, Grand Glaize, and Fenton
Wastewater Treatment Plants to the Fred Weber Sanitary Landfill. Solids are accepted
during the day Monday through Friday and Saturday mornings. From the Missouri River
WWTP, bisolids that exceed the capacity of the St. Peters composting facility are also
hauled to the Fred Weber landfill.
i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options
No stabilization or pathogen criteria are required for biosolids that are sent to landfills for
disposal. However, treatment plants without stabilization/pathogen reduction that rely
solely on landfill disposal can find themselves in a tenuous position if landfill disposal is
no longer possible, as few, if any, other disposal/management options will be available
without an investment in stabilization/pathogen reduction techniques. If biosolids are
stabilized prior to landfill disposal, they may be suitable for bulk land application;
however, it may be difficult to implement a land application program on short notice, and
therefore, land application would not be a reliable back up option under these
circumstances.
ii) Unit disposal costs
Landfill tipping fee ranges from $20 to $30 per wet ton of solids. Hauling costs can
reach approximately $10 per wet ton, assuming a 20 mile one-way hauling distance.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 5 -
MSD routinely solicits bids for landfill disposal of solids. Currently, all wastewater
solids to landfill are hauled to the Fred Weber Sanitary Landfill at a 2009 bid cost of
$23.96 per wet ton ($21.00 tipping fee plus $2.96 regulatory fee).
2. Bulk Land application of Class A and Class B cake
Bulk land application is the most common option for beneficial use of biosolids and is
often the most cost effective. Biosolids can be applied to agricultural land, forested
areas, rangelands, or to disturbed land in need of reclamation. Recycling biosolids
through land application serves several purposes. It improves soil physical properties,
such as texture and water holding capacity, which make conditions more favorable for
root growth and increases the drought tolerance of vegetation. Biosolids application also
supplies nutrients essential for plant growth, including nitrogen and phosphorus, as well
as some essential micronutrients such as nickel, zinc, and copper, and consequently can
be used as an alternative or substitute for chemical fertilizers. The nutrients in the
biosolids offer several advantages over those in inorganic fertilizers because they are
organic and are released slowly to growing plants. These organic forms of nutrients are
less water soluble and, therefore, less likely to leach into groundwater or run off into
surface waters. Furthermore, mineral sources of phosphorus are increasingly considered
limited, while agricultural use of phosphorus in biosolids are often viewed as a more
sustainable practice.
While biosolids can be applied in liquid or solid form, it is usually most economical to
reduce the volume of biosolids prior to transportation or storage through a dewatering
process. Based on the large quantity of solids produced by the MSD and the
corresponding liquid volumes that would have to be hauled to application sites, liquid
land application has not been included in this evaluation. Dewatered cake can be applied
with conventional agricultural equipment, such as manure spreaders ( Figure 1)
Figure 1. Land application of biosolids
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 6 -
In the Midwest, most bu rain crops (corn,
wheat, soybeans) and pasture. Application to grain crops is limited to the spring (prior to
age,
tory requirements
bulk, they must meet at least the federal
requirements established in 40 CFR Part 503 Regulations. These requirements include
(i.e.,flies
ons, known as
ceiling concentrations, for nine metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,
xceed
that
nt
,
h two levels of pathogen reduction, Class A
and B. Class A pathogen requirements call for reducing, through one or more
,
lk land application is to land cultivated in g
planting) and fall (after harvesting). Consequently, at least 6 months of biosolids stor
in some form, is required to support a land application program. Alternatively, a system
can be developed where, during times when land application is not practical, the biosolids
can be managed through landfill disposal or through an alternative method (e.g. contract
composting).
a. Regula
Before biosolids can be land applied in
limits on allowable metals concentrations, requirements for pathogen and vector
and rodents) attraction reduction, and land management practices. The federal
requirements for beneficial use of biosolids are summarized below:
The federal laws specify maximum allowable concentrati
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc). If biosolids do not e
the ceiling concentrations, they can be land applied. These ceiling
concentrations are hard limits: if analysis of a biosolids sample indicates that
any one of these limits is exceeded, all the biosolids represented by
sample cannot be land applied. For the biosolids to be marketed or distributed
to the general public, the metal concentrations must be below the Polluta
Concentration Limits (PCLs). The PCL’s are averages of the concentrations
of the elements in all samples over the testing period. Land appliers are not
required to track the cumulative pollutant loading rate (CPLR) for biosolids
which meet the PCLs. Biosolids in which any of the regulated elements
exceed the PCL but meet the Ceiling Concentration may still be land applied
but the annual application of the regulated pollutants must be tracked and
reported. With advance pre-treatment programs, most municipal biosolids
typically meet the lower PCLs.
The Part 503 regulations establis
processes, the densities of fecal coliform to less than 1,000 Most Probable
Number per gram of total solids (MPN/g of TS), or salmonella to less than 3
MPN/4 grams of TS. In addition to testing to confirm reduced densities of
pathogens or indicator organisms, certain process control parameters for the
specific treatment technique must also be met (e.g. time and temperature, pH
etc.). Class B biosolids have less stringent pathogen treatment requirements;
however, they have more handling and application site restrictions. Class B
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 7 -
y,
duction
(VAR) requirements before beneficial use. VAR requirements are intended to
t
rs of
Bi ass A pathogen requirements, VAR requirements, and the PCL
etals contents are known as “Exceptional Quality (EQ)” biosolids. EQ biosolids can be
nomic levels. This means that the
the
lated
NR)
to
There are no pending changes in the Federal regulations that would prohibit continued
nd application of Class B biosolids; however, a number of states and localities,
iminary
nd
can be demonstrated by testing which indicates the biosolids exhibit fecal
coliform densities of less than 2,000,000 MPN/g of TS of solid. Alternativel
Class B can be demonstrated by demonstrating compliance with certain
process operational standards (e.g. time and duration in digesters).
Both Class A and Class B biosolids must meet Vector Attraction Re
reduce the putrescibility of the solids. Highly putrid solids will tend to attrac
vectors, such as flies and rodents. Vector attraction reduction can be met
through a number of techniques (which techniques are often the same as those
used to meet Class B or Class A pathogen reduction). VAR can also be
accomplished by incorporation of biosolids into the soil, either through
injection of liquid or tilling of dewatered cake into the soil within six hou
application.
osolids that meet the Cl
m
sold or given away. These biosolids can generally be applied as freely as any other
fertilizer or soli amendment to any type of land. However, bulk applications of EQ
biosolids may be subject to some of the same limitations as application of non-EQ
biosolids.
In addition to the pathogen and VAR requirements for land application,
biosolids can only be applied at agro
amount of biosolids applied must not exceed the nutrient requirements of
crops at the land application site. At the federal level, biosolids are regu
based on nitrogen levels; however, some areas of the United States are
requiring application limits based on phosphorus limitations. While
phosphorus is not currently regulated in Missouri or Illinois, preliminary
discussions with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MD
indicate that some phosphorus restrictions may be imposed in the next 10
20 years.
la
including much of California and Virginia, have imposed ordinances that restrict or
eliminate Class B application or increase monitoring requirements. Based on prel
discussions with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Class B la
application is not expected to be restricted in Missouri in the near future; however, long-
term sustainability of this final use method is subject to pubic perception and pressure.
Conversely, as commercial fertilizer prices increase with increases in natural gas costs,
agricultural opportunities to use low-cost biosolids will likely become greater.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 8 -
Based on discussions with Synagro, a national land application contractor with
ea, land application sites in Missouri are available with
average one-way hauling distance of 35 to 40 miles from the MSD facilities. Application
nce to 25
to
Other than bulk land application, few outlets are available for Class A or Class B
ss A or Class B pathogen
and VAR requirements can also be hauled to MSW landfills for disposal.
Bulk land application rates provided by Synagro suggest a turnkey contract cost of $20 to
includes hauling and limited off-site storage. Costs
vary depending on the distance from the generating facility to the land application site.
omposting is a natural process of aerobic, thermophilic microbiological degradation of
l product that is free of odors and
pathogens, will not attract rodents and insects, and can be used beneficially for
s into
il
moderate nutrient content. Compost can generally be sold for a
nominal fee that helps to reduce or off-set product marketing and distribution costs. The
anic
b. Land availability
experience in the St. Louis ar
sites in Illinois are somewhat closer, reducing the average one-way hauling dista
to 30 miles. Synagro staff also indicated they expect land availability to be sufficient
sustain a bulk land application program for at least the next 20 years, assuming continued
regulatory support.
i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options
dewatered cake. As a backup option, biosolids that meet Cla
ii) Unit disposal costs
$28 per wet ton of solids. This cost
3. Compost Distribution and Marketing
C
organic matter or residues into a stabilized, usefu
horticultural and agricultural purposes. During the composting process, the material is
stabilized biologically, converting the readily biodegradable components of biosolid
material that is stable or resistant to subsequent biological change. Further
decomposition is very slow and does not result in odor or vector attraction problems
during its use.
Dewatered cake can be composted into a humus-like material that can be used as a so
amendment with a
commercial compost market is extremely competitive; consequently, it is difficult for a
utility to generate significant revenue from compost sales. While in some locations,
demand for the compost can exceed the supply, many utilities give the finished compost
to rate payers at no charge to expand distribution of the material and to enhance public
relations. There are numerous facilities in the St. Louis area that compost various org
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 9 -
ips,
ulking agents significantly increase the amount
of material requiring transport, processing, temporary storage, and marketing. Many
s
omposting operations minimize release of objectionable odors by good
housekeeping, maintaining aerobic conditions and target temperatures, and minimizing
r
), or by turning the compost pile with or without
forced aeration (best). Agitation combined with forced aeration is the most effective
e
n
materials (including some portion of MSD’s biosolids), and it is anticipated that the
market for end product is well-supplied.
Composting requires the addition of bulking agents, typically yard waste or wood ch
to increase the porosity of the compost. B
utilities combine their green waste program with the composting operation, using the
green waste as the source of the amendment. The biosolids enhance the green waste
composting by furnishing nutrients and moisture. However, if sufficient green waste i
not available, amendment must be purchased, significantly increasing the cost of the
composting program. Composting facilities require a larger area than other biosolids
processing facilities for composting operations and amendment and finished product
storage.
All composting operations produce odors, some of which will be objectionable. Well
operated c
release of odors to sensitive noses.
Aeration and temperature control is provided through natural convection (poor), forced o
negative aeration with blowers (good
process control technology. Nonetheless, agitated windrow operation (Figure 2) is the
most common biosolids composting technology. Since static windrows rely on natural
ventilation, this strategy is uncommon because of poor aeration and lack of mixing. Th
best biosolids composting strategies are agitated windrows which assure periodic aeratio
and thorough mixing of the biological materials. In-vessel systems (e.g. agitated bed
composting facilities) furnish both agitation and forced aeration. When enclosed,
composting off-gases can be captured and treated prior to release to the atmosphere,
minimizing release of objectionable odors. The type of aeration method dictates the
physical configuration of the compost operation.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 10 -
Figure 2. Compost facility
In general most of the odor generation occurs during the first two weeks of composting
and most careful process control is required during this period. Intermittent release of
odors by well-composted materials is generally not significant during curing and storage.
Because of perceived odor concerns, siting of unenclosed composting facilities can be
more complex than enclosed facilities.
a. Regulatory Requirements
Composting of biosolids is regulated under 40 CFR Part 503. Composting can be
performed to meet Class A or Class B pathogen critiera, but is most often used to
generate Class A material. The Class A rule requires meeting operational standards
(documenting required time and temperature) and finished product testing (enumeration
of pathogen indicators). The following requirements need to be met to produce Class A
biosolids:
Operational standards (process control)
Using either the within-vessel composting method or the static aerated pile
composting method, the temperature of the biosolids is maintained at 55 oC or
higher for 3 days.
Using the windrow composting method, the temperature of the biosolids is
maintained at 55 oC or higher for 15 days or longer. During the period when the
compost is maintained at 55 oC or higher, the windrow is turned a minimum of
five times.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 11 -
Pathogen indicator standards (product quality assurance)
The density of fecal coliform in the biosolids must be less than 1000 MPN per
grams of total solids , or the density of Salmonella sp. bacterial in the biosolids
must be less than 3 MPN per 4 grams of total solids.
Pathogen reduction requirements must be met prior to, or at the same time as
vector attraction reduction,
Vector attraction reduction-VAR (stabilization of biodegradable organic matter)
The stated purpose of vector attraction reduction is to minimize attraction of
vectors (flies, rodents) to the material. The more practical basis is to minimize
release of objectionable odors during distribution and utilization of the compost.
VAR is achieved by aerobic composting for 14 total days or longer, during which
time the temperature must be over 40C, and the average temperature must be
higher than 45C.
b. Long term outlook
Soil based disposition options for biosolids include distribution of heat treated pellets,
application of Class B liquid and dewatered cake, and compost. The long term outlook
for composting appears to be based on (1) public acceptance of agricultural use of Class
B biosolids products, (2) the cost of energy for transportation and processing of biosolids,
(3) long term landfill capacity and cost of landfilling biosolids, and (4) political and
community support of composting as a “green” technology. Weighing these factors is
not straightforward.
Public support for distribution of Class B biosolids products appears to diminishing due
in part to the mistaken perception of the material being a high health risk soil amendment.
Alternatives to application of Class B to agricultural land and forests are the Class A
products compost and heat dried pellets. Compost possesses well-accepted physical
properties, and has a diversity of uses including surface mulch, and incorporation to
adjust the physical properties of soil as practiced by home gardeners, professional
landscapers, and soil blenders. The major advantage of compost is its high organic
matter content. Application rates are fairly high, and use tends to be within the
commercial-municipal sector.
Transportation distance of composted biosolids which are only 60% dry matter is limited.
Although amendment must be transported to the compost site, if the amendment is green
waste, transportation costs to the composting location are incurred in any event.
Processing energy for compost varies widely depending on the technology. While
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 12 -
enclosed systems enable better odor control, ventilation and odor treatment consume
substantial electrical energy. Agitated windrow systems use little electrical energy, but
have increased potential for release of objectionable odors.
Landfill capacity and cost have influenced use of composting technology over the past 30
years. In the 1990’s landfill costs approached $100 per ton in some regions, and the
number composting facilities increased due largely to the operations and maintenance
cost of $30 to $50 per ton. In the past 10 years, landfill costs have decreased
substantially and composting no longer has the economic advantage.
On a long term basis, the major factors influencing developing compost facilities are
likely to be public rejection of Class B biosolids products and the opportunities to use
biosolids as an important adjunct to compost greenwaste. Finally, community and
political support and enthusiasm for this “green” technology may be the leading factor
important to growth of composting facilities.
c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options
Markets for compost are generally seasonal in nature with greatest use occurring during
the spring and fall. One of the benefits of compost is that it can be stored uncovered
outside for many months. Communities with the luxury of large inventorying areas will
stockpile compost produced during low demand periods so that they have a ready supply
for the season. Others utilize compost in more traditional bulk land application
programs, providing the material for reclamation of disturbed lands, and for application
to crops. In such cases, compost is not utilized primarily as a plant nutrient resource, but
rather as a soil conditioner. Composted biosolids are used as alternative daily cover and
have been blended with poor quality soil to for a rooting media during closure of landfill
cells. If the composting operation is no longer available, dewatered cake can be
landfilled or, if the biosolids are stabilized prior to composting, they may be suitable for
bulk land application. To a large extent biosolids compost must be promoted and
marketed aggressively to assure ready disposition.
d. Unit disposal costs
Operations and maintenance costs will vary between $20 and $30 per wet ton. Capital
costs for composting facilities are highly variable and depend in the type of compositng
selected as well as the potential enclosure of the process and need for odor control.
e. Incinerator ash
Incineration is the process of burning the volatile organic compounds associated with a
biosolids product. In order for the volatile solids to burn, the moisture bound in the
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 13 -
biosolids must first be evaporated. The resulting products are steam, flue gas, and ash.
Since the biosolids’ organic material is destroyed and the water content in the biosolids is
evaporated, the mass and volume of the ash is approximately 10 percent of the feed
solids. Because of the high temperatures reached in the incineration process, the ash
produced is a sterile product. The most common disposal method for incinerator ash is
landfill disposal.
f. Regulatory requirements
Ash is regulated as a solid waste in Missouri. For MSW landfill disposal, ash must meet
the TCLP requirements to ensure it is not hazardous. Biosolids ash typically meets TCLP
requirements and can be disposed in properly permitted landfills.
The incineration process itself must comply with air emission requirements. Air
emissions are a function of the composition of the sludge and combustion characteristics
of the volatile portion of the solids. Additional air emissions come from metals that may
be present in the solids. However, with good pretreatment programs, metals regulated by
40 CFR 503 have not been a problem for existing incinerators in the United States.
Incineration of biosolids in Missouri is regulated under the State’s solid waste regulations
[10 CSR 80-2:020]. Beneficial use of MSD’s biosolids incinerator ash could be
exempted under these regulations.
g. Disposal/beneficial use options
Incinerator ash is typically hauled to landfills or monofills for disposal. The MSD-owned
ash monofill is currently being evaluated to determine ultimate capacity and expected
life. In addition to landfill disposal, biosolids ash can be used as a construction material
or as a soil amendment. A summary of uses is as follows:
Ash can be used as a flowable fill material for backfilling excavations, placement
of underground pipe, building foundations, footings, utility cuts, and any other
type of application where it is advantageous to use a low strength controlled
density fill. The Hampton Roads (Virginia) Sanitation District has utilized their
biosolids incinerator ash as a constituent of fill material used to close out lagoons.
It may be difficult to obtain a permit exemption for the use of MSD’s ash for
flowable fill in Missouri.
Ash can be used in a number of construction materials, including concrete,
cement, asphalt products, to serve as a mineral filler in place of sand or coal ash.
In order to be utilized as a pozzolan in cement and cement-derived products, the
ash must meet ASTM C 595 – 08 Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 14 -
Cements. Preliminary conversations with regional cement manufacturers
indicated an interest in further exploring this option. An elemental analysis
providing the concentrations of Ca, Si, Al, and Fe as well as certain other
elements and a TCLP analysis demonstrating that the product was not hazardous
are first steps in furthering this potential. Further, both the Federal Highway
Administration and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) have
methods for approving ash for use as a component of construction materials.
Generally, the ash must meet certain analytical parameters (see AASHTO M295
or ASTM C618 - Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcinated Natural Pozzolan for Use
as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete) and be approved by MODOT for use.
MSW landfill operations require the application of cover material daily in order to
minimize the escape of particulates and litter. Some generators manage ash from
sludge incineration by giving it to landfills to be used instead of soil for daily
cover.
Ash can be used as a filler material in the manufacture of bricks and blocks,
replacing coal ash. Discussions with a regional brick producer resulted in an
interest on the part of the brick producer in utilizing the MSD ash. This
manufacturer is willing to test the MSD ash, but only on the basis that MSD is
willing to pay a “service fee” to the brick maker if the ash can be utilized.
Ash may have fairly high levels of phosphorus which is desirable for land
application in parts of the country which are phosphorus-poor. Ash may also
have some marketability as a liming agent. Joe Slater of the Missouri
Agricultural Experiment Station Plant Food Control Service indicated that ash
could be registered as a fertilizer and/or liming agent if the product met certain
criteria. For a fertilizer, the material must be relatively low in heavy metals and a
guaranteed plant food analysis provided. As a liming agent, the product would
have to meet 65% calcium carbonate equivalent and 90% passing a #8 mesh
screen.
Additional detail on potential end uses of ash, including local contacts, is provided in
Appendix A to this Technical Memorandum. Ash must typically pass a TCLP analysis to
be suitable for any of the listed beneficial uses. Additional elemental analyses may also
be required.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 15 -
h. Flexibility of outlets and backup options
Ash that can not be used beneficially can be landfilled. While there is little flexibility of
outlets, a number of landfills are available for ash disposal. Details of landfilling ash to
MSW landfills are discussed in TM 9 and the life of the existing MSD Prospect Hill
special waste landfill is being assessed as part of this project .
i. Unit disposal costs
Landfill unit disposal costs for ash in privately-owned landfills are similar to those for
biosolids with tipping fess of approximately $20 to $30 per ton of solids; however,
incineration significantly reduces the quantity of material requiring disposal. Hauling
cost is approximately $10 per ton, assuming a 20 mile one-way hauling distance.
Cost of landfilling ash in city-owned landfills will be developed in Technical
Memorandum No. 9 for this project. As noted previously, solids including ash may be
hauled to the Fred Weber Sanitary Landfill at a 2009 bid cost of $23.96 per wet ton
($21.00 tipping fee plus $2.96 regulatory fee)..
The market for sewage sludge ash appears to be promising in the coming years due to the
number of different uses for ash, and the size of each of the various market segments.
Marketing potential has not yet been fully realized and significant barriers to successful
market expansion exist. The most significant impediment to beneficial use of ash is the
preponderance of coal ash in the area, which is available in larger quantities that may be
more suitable to beneficial use operations. More investigation must to be conducted to
develop a cost estimate for any prospective beneficial use of ash.
4. Heat Dried Material
Heat drying removes water from dewatered biosolids to accomplish both volume and
weight reduction. Typically in this type of process, dewatered biosolids at nominally 20
to 25 percent solids are dried to between 90 and 95 percent solids. The temperatures to
which the biosolids are subjected in a thermal drying process typically meet requirements
to enable the end product to meet Class A pathogen reduction status. Drying can also be
used to meet vector attraction reduction standards through desiccation. Depending on the
type of drying technology used, the dried product can be a pellet-like material (Figure 3)
or an irregularly shaped granule.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 16 -
Figure 3. Heat dried material
a. Regulatory requirements
Heat dried material must meet 40 CFR Part 503 regulations for metals content, pathogen
removal and VAR. The heat drying process typically meets the pathogen and VAR
requirements. Most municipal biosolids meet the Part 503 metals requirements; drying
does not concentrate or dilute the pollutant concentration of the incoming cake, therefore
if the input biosolids meet the PCL and Ceiling Concentrations, the dried biosolids should
as well. Bulk land application of heat dried material should meet nitrogen loading limits,
similar to cake land application. Many states require heat dried material sold as a
fertilizer product to be registered, with guaranteed nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
(NPK) concentrations.
b. Disposal/beneficial use options
Heat drying produces a marketable product, which meets the 40 CFR Part 503
requirements for Class A biosolids. The product retains its nutrient value after thermal
treatment and is suitable for beneficial reuse as a fertilizer, soil conditioner, or fuel.
Heat dried biosolids can be utilized in a broad spectrum of outlets ranging from bulk land
application (as currently practiced with dewatered cake) to specialty applications such as
golf courses, fruits and vegetables, and home retail to use as a fuel resource. Availability
of outlets vary by region and with product physical and chemical qualities. For instance,
a dusty product with low plant nutrients will not be widely accepted as a high end
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 17 -
fertilizer, but may work very well as a fuel. Conversely, a “hard” particle with high
fertilizer value may be sought by end-users who are willing to recognize substantial value
in the product.
Depending on the source, heat dried biosolids will typically contain 3-6% total nitrogen,
2-5% total phosphorus and <1% total potassium on a dry weight basis. In addition to
these three primary plant nutrients, dried biosolids will commonly contain varying
amounts of important secondary plant nutrients (e.g. sulfur, calcium, etc.) and essential
trace elements or micronutrients (e.g. zinc, copper, molybdenum, etc.), In order to
distribute this material as a fertilizer, guaranteed analyses must be developed and the
product registered with the State Department of Agriculture (in Missouri, the Agricultural
Extension Service of the University of Missouri manages this program).
Heat dried biosolids typically exhibit an energy value in the range of 5,000-8,000 BTU
per pound; similar to low grade coal, but with a higher ash and nitrogen content. Heat
dried biosolids are currently being used in cement kilns in Maryland and are being
planned in Pennsylvania and are widely used in cement kilns in Europe. The
incorporation of dried biosolids as a supplemental fuel into a coal-fired power plant may
require operational changes in air pollution control to remove ammonia, nitrogen oxides,
and mercury.
c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options
Since dried biosolids are relatively odor free, easy to handle, and meet Class A pathogen
requirements, they have a number of outlets. While bulk land application is the most
common, marketing programs can be developed to target high-end outlets. Local
fertilizer use and distribution will generally be seasonal, but the relatively high value of
the end product may support transportation to other markets that can utilize the biosolids
year around. Product that is committed to use as a fuel component for cement
manufacturing or power production will generally have a year around outlet; however
such plants may schedule periodic outages in which no biosolids will be utilized. Product
that can not be beneficially used can be landfilled.
d. Unit disposal costs
The market value of heat-dried biosolids depends on local market conditions, nutrient
content, physical characteristics of the product, and other factors. The commercial value
of heat-dried biosolids in the US typically ranges between $5 and $40 per ton of dry
material. Costs for landfill disposal of dried material are similar to those for biosolids
with tipping fees of approximately $20 to $30 per ton of solids. Hauling cost is
approximately $10 per ton, assuming a 20 mile one-way hauling distance.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 18 -
5. Fuel Product
Gasification has been used for over fifty years to convert coal and petroleum based
materials into a combustible gas, commonly referenced as synthetic gas (syngas), and a
carbon rich residue called char. The syngas requires cleaning before it can be used as a
fuel, and is sometimes blended and upgraded with higher grade gases. The ash that
comes out of the gasification system can be reused/disposed in the same way as
incinerator ash.
Gasification is still an emerging process for biosolids treatment, with a single
demonstration unit in operation at Stamford, CT. The first permanent sludge gasification
system in North America was recently commissioned in Sanford, Florida; however, the
entire gasification process is not yet in operation.
A proprietary system, SlurryCarb, converts biosolids to a char-like material calle E-Fuel.
The first of its kind process in Rialto, CA is currently in commissioning. The E-Fuel is
not typically used on site and is exported to other customers for combustion and use.
a. Regulatory requirements
The energy products generation through gasification and SlurryCarb are not regulated
materials. Ash disposal is expected to be regulated as discussed in Section 4. Energy
processes are expected to be subject to air emissions; however, as this these are newer
technologies, no air emission information is available at this time.
b. Options/outlets
Char is used outside the United States as an organic soil amendment. Most of the
phosphorus and some of the nitrogen apparently remain with the end product and so it
may be more like compost than like heat-dried biosolids. Before this is implemented,
additional research will need to be conducted.
c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options
Syngas generated through the gasification process can be used to generate heat through
boilers or power and heat through a combined heat and power (CHP) technology, such as
engine generators. Syngas does not meet commercial gas quality and would require
additional treatment to allow injection into natural gas pipelines. Char generated through
the SlurryCarb process can be combusted for energy; however, since this is an emerging
process, information is not currently available on the number of facilities that would be
able to use the char. Biosolids that are not treated through the gasification or SlurryCarb
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 19 -
process can be disposed in landfills (if dewatered). If the biosolids are stabilized, such as
through digestion, they may be suitable for bulk land application.
d. Unit disposal costs
Ash generated through the gasification process will have disposal costs similar to
incineration ash, ranging from approximately $20 to $30 per ton of solids, with hauling
cost of approximately $10 per ton, assuming a 20 mile one-way hauling distance. Costs
and/or revenues for char as a fuel product are unknown at this time.
6. Results of Screening
The final use alternatives were screened during Workshop 1, using the Triple Bottom
Line (TBL) evaluation process described in Technical Memorandum 6. The screening
process was performed as a group, and reflects the consensus of inputs from MSD staff.
The results of the TBL ratings are presented in Appendix B. A summary of the category
and criteria ratings used in the TBL is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. TBL Screening Results
Category Weight Criteria Weight
Aesthetics 1
Truck traffic 1
Public Safety/site security 1
Ease of permitting 1
Social 25
Public perception 1
Minimizes GHGs 1
Outlet reliability 3
Proven experience 4 Environmental 25
Flexibility 2
Capital cost 3
O&M cost 3
Staffing/operational
complexity
2
Constructibility 1
Economic 50
Ability to phase construction 1
The results of the evaluation process are shown on Figure 4. Based on the results of the
TBL evaluation, the following processes were identified as potential final use options for
the MSD wastewater facilities:
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 20 -
Ash disposal
Landfill of cake
Class B land application (digested solids)
Class B land application (alkaline stabilized solids)
Distribution/marketing of dried product
Distribution of compost
These final use options were used to develop treatment technology options discussed in
Technical Memorandum 7.
0.50
1.00
2.25
0.60
0.95
1.80
0.50
0.98
2.15
0.95
1.08
1.10
0.75
1.00
0.85
0.75
0.98
2.50
0.90
1.10
1.35
1.05
0.55
0.55
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Total Weighted ScoreLand App
Class B
Land App
Class A
Land App
Alk Stab
Dried
Product
Compost Landfill
Cake
Ash Energy
Product
Final Use Alternative
St. Louis MSD Solids FInal Use Options
Economic
Environmental
Social
Figure 4. Results of TBL Evaluation
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000
Revised: October 16, 2009
QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-1
Appendix A
Potential End Use Alternatives for Incinerator Ash
Bob Pepperman June 26, 2009 Memo: Use of
Incinerator Ash – Preliminary Investigations
Tom Gredell July 1, 2009 Supplement to Bob
Pepperman Memo
Memo
Date: June 26, 2009
To: Matt Bond
From: Bob Pepperman
Re: Use of incinerator ash – preliminary investigations
Copy:
Introduction
As part of the scope of the project Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan
(MSD Project No. 2009145 Task C (1) f. Identify Alternative Uses for Incinerator Ash,
Environmental Group Services (EGS) initiated investigations into potential outlets for
biosolids incinerator ash.
Missouri DNR was contacted as a first step. The purpose of this contact was to
gain an understanding of the regulatory controls that might dictate which, if any, uses
might be authorized under the States regulations. I spoke with Chris Nagel, Compliance
and Enforcement Section Chief (573-526-3909). Mr. Nagel referred me to provisions in
the State’s solid waste regulations [10 CSR 80-2:020], Section 9 of which allows for
Permit Exemptions for a number of solid waste management activities that can be
approved; Mr. Nagel indicated that beneficial use of MSD’s biosolids incinerator ash
could be exempted under these regulations.
I began exploring alternatives for outlets for the ash. I spoke with George Zanter
(816-901 - 4924) of Herzog, Inc.’s Environmental Division in St. Joseph, MO. Herzog
was the contractor charged with marketing/distributing biosolids incinerator ash from the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services or MCES (serving Minneapolis, St. Paul
and surrounding communities in Minnesota) Central plant. Although Mr. Zanter was not
with Herzog at the time and the company no longer provides this service for MCES, he
did share that Herzog was reasonably successful in acting as a broker or “middle-man”
for the material. Apparently Herzog provided some portion of the product to a local
cement manufacturer. Herzog would be interested in carrying out the same role for MSD
if the District decides to go that way.
I contacted or attempted to contact two cement producing companies located in
proximity to St. Louis. The first, Holcim Cement in Clarksville, MO has a subsidiary
entity called Geocycle that is charged with obtaining alternative fuels and feed stocks. I
am awaiting a return call from Geocycle.
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-2
I also contacted Buzzi Unicem’s Festus, MO QC Manager, Mr. Nick Rice (636-
931-2502). Mr. Rice indicated that they had tried ash from a biosolids incinerators some
years ago (before he arrived) and the information he had on the material was that it
worked from a chemistry standpoint but that there were issues related to handling and
odor. Mr. Rice indicated that, in order to consider a product, they would need an
elemental analysis providing the concentrations of Ca, Si, Al, and Fe as well as certain
other elements and a TCLP analysis demonstrating that the product was not hazardous. If
the ash passed those tests, then further exploration could be undertaken. Mr. Rice
indicated they currently utilize a substantial amount of coal fly ash as a raw material in
their cement production. The ash they use is referred to as Class C or Class F fly ash.
This material is separated at the power plant and maintained in a dry state. Ash is loaded
into pneumatic tankers for delivery to the kiln. The ash is pneumatically conveyed to a
silo/tank and then incorporated into the raw material mix. Biosolids incinerator ash
would have to be similarly handled.
Mr. Rice also suggested that fly ash is used as a pozzolan in cement and cement-
derived products. In order to be so utilized, the ash must meet ASTM C 595 – 08
Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements, which is a general standard for
blended hydraulic cements covering the gamut of blended hydraulic cements and
including those made with slag, pozzolan, or a blend of the two combined with Portland
cement, Portland cement clinker, and also slag with lime.
Some municipalities utilize biosolids incinerator ash in the production of bricks.
As St. Louis was once called, “Brick City,” one might suspect a reasonable opportunity
to work with brick manufactures in the region. I was able to locate only one: Richards
Brick Company (618-656-0230), whose manufacturing facility is located in
Edwardsville, IL, which is about 25 miles from St. Louis. Mr. Motley at Richards
indicated that they would be interested in considering ash for bricks. He would only be
interested; however, if he could be paid to take it (but less than cost of landfilling). He'd
want a 5-gallon bucket to play with.
Some years ago, Dr. Henry Liu (who is now head of a company in Columbia, MO
called Freight Pipeline Company) developed processes for incorporating ashes into the
brick-making process. Dr. Liu’s company has the capacity to evaluate materials like the
MSD’s ash and develop formulas for incorporation of the ash into brick-making; Dr. Liu
would undertake such a project under contract with the MSD.
Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Missouri Department
of Transportation (MoDOT) allow for the use of coal fly ash in concrete, asphalt and
various fills. Most of these uses are based on the ash meeting certain testing
requirements. One could anticipate that MSD’s incinerator ash could also be suitable for
these applications. Mr. Joe Schroer of MoDOT (573-751-3849) provided information
related to use of ash in highway consturction. To be approved, a material must be tested
and demonstrated to comply with AASHTO M295 (ASTM C618) Coal Fly Ash and Raw
or Calcinated Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete after which
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-3
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-4
the MoDOT will publish notice that the material is approved for use. At this point, the
MSD would market the ash in a manner similar as any other biosolids-derived product.
It should be expected that, in order to enter this market, a fairly rigorous testing
program would be required. Such testing would be aimed at confirming the incinerator
ash met the minimum qualifications and standards for use in the various products. After
this testing, it is likely that one or more demonstrations would be necessary to provide
field evidence of performance.
MoDOT publishes a list of pre-qualified fly ash sources; perhaps the most
important aspect of this listing is the number of fly ash sources. Clearly, MSD would
have to offer a useful value proposition to any prospective user in order for that user to
switch from readily available fly ash to incinerator ash.
The Illinois Department of Transportation also has procedures for qualifying fly
ash and similar products as a component of road construction materials.
Joe Slater of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Plant Food Control
Service (573-882-3891) indicated that ash could be registered as a fertilizer and/or liming
agent if the product met certain criteria. For a fertilizer, the material must be relatively
low in heavy metals and a guaranteed plant food analysis provided. As a liming agent,
the product would have to meet 65% calcium carbonate equivalent and 90% passing a #8
mesh screen.
Memo
To: Matt Bond, P.E. and Tom Knox, P.E., Black & Veatch Corporation
From: Thomas R. Gredell, P.E.
CC: Bob Pepperman; Rickie L. Roberts, P.E., GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.;
Date: 7/1/2009
Re: Supplement to June 26, 2009 Pepperman Memo on Use of Incinerator Ash
I have reviewed Bob Pepperman’s memo dated June 26, 2009 and titled “Use of incinerator ash –
preliminary investigations’. My perspective is my past experience and current understanding of
the regulatory and business aspects of solid waste management in Missouri, including disposal,
beneficial use and re-use or recycling. As noted by Mr. Pepperman, my review and this memo are
a part of the scope of the Phase 1 MSD Biosolids project, specifically Task C.1f, Identify
Alternative Uses for Incinerator Ash. My perspective and comments strictly relate to MSD’s
incinerator ash and DO NOT relate to the un-incinerated biosolids.
I offer the following comments in response to specific paragraphs in Mr. Pepperman’s memo.
1. Paragraph 2 – MDNR regulations. I concur that Mr. Pepperman’s reference to 10
CSR 80-2.020 (9) is the correct reference for Missouri’s Solid Waste Management
Rules relative to beneficial use exemptions. While working for MDNR in the 1980’s
and early 1990’s, I was involved in drafting various versions of this regulation. The
primary, historical use of the permit exemption section of the rules is to allow
beneficial use of industrial wastes in a similar manner to ‘clean fill’, which is defined
and exempt from solid waste regulation in Missouri. One of the key premises of
Missouri’s ‘clean fill’ definition is that the material is ‘inert’. While the word ‘inert’
is vague, this has been practically interpreted to mean that the material is inorganic
and does not have significant metals content or other potential contaminants of
concern. As Mr. Pepperman states, an extensive testing program, followed by a
submittal to MDNR, review and subsequent approval, would be required to meet a
‘beneficial use’ exemption.
This ‘beneficial use’ exemption has historically been used for coal combustion
products (CCP), especially fly ash and bottom ash/slag. It has also been used for
foundry sands. The Bissell and LeMay plant incinerator ash would be a candidate for
exemption under this regulation, but the apparent high iron content, as well as other
leachable metals, may be a hindrance.
CCP wastes (fly ash and bottom ash) have historically been used by utilities as ‘clean
fill’ for improvements to their own facilities. This would be an option for MSD to
pursue, if there appeared to be a financial savings to their construction costs. This use
would require a ‘case-by-case’ review and approval by MDNR’s Solid Waste
Management Program. 10 CSR 80-2.020 (9) requires consideration of
A-5
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-6
geologic/hydrologic site conditions and waste physical and chemical characteristics
for this type of approval. Additionally, some type of soil cover (possibly 1 to 2 feet
of clayey soil) and establishment of a vegetative cover to prevent erosion would be
required.
It should be noted that Missouri’s Solid Waste Management Law and Rules
specifically exempt the processes that re-use or recycle solid wastes directly into
products. For instance, if the incinerator ash were to be hauled to a brick plant for
direct re-use as a raw material, that hauling and processing (e.g., the manufacturing
process) would be exempt from solid waste regulation. On-site processing of the
incinerator ash to make it a more attractive product at the Bissell or LeMay plants
would likely also be exempt from solid waste regulation, but likely NOT exempt from
Clean Water regulation.
2. Paragraph 3 – Herzog, Inc. I am aware of Herzog’s presence and that they are a long-
time participant in solid waste management in the mid-west and beyond. It is my
perception that they are a specialty waste company and that they would be a good
choice for a potential contractor to market this material. I routinely work with a local
consultant, Greg Haug, P.E., Resource Enterprises, LLC, who also works with
specific industries to find alternative disposal uses for their industrial wastes. Mr.
Haug works extensively (but not exclusively) with Continental Cement Company,
whom I have mentioned has a past interest in MSD’s incinerator ash. Therefore, Mr.
Haug may or may not be available to work with MSD on a broader basis.
3. Paragraph 4 – Cement producing companies. I concur with Mr. Pepperman that the
cement industry is a potential end user of this material. They have historically and
actively sought industrial wastes for alternative fuel sources and raw material
substitutions. Holcim is opening a new, larger cement plant near St. Genevieve,
Missouri. It is unclear to me if the Clarksville plant will remain open, but I could
pursue this if this is desirable. In addition to Holcim, I have mentioned in a recent e-
mail that Continental Cement Company just south of Hannibal, Missouri, has past and
current interest in MSD’s incinerator ash. Also, Lone Star Cement near Cape
Girardeau has historically been interested in the use of industrial wastes for use in
their processes. Due to their ties to the housing and construction market, Missouri’s
cement manufacturers are currently suffering from the overall economic decline.
4. Paragraph 5 and 6 – Buzzi Unicem. I am not directly familiar with this facility, but
the information (e.g., elemental analysis) that they would require should be similar
for all cement manufacturing facilities. Although it is not anticipated that analytical
testing of MSD’s current incinerator ash would prove it to be characteristically
hazardous, some cement manufacturers are permitted to take hazardous wastes
(Continental Cement and Holcim-Clarksville, for instance). However, this would
likely lead to the cement company charging a disposal fee for the material.
I do not believe that the discussion regarding Mr. Rice’s comments about fly ash in
cement-derived products is particularly relevant to consideration of alternatives for
MSD’s incinerator ash. I expect the physical, chemical and/or pozzalonic properties
of CCP fly ash to differ from MSD’s incinerator ash, based on the past and current
information and knowledge. In this regard, I located a Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) document that discusses the use of fly ash as a concrete
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-7
additive, including a description of Type C versus Type F fly ash. The link to the
FHWA document on fly ash is:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/flyash.htm
5. Paragraph 7 – Use of Incinerator Ash in the Manufacture of Bricks. As discussed in
an earlier e-mail, the prominence of brick manufacturer’s in central and eastern
Missouri has significantly diminished in the past 10 to 15 years. This should not be
interpreted to mean that remaining brick manufacturers won’t be interested in MSD’s
incinerator ash, but this will mean that there will be fewer available outlets.
Missouri’s brick manufacturer’s once included residential bricks, as well as industrial
refractory bricks, (and mortars) associated with the steel industry. However, the
national and possibly global competition in the brick market may increase the
industry’s interest in the use of alternative raw materials that will both reduce the cost
of manufacturing and allow them to market their product as a ‘green product’. The
surge of interest in L.E.E.D. certified vertical construction and other ‘green’ and
sustainable construction (including horizontal construction) may lead to increased
markets for MSD’s incinerator ash.
Missouri’s refractory brick industry consolidated in the 1990’s, leading to the closure
of most (if not all) of Missouri’s industrial refractory facilities, many of which were
located between Mexico, Missouri and Louisiana, Missouri along U.S. Highway 54.
Missouri’s residential brick manufacturing likewise has diminished, with the most
notable recent closure being A.P. Green Refractory facility in Mexico, Missouri.
However, there has been local (mid-Missouri) news reports in the past two years
(approximate) about a residential brick company planning to re-open in Mexico in a
portion of the old A.P. Green Refractory facilities.
I am not familiar with the status of the residential and industrial brick manufacturing
business in Illinois.
6. Paragraph 8 – Dr. Henry Liu. As noted in a previous e-mail, I am generally familiar
with Dr. Liu’s background and research based out of Columbia, Missouri. From my
perspective and based on his presentations that I have listened to, he has an interest
and experience in finding alternative uses for large quantities of industrial materials,
such as CCP fly ash, in particular in the manufacture of bricks and/or cinder blocks
using a ‘pressure process’. I concur with Mr. Pepperman that he would be a potential
source or consultant to conduct future ‘research’ into specific uses for MSD’s
incinerator ash.
7. Paragraph 9 through 12 – Use of Incinerator Ash in Highway Construction. I am
familiar with MoDOT’s use of CCP materials in highway construction. This has been
a significant CCP flyash outlet for Missouri’s electric utilities over the past 20 to 30
years. When most of Missouri’s coal-fired electric generating plants switched to
‘western coal’ in the 1990’s, this created an abundance of pozzalonic fly ash in
Missouri. With an abundance of available material and a national trend towards and
acceptance of the use of fly ash in cement, MoDOT has embraced its use in the
highway construction process.
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-8
I have also had some experience in trying to obtain MoDOT approval for use of other
‘recovered solid wastes’ in the highway construction process. In particular, I worked
with a client and a large St. Louis area contractor in trying to secure MoDOT’s
approval of the use of recycle asphalt shingles as a substitute raw material in asphaltic
cement. This process led me to the conclusion that MoDOT was very particular
about the use of alternative raw material and the impact that they would have on the
long-term QUALITY of their final product, which is Missouri’s highways. So I
would expect that this would require significant testing, time and meetings with
MoDOT to secure approval for MSD’s incinerator ash. My general familiarity with
the issues of use of fly ash in the concrete manufacturing process would lead me to
suspect that the impact that the iron content and the carbon content of MSD’s
incineration ash would have on the quality of the finished concrete would be one of
MoDOT’s highest concerns.
8. Paragraph 13 – Registration as a Fertilizer or Soil Amendment. I am generally
familiar with this process, but not extensively. I concur that this is a potential avenue
for re-use of biosolids, especially for un-incinerated biosolids. Due to the inorganic
nature of MSD’s incinerator ash, the potential for certification as a soil amendment,
or ‘liming agent’, seems most promising.
Mr. Pepperman has covered the prospective alternative uses for the incinerator ash thoroughly.
The most promising outlets appear to be:
1. Beneficial Use as a ‘Clean Fill’ material. This option carries some long-term
liabilities for MSD, as future regulatory changes towards the classification of various
contaminants that are present in MSD’s ash could result in some environmental
liability exposure for MSD. This is best controlled if the materials were used on their
own properties for their own projects.
2. Reuse as a ‘raw material substitute’ in the cement manufacturing process. The
cement manufacturing process has a strong presence in the St. Louis area. The
current economic impact to this industry is likely short-term. However, the current
competitive climate of the industry may make the demand for cheaper, alternative
raw materials even greater, which could benefit MSD.
Other possibilities not specifically mentioned by Mr. Pepperman include:
1. The potential use of MSD’s incinerator ash as an ingredient in future compost
products created with MSD’s un-incinerated biosolids. It is my understanding that
these concepts are being developed by others under Task B, but it is my
understanding that commercial products generated from the co-composting of yard
waste and biosolids can benefit from the physical characteristics (sandy quality) and
possibly chemical characteristics (i.e., calcium and iron) of the incinerator ash.
2. Use as ‘Alternative Daily Cover’ at municipal waste landfills. Missouri Solid Waste
Management Rules (10 CSR 80-3.010) regulating municipal solid waste landfills
require that the solid waste be covered with 6-inches of soil at the end of each
operating day. The placement of soil daily cover is an expense and also consumes
valuable air space in the landfill. MDNR’s Solid Waste Management Program allows
municipal solid waste landfills that have meet the federal Subtitle D design standards
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-9
for liners and leachate collection systems to utilize ‘alternative daily covers’. The
incinerator ash is ‘soil-like’ in physical appearance and characteristic and would
likely meet MDNR’s criteria for alternate daily cover. However, approval for this use
would have to be initiated by the municipal solid waste landfill and it would require a
‘case-by-case’ review by MDNR. This option would also include a hauling cost to
the municipal solid waste landfill plus the landfill MAY still choose to charge a
‘disposal cost’ for the incinerator ash.
Specific outlets can be pursued in Phase 2, if that is the direction that MSD would like to pursue.
Appendix B
Results of Triple Bottom Line Evaluation
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-1
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-2
TM4–SummaryofRegulatoryIssuesVOLUME 1
PHASE 1
TM 4 –Summary of
Regulatory Issues
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 4 – REGULATORY REVIEW
To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
From: Patricia Scanlan, Ajay Kasarabada, Carlos De Leon
This Technical Memorandum presents a review of biosolids-related regulations that
would potentially apply to the Metropolitan St. Louis District (MSD) biosolids program.
It also includes results of discussions with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) to identify existing trends in biosolids management or permitting practices or
potential changes in state regulations.
1. Biosolids Regulations
Biosolids are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 Rule and by state and local ordinances. Odor,
pathogens (e.g. disease-causing bacteria and viruses), biological vectors (e.g. rodents and
flies) and heavy metals impact biosolids management, disposal, and final use practices.
Federal and state biosolids regulations are discussed in the following sections.
a. Federal Regulation
The Part 503 Rule sets standards for final use or disposal when biosolids are applied to
agricultural and non-agricultural land (including products sold or given away), placed in
or on surface disposal sites or incinerated. The Part 503 Rule includes a provision that
requires a utility disposing of biosolids in municipal solid waste landfills or using
biosolids as a daily cover material at landfill sites must ensure compliance with 40 CFR
Part 258. Treatment works that use a landfill for biosolids disposal must insure that the
material is non-hazardous (as determined by the Toxicity Characteristics Leachate
Procedure or TCLP) and passes the Paint Filter Liquid Test.
The standards contained in the Part 503 Rule consist of general requirements, pollutant
limits, management practices, operational standards and requirements for frequency of
monitoring, record keeping and reporting.
The Part 503 rules primarily regulate land application practices, surface disposal
(monofills), sewage sludge incineration, pathogen and vector attraction reduction. As
part of these issues, Part 503 addresses monitoring and record keeping practices and
biosolids management. The land application, pathogen and vector attraction reduction
reqirements, management and monitoring are described in the following sections. The
incinerator-related issues are described in Section 2 of this memo, Air Emission
Regulations.
i) Metal Limits
The Part 503 regulations list two different concentration limits for pollutants; (1) Ceiling
Concentration Limit (CCL), and (2) Pollutant Concentration Limit (PCL), for applying
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 2
biosolids on land. The CCL sets the maximum allowable pollutant concentration in
biosolids that are applied to land. If the biosolids contain pollutants greater than the
CCL, biosolids can not be land applied. The PCL sets a lower pollutant concentration
threshold which, when achieved, relieves owner from certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for metal loadings. While biosolids that meet the CCL but exceed the PCL
can still be land applied, the cumulative loadings of pollutants to land must be monitored
and recorded. In comparison, biosolids that meet the lower PCL can be distributed to the
public or applied to land without tracking the metal loading rates. The CCL and PCL for
metals, established by Part 503 Regulations, are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Part 503 Metal Limits for Land Application
Metal
PCL
(mg/kg)
CCL
(mg/kg)
Cadmium 39 85
Copper 1,500 4,300
Lead 300 840
Nickel 420 420
Zinc 2,800 7,500
Arsenic 41 75
Chromium 1,200 3,000
Mercury 17 57
Molybdenum -- 75
Selenium 36 100
ii) Pathogen Reduction Requirements
The pathogen reduction requirements for biosolids are divided into two criteria: Class A
and Class B. A combination of technological and microbiological requirements can be
used to ensure reduction of pathogens to meet these criteria. The goal of the Class A
requirements is to reduce the pathogens in biosolids (including enteric viruses,
pathogenic bacteria, and viable helminth ova) to below detectable levels, as defined in the
1992 regulation. Class A biosolids have no use restrictions based on pathogen content
and are considered to pose no threat to public health. Unlike Class A biosolids, which are
virtually pathogen free, Class B biosolids may contain some pathogens. The goal of the
Class B requirements is to reduce pathogens in biosolids to levels that are unlikely to
pose a threat to public health and the environment under the specific use conditions. For
Class B biosolids that are applied to land, site use restrictions are imposed to minimize
the potential for human or animal exposure for a period of time following land
application and until environmental factors (e.g. sunlight, desiccation) have further
reduced pathogens. Application of Class B biosolids must be conducted in compliance
with site restrictions; consequently, Class B biosolids application is limited to agricultural
use on row crops or pasture or land reclamation.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 3
b. Class B Treatment Methods
Class B pathogen requirements can be met in three different ways. The objective of all
three alternatives is to ensure that pathogenic bacteria and enteric viruses are reduced in
density, as demonstrated by a fecal coliform density in the biosolids of less than 2 million
most probable number (MPN) or colony-forming units (CFU) per gram total solids (TS)
biosolids (dry weight basis).
In addition to management-practice requirements, including site restrictions, the Class B
pathogen control requirements mandate that one of the following be satisfied before land
application:
i) Fecal Coliform Limitation
The geometric mean of at least seven separate samples must be less than 2,000,000 MPN
or CFU per g of TS.
ii) Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP)
These processes have demonstrated the capability to achieve at least a 2-log reduction in
fecal coliform. The processes are as follows:
Aerobic Digestion: Solids must be treated in a well mixed, aerobic condition
with time and temperature between 40 days at 20°C and 60 days at 15°C.
Anaerobic Digestion: Solids must be treated in an anaerobic environment for at
least 15 days at 35°C to 55°C.
Lime Stabilization: Add sufficient lime to the sewage sludge to raise the pH to
12 after 2 hours of contact.
Air Drying: Dry the solids for a minimum of 3 months. During 2 of the 3 months,
the ambient average daily temperature must be above 0°C.
Composting: Compost the solids at a temperature of 40°C or higher for 5 days.
For 4 hours at some point during each of the 5 days, the temperature in the
compost pile must exceed 55°C.
iii) Process Equivalent to Process to Significantly Reduce
Pathogens (PSRP)
Processes that are not specifically identified in Part 503 can be used to meet Class B
criteria if individually approved by USEPA or designated permitting authority.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 4
c. Class A Treatment Methods
Six alternative methods within the Part 503 regulation demonstrate Class A pathogen
reduction. The objective of these methods is to achieve the following conditions in the
end product:
Solids contain less than 1000 MPN fecal coliform per gram of total biosolids or
less than 3 MPN of Salmonella sp. per 4 grams total biosolids.
Enteric virus concentration is less than 1 PFU per 4 grams of TS.
Viable helminth ova concentration is less than 1 viable helminth ovum per 4 gram
of TS.
Class A biosolids must meet either of the limits mentioned above or one of the following
alternatives:
i) Time and Temperature Requirements
Solids are treated for a specific time and temperature to kill pathogens. Time
requirements vary depending on the treatment temperature. Typical requirements range
from 5 days at 50oC to 30 minutes at 67oC.
ii) Alkaline Treatment Requirements
Solids are treated for a specific time and temperature to kill pathogens. Time
requirements vary depending on the treatment temperature. Typical requirements range
from 5 days at 50oC to 30 minutes at 67oC. Biosolids pH must exceed 12 for at least 72
hours and the biosolids temperature must exceed 53oC during that period. Biosolids must
then be dried to a concentration exceeding 50 percent solids.
iii) Treatment by Other Processes
This alternative includes all processes other than those listed herein and requires
monitoring of untreated sludge for viruses and pathogens. If these pathogens are not
detected in the feed sludge, the treated biosolids are assumed to be Class A biosolids until
the next monitoring period. If viruses and ova are found in the untreated biosolids,
pathogens in the treated biosolids must be measured to confirm compliance with Class A
pathogen criteria.
iv) Unknown Processes
This alternative applies to processes (such as lagoon storage, air drying, or cake storage)
where kill mechanisms are not well understood or there is a lack of control over kill
mechanisms. Virus and helminth monitoring are required for each batch of product.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 5
v) Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP)
A number of specific processes are identified by Part 503 that meet Class A pathogen
requirements. The most commonly used processes include the following:
Composting: Compost the solids at a temperature of 55°C or higher for 3 days
with in-vessel composting or static aerated pile. If windrow composting method is
used, compost the solids at a temperature of 55°C or higher for 15 days or longer
and provide minimum of five turning times.
Heat Drying: Solids must be dried to 90 percent dry material at a minimum of
80oC.
Heat Treatment: Liquid biosolids must be treated at a minimum of 180oC for 30
minutes or longer.
Pasteurization: Solids must be treated at a minimum of 70oC for 30 minutes or
longer.
vi) Vector Attraction Reduction Requirements
Both Class A and Class B biosolids must meet Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR)
requirements for beneficial use. VAR requirements are intended to reduce the
putrescibility of the solids. Putrescible solids will tend to attract vectors, such as flies and
rodents. There are 12 VAR options for biosolids. Eight of the options treat the biosolids
to reduce its ability to degrade further. These methods directly measure the volatility of
the solids after stabilization, or measure indicator parameters, such as the oxygen uptake
rate during additional degradation or the rate of degradation after stabilization. Other
indirect measurements include meeting temperature or pH requirements for a specified
detention time or drying the biosolids to specific solids concentrations. The last three
VAR methods do not include treatment, but dictate management practices to minimize
vector access. These include injecting the solids below the ground surface, using
equipment to incorporating the biosolids into the soil (disking in the biosolids), or
covering the biosolids after placement.
“Exceptional quality” (EQ) biosolids are biosolids which have met the Part 503 PCL
requirements as well as Class A pathogen reduction requirements and one of the first
eight vector attraction reduction options. EQ biosolids may be land applied without site
restrictions, sold, or given away.
d. State Regulations
The State of Missouri does not have delegation over biosolids permitting; however, the
state has the authority to promulgate regulations and guidelines in addition to those
presented in Part 503. The MDNR has incorporated the Part 503 rules in the state
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 6
requirements under the Missouri Clean Water Law and regulations. The state rules
include additional requirements that are not covered under USEPA. Complying with the
state rules automatically meets the USEPA requirements as well.
The MDNR has its biosolids rules codified under the Code of State Regulations (CSR),
Title 10. Separate divisions within Title 10 affect MSD, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Key State Regulations Affecting the Management of Biosolids
Division Chapter Applicability
20 6, 7, 8 Sludge disposal in surface lagoons, sludge transport for
beneficial use
80 All Solid Waste management: landfilling, landfill design and
operation
Biosolids treatment and management requirements are also provided through a series of
Water Quality Guides published by the University of Missouri. While the University has
published 16 guides, 5 have been incorporated by reference the MDNR Standard
Conditions for NPDES Permits, Part III, Sludge & Biosolids from Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Facilities. The incorporated guides are as follows:
WQ 422 Land Application of Septage
WQ 423 Monitoring Requirements for Biosolids Land Application
WQ 424 Biosolids Standards for Pathogens and Vectors
WQ 425 Biosolids Standards for Metals and Other Trace Substances
WQ 426 Best Management practices for Biosolids Land Applications
All biosolids-related guides from the University of Missouri are available in electronic
format at:
http://extension.missouri.edu/main/DisplayCategory.aspx?C=74
The guides follow the USEPA Part 503 regulation on most issues. However, they
provide additional requirements for the following:
Monitoring frequency. WQ 423 provides greater delineation for monitoring
frequency than Part 503. WQ 423 requirements are listed in Table 3.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 7
Table 3. Recommended Monitoring Frequency
Design Sludge
Production
(dry tons per
year)
Monitoring Frequency
Metals,
Pathogens,
and Vectors
Nitrogen
TKN1 Nitrogen PAN2
Priority
Pollutants and
TCLP3
0 to 100 1 per year 1 per year 1 per month 1 per year
101 to 200 Biannual Biannual 1 per month 1 per year
201 to 1,000 Quarterly Quarterly 1 per month 1 per year
1,001 to 10,000 1 per month 1 per month 1 per week See note 4
10,001+ 1 per week 1 per week 1 per day See note 4
1Test total Kjeldahl nitrogen, if biosolids application is 2 dry tons per acre per year or less
2Calcualte plant available nitrogen, if biosolids application is more than 2 dry tons per acre per
year. 3Priority pollutants (40 CFR 122.21, Appendix D, Tables II and III) and toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (40 CFR 261.24) is required only for permit holders that must have a pre-
treatment program. 4One sample for each 1,000 dry tons of sludge
Application rates. WQ 425 includes application rate limits based on the total
cumulative loading limit, based on the soil cation exchange capacity (CEC).
These limits are listed in Table 4. The WQ 425 values for soils with CEC values
of less 15 or less are lower than the Part 503 requirements.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 8
Table 4. Application Limits based on Soil Cation Exchange1
CEC 15+ CEC 5 to 15 CEC 0 to 5
Pollutant Annual Total(2) Annual Total(2) Annual Total
Arsenic 1.8 36.0 1.8 36.0 1.8 36.0
Cadmium 1.7 35.0 0.9 9.0 0.4 4.5
Chromium 133.0 2,670.0 100.0 1,000.0 50.0 500.0
Copper 66.0 1,335.0 25.0 250.0 12.0 125.0
Lead 13.0 267.0 13.0 267.0 13.0 133.0
Mercury 0.7 15.0 0.7 15.0 0.7 15.0
Molybdenum 0.8 16.0 0.8 8.0 0.8 8.0
Nickel 19.0 347.0 19.0 250.0 12.0 125.0
Selenium 4.5 89.0 4.5 44.0 1.6 16.0
Zinc 124.0 2,492.0 50.0 500.0 25.0 250.0
1Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Permit Standard Conditions Part IV, June 1993
2Total cumulative loading limits for soils with equal or greater than 6.0 pH (salt-based test)
Best Management Practices. Some of the Best Management Practices (BMPs)
listed in WQ 426 are more stringent than Part 503 requirements. These include
increased buffer zones to protect surface waters (300 ft), dwellings (150 ft)
wetlands (100 ft) and property lines (50 ft); slope limitations for application areas;
soil pH limits at the application sites (6.0 to 7.5); and biosolids storage
requirements (90 days for the St. Louis area).
A copy of the Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits, Part III, is included in Appendix
1.
e. Regulatory Outlook and Trends
A meeting was held with the MDNR on September 21, 2009 (See MDNR Meeting
Minutes, Appendix 2). Based on the information provided by MDNR, the staff
envisioned several regulatory changes that may occur within the next 10 to 20 years.
These include the addition of phosphorus limitations for land application rates and
monitoring of pharmaceutical and endocrine disruption compounds. Neither of these
issues has been addressed at the federal level at this time and no regulation modifications
are currently pending.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 9
2. Air Emission Regulations
Air emissions are controlled under a number of federal regulations, including both Clean
Air Act and 40 CFR Part 503. In addition, in September 2009, the USEPA issued a final
rule requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, subject to
numerous parts of the 40 CFR. Municipal wastewater treatment plants are specifically
excluded from reporting in the current rule in general. However, there are some potential
categorical requirements for rated head input of fuel combustion units, as well as CO2e
discharge rates, that could push the Bissell and Lemay facilities into GHG monitoring
requirements.
Air emission regulations are discussed in the following sections.
a. Federal Regulations
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) new source review (NSR) provisions are implemented
for new major stationary sources and major modifications at existing major sources under
two programs; the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program outlined in 40
CFR 52.21 for areas in attainment, and the NSR program outlined in 40 CFR 51 and 52
for areas considered non-attainment for certain pollutants.
The air quality in a given area is generally designated as being in attainment for a
pollutant if the monitored concentrations of that pollutant are less than the applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Likewise, a given area is generally
classified as non-attainment for a pollutant if the monitored concentrations of that
pollutant in the area are above the NAAQS. A review of the air quality attainment status
of the St. Louis metropolitan area that includes the City of St. Louis, St. Louis, Jefferson,
Franklin and St. Charles Counties reveals that MSD’s current incinerator fleet is located
in a moderate non-attainment area for ozone (8-hour) and a non-attainment area for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) see definition in Table 5.
i) Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment
New Source Review
The PSD regulations are designed to ensure that the air quality in existing attainment
areas does not significantly deteriorate or exceed the NAAQS while providing a margin
for future industrial and commercial growth. The primary provisions of the PSD
regulations require that major modifications and new major stationary sources be
carefully reviewed prior to construction to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, the
applicable PSD air quality increments, and the requirements to apply BACT to minimize
the emissions of air pollutants.
A major stationary source is defined as any one of the listed major source categories that
emits, or has the potential-to-emit (PTE), 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 10
pollutant, or 250 tpy or more of any regulated pollutant if the stationary source does not
fall under one of the listed major source categories. All MSD incinerator facilities are
currently classified as a major non-attainment source and a major PSD source.
If any upgrades or retrofits are proposed for incinerators located at existing major
stationary sources, PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) applicability is
determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis by comparing the emissions increase of each
pollutant against the PSD significant emission rates (SERs) listed in
Table 5.
Table 5. Significant Emission Rates
Pollutant Significant Emission Rate
(ton/year)
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 40
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 40
Particulate matter (PM) 25
Particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) 15
Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 10
Carbon monoxide (CO) 100
Ozone (O3)--NOx or volatile organic compounds (VOC) 40
Lead (Pb) 0.6
Fluorides 3
Sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) 7
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 10
Total reduced sulfur compounds 10
As mentioned previously, the St. Louis metropolitan area is a moderate non-attainment
area for ozone (8-hour) and a non-attainment area for PM2.5. In Missouri, the NSR
program required by the federal CAA is administered by through Section (7) of 10 CSR
10 6.060 Construction Permits Required. VOCs and NOx are considered as surrogate
pollutants for ozone and regulated as nonattainment pollutants. It has not yet been
established if MDNR considers PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5. Since the MSD facilities
are classified as existing major sources, the significance levels for triggering NSR review
for VOCs, NOx and PM2.5 are 40, 40 and 10 tons per year, respectively.
It needs to be established if new major construction or retrofits/modification projects will
trigger a NNSR or PSD. Operational limitations or stricter air emission limits may be
required to permit the projects as minor modifications to existing major sources (ie, to
limit potential increases in emissions to less than the major modification thresholds). In
non-attainment areas such as the St. Louis metropolitan area, NNSR review will require
the implementation of lowest achievable emission rate (LAER), purchasing of emission
reduction credits (or offsets) and other requirements that will need to be managed and
addressed early in the project planning phase.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 11
ii) New Source Performance Standards – Sewage Treatment
Plants
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) established in the 1970 CAA, were
developed for specific industrial categories and are promulgated in 40 CFR 60. The 40
CFR Part 60 Subpart O, Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment Plants regulates
sludge incinerators that have been constructed or modified after June 11, 1973 and a
design capacity greater than 1,000 kilograms (kg) per day. NSPS Subpart O limits
opacity from each sludge incinerator stack to less than 20 percent and filterable
particulates (PM) to less than 1.3 lb/dry-ton. The criteria for this NSPS will need to be
continuously met even after the modification/upgrades to individual incinerators.
iii) 40 CFR Part 503, Subpart E, Incineration
The USEPA’s 40 CFR Part 503 Rule regulates the emission of seven metals and total
hydrocarbons from biosolids incinerators based on the following approaches:
Risk-specific concentrations for arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead
Technology-based operational standard for total hydrocarbons
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP) for
beryllium and mercury (see above for discussion on beryllium and mercury
NESHAPs).
(1) Risk-Specific Concentrations for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium and
Nickel
The emission of arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel from an incinerator are
controlled by limiting the allowable concentration of each metal in the biosolids to be fed
to the incinerator. The allowable concentration for each metal is determined for each
individual incinerator is calculated based on a formula provided in the Part 503
regulations. Inputs to the formula include allowable ambient air increase in metals
concentrations (based on Part 503 risk-based assessment results), dispersion factors,
control efficiency, and biosolids feed rate.
(2) NAAQS for Lead
The equation used to calculate the allowable concentration of lead in biosolids to be
incinerated is similar to the equation used for arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel.
However, rather than being based on a risk-based calculation developed for the Part 503
Rules, the lead limit is based on a percentage of the NAAQS and includes factors for
dispersion, control efficiency for lead, and the biosolids feed rate.
(3) Total Hydrocarbons and CO
Total hydrocarbons (THC) or carbon monoxide (CO) are monitored to represent all
organic compounds in the exhaust gas that are covered by the Part 503 Rule. The THC or
CO requirement is a technology-based standard and not based on risk assessment
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 12
methodology used for the metals. The Part 503 Rule allows a monthly average
concentration of up to 100 parts per million based on volume (ppmv) of THC or CO. The
emission limit for THC of 100 ppmv is monitored as propane, corrected to 0 percent
moisture and 7 percent oxygen. If the CO in the emission does not exceed 100 ppmv,
USEPA allows CO to be used as an alternative to THC. However, a CO limit of 100
ppmv is more stringent than a THC limit of 100 ppmv. In either case, the regulation
requires the monthly average to be based on the arithmetic mean of 24-hourly averages,
with the hourly average based on at least two readings. The criteria for this regulation
will need to be continuously met even after the proposed upgrades/modifications.
iv) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants –
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and
EPA’s Impending Re-definition of Biosolids
USEPA is currently developing a revised definition of non-hazardous solid waste. The
applicability of Section 112 or Section 129 of the CAA will depend on the finalized
version of that solid waste definition rule. Biosolids are included in this re-definition
rule. Early indications are that the USEPA may reclassify biosolids as solid waste. If this
re-definition of biosolids proceeds, it will affect sludge incineration regulation.
Specifically, it could result in more future stringent emission limits, affect the market for
biosolids as a co-firing fuel, and require treatment plants to obtain permits from solid
waste agencies for disposal or land application of biosolids. Therefore, it is important to
track this rule development closely as it could have significant impacts on future
compliance for incineration or biosolids disposal. It is likely that multiple hearth
incinerators would have difficulty meeting potential new regulatory requirements if
regulated under Section129 of the CAA.
Emissions of mercury, which is a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) will continue to be
regulated under the mercury NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, Subpart E, National Emission
Standard for Mercury, which limits the emissions of mercury to less than 3,200 grams or
7.1 pounds of mercury per 24-hour period. The mercury NESHAP also requires affected
facilities to conduct stack testing or sludge sampling, and relevant recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that are triggered if mercury emissions exceed 3.5 pounds per 24-
hour period.
Emissions of beryllium, which is also a HAP, will continue to be regulated under the
beryllium NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, Subpart C, National Emission Standard for
Beryllium, which limits the emissions of beryllium to less than 10 grams or 0.022 pounds
of beryllium per 24-hour period.
v) Title V Operating Permit
Any changes to the existing incinerators will require new construction permits, which
will need to be incorporated in the respective facility’s Title V Operating Permit within
12-months of initiating operations with the upgrades/modifications in place.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
QC: G. Shimp 13
a) State Regulations
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has no sludge incinerator
specific regulations other than those that are already listed under the federal regulations.
Any proposed project will likely need air construction permits from the MDNR. Whether
or not these permits will be major permits or minor permits can only be established after
some preliminary engineering decisions are made on the type, and scale of the proposed
retrofit/upgrade projects. Other local and state specific regulations associated with
opacity, particulate matter and sulfur compounds that are currently applicable, will
continue to be applicable after the proposed modifications and it is expected that MSD
will continue to comply with these regulation.
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-1
Appendix A
Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits
Part III
BLACK & VEATCH
St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186
TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009
MSD Contract No. 2009145
10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-1
Appendix B
MDNR Meeting Minutes
September 21, 2009
MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan
Meeting With Missouri Department of Natural Resources
September 21, 2009, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Lewis & Clark Office Building, Gasconade Camp Room
Meeting Objectives:
1. Confirm existing biosolids regulations and requirements
2. Identify regulatory issues that may impact current or future biosolids alternatives
or operations
Attendee List is Attached
Discussion Items:
The MSD staff and Black & Veatch presented the following information on the current
management practices used by MSD:
• Biosolids management practices and processes at MSD plants are generally
operating fine, meet all regulatory requirements, and are of sufficient capacity to
meet current and near term needs. The district feels they employ the most costs
effective process at individual plants for biosolids processing and disposal.
• Incineration is practiced at the largest plants (Bissell Point and Lemay). Although
incineration has worked well, the age of the equipment and new potential
emissions requirements are the primary reason the District is taking a
comprehensive look at all alternatives for this study.
• After the Missouri River WWTP changes to activated sludge, only about half of
the solids production can be composted by St. Peters composting. The excess
biosolids will need to be managed through an alternate process.
• The Missouri River WWTP used the solids from its lagoons as a part of the levee
materials during expansion. They were also used to enhance the sandy soils in the
river land area and for land application in Illinois. At the time, applying solids to
remediate the land in the “lead belt” area was considered, but not pursued.
• Solids from the other plants currently go to the Fred Weber landfill.
The MDNR staff, led by Tony Dohmen, provided the following information:
• There have been no changes to biosolids regulations for Missouri for the past five
years. Part III regulations have not changed.
• Rob Morrison stated that the WPCB is currently evaluating a program to see if
some changes need to be made to the regulations.
" T h e U S E P A h a s s e t p h o s p h o r o u s l i m i t s f o r C o n c e n t r a t e d A n i m a l F e e d i n g
O p e r a t i o n s ( C A F O ) . M D N R b e l i e v e s t h a t p h o s p h o r u s l i m i t s c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d
o n l a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f b i o s o l i d s w i t h i n t h e n e x t 1 0 t o 2 0 y e a r s .
" M D N R e x p e c t s t h a t e n d o c r i n e d i s r u p t o r s a n d p h a r m a c e u t i c a l s m a y b e r e g u l a t e d
i n s o m e f a s h i o n i n t h e f u t u r e . H o w e v e r , M D N R s t a f f a r e n o t a w a r e o f a n y
t i m e l i n e s o r t a r g e t d a t e s .
" R o b M o r r i s o n s t a t e d t h e p h o s p h o r o u s r e q u i r e m e n t s c o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e a m o u n t o f
s t o r a g e n e e d e d . T o n y D o h m e n r e c o m m e n d s a f u l l y e a r o f s t o r a g e , r e g a r d l e s s o f
t h e s t a t e r e q u i r e m e n t s .
" T h e r e a r e c u r r e n t l y o n l y t w o u t i l i t i e s t h a t c o m p o s t m u n i c i p a l s o l i d s : S t . P e t e r s a n d
N i x a .
" T o n y D o h m e n r e v i e w s a n d i m p l e m e n t s t h e B i o s o l i d s p r o g r a m i n M i s s o u r i f o r
M D N R . T h e r e a r e n o o t h e r r e s o u r c e s d e d i c a t e d t o b i o s o l i d s p r o g r a m o r
e n f o r c e m e n t i n t h e S t a t e . S i n c e t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f b i o s o l i d s p r o g r a m s u s e l a n d
a p p l i c a t i o n T o n y s f o c u s i s o n l a n d a p p l i c a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s a n d p o l i c i e s . M D N R
s u p p o r t s l a n d a p p l i c a t i o n f o r i t s b e n e f i c i a l r e u s e f e a t u r e s . T o n y i m p l e m e n t s t h e
p r o g r a m i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e e s t a b l i s h e d 5 0 3 r e g u l a t i o n s . E x c e p t f o r t h e
s t a n d a r d P a r t 3 c o n d i t i o n s a t t a c h e d t o a l l d i s c h a r g e p e r m i t s , M i s s o u r i h a s n o o t h e r
o v e r a r c h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s o n l a n d a p p l i c a t i o n .
" T o n y D o h m e n c o n s i d e r e d t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f h e a t d r i e d b i o s o l i d s : i t c r e a t e s a
v a l u a b l e p r o d u c t , b u t a t a h i g h c o s t a n d w i t h l a r g e g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s . H e
q u e s t i o n e d t h e i s s u e s s u r r o u n d i n g s u c h a n o p e r a t i o n , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e n o
o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e S t a t e o f M i s s o u r i t h a t c u r r e n t l y p r o d u c e C l a s s A b i o s o l i d s .
" N o w a T e c h n o l o g y w a s i d e n t i f i e d a s a p a r t y i n t e r e s t e d i n g e n e r a t i n g b i o d i e s e l
f r o m b i o s o l i d s . N o w a i s c u r r e n t l y t a l k i n g t o L i t t l e B l u e V a l l e y S a n i t a t i o n
D i s t r i c t . N o w a i s c u r r e n t l y s e e k i n g a d e m o n s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t a n d f u n d i n g . C o n t a c t
R i c h a r d N e l s o n a t N o w a t e c h n o l o g y . c o m .
" W a s t e C o r p o r a t i o n o f A m e r i c a ( W C A ) o f S e d a l i a w a s a l s o i d e n t i f i e d . W C A i s
c u r r e n t l y s e e k i n g b i o m a s s t o d i g e s t t o p r o d u c e b i o g a s . I t i s c o n s i d e r i n g m a n y
s o u r c e s , i n c l u d i n g a n i m a l w a s t e a n d m u n i c i p a l s o l i d w a s t e . T h e g o a l i s t o r e c o v e r
e n e r g y a n d s e l l c o m p o s t o r l a n d a p p l y a d i g e s t e d p r o d u c t .
A n s w e r s t o s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s f r o m M S D / B l a c k &