fremont water pollution control center...jeff lamson, superintendent, wpcc robert hrusovsky, pe, mwh...
TRANSCRIPT
Fremont Water Pollution Control Center
OWEA 2013 Annual Conference
June 19, 2013
Plant Expansion for Nutrient Removal and Wet
Weather Flow Treatment
Jeff Lamson, Superintendent, WPCC
Robert Hrusovsky, PE, MWH Americas
Fremont Water Pollution Control Center
1019 Sand Road
Fremont, Ohio
Progression of Improvements at WPCC
Location for New Liquids Process
Plant improvements are being driven by a
Requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act
• Reduce Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)
• Develop a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP)
• Failure to comply could result in enforcement
action against the City.
Combined Sewer Overflow
Combination of raw sewage and storm water discharged to surface waters.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
in Fremont, Ohio
• Fremont’s sewer system is approximately 75%
combined.
• An average of 1 billion gallons of combined
sewage is discharged to the Sandusky River
every year.
• An average of 70 events occur per year.
LTCP Requirements
• June 29, 2006 – OEPA letter to the City stated
that at a minimum 80% solids removal and
disinfection were required.
• However, the City was later told that CSOs
would need to be reduced to no more than 4
events/year and water quality standards would
need to be maintained.
Alternatives
LTC Proposal December 2007
• Treat 9.2 MGD through current facility (with
improvements) and 34.8 MGD through High
Rate Treatment and disinfection. (Total 44
MGD) along with common projects. Total cost
$67.4 million.
• OEPA responded by requiring the City to
conduct a No Feasible Alternatives (NFA) study
to be completed by end of 2010.
No Feasible Alternatives Study (NFA)
• The City had to prove that there were no feasible alternatives to the current proposal that would result in more water being treated biologically, based on technology and the financial capability of the City.
• Finanacial Capability
• Had to show that at least 2.1% of the household median income was being spent on sewer services.
• If not, then other alternatives that would provide additional biological treatment had to be investigated.
Results of NFA
• City could reasonably treat 18 MGD through biological treatment
and 33 MGD through HRT (Total 51 MGD)
• $52.8 million for plant improvements
• Total LTCP cost $78.4 million
• OEPA, due to financial capability, felt the City could treat 24 MGD
through biological treatment and 36 MGD through HRT. (Total 60
MGD)
• Wanted this completed at the same time at a cost of $67.4
million for plant improvements
• Total LTCP cost $94.4 million
• Current rate schedule puts the cost at 2.06% of household median
income
Current Plan after Negotiations with OEPA
• Build new 24 MGD biological process with new Class A solids handling facility for an estimated $57 million.
• The City has two years to determine if any additional treatment is necessary to meet the CSO requirement of 4 or less events per year.
• Conduct common projects to reduce the amount of storm water to be treated.
• Reduce Inflow and Infiltration (County monitoring and surcharge program).
Why Build a New Facility?
• Engineer’s estimate based on life cycle costs
was $1.4 million less to build new than renovate
old and bring up to code.
• Build new with today’s technology and
specifications to treat 24 MGD rather than hope
the old would meet NPDES requirements.
• Better position the City for future growth and
regulations.
Structural issues with existing basins.
Advantages of the New Facility
• Biological Nutrient Removal
• Help with algae blooms in Lake Erie
• Reduce biosolids production – lower operating costs
• Class A biosolids
• More options for use
• Environmentally safer
• Lower or eliminate disposal costs
• currently > $200,000/year
• More energy efficient
Plant Project
• Design firm – MWH Americas, Cleveland Office
• Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) – MWH
Constructors and Mosser Construction Inc. • New law allowing CMAR went into effect April 2012
Advantages to CMAR
• Lower number of change orders
• Less liability for City
• Process makes it easier to hire local firms
Influent Screen / Pump Station
Screening System
• Manual Coarse Screen (3”
spacing to protect
mechanical screen from
large objects)
• Mechanical Bar Screen
(1/4” spacing)
• Manual Bypass
• Reversing Conveyor
• Screening
Washer/Compactor
• Dumpster
Influent Pumps
• Submersible
• Split wet well for maintenance.
• Multiple pump sizes with VFD’s
for wide range of flow
– 2-3 MGD
– 1-6 MGD
– 2-12 MGD
– Space for future pumps
• Dump discharge piping
connection for flushing out wet
well (resuspend grit)
Influent Pumps
• Dual force mains 24” and 36” for wide range of flow
and future flow
• Flow meters on each force main
Grit Removal
• Submerged Vortex Grit
Concentrator Type System
• 2 Units each rated for 15 MGD
• Space for 2 future units
• Grit pumps in basement
• Flushing water at pump suction
for grit suspension
• Two grit separation/washing
units. Water goes back to
treatment by gravity.
A2O System. Anaerobic/Anoxic/Oxic
• Biological treatment /
Internal recycle.
• Floating Mixers
• Fine bubble diffusion
system
• Internal recycle with
submersible pumps
• Multiple blowers with
turndown capability
• ORP and DO sensors
for control.
Surface
Mixers Fine Bubble
Air Diffusers
Recirculation
Pumps
Process Alternatives Evaluated
• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
• Integrated Fixed-film Activated Sludge (IFAS)
• Oxidation Ditch
• Three-stage (A2O) biological nutrient removal (BNR)
activated sludge
• Vertical Loop Reactor (VLR)
Alternative Evaluation Criteria
• Compatibility with existing site constraints
• Constructability
• Use of existing facilities
• Operation during construction
• Proprietary licensing
• Construction time
• Wet weather performance
Alternative Evaluation Criteria
• Ease of operation
• Maintenance requirements
• Expandability
• Sidestream (screenings, grit, residuals) impacts
• Energy consumption
• Compliance with nutrient removal regulations
• Odor control
Alternative Evaluation Scoring
• Membrane Bioreactor 395
• IFAS 523
• Oxidation Ditch 502
• Three-stage A2O BNR 558
• Vertical Loop Reactor 481
Why Three-Stage A2O was Selected
• Easy to integrate to the existing site
• Meets current regulatory limits
• Prepares Fremont for future nutrient removal
requirements (TP and TN)
• Minimal number of bio-reactors
Why Three-Stage A2O was Selected
• Simple operation
• Can accommodate peak wet-weather flows (step-
feed operation)
• Lower aeration (energy) requirements
• Minimal impact to existing operations
• Primary sedimentation is not required
Final Clarifiers
• 3 at 90 ft diameter
• 18’ deep (ability to store solids)
• Energy Dissipating Inlet (EDI)
• Density Current Baffles
• RAS pump dedicated to each clarifier with flow meter.
Tertiary Filter
• Rotating Disc Filter
• Automatic backwash
• Over double the treatment capacity in half the footprint
• Mudwell to collect backwash and send to A2O influent
Disinfection
• Ultraviolet (UV) system
• 2 Channels 12 MGD
each
• 1- Bypass Channel
• Canopy Overhead
• Peracetic acid as
backup / power outage
Effluent Pump Station
• Multiple variable speed
submersible pumps
1 - 3 MGD
2 - 6 MGD
2 - 9 MGD
• Flow to river by gravity
until pre-determined river
level then turn on pump
station.
Chemical Systems
• Settling aid polymer
• Aluminum Chlorohydrate
(ACH) for phosphorous
removal
• Peracetic acid for RAS
filaments and backup
disinfection
• Polymer for thickening
and dewatering
centrifuges
• Room for future chemical
Solids Processing
• Autothermophilic Aerobic Digestion (ATAD)
• Gravity thickener
• Thickening centrifuge
• ATAD
• SNDR
• Biofilter
• Dewatering centrifuge
(liquid or solid Class A product)
Overall Site Plan
Permanent
Grit Pad
Septage
Receiving
Manhole
Proposed Construction Phasing
Demolition / Dewatering
Equip.
Piling
Liquid Phase
Solids Phase
(Mar 13’ – June 13’)
(July 13’ – Feb 15’)
(June 13’ –
Aug 13’)
(Mar 15’ – Dec 15’)
*Use Existing Aeration Tanks for Temporary Aerobic Digestion
Questions?