Hillsdale Wastewater Treatment Plant

Similar documents
Watertown Wastewater Facility Plan. August 11, 2015

Wastewater Facility Plan City of Marshall, Minnesota

BEING GOOD STEWARDS: IMPROVING EFFLUENT QUALITY ON A BARRIER ISLAND. 1.0 Executive Summary

CITY OF OXFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2018

CITY OF OXFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2014

Performance Evaluation of the Moores Creek Advanced Water Resource Recovery Facility

CITY OF OXFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2012

Providing Infrastructure Redundancy at the Rocky River WWTP. Timothy McCann AECOM Keith Bovard Rocky River WWTP

VILLAGE OF ALGONQUIN 2014 WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FAYOUM CITY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, DEVELOPMENT STAGES, CASE STUDY

Post-Aerobic Digester with Bioaugmentation Pilot Study City of Meridian, ID WWTP PNCWA 2010

WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT. Bentonville Wastewater Treatment Plant Facts:

JEDDAH INDUSTRIAL CITY

2015 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan. Community Workshop November 14, 2016

RE: Annual Report 2016 Wardsville Wastewater Treatment Plant and Collection System

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Steubenville Isolation Valve Replacement and Rehabilitation

2017 Annual Performance Report

MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN RODNEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

Wastewater Treatment. Where does wastewater go when it leaves your house?

DESIGNING LAGOON-BASED WWTP FOR <1 MG/ L AMMONIA (AND TN) IN <34 F WATER. Nick Janous Regional Manager

City of Elk River Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements. Achieving Wastewater Treatment Goals

Town of Robbinsville Constructs Cheoah River BNR Wastewater Treatment Facility to Meet New Nitrogen and Phosphorus Permit Limits

Treatment Strategies and Improvements at the Blackhawk WWTP Alex Kuzovkov, P.E.

At the Mercy of the Process Impacts of Nitrogen Removal Performance on WWTP Disinfection

TAMING TIGERS AND WRESTLING ANACONDAS: PENDER COUNTY COMMERCE PARK WWTP

Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, City of Petaluma

Assuming 100 gallons per capita per day, and 3 people per REU, design flows for the development are proposed to be:

Feel free to contact me should you require any additional information regarding the report. I can be reached at

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Rehoboth Beach Commissioners Meeting Ocean Outfall & Treatment Plant Project Update July 26, Jeff Sturdevant Principal Kelvin George Principal

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN 6. BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

21 st Century Biofilm Reactors TREATING FOR TROUT. Northport/Leelanau Township Wastewater Treatment Facility. Presented by: Rich Grant, PE

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

Presentation Outline

Presenters: Rodrigo Pena-Lang, PE (D&B Engineers), Magdalena Gasior, PE (D&B Engineers) and Paul D. Smith, PE (NYCDEP)

Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant

~~~~ WWTP Master Plan Project

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT For Choctaw Utilities, Inc. Water Plant Replacement Loan Number FS

Water Resources Director: Chris Graybeal

AGENDA LOVELAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 500 EAST THIRD STREET LOVELAND, COLORADO

Water Quality Permitting Program Monitoring Matrix 1,2,3

Efficient Design Configurations for Biological Nutrient Removal

BRACEBRIDGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT 2016 SUMMARY REPORT

WEFTEC.06. **Cobb County Water System, Marietta, Georgia

NEWEA 2015 Annual Conference Session 16

HOW TO SAVE COSTS AND IMPROVE SUSTAINABILITY WHILE REDUCING EFFLUENT NITROGEN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 1. Conveyance System

Review of WEFTEC 2016 Challenge & Overview of 2017 Event. Malcolm Fabiyi, PhD, MBA Spencer Snowling, PhD. P.Eng

WEAO STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION 2019 PROJECT STATEMENT

Copies: Mark Hildebrand (NCA) ARCADIS Project No.: April 10, Task A 3100

Anderson Water Pollution Control Plant

2017 Annual Performance Report

Nutrient Removal Optimization at the Fairview WWTP

Wastewater Nitrogen Removal

Wastewater Treatment Works and Collections System Annual Report Year 2005 General Information

Masses at Massillon: IFAS for Industrial Loads and Nutrient Removal

Sulaibiya world s largest membrane water reuse project

Design, Construction and Startup of the First Enhanced Nutrient Removal Plant in Maryland Funded by the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund

Wet Weather and Advanced Treatment: Procurement Strategies to Secure the Right Technology

Alexandria Sewage Lagoon Treatment Facility Municipal Class C Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre #2 Welcome!

QUARTERLY OPERATIONS REPORT 3 rd Quarter, January March 2018 WASTEWATER PERMIT COMPLIANCE. Page 1 EFFLUENT MONTHLY AVERAGE INFLUENT MONTHLY AVERAGE

Cold Weather Ammonia Removal

Capital Improvement Plan Update:

Altoona Westerly Wastewater Treatment Facility BNR Conversion with Wet Weather Accommodation

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Town of North Castle, NY Sewer District No. 2 WWTP

TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Purpose and Scope

Membrane Bioreactor and High Flow Biological Treatment System for the Cox Creek WRF

Conceptual Design for a Future Wastewater Treatment Plant

Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) System for Additional Nitrification at the Coldwater WWTP

Upgrading Lagoons to Remove Ammonia, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus *nutrient removal in cold-climate lagoon systems

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

UPGRADING FOR TOTAL NITROGEN REMOVAL WITH A POROUS MEDIA IFAS SYSTEM

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Plant Profile

CHARLES RIVER POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Capital Improvement Plan

Public Information Meeting Wastewater Master Plan

North Side WRP Master Plan Research and Development Department 2006 Seminar Series October 27, 2006 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

Dealing with Unexpected Wastewater Treatment Plant Disruptions. February 16, 2017

Wastewater treatment objecives

Palmer Wastewater Treatment Plant 6.7 Alternative 7: Upgrade Existing Lagoons with New Percolation Bed

Module 20: Trickling Filters Answer Key

BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION NISP EIS SUPPORT. Carl Brouwer, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District

Wastewater Treatment System Needs Assessment. May 2017

RESTRICTED URBAN REUSE OF KONYA (TURKEY) MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENTS VIA RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Pima County Regional Optimization Master Plan

Palmer Wastewater Treatment Plant Environmental Impacts. A summary of the impacts of this treatment alternative are listed below:

MEETING COLUMBUS S TREATMENT LIMITS

QUARTERLY OPERATIONS REPORT 4 th Quarter, April June 2018 WASTEWATER PERMIT COMPLIANCE. Page 1 INFLUENT MONTHLY AVERAGE EFFLUENT MONTHLY AVERAGE

CERTIFICATION PROPOSAL

Operation & Maintenance of the Delphos MBR WWTP. Presenters: Scott Ellsworth, P.E. Keith Radick Floyd Browne Group Kim Riddell City of Delphos WWTP

Regional Municipality of Halton Skyway Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study

EGANVILLE SEWAGE SYSTEM 2013 PERFORMANCE REPORT

Dundalk Wastewater Treatment Plant

UPGRADING GAZA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. Gaza City is populated with 550,000 inhabitants and it forms 45% of the Gaza strip population.

Iroquois Wastewater Treatment Plant 2016 Annual Performance Report

Eco-efficient Solids Separation Using Salsnes Filter Technology. Jonathan Leech Trojan Technologies Nov 2013

Energy Optimized Resource Recovery Project Presented By: Curtis Czarnecki, P.E.

RE ENGINEERING O&M PRACTICES TO GET NITROGEN & PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL WITHOUT FACILITY UPGRADES

CHAPTER 1 - WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Transcription:

Hillsdale Wastewater Treatment Plant SRF Project Plan Public Hearing sdgfdgdf June 10, 2014 Presented by: Jeff Pugh, PE and Elaine Venema, PE

Synopsis/Agenda Purpose of Presentation Project Background Need For Wastewater System Improvements Analysis of Alternatives Environmental Review Process Projected Impact on User Charges Anticipated Project Schedule Discussion, Q/A

Purpose of the Presentation Review the Project Plan Summary of Needs & Alternatives Project Impact on the Environment Discussion of Benefits & Costs Address Public Comments/Questions

Project Background Study Area City of Hillsdale including Hillsdale College Small portions of Hillsdale Twp and Cambria Twp Land Use includes residential, business, industrial, Downtown, College, and recreational areas. The St. Joseph River runs through the City center.

Service Area

Persons Population Data & Projections 9,000 8,500 8,000 7,500 City of Hillsdale Population Data & Projections The Region 2 Planning Commission is anticipating a slight decrease in population through 2040; -0.18% annually. 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year The BPU believes it is prudent to plan for a nominal increase in wastewater flow; a 0.2% annual increase was selected for planning. Historic Data Region 2 Projections 0.18% 1970-2010 historical 0.08% 1990-2010 Historical 0.2% Nominal Growth *Historic population data from US Census Bureau Declining projections from Region 2 Planning Commission

Current & Projected Wastewater Flows Residential & Commercial/Industrial Flows Current Sewer Customers: 3,702 Est. Equivalent Service Population: 13,722 Current Avg. Flow: 1.25 mgd Projected Service Population: 14,111 Corresponding 20-yr Design Avg. Flow: 1.38 mgd Current WWTP Capacity: 2.0 mgd

WWTP WWTP Site North side of the City Between the St. Joe River & the railroad

History 1947 Construction Primary Treatment, Trickling Filters, Final Clarifiers, Digesters, Sludge Drying Beds 1980 Improvements Added Disinfection, Chemical Feed, Nitrification Towers, Tertiary Filters, add l Digester 1992 Improvements Converted Trickling Filters to Oxidation Ditches, added Circular Secondary Clarifier, Sludge Thickening, Tertiary Pumping System Digesters Primary Clarifiers Rectangular Sec. Clarifier Headworks Chlorine Contact Main Bldg Circular Sec. Clarifier Oxidation Ditches Nitrifying Towers (not used)

Existing Process Flow Diagram

Need for the Project Aging Infrastructure Several concrete tanks are 67 years old Newer concrete tanks are 22-34 years old Mechanical & electrical equipment beyond its useful life Inconsistent Compliance Challenges with MLSS control Permit violations for ammonia, TSS, BOD Violation notice letters from the DEQ; on EPA s watchlist

Aging Infrastructure

Need for the Project Hydraulic Issues Influent pumps not efficient; pumping capacity reduced Tertiary Filters hydraulic capacity reduced Inefficient/Outdated Infrastructure Anaerobic digestion system Building roofs and walls SCADA

Areas In Need of Improvement Headworks Influent pumps & grit system Primary Clarifiers Secondary Clarifier & RAS/WAS handling Tertiary Filters Anaerobic Digesters Buildings roofs, exterior brick, insulation SCADA instrumentation & controls

Effluent Violations Exceeded Limits in 2012 & 2013 D.O. & ammonia in June 2012 D.O. & total residual chlorine May/June 2013 Ammonia violations regular from July 2013 through October 2013 cbod exceeded in August, September, and November 2013 Parameter Biochemical Oxygen Demand May 1 Nov 30 Dec 1 Mar 31 Apr 1 Apr 30 Total Suspended Solids May 1 Nov 30 Dec 1 Apr 30 Total Phosphorus Ammonia Nitrogen May 1 Nov 30 Dec 1 Mar 31 Apr 1 Apr 30 4 mg/l Effluent Limit, Monthly Avg. 15 mg/l 18 mg/l 20 mg/l 30 mg/l 1.0 mg/l 0.5 mg/l 8.6 mg/l 9.1 mg/l Effluent Limit, Daily 10 mg/l (daily) 23 mg/l (daily) 27 mg/l (daily) 30 mg/l (7-day) 45 mg/l (7-day) 2 mg/l (daily) 10 mg/l (daily) 10 mg/l (daily) Fecal Coliform 200 cts/100 ml 400 cts/100 ml (7-day) Total Residual Chlorine 0.038 mg/l (daily) Total Selenium Available Cyanide Until Jan. 31, 2015 Beginning Feb 1, 2015 Until Jan. 31, 2015 Beginning Feb 1, 2015 Report 5 μg/l Report 6 μg/l Chronic Toxicity 1.1 TU C Total Mercury 2 ng/l (rolling avg) TSS removal 85%, Min ph 6.5-9.0 Dissolved Oxygen Apr 1 - Apr 30 May 1 Mar 31 6.0 mg/l, Min 7.0 mg/l, Min. 7-day,

Objectives for SRF Project Ensure reliable wastewater service to the customers. Bring existing processes into conformance with current design standards. Incorporate renewable energy concepts with environmentally innovative processes and equipment. Minimize financial burden to the sewer system users, creating a sustainable utility. Minimize environmental impact during construction of the improvements project. Minimize future environmental impact of WWTP operations, effluent discharges and residuals disposal.

Development of Alternatives Alternatives developed in the Project Plan to address urgent needs and satisfy project goals & objectives. The alternatives include the SRF Program required No Action and Regional Alternative. Alternatives: Alternative No. 1 No Action Alternative No. 2 Regional Alternative Alternative No. 3 Optimize Existing Facilities Alternative No. 4 Optimize Existing w/ CHP Alternative No. 5 Build a New Treatment Plant

Analysis of Alternatives Alternative No. 1 No Action No construction project Effluent violations will continue DEQ will escalate enforcement Aging infrastructure will continue to deteriorate Does not meet Project Objectives Alternative No. 2 Regional Alternative Decommission Hillsdale WWTP and pump wastewater to nearby facility Nearest treatment facility is 5.4 miles away in Jonesville Additional pumping and expansion of host facilities required Does not meet project objectives Regional Treatment Facility Distance (miles) Estimate Forcemain Cost Friction head (ft) Estimated Annual Pumping Cost Jonesville 5.4 $3,136,000 120 $55,143 Coldwater 26 $15,100,800 575 $264,229 Hudson 18 $10,454,400 400 $183,812 Quincy 15 $8,712,000 330 $151,645 Litchfield 12 $6,969,600 270 $124,073

Analysis of Principal Alternatives Headworks Influent pumps & grit system Primary Clarifiers and Pump House Secondary Clarifier & RAS/WAS handling Tertiary Filters Anaerobic Digesters Buildings roofs, exterior brick, insulation SCADA instrumentation & controls

Alternative No. 3 Optimize Existing Facilities Addresses urgent/important issues, specifically: Headworks improvements demo screw pump, install new influent pumps, rehab grit system, building roof & wall insulation Demolish primary clarifiers and pump house Add VFDs to oxidation ditch aerators, paint metals, heat trace chem lines Replace existing rectangular south secondary clarifiers with new circular clarifier, update RAS/WAS systems to improve control Replace existing sand filters with disc filter system, tertiary pump station building roof & wall insulation Rehab ferrous chloride feed system Paint metals at sludge thickener, install sludge flow meter Anaerobic Digester improvements construct solids capture tank, rehab Digester #3, new mixing & heating systems, dual fuel boiler, rehab hydronic system, replace gas equipment SCADA & alarm improvements

Alternative No. 3 Areas of Improvement

Alternative No. 3 Areas of Improvement

Alternative No. 3 Areas of Improvement

Alternative No. 3 Optimize Existing Facilities Est. Project Cost: $6,193,000 Anticipated OM&R savings with project: $-66,400/yr Natural gas savings use biogas to fuel digester boiler Sludge disposal savings better digestion with project Maintenance savings less emergency type repairs with rehabilitated and newer facilities Salvage Value: $1,176,800 Total Net Present Worth: $18,490,000

Alternative No. 4 Optimize Ex. Facilities w CHP Alternative No. 3 plus additional Energy Efficiency: Install Combined Heat & Power (CHP) generator Produce electricity for use onsite Waste heat from CHP generator to heat digester and BPU buildings

Alternative No. 4 Optimize Ex. Facilities w CHP Est. Project Cost: $6,924,000 Anticipated OM&R savings with project: $-122,000/yr Natural gas savings utilize waste heat from engine for digester/buildings Electricity savings use electricity to reduce onsite power use Sludge disposal savings better digestion with project Maintenance savings less emergency type repairs with rehabilitated and newer facilities Salvage Value: $1,176,800 Total Net Present Worth: $18,490,000

Alternative No. 5 Build a new Treatment Plant Meets 20-year wastewater needs by: Constructing a new WWTP designed for 2.0 mgd Located on the other side of the St. Joseph River from the existing facility New influent pump station New Headworks building with fine screen & vortex grit removal Organic solids recovery tank Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Secondary clarificiation Disc filter tertiary filtration Chlorination/dechlorination Cascade re-aeration Anaerobic digestion

Alternative No. 5 Build a new Treatment Plant Est. Project Cost: $24,326,000 Anticipated OM&R savings with project: $-99,200/yr Natural gas savings use biogas to fuel digester boiler Sludge disposal savings better digestion with project Maintenance savings less emergency type repairs with completely new facilities Labor savings MBBR process & all new facilities would require less supervision Salvage Value: $5,742,200 Total Net Present Worth: $31,630,000

Net Present Worth - Principal Alternatives Alternative 3 Optimize Existing Facilities Alternative 4 Optimize Existing Facilities with CHP Alternative 5 Build a new Treatment Plant Capital Cost $6,193,000 $6,924,000 $24,326,000 Annual O&M Cost $1,024,700 $969,100 $991,900 Net Present Value of O&M Cost $13,474,800 $12,743,600 $13,043,500 Total Present Worth (1) $19,667,800 $19,667,600 $37,369,500 Salvage Value $1,176,800 $1,176,800 $5,742,200 Net Present Worth $18,490,000 $18,490,000 $31,630,000 (1) Discount Rate 4.375%required by the SRF Program for FY 2015 Recommend Alternative No. 4 Optimize Existing Facilities with CHP Same NPW as Alternative No. 3, but greater energy benefits

Environmental Review Environmental Feature Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Agricultural and Open Space Lands NSI NSI L Air Quality T T T Archeological Historic Sites NSI NSI NSI Drinking Water Supply Source NA NA NA Endangered or Threatened Species NSI NSI L Energy Resources SB GB SB Fauna and Flora Communities/ Habitat NSI NSI L Floodplains NSI NSI L Great Lakes Shoreline NSI NSI NSI Lakes and Streams NSI NSI NSI Parks and Recreational Facilities NSI NSI NSI Unique Features NA NA NA Wetlands NSI NSI NSI Wild & Scenic Rivers NSI NSI NSI Explanation of Abbreviations: NSI: No Significant Impact NA: Not Applicable L: Low, But Measurable Impact SI: Significant Impact T: Temporary Impact SB: Slight Benefit GB: Great Benefit

Environmental Mitigation Temporary construction impacts include noise & temporary air impacts (dust, exhaust) Mitigation includes: City approved work hours for construction Traffic flow provided to all residences and businesses Dust control Soil erosion and sediment measures All work performed in accordance with necessary permits: Part 41 construction, SESC, Stormwater, Floodplain, Wetlands etc.

User Charge Summary BPU funds sewer & wastewater treatment through user fees: Monthly Readiness to Serve Charge Based on water meter size Covers debt service and fixed replacement costs Commodity Charge Based on usage Covers variable OM&R related expenses Alt 4 would increase monthly residential bills by about $2.50 Current Resident Bill Est. Bill with Project (4,500 gal/month) (4,500 gal/month) $22.43 $24.80 User charge rates estimated based on 2.5% interest, 20-year loan Assumes no Green Project Reserve Principal Forgiveness

Green Project Reserve GPR provides Principal Forgiveness for components of SRF Projects that meet eligibility criteria Several components are expected to qualify for GPR: Anaerobic Digester Combined Heat & Power Building & Roof Insulation Disc Filter Oxidation Ditch VFD User Charge increase would be reduced in proportion to the awarded GPR Principal Forgiveness

Anticipated Planning/Design Schedule Task Description Milestone Deadline (no later than) Draft MAHL & WWTP Capacity Evaluation for DEQ review June 20, 2014 Submit SRF Project Plan to DEQ July 1, 2014 Receive DEQ comments on MAHL Report August 15, 2014 Begin Preliminary Design on WWTP Improvements Project October 27, 2014 Submit final MAHL, incorporating DEQ comments October 30, 2014 Revise Local Limits & issue revised industrial discharge permits December 30, 2014 Draft Plans & Specs due to DEQ March 13, 2015 Final Plans & Specs due to DEQ May 15, 2015 Bid advertisement published June 12, 2015 Bid Opening July 15, 2015 Loan Closing September 16, 2015 Construction Begins November 13, 2015 Substantial Completion March 24, 2017 Start Up April 26, 2017 Final Completion May 26, 2017

Questions? Please state your name for the public record