Innovative Approach to Expanding the Olentangy WTP

Similar documents
Innovative Improvements to a 53-Year Old Water Plant for HABs, Crypto, and Whatever Else the Maumee River Brings

Integrating Ozone and Ion Exchange into a 40 Year Old Lime Softening Plant

Expanding Capacity and Treatment. Treatment Plant

Side by Side Piloting of Process Alternatives Yields Direct Performance Comparison

Ohio Section AWWA NW District Fall Meeting April 20, City of Delaware Water Plant Improvements

Process Treatment Selection and. Jeff Macomber, P.E. One Water Conference August 28, 2014

Matt Leach, P.E. CH2M. Mark Eppich, P.E. City of Columbus Division of Water. S. Dean Ramsey, P.E. CH2M

Comparing Carbons for Disinfection Byproduct Control. Maggie H. Pierce, EI Sara N. Gibson, PE Mark M. Bishop, PE David S.

SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS OPTIMIZATION

THIS POLICY DOES NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW

Submerged Membranes to Replace Media Filters to Increase Capacity 4X for a Small Community. Richard Stratton, PE HDR Engineering, Inc.

Columbus Taste and Odor Event

Tiffin Water Treatment Plant. Comprehensive Facility Plan (Audit)

Water Treatment Plant Year-end Report for 2014

Public Utilities Department City of Bossier City, Louisiana

Summary of Flint s Implementation of Veolia s Recommendations

Overcoming Challenges to Achieve Optimization at the Crown Water Treatment Plant. Barbara Martin AWWA Mark Petrie Cleveland Water

Optimizing the Ballasted Sedimentation Process at the Anacortes Water Treatment Plant Jeff Marrs Plant Manager Greg Pierson - HDR

Approved Capacity. March 2010

PNW AWWA Conference 2009 Todd Reynolds, PE, BCEE

Seasonal Source Water Quality and Treatment Challenges Town of Newburgh s Chadwick Lake Filtration Plant

Technical Memorandum. Prepared for: Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Project Title: Sustaining Scioto Project No.:

St. John the Baptist Parish

Robert T. Shoaf, P.E., BCEE Presented by John Krinks, PE

Renovation of the Filters at the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant in Fort Collins, Colorado

MEETING COLUMBUS S TREATMENT LIMITS

PIONEERING PELLET SOFTENING TREATMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA

A. Yavich, Ph.D., P.E. Optimization Solutions Environmental, LLC Grand Rapids, MI

Comparing the Leopold Clari-DAF System to Upflow Contact Clarification

biologically active filtration

MAKING THE SWITCH FROM LIME TO MEMBRANE SOFTENING: WHEN IS IT THE RIGHT TIME? Introduction

Rectangular Basin = Volume, gal (Length, ft) x (Width, ft) x (Height, ft) x7.48 gal/cu.ft.

NELSONVILLE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project (RIP) Filter Pilot Study

FROM RAW WATER INTAKE TO DISTRIBUTION NETWORK: THE JOURNEY OF DBP CONTROL

A Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) Approach to Addressing HABs

SECTION 6.0 DESIGN CRITERIA, LAYOUTS, & HYDRAULICS

Chlorine Dioxide One Year Later. Shazelle Terry Treatment & WQ Department Manager

How are they doing? Check-up on the Enaville and Glenns Ferry Microfiltration WTPs

Ready, Set, and Go: Deer Valley WTP East Basins Performance Testing, Start-Up, and Commissioning Toby Teegerstrom Brian Watson

Benchmarking, Metrics Assessments, and Gap Analyses for Water and Wastewater

Utility Partner Data Report

Improved Membrane Design Addresses Integrity Issues for the City of Yuba City Water Treatment Plant

Hetch Hetchy Treatability at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant

THE BOSSIER CITY WATER TREATMENT PLANT (Background and Current Process Layout )

Utility Partner Data Report

Drinking Water Source Assessment. Patterson Pass Water Treatment Plant Intake on South Bay Aqueduct

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Fridley Filter Plant Rehabilitation

Water Treatment Plant Phase 1 Upgrades CMAR Selection Pre-Submittal Meeting

Using Zeta Potential To Optimize Coagulation For Direct Filtration & Conventional Treatment: The Green River Filtration Facility Experience

Tampa Bay Water (TBW) is a regional

THIS POLICY DOES NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW

City of Enderby Water Treatment Plant

Green River Filtration Facility Plant Overview

REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS OF USING DYNAMIC SIMULATION SOFTWARE TO OPTIMIZE WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS OPERATIONS

Long Point Water Treatment Plant Process Evaluation and Design Upgrades for Performance Enhancement; Dover, DE

Zero Liquid Discharge Project Extends Potable Water Supplies

Benchmarking Case Studies for Water and Wastewater Facilities

Disinfection By-Products Reduction and SCADA Evaluation and WTP Sludge Removal System and Dewatering Facility

DBP Reduction and SCADA Improvements at the SGWASA Water Treatment Plant

Testing Finished Water Meters A Low Tech Approach

The next step in ozone purification

PERFORMANCE AND RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT OF 5 MGD MEMBRANE WATER PLANT. Presented by: Stephen P. Dorman, P.E.

Purpose of this course. Optimization of Water Treatment Plant Operations

CENTRALIZED TREATMENT OPTIONS AND CHALLENGES

Ohio EPA HAB Update. OTCO Workshop March 7, Heather Raymond Ohio EPA HAB Coordinator

Public Utilities Department April 13, 2017 Delaware Citizens Academy Brad Stanton, Director

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

IMPLEMENTING COMPRESSIBLE MEDIA FILTRATION FOR SPRINGFIELD S WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Approaches to Filter Condition Assessment and Optimization

CRITICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MEMBRANES FOR WATER SOFTENING

Ali Leeds, MWH Austin Peters, MWH

Austin Peters, PE, MWH

WRF Webcast Biofilter Conversion Guidance Manual

Water Treatment Exam Review - Grade 3 Course Syllabus

Economic and Design Considerations for Membrane Filtration at a Lime Softening Plant BACKGROUND

Optimizing the Operation of Gravity Media Filters

Meeting Manganese Removal Goals: A Pilot Study

Removing Algal Toxins from the Toledo Tap

North American Biofiltration Knowledge Base. Appendices A and B. Project #4459

FINAL DRAFT WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN. Canby Utility. June DRAFT

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

Physical water/wastewater treatment processes

Dipti Shah, Town of Gilbert Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Water Treatment Math

CONTRAFAST. High-Rate Thickening Clarifier

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

Mike Nixon, E.I. Phil Locke, P.E.

WEFTEC.06. Lake Okeechobee, Actiflo, peroxone, surface water, Cyanobacteria

Avon Lake Corrosion Control Study and Orthophosphate Implementation. Andrew Skeriotis, Stantec Greg Yuronich, Avon Lake Regional Water

ACTIFLO Process For Drinking Water Treatment WATER TECHNOLOGIES

Separations Overview TDRL Seminar

Lake County WTP Improvements and Capacity Increase. OTCO 9 th Annual Water and Wastewater Workshop. Nick Pizzi Aqua Serv

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

REPORT ON PROPOSED ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANT HORSESHOE CURVE AREA CITY OF ALTOONA WATERSHED BLAIR COUNTY1968

There is no sludge treatment process at NWTP. Sludge generated from sedimentation and backwashing is drained directly to the Khan River.

Filter Inspection and Optimization Case Studies

Optimizing Four-Log Virus Treatment with Chemical Disinfection Relative to the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

Iron/Manganese Package Plant Pre-Engineered Ground Water Treatment. Village of Bolivar, NY

Transcription:

Innovative Approach to Expanding the Olentangy WTP September 28, 2017 Spencer Sheldon, WTP Superintendent Bret M. Casey, P.E., BCEE

Who is Del-Co Water? Member owned 501-(c) Non-Profit Corporation Governed by a Board of 10 Directors Must be a member Serve 3 year terms 8 Delaware County members (max 2 per township) 1 Morrow County member 1 At-Large member (from any county) Incorporated in 1969, Served 1 st customer in 1974 Currently serving customers in Seven Counties (Delaware, Morrow, Marion, Knox, Franklin, Union and Crawford Counties)

Del-Co Service Area Del-Co Columbus 800 square miles 400 square miles Serves 140,000 people Serves 1,200,000 1800 mi of piping 3600 miles of piping 4 plants with 11 mgd average demand High seasonal peak demand 3 plants with 150 mgd average demand Moderate seasonal peak

1. Olentangy Plant Complex 19.2 MGD (28.8) 2. Ralph E. Scott Plant 6.55 MGD 3. Timothy F. McNamara Plant / Reservoirs 4.0 MGD 4. Morrow County Office 5. Thomas E. Steward Plant 6.0 MGD 6. City Columbus/Del-Co New Upland Reservoir 6 4 5 1 2 3

Del-Co Historic Peaking Factors Drive Expansion Needs

Olentangy WTP Expansion Additional treatment capacity necessary to meet future demands Master plan evaluated new plant vs. Olentangy expansion Expansion more cost-effective Expansion details 16.2 MGD pump station and pipeline to pump Del-Co s allocation from Columbus reservoir from O Shaughnessy to Olentangy WTP reservoirs Expand Olentangy WTP from 19.2 MGD to 28.8 MGD Columbus John R. Doutt Upground Reservoir

Olentangy WTP Original Design Started up in 2007 replaced an existing 7 MGD WTP (single-stage lime softening) Originally approved for 12.3 MGD (filters at 4 gpm/ft 2 ) with hydraulic capacity for 19.2 MGD. Filters were high-rated with successful demonstration study after startup to 6.25 gpm/ft 2. Current approved capacity is 19.2 MGD. Not intended to expand beyond 19.2 MGD source water limitations

Olentangy WTP Overview

Olentangy WTP Original Design Plant was designed as two-stage lime softening plant for several reasons 4 hours detention time required for treating surface water split between 1 st stage sedimentation and 2 nd stage softening basins. Separate sedimentation from softening. Avoids recycling taste and odor causing compounds in softening residuals. Potential for low ph coagulation for additional TOC removal.

Consistent, high quality, low turbidity raw water supply.

Plant Operational Experience with Two-Stage Softening Following startup, freezing in first stage basins during winter caused chains on chain and flight collectors to break. After startup, plant stopped feeding ferric to 1 st stage during cold months to avoid running collectors operated as single stage softening. Taste and odor issues experienced with previous plant have not occurred following startup of new plant. Plant has not fed PAC. Jar testing and full scale operational data have shown no additional TOC removal with low ph coagulation. Plant feeds less ferric with single stage operation than two-stage

Results of Original Demonstration Study UFRV Max Raw Turbidity Max Filter Influent Turbidity Summer two-stage Filter Run 1-6 Fall single-stage Filter Run 7-13 30000 25000 20000 Filter water turbidity < 0.1 NTU UFRV > 7000 gal/ft 2 14.00 12.00 10.00 Winter single-stage Filter Run 14-24 UFRV (Gal/SF) 15000 8.00 6.00 Turbidity (NTU) Spring two-stage Filter Run 25-31 10000 4.00 5000 2.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0.00 Filter Run

Proposed Expansion Approach Master plan recommended the following to increase capacity: Raise 1 st stage basin walls Add plates or tubes to 1 st stage basins to increase loading rate of basins Add 3 rd solids contact clarifier Add two new filters Hazen recommended the following: Keep flow through 1 st stage at 19.2 MGD avoids modifications to basins During peak flows > 19.2 MGD, bypass a portion of the flow around 1 st stage directly to solids contact clarifier. Operate two solids contact clarifiers two-stage, one as single stage. OEPA Approved Capacity Document allows upflow clarifiers (with softening) at 1.75 gpm/ft 2. 4 hours detention time no longer required. Clarifiers designed for 1.5 gpm/ft 2.

However There was a catch The original filter demonstration study was done with a mix of single stage and two stage softening. EPA required an additional 30 day demonstration study with single stage softening. Demonstration done during May 2017. Not enough demand to run clarifier at rated capacity of 9.6 MGD. Bypassed finished water to reservoir.

Demonstration Study Description Plant flow maintained at 9.6 MGD rated capacity of one solids contact clarifier No ferric added in 1 st stage 9.6 MGD routed to single solids contact clarifier ferric and lime added Recarbonated water split between two filters. High rate filter operated at 6.25 gpm/ft 2, control filter at 3.1 gpm/ft 2. 0-2.5 MGD finished water discharged to furthest upstream reservoir to maintain 9.6 MGD through plant.

Results of Updated Demonstration Study All filtered water turbidity samples generally < 0.1 and all samples < 0.3 NTU TOC removal average 45% (25% required) UFRV (gal/sf) 25000 20000 15000 10000 60 50 40 30 20 Filter Run Time (hrs) UFRV range 7800 19,900 gal/ft 2 5000 10 Water fleas in Reservoir 4 reduced filter run times for runs 12-16. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Filter Run High-Rate Filter UFRV Run Time 0

Update Approach operate singlestage except during WQ events in reservoirs HAB event (has not occurred) Water fleas

Additional Water Quality Evaluation Scope Evaluated WQ changes associated with blending water from Scioto. Minimal impact to plant raw water. Evaluated GAC not needed for meeting Stage 2 D/DBP

Additional Water Quality Evaluation Scope Evaluated UV not needed for meeting LT2. Del-Co decided to install UV for added barrier (no disinfection credit). Evaluated chlorate issues related to sodium hypochlorite. Installing dilution system with hypo as part of expansion to reduce degradation/chlorate issues.

Project Status Demonstration study approved operation in single-stage at 6.25 gpm/ft 2 filtration rate. Final plan approval items being resolved Project to bid October 2017, substantial completion scheduled June 2019 Project funding through USDA loan Project includes: 3 rd solids contact clarifier Two new filters, two UV reactors downstream of filters Additional 1 mgal clearwell Chemical feed improvements

Thank You