port darlington wpcp expansion project
DESCRIPTION
PORT DARLINGTON WPCP EXPANSION PROJECT. WEAO Student Design Competition. Ryerson University Design Team : Nancy Afonso Ruston Bedasie Kirill Cheiko Andrew Iammatteo. Introduction. Regional Municipality of Durham has identified a need to expand the Port Darlington WPCP in two phases - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
PORT DARLINGTON WPCPEXPANSION PROJECT
Ryerson University Design Team: Nancy Afonso
Ruston Bedasie
Kirill Cheiko
Andrew Iammatteo
WEAO Student Design Competition
2
• Objectives:
– Develop preliminary design and layout for Phase I expansion
– Conceptually design the Phase II expansion
– Adhere to design philosophy and limit usage of chemicals
Port Darlington WPCP
• Regional Municipality of Durham has identified a need to expand the Port Darlington WPCP in two phases
• Port Darlington WPCP – services the Bowmanville Urban Area
Introduction
Achieve innovation based on field proven projects, with environmental sustainability
and cost awareness always in mind. (Courtesy of Google Maps)
3
Outline
• Design Basis and Challenges
• Process Selection and Facility Design:
– Headworks– Primary Treatment– Secondary Treatment– Disinfection– Solids Handling– Additional Considerations
• Process Control
• Phase I Economic Analysis
• Recommendations and Closing Remarks
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
4• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Design Basis and Challenges
5
Plant Loading
• Hydraulic Loading:
ADF (m3/d) PDF (m3/d)Added
Capacity Total Plant Capacity
Added Capacity
Total Plant Capacity
Current Plant - 13,638 - 34,095
Phase I 13,638 27,276 45,005 90,010Phase II 13,201 40,477 43,563 133,574
Pollutant Annual Avg. Concentration (mg/L)BOD5 160TSS 180
Total Phosphorus 7Ammonia + Ammonium 36
TKN 54
• Pollutant Loading:
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
6
D.O = Design ObjectiveC.L = Compliance Limit
Existing Estimated Phase
I & Phase II Estimated
Existing + Phase I
D.O C.L D.O C.L D.O C.L
BOD5 (mg/L) 15 25 5 25 10 25TSS (mg/L) 15 25 5 25 10 25
Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 1 1 0.3 1 0.65 1Total Ammonia as N (mg/L)
- Summer14 N/A 10 14 12 14
Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Winter
14 N/A 14 24 14 24
E. Coli (org./100 mL) 100 200 100 200 100 200Total Residual Chlorine
(mg/L)0.5 N/A 0 0.2 0.25 0.2
Effluent Criteria• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
7
Design Challenges
• An alternative method of disinfection
• Nitrification
• Technologies selected must integrate into the existing plant
• Al2(SO4)3 for P removal must be reconsidered
• Phase I design and layout must take into account space limitations for Phase II
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
8• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Process Selection and Facility Design
9
PFD – Phase I
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Treatment Secondary
TreatmentDisinfection
Phase I Sludge
Thickening
Existing Sludge
Stabilization
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
10
Plant Layout• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
10(Courtesy of Google Maps)
11
Phase I Expansion• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
11
12• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Headworks
Phase I Expansion
13• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Primary Clarifiers
Phase I Expansion
14• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
BNR Bioreactors
Phase I Expansion
15
Secondary Clarifiers
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Phase I Expansion
16• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
UV Facility
Phase I Expansion
17• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Fermenter
Phase I Expansion
18• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Gravity Belt Thickener
Phase I Expansion
19
Hydraulic Profile• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Available head = 3.0 m
L.L.EL. 79.66 m
Outfall Pipe
L.L.EL. 76.64 m
Conduit from
Headworks
20
Headworks• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Headworks
21
Headworks
• Installation of two 94 kW raw sewage pumps
• Commissioning of third headworks channel
• Commissioning of aerated grit tank
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
22
Primary Treatment• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Primary Clarifiers
23
• Four (4) rectangular clarifier installation
• Total Volume: 1960m3
– BOD Removal: 30%
– TSS Removal: 55%
– HRT: 3.5h @ ADF
• Chain & flight scum/sludge collection
Primary Treatment• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
24
Secondary Treatment• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
BNR Bioreactors
25
Process Selection
• Activated Sludge with incorporated biological nutrient removal (BNR)
– Reduced chemical dependency
– Reliable effluent quality
– Low sludge production
• Sludge has higher levels of bioavailable nutrients
– Reduced aeration requirements
– Improved sludge settleability
– Environmentally sustainable
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
26Process Selection: WESTBANK
PR
EA
NO
XIC
AN
AE
RO
BIC
AN
OX
IC
AE
RO
BIC
Influent
Secondary Effluent
NMLR
RAS WAS
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
BNR Bioreactor Secondary Clarifier
VFAs
27
Equipment Design
40%20% 40%
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
= Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic
28
Equipment Design
Mechanical Mixers
Fine Bubble Diffusers
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
= Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic
29
Equipment Design
4.8% 8% 7.8%
79.4%
Mechanical Mixers
Fine Bubble Diffusers
• Total Bioreactor Volume: 1,782m3
• SRT: 12 days• HRT: 12.5 hours @ ADF • Average MLSS: 3,000 mg/L• Required VFA concentration: 15 – 25 mg/L
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
= Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic
30
Secondary Treatment
Secondary Clarifiers
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
31
Secondary Clarifiers
• Based on the solids loading rate
• “Gould II” type clarifiers
• Common sludge collector between sets of two clarifiers
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
32
Disinfection• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
UV Facility
33
Process Selection
• Provide additional hydraulic capacity and meet new compliance criteria
• Selection between chlorination/dechlorination and UV disinfection
• UV disinfection selected:
– Effluent toxicity and safety issues with chlorination
– Costs of two processes are becoming comparable
– UV capable of the same process reliability, performance track record, and full automatic control capability
– Minimal space requirements
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
35
• Open – channel, modular design with horizontal, LP-HI lamps
• Design Objective: 100 E.Coli/100 mL at PDF
• UV Transmittance of 65%
Design Basis• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
(Courtesy of Trojan Technologies Inc.)
36
• UV Dose of 30 mW.s/cm2 using LP-HI lamps
• 3 channels constructed: 1 Duty and 1 Redundant (equipped); 1 for Phase II (channel only)
UV Facility Design• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
∆ Water Level = 0.881m
UV Banks
Automatic Level Controller
PDC and Hydraulic Manifold
48 lamps/bank
Variable output electronic ballasts
Automated quartz sleeve cleaning system
(Courtesy of Trojan Technologies Inc.)
37
Solids Handling• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Fermenter
38
Fermenter
• Bio-P removal requires VFAs as a source of energy
• Insufficient VFA supply during winter
• Addition of a static fermenter will accomplish two goals:– Provide a source of additional VFA’s– Increase sludge solids concentration
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
39
Fermenter Schematic• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Influent Sludge from Primary Clarifiers
Effluent Sludge to DigestersVFA Rich Supernatant to Anaerobic Zones
VFAVFAVFA
(Courtesy of www.gc3.com)
40
Fermenter Design
• Design Basis:– SRT required: 3-5 days– Sludge loading: 1517 kg/d or 36.8 m3/d (PMF)
• Fermenter Design Summary:– Volume: 157 m3 (10 m diameter, 2 m tall)– Sludge solids concentration increased from 4% to
6%– Additional VFAs supplied to the BNR process:
11.2 mg/L
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
41
Solids Handling• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Gravity Belt Thickener
42
Thickening
• Construction of a new digester incurs large capital investments
• Thickening can reduce the volume of sludge and allow the use of the existing digesters
• Gravity Belt Thickener– Good control capabilities– High cake solids concentration – Relatively low capital and operating costs
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
43
Gravity Belt Thickener• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
- Sludge - Separated water
44
Gravity Belt Thickener
• Design Basis:– Peak solids loading: 13,784 kg/d– Peak hydraulic loading: 675 m3/d– Desired cake solids concentration: 7%
• GBT Design Summary:– Length-Width-Height: 5.1 m : 1.7m : 1.5 m– Belt width: 1.2 m– Solids capture: ~95%– Polymer Usage: 2-4 kg/tonne of sludge
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
46Additional Considerations
• Noise & odour control• Septage receiving station• Backup generator• Phase II Conceptual Design
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Courtesy of Envirocan
Phase II Conceptual Design
Phase IILiquidFacility
47Phase II Conceptual Design
Phase IISolidsFacility
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
48• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Process Control
49Highlights of Process Control
• Plant to be operated with minimum supervision required
• Process Control will rely on automation and plant operators
49
• Existing SCADA system is to be upgraded to include control in addition to monitoring
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
(Courtesy of Port Darlington WPCP)
50
MOE Requirements
Compliance Sampling required by the MOE
(To be done by the operators)
Raw Sewage Influent
• BOD5
• TSS
• NH3 and NH4
• TP
Final Effluent
• BOD5
• TSS
• NH3 and NH4
• TP
• E. Coli
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
51
Process Control
Performance monitoring Sampling
(To be done by the operators)
1
Raw Sewage Influent
Headworks Effluent
Primary Clarifier
Secondary Clarifier
UV Influent
Final Effluent
1 2 3 4 5 6
• pH
• Temperature
• BOD5
• TSS
• TP
• NH3 and NH4
• BOD5
• TSS
• TP
• NH3 and NH4
• SVI
• MLSS
• NO2
- and
NO3
-
• TP
• E. Coli
• pH
•Temperature
• DO
• NO2
- and
NO3
-
2 3 4 5 6
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
52
Raw Sewage Influent
Headworks Primary Clarifier
BNR Reactors
Secondary Clarifier UV Influent Final
Effluent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
• Flow-Rate
• Air flow-rate to the
Grit Chamber
• Flow-rate
• Primary Sludge
pumping
• Flow-rate
• Temp.
• MLSS
• DO
• Sludge Age
• Recycle Rate
• Ortho-Phosphorus
• WAS rate
• RAS rate
• Alum addition
(Polishing)
• UV Transmittance
• UV Intensity
• Level
• Flow-rate
•UV Dose
• Flow-rate
Automatic Monitoring and Control (SCADA)
Process Control
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
53• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Phase I Economic Analysis
54
Capital Investment
• Trade form with 16 Market Price Divisions
• Detailed analysis for major equipment and concrete costs
• Mark-ups, allowances and contingencies based on industry recommendations (Hussein, 2010)
• Phase I estimation: $36 M
• Accuracy within +50/-30 % for this conceptual level of design
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
55
Capital Investment
Total Project Cost = $36 M
$25.9 M
$3.2 M
$3.9 M
$3.0 MBasic Facility Cost
Engineering Services
Allowances and Contingencies
General Contractor’s Overhead & Profit
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
56
Capital Investment
$25.9 M
$3.2 M $3
.9 M
$3.0 M
Basic Facility Cost
Engineering Services
Allowances and Contingencies
General Contractor’s Overhead & Profit
$2.6 M
$7.3 M
$5.7 M
$1.6 M $2.
8 M $1.0 M
$4.9 M
Mechanical
Electrical
Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance
Retrofit/Upgrade Allowance
Concrete
Major Equipment
Other
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Total Project Cost = $36 M
57
O&M Costs
Total Annual O&M Costs = $927K
Maintenance
Labour Electrical
Chemical
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
34%
17%
31%
18%
58• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Recommendations and Closing Remarks
59
D.O = Design ObjectiveC.L = Compliance Limit
Existing Estimated Phase
I & Phase II Estimated
Existing + Phase I
D.O C.L D.O C.L D.O C.L
BOD5 (mg/L) 15 25 5 25 10 25
TSS (mg/L) 15 25 5 25 10 25Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 1 1 0.3 1 0.65 1
Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Summer
14 N/A 10 14 12 14
Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Winter
14 N/A 14 24 14 24
E. Coli (org./100 mL) 100 200 100 200 100 200Total Residual Chlorine
(mg/L)0.5 N/A 0 0.2
Recommendations
• Implement dechlorination in existing facility
• Retrofit of existing plant to incorporate BNR
• Increase hydraulic capacity of Headworks
• Biogas capture and reuse
– OPA Feed-in Tariff program (14.7¢/kWh generated)
– Potential O&M Savings: $382 K /yr
0.25 0.2
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
60
Closing Remarks
• Phase I uses AS process with incorporated BNR and UV
• Effluent will meet more stringent compliance levels
• Economically feasible
– Total Phase I Expansion Cost: $36 M
– Annual Phase I Operating Cost: $927 K
• Environmentally Sustainable
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
61
Acknowledgements
Dr. Manual Alvarez – Cuenca, Faculty Supervisor Professor of Chemical Engineering – Ryerson University
Gisselly Anania, Consultant Advisor Associate Project Manager – CH2M Hill, Water Business Group
Jeremy KraemerAssociate Engineer – CH2M Hill, Water Business Group
Abu HusseinRegional Estimator – CH2M Hill, Canada Region
WEAO Student Design Competition Sub - Committee
Vendors: • Rob Anderson H2Flow Equipment Inc.• Edward M. Pikovnik ENV Treatment Systems Inc.• Allen Vivian, Geoff Coate Pro Aqua Inc.• Frank Ferrie ITT Water & Wastewater• Dale Jackson ACG Technology Ltd.• Darrin Hopper H2Flow Tanks & Systems Inc.• Michel Bruneau John Meunier Inc.
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
62
Questions
63
Supporting Documentation
64
BNR Bioreactors
65Biological Nutrient Removal
65
• Anaerobic Zone
PAO
VFAs
PHB P
P Release
Energy
66Biological Nutrient Removal
66
• Anoxic and Aerobic Zones
PAO
PHB
P
Energy
O2 or NO3
CO2 + H2O
Cell growth
67Aerobic Zone Assumptions
• 20% of the influent TSS are considered inert
• 40% of the remaining TSS are non-biodegradable
• 10% of the influent TKN is incorporated into the heterotrophic biomass
• Heterotrophic organisms do not differentiate between forms of nitrogen in the wastewater
• Autotrophic organisms do not assimilate an appreciable amount of nitrogen
• Average sewage temperature of 15°C (minimum: 10°C; maximum 20°C)
68
Parameter Symbol 15ºC 10ºC 20ºCHeterotrophic organisms
True Yield(kg VSS/kg BOD5)
Yhtrue 0.6 does not vary with temperature
Observed Yield(kg VSS/kg BOD5)
Yh-obs -- 0.38 0.33
Decay Coefficient(d-1)
bh 0.06 0.05 0.07
Autotrophic organisms
True Yield(kg VSS/kg BOD5)
Yatrue 0.15 does not vary with temperature
Observed Yield(kg VSS/kg BOD5)
Yh-obs -- 0.10 0.09
Decay Coefficient(d-1)
ba 0.05 0.04 0.06
Half-velocity constant for N(mg/NH3-N/L)
Ksn 1 does not vary with temperature
Half-velocity constant for O(mg DO/L)
Ko 0.5 does not vary with temperature
Max. growth rate(d-1)
µmax 0.47 0.29 0.77
Sizing Aerobic Zone
69
Sizing Aerobic Zone
)(5 * TobsT YBODM
bSRT
YY true
Tobs *1)(
produce biomass cAutotrophi+
produced biomass hicHeterotrop+
VSS dableNonbidegra+SolidsInert =PT
MLSS
P*SRT=V C10
AER
biomass2
ionnitrificat2BOD2total2
demand) (O+
demand) (O+demand) (O=demand) (O
70
• Anoxic Zone
• Anaerobic Zone
Sizing Zones
Parameter Symbol Unit Coming from Aeration tank
Nitrate in influent TKNomg/L 53.6
Nitrate in effluent Nemg/L 10
Nitrogen in cell tissue PX,biomg/L 4.35
bioX,er P-N-TKN=) Ooxidized(NNitrogen
VSS))(SDNR)(ML (V=NO ANOr
0.029+M):0.03(F=SDNR
Q*HRT=VANA
SS)0.029)(MLV+M):(0.03(F
NOV r
ANO
71
Other Design
72Primary Clarifier Specifications
Parameter PDF ADF
Total Volume 1960 m3
Number of clarifiers 4
Volume per clarifier 490 m3
Dimensions (Length : Width : Depth) 25.5 m : 6.3 m : 3.05 m
L:W 4
L:D 8.36
Weir Length 30 m/clarifier
Hydraulic Retention Time 1.05 h 3.45 h
Overflow Rate 70 m3/m2*d 21.2 m3/m2*d
TSS Removal (55%* Removal)1 4208 kg/d 1275.2 kg/d
BOD5 Removal (30%* Removal)2 2070.23 kg/d 627.35 kg/d
73Primary Clarifier Profile
73
74
Factor ValueUV Dose 30,000 mWs / m2
Channel Dimensions(Length : Width : Depth)
10 m : 0.61 m : 1.575 m
Number of Channels (equipped) 2 (1 Duty, 1 Redundant)Number of Banks/Channel 2
# of Modules/Bank 6# of Lamps/Module 8
Total # of Lamps/channel 96
Power Requirement/ChannelConnected Load = 24 kW
Average power draw (avg. flow) = 7.2 kWHydraulic Design 0.881 m of head lossLevel controller Automatic Level Controller
Guaranteed lamp life 12,000 hoursControl of UV dose delivery Yes, automatic dose pacing
Cleaning Mechanism Automatic mechanical/chemical cleaning
UV Facility Design
75Sludge Stream Evaluation
75
Stream 5 Properties
Mass Flow-rate: 4970.7 kg/d
Solids Concentration: 2%
Volume Flow-rate: 243 m3
Stream 8 Properties
Mass Flow-rate: 1476 kg/d
Solids Concentration: 6%
Volume Flow-rate: 24.6 m3
Stream 9 Properties
Mass Flow-rate: 6322 kg/d
Solids Concentration: 6.7%
Volume Flow-rate: 95 m3
Desired Stream 6 PropertiesMass Flow-rate: 4970.7 kg/d
Solids Concentration: 7%
Volume Flow-rate: 70.4 m3
Thickening
76Septage receiving station
76
77Hydraulic Profile Equations
• Manning equation of head loss through open channels
77
• Minor head losses through pipes
78
Economics
79Inclusions, Assumptions and Allowances
• Equipment estimates are based on vender quotations or catalogue costs
• Major Equipment Installation Costs: 30% of delivered major equipment cost
• Major Equipment Costs: 15% allowance for equipment not included (eg: RAS, WAS, and primary sludge pipe, UV grates, etc.)
• Allowances for the 16 Market Price Divisions: see Table D1.1 (Hussein, 2010)
• Retrofit Allowance for building renovations and facilities that require significant tie-ins to existing facilities: 5% (Hussein, 2010)
• Contractors’ Markup (Overhead and Profit): 15% (Hussein, 2010)
80Inclusions, Assumptions and Allowances
• Contingencies (Hussein, 2010):
– Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance: 20% (Hussein, 2010)
– Construction Contingency: 5%
– Construction Escalation and Market Contingency: 3% each of total estimated
• Engineering Services for Design and Construction Administration: 12% of total facility construction costs (Hussein, 2010)
• Concrete:
– $ 1100 / m3 (frame, concrete, rebar) (Hussein, 2010)
– Allowances (Anania, 2010):
• 7% for common channels
• 20% for galleries and tunnels
81
Exclusions
• GST
• Timeline escalation contingency
• Non-competitive market conditions (i.e. shortage of materials, shortage of skilled labour)
• Additional costs if construction is accelerated
82
Total Project Cost
Port Darlington WPCP Phase I Expansion - CAPITAL COST
Sub-Total Basic Facility Costs $20.09 M
Retrofit & phasing, demolition & upgrades $1.01 M
General Contractor's Overhead & Profit $3.17 M
Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance $4.85 M
Construction Contingency (Change Orders) $1.21 M
Construction Escalation $0.91 M
Market Contingency $0.91 M
Engineering Services for Design and Construction Administration
$3.86 M
Total Estimated Project Cost - Excluding GST $36 M
83
Annual O&M
Port Darlington WPCP Phase I Expansion - ANNUAL O&M COST Item Units
Unit Cost
Daily Quantities
Yearly Quantities
Yearly Cost
1. Electrical Total - Electrical Costs (see Electricity Cost Table) $153,6002. Chemical - aluminum sulphate kg $1.2 669.6 244,404 $293,300 - polymer kg $6 12.2 4,453 $26,700Total - Chemical Costs $320,0003. Maintenance Total Major Equipment Cost (see Major Equipment Table) $5,746,387 % of Major Equipment Cost 5% Total - Maintenance Costs $287,3004. Labour Full Time Operators 2 $40/hr Total yearly hours (8 hrs/day, 5 days/week) 4160 Total - Labour Costs $166,400
Total Annual Operating Cost: $927,300
84• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Process Control
85Operator’s Sampling Duties
Parameter to measure
Raw Influent
Head works
Primary Clarifier
BNR Reactors
Secondary Clarifier
UV Facility
Final Effluent
Frequency
BOD Daily Monthly Monthly - - - Daily
TSS Daily Monthly Monthly - - - Daily
SVI - - - - Daily - -
pH Daily - - - - - Daily
Total Phosphorus
Daily - - - - - Daily
RAS blanket depth
- - - - Daily - -
Primary Sludge
blanket depth- - Daily - - - -
Ammonia Daily - - - - - Daily
Nitrate - - - - - - Daily
Dissolved Oxygen
- - - - - - Weekly
E. Coli - - - - Weekly - Weekly
86Process Control - Solids
Performance monitoring Sampling – Solids Handling
(To be done by the operators)
1
Fermenter GBT Primary Digester
Secondary Digester
1 2 3 4 & 5
% Solids % Solids pH % Solids
VFA VSS TP
pH pH
VSS
23
4 5
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
87Process Control - Solids
Automatic Monitoring and Control – Solids Handling
(SCADA)
1
Fermenter GBT Primary Digester
Secondary Digester
1 2 3 4 & 5
Sludge Wasting Flow-Rate Level Level
Polymer Dosing Flow-rate
Temperature
Alum Dosing
23
4 5
• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS
88
Phase II Considerations
89
Phase II Considerations
• New headworks facility • Four additional liquid trains (identical to Phase I)• Installation of UV equipment in 3rd chamber• Fermenter• Gravity Belt Thickener• Primary High Rate Anaerobic Digester
90Implementation and Construction Schedule