FINAL REPORT - Grand River Conservation Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Grand River Watershed-Wide Wastewater Optimization Pilot Project Figure 12: Sludge Accountability SludgeAccountability + 15% ‐ 15% 100% 80% 60% Sludge Accountability (%) 40% 20% 0% ‐20% ‐40% ‐60% ‐80% ‐100% n/a n/a A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Major Unit Process Evaluation In the evaluation phase of the Composite Correction Program, a major unit process evaluation estimates the capabilities of the existing design to meet effluent requirements. The approach for preparing a Performance Potential Graph (the basis for a major unit process evaluation) was taught in Workshop #2, with follow-up training provided to the Facilitation Team at the Caledonia WWTP on November 18 th , 2010. Although originally developed for mechanical secondary treatment process, the methodology was adapted during the survey for lagoons. In a Performance Potential Graph (see Figure 13 for an example), the major unit processes are shown along the vertical axis. The evaluation criteria used to assess capability are identified in brackets next to the name of the unit process. For each major unit process, the horizontal bar represents the estimated capacity of the unit process with the number inside the bar identifying the rated capacity. Two vertical lines mark the WWTP’s current and nominal design flows. 35 | Page
Grand River Watershed-Wide Wastewater Optimization Pilot Project Figure 13: PPG for Example CAS Design 4500 Annual average 4100 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Primary Settler SOR (24 m3/m2.d) 3,770 Aeration HRT (6 h) BOD5 Loading (0.5 kg PE BOD5/d per m3) O2 Availability [1.0 kg O2 per kg (BOD5 + 4.6 TKN] Sec. Clar. SOR (24 m3/m2.d) Chlorine Contact Basin (30 min) 6,000 5,245 4,897 5,429 4,800 Anerobic Digester (40 d & 2.5%-4.0%) 2,713 1,628 Sludge Disposal ("on demand") 4,100 Annual Average Flows (m 3 /d) Performance Potential Graphs were completed for 12 WWTPs in the Grand River watershed as a result of the workshop and previous activities in the City of Guelph and Haldimand County. The results are summarized in Table 10 below. Table 10: Summary of Major Unit Process Evaluation for Grand River Watershed WWTPs WWTP Q/Q d * Rating Most Limiting Unit Process A 52% To be determined To be determined B 51% capable O 2 availability C 77% not capable aerobic digester HRT D 56% capable liquid retention time E 48% capable secondary clarifier SOR F 47% capable Chorine contact basin G 72% capable To be determined H 45% capable aerobic digester HRT I 54% capable BOD loading rate J 68% capable O 2 availability K 64% not capable anaerobic digester HRT L 81% not capable BOD loading rate and aeration HRT M 53% not capable anaerobic digester HRT N 63% capable BOD loading rate Notes: * Q/Q d is the current annual average flow divided by the WWTP’s nominal design flow, expressed as a percentage. 36 | Page
Page 1 and 2: Grand River Watershed-wide Wastewat
Page 4 and 5: Grand River Watershed-Wide Wastewat
Page 78: Grand River Watershed-Wide Wastewat

FINAL REPORT - Grand River Conservation Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?