Commissioning the Largest MBR in North America to Produce Low ...
Commissioning the Largest MBR in North America to Produce Low ...
Commissioning the Largest MBR in North America to Produce Low ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Peoria, AZ Butler Drive<br />
Water Reclamation Facility<br />
Susta<strong>in</strong>able Water Supply w/<strong>MBR</strong><br />
Shawn Kreuzwiesner (City of Peoria)<br />
Raymond Trahan (City of Peoria)<br />
Brad Hemken (Black&Veatch)<br />
September 13 ,2009
Presentation Outl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
•Project Overview<br />
•After One Year Operation<br />
‣ Membrane Sludg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
‣ Clean<strong>in</strong>g & Permeability<br />
‣ F<strong>in</strong>e Screens<br />
‣ Wide Influent Flow Variations<br />
‣ Foam Control<br />
‣ Air management<br />
‣ I/C Intensive<br />
‣ Staff<strong>in</strong>g & Operat<strong>in</strong>g Cost
Butler Drive WRF<br />
Phoenix Convention<br />
Center
Peoria’s<br />
Wastewater<br />
Service<br />
Areas<br />
PADDLEFORD WRF<br />
(FUTURE)<br />
PADDLEFORD<br />
SERVICE<br />
AREA<br />
LAKE PLEASANT<br />
PLANNING AREA<br />
AGUA FRIA<br />
SERVICE AREA<br />
AGUA FRIA WRF<br />
(FUTURE)<br />
JOMAX WRF<br />
JOMAX<br />
SERVICE AREA<br />
Butler WRF Service Area<br />
26 Square Miles<br />
BEARDSLEY<br />
SERVICE<br />
AREA<br />
BEARDSLEY<br />
WRF<br />
most developed area of City<br />
11% of Peoria’s Plann<strong>in</strong>g Area<br />
27% of Population @ Build-out<br />
BUTLER<br />
SERVICE<br />
AREA<br />
BUTLER WRF
2003 Treatment Alternative<br />
Review<br />
• Peoria reviews Best option for meet<strong>in</strong>g<br />
future wastewater needs <strong>in</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn bas<strong>in</strong><br />
‐ Construct 4 MGD Water Reclamation Facility <strong>to</strong><br />
supplement Tolleson WWTP capacity<br />
‐ Replace Tolleson capacity with capacity <strong>in</strong> 91st Ave<br />
Wastewater Treatment Plant (SROG)<br />
‐ Construct a 10 MGD Water Reclamation Facility,<br />
expandable <strong>to</strong> 13 MGD<br />
• Major Evaluation Criteria:<br />
– Capital & Operat<strong>in</strong>g Costs, Rate Impacts<br />
– Water Resources, Public Perception, Jurisdictional Control
Treatment Evaluation Results<br />
• Membership <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 91st Avenue Sub Regional<br />
Operational Group (SROG) was denied.<br />
• 20 year present worth of a new 13 MGD plant is<br />
essentially <strong>the</strong> same as cont<strong>in</strong>ued use of Tolleson<br />
WWTP and construct<strong>in</strong>g a 4 MGD plant.<br />
reta<strong>in</strong>s reclaimed water as a susta<strong>in</strong>able resource<br />
• Cont<strong>in</strong>ued use of Tolleson WWTP would require<br />
additional <strong>in</strong>vestments <strong>in</strong> an ag<strong>in</strong>g facility and a
Susta<strong>in</strong>able Water Resource<br />
600,000<br />
Approx. 500,000<br />
Population<br />
500,000<br />
Recharge/Reuse - 29,000 AF<br />
(Butler WRF – 14,600 AF)<br />
Population<br />
400,000<br />
300,000<br />
200,000<br />
100,000<br />
0<br />
1955<br />
1965<br />
1975<br />
1985<br />
1995<br />
1997<br />
1999<br />
2001<br />
2003<br />
Year<br />
2005<br />
2007<br />
2009<br />
2015<br />
2025<br />
2035<br />
2045<br />
TIME SCALE COMPRESSED<br />
2055
Process Analysis<br />
• Processes Considered:<br />
• Activated Sludge<br />
• Sequenc<strong>in</strong>g Batch Reac<strong>to</strong>r (SBR)<br />
• Membrane Bioreac<strong>to</strong>r (<strong>MBR</strong>)<br />
• Process Evaluation Criteria:<br />
• Cost, Complexity, Odors, Noise, Aes<strong>the</strong>tics,<br />
Staff<strong>in</strong>g Requirements, Expandability, Physical<br />
Size, and Effluent Quality<br />
• Recommendation:<br />
• 20 year present worth cost (construction and<br />
operation) for all three process options essentially<br />
<strong>the</strong> same<br />
• <strong>MBR</strong> was preferred process<br />
• Membrane suppliers pre‐selected prior <strong>to</strong><br />
construction <strong>to</strong> allow coord<strong>in</strong>ation of design
Sites Evaluated<br />
For<br />
Butler WRF<br />
101<br />
Thunderbird RD<br />
Cactus RD<br />
Study Area<br />
Peoria Ave<br />
60<br />
Butler WRF<br />
Site<br />
Olive Ave<br />
Power Utility Corridor<br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ave
Project Components<br />
Gravity Sewer L<strong>in</strong>es<br />
• 1 mile of 18-<strong>in</strong>ch<br />
• ¼ mile of 42-<strong>in</strong>ch<br />
Butler WRF<br />
Butler IPS<br />
Emergency<br />
Overflow<br />
Force Ma<strong>in</strong><br />
• 3.2 miles of 36-<strong>in</strong>ch<br />
Effluent L<strong>in</strong>e<br />
• 5.2 miles of 30-<strong>in</strong>ch<br />
NAUSP
Influent Pump Station<br />
Chemical S<strong>to</strong>rage/Feed Area<br />
Chemical Odor Scrubber<br />
Siemens Lo/Pro Unit<br />
Wet Well<br />
•42-foot deep structure<br />
•5-400 HP Flygt Submersible Pumps<br />
•Room for 6 th future pump<br />
Screen<strong>in</strong>g Room<br />
Two ½-<strong>in</strong>ch Duperon screens<br />
Electrical Room<br />
Emergency Genera<strong>to</strong>r<br />
•Cumm<strong>in</strong>s 1,900 kW unit<br />
•4,000 gallon fuel tank<br />
•75 dBA Enclosure
F<strong>in</strong>al Design<br />
10 MGD Facility Expandable <strong>to</strong> 13.4 MGD<br />
• State of <strong>the</strong> art facility<br />
• Class A+ Effluent suitable for direct reuse or aquifer recharge<br />
• Provides reliable (drought-resistant) water resources
Biological<br />
Treatment Bas<strong>in</strong>s<br />
4 process tra<strong>in</strong>s<br />
Membranes<br />
Butler Drive WRF<br />
Odor Control &<br />
Genera<strong>to</strong>rs<br />
Dewater<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Chemical S<strong>to</strong>rage/Feed<br />
UV Dis<strong>in</strong>fection<br />
Systems<br />
Blowers<br />
Headworks<br />
2 – Vortex Grit Bas<strong>in</strong>s<br />
3 – 2mm F<strong>in</strong>e Screens<br />
Operations Build<strong>in</strong>g
Membrane Cassette<br />
Membrane Bio‐Reac<strong>to</strong>r (<strong>MBR</strong>)<br />
• GE ZeeWeed 500D membranes<br />
• Compact Design<br />
• Stable Process, High Quality Effluent<br />
• Ten tra<strong>in</strong>s ‐ 6 cassettes per tra<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>itially<br />
• 48 modules per cassette<br />
• 340 SF of membrane area per module
Cities <strong>Largest</strong> Capital Project<br />
Item<br />
Studies, Design &<br />
NAUSP<br />
Amount<br />
$ 9,071,631<br />
Land $ 5,037,583<br />
Construction<br />
With Inspections, permitt<strong>in</strong>g & City costs<br />
$ 121,214,157<br />
Total Project Costs $ 135,323,371
Plant Start‐UP Challenges<br />
•Flow Diversions<br />
– Coord<strong>in</strong>ate cut‐over of 5 dist<strong>in</strong>ct wastewater flows from <strong>the</strong><br />
99 th Ave Intercep<strong>to</strong>r <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> Butler WRF/IPS<br />
– Plant went from Zero <strong>to</strong> 8 mgd of flow between June 16 &<br />
July 8<br />
•New Equipment <strong>to</strong> City Staff<br />
– Large percentage of equipment on project was unique<br />
with<strong>in</strong> City<br />
– Stressed <strong>the</strong> importance of equipment vendor tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
•Various Equipment Problems<br />
– WAS Pumps wired <strong>in</strong> reverse<br />
– Issues with centrifuge conveyor systems<br />
– Calibration of chemical feed systems
After One Year Operation<br />
‣ Membrane Sludg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
‣ Clean<strong>in</strong>g & Permeability<br />
‣ F<strong>in</strong>e Screens<br />
‣ Wide Influent Flow Variations<br />
‣ Foam Control<br />
‣ Air management<br />
‣ I/C Intensive<br />
‣ Staff<strong>in</strong>g & Operat<strong>in</strong>g Cost
Membrane Sludg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
• Random Locations<br />
• Causes Investigated<br />
x Scour air (10/10 vs 10/30)<br />
Air tubes plugg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Cassette <strong>in</strong>stallation<br />
(plumb)<br />
Slack adjustment<br />
‣ warm climate related<br />
‣ ½ “ <strong>in</strong>itial shr<strong>in</strong>kage<br />
‣ labor/time <strong>in</strong>tensive<br />
(20hrs per cassette‐‐<br />
$50,000)<br />
‣ Consider <strong>in</strong>itial<br />
adjustment <strong>in</strong> <strong>MBR</strong><br />
purchase agreement
Clean<strong>in</strong>g and Permeability<br />
• Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance Cleans Are Critical To<br />
Ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Permeability<br />
•One Year CIP Cycle Appears<br />
Reasonable At This Facility
Clean<strong>in</strong>g and Permeability<br />
Backpulse/Relax<br />
‣ 60 m<strong>in</strong> cycle<br />
‣ 30 sec backpulse (20 sec w/ chlor<strong>in</strong>e)<br />
‣ 30 sec relax<br />
Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance Cleans<br />
‣ Started with full tank<br />
‣ Switched <strong>to</strong> empty tank<br />
‣ Chlor<strong>in</strong>e<br />
‣ Orig<strong>in</strong>ally programmed for unmanned off shift<br />
‣ Missed some <strong>in</strong>itial cleans and switched schedule<br />
‣ May have led <strong>to</strong> permeability decl<strong>in</strong>e @ 6 months
Clean<strong>in</strong>g and Permeability<br />
Recovery Cleans<br />
‣ Initiated CIPs after 6<br />
months<br />
‣ Cleaned 6 out of 10<br />
tra<strong>in</strong>s<br />
‣ Rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 4 tra<strong>in</strong>s<br />
have not been<br />
cleaned<br />
‣ Did not see<br />
significant<br />
improvement after<br />
CIPs<br />
Recovery Clean<br />
Permeability = flux (gfd)/presuure
With/Without Recovery Cleans<br />
Recovery Clean<br />
One year CIP <strong>in</strong>terval appears reasonable
2 mm F<strong>in</strong>e Screens<br />
•Significant<br />
material pass<strong>in</strong>g<br />
2 mm reta<strong>in</strong>ed on<br />
1 mm<br />
•Band screen plate<br />
seals<br />
•Could be related<br />
<strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>itial<br />
manufactur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
issues
Significant End‐of‐L<strong>in</strong>e Plant<br />
Influent Flow<br />
Variations<br />
‣ Occasional s<strong>to</strong>rm flows<br />
= 2.5 x AAD Q<br />
‣ Influent PS/collection<br />
system ma<strong>in</strong>tenance<br />
2.0 <strong>to</strong> 2.5 Q Equalization<br />
AERATION BASIN<br />
Recycle back 4Q<br />
ME<strong>MBR</strong>ANE BASIN<br />
WAS/Scum<br />
Feed forward 5Q
Successful Foam Control<br />
‣ Typically no foam accumulation<br />
‣ Occasional limited seasonal accumulation<br />
‣ Controlled by cont<strong>in</strong>uous surface sludge wast<strong>in</strong>g<br />
WAS/Foam Collection Manhole<br />
Forward Foam Removal<br />
Backward Foam Removal<br />
AERATION BASIN<br />
Recycle back 4Q<br />
ME<strong>MBR</strong>ANE BASIN<br />
WAS/Scum<br />
Feed forward 5Q
Air Management <strong>Produce</strong>s<br />
<strong>Low</strong> TN and M<strong>in</strong>imizes Power<br />
Consumption<br />
DO Control<br />
0.5 ppm<br />
Process Air<br />
DO<br />
Probe<br />
Scour Air<br />
‣ <strong>Low</strong> Process Bas<strong>in</strong><br />
DO setpo<strong>in</strong>t (SND)<br />
‣ Capitalizes On Significant<br />
Solids Return DO<br />
‣ Plant Power =<br />
$ 0.49/ 1,000 gals<br />
UV<br />
Solids Return<br />
DO = 3 ppm +
8/20/2008<br />
9/20/2008<br />
10/20/2008<br />
11/20/2008<br />
12/20/2008<br />
1/20/2009<br />
2/20/2009<br />
3/20/2009<br />
4/20/2009<br />
5/20/2009<br />
6/20/2009<br />
7/20/2009<br />
30.00<br />
25.00<br />
20.00<br />
15.00<br />
10.00<br />
5.00<br />
0.00<br />
Excellent Effluent TN<br />
Start‐Up<br />
TN Alert Level of 8 ppm<br />
Effluent Ammonia<br />
Effluent Nitrate<br />
Total N<br />
6/20/2008<br />
7/20/2008
0.90<br />
0.80<br />
0.70<br />
0.60<br />
0.50<br />
0.40<br />
0.30<br />
0.20<br />
0.10<br />
0.00<br />
Excellent Effluent NTU<br />
Effluent Turb.<br />
Effluent Turb.<br />
7/20/2008<br />
8/20/2008<br />
9/20/2008<br />
10/20/2008<br />
11/20/2008<br />
12/20/2008<br />
1/20/2009<br />
2/20/2009<br />
3/20/2009<br />
4/20/2009<br />
5/20/2009<br />
6/20/2009<br />
7/20/2009<br />
6/20/2008
Opera<strong>to</strong>rs Observations<br />
•I/C Intensive<br />
‣ Significant GE start‐up programm<strong>in</strong>g adjustments <strong>to</strong> match end‐ofl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
plant flows<br />
‣ <strong>MBR</strong> PLCs have occasionally locked up and shut down <strong>the</strong> system<br />
‣ GE has provided a manual backup operat<strong>in</strong>g procedure<br />
‣ City programmer (half time first 90 days)<br />
‣ Full time <strong>in</strong>strument tech @ plant<br />
‣ Numerous night time emergency I/C response calls<br />
• No Significant Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance Issues<br />
‣ 6 valve failures<br />
‣ Vacuum pump failed<br />
‣ Permeate pump seals<br />
• Hydraulically Unforgiv<strong>in</strong>g
Facility Operat<strong>in</strong>g Staff and<br />
Cost<br />
9 Operat<strong>in</strong>g Staff<br />
‣ Super<strong>in</strong>tendent<br />
‣ 2 day shift<br />
‣ 3 off shift<br />
‣ 1 Mechanic<br />
‣ 1 Inst Tech<br />
‣ 1 Solids Opera<strong>to</strong>r<br />
‣ Programmer support<br />
Operat<strong>in</strong>g Cost, $/ 1,000 gals<br />
‣ Total 1.17<br />
‣ Power 0.49<br />
‣ Chemicals 0.15<br />
‣ Solids 0.24<br />
‣ All o<strong>the</strong>r 0.29
Change language