2004-07-22 Joint WorkshopCITY OF OKEECHOBEE-mBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ow OKEECHOBEE UTILITY AUTHORITY
W�
AGEN
1. CALL TO ORDER:
il. BOARD AND STAFF ATTENDANCE:
Mayor James E. Kirk
Council Member Noel A. Chandler
Council Member Lowry Markham
Council Member Dowling R. Watford, Jr.
Council Member D. Clayton Williams, Jr.
City Attorney John R. Cook
City Administrator Bill L. Veach
City Clerk Lane Gamiotea
Board of County Commissions Chair Cliff Betts
County Commissioner John Abney
County Commissioner Clois Harvey
County Commissioner David Hazellief
County Commissioner Gene Woods
County Attorney John Cassels
County Administrator George Long
County Deputy Clerk Debra Lewis
OUA Board Chairperson Carl Leonard
OUA Board Member Melanie Anderson
OUA Board Member George Long
OUA Board Member Steve Nelson
OUA Board Member Elder Sumner
OUA Alternate Board Member Eddie Trent
OUA Alternate Board Member Harry Moldenhauer
OUA Alternate Board Member Bob Oliver
Executive Director L.C. Fortner
OUA Attorney Tom Conely
.DULY 22, 2004 JOINT WORKSHOP
SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP DISCUSSION
tt PAGE 1 OF 3
SCU8310N
Board of County Commissioners Chairperson Betts called the July 22, 2004 joint workshop to order at 6:06*p.m.
The workshop was held at the Okeechobee County Health Department Annex Building located on Northwest 9`h
Avenue.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
Absent (also sits as City appointed member to the OUA Board of Directors)
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Absent
1
AGENDA
III. DISCUSSION.
JULy 22, 2004 - CITY/COUNTY/OUA JOINT WORKSHOP - PAGE 2 OF 3 49
- 'DISCUSSION
A. Presentation from OUA Engineering Firm Metzger and Willard Mr. Dan Willard and Mrs. Susan (Groover) Martelli of Metzger and Willard addressed the boards by a presentation of
regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansions. the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Report. The report indicated by aerial pictures the site of the existing one
million gallon per day (1 MGD) treatment plant. A projection of flows from 2003 to 2016. Based on the projected flows,
the time line presented indicates that the plant will be at permitted capacity in 2005, and would be at two million gallons
per day (2MGD) capacity by 2008.
The expansion option schedule is, for a 2 MGD to begin now with planning and preliminary design. Begin design, plans
and specification by 2005, obtain the permit and begin construction by 2006 and place the facility into operation by
2008. However, the report also gave the board options to go ahead and move forward with a 3 MGD plant and a 4
MGD plant.
The cost summary is as follows:
2.0 MGD Plant Expansion $5,748,000.00
Residuals Management Class B $1,741,000.00
Effluent Disposal $1,094,000.00
TOTAL $8,583,000.00
3.0 MGD Plant Expansion $9,564,000.00
Residuals Management Class B $1,741,000.00
Effluent Disposal $1,615,000.00
TOTAL $12,920,000.00
3.0 MGD Plant Expansion $9,564,000.00
Residuals Management Class B $1,741,000.00
Effluent Disposal $1,615,000.00
TOTAL $12,920,000.00
4.0 MGD Plant Expansion $2,572,000.00 (add these figures with 3.0 MGD figures)
Residuals Management Class B $16,000.00
Effluent Disposal $611,000.00
TOTAL $3,199,000.00
50
JULy 22, 2004 - Ctry/COuNTY/OUA JOINT WORKSHOP - PAGE 3 OF 3
�`�AGENDA
III. DISCUSSION CONTINUED.
A. Presentation from OUA Engineering Firm Metzger and Willard
regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansions continued.
IV. ADJOURN WORKSHOP.
Please take notice and be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with
respect to any matter considered at this meeting, he/she may need to insure that a verbatim record of the
proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
City Clerk tapes are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Clerk.
ATTEST: �l James E�Kirk, Mayor14
'All
s
A \
Lane 6amiotea, Cit Clerk
r DISCUSSION
The major components for a plant expansion are the Headworks; Master Pump Station; Aeration; Clarification;
Filtration; Chlorine Contact and Effluent Pumping; Administration/Laboratory Building. There were diagrams presented
on how the site would be laid out with all the options. Then a breakdown of the expansion costs for each of the options.
Mrs. Martelli went on to explain the residuals management. The effluent disposal and reuse portion of the expansion
and the cost breakdown for each of these phases in the project.
The board members then discussed what would be the best method to move forward with the expansion. The OUA
Board will meet in regular session on August 10, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. to decide which expansion amount to proceed
with, 2.0 MGD, 3.0 MGD or 4.0 MGD. Once this determination has been made, all the boards will know how much
money will be required to expand the plant. Mr. Dale Milita was also present and he is to begin working on finding
various funding resources.
Once again, all members of each of the boards agreed this is a community problem and the three entities need to
continue to work together to solve this problem as efficiently, timely and cost effective as possible.
There being no further discussion, County Chairperson Betts adjourned the workshop at 7:05 p.m.
i
Ll
The Okeechobee News
P.O. Box 639, Okeechobee, Florida 34973
(863) 763-3134
Published Daily
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF OKEECHOBEE
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
Judy Kasten, who on oath says she is Publisher of the Okeechobee
News, a DAILY Newspaper published at Okeechobee, in
Okeechobee County, Florida, that the attached copy of advertise-
ment, being a
Q_
in the matter of
Cjo c-:!,c� I
in the 19th Judicial District of the Circuit Court of Okeechobee
County, Florida, was published in said newspaper in the issues
of
--�1\�_,\Ca
Affoant further says that the said Okeechobee News is
a newspaper published at Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee
County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore been
published continuously in said Okeechobee County, Florida
each week and has been entered as second class mail matter at
the post office in Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee County,
Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first
publication of the attached copy of advertisement-, and affiant
further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person,
firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund
for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in
the said newspaper.
�(mac—
qtnd subscrobefore me this
'PUBLIC NOTICE
The Okeechobee County Board of
County Commissioners, the City
_ Council of. Okeechobee, and the
Okeedhobee .11p'lily Authority will
cdrw me a woogds-1a pp session, on
pp�m� n 4he Oke ,2ho0beee Courtly
Hsalth Deparbnent auditorium,
1798 NW Avenue, Avenue„ Oke'echo-
bee, Florida io discuss compepen-
shre danninu and fundkw it
nec
Arty person deciding to apeeal�a y
d iSk) made by the BB
Courtly .Commissioners with re-
sped toany matter considered ai -
this meetlnpp will need a,record of
the proceedings, and th for such.
purposes,.he or she will need to
ensure that, a verbatke record of
such-pproceedingps Is made, 4ddch
reeord'shall.include the testlmomy
and evidence -upon which the ap-
peal is to ba based.
Cfff Bees, Jr., Chairman
Board:ef County Commissioners
Sharon Robertson, Clerk
494572 ON 71i6� issionere —
day of / y7� L„�\� A.D 20
q0A R. Brown
Notary Public, State of Florida at Larg�� B�" - Commission #DD272118
1. .,7 Expires: Jan 17, 2008
9'Fod i`pf- Bonded Thru
wl, Atlantic Bonding Co., Inc
SA"* at ceo r�r�uy - �yiall
"c"retP"`y Not 7caeAoalah, 4&Aose' �o ,�"t `%uy. Ciasited to ,uu r6e,� y� co�cld do. Suaa�c.
"*�' "" 4&4a, Atoleidieed
doedat' all et ecticen
Da"`e"`.ry loose 0-14f scald 4-Oka doutq "� tla.cdd.
aacton that Cestaca a.rcaccato� e�ai°`c' sot ecec o� elcat. DAP doedc allow. to
$13 arr&4k lcaae tau cscade an�i decidio ' aaoccyce gai rg 3
7kat d t�Ge needed.
�urd ce yset. loak �ac eueuy �aadi�Cc eve,r� "A to- daze, dil,� doa�rd kadc t decided kou.. to
suer-to.�wrd lef�ed ga•`t a.,cd �6'"'rQue �uwcd,q,• � is tticce a�cix. add
Dauid, co..w d�nead oat de4t, eAae cadtd MONe`y alder. farce cd issue alde.,
'fit A"&e w, ea WeeA okeeckodee goEaq, u<e u.a„ct to de ale a.cd
Ze r 4w ,G.ev, 4OC4 aze u<illi.cq ea gee else doll
'e cfttiuca.cce azliacit�l� "' addcdt «at a kucdeca�ece.
A't* tea Bede load.
-"fie agreed aw seed td eia a
4me. 2.r�gd, Qteti, ld u,ee4 de W, " a 12 d
eEWule.ct cay�e at tk
.ca Pauses tAz* ure'aegol cg. to 4 doa..a tlse goad.
to dale. 'caustic Af"e folc elfin,( aye caa ga j4n
Dale - AW We* de�� 44 dee�c free .uone* w4en � add 25� sscazcl, it
ah#ligke, tice dallan wcu.,c6en id fusee
60 sags, zeao.vcce tea.rc _ cd ticene• dte c.t tke aexe 30 to
�n ix daedn ,Eaue �, e" ".e qee a 90*d C44" iuc 9nante, ged,
dot c°'u.ct.y and cie y ��' � t� id own
�, t4id u<oald de e4 ena.nden are. tkid "eoald 94 along usary• dkau.d
xziea �ae�elau� ter. iundiecg deuvred guiekl�y, C d conked u�itk, it co.c i der y
Ze - woe Coe sae gaiary to lace da.rce uc. fleas ¢ do.r
Aaecwiaudlg ue ve di,uudded
!den Cjaurced, u�itic Dale. C?D�l D2a, doed,oc't uRant ud to
3/4 to 1.5 sscilllon t oleary et daek Cask tka out loud. aeoluing loa.c,
earl ea., r ��. dtel� lie ie to dni rq dicadif douaeed together.
eawc 9 9 �1%�e tica.c u�ellutg to make it ".an!.
Dale - id
days, Derr .�eeet-i.rg id fi $u�iekl y. 'moo"` "e`cek tis�ee to
�e agumt 10. 7VC ea.c gee ist tough tles.c � qee� the
uaj�ivrsreaz�1e dg �� � 4 .text .�,eeeueg-. %,rctatfi<e dace �y ,,¢fit 10. ;have �yorc do~
�� a�weeti.eg. vied Dale to ,�vu�eeed.
our doa�rd Na A404le.0 to commee ea A-4 foo,, rklt ed goe to 6e do,ce.
LAB - liq cdoece, awn Wated "t 4'c don � "Oa'
- tleede aae else andutew lee d goi cq, ea 4 ud cuitk
25,E .cat 10 an 159- m4&,,i flee deteex .yocuc � go".
%ware Oa.rce to A -a * " flat - don t ,/.roa,.
94rt eAW A1"w y exlking adout. dtaze leueC, des ".!sere kind
raoa/ a !stele deer" aga rcd, ",e ea+t tlr
��tadle.rt uRe gat..rca*
get ei�c a.teene�n. dettez, awc sack eo tice ruall,
ekat a c at cd goi cq, to take, ekery iXe qae is aredeWtg4d the AW&e.rc. e
pauett f0mr . On ae rate A4e4ry, m4y go awls, dweq. a Eat td tice ladle.
F.++cgi+"zua vq. �cc d 30% coa tu^c9erccry
21atez rnarca 0merct - $1 melliorc 9440,e
"A"dorc 4 tice Eured, lcea" 4g44d, Aolrct to a 44 dek i,uided on vm,� all, dcllcd to A&ad *eat
code, carcue4r&a
adw,c* tune Care,
clarytarc 1,1 eao"4a di*oaal, taeatrrceat, 2/5 delrircd, last meetircq saki rW use,fcut all
to 9" cwz arc use 7c at cwfia cttry - A4cav, close
dfd ,m a aAe4atioa uoak,
eadorc geld lcace, ,%a.c - 57ed oww 4 aem ruin cog*cct, a late Cara d4 fa
arc corcthact to Aweeed - usitli this 104W, tAc* oua AwAd asyd f44 adwd once, ca tt-tact aGw t4
dine
ice w44 q use aary $3 mdAww
vldW+ - "Met 4rf "W need to ga alcead
"meticcA f An *aCC to decide 4aga4t 10 "d ticersc to !cane a i(ee aea4,
Da& iudi,,-aced to go ade4d
?)a* i a" yowl. .cot g wf to get oat actual aoow toC a� axa'ccg
uslricic aekicle ra seat to rsroae Ouuand uutli
caw we danaoea flaw Hcatelc -yes. earc A4* sack milk o� gnarcta, zealuucg Coax arui get ct
aowte4w,
Da aldat aye got to do, ace all arc ticeae aeu4eed, coact* wadry usclll c f arcs ad&
claO" - coa ct* gat the deeli liac%ta as 940- akead
�Cd al money - OA04 orc a * awd all4cu"Xea
daffea tm Aa uc tog� and Amw a caalitiorc ,
VC cn44iWf dome call torJroaJCa o
8;30 a.rra. aneetircg, atanted
7,-051i, m,
Wd4
y 22. 2004 - 6 00 �., _S� - Okeecico�ee ZG rlaxluy
ea*
�Qvaedett tiea �, Ae ear „
a �, &W . eas+ ci�du�curm �¢6�ce�• a 2uoodd.
eaa� -�' , e" �P"uAeay, "td eo",e* -44 oz y 104r
OZfg %eaao„c eanL .L'eoaa�d, �Xe,�,o r�a�auy ?J�,�le„uEcucrn, Sdd1e % aue�e ��rcde„ct.
Newdew a64e r z u�u F.lde t Sum qeaZe". Steae l a rd ela�cic r�adr�cdo�c.
Sxecutiue Dtneeto t .G'. a 57ort rea a rcd &944 t ,t a *
2(/dfJ"Tia Saa��virulaoy a tea. aa �'d u`� linear�`e
rll
Da.�c ?�fJilla�uC 44d Su¢0,* Cj�c�cc
"C aturre* CO% ode4c wAwa 4dtu6scted laat u�eee�. ��,r Da�c a�cd S""* aord
gucatlaa,cd.
auto gage " to look at jWearc, ZDS,P aawcded at44 4 pu,,,Pt,
aeA4C mla4 of aw"d f e &6e..Seueaal awa4 to Aweeed
t"". 1- e� oibtio to
ati"`e'rt a.rd neoid�ia&. eW�aclacecct `� �lilawc.
Suda.r, c�cdea 1+�+ �+rtatiowc, )wie,a re aaial 4 e� . 4/94 d cw,44e cd e4w
*mlaee&* 2004 - 2016
A4
a1ectlowc dl w a-ca 1 angd l &*e, A4#jcceaW 4111t! 2.0 M,7d
3 m9d � ea 2020
da use awwt to do 2 oz 3 - drli aegavua G"t x� aeti4� r to
x a� yaava �vreaeeo
coa "
Mayo" "MA49e-ctd OW C*agd r
8.v� cwcca�, C/t�eu,�te �IGtaCt awd •....� . "N�.
�eiag is do �"e"�ct'.,,. `"g' ad�'riui°ttatio�c/laeE wouy ka, .
d fuaae lad uRozk tlia�c euen
e-44444W coot �cwc¢ �n e4aa 2 - 3 - 4
u�y 30� coaterge�ceay - tkat ia. ata�cdcvtd
do&4i f, 5,77
1,14 - ov 3 o*e* 9.6 .rcd%%* scot add 2Mgd colo�c, a :O�
'eoidacalo cite to mead Ct -dace to eoaurtay ond�ca�ccc
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion
July 2004
1995
M k
I�.
0
Existing Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Projected Flows for OUA
WWTP (2004-2016)
End of Year
Max MO
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Taylor
Creek
122,500
122,500
Isles
Ousley
Infill
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Treasure
Island
112,000
223,000
50,000
SW (160
units)
30,000
10,000
SE
) unitsts)
25,000
37,500
50,000
62,500
50,000
25,000
NE (300
units)
25,000
50,000
c
Misc
Projects
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
Other
rowt h
19,150
22,691
27,696
33,563
43,040
47,491
51,116
54,269
56,875
58,922
61,020
63.171
65,375
Total YR,
GPD
141,650
200,191
234,696
279,063
178,040
144,991
126,116
104,269
81,875
83,922
86,020
88,171
90,375
Average
Day, GPD
766,000
907,650
1,107,841
1,342,537
1,721,601
1,899,641
2,044,632
2,170,748
2,275,016
2,356,892
2,440,814
2,525,834
2,615,005
2.705,380
Maximum
Day, GPD
1149,000
1.406,858
1,717,154
2,080,933
2,668,481
2,944,443
3,169,179
3,364,659
3,526,275
3,653,182
3,783,262
3,916,593
4,053,258
4,193,339
0
Future Expansion Schedule
EXPANSION OPTION, 2004
Expansion Activities*
2 MGD
3 MGD
Begin Planning & Preliminary
Design
Now
2013
Begin Design, Plans &
Specifications
2005
2014
Obtain Permit & Begin
Construction
2006
2015
Place Facility into Operation
2008
2017
* Per 62-600.405(8) FAC
M
In
I
Cost Summary
2.0 MGD 3.0 MGD
Wastewater
Treatment Plant 5,748,000 9,564,000
Expansion
Residuals
Management — 1,741,000 1,741,000
Class B
Effluent Disposal 1,094,000 1,615,000
TOTAL $ 8,583,000 $ 12,920,000
Cost Summary
Future
2.0 MGD
3.0 MGD
4.0 MGD
(After 3.0 MGD)
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
5,748,000
9,564,000
2,572,000
Expansion
Residuals
Management —
1,741,000
1,741,000
16,000
Class B
Effluent Disposal
1,094,000
1,615,000
611,000
TOTAL $ 8,583,000 $ 12,920,000 $ 3,199,000
r
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion Major Components
Headworks
. Master Pump Station
Aeration
Clarification
Filtration
. Chlorine Contact and Effluent Pumping
. Administration/Laboratory Building
DifflIM Lon
HOLOW Pw
FLAN k9W Asomy
AND
FM T-AW
EMMM CHLOW
OWACT
OM NOW
PROPOMD MA3793
MW VATM
ADRAIMM
UHT I
7--M
laic
AIgN
PKFOMD
M DE DOWLMM
PLW WD YASIEA
lUIP ifA7101
—
IE,�,WD 6M.DIENf
_
�ITA('C'{•'�
—
Maw owwr
7/7101 OrN1�011
(�
m1wo D AD� floaftY
3PUTMA Sox
PiCPOlD
CL17R
2A
•Ai
T,All
LCLOID.
67UT11MG
PW�DLE!
TO WE DWMZH J'
IRdi pow
OfA1110 !D<O
NOiAMO /OIO
>� go
tnsnra noN rarzw Aasos.r � ��
OIYO[
■
CORAL?CORAL?
10
Awl=
WP-tAi f
IiIOFND�
�OfliMt
PAfli�OCkD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
a
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
p Subtotal
15.
TOTAL
WWTP Expansion Cost
Headworks
Demolition CSAS WWTP
Master Pump Station
Flow Splitter Box
Aeration Basin
Phosphorus Removal Tank
Clarification
Filtration
Chlorine Contact Chamber/Effluent
Pump Station
Administration/Laboratory Building
Site Work, 5%
Electrical, 15%
Yard Piping, 15%
Mobilization, 10%
Contingency, 30%
2.0 MGD
708,375
100,000
475,000
501,000
600,000
180,000
110,000
220,000
144,719
455,864
524,244
401,920
4,421,122
1,326,336
5,747,458
3.0 MGD
708,375
100.000
475,000
100,000
1,653,100
600,000
450,000
360,000
150,000
220,000
240,824
758,595
872,384
668,828
7,357,105
2,207,132
9,564,237
Future 4.0 MGD
(After 3.0 MGD)
80,000
550,000
500,000
165,000
64,750
203,963
234,557
179,827
1,978,096
593,429
2,571,525
Residuals Management
Dewater
. Hauling
. Disposal
Residuals Information
RESIDUALS
SUMMER
WINTER
TIPPING
VOLUME,
QUANTITY,
TIPPING
NUMBER OF
VOLUME,
QUANTITY,
TIPPING
NUMBER OF
COST, TOTAL
ALTERNATIVE
GPD
TONS/ DAY
COST, $/YR
TRIPS/ DAY
GPD
TONS/ DAY
COST, $/YR
TRIPS/ DAY
FOR YEAR
Liquid
Residuals
50,000
208.5
$ 1,301,040
9
100,000
417
$ 2,602,080
17
$ 3,903.120
Cost=$0
Liquid
Residuals,
Thickened
12,500
52.1
$ 325,260
3
25,000
104.3
$ 650,520
5
$ 975,780
Cost= $50,000
Class A
Dewatered
52 CY
9.1
$ 56,784
3
52 CY
9.1
$ 56,784
3
$ 113,568
Cost=
$3,081,800
Class B
Dewatered
80 CY
10.1
$ 63,024
5
80 CY
10.1
$ 63,024
5
$ 126,048
Cost=
$1,740,900
21.
22.
23.
25.
26.
27.
Subtotal
28.
TOTAL
Residuals Management Cost
Residuals Management Equipment
Residuals Management Building
Residuals Storage Containers
Site Work, 5%
Electrical, 12%
Yard Piping, 15%
Mobilization, 10%
Contingency, 30%
Future 4.0 MGD
2.0 MGD 3.0 MGD (After 3.0 MGD)
793,050 793,050 -
140,000 140,000 -
10,000 10,000 11,000
47,153
113,166
141,458
94,305
1,339,131
401,739
1,740,870
47,153
113,166
141,458
94,305
1,339,131
401,739
1,740,870
1,100
12,100
3,630
15,730
y
ID
Effluent Disposal and Reuse
Williamson Cattle Company Citrus
Irrigation - Existing
On -Site Spray Irrigation
y Off -Site RIBS
Deep Well Injection
On -Site Constructed Wetlands
■,
■ i.
u
■
Effluent Disposal Costs
Alternative
Opinion of Costs
$1,620,000 and
Hamrick Property — $32,400/YR to Lease or
Rapid Infiltration Basins
$ 2,600,000 to Purchase
Underground Injection
Well
$ 3,000,000
$ 1,094,000
On -Site Wetlands
$ 1,615,000
Capacity
440,000 gpd
U/K — Anticipated over
4,000,000 gpd
2,000,000 gpd
3,000,000 gpd
0
i
b*
IC
1 n �
Typical Underground Injection
Well
.4
FLOATING PLANTS INLET/OUTLET STRUCTURE
EMERGENT PLANTS
Y v"
Typical Florida Disposal Wetland
Lakeland
West Palm Beach
IV
Map of
Wastewater Wetlands in Florida
(Approalm" l"alinwr )
ReviseO 4,,25 tit
1 Bayou Marcus
2 Rice Creek
3 St. John's County SR16
4 Blacks Ford
5 Hurlburt Field
6 Apalachicola
7 Boot Wettand
8 Jasper
9 Monticello
10 OCESA
11 Orlando Easterly Wetlands
12 Slue Heron
13 Yutee
14 South Central Regional
1S Yankee Lakes, Seminole
16 Hilliard
17 Waldo Wetlands
18 East Central Regional
19 Indian River
20 Leesburg
21 Wakodahatchee Wetland
24
7
�271
22 Northwood
23 Dear Park Wetlands
;'t2
28 19
24 Petro Truckstop
I`
25 Spencer
�
26 Pace Wetland
a
27 Lakeland. Glendale
28 Ft. Meade
2g
29 Glades County
30 Port of the islands South % 21
31 Orange County Northwest ' '}
32 High Springs Commercial Park 130
4a
Color Key
Natural Wetlands
Man-made Wetlands
Combination of Natural and Man-made
•
Effluent Disposal
Cost
2.0 MGD 3.0 MGD
Future 4.0 MGD
(After 3.0 MGD)
31. Earthwork 312,000 480,000 180,000
32. Influent Structures 30,000 30,000 12,000
33. Discharge Structures 30,000 30,000 12,000
34. Gravel Beds 7,500 10,000 7,500
Modifications to Perimeter Ditch 10,000 12,000
35. Discharge Structure
36. Sod 50,000 75,000 30,000
37. Emergent Plants 70,000 100,000 30,000
38. Submerged Plants 87,000 135,000 50,000
39. Floating Plants 35,000 60,000 30,000
40. Mosquitofish 2,000 3,500 2,000
41. Site Work, 5% 31,675 46,775 17,675
42. Yard Piping, 15% 99,776 147,341 55,676
43. Mobilization, 10% 76,495 112,962 42,685
Subtotal 841,446 1,242,578 469,536
44. Contingency, 30% 252,434 372,773 140,861
F
' TOTAL 1,093,880 1,615,351 610,397
.o
I
0
m
V Lilt Nk�lm�
•
•
0
OKEECHOBEE UTILITY
AUTHORITY
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION
July 2004
MEUGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
8600 HIDDEN RIVER PARKWAY
SUITE 550
TAMPA, FL 33637
913-977-6005
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE
1.
INTRODUCTION
1-1
2.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING TREATMENT
2-1
GENERAL
2-1
H EADWORKS
2-6
Screening
2-6
Grit Removal
2-6
AERATION
2-6
Orbal
2-6
CLARIFICATION
2-8
FILTRATION
2-8
CHLORINE CONTACT AND CHLORINATION
2-12
AEROBIC DIGESTERS
2-14
EFFLUENT REUSE AND DISPOSAL
2-14
3.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
3-1
FEDERAL
3-1
STATE
3-2
4.
CURRENT AND FUTURE FLOWS AND QUALITY
4-1
EXISTING QUANTITY
4-1
FUTURE QUANTITY
4-1
ANTICIPATED QUALITY
4-9
5.
POTENTIAL TREATMENT STRATEGIES
5-1
MASTER PUMP STATION
5-1
HEADWORKS
5-3
Screening
5-6
Jones + Attwood, Inc., Lo-Flow Screening Unit
5-6
MTS Spirac CS 500 Screen
5-7
MTS Spirac ST Screen
5-8
Parkson Aquaguard
5-8
Grit Removal
5-9
Eutek Headcell
5-9
Jones + Attwood, Inc., Jeta-Grit
5-12
Smith & Loveless, Pista-Grit
5-13
Walker Process Rolling Grit
5-14
Fluidyne Hydro -Grit
5-14
Technical Memorandum No. 1
Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion TOC - 1
June 2004
•
•
•
SECTION DESCRIPTION
PAGE
AERATION
5-17
Two -Channel Option
5-17
Three -Channel Option
5-18
Replace Existing Aeration System
5-20
CLARIFICATION
5-22
FILTRATION
5-22
US Filter Davis/Davco TBF
5-22
Parkson Smartfilter TBF
5-22
Infilco-Degremont Automatic Backwash Filter
5-23
Sanitaire/ABJ Drum Filters
5-23
US Filter/Kruger Hydrotech Disc Filter
5-23
Parkson Dynasand Filter
5-26
Tetra Process Technologies DeepBed Filter
5-27
EFFLUENT PUMPING, CHLORINE CONTACT AND CHLORINATION
5-29
DETAILED OPINION OF COSTS
5-33
6. POTENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR THE EXISTING CONTACT
STABILIZATION FACILITY
6-1
FLOW EQUALIZATION
6-2
LEACHATE TREATMENT
6-3
SEPTAGE TREATMENT
6-4
7. RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FOR WWTP EXPANSION
7-1
APPENDIX
A Manufacturer's Data — AloF =N"1^DVD
B Opinion of Probable Construction C osts
C Design Calculations — .Jo7-
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion TOC - 2 June 2004
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
1-1
OUA Service Area
1-3
2-1
Plant Site
2-4
2-2
Hydraulic Profile
2-5
2-3
Existing Influent Structure
2-7
2-4
Existing Aeration Basin
2-9
2-5
Existing Clarifiers
2-10
2-6
Existing Filters
2-11
2-7
Existing Chlorine Contact C hamber
2-13
4-1
Projected Flows
4-8
5-1
Headworks and Master Pump Station Locations
5-2
5-2
Master Pump Station Details
5-4
5-3
Typical Headworks
5-5
5-4a
Lo-Flow Screening Unit
5-6
5-4b
Washpactor
5-7
5-5
Spirac CS 500 Screen
5-7
5-6
5-7
Spirac ST Screen
Aquaguard Screening Unit
5-8
5-8
5-8
Eutek Headcell
5-10
5-9
Eutek Slurry Cup and Grit Snail
5-11
5-10
Jeta-Grit
5-12
5-11
Pista-Grit
5-13
5-12
Walker Rolling Grit Chamber
5-14
5-13a
Hydro -Grit Plan
5-15
5-13b
Hydro -Grit Elevation
5-16
5-14
Two -Channel Aeration Basin Modifications
5-19
5-15
Three -Channel Aeration B asin Modifications
5-21
5-16
Infilco-Degremont ABW Filter
5-24
5-17
ABJ Drum Filter
5-25
5-18
Hydrotech Disc Filter
5-26
5-19
Dynasand Filter
5-27
5-20
Tetra DeepBed Filter
5-28
5-21
Expand Existing Chlorine Contact Chamber
5-30
5-22a
Cast -In -Place Chlorine Contact Chamber and Effluent Pump Station
5-31
5-22b
New Chlorine Contact Chamber Details
5-32
6-1
Septage Treatment System
6-6
7-1
Proposed Site Schematic
7-2
•
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion TOC - 3 June 2004
•
•
•
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
1-1 Phosphorus Loads in Lake Okeechobee
2-1 Design Conditions for Units
3-1 Minimum Treatment Standards
4-1
Historical Flows at the WWTP
4-2
Projected Flows
4-3
Characteristics of Flow and Strength of Waste
5-1
Equipment Cost — P ista-Grit
5-2
Opinion of Probable Cost —Alternative 1
5-3
Opinion of Probable Cost — Alternative 2
5-4
Opinion of Probable Cost — Alternative 3
7-1 Proposed Treatment Plan
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion TOC - 4
PAGE
1-4
2-15
3-4
4-2
4-7
4-9
5-13
5-33
5-34
5-35
7-3
Okeechobee Utility Authority
June 2004
0 SECTION 1
•
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida
Water Management District, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the University of Florida —
Institute of Food and Agricultural Studies, the Florida Department of Health and the
Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services have been studying Lake
Okeechobee — the largest freshwater lake in Florida. The agencies have determined
that phosphorus loadings within the Lake's watershed area have contributed to
excessive phosphorus loadings within the Lake itself.
High phosphorus levels lead to eutrophication which causes algal blooms, leading to
unpleasant tastes and odors in potable water withdrawn from the Lake. The Lake is a
major source of revenue to the area for commercial and sport fishing. Eutrophication
reduces the ability of fish and other aquatic species and plants to grow and reproduce
properly.
Many efforts have been extended by all of the above agencies to reduce the phosphorus
levels in the Lake to a "background" level of 40 ppb. Many projects are being designed
and constructed to reduce the quantity of phosphorus to this level. The Okeechobee
Utility Authority (Authority) intends to provide sewerage facilities to remove septic tanks
and small package treatment facilities from the area adjacent to the Lake and within the
service area of the Authority. The Authority's service area is illustrated in Figure 1-1.
In December 2003, a report entitled, Okeechobee Utility Authority Wastewater Facilities
Plan, was completed by Metzger & Willard, Inc., and submitted to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the Authority. As a part of the report, it was
determined that by providing a regional sewage system for the collection, transmission,
treatment and disposal to the areas adjacent to the Lake approximately 6 tons of
phosphorus per year will be prevented from entering Lake Okeechobee, as shown in
Table 1-1.
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Okeechobee Utility Authority
July 2004
r1
•
•
To provide adequate capacity at the Authority wastewater treatment plant, the capacity
of the facility will need to be increased. Therefore, this technical memorandum
addresses the needs of the expanded facility.
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Okeechobee Utility Authority
1-2 July 2004
9 0 0
�chobee
mocks
FIGURE 1-1
OUA SERVICE AREA
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (613) 977-6005
•
•
TABLE 1-1. PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION TO LAKE OKEECHOBEE AS A RESULT OF
PROVIDING A REGIONAL SEWERAGE SYSTEM TO AREAS ADJACENT TO THE LAKE,
PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION,
AREA
FLOW, GPD
TONS/YEAR *
Taylor Creek Isles
246,900
1.54
Ousley Infill
12,400
0.08
Treasure Island
385,000
1.92
Big "O"
78,300
0.42
Buckhead Ridge
140,200
0.66
Ancient Oaks
156,040
0.73
Blue Cypress
57,800
0.27
TOTAL
1,076,640
5.62
=6
* Based upon 4.09 mg/L - Concentration reaching canals/Lake Okeechobee. Developed through
literature search and sampling program in Okeechobee. (40% of value of septic tank effuent
escaping into the soils.)
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
1-4
Okeechobee Utility Authority
June 2004
• SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF EXISTING TREATMENT
General
The major portion of the wastewater system acquired by the Authority in 1995 is the
system formerly owned and operated by the City of Okeechobee. Since then, the
Authority has been actively expanding the system beyond the former city service area to
include the areas closest to Lake Okeechobee.
The major treatment facility received from the City was a 0.6 MGD contact stabilization
facility, sited on a 407-acre site, located north of the City along Cemetery Road, (39th
Boulevard NE) and east of U.S. Highway 441. In September 1998, the Authority
completed the construction of a 1.0 MGD extended aeration facility on the same site for
$4.25 Million, placed it on line and removed the old 0.6 MGD plant from service for
repairs. Included in this project, in addition to the wastewater treatment plant expansion,
were on -site effluent disposal improvements. Subsequently, in January 2000 the
Authority added additional effluent storage by constructing a 23-acre lined pond at a cost
of $412,050 that more than doubled the storage capacity, and completed repairs to the
older ponds. In addition to the wastewater treatment plant improvements and on site
effluent system expansion, the Authority has also expanded the offsite effluent reuse
system by connecting additional acreage of citrus on the Williamson Cattle Company
properties.
The Authority has a contract with the State of Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and
receives approximately 51,000 gallons per day of wastewater from the Eckerd Youth
Facility, a state run correctional facility for troubled youth, which is located adjacent to
the WWTP site. Previously, the Authority operated a state owned package plant at the
Youth Facility and pumped the treated wastewater for filtration and disposal at the
Authority's plant. The wastewater treatment plant has been removed from service and
the raw wastewater is now treated, filtered and disposed with the rest of the flow at the
Authority's plant. The Authority assumed an agreement for the WWTP site, which was
entered into by the City of Okeechobee and the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services on May 20, 1986 for a period of 48 years and which remains in
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Util ity Authority
WWTP Expansion 2-1 July 2004
effect beyond that period, unless one of the parties decides to terminate the agreement
after providing 180 days notice.
Effluent disposal is accomplished under a notably successful program, whereby water is
reused as agricultural irrigation for approximately 700 acres of citrus groves on a nearby
commercial citrus and cattle operation. A ten-year contract for this reuse program was
executed in May 1997 and has an automatic renewal clause for successive two-year
terms beyond the initial ten year period, unless terminated by either party with a
minimum 360 days notice prior to the expiration of the initial term, or any successive
two-year term. With 100 percent utilization, this reuse program has been demonstrated
to be one of the more successful water conservation programs in the state. To the
extent that the water is not required for citrus irrigation, it is used on approximately 310
acres on site for the production of hay, which is operated and ha rvested by a commercial
interest. Based upon groundwater monitoring, there have been no problems associated
with the reuse of the treated effluent in this program.
At the time of the formation of the Authority in 1995, there were approximately 20 small
ispackage wastewater treatment facilities in its service area. The Authority operates a
number of these package plants and others are privately operated. As noted, the
Eckerd facility has now been removed from service and two others were removed from
service at the end of May 2002. Three more were removed by April 2003 upon
completion of the Ousley Estates Phase I and Phase II projects. Four more have been
removed from service with the recent completion of the Taylor Creek Isles Project in
April 2004. Most of the package plants serve recreational and residential communities
along the perimeter of Lake Okeechobee. Presently, residuals from six of the facilities
are being hauled and treated at the main WWTP facility on Cemetery Road. One
wastewater treatment plant, the Okee-Tantie facility, was formerly owned by
Okeechobee County and serves the recreational area of the same name. The Authority
is also operating this facility, through a contract with an operations company. No
wastewater facilities were received from OBWA, since that agency did not provide sewer
service. It is the intent that the Okeechobee Utility Authority, in cooperation with the
State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and South Florida Water
Management District, and when funds are available, will continue to remove the small
plants from service and connect the associated collection systems to the regional
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 2-2 July 2004
wastewater system. This will reduce the phosphorus load to the waterways and the
Lake.
In Fiscal Year 2005, an expansion of the wastewater treatment facility is anticipated to
commence to increase the treatment capacity. This expansion will be necessary due to
the growth of the customer base, from expansion of the collection system, the removal of
Authority owned package wastewater treatment plants plus those expected to be
acquired, and the associated connection of existing collection systems. Collection
system additions recently completed with the Taylor Creek Isles project enabled the
removal of four package wastewater treatment plants - Snug Harbor MHP, Four Acres
MHP, Pier Two Motel, and Taylor Creek Lodge. Although the Okeechobee Utility
Authority, FDEP and SFWMD have the goal of removing all package plants in the vicinity
of Lake Okeechobee, it is not anticipated to eliminate any beyond those in the current
program until additional funding is available for this purpose.
The 1.0 MGD Okeechobee Utility Authority wastewater treatment plant was completed
and placed in service in 1998. The plant was engineered and constructed so that the
is capacity could be doubled to 2.0 MGD with relative ease and within normal permitting
procedures. The plant site is shown in Figure 2-1. Hydraulics through the facility are
shown in Figure 2-2.
The plant is a 1.0 MGD extended aeration treatment facility, Orbal process, oxidation
ditch facility and consists of a 165 feet by 96 feet aeration basin having two rings, to
which can be added a third ring to double the capacity. Other major components include
two 85-foot diameter clarifiers and two 80-foot diameter aerobic digesters, a chlorine
contact basin, three multi -media traveling bridge filters, aeration equipment, pumping
and piping equipment, plus all other equipment required for a modern, fully operational
facility. The major water -containment structures are constructed of pre -stressed
concrete. Existing reclaimed water transfer pumps were upgraded as part of the
expansion. Also, as part of the expansion, additional agricultural filters were added to
the -existing ones and the existing filters were provided with new filter media.
All flow enters the plant through an 18-inch force main, which discharges into a
screening unit, then i nto the aeration basin.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Util ity Authority
WWTP Expansion 2-3 July 2004
•
is 0
EXISTING LINED
HOLDING POND
ENSWO fOII.
EXISTING LINED
HOLDING POND
S]A twW
MIG tM00
PP�
yyr----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
,PP
iAW E00JA5 I
I I PP I
I
I W N NAA
i lu' SiA tSa50
L-- � CA tw' av � taG IOa00
1Y+00 1-00 1-- ASP -T w0A0 1t+00—� ivae� I5+00 Ifi+00
dJ
;N_________________am ---------------------- ��� I 4t1
_______-_____i
W
BOLT t WASHFA� , r n ,
E105wW ��-1t_____________________________�
I I 1
F.F. 77.0
].A
Ilrq, aN I ;/ w
/
„'ENERATORJ %� I f l l I
• V V I I� y II I i
i-»------
�` U Iy III
» .Y J-----�--
p ; Ma tta!) , I y� ,J
--
______-_r_ I NIQ I71
r 'Y. 'd 1 I .
:EXIST. TREAT4ENT PSANT »r-----_--►____r ___________�_�____�
IM TT _
r----------+-------------
au. ; I i i��p��''<� I �O/�'•~,:„1.„7 FRt\j ___y'
' i-------------
!;I,Af?i4i R I 7. Ikl ` CI -,RIFT k iF,
-_ ._ _ off_ 1 I IL I �_ t.•NE_i.. x.•ul.
I l �
„�1 1 �4iTa
-- N
---------
w
Ili `\
ILI
u LJ: FILTERS
!a Jai'' H la
Y PA
FIGURE 2-1
NOTE: EFFLUENT PUMP STATION, EXISTING WWTP SITE
AGRICULTURAL FILTERS AND FORCE MAIN
(` TO CITRUS IRRIGATION NOT SHOWN.
o METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
60
58
56
E
54
L 52
Rom.
E 50
V 48
A 46
T 44
42
40
0
38
N
36 obAN Ar. a
34
N 32
V 30 --T
l
G 28
26
0
24
AERATION BASIN
I
L_
S CONTACT STABUZ TION
a PLANT
(CUT I SEI)
yNt
t A— CLAMM
(OUT OF SERMR) a� II l
it I
CONTACT
WAMLIEATNIN PLANT CLAIRERS
9
Oul" u
CK)FAK �,�R CONTACT
CIUME
CONTACT
EFFLUENT B EFFLUENT
FILTER$ PUMP STATION
S<p�
4
WENT
STATION e
AfJSCU1.TURAL
FILTER
To ON-!1[ 090YL
HY
m+a qQ
STpMQ FpA)
3�
60
58
56
54 E
52 L
50 E
48 V
46 A
44 T
42
40
38 0
36 N
34
32 N
30 V
28 G
26 0
24
FIGURE 2-2
EXISTING HYDRAULIC PROFILE
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Enwronmentol Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (613) 977-6005
More wastewater treatment operating personnel were added with the c onstruction of the
1.0 MGD W WTP. Current staff consists of a lead operator and five additional operating
personnel. The Authority has an active and effective safety program at the facility.
In summary, great improvements have been made in the wastewater treatment system
since the Authority acquired the system.
The following describes the major components of the existing treatment system.
Headworks
SCREENING: The existing screening system includes two Andritz static screens rated
for 1.5 MGD each. The original static screens were replaced in 2003 due to corrosion
problems. The new screens are manufactured of 316L Stainless Steel. The screens are
shown in Figure 2-3. The screen overflow box fills and spills down an inclined stainless
steel screening surface. Solids too large to fit through the openings in the screen roll
down to the base of the screen to be collected. Screened water falls through the screen
surface and exits the screening unit to the aeration basin.
GRIT REMOVAL: The facility has no means of grit removal other than what may catch
in the screening units.
Aeration
ORBAL: The existing aeration basi n is a two -channel Orbal P rocess, as designed by US
Filter/Envirex, and constructed in 1998. The Orbal is a complete mix, looped reactor
system. The unit can be easily expanded to accommodate future load conditions, either
by adding on additional aerator assemblies to the existing channels, or by adding on an
additional channel to the existing channels. State standards for multiplicity are met with
single basin designs, since the Orbal has dual basin capability in a single basin. The
Orbal is reported to have a high buffer capacity for shock loads. Influent enters the outer
channel of the Orbal unit (containing approximately one-half of the volume), which is
operated under an oxygen deficit to promote nitrification-denitrification. The second
channel is designed for a higher oxygen rate; however, the oxygen demand in the
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 2-6 July 2004
0 0 0
STEEL OR BAR SCREEN
FIBERGLASS ASSEMBLY
HEIGHT AS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE MATERIAL TROUGH
FROM SCREENS WITH OUT SPLASHING
18'
�C6z13
EL. 49.46 STEEjGRATING
r- I
I I
I I
I � I
I I
DUMPSTER '
BY OWNER j
1 I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
10" INFLUENT
FLEXIBLE PIPE
12" TEE
, 2'-0'
12'_
I lit FFLUEN 18' 12-
{,Lr R D.
rl�
RESTRAINED
FLANGE ADAPTER
COUPUNG
STAIR LANDING 7 �
12" TEE 51.83
T INV.
EL SO.10
��E] E
_u-4 FLEXIBLE PIPE
`Ng8z35�
PIPE SUPPORT
9'-9"
�!a 4
jw 2' CLR.
J � lil
FIGURE 2-3
i N EXISTING INFLUENT STRUCTURE
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
III I I I Civil • Environmental Engineers
�ulsH WADE E� Tampo, Florido 33637 (813) 977-6005
0 second channel is lower and a small amount of oxygen need s to be delivered to
maintain a higher dissolved oxygen rate. T he disc aerators provide oxygenation and
mixing for the system. The existing aeration basin is shown in Figure 2-4.
The existing aeration system consists of four aerators in each channel. The outer
channel aerators are driven by the same motors as the interior channel aerators, which
include four 40-HP motors.
Clarification
The existing clarification system includes two 80-foot diameter pre -stressed units fitted
with US Filter/Envirex Tow-Bro Unitube Headers for removal of the settled concentrated
sludge material. The Tow-Bro system allows for rapid sludge removal of concentrated
sludges with minimum agitation. The units are balanced hydraulically to allow sludge
blankets to settle uniformly over the entire tank bottom. At the time of construction, the
construction cost differential was fairly insignificant for a plant average daily flow
between 1.0 MGD and 2.0 MGD. Therefore, the two units were designed and
constructed for a plant average daily flow of 2.0 MGD, with a peak of 4.0 MGD and to
allow for Class I Reliability with one unit out of service.
Figure 2-5 illustrates the existing clarifiers.
No work is anticipated for the expansion.
Filtration
The existing filters consist of three pre -fabricated traveling bridge filter units. Each unit is
a US Filter/Davco Traveling Bridge Filter rated for 700,000 gpd. The first unit was
installed in 1991 and is off-line until repairs are made. The two newer units were
installed in 1998 with the plant expansion to 1.0 MGD. The Traveling Bridge Filters have
many moving parts and are reported to constantly require maintenance. Figure 2-6
illustrates the existing filter systems.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 2-8 July 2004
0 9 9
Po T
F—r 24'p-
lbj III III I jqi\
T
Ot
3
FIGURE 2-4
EXISTING AERATION BASIN
METZGER &WILLARD'INC.
Civil - Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
0 0 0
F
S
\
a
/
I
\
5 �
nYNLW •�
/ NaaPS Or T.-
EVERY 71A BM \
-e• L` MJ
EVFAv TD BNI
I /
.G'•n.
I
N-p• LOMI 1 �
� '� '� �
- n
CENTRAL PRA
I RAtlAL BARS
r � i
I
— r.Y B. TYPICAL
---_--xr Yl ___--Tr------ _
--------------1------
I
♦• ♦•
I
>e
I
r
r.e• Ian
e•
vyG• I%rr
rr
ry I
B• PG e• Po
m RANT E .--._.__`J
GRAx Pwxi ov a TEE
srAna b GG•.xr m[ s• xxs• ELBGa
w
To sr TE —IF'11--1-- — — —
PamAna - -
` x.x.• REn1A91
xs• w
` 21• RUG (M4
FOUNDATION PLAN
�tq
7
I
r
la-r aA
Bean vnL
\\//I
`-
6Na1E11
nAL "
BEAMS
I
SIaMLan / NEAGFA
LGR PgNT W WWT
ASSEMBLY
I
/i TM A
BA�E
YASrAAS Aw srArlW I I b Lb
F B e• Pa `e• Puw Vaw
.. .• _. ..�......�.. 11 I _.......... _ .. ra• n[o.
'ul e• 1EE
u w ' r u• EIxNv
-- — — — xr PWG (YA) $ !• TEE • ¢eon
_ e• cn
`x.• TEE
TOP PLAN
r Aa
_ 5 � Imo• p
O SE,JrT1 OM
..' .. 4
h
St
t
�p
MOI PgNT pf 4RWT
XX\I\ x F
FIGURE 2-5
EXISTING CLARIFIERS
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tompo. Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
Txxnw5147
-
i�T•
N 0A I -
i1L ERUU RT�NI 1 � r xn�on r nx
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ (W �� �) _ _ I_ 1 I �RFx♦
6 y.�r-n.xn.. s •/ nrora.vcK
Wv00 RTO %"I ft 7
L
oonwr mJa/o�
r.l
i
.•..•r• coxc yr t. ou1Mc rcoaR
m.arxn.
�� 11nBP,r
ho OAVCO F%M {MT ft 3
Rl@LOQ � r R
rm
rw
RL@11Oa �
wx.w lxaw
� n,a ma (rn1
sixrra wax nww a7
mnr u
1
,gyp lrylrl I TOT& MU ft" —& CELL C ' Rr W xx
VNIEI •+a iL1E11 Xa. RDN ol'D �I eA%D xE} WA Na DD M M.VP
Z� M 11Et fiLL! M xP
-T 1 MQ000 .R! ?.D 1.] M 1.o !
o T R MgooD W I t.! N! M ]M !
UMT D m= w ( !.! !.I M ]MI !
FIGURE 2-6 EXSITING
EFFLUENT FILTER PLAN
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil x Environmental Engineers
Tompa, Florido 33637 (813) 977-6005
The Authority is currently evaluating options for filtration capacity. With the original filter
unit out of service, the remaining active filters have a rated capacity of 1.74 MGD Peak
Flow or 0.97 MGD annual average daily flow. Prior to the flow reaching 0.97 MGD
AADF, the Authority will need to have completed the rehabilitation or installation of
additional filtration capacity. As a part of the filtration strategy, the Authority should
consider the following options:
1. Rehabilitate the existing filter, providing an additional 700,00 0 gpd capacity.
2. Install a new filter, sized for the 700, 000 gpd capacity.
3. Install a new filter, sized for the future expansion that can be adopted into the
future expansion strategy for the facility.
The filtrate is continually monitored for Turbidity. In the event that turbidity
concentrations increase above a pre -determined setpoint, the effluent is directed to a
"reject water pond". The water in the reject water pond is re-routed through the plant for
re -treatment prior to reuse.
Chlorine Contact and Chlorination
The existing chlorine contact chambers are a combination of one train of 5,000 gallon
and two trains of 7,000 gallon pre -cast concrete basins, partially buried below ground
surface. Figure 2-7 illustrates the existing chlorine contact chambers. The flow splits
between the three separate trains and re -connects at the effluent pump station and flow
measuring chamber.
The Authority is currently in the process of switching from gaseous chlorine to a sodium
hypochlorite mixture for chlorination.
The effluent is chlorinated to "high-level disinfection" standards, meaning that total
residual chlorine (TRC) of 1.0 mg/L is required in the effluent prior to re -use. The
effluent is continually monitored for TRC and the effluent is automatically sent to the
reject water pond if the TRC levels fall below standards.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 2 - 12 July 2004
0 0 0
24' DEEP
PVC
/
CONTROL Box -\
OF,P.P ..MR
ALL 4' PIPE k VALVES TO
—S
BE REMOVED k REPLACED
VAIN 6" PIPE h VALVES
P P
COHIROL BON
EXISS.
E.
IW F
D.1 P
5,000 9d'
5'D00 qw.
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
10- TEE &(2) 10-GV
nALBASH
CONTACT
CONTACT
g:
BASIN
10" PE
D.1 P
.84- :E
EXIST. 10
10- GATE VALVE
NORMALLY CLOSEDD
/
(
•h
II OVERFLOW
I
1 1/2- TEE -//T'.
(D.. ' .) INV. 38.9
CHLORINE SOLUTION PIPE
r-
. 0
IV CROSS
-nDw II II
CONTACTII II CBASH I
ONTACT
FLOW
-I; F
now
II II7,000 qQL
it II =4 CHLORINE
CONTACT CONTACT
mow
10. PE
D.I.P
I
ININ k RACK
C'S 1OPPLIIC
am= ID-1iE
7
10- GV
FIGURE 2- 7
EXISTING CHLORINE
CONTACT CHAMBER
METZGER &WILLARD, INC.
Civil
- Environmental Engineers
T.-pcI. Fl orido 33637 (B13) 977-6005
•
•
Aerobic Diqesters
The WWTP is equipped with two aerobic digesters for the treatment of the residual
sludge. Each of the units is 60,000 CF for a total of 120,000 CF of aerobic digestion
capacity. An alternative treatment program is planned for residuals management for this
facility and is demonstrated in Technical Memorandum No. 2 of this study.
Effluent Disposal and Reuse
Effluent from the WWTP is currently stored in three existing ponds (two lined and one
unlined) for use in citrus irrigation on an as -needed basis. The citrus irrigation is
permitted for 800,000 gpd capacity. In addition, an on -site spray irrigation system, rated
at 300,000 gpd, is also used as required. The expansion of the effluent disposal and
reuse system is demonstrated in Technical Memorandum No. 3 of this study.
Table 2-1 illustrates the existing design conditions for each of the treatment units within
the wastewater treatment facility.
Design conditions for the facility include organic as well as hydraulic loadings for the
appropriate units.
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Okeechobee Utility Authority
2 - 14 July 2004
•
0
Table 2-1. Unit Comparison — Design Conditions
UNIT
Aeration
Clarifiers
Aerobic Digesters
Filters
ITEM
BOD Loading
MLVSS
Volume
Oxygen Requirements
Surface Loading Rate/Clarifier
Solids Loading Rate/Clarifier
Weir Overflow Rate/Clarifier
Recycle Flow/Clarifier
Pounds of Sludge Wasted Per
Day, Based upon 0.8% Solids
Volume/Day
Total Sludge Retention Time
Air Requirements at 30
scfm/1000 cf of volume
Surface Loading Rate, Two
units in Service
DESIGN
2294 #/day
22,935 # MLVSS
167,303 cf provided
3726 #02/day
199 gpd/sf
10 # solids/day/sf
4080 gpd/If
500,000 gpd
225,180 # sludge/day
3607 cf sludge/day
52 days
3619 scfm
4.13 gpm/sf
STANDARDS
< 1000 gpd/sf
< 35 # solids/day/sf
< 20,000 gpd/If
> 30 days
< 5 gpm/sf
Disinfection System Contact Time at AADF 33 minutes 15 minutes
Contact Time at PDF 18 minutes 15 minutes
Chlorine Use/Day, AADF 267 #/day (based upon gaseous chlorine use)
Chlorine Feed Rate, AADF 20 ppm (based upon gaseous chlorine use)
! SECTION 3
EXISTING REGULATIONS
Federal
US EPA. 1974. Design Criteria for Mechanical. Electric and Fluid Svstem and
Component Relibilitv — MCD — 05 — Provides the system design criteria to meet various
reliability classifications. The Authority's facility provides secondary treatment with
filtration, a high level disinfection and meets the requirements for Class I Reliability, as
defined in this EPA document. Class I Reliability has many requirements to prevent
possible treatment degradation. The following briefly summarizes many (but not all) of
these requirements:
Bar Screens: A backup unit shall be provided. The backup may be manual.
Pumps: Backup pumps shall be provided for each set of pumps which performs the
same function. The capacity shall be such that with any one pump out of servic e, the
remaining pumps will have capacity enough to handle peak f lows.
Aeration Basins: A backup basin is not required; however, at least two equal volume
basins shall be provided.
Blowers/Mechanical Aerators: Backup units shall be provided with a capacity such
that with any one unit out of service, the remaining units will have enough capacity to
aerate peak flows. The backup unit does not have to be installed. A minimum of two
units must be installed.
Clarifiers: A sufficient number of units of a size such that with the largest flow
capacity unit out of service, the remaining units shall have a design flow capacity of
at least 75 percent of the total design flow to that unit operation.
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Okeechobee Utility Authority
3-1 July 2004
Disinfectant Contact Basins: A sufficient number of units of a size such that with the
largest flow capacity unit out of service, the remaining units shall have a design flow
capacity of at least 50 percent of the total design flow to that unit operatio n.
Sludqe Holdino Tanks: Holding tanks are permissible as an alternative to
component or system back up capability for components downstream of the tanks, if,
the volume of the holding tank is based upon the expected time necessary to
perform maintenance and repair of the component in question.
Aerobic Sludqe Diqestion: A backup basin is not required. A minimum of two
blowers shall be provided.
Centrifuges: A sufficient number of centrifuges shall be provided to enable design
sludge flow to be dewatered with largest unit out of service. Sludge holding tanks
may be used as an alternative of redundant equipment.
Electrical: For Class I Reliability, a continuity of operation shall be provided from two
power sources (electrical service and on -site emergency generator). The emergency
source shall be sufficient to operate all vital components, during peak wastewater
flow conditions, together with critical lighting and ventilation.
State
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulates the construction
and operation of wastewater treatment facilities in the State of Florida. The purpose is to
prevent the potential degradation of the water and air quality. Regulations issued as
Florida Administrative Codes (FAC) concerning the construction and operation of
treatment facilities include the following:
62-602: Drinkinq Water and Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators —
Provides the requirements for operator licensure, including the education and
experience necessary to be a licensed operator.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authorit
y
WWTP Expansion 3-2 July 2004
M62-610: Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application — Defines reuse and land
application of wastewater. Provides a comprehensive and detailed set of requirements
for design and operational criteria for reuse and land application sites.
62-620: Wastewater Facilitv and Activities Permittinq — Provides the procedures
necessary to obtain a permit to construct, modify or operate a wastewater facility which
discharges wastes into waters of the State or which will reasonably be expected to be a
source of water pollution. The rule states that "Any portion of the wastewater facility ...
which relates to reuse or disposal of reclaimed water shall not be constructed or
modified without a wastewater permit". The rule also provides the recordkeeping
requirements for each facility.
62-650: Water Qualitv Based Effluent Limitations — Provides the effluent limitation that
may be more stringent than a 'Treatment Based Effluent Limitation (TBEL)" to ensure
water quality standards in a receiving water body are not violated. A WQBEL is used to
determined the assimilative capacity of a water body.
62-699.310: Classification and Staffinq of Plants — Provides for a Category III, Extended
Aeration Process and Oxidation Ditches with or without Filters, Class B (2.0 — 8.0 MGD),
the operator coverage for the facility is as follows:
Class C or higher — 16 hours/day, 7 days/week
Chief operator — Class B or higher
62-304: Total Maximum Dailv Loads (05/24/01) — Provides a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for Lake Okeechobee for total phosphorus of 140 metric tons, including
atmospheric deposition. This goal for phosphorus will reduce phosphorus levels in the
Lake to a pre -developed level that will reduce eutrophication in the Lake.
62-600: Domestic Wastewater Facilities — Provides the minimum standards for the
design of domestic wastewater facilities and establishes the minimum treatment and
disinfection requirements for the operation of domestic wastewater facilities. The rule
references Florida Statute 403.021(2), the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act,
"No wastes are to be discharged to any waters of the state without first being given the
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee UtilityAuthority
Y
WWTP Expansion 3-3 July 2004
degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of such water." Type I
facilities are defined in the rule as any facility with a flow capacity equal to or over
500,000 gallons.
62-600.400: Design Requirements — The rule requires that the design of a
wastewater treatment facility be "in accordance with sound engineering practice".
Facilities shall "efficiently and reliably' meet required effluent limitations. All facilities
are to be designed to minimize adverse effects from odors, noise, aerosol drift and
lighting. Facilities are required to be enclosed within a fence or within other features
that discourage the entry of animals and unauthorized persons. Facilities should be
protected from the impacts of a 100 year flood.
62-600.405: Planning for Wastewater Facilitv Expansion — Provides for the timely
planning, design, and construction of wastewater facilities necessary to provide
proper treatment and reuse or disposal of wastewater and residuals.
62-600.420: Minimum Treatment Standards — Treatment Based Effluent Limitations
— Provides for the minimum levels of treatment based upon the ultimate disposal of
the treated product, as follows:
TABLE 3-1. MINIMUM TREATMENT STANDARDS
CBOD5
TSS
Secondary Treatment
Surface Water Disposal (excluding ocean outfalls)
20
20
Surface Water Disposal via Ocean Outfall
Coastal
Open Ocean
30
30
Reuse, Land Application, Groundwater Discharge (except for
20
20
underground injection well)
Groundwater Discharge by Underground Injection Well
Class I wells to Class G-IV waters
20
20
Class V wells into Class G-II waters
< 20
< 20
Additional levels of treatment are required for reclaimed water use including the
following:
1. Shall receive High level disinfection, TSS shall be as required to meet the
high level disinfection requirements
2. Shall meet the standards without a mixing zone.
3. Shall have a total nitrogen less than or equal to 10 mg/L.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
tY
WWTP Expansion 3-4 July 2004
•
•
:7
4. Shall meet the requirements for primary and secondary drinking water
standards.
62-600.430: Water Qualitv Based Effluent Limitations — May be required to provide
additional treatment to satisfy water quality standards for receiving surface waters
and/or ground waters. WQBELs are determined by the FDEP and are required to be
met after disinfection. WQBELs are determined by the "application of accepted
scientific methods".
62-600.440: Disinfection — Two types of disinfection are defined and include the
following:
1. Basic:
a. Fecal coliform count is less than 200 per 100 mL of effluent sample.
b. A residual of 0.5 mg/L or higher is measured after 15 minutes of contact
time at peak hourly flow.
2. High Level:
a. Total Suspended Solids in the effluent is low enough to maximize the
disinfection effectiveness. Fecal coliform values in the effluent shall be
below detectable levels.
b. A residual of 1.0 mg/L or higher is measured after 15 minutes of contact
time at peak hourly flow.
62-600.445: DH — pH shall be measured in the effluent in the range of 6.0 to 8.5
units, which provides a neutral product (neither acidic nor basic).
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 3-5 July 2004
•
SECTION 4
CURRENT AND FUTURE FLOWS AND QUALITY
Existinq Quantitv
In September 1998, the existing plant was placed on-line. At that time, the older (1985)
contact stabilization activated sludge (CSAS) facility was taken off-line for maintenance
and repairs. Currently, the existing CSAS facility remains off-line.
Historical flows at the existing WWTP are shown in Table 4-1 (January 1986 through
June 2004).
Future Quantity
Projected flows were developed for the Wastewater Plan, based upon system growth
anticipated from infill, inclusion of existing package plants that are removed from service
and collection system expansion. Growth is the area appears to be increasing as
evidenced by developer agreement requests and the development of sewer systems for
areas adjacent to the Lake. The system expansion schedule and projected flows are
shown in Table 4-2 and illustrated in F1 gure 4-1.
FDEP Rule 62-600.405(8) FAC presents the requirements for the planning, design,
permitting, construction and activation of wastewater treatment plants, based upon the
flows into the facility. The requirements for the expansion activities are as follows:
1. If the WWTP capacity will be equaled or exceeded within five years, the planning
and preliminary engineering of the expanded facility shall have begun.
2. If the WWTP capacity will be equaled or exceeded within four years, the
development of the plans and specifi cations shall have begun.
3. If the WWTP capacity will be equaled or exceeded within three years, the
complete construction permit application shall be submitted to FDEP (i.e., the
design is complete).
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 4-1 July 2004
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
MONTHLY
3-MONTH
RUNNING ANNUAL
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
DATE
AVERAGE, MGD
AVERAGE, MGD
AVG, MGD
DESIGN CAPACITY
Jan-86
0.227
-
0.227
-
Feb-86
0.186
-
0.207
-
Mar-86
0.182
0.198
0.198
33.1
Apr-86
0.194
0.187
0.197
31.2
May-86
0.208
0.195
0.199
32.4
Jun-86
0.233
0.212
0.205
35.3
Jul-86
0.223
0.221
0.208
36.9
Aug-86
0.251
0.236
0.213
39.3
Sep-86
0.382
0.285
0.232
47.6
Oct-86
0.400
0.344
0.249
57.4
Nov-86
0.244
0.342
0.248
57.0
Dec-86
0.290
0.311
0.252
51.9
Jan-87
0.308
0.281
0.258
46.8
Feb-87
0.279
0.292
0.266
48.7
Mar-87
0.292
0.293
0.275
48.8
Apr-87
0.256
0.276
0.281
45.9
May-87
0.252
0.267
0.284
44.4
Jun-87
0.244
0.251
0.285
41.8
Jul-87
0.261
0.252
0.288
42.1
Aug-87
0.238
0.248
0.287
41.3
Sep-87
0.230
0.243
0.275
40.5
Oct-87
0.254
0.241
0.262
40.1
•
Nov-87
0.342
0.275
0.271
45.9
Dec-87
0.314
0.303
0.273
50.6
Jan-88
0.299
0.318
0.272
53.1
Feb-88
0.340
0.318
0.277
52.9
Mar-88
0.332
0.324
0.280
53.9
Apr-88
0.259
0.310
0.280
51.7
May-88
0.265
0.285
0.282
47.6
Jun-88
0.255
0.260
0.282
43.3
Jul-88
0.276
0.265
0.284
44.2
Aug-88
0.345
0.292
0.293
48.7
Sep-88
0.270
0.297
0.296
49.5
Oct-88
0.282
0.299
0.298
49.8
Nov-88
0.328
0.293
0.297
48.9
Dec-88
0.269
0.293
0.293
48.8
Jan-89
0.313
0.303
0.295
50.6
Feb-89
0.265
0.282
0.288
47.1
Mar-89
0.324
0.301
0.288
50.1
Apr-89
0.288
0.292
0.290
48.7
May-89
0.281
0.298
0.291
49.6
Jun-89
0.284
0.284
0.294
47.4
Jul-89
0.311
0.292
0.297
48.7
Aug-89
0.359
0.318
0.298
53.0
Sep-89
0.369
0.346
0.306
57.7
Oct-89
0.362
0.363
0.313
60.6
Nov-89
0.319
0.350
0.312
58.3
Dec-89
0.322
0.334
0.316
55.7
•
Table 4-1 4-2 7/16/2004
0
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
Jan-90
Feb-90
Mar-90
Apr-90
May-90
Jun-90
J u I-90
Aug-90
Sep-90
Oct-90
Nov-90
Dec-90
Jan-91
Feb-91
Mar-91
Apr-91
May-91
Jun-91
Jul-91
Aug-91
Sep-91
Oct-91
Nov-91
Dec-91
Jan-92
Feb-92
Mar-92
Apr-92
May-92
Jun-92
Jul-92
Aug-92
Sep-92
Oct-92
Nov-92
Dec-92
Jan-93
Feb-93
Mar-93
Apr-93
May-93
Jun-93
J u I-93
Aug-93
Sep-93
Oct-93
Nov-93
Dec-93
Table 4-1
MONTHLY
AVERAGE, MGD
0.348
0.295
0.275
0.280
0.314
0.279
0.251
0.335
0.332
0.409
0.302
0.259
0.263
0.333
0.410
0.451
0.407
0.292
0.340
0.339
0.435
0.374
0.380
0.354
0.438
0.407
0.250
0.262
0.263
0.586
0.457
0.520
0.517
0.397
0.463
0.430
0.481
0.503
0.529
0.515
0.513
0.336
0.316
0.403
0.449
0.457
0.326
0.291
3-MONTH
AVERAGE, MGD
0.330
0.322
0.306
0.283
0.290
0.291
0.281
0.288
0.306
0.359
0.348
0.323
0.275
0.285
0.335
0.398
0.423
0.383
0.346
0.324
0.371
0.383
0.396
0.369
0.391
0.400
0.365
0.306
0.258
0.370
0.435
0.521
0.498
0.478
0.459
0.430
0.458
0.471
0.504
0.516
0.519
0.455
0.388
0.352
0.389
0.436
0.411
0.358
RUNNING ANNUAL
AVG, MGD
0.319
0.322
0.318
0.317
0.320
0.319
0.314
0.312
0.309
0.313
0.312
0.307
0.300
0.303
0.314
0.328
0.336
0.337
0.344
0.345
0.353
0.350
0.357
0.365
0.379
0.386
0.372
0.357
0.345
0.369
0.379
0.394
0.401
0.403
0.410
0.416
0.419
0.427
0.451
0.472
0.493
0.472
0.460
0.450
0.445
0.450
0.438
0.427
4-3
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
DESIGN CAPACITY
54.9
53.6
51.0
47.2
48.3
48.5
46.9
48.1
51.0
59.8
57.9
53.9
45.8
47.5
55.9
66.3
70.4
63.9
57.7
53.9
61.9
63.8
66.1
61.6
65.1
66.6
60.8
51.1
43.1
61.7
72.6
86.8
83.0
79.7
76.5
71.7
76.3
78.6
84.1
85.9
86.5
75.8
64.7
58.6
64.9
72.7
68.4
59.7
7/16/2004
0
•
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94
J u I-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
J u I-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Sep-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Dec-96
Jan-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
May-97
Jun-97
J u I-97
Aug-97
Sep-97
Oct-97
Nov-97
Dec-97
Table 4-1
MONTHLY
AVERAGE, MGD
0.314
0.374
0.337
0.305
0.297
0.254
0.300
0.407
0.366
0.478
0.583
0.500
0.500
0.454
0.453
0.422
0.400
0.430
0.422
0.476
0.435
0.641
0.485
0.479
0.511
0.535
0.567
0.541
0.463
0.618
0.659
0.465
0.492
0.543
0.532
0.563
0.583
0.620
0.615
0.614
0.573
0.579
0.682
0.567
0.660
0.608
0.648
0.744
3-MONTH
AVERAGE, MGD
0.310
0.326
0.342
0.339
0.313
0.285
0.284
0.320
0.358
0.417
0.476
0.520
0.528
0.485
0.469
0.443
0.425
0.417
0.417
0.443
0.444
0.517
0.520
0.535
0.492
0.508
0.538
0.548
0.524
0.541
0.580
0.581
0.539
0.500
0.522
0.546
0.559
0.589
0.606
0.616
0.601
0.589
0.611
0.609
0.636
0.612
0.639
0.667
RUNNING ANNUAL
AVG, MGD
0.413
0.402
0.386
0.368
0.350
0.344
0.342
0.343
0.336
0.337
0.359
0.376
0.392
0.398
0.408
0.418
0.426
0.441
0.451
0.457
0.463
0.476
0.468
0.466
0.467
0.474
0.484
0.494
0.499
0.514
0.534
0.533
0.538
0.530
0.534
0.541
0.547
0.554
0.558
0.564
0.573
0.570
0.572
0.580
0.594
0.600
0.609
0.624
4-4
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
DESIGN CAPACITY
51.7
54.4
56.9
56.4
52.2
47.6
47.3
53.4
59.6
69.5
79.3
86.7
87.9
80.8
78.2
73.8
70.8
69.6
69.6
73.8
74.1
86.2
86.7
89.2
81.9
84.7
89.6
91.3
87.3
90.1
96.7
96.8
89.8
83.3
87.1
91.0
93.2
98.1
101.0
102.7
100.1
98.1
101.9
101.6
106.1
101.9
106.4
111.1
7/16/2004
9
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
Jan-98
Feb-98
Mar-98
Apr-98
May-98
Jun-98
Jul-98
Aug-98
Sep-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
May-00
Jun-00
Jul-00
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-00
Nov-00
Dec-00
Jan-01
Feb-01
Mar-01
Apr-01
May-01
Jun-01
Jul-01
Aug-01
Sep-01
Oct-01
Nov-01
Dec-01
Table 4-1
MONTHLY
AVERAGE,MGD
0.798
0 886
0.806
0.697
0.608
0.549
0.502
0.509
0.539
0.448
0.522
0.500
0.548
0.647
0.663
0.595
0.492
0.668
0.560
0.545
0.747
0.701
0.611
0.555
0.593
0.643
0.569
0.509
0.481
0.476
0.494
0.446
0.564
0.546
0.532
0.483
0.570
0.591
0.678
0.646
0.658
0.704
0.724
0.648
0.780
0.702
0.649
0.567
3-MONTH
AVERAGE, MGD
0.730
0.809
0.830
0.796
0.704
0.618
0.553
0.520
0.517
0.499
0.503
0.490
0.523
0.565
0.619
0.635
0.583
0.585
0.573
0.591
0.617
0.664
0.686
0.622
0.586
0.597
0.602
0.574
0.520
0.489
0.484
0.472
0.501
0.519
0.547
0.520
0.528
0.548
0.613
0.638
0.661
0.669
0.695
0.692
0.717
0.710
0.710
0.639
RUNNING ANNUAL
AVG, MGD
0.642
0.665
0.680
0.687
0.690
0.688
0.673
0.668
0.658
4-5
0.645
0.634
0.614
0.593
0.573
0.561
0.553
0.543
0.553
0.558
0.561
0.578
0.599
0.606
0.611
0.615
0.614
0.607
0.599
0.599
0.583
0.577
0.569
0.554
0.541
0.534
0.528
0.526
0.522
0.531
0.542
0.557
0.576
0.595
0.612
0.630
0.643
0.653
0.660
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
DESIGN CAPACITY
121.7
134.9
138.3
132.7
1173
103.0
92.2
86.7
32.3
45.3
45.7
44.5
47.6
51.4
56.3
57.7
53.0
53.2
52.1
53.7
56.1
60.4
62.4
56.6
53.3
54.3
54.7
52.2
47.2
44.4
44.0
42.9
45.6
47.2
49.8
47.3
48.0
49.8
55.7
58.0
60.1
60.8
63.2
62.9
65.2
64.5
64.6
58.1
7/16/2004
0
0
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
MONTHLY
3-MONTH
DATE
AVERAGE, MGD
AVERAGE, MGD
Jan-02
0.601
0.606
Feb-02
0.612
0.593
Mar-02
0.567
0.593
Apr-02
0.533
0.571
May-02
0.483
0.528
Jun-02
0.493
0.503
Jul-02
0.618
0.531
Aug-02
0.552
0.554
Sep-02
0.660
0.610
Oct-02
0.608
0.607
Nov-02
0.622
0.630
Dec-02
0.735
0.655
Jan-03
0.777
0.711
Feb-03
0.729
0.747
Mar-03
0.711
0.739
Apr-03
0.660
0.700
May-03
0.638
0.670
Jun-03
0.696
0.665
Jul-03
0.656
0.663
Aug-03
0.815
0.722
Sep-03
0.766
0.746
Oct-03
0.716
0.766
Nov-03
0.696
0.726
Dec-03
0.666
0.693
Jan-04
0.685
0.682
Feb-04
0.716
0.689
Mar-04
0.683
0.695
Apr-04
0.658
0.686
May-04
0.631
0.657
Jun-04
0.616
0.635
Table 4-1
RUNNING ANNUAL
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
AVG, MGD
DESIGN CAPACITY
0.662
55.1
0.664
53.9
0.655
53.9
0.645
51.9
0.631
48.0
0.613
45.7
0.604
48.3
0.596
50.4
0.586
55.5
0.579
55.2
0.576
57.3
0.590
59.5
0.605
64.7
0.615
67.9
0.627
67.2
0.637
63.6
0.650
60.9
0.667
60.4
0.670
60.3
0.692
65.7
0.701
67.8
0.710
69.6
0.716
66.0
0.711
63.0
0.703
62.0
0.702
62.6
0.699
63.2
0.699
62.3
0.699
59.8
0.692
57.7
4-6
7/16/2004
0 0 0
TABLE 4-2. PROJECTED FLOWS FOR OUA WWTP (2003-2016)
Taylor Creek Isles
Ousley Infill
Treasure Island
SW (160 units)
SE (1000 units)
NE (300 units)
Misc Projects
Other Growth
TOTAL for YEAR, GPD
AVERAGE DAY,
MAXIMUM DAY,
MAX -MO .
Ertd,of Year
2003
2004 2005
2006
'2007
2000.
20009
2010
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
122,500 122,500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
112,000
223,000
50,000
30,000
10,000
25,000
37,500
50,000
62,500
50,000
25,000
25,000
50,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
19,150 22,691
27,696
33,563
43,040
47,491
51,116
54,269 56,875 58,922 61,020 63,171 65,375
141,650 200,191 234,696 379,063 178,040 144,991 126,116 104,269 81,875 83,922 86,020 88,171 90,375
766,000 907,650 1,107,841 1,342,537 1,721,601 1,899,641 2,044,632 2,170,748 2,275,016 2,356,892 2,440,814 2,526,834 2,615,005 2,705,380
1,149,000 1,406,858 1,717,154 2,080,933 2,668,481 2,944,443 3,169,179 3,364,659 3,526,275 3,653,182 3,783,262 3,916,593 4,053,258 4,193,339
7/16/2004
•
•
FIGURE 4-1. PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS, 2003 - 2016
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
G
(L
0
if 1,500,000
O
J
LL
1,000,000
500,000
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M 'T U) O 1- co O_ _ N _M d' �_ CO
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
END OF YEAR
•
The WWTP was originally designed to be expanded in 1 MGD increments. Based upon
the projected flows for 2004 — 2016, the Authority should consider a 2 MGD expansion
at this time to meet the requirements of 62-600.4 50(8) FAC.
As a part of this analysis, 2 MGD, 3 MGD and a 4 MGD alternatives are considered as
shown in the following sections.
From the projected flows, and based upon the existing wastewater treatment plant
design, the characteristics presented in Table 4-3 are being used in the development of
the expanded facility.
Anticipated Qualitv
It is anticipated that the quality of the influent waste stream at the OUA wastewater
treatment facility will remain fairly consistent, provided no new industries develop in the
area that could impact the quality of the waste. Table 4-3 summarizes the anticipated
quality.
TABLE 4-3. CHARACTERISTICS OF FLOW AND STRENGTH OF WASTE.
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
DESIGN
Peak Daily Flow
PDF
MGD
4.00
Maximum Monthly Flow
MMF
MGD
3.00
Annual Average Daily Flow
AADF
MGD
2.00
Minimum Flow
MF
MGD
0.80
Peak Hourly Flow
PHF
MGD
4.00
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
INFLUENT EFFLUENT
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CBODS
mg/L
300
< 10
Total Suspended Solids
TSS
mg/L
250
< 10
Total Nitrogen
TN
mg/L
40
< 3
Total Phosphorus
TP
mg/L
10
< 2
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 4-9 July 2004
• SECTION 5
POTENTIAL TREATMENT STRATEGIES
The proposed wastewater treatment facility consists of the following major components:
Master Pump Station
Headworks
Aeration Basi n
Clarifiers
Filters
Chlorine Contact Chamber and Chlorination System
Aerobic Digesters/Sludge Processing/Disposal
Effluent Disposal
The major components are further described herein, with the exception of the Aerobic
Digesters/Sludge Processing, which is the subject of Technical Memorandum No. 2,
dated July 2004. Effluent disposal is discussed in Technical Memorandum No. 3, dated
July 2004.
Options have been developed and are summarized below. Opinions of cost have been
developed for each of the alternatives. An analysis and recommendation is provided in
Section 7 of this memorandum.
Master Pump Station
A new Master Pump Station (MPS) is proposed. All flow to the wastewater treatment
plant is pumped by many small in -town pump station and two large regional facilities
(SE2 and NW15). With all of the flow to the plant being pumped and none by gravity,
the plant sees hydraulic surges throughout the day. The MPS will act as a flow
equalization system to the facility and will prevent hydraulic overloading into the facility.
Variable frequency drive units on the pumps will attenuate the flow into the facility by
operating along with the influent flow into the station. By placing the MPS in the location
shown in Figure 5-1, the following advantages occur:
1. Reduces head conditions on pumps in -town that are pumping to the facility —
providing for more efficient use of the pumps.
2. Allows the original influent force main and static screens to remain for an
emergency bypass condition.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5-1 June 2004
•
EXIST 18" D.I. FM
EX. 4" WM CL200 PVC i
FROM ECKERDS
i
EXISTING
ADMIN. BLDG.
E 11
`�
PROPOSED
18' MASTER t8'
PUMP
STATION
■
P.P
r--I
LPROPOSED HEADWORKS
ALTERNATIVE MASTER PUMP -
I STATION LOCATION
EX. (2) 18" GV
/ EXISTING ASPHAL
�l HEADWORKS BYPASS LINE
DA------------------�-----------------
g 18" RS
EX
r-T
EX. 2" FM
' _4' WM
——
I
PVC J I
FM �" 1
I
I
EX. 1
(A
I
m
I
X
I
I
�1
�
31
1 /2" WM
a 1
;< I "
xI
WI II
I IfILL RSS I
II
EX. 16" RSS ---IJ
I 1 1
I (
L------------a I '
FIGURE 5-1
PROPOSED MASTER PUMP
STATION & HEADWORKS LOCATION
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmenfol Engineers
Tampa. Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
• 3. Headworks elevation is determined "locally" at the wastewater treatment plant
and the headworks elevation will not affect the hydraulic conditions on the in -
town pump stations.
The MPS design shall incorporate a two -vault configuration so that routine maintenance
and cleaning can be performed, as shown in Figure 5-2.
An option is to place the MPS downstream of the headworks. The MPS could then also
receive the filter backwash, etc., and replace the on -site plant drain pump station. An
advantage is that the headworks could then be constructed at grade making the facility
more accessible for operations and maintenance. The headworks would be designed to
accommodate the potential hydraulic peaks to the facil ity.
Based upon the layout provided in Figure 5-2, the opinion of probable construction cost
for the MPS is $500,000, including a 30 percent contingency.
The construction costs for the MPS are the same for each location; however, by placing
the MPS before the headworks, the life expectancy of the upstream pump stations may
be increased. The pump stations have less head to pump against to bring flow from the
downtown area to the wastewater treatment facility.
Headworks
The purpose of the headworks is to provide preliminary treatment to the wastestream by
removing non -organic materials from the wastestream that can potentially harm
equipment (sticks, metal objects, sand/grit) as well as may deposit in the facility reducing
the volume of the units. A typical headworks structure is illustrated in Figure 5-3.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5-3 June 2004
•
—
IS" INFLUENT LINE
PUM
PUM
PUN
PUM
IS' DIP EFFLUENT LINE
NOTE: ODOR CONTROL TO BE
PROVIDED. APPROXIMATE
DIMENSIONS OF PUMP
STATION IS 20a201 LO.
ACCESS COVER S' CHECK VALVE
(TYPICAL OF 4)
E' DATE
VALVE
ACCESS COVER //(T�PICAL OF t)
TOP OF CONCRETE EL J6.S0
' ` \ GROUND SURFACE EL 3150
IS* INFLUENT LIME — — 18' DIP EFFLUENT LINE
� S
ALARM EL 27.00
LAC PUMP 2 ON EL. 29.00
� a
aI
I uc PUMP , ON n. xaoo
I LEAD PUMP ON EL. 20.00
BOOR EL 19.00 �~
�t ,. r .. • w ..� I ALL PUMPS OFT EL 17.00
... I . ROd! EL 10.00
ELEVATION
FIGURE 5-2
MASTER PUMP STATION
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmentol Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
0
a»w1¢ ,o aRPs,ER�
r'r------- 7.:
u I
LI `/1WMW NANORA ("P.)
NOTE PROCESSES LLUSTRATED-
ACUAGlARO SCREEN t PISTA-GRIT COLLECTOR
MECNAMCk STOP CATE
(Tro1EAE of �)
9"19N OR
\
` EnST. MADE
FIGURE 5-3
HEADWORKS STRUCTURE
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tom Pa. Florida 33637 (613) 977-6005
L-1
11
Sand and grit may scour concrete and eventually cause damage by exposing metal
reinforcing materials. The influent flow is measured in the headworks; and, influent flow
quality is also monitored at this point. Appendix A contains manufacturer's data.
SCREENING:
Mechanically -cleaned bar screens are a reliable method of removing large inorganic
materials from the wastestream. The units are self-cleaning and can remove particles
down to 2 mm. The screenings are washed to remove organics which flow back to the
wastestream. The screenings are then dewatered and placed in a container for
disposal.
Several equipment options are available and inc Jude the following.
Figure 5-4a. Lo-Flow Screening
Unit
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Jones + Attwood. Inc., Lo-Flow Screening Unit:
The Lo-Flow unit is a complete screening system
designed for smaller treatment works. The units
are constructed of 316L S tatinless Steel and screen
particles larger than % of an inch in diameter. The
unit is provided with a "Washpactor" which washes
the screened materials, dewaters and conveys the
material to a collection container for disposal.
Organic materials are washed from the screenings
and are returned to the treatment plant. Odors are
low since organics are returned to the wastestream.
The budget price for a Lo-Flow Screening Unit with
Washpactor is $150,000 for the equipment or
$225,000 installed. The Lo-Flow unit is illustrated
in Figure 5-4a, with the Washpactor depicted in
Figure 5-4b.
Okeechobee Utility Authority
5-6 June 2004
•
Pj
'�2 Wached 3ereenlgge
.r
Outlet Gt�ute
'i
Screened
PWt 4 Intro
Peato
ComDectar
xowr
_____ _. _'. Hf61t Speed TmyeIIe Prooeea Water Ihatq
un.,e xotor
Figure 5-4b. Washpactor
MTS Spirac CS500 Screen:
The Spirac CS 500 is an in -
channel shaft -less screw
screening, conveying,
dewatering and compacting
system. The standard
material is 304SS with a
316SS option. Based upon
prior experience, the
Authority should require the
316SS option. The unit
Pivots out of the flow channel
for inspection. The unit can be fitted with a screening plate that will stop all
materials larger than 1/8 inch, 3/16 inch or'/a inch. The CS 500 with bagger and
control panel budge price is $48,000 for equipment or $72,000 installed (304
SS). For the 316SS, an increase of 25 percent in budget price is assumed or
$60,000 for equipment or $90,000 installed. Figure 5-5 illustrates the CS 500
unit.
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Okeechobee Utility Authority
5-7 June 2004
n
9
•
MTS Spirac ST Screen: The ST Screen is a stair -
shaped in -channel screening unit. This small compact
unit has a capacity of approximately 3100 gpm with
minimal headloss through the unit. The unit is capable
of stopping materials larger than '/4 inch in diameter.
The equipment cost is $50,000, with an installed
budget price of $75,000. Figure 5-6 illustrates the ST
Screen.
--Wf4m ^ .s-
Figure 5-6. Spirac ST Screen
Parkson Aouaguard: The Aquaguard is a self-cleaning in channel device
designed for a 15 - 20 year life cycle. The unit fits in channels from 1-foot to 9-
feet in width, with size determined by the anticipated flow through the unit. The
filter elements are staggered to prevent blocking. The Aquaguard travels at a
rate of approximately 7 feet per minute and removes material 1/4 inches and
larger. The design of the unit allows for
complete cleaning of the unit. The screen
is used with a Spiral Klean Screenings
washer which significantly reduces the
organic content of wet screenings. The
Spiral Klean is a high-speed agitator using
water and air to clean the screenings.
From the Spiral Klean unit, the screenings
enter a Rotopress Screenings Compactor,
where the screenings are dewaters and
reduced in volume up to 75 percent. The
solids are between 40 and 50 percent dry.
The unit is provided with a spray header
for cleaning. The budget price for an
Aquaguard is $61,000 for 304SS
equipment or $91,500 installed. For
316SS, the budget price is $70,150 for equipment or $105,225 installed. Again,
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Okeechobee Utility Authority
5-8 June 2004
• because of prior experience the Authority should require the 316SS option.
Figure 5-7 illustrates the Aquaguard system.
GRIT REMOVAL:
Grit removal at a wastewater treatment plant protects mechanical equipment and
concrete from excessive wear and abrasion from the sand, and other heavy particles
that are introduced into the wastestream throughout the collection system. In Florida, a
fine particle sand, known as "sugar sand", is difficult to remove and causes considerable
damage.
By removing the grit prior to treatment, grit does not impact the volume of the facili ty.
The grit is removed typically by developing an hydraulic vortex within the flow stream,
which causes the grit to settle to the bottom of the unit. The grit is then pumped to a grit
washer to remove the organics, dewatered and contained for disposal at a landfill. The
wash water is placed back into the treatment process.
•
Typical grit systems evaluated include the following:
•
1. Eutek Systems, Inc., Headcell with Slurry Cup and Grit S nail
2. Jones + Attwood, Inc., Jeta-Grit
3. Smith & Loveless, Inc., PISTA-Grit Concentrator
4. Walker Process
5. Fluidyne Hydro -Grit
Each system uses a vortex flow to remove grit from suspension and collect for disposal.
Descriptions of each system follow.
Eutek Headcell: Figures 5-8 and 5-9 illustrate a typical Eutek system for grit
removal. The Headcell is a modular unit containing multiple trays for the removal
of grit larger than or equal to 50 microns. The unit experiences minimal headloss
(less than 12-inches) when operating. The unit has a large surface area but
occupies a small footprint. The units come in 6-, 9- and 12-foot diameters
depending upon flow. The grit unit itself has no moving parts. The unit is
designed to prevent short-circuiting. The col lected grit is pumped to a Eutek
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5-9 June 2004
T
Ls a�t5� �• 31
1
C
t
FIGURE 5-8
EUTEK HEADCECI
METZGER & WlL- L RD, INC.
C/O - Environmental Engineers
Tampa. Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
_it
FIGURE 5-9
EUTEK SLURRY CUP
AND GRIT SNAIL
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
Slurry Cup, which is a grit classification and separation mechanism. The Slurry
Cup washes the grit, which minimizes organic content of the grit reducing
objectionable odors and reducing volume of material. The unit is reported to
remove more than 95 percent of abrasives which increases downstream solids
handling capacity. The unit is simple to operate and easy to install. The Slurry
Cup is meant to be operated with the Eutek Grit Snail, which captures, removes
and dewaters settleable high -density solids. The unit discharges clean, low odor
solids at 60 percent total solids with less than 20 percent volatile solids. The unit
is slow -moving with stepped cleats which captures solids and lifts at a rate of 1 —
5 feet per minute. The clarified water is sent back to the headworks.
Dewatered grit is carried to the top where it is scraped off the belt and falls into a
disposal container. The unit has no metal to metal contact on belt housing and
components. A variable drive adjusts the speed of the unit with grit load. The
unit is capable of moving 1 —10 cy/hour of grit.
Based upon the anticipated flows at the wastewater treatment plant and the
. modular unit placed in a cast -in -place concrete tank, the budget price for
equipment is $172,000, plus installation or $258,000 total.
Jones + Attwood. Inc.. Jeta-Grit: The Jeta-grit is a compact, circular trap located
in the mainstream of the inlet system. The Jeta-Grit is illustrated in Figure 5-10.
Effluent enters tangentially and flows around the tank and exits parallel to the
inlet. Grit settles in the
lower hopper and is
transferred by a pumping
system to washing,
classification and
dewatering processes.
Impeller speed is used to
control the grit classifying
effect in the unit. Grit
extraction is through use
of an airlift. As an
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Figure 5-10. Jeta-Grit System
Okeechobee Utility Authority
5 - 12 June 2004
•
alternative, a grit pump can be used. The unit can be a steel fabricated (stand
alone) unit or an in channel unit. The screw classifier is packaged, free-standing.
This unit receives grit and water into a receiving header box. An archimedian
screw rotates and solids are transported up an incline, where they dewater prior
to dropping into a container for disposal. The budget price for the equipment is
$65,000 or $97,500 installed for carbon steel. For 316L Stainless Steel, the
budget price is $80,000 for the equipment or $120,000 installed.
Smith & Loveless. Pista-Grit: Figure 5-11 illustrates a typical Pista-grit system.
The unit can be installed within a 316 stainless steel structure as a modular unit
P'sQm Q�t CGrlooribtl�r
DwmWW c�ueo�asdt�
Grit
ink
ova aaso.wt�•�
Wda and raidusl
agKdW ue
racyclBd
10 mlct chaacl. Turbo PWP
Plan®MOMber
Figure 5-11. Pista-Grit
or installed within a cast -in -
place concrete unit. The
Pista-grit system is
provided complete with
appropriate drives, pumps,
dewatering screw
conveyors and controls.
The unit operates in a
similar fashion to the Eutek
System. The budget prices
for the Pista-grit equipment
are as follows:
TABLE 5-1. EQUIPMENT COSTS — PISTA-GRIT SYSTEM
1. Model 4.OA 316 SS Unit with 316 SS Modular Unit
Equipment $ 111,500
Installation 55,750
TOTAL $ 167,250
2. Model 4.OA Concrete Outer Tank with 316 SS Internal Unit
Equipment $ 83,500
Installation 41,750
TOTAL $ 125,250
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 13 June 2004
ss
ling
Walker Process Rolling Grit:, Figure 5-12 illustrates the Walker roceuses air to
Grit — Grit Removal System. The unit is placed into a square
set up a vertical vortex to keep the liquid moving
and to remove the grit from
suspension. The manufacturer's literature indicates that the unit consistently
removes nearly 100% ! t tI I
j
of 65-mesh grit, 85% of
80-mesh grit and 65%
of 100-mesh grit. The
unit provides aeration
to "freshen" the
incoming sewage flow.
The unit is
'sue
manufactured of
galvanized steel or
stainless steel as Figure 5-12. Walker Rolling Grit Chamber
required. An airlift
grit from the unit and sends to a grit washer. The grit washer
removes the g rice for the stainless
washes, classifies and dewaters the material. The budget p
steel unit is $65,000 for the equipment or $98,000 installed.
t.
Fluidyne Hvdro-Grit:, The Fluidyne system is a free-standing, high
efficiency
unit r 100 mesh s
The unit removes at least 90 percent of solids ove
manufactured of fiberglass reinforced polyester and is not subject to corrosion.
One unit 8-feet in diameter is required. The unit is provided with a grit screw
he
classifier made of galvanized steel construction. r� material classifier is dropped into a
dewatering and conveying system also. The gat
container for disposal. The budget price for the unit is i$1 5 000in E for pure e
equipment or $172,500 installed. The Hydro -Grit is illustratedP
13a and in section in Figure 5-13b.
Okeechobee Utility u e 2004
thority
Technical Memorandum No. 1 5 - 14
WWTP Expansion
11
A18"0 FLANGED
18"0 FLANGED INFLUENT —
5'-3"
4'-3"
0
3 HP
REGEN
BLOWERS ❑ ❑
;EPARATOR
NE
)RO—GRIT
FIGURE 5-13A
HYDRO -GRIT PLAN
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil " Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
•
4"0 VENT LINE
18"0 AIR/LIQUID SEPARATOR
EL. 12.50 E4
u
EL 11.00
I-----------
C EL- zsz -4
EL 7.375 /
I
18"0 EFFLUENT —/
18"0 INFLUENT II I
q EL. 1.00
4"0 FLANGE
EL 0.00
2" GROUT (BY OTHERS)
r�
(4) 5/8" HOLES PER LEG
FOR 1/2" ANCHORS - BY OTHERS
VI EW A -A
1 1/2"0 NPT AIR INLET
(FROM 'PD' BLOWER)
(4) SUPPORT LEGS
FIGURE 5-13B
HYDRO -GRIT ELEVATION
• METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tompa. Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
0 Aeration
TWO MGD ALTERNATIVE:
The existing aeration basin consists of a two -channel US Filter/Envirex Orbal Oxidation
Ditch Activated Sludge unit, with a design capacity of 1.0 MGD. It is anticipated that the
Authority will continue with this process as developed in the previous expansion
program. For the 2.0 MGD flow alternative, two alternatives have been evaluated for the
aeration system as follows:
1. Install two new disc aerators in each of the two channels to increase the capacity
of the existing tank (Two -Channel Option).
2. Construct a third channel to the existing unit, including two new disc aerators to
increase the capacity of the system.
For the two alternatives, the manufacturer of the Orbal process has recommended that
the facility be operated at a sludge age no greater than 10 — 12 days in the warm water
temperatures of South Florida. According to US Filter/Envirex when the sludge ages
• increases, "endogenous respiration and oxidation of otherwise non -biodegradable
species occurs, which results in excessively high oxygen uptake rates", which can "make
it difficult to maintain adequate DO in the inner channel, and result in poor sludge
settleability and high effluent turbidity". As a result, solids washout may be experienced
during peak hydraulic flows during warm weather.
The existing facility has experienced some algal growth on the aerators. Each
alternative considers the installation of weatherhoods to prevent algal growth.
1. Two -Channel Option: This option requires the installation of two new 40 HP disk
aerators in each channel (4 total) while upgrading the capacity of the unit to a
maximum of 2.4 MGD. Two velocity baffles are also required to smooth the flow
in the channel. The transfer ports between the channel, the center pier and the
effluent transfer piping to the clarifiers have all been designed to accommodate
an annual average flow of 2.0 MGD.
Based upon the 2-channel configuration, the unit will not remove total
phosphorus to I ess than 2 mg/L without chemical precipitation or some other type
• Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 17 June 2004
• of biological phosphorus removal. The need for phosphorus removal is
determined by the ultimate disposal of the efflue nt.
The unit will operate under the following conditions:
Biological Loading 30# CBOD/1000 CF of Volume
MLSS 3400 mg/L
Sludge Age 8 days
Retention Time 13.5 hours
Sludge Yield 0.87
South Florida facilities exhibit more stable operating characteristics when
operated in this fashion, i.e., better sludge settleability and low effluent turbidity.
For the above, equipment costs are budgeted as follows:
Aerators 139,000
Weatherhoods 95,000
Installation 117,000
TOTAL 351,000
• If additional phosphorus removal is required to meet stringent effluent limitations,
an additional reactor is required. A 45-foot by 45-foot by 14.5 foot SWD
anaerobic unit with submersible mixer and recirculating pump would be required,
and could eliminate the requirement for the chemical feed for phosphorus
removal.
The equipment cost for the anaerobic unit is $40,000, plus installation or $60,000
total.
The Two -Channel Option is illustrated in Figure 5-14.
2. Three -Channel Option: This alternative would require the construction of a third
channel on the existing Orbal unit with the installation of two new 30 HP aerators.
The equipment cost for this option is as follow s:
Aerators 85,000
Weatherhoods 85,000
Installation 85,000
• TOTAL 255,000
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 18 June 2004
•
(2) New 40
Hp AeraWm
OpOonal
Arombi c
Tank
FIGURE 5--14
TWO —CHANNEL AERATION
BASIN MODIFICAMNS
r
METZGER &WILLARD, INC.
Cirri! - Er: viron►n en tvi Engin eers
Tampa, Florida 33637 ($13) $77—Spp.5
•
0
•
In addition, the three -channel option would require the construction of the third channel,
walkways, handrails and additional electrical costs, at approximately $423,000, including
a 30 percent contingency. A detailed breakdown is provided in Appendix B .
The unit would operate with an anoxic zone built in so that phosphorus removal
is accomplished within the aeration basin.
The unit would operate under the following conditions:
Biological Loading 17# CBOD/1000 CF of Volume
MLSS 2000 mg/L
Sludge Age 9 days
Retention Time 24.8 hours
Sludge Yield 0.86
The Three -Channel Option is illustrated in Figure 5-15.
THREE MGD ALTERNATIVE:
For a proposed design flow of 3 MGD, the best possibl a scenario is as follows:
1. Install two new disc aerators in each of the existing two channels to increase the
capacity of the existing tank. This modification is the same as the Two Channel
Option provided in the 2.0 MGD Alternative analysis.
2. Construct a new two -channel unit to match the existing aeration basin. This new
unit would be rated at 1.0 MGD with the possibility of installing two new disc
aerators in the future to upgrade the facility to 2.0 MGD.
3. A flow splitter box is required to direct the flows in the appropriate quantities to
the two aeration basi ns.
The new aeration basin would be installed to the northeast of the existing unit. The new
unit will operate under the following conditions:
Biological Loading
MLSS
Sludge Age
Retention Time
Sludge Yield
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
15# CBOD/1000 CF of Volume
2000 m g/L
8 days
30.0 hours
0.87
Okeechobee Utility Authority
5 - 20 June 2004
r
(2) Now 30
HP Aerators
f'IWKL 0-10 1
THREE —CHANNEL AERATION
BASIN MODIFICATIONS
INRTZGER & VALLARD,INC.
Glvrr • En vironmen s`a� Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33537 (813) 977—SCCS
Clarification
The existing clarifier mechanisms are US Filter/Envirex TOW-BRO Unitube Sludge
Removers, with a capacity of 1.0 MGD AADF each. The existing clarifiers are shown in
Figure 2-5. These are adequate for expansion to 2.0 MGD.
For an annual average daily flow of 2.0 MGD, the following characteristics are
anticipated for the two clarifiers:
PER
TOTAL
CLARIFIER
Annual Average Daily Flow
2.0 MGD
1.0 MGD
Peak Hourly Flow
4.0 MGD
2.0 MGD
75% Flow (Class I Reliability) with One Unit out of Operation
1.5 MGD
1.5 MGD
For an expansion to 3.0 MGD, a third clarifier is required, designed to match the existi ng
units and with a capacity of 1.0 MGD.
• Filtration
The existing filters are traveling bridge filters. Two of the units were installed during the
plant expansion of 1998. The first unit was installed with the reclaimed water system
construction in 1991. The older unit is currently out of service and should either be
completely rehabilitated or replaced. The Traveling Bridge Filters have required a large
amount of maintenance over the years; however, their budget prices are fairly low
compared to other filter systems available. If the Authority determines to remain with the
Traveling Bridge Filters, the following options are presented.
1. US Filter Davis/Davco: The existing units are US Filter Davco units. This option
includes providing one new unit in lieu of the repair of the existing older unit. A
comparable Steel Gravisand XCell Traveling Bridge Filter with air scour and
surface skimmer has a budget price of $120,000 per unit or $180,000 installed.
2. Parkson Smartfilter Travelinq Bridge Filter: This option includes providing a new
unit in lieu of the repair of the existing older unit. The Parkson Smartfilter is
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 22 June 2004
•
•
•
similar to the Davco unit, has a loading rate of 2.0 gpm/sf and a backwash rate of
25 gpm/sf. Two options are provided: 1. Provide the unit with steel walls
(budget price of $145,250 for the unit, $217,875 installed). 2. Install the unit in a
cast -in -place concrete tank (budget price of $125,000 for the unit, or $187,500
installed — excluding the concrete tank).
Other filter options, which would replace the existing traveling bridge filters, include the
following:
3. Infilco-Deciremont Automatic Backwash Filter: Two of these units are anticipated
to be required to replace all of the existing traveling bridge filters. The system is
designed to meet the requirements of Class I Reliability. The system is designed
for 4.0 gpm/sf at peak flow and less than 2 gpm/sf at average annual flow. The
backwash rate is 23 gpm/sf, with a backwash discharge of 192 gpm. Figure 5-16
illustrates the ABW Filter. The equipment budget price is $230,000 with an
installed price of $345,000.
4. Sanitaire/ABJ Drum Filters: This option involves replacing all of the existing
traveling bridge filters with three Drum Filters from Sanitaire. Each of the units is
capable of 1112 gpm and provides Class I Reliability. The units are fully
enclosed stainless steel structures or fiberglass reinforced polyester, as required.
Figure 5-17 illustrates the Drum Filters. The equipment budget prices are as
follows:
304 SS
316 SS*
Equipment $240,000
$276,000
Installation 120,000
138,000
TOTAL $360,000
414,000
* Assumed 15% increase for 316 SS
5. US Filter/Krucier Hvdrotech Discfilter: The Discfilter provides filtration with a
compact footprint. Two units sized for 2.0 MGD will replace the existing traveling
bridge filters and will provide Class I Reliability if one unit is out of service. The
units have a simple automated control system and afford easy maintenance.
The units are available in 304 SS for an equipment budget cost of $360,000, or
an installed budget cost of $540,000. For 316 SS, the units have a budget price
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 23 June 2004
0 • •
ILA
SLUDGE REMOVAL PIPING
(BY OTHERS))
B EFFLUENT ?RAIN SUMP (OPT.)
24" X 24 X 4" DEEP
(BY OTHERS)
COMMON EFFLUENT CHANNEL
WEIR WALL J WASTE CHANNEL WEIR 11-1
60
z
N
�
MR WILL
CawaN IWLUENT p AIM
LEI.- -.5j.
PLAN VIE
wm WALL
jAj ffSTION "A-A"
TANK LENGTH V + 4--v 1'-0' ( 1'-0'
3_e INFLUENT PORTS SPACED AT 2'-0" D.C.
M INLET
OPTIONAL) TOP OF WEIR
ADJUSTABLE EFFLUENT WEIR (TYP.)7
(BY OTHERS)
SECTION "B-8"
OVERALL LENGTH V + 22'-0'
FILTER BED LENGTH V PER PROPOSAL
MEDIA DEPTH
ADJUSTABLE EFFLUENT WEIR (TYP.)
(By OTHERS) arTION -(--C- FIGURE 5-16
ABW DRUM FILTER
METZGER &WILLARD, INC.
Civil
- Environmentol Engineers
T—p.. Fl orldo 33637 (813) 977-6005
0 0 0
12'0 OUTLET
90.00
7.13 1
17.50
70.00
ANCHOR HOLES
ENTER TO CENTER
83.75
NOTES:
1) SCREEN PANELS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY,
. DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
PIPING WEIGHT ESTIMATED AT 40DO IDs.
PRESSURE r- SPRAY BAR INLET
THROTTLING
VALVE
4's OUTLET FROM
SOLDS TROUGH
1- 12'0 INLET
nI 1H
1 J
104.00
108.5Q
ANCHOR HOLES COM TO COMER
DRUM DRIVE MOTOR
N'r
iURE
VALVE
SPRAY BAR
H
IP
FIGURE 5-17
ABJ FILTER
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tompa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
I*
of $414,000, with an installed budget price of $621,000. Figure 5-18 illustrates
the Hydrotech Discfilter,
Figure 5-18. Hydrotech Discfilter
6. Parkson Dvnasand Filter:, The Dynasand is a continuous -backwash, upflow,
deep bed granular media filter. The units are continuously cleaned by recycling
sand internally through an air lift pipe and sand washer. Clean sand re-
distributes on top of the sand bed. The filter provides a continuous, uninterrupted
flow of filtrate and reject water and requires no shut dow n for backwash. The unit
has "no moving parts" and requires minimal maintenance. The units can be
installed within a concrete basin or can be free-standing. Loading rates are 50 —
100 gpm/sf for wash water and 100 — 150 scfm/sf for the air required to clean the
unit. The units themselves can be loaded 3 — 5 gpm/sf with an effluent of 20 —
150 ppm of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and will provide a filtrate TSS of 5 —
10 ppm, based upon loading rates. The units have a budget price of $30,000 per
module, with 12 modules required for the flow with Class I Reliability. Therefore,
the total budget price is $280,000 for the equipment or $420,000 installed.
Figure 5-19 illustrates the Dynasand Filter system.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 26 June 2004
0
9
0
Figure 5-19. Dynasand Filter
7. Tetra Process Technologies Tetra Deep Bed Filters:, The Tetra Deep Bed Filter
is a cast -in -place concrete system with three filtration units, a mudwell and a
clearwell. The unit includes the hardware, the filter media, the backwash pumps,
blowers, mudwell pumps, instrumentation and controls and has a budget price of
$465,000 for the equipment or $697,500 installed. Figure 5-20 illustrates the
system.
For the 2 MGD alternative, additional filter capacity of 700,000 gpd is required to be
added to the facility. For the 3 MGD alternative, additional filter capacity of 1.4 MGD is
required to be added to the facility. These alternatives are discussed further in the next
section of this report.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 27 June 2004
45'
PIPE GALLERY
AREA FIF]
BLOWERS
BW PUMPS
❑ ❑
J J
J J
1 2 3 0
� a
� J
U
TYPICAL LAYOUT
•
FIGURE 5-20
TETRA DEEPBED FILTERS
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmentol Engineers
Tompo, Florido 33637 (813) 977-6005
•
•
•
Effluent PurnOnq, Chlorine Contact and Chlorination
The Authority is currently changing the chlorination system to a sodium hypochlorite
system and moving away from gaseous chlorine due to safety concerns. The new
chlorine feed system being purchased is si zed to handle current and future flows.
For the 2 MGD alternative, two options have been identified for the chlorine contact
system. The first includes adding onto the existing multi -tank configuration, as shown in
Figure 5-21. Two new tanks, 7,000 gallons each will be added to the system. A new
tank will also be added to the effluent pump station. This option is the least expensive,
with a budget price of $175,000.
The second option includes replacing the existing multi -tank system with one cast -in -
place concrete tank, as illustrated in Figures 5-22a and 5-22b. The chlorine contact
chambers and effluent pump station are provided in one structure, with flow
measurement. The effluent pump station can pump directly to the ponds for storage or
to the reclaimed water user directly.
For the 3 MGD alternative, two new 7,000 gallon trains (four tanks total) would be
required.
Based upon the effluent disposal strategy selected, the pump choices may be affected to
provide adequate pumping capacity to reach the ultimate disposal site.
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
5-29
Okeechobee Util ity Authority
June 2004
0
Le L. Lea
ci
10" CROSS
REMOVE EXISTING PLUG 10 mm 10" CV 10 CROSS 1w GV
Ov �/ 10' PLUG
10" CROSS
JJJ
10" TEE (2) 10' GV
-- - - - -- - - - - - - -
70" GV 10' CV 10` GV
10* GV
GV GV
10" GV
1 n 1 1/2- TEE
IF- - - - - -
ii
OPOSED
7 7,000 qw.
CHLOFNNE 000
CONTACT,,,
L--
O"ACT �.A.N
H ORE TR
C 0 1 NTI
L CIO
c RNA!
BASIN
A N
24'
L- - --- - - - - - ----
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
- - - - - - - - - -
:!P
C CHL
N , �- ir,.=-. o
�'S J!"E GL
7.."',
�1' TK" 7, ON AC� ST' L& CONTRAC CONTACT BASIN T
BASIN BASIN
_N C ( rA
ZIN BASIN
FililJ
LL— — — — — — — — —
PUM
Ill. P
STA,
P)
TEE TEC P. (p
.37.311 pm
CHLORINEI SOLUTION PIPE r
CONTROL BOX -'-�P--A.
Icr OVER40W
(DlP.) 1NV..X9
ALL 4' PIPE & VALVES T0--"
BE REMOVED & REPLACED EXIST. W. TEE '0' GATE VALVE
WTH 6, PIPE & VALVES L,iNORMALLY CLOSED
L
FIGURE 5-21
EXPANDED CHLORINE
CONTACT CHAMBER
TO D-InAL METZGER &WILLARD, INC
Civil
- Environmentol Engineers
To-p.. FI orldo 33637 (813) 977-6005
•
Ll
f• omr— vine (m r— as m .)
e-4• 1 £I
(' Y uq [ vnauw vKVF
w.unaw NHtl1I1 fix.) sr,ws
flap wrz M.e) ,m q!. Nld1p- S fP SNp r.]' eE0.
Px[IM[M iNIN�
uwr a.xnu � I — —
s
II -I
rw•m. '•rr neJ r'. b
—
II b rr v nrw J
MANS. P4
aunt rnu I (RUIUK) I
,- .•-,Y � I b r— ,ate-�— — J
.•-,cr ,. I w AN& — —
I _
iI ,m w,x.ux ExNaa a .a cauwx I y — — — J
e p
EA� .Y xoTa
%— — — — I 7ttAN5 Pi
L ute�wc u va / I jiunm)
Il —_f o0o y
�J
ha
TO Em.wEN} p15POSK q
l�
—,r woia, aPEx�rzo eru vK.[
,e•.n• m
u• a 1, r
(fx , [ 1
4)
I[' ery (Tx.)
Ir — -az eau vu e
r-o• x r-a' I I
r-a ,•_r
I To fTd,..Q
FIGURE 5-22A
CAST IN PLACE
CHLORINE CONTACT CHAMBER
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa. Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
0
np rst Y rtul a YYKVF
Kweew xw.ron sro• wa M.o rw.)
%eo�,sl, rug/�M Mwl
a ss.0
ea
i
I
Ir sra wx Me rx.)
I. se L`�
—®Ilro_sxeall I I II II
L_ JL _---_LJ-- LL------
r rr+ r verse rw
aunc uuu
a•a• cauux -
_ e•
EL suss
L
,e• nwr pnucxr
HV'0. ]eM
FIGURE 5-22B
CAST IN PLACE CHLORINE
CONTACT CHAMBER SECTIONS
METZGER Se WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tamp., Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
• Detailed Opinion of Costs
Appendix B provides a detailed opinion of the construction costs for each of the
alternatives.
TABLE
5-2. 2.0 MGD ALTERNATIVE — OPINION OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION
COST
PROCESS DETAIL
I LOW END
HIGH END
1.
Headworks
506,500
824,500
2.
Master Pump Station
475,000
475,000
3.
Aeration Basin
501,000
655,000
4.
Phosphorous Removal Tank
600,000
600,000
5.
Clarification
0
0
6.
Filtration
180,000
1,019,200
Low end is adding a new traveling bridge filter,
high end is replacing all units with new cast -in -
place concrete units with backwash system,
mudwell, clearwell and air scour system
7.
Chlorine Contact Chamber/Effluent Pump Station
110,000
609,300
Low end is adding new pre -cast tanks, and high
end is constructing a new cast -in -place concrete
basin with pump station
8.
Administration/Laboratory Building
220,000
220,000
9.
Site Work, 5%
129,600
220,200
10.
Electrical, 15%
408,300
693,500
11.
Yard Piping, 15%
469,600
797,500
12.
Mobilization, 10%
360,000
611,400
SUBTOTAL
3,960,000
6,725,600
13.
1 Contingency, 30%
1,188,000
2,017,700
TOTAL
— RANGE*
5,148,000
8,743,300
* Does
not include modifications to existing Contact
Stabilization
WWTP (1985)
•
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 33 June 2004
TABLE 5-3. 3.0 MGD ALTERNATIVE — OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
PROCESS DETAIL I
LOW END
HIGH END
1.
Headworks
650,000
824,5001
2.
Master Pump Station
475,000
475,000
1
3.
Flow Splitter Box
100,000
100,000
4.
Aeration Basin
1,653,100
1,653,100
5.
Phosphorous Removal Tank
600,000
600,000
6.
Clarification
1 450,000
450,000
7.
Filtration
360,000
1,528,700
Low end is adding two new traveling bridge filters
- high end is replacing all units with new cast -in -
place concrete units with backwash system,
mudwell, clearwell and air scour system
8.
Chlorine Contact Chamber/Effluent Pump Station
150,000
914,000
Low end is adding new pre -cast tanks, and high
end is constructing a new cast -in -place concrete
basin with pump station
9.
Administration/Laboratory Building
220,000
220,000
10.
Site Work, 5%
232,900
338,300
11.
Electrical, 15%
733,700
1,065,500
•
12.
Yard Piping, 15%
843,700
1,225,400
13.
Mobilization, 10%
646,800
939,500
SUBTOTAL
7,115,200
10,334,000
14.
1 Contingency, 30%
2,134,600
3,100,200
TOTAL
— RANGE*
9,249,800
13,434,200
* Does
not include modifications to existing Contact
Stabilization
WWTP (1985)
The opinions of cost were developed with a 30 percent contingency and are based upon
proposals received from the manufacturer's representatives for the equipment, where
possible. Currently, a nationwide cement shortage is affecting cost and availability on
concrete products. In addition, steel and fuel prices are affecting construction costs
severely.
10
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 5 - 34 June 2004
•
•
•
With the 3.0 MGD alternative, the advantages include the ability to postpone further
expansion work until approximately the year 2013, based upon Rule 62-600.450( 8).
Preliminary planning and design would be required to start at that time. In addition, the
facility is easily expanded to a 4.0 MGD facility as follows:
TABLE 5-4. 4.0 MGD EXPANSION FROM 3.0 MGD — OPINION OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COST
PROCESS DETAIL
I OPINION OF COST
1.
Headworks
I
0
2.
Master Pump Station
80,000
Provide new pump and controls
3.
Flow Splitter Box
0
4.
Aeration Basin
550,000 1
5.
Phosphorous Removal Tank
0 I
I6.
Clarification
I 500,000
7.
Filtration
0
8.
Chlorine Contact Chamber/Effluent Pump Station
165,000
9.
Administration/Laboratory Building
0
10.
Site Work, 5%
64,800
11.
Electrical, 15%
204,000 I
12.
Yard Piping, 15%
234,600 I
13.
Mobilization, 10%
179,800
SUBTOTAL
1,978,200 1
1 14.
1 Contingency, 30%
596,500
1 TOTAL — Expansion from 3.0 MGD to 4.0 MGD
2,574,700
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Okeechobee Utility Authority
5 - 35 June 2004
•
•
SECTION 6
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR THE EXISTING CONTACT
STABILIZATION FACILITY
The existing Contact Stabilization Activated Sludge wastewater treatment facility is
currently off-line and consists of the following treatment units:
Surge Basin
Contact
Aeration
Re -Aeration
Clarifiers
Digesters
Chlorine Contact
TOTAL
350,402 gallons
70,641
34,895
106,387
176,435
142,760
85,626
967,145 gallons or 129,300 cf
Although it is unlikely that the facility will be used as a part of future expansion plans
associated with the wastewater treatment plant, potential uses for the facility have been
identified and are summarized herein.
The structure is old and has begun to crack and corrode. The existing blowers have
been off-line since 1998 and while they may be operative at this time, they were
originally installed and have been in operation since 1985. These blowers are most
likely at the end of their service life. The existing exposed air piping and diffusers
require replacement.
Alternatives for the facility that have been considered include the following:
1. Flow Equalization
2. Leachate Treatment
3. Septage Treatment
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
Okeechobee Utility Authority
6-1 June 2004
•
Flow Equalization
As a flow equalization facility, the Contact Stabilization facility could easily be modified to
provide approximately 0.97 MGD of storage. The existing surge basin alone could
likewise provide approximately approximately 0.35 MGD of storage. The unit is already
piped for flow from the existing static screen headworks. Modifications to connect to the
proposed headworks would be required. New return pumps and piping would be
required. A breakdown of the antici pated costs is as follows:
1. Blowers 80,000
2. Air Piping 50,000
3. Piping 30,000
4. Pumps 20,000
5. Concrete Modifications 80,000
6. Electrical 50,000
SUBTOTAL 310,000
30% Contingency 93,000
TOTAL 403,000
However, the proposed Master Pump Station is acting as a flow equalization system
since the pumps are connected to variable frequency drives (VFD). The VFDs provide
the pumps the ability to operate at reduced speeds and act to shave off the flow peaks
that could potentially overload the treatment works. The pumps would be active over a
longer period of time pumping at the lower rate and would pick up speed as the flows to
the plant increase. All flow to the plant is pumps, so instantaneous peaks tend to be
attenuated.
The Master Pump Station and the Headworks work to protect the aeration basin from
hydraulic overloads.
As a result, the Master Pump Station will perform flow equalization and the existing
tankage at the Contact Stabilization facility could be employed in a more beneficial use.
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 6-2 June 2004
0 Leachate Treatment
The existing tankage was evaluated for use in leachate treatment. Typically, leachate
requires a detention time of 5 to 30 days, based upon the characteristics of the leachate.
In addition, after aeration, the leachate requires a post -treatment system — a membrane
filter or constructed wetland to complete the treatment.
For a detention time of 5 days, the quantity of leachate that could be treated is as
follows: 790,710 gallons of aeration capacity/5 days or 158,000 gpd of leachate. For a
detention time of 30 days, the quantity of leachate that could be treated is as follows:
790,710 gallons of aeration capaci ty/30 days or 26,400 gpd of leachate.
The quantity and quality of the leachate is necessary to properly size the system.
Requested information was recently provided and shows a very high strength variable
waste.
. Leachate would require trucking in from the Okeechobee County landfill to the site for
treatment. Solids would be returned to the landfill for disposal.
Anticipated costs for the leachate treatment facility are as follows, and does not include
trucking:
1.
Dump Station
100,000
2.
Rehabilitate Clarifiers
100,000
3.
Blowers
75,000
4.
Air Piping
30,000
5.
Piping
25,000
6.
Pumps
20,000
7.
Concrete Modifications
50,000
8.
Electrical
50,000
9.
Membrane Filter System
100.000
SUBTOTAL
550,000
30% Contingency
165,000
TOTAL
715,000
The main disadvantage with leachate treatment are the unknowns associated with the
quality of the leachate. The quantity on a daily and even weekly basis may be fairly
small; however, the material may contain excessive amounts of metals, chemicals and
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 6-3 June 2004
• possibly toxic substances. Odors could also be a problem, depending upon the
materials in the leachate. Another concern with leachate treatment is the potential that
the leachate may affect the quality of the reuse water and may harm the citrus at the
Williamson Cattle Company site.
Sentacie Treatment
The existing tankage at the Contact Stabilization facility could easily be modified to treat
septage. A newly adopted Okeechobee County ordinance has limited property usage
through severe setbacks for septage disposal; and, the Authority would be providing a
much needed service to the community by accepting septage from residential haulers.
From the EPA Handbook of Septage Treatment and Disposal, design values for septage
are as follows:
TS, mg/L
40,000
TVS, mg/L
25,000
TSS, mg/L
15,000
VSS, mg/L
10,000
BOD5, mg/L
7,000
COD, mg/L
15,000
TKN, mg/L
700
NH3-N, mg/L
150
Total P, mg/L
250
Alkalinity, mg/L
1,000
Grease, mg/L
8,000
pH
6.0
LAS, mg/L
150
Al, mg/L
50
As, mg/L
0.2
Cd, mg/L
0.7
Cr, mg/L
1.0
Cu, mg/L
8.0
Fe, mg/L
200
Hg, mg/L
0.25
Mn, mg/L
5
Ni, mg/L
1
Pb, mg/L
10
Se, mg/L
0.1
Zn, mg/L
40
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 6-4 June 2004
• Retention time for appropriate septage treatment is recommended by the EPA document
of 20 — 40 days for waste with a temperature greater than 64 deg F or 20 — 30 days for
waste with a temperature greater than 68 deg F. For a 30 day detention time, the
quantity of septage to be treated at the facility is as follows: 790,710 gallons of aeration
capacity/30 days or 26,400 gpd of septage. Using the existing tankage, the following
treatment strategy is proposed as shown in Figure 6-1.
1. Dump Station: Haulers would unload their trucks at the dump station and rinse
out the remaining material from the trucks. The dump station would screen the
material and pump to the aeration basin. Testing and monitoring would be
performed to evaluate the received w astes.
2. Aeration: The existing surge basin, aeration tanks, and digesters are converted
to the septage treatment facility. New blowers, air piping and diffusers are
required.
3. Clarifiers: The existing clarifiers would be used to separate the solids and
iliquids. The solids would be pumped to the aerobic digester/sludge processing
system at the main wastewater treatment plant. The liquid portion would be
returned to the front of the main plant for treatment.
Odors from the facility may be a concern. The original surge basin could be covered to
prevent problems and the collected air treated in a mulch bed, similar to the odor control
systems provided at Authority vacuum pump stations. An opinion of the costs for this
alternative is as follows:
1. Dump Station
2. Rehabilitate Clarifiers
3. Blowers
4. Air Piping
5. Piping
6. Pumps
7. Concrete Modifications
8. Electrical
SUBTOTAL
30% Contingency
TOTAL
0
Technical Memorandum No. 1
WWTP Expansion
100,000
100,000
80,000
50,000
30,000
20,000
80,000
50.000
510,000
153,000
663,000
Okeechobee Utility Authority
6-5 June 2004
•
GESTER
PUMP
�r
SOLIDS
PUMP STA ION
TO SLUDGE
PROCESSIN
k
r�
TION
SUPERNATANT TO PLANT
DRAIN PUMP STATION
- TO MAIN WWTP
FIGURE 6-1
SEPTAGE TREATMENT FACWTY
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmentol Engineers
Tompo, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
• The main advantage of converting the Contact Stabilization facility to a septage
treatment facility is the facility is able to meet a valuable need in the community that is in
keeping with one of the missions of the Authority — to provide wastewater treatment and
disposal. Existing septage haulers in the area have few options for disposal, since the
setback ordinances have reduced the amount of land available for disposal. Direct
landfill of untreated liquid septage is costly.
As an alternative and if the available volume is adequate at the WWTP, septage could
be directed into the headworks at the plant through a dump station. Based upon EPA
Design Values, 250 gallons of septage is the equivalent of 20 — 25 houses connected
through the regular collection system from an organic standpoint.
The septage facility would be required to monitor the license status of haulers per
County ordinance and maintain records of amounts and collection locations to prevent
potentially harmful wastes from entering the system.
The Authority will be able to re -coup some of the costs by applying a fee to the private
• contractors that will be using the facilities.
• Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 6-7 June 2004
• SECTION 7
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FOR WWTP EXPANSION
As a part of the development of this report, meetings were held with staff to review
operations and capital cost concerns. As a result of these meetings, the following
program for the expansion of the Wastewater T reatment Facility is recommended.
1. Expand the facility to 3.0 MGD to prevent two separate constru ction projects
within the next 8 years.
2. Include the following units to provide a more efficient facility.
A.
Headworks — Bar S creen and Grit Collector — Units that cl can the
screenings and grit are preferred over other units so that odors are
greatly reduced and organics are returned to the aeration basin for
treatment.
B.
Provide a Master Pump Station after the headworks to reduce "stress" on
the in -town pump stations, as well as to act as flow equalization to reduce
the potential of hydraulic surges thro ugh the facility.
• C.
Install a flow splitter box between the two aeration basins to divide the
flows in
accordance with the ratings of each basi n.
D.
Install aerators in the existing basin to increase its capacity. Construct a
new two -channel unit adjacent to the existing unit.
E.
Construct a phosphorus removal tank to reduce phosphorus from the
effluent, since the Lake Okeechobee Watershed has been identified as
an area where phosphor us is of concern.
F.
Install one new clarifier.
G.
Install two new filters.
H.
Install two new chlorine contact "trains".
I.
Construct a new laboratory/administration buildi ng to allow for the
Authority staff to continue to monitor and administer the operations of the
facility.
J.
Construct a new residuals management facility, as discussed in Technical
Memorandum No. 2.
K.
Construct the effluent disposal system, as discussed in Technical
Memorandum No. 3.
Figure 7-1 illustrates the proposed 3.0 MGD facility. In addition, the opinion of probable
construction cost for the proposed program is shown in Table 7-1.
0
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 7-1 June 2004
•
LJ
•
TABLE 7-1. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST FOR RECOMMENDED
PROGRAM TO EXPAND THE WWTP TO 3.0 MGD —WITH FUTURE EXPANSION TO 4.0
MGD.
PROCESS
3.0 MGD
FUTURE 4.0 MGD
1.
Headworks
708,375
-
2.
Demolition of CSAS WWTP (1985)
100,000
-
3.
Master Pump Station
475,000
80,000
4.
Flow Splitter Box
100,000
-
5.
Aeration Basin
1,653,100
550,000
6.
Phosphorus Removal Tank
600,000
-
7.
Clarification
450,000
500,000
8.
Filtration
360,000
-
9.
Chlorine Contact Chamber/Effluent Pump Station
150,000
165,000
10.
Administration/Laboratory Building
220,000
-
11.
Site Work, 5%
240,800
64,800
12.
Electrical, 15%
758,600
204,000
13.
Yard Piping, 15%
872,400
234,600
14.
Mobilization, 10%
668,800
179,800
SUBTOTAL
7,357,100
1,978,100
15.
Contingency, 30%
2.207.100
593,400
TOTAL
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 7-3 June 2004
•
IPROPOSED
MASTER
PROPOSED FLOW METER ASSEMBLY J
PUMP STATION
GENERATOR
AND
FUEL TANK
EXISTING LINED
HOLDING POND
EXISTING LINED 1
HOLDING '. HOLDING POND
AERATION
AERATORS
FLOW SPUTTER BOX
_J
171
;WAS/RAS
PUMP
STATION
LEGEND:
E30SYING
PROPOSED
TO BE DEMOLISHED
FIGURE 7-1
POTENTIAL SITE PLAN
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
•
•
CN
•
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
CALCULATIONS
DESIGN
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
WWTP
PDF
Peak Daily Flow
MGD
4.00
MMF
Maximum Monthly Flow
MGD
3.00
AADF
Annual Average Daily Flow
MGD
2.00
MF
Minimum Flow
MGD
0.80
PHF
Peak Hourly Flow
MGD
4.00
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
INF
EFF
CBOD5
mg/L
300
< 10
TSS
mg/L
250
< 10
TN
mg/L
40
< 3
TP
mq/L
10
< 1
Site & Wastewater Characteristics
Domestic WW
Elevation at Site
Influent BOD
Influent CBOD
Li
Influent TSS
Influent VSS
Influent NH3-N
Ni
Influent TKN
Influent P
Average Daily Flow
Q
Peak to Average Ratio
Peak Daily Flow
Qpeak
Average to Min Ratio
Minimum Flow
Minimum Wastewater Temp
Temp
Minimum Air Temp
pH Range
Hexane Solubles
Effluent CBOD Le
Effluent TSS
Effluent VSS
Effluent NH3-N
Effluent P
DESIGN
36.00 ft
275.00 mg/I
300.00 mg/I
250.00 mg/I
175.00 mg/I
40.00 mg/I
50.00 mg/I
10.00 mg/I
2,000,000.00 gpd
2.00
4,000,000.00 gpd
2.50
800,000.00 gpd
20.00 deg C
0.00 deg C
6-8.5
75.00 mg/I
< 10 5.00 mg/I max
< 10 5.00 mg/I max
5.00 mg/I max
< 1 15.00 mg/I max
< 2 6.00 mg/I max
•
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 1 of 10 2.0 MGD
0 0 0
Aeration Basin
F/Mv Design Criteria 0.05 - 0.10 # BOD/day/# MLVSS 0.10 #/BOD/DAY/# MLVSS
0.05 <= F/Mv <= 0.1; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
MLSS Design Criteria 3000 - 5000 mg/I MLSS 3,400.00 mg/I
3000 <= MLSS <= 5000, therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
MLVSS (65%)(MLSS) 2,210.00 mg/I
BOD loading
F Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34(Q)(Li)/10116 5,004.00 # BOD/day
Micro-organism Mass in Aerator
My Total Aerator MLVSS = F / (F/Mv) 50,040.00 # MLVSS
Volume of Oxidation Ditch
Required Volume, from Orbal design manual, 30# BOD/1000 cf 166,800.00 cf REQ
Inner Channel Width 20.00 ft
Middle Channel Width 20.00 ft
Length of Straight Section
69.00 ft
Center Island Radius
5.00 ft
Channel Wall Thickness
1.17 ft
Water Depth
14.00 ft
Overall Length
163.68 ft
Overall Width
94.68 ft
Percent
Inner Channel Volume
65,029.38 cf
38.87%
Middle Channel Volume
102,273.59 cf
61.13%
Total Unit Volume
Sufficient volume is provided
(167, 303 cf vs. 166,800 cf - OK)
167,302.97 cf
1,251,426.22 gal
X-Section Area Velocities
Inner channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.12 fps
Middle channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0 12 fps
(Note: Ability to recycle designed in for nitrification/denitrification if surface water discharge is provided in the future)
Total Aerator Mixed Liquor Loadings
MLSS (MLSS mg/1) (0.0624 # -1/mg / mg - 1000 co (Volume cf) 35,495.00 # MLSS
Design Volumetric Loading = Design Organic Loading / Aeration Volume
Design Volumetric Loading < 30; therefore OK per ORBAL Design Stds
29.91 # Inf BOD/day
1,000 cf Aeration
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 2 of 10 2.0 MGD
t Unit Retention Time w/o recycle flow = Total Unit Volume / Q
Oxygen Requirements
# BOD Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Li) / 1016
# NH3 - N Total NH3-N applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Ni) / 10^6
Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD = I 1.04 # 02/ # BOD
for NH3-N = 4.60 # 02/ # NH3-N
# 02 applied X Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD
for NH3-N
Denitrification Recovery 50% of # 02/day for NH3 - N
Total Base 02 Required =
AOR = (# 02/day BOD) + (# 02/day NH3-N) - (# 02/day Denitrification Recovery)
Channel DO levels
Inner Channel
Middle Channel
2 ppm
2 ppm
DO Correction Factor = a' [b' Csw - Co / Cs ] 1.024A ( T - 20 )
a' relative air/water interface diffusion rate for mechanical aerators
b' the ratio of saturation values of wastewater to clean water at wastewater
temperature and actual atmospheric pressure
Csw saturation of clean water at surface
Cs oxygen saturation concentration for clean water under standard conditions
T wastewater temperature
Co desired DO
Inner Channel
Middle Channel
02 required per channel =
SOR = Total Base 02 Required * Channel % Volume / DO Correction Factor
•
@ PDF @ AADF
7.51 hrs 15 02 hrs
5,004.00 # BOD/day
667.20 # NH3 - N/day
5,204.16 # 02/day
216.84 # 02/hour
3,069.12 # 02/day
127.88 # 02/hour
1,534.56 # 02/day
63.94 # 02/hour
6,738.72 # 02/day
280.78 # 02/hour
0.95
0.98
9.06 mg/I
9.07 mg/I
20.00 deg C
2.00 mg/I
0.74
0.74
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 3 of 10 2.0 MGD
• • 0
Inner 3,550.21 #/day
Middle 5,583.52 #/day
TOTAL 9,133.74 #/day
380.57 #/hr
With Oxygen Reserve of 25% at maximum disc immersion
TOTAL Oxygen Required 475.72 #/hr
Standard 02/disc (Aeration Design condition) 1.42 #/hr @ 43 rpm
Total Number of Discs = Total 02 required / Std 02/Disc 335.01 Disks
Use 288.00 Disks
Disc Distribution based upon %age of Aeration Required per Channel
Total number of Disks X Percentage Aeration
Inner Channel 112.00 disks
Middle Channel 176.00 disks
Aerator Shafts per Channel
Inner I 61
Middle 6
Number of Disks per Shaft = Number of disks per channel / Shafts per Channel
Inner 19.00 discs
Middle 29.00 discs
Minimum spacing > 5", Per Orbal Design Standards
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 4 of 10 2.0 MGD
0
CLARIFIERS
Note: Clarifiers are sized for 1.0 MGD each
Minimum Side Water Depth
10' @ MLSS = 2,000 mg/l + I'per additional 1,000 mg/I MLSS
Therefore, at 4,000 mg/I of MLSS, Clarifier depths are 10 + 1 + 1
12.00 ft
Assumed Depth
12.00 ft
Assumed Diameter
80.00 ft
Assumed Area (2 units) A/2 5026.56 sf each A
10,053.12 sf total
Clarifier Design Flow Qpeak
4,000,000.00 gpd
Class I Reliability requires 75% total design flow capacity with largest unit out
of service; therefore, 75% Clarifier Design Flow
3,000,000.00 gpd
AADF
2,000,000.00 gpd
Surface (Hydraulic) Loading Rate (SurfLR)
Normal Operations Qpeak / A
397.89 gpd/sf
Class I Operations 0.75 Qpeak / A/2
596.83 gpd/sf
SurfLR <= 1,000, therefore, OK, per 10 State Standards
Solids Loading Rate @ 100% Return (100% AADF) (SoILR)
Normal Operations (MLSS) (Qpeak + 100% Return)(8.34) / (A)(10^6) 19.91 # solids/day/sf
Class I Operations (MLSS) (0.75Qpeak + 100% Return)(8.34) / (A/2)(10^6) 33.18 # solids/day/sf
SoILR <= 35; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
Clarifier Weir Diameter 78.00 ft
Length (Pi)(Diameter) 245.04 If each clarifier
Weir Overflow Rate (Qpeak/2) (LF of Weir) 8,161.77 gpd/If weir/clarifier
Weir overflow rate <= 20, 000; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
Sludge Recycle Ratio R 100.00 % Recycle AADF
Solids Concentration of Settled Sludge 0.80 % Solids
Recycle Flow R X Q 1,000,000.00 gpd per clarifier
t Aeration Unit Retention Time with Recycle Flow = Total Unit Volume / Q + 2(Recycle Flow)
at PDF 5.01 hours
at AADF 7.51 hours
Sludge Recycle Ratio to Maintain 1.00 % Solids
67.00 % Recycle
Recycle Flow R X Q 670,000.00 gpd per Clarifier
t Aeration Unit Retention time with Recycle flow = Total Unit Volume / Q + 2(Recycle Flow)
at PDF 5.62 hours
at AADF 8.99 hours
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 5 of 10 2.0 MGD
• • 9
FILTERS
Three Davco ABW Traveling Bridge Filters
Maximum Allowable Filtration Rate (10 State Standards)
Surface Area
Manufacturer's Rated AADF Capacity
Manufacturer's Rated Surface Loading Rate = Capacity / Surface Area 11440 min/day
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
PDF
Peak Daily Flow
MGD
MMF
Maximum Monthly Flow
MGD
AADF
Annual Average Daily Flow
MGD
MF
Minimum Flow
MGD
PHF
Peak Hourly Flow
MGD
PDF is attenuated through plant
Design Flow Rate - Peak
Class I Reliability Flow Rate 75% Peak Flow Rate
Determine Filtration Rate for 1, 2 and 3 Filters in operation
1 Filter Q
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 4.00
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 3.00
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 2.00
RATE IS TOO HIGH
2 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 4.00
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 3.00
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 2.00
RATE IS TOO HIGH FOR MAXIMUM FLOW RATE
3 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 4.00
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 3.00
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 2.00
THREE FILTERS ARE REQUIRED FOR 2.0 MGD
DESIGN
OD WWTP
4.00
3.00
2.00
0.80
4.00
5.00 gpm/sf
242.00 sf
700,000.00 gpd
2.00 gpm/sf
4.00 MGD
3.00 MGD
SA
242.00 NG 11.48 gpm/sf
242.00 NG 8.61 gpm/sf
242.00 NG 5.74 gpm/sf
484.00 NG 5.74 gpm/sf
484.00 OK 4.30 gpm/sf
484.00 OK 2.87 gpm/sf
726.00 OK 3.83 gpm/sf
726.00 OK 2.87 gpm/sf
726.00 OK 1.91 gpm/sf
<5
<5
<2
OLIA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 6 of 10 2.0 MGD
4 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 4.00 968.00 OK 2.87 gpm/sf < 5
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 3.00 968.00 OK 2.15 gpm/sf < 5
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 2.00 968.00 OK 1.43 gpm/sf < 2
RATE IS SUFFICIENT FOR 2.0 MGD.
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 7 of 10 2.0 MGD
i i •
CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN AND SYSTEM
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
PDF
Peak Daily Flow
MGD
MMF
Maximum Monthly Flow
MGD
AADF
Annual Average Daily Flow
MGD
MF
Minimum Flow
MGD
PHF
Peak Hourly Flow
MGD
DESIGN
OD WWTP
4.00
3.00
2.00
0.80
4.00
PDF is attenuated through plant
Minimum Contact Time per 10 State Standards 15.00 minutes
Class I Reliability 50% total design flow with largest unit out of service
Sketch of System
T1
c c
o 4260
U gal
U I
1
4260
gal
1
To Ponds
1
T2
T3
T4
7000 I 7000
gal gal
7000 7000
gal gal .,.>. ... :.
Effluent Transfer Pump Station
wN-notch Weir and Flowmeter
New Units
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 8 of 10 2.0 MGD
•
Three Trains (As is)
Vol = 8520 +
14000 + 14000
Contact Time at AADF
= Total Volume / AADF
Contact Time at PDF
= Total Volume / PDF
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided
= Total Volume - 14,000
al / 50%PDF
.... ` , •hF�4w6?':vn.' ��','',��r„-: °�.`,.,�. �i;,.c �-,�, ,gb;� i•''.yu }, ¢ f `4
%^�" '"'
:<L.>!"S
Vol = 8520 +
14000 + 14000
+ 14000
Contact Time at AADF
= Total Volume / AADF
Contact Time at PDF
= Total Volume / PDF
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided
= Total Volume - 14,000 qal
/ 50%PDF
Operational Considerations for Hiah Level Disinfection
Per FDEP 62-600.440(5)(c)
I Pre -Disinfected Effluent Fecal Coliform Levels:
Fecal Coliform <= 1,000 / 100 mL
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 25
Therefore: 25 / Contact time = Desired Residual
1,000 / 100 mL <= Fecal Coliform <= 10,000 / 100 mL
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 40
Therefore: 40 / Contact time = Desired Residual
10,000 / 100 mL <= Fecal Coliform
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 120
Therefore: 120 / Contact time = Desired Residual
Per FDEP 62-600.440(5)(e)
at Flowrate
PDF
AADF
PDF
AADF
PDF
AADF
36,520.00 gallons total
= 26.29 minutes
13.15 minutes
16.21 minutes
50,520.00 gallons total
36.37 minutes
= 18.19 minutes
= 26.29 minutes
Residual Required
TSS <= 5 mg/L prior to disinfection. Addition of Chlorine at the filters is acceptable to aid in TSS control.
Proposed dosage of Chlorine for disinfection, pre -filter algae control and pre-treatment odor control
Chlorine Use per Day
20 ppm X PDF X 8.34 #/gal
1.9
1.0
3.0
1.5
9.1
4.6
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
20.00 mg/L
667.00 #/day
OK
NG
No
OK
OK
NI
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 9 of 10 2.0 MGD
0 0 0
OPERATING PROTOCOL:
Normal ODeratina Conditions:
Chlorine feed rate is adjusted, based upon the pre -chlorination fecal coliform reading, to provide an adequate chlorine
residual.
The OUA facility sees a fecal coliform reading of less than 1000/100 mL of sample, therefore the feed rate is adjusted to
provide the following residuals:
at AADF 1.0 mg/L
at PDF 1.9 ma/L
Abnormal Ooeratina Conditions:
For an abnormal operating condition of the Chlorine Contact Basins (i.e., one unit is out of service for repairs/maintenance,
the chlorine feed rate may require adjustment.
To meet Class I Reliability requirements of the Largest Unit out of service and the remaining units handling 50% of the
PDF, the chlorine feed rate should be adjusted to provide a minimum residual of the following:
at 50% PFD 1.1 mg/L.
Determine flow rates for various trains emoved from service for repair and maintenance:
Volume,being rMin Flowrate,
ins Flow Condition gal Residual CT, min Flowrate, gpm MGD Comments
only at AADF 8,520 1.0 25 340.8 0.491 When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF 1.9 13.158 647.5 0.932 a second train shall be on line.
+ T2 (or T3) at AADF 22,520 1.0 25 900.8 1 297 When AADF or PDF reaches these rate
at PDF
1.9
13.158
1,711.5
2.465
s,
a third train shall be on line.
T2 only at AADF
14,000
1.0
25
560.0
0.806
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.9
13.158
1,064.0
1.532
T3 shall be on line.
T2 + T3 at AADF
28,000
1.0
25
1,120.0
1.613
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.9
13.158
2,128.0
3.064
T1 shall be added - all three trains on line.
T1 + T2 + T3 at AADF
36,520
1.0
25
1,460.8
2.104
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.9
13.158
2,775.5
3.997
a fourth train shall be constructed.
T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 at AADF
50,520
1.0
25
2,020.8
2.910
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.9
13.158
3,839.5
5.529
a fifth train shall be constructed.
OUA Permit Renewal
7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations
Page 10 of 10
2.0 MGD
r-1
0
•
•
•
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
CALCULATIONS
DESIGN
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
WWTP
PDF
Peak Daily Flow MGD
6.00
MMF
Maximum Monthly Flow MGD
4.50
AADF
Annual Average Daily Flow MGD
3.00
MF
Minimum Flow MGD
1.20
PHF
Peak Hourly Flow MGD
6.00
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
INF
EFF
CBOD5 mg/L
300
< 10
TSS
mg/L
250
< 10
TN
mg/L
40
< 3
TP
mg/L
10
< 1
Site & Wastewater Characteristics
DESIGN
Domestic WW
Elevation at Site
36.00 ft
Influent BOD
275.00 mg/I
Influent CBOD
Li
300.00 mg/I
Influent TSS
250.00 mg/I
Influent VSS
175.00 mg/I
Influent NH3-N
Ni
40.00 mg/I
Influent TKN
50.00 mg/I
Influent P
10.00 mg/I
Average Daily Flow
Q
3,000,000.00 gpd
Peak to Average Ratio
2.00
Peak Daily Flow
Qpeak
6,000,000.00 gpd
Average to Min Ratio
2.50
Minimum Flow
Qmin
1,200,000.00 gpd
Minimum Wastewater Temp
Temp
20.00 deg C
Minimum Air Temp
0.00 deg C
pH Range
6 - 8.5
Hexane Solubles
75.00 mg/I
Effluent CBOD
Le
< 10 5.00 mg/I max
Effluent TSS
< 10 5.00 mg/I max
Effluent VSS
5.00 mg/I max
Effluent NH3-N
< 1 15.00 mg/I max
Effluent P
< 2 6.00 mg/1 max
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 1 of 14 3.0 MGD
C�
Aeration Basin 1 1 2.0 MGD
F/Mv Design Criteria 0.05 - 0.10 # BOD/day/# MLVSS
0.05 <= F/Mv <= 0.1; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
MLSS Design Criteria 3000 - 5000 mg/I MLSS
3000 <= MLSS <= 5000; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
MLVSS (65%)(MLSS)
Q = 2,000,000 gpd Qpeak = 4,000,000 gpd Qmin = 800,000 gpd
BOD loading
F Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34(Q)(Li)/10116
Micro-organism Mass in Aerator
My Total Aerator MLVSS = F / (F/Mv)
Volume of Oxidation Ditch
Required Volume, from Orbal design manual, 30# BOD/1000 cf
Inner Channel Width
Middle Channel Width
Length of Straight Section
Center Island Radius
Channel Wall Thickness
Water Depth
Overall Length
Overall Width
Inner Channel Volume
Middle Channel Volume
Total Unit Volume
Sufficient volume is provided
(167, 303 cf vs. 166,800 cf - OK)
0.10 #/BOD/DAY/# MLVSS
3,400.00 mg/I
2,210.00 mg/I
5,004.00 # BOD/day
50,040.00 # MLVSS
166,800.00 cf
REQ
20.00 ft
20.00 ft
69.00 ft
5.00 ft
1.17 ft
14.00 ft
163.68 ft
94.68 ft
Percent
65,029.38 cf
38.87%
102,273.59 cf
61.13%
167,302.97 cf
1,251,426.22 gal
X-Section Area Velocities
Inner channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.12 fps
Middle channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.12 fps
(Note: Ability to recycle designed in for n itrificatio n/d en itrifi cation if surface water discharge is provided in the future)
Total Aerator Mixed Liquor Loadings
MLSS (MLSS mg/1) (0.0624 # -1/mg / mg - 1000 cf) (Volume cf) 35,495.00 # MLSS
Design Volumetric Loading = Design Organic Loading / Aeration Volume
Design Volumetric Loading < 30; therefore OK per ORBAL Design Stds
t Unit Retention Time w/o recycle flow = Total Unit Volume / Q PDF
7.51 hrs
29.91 # Inf BOD/day
1,000 cf Aeration
@ AADF
15.02 hrs
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 2 of 14 3.0 MGD
0 •
Oxygen Requirements
# BOD Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Li) / 10^6
#NH3 - N Total NH3-N applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Ni) / 10^6
Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD = 1.04 # 02/ # BOD
for NH3-N = 4.60 # 02/ # NH3-N
# 02 applied X Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD
for NH3-N
Denitrification Recovery 60% of # 02/day for NH3 - N
Total Base 02 Required =
AOR = (# 02/day BOD) + (# 02/day NH3-N) - (# 02/day Denitrification Recovery)
Channel DO levels
Inner Channel 2 ppm
Middle Channel (Outer Channel) 0 ppm
DO Correction Factor = a' [(b' Csw - Co) / Cs ] 1.024A (T - 20 )
a' relative air/water interface diffusion rate for mechanical aerators
b' the ratio of saturation values of wastewater to clean water at wastewater
temperature and actual atmospheric pressure
Csw saturation of clean water at surface
Cs oxygen saturation concentration for clean water under standard conditions
T wastewater temperature
Co desired DO
Inner Channel Do correction
Middle Channel Do correction
OUA Permit Renewal
WWTP System Calculations Page 3 of 14
5,004.00 # BOD/day
667.20 # NH3 - N/day
5,204.16 # 02/day
216.84 # 02/hour
3,069.12 # 02/day
127.88 # 02/hour
1,841.47 # 02/day
76.73 # 02/hour
6,431.81 # 02/day
267.99 # 02/hour
0.95
0.98
9.06 mg/I
9.07 mg/I
20.00 deg C
2.00 mg/I
0.72
= 0.93
�J
7/ 16/2004
3.0 MGD
• •
0
Inner Channel
Outer Channel (Middle Channel)
Volume Split, %
38.87
61.13
Process Split, %
43.50
56.50
AOR, Ib/hr = (AOR)(Process Split Percentage)
116.58
151.42
SOR, Ib/hr = (AOR for Channel) / Do correction for Channel
161.80
162.82
No. of Shafts/Basin
6
6
No. of Discs/Shaft
_ (SOR for channel) / (1.42 Ib/hr per disc) / (6 shafts/basin)
19
19
No. of Discs/Basin
114
114
Design Disc RPM
43
43
Design Disc Immersion, Inches
17.50
17.50
Design SOR/Disc, lb/hr
1.42
1.42
Maximum Disc RPM
55
55
Maximum Disc Immersion, Inches
21
21
Maximum SOR/Disc, lb/hr
2.50
2.50
Largest Drive Out of
Design
Maximum Output
Service
No. of Discs in Service Basin
228
228
209
Std Oxygen Provided/Basin, Ib/hr
324
570
523
Reserve Over Design, %
1
76
61
Std Oxygen Delivery Required w/no denitrification
479
and 2 mg/L DO in all channels, Ib/hr
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 4 of 14 3.0 MGD
Aeration Basin 2 1 1.0 MGD (UPGRADABLE TO 2.0 MGD)
F/Mv Design Criteria 0.05 - 0.10 # BOD/day/# MLVSS
0.05 <= F/Mv <= 0.1; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
MLSS Design Criteria (Per ORBAL Design Stds)
MLVSS (65%)(MLSS)
Q = 1,000,000 gpd Qpeak = 2,000,000 gpd Qmin = 400,000 gpd
BOD loading
F Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34(Q)(Li)/10^6
Micro-organism Mass in Aerator
My Total Aerator MLVSS = F / (F/Mv)
Volume of Oxidation Ditch
Required Volume, from Orbal design manual, 15# BOD/1000 cf
Inner Channel Width
Middle Channel Width
Length of Straight Section
Center Island Radius
Channel Wall Thickness
Water Depth
Overall Length
Overall Width
Inner Channel Volume
Middle Channel Volume
Total Unit Volume
Sufficient volume is provided
(167, 303 cf vs. 166,800 cf - OK)
i
0.10 #/BOD/DAY/#
MLVSS
2,000.00 mg/I
1,300.00 mg/I
2,502.00 # BOD/day
25,020.00 # MLVSS
166,800.00 cf
REQ
20.00 ft
20.00 ft
69.00 ft
5.00 ft
1.17 ft
14.00 ft
163.68 ft
94.68 ft
Percent
65,029.38 cf
38.87%
102,273.59 cf
61.13%
167,302.97 cf
1,251,426.22 gal
X-Section Area Velocities
Inner channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.06 fps
Middle channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.06 fps
(Note: Ability to recycle designed in for nitrification/denitrification if surface water discharge is provided in the future)
Total Aerator Mixed Liquor Loadings
MLSS (MLSS mg/1) (0.0624 # -1/mg / mg - 1000 cf) (Volume cf) 20,879.41 # MLSS
Design Volumetric Loading = Design Organic Loading / Aeration Volume
Design Volumetric Loading < 30; therefore OK per ORBAL Design Stds
t Unit Retention Time w/o recycle flow = Total Unit Volume / Q 0 PDF
15.02 hrs
OUA Permit Renewal
WWTP System Calculations
Page 5 of 14
14.95 # Inf BOD/day
1,000 cf Aeration
@ AADF
30.03 hrs
7/16/2004
3.0 MGD
0 0 0
Oxygen Requirements
# BOD Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Li) / 10^6
# NH3 - N Total NH3-N applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Ni) / 1016
Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD = I 1.04 # 02/ # BOD
for NH3-N = 4.60 # 021 # NH3-N 1
# 02 applied X Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD
for NH3-N
Denitrification Recovery 50% of # 02/day for NH3 - N
Total Base 02 Required =
AOR = (# 02/day BOD) + (# 02/day NH3-N) - (# 02/day Denitrification Recovery)
Channel DO levels
Inner Channel
Middle Channel
2 ppm
2 ppm
DO Correction Factor = a' [(b' Csw - Cc) / Cs ] 1.024A (T - 20 )
a' relative air/water interface diffusion rate for mechanical aerators
b' the ratio of saturation values of wastewater to clean water at wastewater
temperature and actual atmospheric pressure
Csw saturation of clean water at surface
Cs oxygen saturation concentration for clean water under standard conditions
T wastewater temperature
Co desired DO
Inner Channel
Middle Channel
2,502.00 # BOD/day
333 60 # NH3 - N/day
2,602.08 # 02/day
108.42 # 02/hour
1,534.56 # 02/day
63.94 # 02/hour
767.28 # 02/day
31.97 # 02/hour
3,369.36 # 02/day
140.39 # 02/hour
0.95
0.98
9.06 mg/1
9.07 mg/I
20.00 deg C
2.00 mg/1
0.72
0.72
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 6 of 14 3.0 MGD
0 •
0
Inner Channel
Outer Channel (Middle Channel)
Volume Split, %
38.87
61.13
Process Split, %
43.50
56.50
AOR, Ib/hr = (AOR)(Process Split Percentage)
61.07
79.32
SOR, Ib/hr - (AOR for Channel) / Do correction for Channel
84.76
110.09
No. of Shafts/Basin
4
4
No. of Discs/Shaft
_ (SOR for channel) / (1.42 Ib/hr per disc) / (4 shafts/basin)
15
19
No. of Discs/Basin
60
76
Design Disc RPM
43
43
Design Disc Immersion, Inches
17.50
17.50
Design SOR/Disc, Ib/hr
1.42
1.42
Maximum Disc RPM
55
55
Maximum Disc Immersion, Inches
21
21
Maximum SOR/Disc, Ib/hr
2.50
2.50
Design
Maximum Output
Largest Drive Out of
No. of Discs in Service in Basin 136
136
117
Std Oxygen Provided/Basin, Ib/hr 193
340
293
Reserve Over Design, % 1
76
52
Std Oxygen Delivery Required w/no denitrification
195
and 2 mg/L DO in all channels, lb/hr
OUA Permit Renewal
7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 7 of 14
3.0 MGD
CLARIFIERS
Note: Clarifiers are sized for 1.0 MGD each
Minimum Side Water Depth
10' @ MLSS = 2,000 mg/I + 1' per additional 1,000 mg/I MLSS
Therefore, at 3400 mg/I of MLSS, Clarifier depths are 10 + 1 + 1
Assumed Depth
Assumed Diameter
Assumed Area (3 units) JA/3 = 5026.56 sf each
Clarifier Design Flow
Class I Reliability requires 75% total design flow capacity with largest unit out
of service; therefore, 75% Clarifier Design Flow
AADF
Surface (Hydraulic) Loading Rate (SurfLR)
Normal Operations Qpeak / A
Class I Operations 0.75 Qpeak / A/2
SurfLR <= 1,000, therefore, OK, per 10 State Standards
A
Qpeak
Qclassl
Q
Solids Loading Rate @ 100% Return (100% AADF) (SoILR)
Normal Operations (MLSS) (Qpeak + 100% Return)(8.34) / (A)(10^6)
Class I Operations (MLSS) (0.75Qoeak + 100% Return)(8.34) / (A/3)(10^6)
2
SoILR <= 35, therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
Clarifier Weir Diameter
Length (Pi)(Diameter)
Weir Overflow Rate (Qpeak/3) (LF of Weir)
Weir overflow rate <= 20, 000; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
Sludge Recycle Ratio R
Solids Concentration of Settled Sludge
Recycle Flow R X Q
t Aeration Unit Retention Time with Recycle Flow = Total Unit Volume / Q + 3(Recycle Flow)
at PDF
at AADF
Sludge Recycle Ratio to Maintain
Recycle Flow
RXQ
Aeration Unit Retention time with Recycle flow = Total Unit Volume / Q + 3(Recycle Flow)
at PDF
at AADF
12.00 ft
12.00 ft
80.00 ft
15,079.68 sf total
6,000,000.00 gpd
4,500,000.00 gpd
3,000,000.00 gpd
397.89 gpd/sf
895.24 gpd/sf
16.92 # solids/day/sf
21.15 # solids/day/sf
78.00 ft
245.04 If each clarifier
8,161.77 gpd/If weir/clarifier
100.00 % Recycle AADF
0.80 % Solids
1,000,000.00 gpd per clarifier
3.34 hours
5.01 hours
1.00 % Solids
67.00 % Recycle
670,000.00 gpd per Clarifier
7.50 hours
11.99 hours
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 8 of 14 3.0 MGD
0
FILTERS
Three Davco ABW Traveling Bridge Filters
Maximum Allowable Filtration Rate (10 State Standards)
5.00 gpm/sf
Surface Area
242.00 sf
Manufacturer's Rated AADF Capacity
700,000.00 gpd
Manufacturer's Rated Surface Loading Rate =
Capacity / Surface Area 11440 min/day
2.00 gpm/sf
DESIGN
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
OD WWTP
PDF Peak Daily Flow MGD
6.00
MMF Maximum Monthly Flow MGD
4.50
AADF Annual Average Daily Flow MGD
3.00
MF Minimum Flow MGD
1.20
PHF Peak Hourly Flow MGD
6.00
PDF is attenuated through plant
Design Flow Rate - Peak
6.00 MGD
Class I Reliability Flow Rate 75% Peak Flow Rate
4.50 MGD
Determine Filtration Rate for 1, 2 and 3 Filters in operation
1 Filter Q
SA
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 6.00
242.00
NG
17.22 gpm/sf
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 4.50
242.00
NG
12.91 gpm/sf
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 3.00
242.00
NG
8.61 gpm/sf
RATE IS TOO HIGH
2 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 6.00
484.00
NG
8.61 gpm/sf
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 4.50
484.00
OK
6.46 gpm/sf
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 3.00
484.00
OK
4.30 gpm/sf
RATE IS TOO HIGH FOR MAXIMUM FLOW
RATE
3 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 6.00 726.00 NG 5.74 gpm/sf
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 4.50 726.00 OK 4.30 gpm/sf
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 3.00 726.00 OK 2.87 gpm/sf
RATE IS TOO HIGH FOR PEAK RATE
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 9 of 14 3.0 MGD
• •
4 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 6.00 968.00 OK 4.30 gpm/sf
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 4.50 968.00 OK 3.23 gpm/sf
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 3.00 968.00 NG 2.15 gpm/sf
RATE IS TOO HIGH FOR AADF
5 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 6.00 1210.00 OK 3.44 gpm/sf < 5
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 4.50 1210.00 OK 2.58 gpm/sf < 5
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 3.00 1210.00 OK 1.72 gpm/sf < 2
RATE IS SUFFICIENT FOR 3.0 MGD.
6 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 6.00 1452.00 OK 2.87 gpm/sf < 5
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 4.50 1452.00 OK 2.15 gpm/sf < 5
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 3.00 1452.00 OK 1.43 gpm/sf < 2
RATE IS SUFFICIENT FOR 3.0 MGD.
OUA Permit Renewal
7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 10 of 14 3.0 MGD
CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN AND SYSTEM
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
PDF
Peak Daily Flow
MGD
MMF
Maximum Monthly Flow
MGD
AADF
Annual Average Daily Flow
MGD
MF
Minimum Flow
MGD
PHF
Peak Hourly Flow
MGD
DESIGN
OD WWTP
6.00
4.50
3.00
1.20
6.00
PDF is attenuated through plant
Minimum Contact Time per 10 State Standards 15.00 minutes
Class I Reliability 50% total design flow with largest unit out of service
Sketch of System
T1
T2
11 1
c c
o 4260 I 7000
U gal gal
U- I
1 11
4260 7000
gal gal
1 I11+
To Ponds
T3 T4 T5
1 1 1
7000
gal
1 1 �
7000- T0:.0t}
gal . _..�.,
Effluent Transfer Pump Station
wN-notch Weir and Flowmeter
New Units
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 11 of 14 3.0 MGD
•
mum
Vol = 8520 + 14000 + 14000 = 36,520.00 gallons total
Contact Time at AADF = Total Volume / AADF = 17.53 minutes OK
Contact Time at PDF = Tntai Vnh imp PDF = I 8.76 minutes NG
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided = Total Volume 14,000 qal / 50%PDF = J
�. OWN '�. 1��,;�.�_
'nwi.*2 � � m,
rnf.... .
Vol = 8520 + 14000 + 14000 + 14000 =
Contact Time at AADF = Total Volume / AADF =
Contact Time at PDF = Total Volume / PDF =
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided = Total Volume - 14.000 qal / 50%PDF =
Vol= 8520 + 14000 + 14000 + 28000 =
Contact Time at AADF = Total Volume / AADF =
Contact Time at PDF = Total Volume / PDF =
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided = Total Volume - 14.000 gal / 50%PDF =
Operational Considerations for High Level Disinfection
Per FDEP 62-600.440(5)(c)
I Pre -Disinfected Effluent Fecal Coliform Levels:
Fecal Coliform <= 1,000 / 100 mL
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 25
Therefore: 25 / Contact time = Desired Residual
1,000 / 100 mL <= Fecal Coliform <= 10,000 / 100 mL
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 40
Therefore: 40 / Contact time = Desired Residual
10,000 / 100 mL <= Fecal Coliform
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 120
Therefore: 120 / Contact time = Desired Residual
at Flowrate
PDF
50%PDF
AADF
PDF
AADF
PDF
AADF
10.81 minutes
50,520.00 gallons total
24.25 minutes
12.12 minutes
17.53 minutes
64,520.00 gallons total
30.97 minutes
15.48 minutes
24.25 minutes
Residual Required
1.6
1.0
0.8
MINIMUM 1.0 mg/L
2.6
1.3
7.7
3.9
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NG
OK
NG
C�]:1
OK
OK
OK
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 12 of 14 3.0 MGD
Per FDEP 62-600.440(5)(e)
TSS <= 5 mg/L prior to disinfection. Addition of Chlorine at the filters is acceptable to aid in TSS control.
Proposed dosage of Chlorine for disinfection, pre -filter algae control and pre-treatment odor control 20.00 mg/L
Chlorine Use per Day = 20 ppm X PDF X 8.34 #/gal = 1,001.00 #/day
OPERATING PROTOCOL:
Normal ODeratina Conditions:
Chlorine feed rate is adjusted, based upon the pre -chlorination fecal coliform reading, to provide an adequate chlorine
residual.
The OUA facility sees a fecal coliform reading of less than 1000/100 mL of sample, therefore the feed rate is adjusted to
provide the following residuals:
at AADF 1.0 mg/L
at PDF 1.6 mg/L
Abnormal ODeratina Conditions:
For an abnormal operating condition of the Chlorine Contact Basins (i.e., one unit is out of service for repairs/maintenance,
the chlorine feed rate may require adjustment.
To meet Class I Reliability requirements of the Largest Unit out of service and the remaining units handling 50% of the
PDF, the chlorine feed rate should be adjusted to provide a minimum residual of the following:
at 50% PFD
1 mg/L.
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 13 of 14 3.0 MGD
Determine flow rates for various trains beina removed from service for reoair and maintenance:
Volume,
Min
Flowrate,
Trains
Flow Condition
gal
Residual
CT, min
Flowrate, gpm
MGD
Comments
T1 only
at AADF
8,520
1.0
25
340.8
0.49
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.6
15.625
545.3
0.79
a second train shall be on line.
T1 + T2 (or T3)
at AADF
22,520
1.0
25
900.8
1.30
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.6
15.625
1,441.3
2.08
a third train shall be on line.
T2 only
at AADF
14,000
1.0
25
560.0
0.81
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.6
15.625
896.0
1.29
T3 shall be on line.
T2 + T3
at AADF
28,000
1.0
25
1,120.0
1.61
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.6
15.625
1,792.0
2.58
T1 shall be added - all three trains on line.
T1 + T2 + T3
at AADF
36,520
1.0
25
1,460.8
2.10
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.6
15.625
2,337.3
3.37
a fourth train shall be constructed
T1 + T2 + T3 + T4
at AADF
50,520
1.0
25
2,020.8
2.91
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.6
15.625
3,233.3
4.66
a fifth train shall be constructed.
T1 + T2 + T3 + T4
at AADF
64,520
1.0
25
2,580.8
3.72
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
+ T5
at PDF
1.6
15.625
4,129.3
5.95
a sixth train shall be constructed.
OK up to 3.0 MGD AADF and
6.0 MGD PDF
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 14 of 14 3.0 MGD
•
•
•
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
CALCULATIONS
DESIGN
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
WWTP
PDF
Peak Daily Flow MGD
8.00
MMF
Maximum Monthly Flow MGD
6.00
AADF
Annual Average Daily Flow MGD
4.00
MF
Minimum Flow MGD
1.60
PHF
Peak Hourly Flow MGD
8.00
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
INF
EFF
CBOD5 mg/L
300
< 10
TSS
mg/L
250
< 10
TN
mg/L
40
< 3
TP
mg/L
10
< 1
Site & Wastewater Characteristics
DESIGN
Domestic WW
Elevation at Site
36.00 ft
Influent BOD
275.00 mg/I
Influent CBOD
Li
300.00 mg/I
Influent TSS
250.00 mg/I
Influent VSS
175.00 mg/I
Influent NH3-N
Ni
40.00 mg/I
Influent TKN
50.00 mg/I
Influent P
10.00 mg/I
Average Daily Flow
Q
4,000,000.00 gpd
Peak to Average Ratio
2.00
Peak Daily Flow
Qpeak
8,000,000.00 gpd
Average to Min Ratio
2.50
Minimum Flow
Qmin
1,600,000.00 gpd
Minimum Wastewater Temp
Temp
20.00 deg C
Minimum Air Temp
0.00 deg C
pH Range
6 - 8.5
Hexane Solubles
75.00 mg/I
Effluent CBOD
Le
< 10 5.00 mg/I max
Effluent TSS
< 10 5.00 mg/1 max
Effluent VSS
5.00 mg/I max
Effluent NH3-N
< 1 15.00 mg/I max
Effluent P
< 2 6.00 mg/I max
OUA Permit Renewal
7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations
Page 1 of 14
4.0 MGD
Aeration Basin 1 1 2.0 MGD
F/Mv Design Criteria 0.05 - 0.10 # BOD/day/# MLVSS
0.05 <= F/Mv <= 0.1; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
MLSS Design Criteria 3000 - 5000 mg/I MLSS
3000 <= MLSS <= 5000; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
MLVSS (65%)(MLSS)
Q = 2,000,000 gpd Qpeak = 4,000,000 gpd Qmin = 800,000 gpd
BOD loading
F Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34(Q)(Li)/1016
Micro-organism Mass in Aerator
My Total Aerator MLVSS = F / (F/Mv)
Volume of Oxidation Ditch
Required Volume, from Orbal design manual, 30# BOD/1000 cf
Inner Channel Width
Middle Channel Width
Length of Straight Section
Center Island Radius
Channel Wall Thickness
Water Depth
Overall Length
Overall Width
Inner Channel Volume
Middle Channel Volume
Total Unit Volume
Sufficient volume is provided
(167, 303 cf vs. 166,800 cf - OK)
•
0.10 #/BOD/DAY/# MLVSS
3,400.00 mg/I
2,210.00 mg/I
5,004.00 # BOD/day
50,040.00 # MLVSS
166,800.00 cf REQ
20.00 ft
20.00 ft
69.00 ft
5.00 ft
1.17 ft
14.00 ft
163.68 ft
94.68 ft Percent
65,029.38 cf 38.87%
102,273.59 cf 61.13%
167,302.97 cf
1,251,426.22 gal
X-Section Area Velocities
Inner channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.12 fps
Middle channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.12 fps
(Note: Ability to recycle designed in for nitrification/denitrification if surface water discharge is provided in the future)
Total Aerator Mixed Liquor Loadings
MLSS (MLSS mg/1) (0.0624 # -1/mg / mg - 1000 cf) (Volume cf) 35,495.00 # MLSS
Design Volumetric Loading = Design Organic Loading / Aeration Volume
Design Volumetric Loading < 30; therefore OK per ORBAL Design Stds
t Unit Retention Time w/o recycle flow = Total Unit Volume / Q @ PDF
7.51 hrs
29.91 # Inf BOD/day
1,000 cf Aeration
(p, AADF
15.02 hrs
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 2 of 14 4 0 MGD
Oxygen Requirements
# BOD Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Li) / 1016
# NH3 - N Total NH3-N applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Ni) / 1016
Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD = I 1.04 # 02/ # BOD
for NH3-N = 4.60 # 02/ # NH3-N
# 02 applied X Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD
for NH3-N
Denitrification Recovery 60% of # 02/day for NH3 - N
Total Base 02 Required =
AOR = (# 02/day BOD) + (# 02/day NH3-N) - (# 02/day Denitrification Recovery)
Channel DO levels
Inner Channel 2 ppm
Middle Channel (Outer Channel) 0 ppm
DO Correction Factor = a' [(b' Csw - Cc) / Cs ] 1.024A (T - 20 )
a' relative air/water interface diffusion rate for mechanical aerators
b' the ratio of saturation values of wastewater to clean water at wastewater
temperature and actual atmospheric pressure
Csw saturation of clean water at surface
Cs oxygen saturation concentration for clean water under standard conditions
T wastewater temperature
Co desired DO
Inner Channel Do correction
Middle Channel Do correction
OUA Permit Renewal
WWTP System Calculations Page 3 of 14
5,004.00 # BOD/day
667.20 # NH3 - N/day
5,204.16 # 02/day
216.84 # 02/hour
3,069.12 # 02/day
127.88 # 02/hour
1,841.47 # 02/day
76.73 # 02/hour
6,431.81 # 02/day
267.99 # 02/hour
0.95
0.98
9.06 mg/I
9.07 mg/I
20.00 deg C
As above mg/I
0.72
0.93
•
7/16/2004
4.0 MGD
• •
•
Inner Channel
Outer Channel (Middle Channel).
Volume Split, %
38.87
61.13
Process Split, %
43.50
56.50
AOR, Ib/hr = (AOR)(Process Split Percentage)
116.58
151.42
SOR, Ib/hr = (AOR for Channel) / Do correction for Channel
161.80
162.82
No. of Shafts/Basin
6
6
No. of Discs/Shaft
_ (SOR for channel) / (1.42 Ib/hr per disc) / (6 shafts/basin)
19
19
No. of Discs/Basin
114
114
Design Disc RPM
43
43
Design Disc Immersion, Inches
17.50
17.50
Design SOR/Disc, Ib/hr
1.42
1.42
Maximum Disc RPM
55
55
Maximum Disc Immersion, Inches
21
21
Maximum SOR/Disc, lb/hr
2.50
2.50
Largest Drive Out of
Design
Maximum Output
Service
No. of Discs in Service Basin 228
228
209
Std Oxygen Provided/Basin, Ib/hr 324
570
523
Reserve Over Design, % 1
76
61
Std Oxygen Delivery Required w/no denitrification
479
and 2 mg/L DO in all channels, Ib/hr
OUA Permit Renewal
7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 4 of 14
4.0 MGD
Aeration Basin 2 1 2.0 MGD
F/Mv Design Criteria 0.05 - 0.10 # BOD/day/# MLVSS
0 05 <= F/Mv <= 0.1; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
MLSS Design Criteria (Per ORBAL Design Stds)
MLVSS (65%)(MLSS)
Q = 2,000,000 gpd Qpeak = 4,000,000 gpd Qmin = 800,000 gpd
BOD loading
F Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34(Q)(Li)/10^6
Micro-organism Mass in Aerator
My Total Aerator MLVSS = F / (F/Mv)
Volume of Oxidation Ditch
Required Volume, from Orbal design manual, 30# BOD/1000 cf
Inner Channel Width
Middle Channel Width
Length of Straight Section
Center Island Radius
Channel Wall Thickness
Water Depth
Overall Length
Overall Width
Inner Channel Volume
Middle Channel Volume
Total Unit Volume
Sufficient volume is provided
(167, 303 cf vs. 166,800 cf - OK)
0.10 #/BOD/DAY/# MLVSS
3,400.00 mg/I
2,210.00 mg/I
5,004.00 # BOD/day
50,040.00 # MLVSS
,166,800.00 cf REQ
20.00 ft
20.00 ft
69.00 ft
5.00 ft
1.17 ft
14.00 ft
163.68 ft
94.68 ft Percent
65,029.38 cf 38.87%
102,273.59 cf 61.13%
167,302.97 cf
1,251,426.22 gal
X-Section Area Velocities
Inner channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.06 fps
Middle channel cross section area & flow velocities 280.00 sf 0.06 fps
(Note: Ability to recycle designed in for nitrification/denitrification if surface water discharge is provided in the future)
Total Aerator Mixed Liquor Loadings
MLSS (MLSS mg/1) (0.0624 # -1/mg / mg -1000 cf) (Volume cf) 35,495.00 # MLSS
Design Volumetric Loading = Design Organic Loading / Aeration Volume
Design Volumetric Loading < 30; therefore OK per ORBAL Design Stds
t Unit Retention Time w/o recycle flow = Total Unit Volume / Q PDF
7.51 hrs
OUA Permit Renewal
WWTP System Calculations
Page 5 of 14
29.91 # Inf BOD/day
1,000 cf Aeration
AADF
15.02 hrs
7/ 16/2004
4.0 MGD
•
Oxygen Requirements
# BOD Total BOD applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Li) / 1016
# NH3 - N Total NH3-N applied to the activated sludge process = 8.34 (Q) (Ni) / 1016
Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD = I 1.04 # 02/ # BOD
for NH3-N = 4.60 # 02/ # NH3-N
# 02 applied X Initial Base Oxygen Requirements
for BOD
for NH3-N
Denitrification Recovery 60% of # 02/day for NH3 - N
Total Base 02 Required =
AOR = (# 02/day BOD) + (# 02/day NH3-N) - (# 02/day Denitrification Recovery)
Channel DO levels
Inner Channel
Middle Channel
2 ppm
0 ppm
DO Correction Factor = a' [(b' Csw - Co) / Cs ] 1.0241 (T - 20 )
a' relative air/water interface diffusion rate for mechanical aerators
V the ratio of saturation values of wastewater to clean water at wastewater
temperature and actual atmospheric pressure
Csw saturation of clean water at surface
Cs oxygen saturation concentration for clean water under standard conditions
T wastewater temperature
Co desired DO
Inner Channel
Middle Channel
5,004.00 # BOD/day
667.20 # NH3 - N/day
5,204.16 # 02/day
216.84 # 02/hour
3,069.12 # 02/day
127.88 # 02/hour
1,841.47 # 02/day
76.73 # 02/hour
6,431.81 # 02/day
267.99 # 02/hour
0.95
0.98
9.06 mg/I
9.07 mg/I
20.00 deg C
As above mg/I
0.72
0.93
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 6 of 14 4.0 MGD
•
Inner Channel
Outer Channel (Middle Channel)
Volume Split, %
38.87
61.13
Process Split, %
43.50
56.50
AOR, Ib/hr = (AOR)(Process Split Percentage)
116.58
151.42
SOR, Ib/hr = (AOR for Channel) / Do correction for Channel
161.80
162.82
No. of Shafts/Basin
6
6
No. of Discs/Shaft
_ (SOR for channel) / (1.42 Ib/hr per disc) / (6 shafts/basin)
19
19
No. of Discs/Basin
114
114
Design Disc RPM
43
43
Design Disc Immersion, Inches
17.50
17.50
Design SOR/Disc, Ib/hr
1.42
1.42
Maximum Disc RPM
55
55
Maximum Disc Immersion, Inches
21
21
Maximum SOR/Disc, Ib/hr
2.50
2.50
Design
Maximum Output
Largest Drive Out of
No. of Discs in Service in Basin
228
228
209
Std Oxygen Provided/Basin, Ib/hr
324
570
523
Reserve Over Design, %
1
76
61
Std Oxygen Delivery Required w/no denitrification
479
and 2 mg/L DO in all channels, Ib/hr
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 7 of 14 4.0 MGD
•
CLARIFIERS
Note: Clarifiers are sized for 1.0 MGD each
Minimum Side Water Depth
10' @ MLSS = 2,000 mg/I + 1' per additional 1,000 mg/I MLSS
Therefore, at 3400 mg/I of MLSS, Clarifier depths are 10 + 1 + 1
Assumed Depth
Assumed Diameter
Assumed Area (4 units) JA/4 = 5026.56 sf each
Clarifier Design Flow
Class I Reliability requires 75% total design flow capacity with largest unit out
of service; therefore, 75% Clarifier Design Flow
AADF
Surface (Hydraulic) Loading Rate (SurfLR)
Normal Operations Qpeak / A
Class I Operations 0.75 Qpeak / (A - A/4)
SurfLR <= 1,000, therefore, OK, per 10 State Standards
A
Qpeak
Qclassl
Q
Solids Loading Rate @ 100% Return (100% AADF) (SoILR)
Normal Operations (MLSS) (Qpeak + 100% Return)(8.34) / (A)(10^6)
Class I Operations (MLSS) (0.75QDeak + 100% Return)(8.34) / (A/4)(1016)
2
SoILR <= 35, therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
Clarifier Weir Diameter
Length (Pi)(Diameter)
Weir Overflow Rate (Qpeak/4) (LF of Weir)
Weir overflow rate <= 20, 000; therefore, OK per 10 State Standards
Sludge Recycle Ratio R
Solids Concentration of Settled Sludge
Recycle Flow R X Q
t Aeration Unit Retention Time with Recycle Flow = Total Unit Volume / Q + 4(Recycle Flow)
at PDF
at AADF
Sludge Recycle Ratio to Maintain
Recycle Flow R X Q
t Aeration Unit Retention time with Recycle flow = Total Unit Volume / Q + 4(Recycle Flow)
at PDF
at AADF
12.00 ft
12.00 ft
80.00 ft
20,106.24 sf total
8,000,000.00 gpd
6,000,000.00 gpd
4,000,000.00 gpd
397.89 gpd/sf
397.89 gpd/sf
16.92 # solids/day/sf
28.21 # solids/day/sf
78.00 ft
245.04 If each clarifier
8,161.77 gpd/If weir/clarifier
100.00 % Recycle AADF
0.80 % Solids
1,000,000.00 gpd per clarifier
2.50 hours
3.75 hours
1.00 % Solids
67.00 % Recycle
670,000.00 gpd per Clarifier
5.62 hours
8.99 hours
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 8 of 14 4.0 MGD
• i •
FILTERS
Six Davco ABW Traveling Bridge Filters
Maximum Allowable Filtration Rate (10 State Standards)
Surface Area
Manufacturer's Rated AADF Capacity
Manufacturer's Rated Surface Loading Rate = Capacity / Surface Area 11440 min/day
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
PDF Peak Daily Flow MGD
MMF Maximum Monthly Flow MGD
AADF Annual Average Daily Flow MGD
MF Minimum Flow MGD
PHF Peak Hourly Flow MGD
PDF is attenuated through plant
Design Flow Rate - Peak
Class I Reliability Flow Rate 75% Peak Flow Rate
Determine Filtration Rate for 1, 2 and 3 Filters in operation
1 Filter Q
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 8.00
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 6.00
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 4.00
RATE IS TOO HIGH
2 Filters
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 8.00
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 6.00
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 4.00
RATE IS TOO HIGH FOR MAXIMUM FLOW RATE
3 Filters
SA
242.00
242.00
242.00
484.00
484.00
484.00
at Qpeak Qpeak / SA 8.00 726.00
at Qclassl Qclassl / SA 6.00 726.00
at Qaadf Qaadf / SA 4.00 726.00
RATE IS TOO HIGH FOR PEAK RATE AND CLASS I RELIABILITY
DESIGN
OD WWTP
8.00
6.00
4.00
1.60
8.00
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
OK
5.00 gpm/sf
242.00 sf
700,000.00 gpd
2.00 gpm/sf at aadf
8.00 MGD
6.00 MGD
22.96 gpm/sf
17.22 gpm/sf
11.48 gpm/sf
11.48 gpm/sf
8.61 gpm/sf
5.74 gpm/sf
7.65 gpm/sf
5.74 gpm/sf
3.83 gpm/sf
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 9 of 14 4.0 MGD
0
•
10
4 Filters
at Qpeak
Qpeak / SA
8.00
968.00
NG
5.74 gpm/sf
at Qclassl
Qclassl / SA
6.00
968.00
OK
4.30 gpm/sf
at Qaadf
Qaadf / SA
4.00
968.00
OK
2.87 gpm/sf
RATE IS TOO HIGH FOR PEAK RATE
5 Filters
at Qpeak
Qpeak / SA
8.00
1210.00
OK
4.59 gpm/sf
at Qclassl
Qclassl / SA
6.00
1210.00
OK
3.44 gpm/sf
at Qaadf
Q aadf / SA
4.00
1210.00
OK
2.30 gpm/sf
RATE IS SLIGHTLY TOO HIGH FOR AADF
6 Filters
at Qpeak
Qpeak / SA
8.00
1452.00
OK
3.83 gpm/sf
<5
at Qclassl
Qclassl / SA
6.00
1452.00
OK
2.87 gpm/sf
<5
at Qaadf
Q aadf / SA
4.00
1452.00
OK
1.91 gpm/sf
<2
RATE IS SUFFICIENT FOR ALL FLOW CONDITIONS.
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 10 of 14 4.0 MGD
0
•
CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN AND SYSTEM
DESIGN
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
OD WWTP
PDF Peak Daily Flow MGD
8.00
MMF Maximum Monthly Flow MGD
6.00
AADF Annual Average Daily Flow MGD
4.00
MF Minimum Flow MGD
1.60
PHF Peak Hourly Flow MGD
8.00
PDF is attenuated through plant
Minimum Contact Time per 10 State Standards
15.00
minutes
Class I Reliability 50% total design flow with largest unit out of service
Sketch of System
T1 T2 T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
a� a�
c c
0 4260 7000 7000
7000
7000JQp
.
.".s
70a0
gal gal gal
I I
gal
gala}'p
9
U
LL
1 1 1
1
1
J
4260 7000 7000
7000
7000
700?
7000
gal gal gal
gal
gal
: qaf°. ` "
gal
Effluent Transfer Pump Station
1%4, wN-notch Weir and Flowmeter
1
To Ponds
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 11 of 14 4 0 MGD
-:`P'Y'ed,:�..^y�-Y+k.•4f%`s9ii:. a'II'B.Aat`Jd �..:x�,?� &,•
«,
.m
.. Y_yu wttvc"x, *rv� ,s
,.. ,. v
Vole- �$8520 + 14000
+ 14000
=
gallons totalMy 520.00 , 36
Contact Time at AADF =
Total Volume / AADF
=
13.15 minutes
NG
Contact Time at PDF =
Total Volume / PDF
=
6.57 minutes
NG
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided =
Total Volume - 14,000 �qal / 50%PDF
=
8 11 minutes
NG
Vol = 8520 + 14000
+ 14000 +
14000 =
50,520.00 gallons total
Contact Time at AADF =
Total Volume / AADF
=
18.19 minutes
OK
Contact Time at PDF =
Total Volume / PDF
=
9.09 minutes
NG
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided =
Total Volume 14,000 gal / 50%PDF
13.15 minutes
NG
i'•: �;°tsa'c a" x, x9"a",,.s„`r .i.
.': •n,,,'., Am.s,. i' ti .4.45•yx,..3;iiaF3v'Ns.�tl ...±<,"�T '
.<!J n P
,..,f ,µ'"•FpnYt'A�n,.'
,. .. a>,k+ssKj-..:
., ,.
Vol = 8520 + 14000
+ 14000 +
28000 =
64,520.00 gallons total
Contact Time at AADF =
Total Volume / AADF
=
23.23 minutes
OK
Contact Time at PDF =
Total Volume / PDF
=
11.61 minutes
NG
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided =
Total Volume - 14,000 aal / 50%PDF
=
18.19 minutes
OK
-
Max ON
Vol 8520 + 14000
+ 42000 +
14000
78,520.00 gallons total
Contact Time at AADF =
Total Volume / AADF
=
28.27 minutes
OK
Contact Time at PDF =
Total Volume / PDF
=
14.13 minutes
NG
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided =
Total Volume - 14,000 gal / 50%PDF
=
23.23 minutes
OK
Vol — 8520 + 14000
56000 +
14000 =
92,520.00 gallons total
Contact Time at AADF =
Total Volume / AADF
=
33.31 minutes
OK
Contact Time at PDF =
Total Volume / PDF
=
16.65 minutes
OK
Class I Reliability Contact Time
Provided =
Total Volume - 14,000 qal / 50%PDF
=
28.27 minutes
OK
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 12 of 14 4.0 MGD
•
Operational Considerations for Hiah Level Disinfection
Per FDEP 62-600.440(5)(c)
Pre -Disinfected Effluent Fecal Coliform Levels:
Fecal Coliform <= 1,000 / 100 mL
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 25
Therefore: 25 / Contact time = Desired Residual
1,000 / 100 mL <= Fecal Coliform <= 10,000 / 100 mL
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 40
Therefore: 40 / Contact time = Desired Residual
10,000 / 100 mL <= Fecal Coliform
Chlorine Residual X Contact Time >= 120
Therefore: 120 / Contact time = Desired Residual
Per FDEP 62-600.440(5)(e)
•
at Flowrate I Residual Required
PDF
1.5
mg/L
50%PDF
0.9
mg/L
AADF
0.8
mg/L
MINIMUM 1 0 mg/L
PDF
2.4
mg/L
AADF
1.2
mg/L
PDF
7.2
mg/L
AADF
3.6
mg/L
TSS <= 5 mg/L prior to disinfection. Addition of Chlorine at the filters is acceptable to aid in TSS control.
Proposed dosage of Chlorine for disinfection, pre -filter algae control and pre-treatment odor control 20.00 mg/L
Chlorine Use per Day = 20 ppm X PDF X 8.34 #/gal = 1,334.00 #/day
OPERATING PROTOCOL:
Normal ODeratina Conditions:
Chlorine feed rate is adjusted, based upon the pre -chlorination fecal coliform reading, to provide an adequate chlorine
residual.
The OUA facility sees a fecal coliform reading of less than 1000/100 mL of sample, therefore the feed rate is adjusted to
provide the following residuals:
at AADF 1.0 mg/L
at PDF 1.5 mg/L
Abnormal ODeratina Conditions:
For an abnormal operating condition of the Chlorine Contact Basins (i.e., one unit is out of service for repairs/maintenance,
the chlorine feed rate may require adjustment.
To meet Class I Reliability requirements of the Largest Unit out of service and the remaining units handling 50% of the
PDF, the chlorine feed rate should be adjusted to provide a minimum residual of the following:
at 50% PDF 1 mg/L.
•
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 13 of 14 4.0 MGD
Determine flow rates for various trains beino removed from service for repair and maintenance:
Volume,
Min
Flowrate,
Trains
Flow Condition
gal
Residual
CT, min Flowrate, gpm
MGD
Comments
T1 only
at AADF
8,520
1.0
25
340.8
0.49
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.5
16.667
511.2
0.74
a second train shall be on line.
T1 + T2 (or T3)
at AADF
22,520
1.0
25
900.8
1.30
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.5
16.667
1,351.2
1.95
a third train shall be on line.
T2 only
at AADF
14,000
1.0
25
560.0
0.81
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.5
16.667
840.0
1.21
T3 shall be on line.
T2 + T3
at AADF
28,000
1.0
25
1,120.0
1.61
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.5
16.667
1,680.0
2.42
T1 shall be added - all three trains on line.
T1 + T2 + T3
at AADF
36,520
1.0
25
1,460.8
2.10
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.5
16.667
2,191.2
3.16
a fourth train shall be constructed.
T1 + T2 + T3 + T4
at AADF
50,520
1.0
25
2,020.8
2.91
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
at PDF
1.5
16.667
3,031.2
4.36
a fifth train shall be constructed.
T1 + T2 + T3 + T4
at AADF
64,520
1.0
25
2,580.8
3.72
When AADF or PDF reaches these rates,
+ T5
at PDF
1.5
16.667
3,871.2
5.57
a sixth train shall be constructed.
OK up to 3.0 MGD AADF and
6.0 MGD PDF
T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 at AADF 78,520 1.0 25 3,140.8 4.52
+ T5 + T6 at PDF 1.5 16.667 4,711.2 6.78
T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 at AADF 92,520 1.0 25 3,700.8 5.33 Seven trains are adequate for AADF and
+ T5 + T6 + T7 at PDF 1.5 16.667 5,551.2 7.99 PDF indicated.
OUA Permit Renewal 7/16/2004
WWTP System Calculations Page 14 of 14 4.0 MGD
APPENDIX B
OPINION OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
•
•
0
APPENDIX B - OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
OUA WWTP - CEMETERY ROAD
ALTERNATIVES
July 14, 2004
MASTER PUMP STATION
Concrete
200 cy
@
450 =
90,000
Excavation/Stabilization
1 Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
Pumps, VFDs, Controls
1 Is
@
80,000 =
135,000
Piping
1 Is
@
75,000 =
120,000
Electrical
1 Is
@
80,000 =
80,000
SUBTOTAL
475,000
30% Contingency
1 Is
@
142,500 =
142,500
TOTAL
617,500
HEADWORKS
1. With In -Channel Grit Collector
Concrete
250
cy
@
450 =
112,500
Bar Screen - Mechanical
1
Is
@
- _
-
Bar Screen - Manual
1
Is
@
10,000 =
10,000
Grit Collector
1
Is
@
- _
-
Parshall Flume/Flow Meter
1
Is
@
20,000 =
20,000
Gates
8
ea
@
3,000 =
24,000
Miscellaneous Piping
1
Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
Excavating/ Stabilization
1
Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
75,000 =
75,000
SUBTOTAL
341,500
(plus bar screen and
grit collection)
2. With Free -Standing Grit Collector
Concrete
175
cy
@
450 =
78,750
Bar Screen - Mechanical
1
Is
@
-
Bar Screen - Manual
1
Is
@
10,000 =
10,000
Grit Collector
1
Is
@
-
Parshall Flume/Flow Meter
1
Is
@
20,000 =
20,000
Gates
8
ea
@
3,000 =
24,000
Miscellaneous Piping
1
Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
Excavating/ Stabilization
1
Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
75,000 =
75,000
SUBTOTAL
307,750
(plus bar screen and
grit collection)
Based upon the selected Screening system and Grit Collector, the
estimated
cost for the Total
Headworks
is less than $800,000 total.
491
Appendix B
Page 1 of 4 Pages
7/16/2004
AERATION BASIN
2.0 MGD OPTION
1. 2-Channel Option
Aerators, Velocity Baffles
1
Is
@
208,500 =
208,500
Weatherhoods
1
Is
@
142,500 =
142,500
Concrete
1
Is
@
80,000 =
80,000
Walkways, Handrails
1
Is
@
20,000 =
20,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
SUBTOTAL
=
501,000
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
150,300 =
150,300
TOTAL
=
651,300
2. 3-Channel Option
Aerators
1
Is
@
127,500 =
127,500
Weatherhoods
1
Is
@
127,500 =
127,500
Concrete
1
Is
@
275,000 =
275,000
Walkways, Handrails
1
Is
@
25,000 =
25,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
100,000 =
100,000
SUBTOTAL
=
655,000
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
196,500 =
196,500
TOTAL
=
851,500
3.0 MGD OPTION
1. 2 Channel Option + New 2 Channel Chamber
From 1. above 1 Is @ 501,000 = 501,000
New Basin + Equipment, etc. 1 Is @ 1,152,100 = 1,152,100
(from previous bid and current
equipment costs)
SUBTOTAL = 1,653,100
30% Contingency 1 Is @ 495,930 = 495,930
TOTAL = 2,149,030
CLARIFICATION
2.0 MGD OPTION
1. Do Nothina
TOTAL = -
3.0 MGD OPTION
1. New Clarifier
Clarifier, Equipment, etc. 1 Is @ 450,000 = 450,000
(from previous bid + new equipment costs)
SUBTOTAL = 450,000
30% Contingency 1 Is @ 135,000 = 135,000
TOTAL = 585,000
Appendix B Page 2 of 4 Pages 7/16/2004
•
FILTRATION
2.0 MGD OPTION
1.
US Filter Davis/DAVCO
Install New Unit
1
Is
@
120,000 =
Concrete Slab
20
cy
@
450 =
Piping
1
Is
@
20,000 =
Electrical
1
Is
@
50,000 =
SUBTOTAL
=
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
54,000 =
TOTAL
=
2.
Parkson Smartfilter Travelinq Bridqe Filter
Install New Unit
1
Is
@
187,500 =
Concrete Slab
20
cy
@
450 =
Piping
1
Is
@
20,000 =
Electrical
1
Is
@
50,000 =
SUBTOTAL
=
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
79,950 =
TOTAL
=
OPTIONS 3 - 7 REPLACE EXISTING FILTERS
3.
Infilco-Dearemont Automatic Backwash Filter
Concrete
250
cy
@
450 =
Filters
1
Is
@
345,000 =
•
Piping
1
Is
@
50,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
75,000 =
SUBTOTAL
=
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
174,750 =
TOTAL
=
4.
Sanitaire/ABJ Drum Filters
Concrete Slab
26
cy
@
450 =
Filters, Free Standing
1
Is
@
414,000 =
Piping
1
Is
@
50,000 =
Electrical
1
Is
@
75,000 =
SUBTOTAL
=
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
165,210 =
TOTAL
=
5.
US Filter/Kruger Hvdrotech Discfilters
Concrete Slab
32
cy
@
450 =
Filters, Free Standing
1
Is
@
577,500 =
Piping
1
Is
@
50,000 =
Electrical
1
Is
@
75,000 =
SUBTOTAL
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
215,070 =
TOTAL
•
120,000
9,000
20,000
31,000
180,000
54,000
234,000
187,500
9,000
20,000
50,000
266,500
79,950
346,450
112,500
345,000
50,000
75,000
582,500
174,750
757,250
11,700
414,000
50,000
75,000
550,700
165,210
715,910
14,400
577,500
50,000
75,000
716,900
215,070
931,970
Appendix B Page 3 of 4 Pages 7/16/2004
•
6. Parkson Dvnasand Filters
Concrete
250
cy
@
450 =
112,500
Filter Modules
1
Is
@
420,000 =
420,000
Piping
1
Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
75,000 =
75,000
SUBTOTAL
=
657,500
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
197,250 =
197,250
TOTAL
=
854,750
7. Tetra Deer) Bed Filters
Concrete
437
cy
@
450 =
196,650
Filter Modules
1
Is
@
697,500 =
697,500
Piping
1
Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
75,000 =
75,000
SUBTOTAL
=
1,019,150
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
305,745 =
305,745
TOTAL
=
1,324,895
EFFLUENT PUMPING. CHLORINE CONTACT AND CHLORINATION
1. Add On to Existinq Svstem
Tanks
5
ea
@
10,000 =
50,000
Piping
1
Is
@
25,000
25,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
25,000
25,000
Monitoring Equipment
1
Is
@
10,000 =
10,000
SUBTOTAL
=
110,000
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
33,000 =
33,000
TOTAL
=
143,000
2. New Chlorine Contact Chamber and Effluent Pumr) Station
Concrete
554
cy
@
450 =
249,300
Pumps, Drives
1
Is
@
100,000 =
100,000
Handrails, Grating
1
Is
@
80,000 =
80,000
Piping
1
Is
@
80,000 =
80,000
Electrical
1
Is
@
50,000 =
50,000
Excavation/Stabilization
1
Is
@
20,000 =
20,000
Chlorine Diffusers
1
Is
@
10,000 =
10,000
Flowmeter, Weir
1
Is
@
20,000 =
20,000
SUBTOTAL
=
609,300
30% Contingency
1
Is
@
182,790 =
182,790
TOTAL
=
792,090
MISCELLANEOUS
Site Work, 5% of Subtotal
Yard Piping, 15% of Subtotal
Electrical, 15% of Subtotal
Mobilization, 10% of Subtotal
Appendix B
Page 4 of 4 Pages
7/16/2004
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
July 2004
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
8600 HIDDEN RIVER PARKWAY
SUITE 550
TAMPA, FL 33637
913-977-6005
0
•
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
1.
INTRODUCTION
1-1
2.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
2-1
3.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
3-1
FEDERAL
3-1
General Provisions
3-1
Land Application
3-1
Metals
3-1
Pathogens
3-3
Vector Attraction Reduction
3-3
Monitoring
3-3
Surface Disposal
3-4
Pollutant Limits
3-4
Pathogens
3-5
Vector Attraction Reduction
3-5
Air
3-5
Pathogens and Vector Attraction Reduction
3-5
Pathogens
3-6
Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP)
3-7
Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP)
3-8
Incineration
3-9
Landfill
3-10
STATE
3-10
Pathogen Reduction
3-11
Vector Attraction Reduction
3-11
Site Use Restrictions
3-11
Landfills
3-12
LOCAL
3-13
Okeechobee County Requirements
3-13
Land Application Sites for Class A and B Residuals
and Septage
3-13
SECTION
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
4.
CURRENT AND FUTURE QUANTITY AND QUALITY
4-1
EXISTING QUANTITY
4-1
FUTURE QUANTITY
4-1
ANTICIPATED QUALITY
4-1
5.
POTENTIAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL STRATEGIES
5-1
RESIDUALS TREATMENT
5-1
ALKALINE STABILIZATION PROCESSES
5-1
BioSet System
5-3
FKC System — Class A
5-8
FKC System — Class B
5-12
COMPOSTING PROCESS
5-13
Parkson Corporation Therm o-System Solar Sludge Drying
5-13
EVALUATION OF PROCESSES
5-19
MATRIX EVALUATION
5-22
6.
SELECTED PROGRAM FOR RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
6-1
APPENDIX
A. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs and Annual Operating Costs
B. Demonstration Study Results
C. Process Information
BioSet
FKC
Thermo -System
Centrifuge
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
1-1
OUA Service Area
1-2
2-1
Residuals — Historical Flows, 1998-2003
2-2
2-2
Existing Residuals Management Pro gram
2-3
4-1
Projected Wastewater Flows, 2003-2016
4-9
4-2
Design Quantity for Resi duals Based Upon Projected Flows to WWTP
4-10
5-1
Typical Alkaline Treatment for Domestic Residuals
5-4
5-2
BioSet System
5-5
5-3
Site Schematic — BioSet System
5-6
5-4
FKC System — Class A
5-9
5-5
FKC Residuals Management System — Class A — Site Schematic
5-10
5-6
Thermo -System with Centrifuge
5-15
5-7
Thermo -System with Centrifuge — Site Schematic
5-16
5-8
Thermo -System with Drum Thickener — Site Schematic
5-17
5-9
Process Capital Costs
5-23
5-10
Annual Cost Comparison
5-24
5-11
Quantity of Residuals Produced Daily
5-26
6-1
Disposal Costs for Liquid and Dewatered Residuals
6-2
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
1-1
Phosphorus Reduction to Lake Okeechobee as a Resul t of Providing
a Regional Sewerage System to Areas Adjacent to the Lake
1-3
3-1
Ceiling Concentrations for Pollutants in Sewage Sludges
3-1
3-2
Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rates for Sewage Sludges
3-2
3-3
Pollutant Concentrations i n Sewage Sludges
3-2
3-4
Annual Pollutant Loading Rates for Sewage Sludges
3-3
3-5
Frequency of Monitoring for Land Applic ation of Sewage Sludges
3-4
3-6
Pollutant Concentrations — Active Sewage Sludge Unit without a Liner
and Leachate Collection
3-4
3-7
Pollutant Concentrations —Active Sewage Sludge Unit without a Liner and
Leachate Collection System that Has a Unit Boundary to the Property Li ne
Less than 150 Meters
3-5
3-8
Pathogen Reduction Requirements for Class A and Class B Sewage
Sludges
3-6
3-9
Chapter 62-640 — Descriptions of Cl ass A, AA and B Sewage Sludges
(Residuals)
3-11
4-1
OUA Flow Data — Wastewater Treatment Facility
4-3
4-2
Projected Flows for OUA WWTP (2003-2016)
4-8
4-3
Projected Quality of Residuals
4-11
5-1
Residuals Treatment Options
5-1
5-2
Flow Rate Information — BioSet System
5-7
5-3
Flow Rate Information — FKC System — Class A
5-8
5-4
Flow Rate Information — FKC System — Class B
5-12
5-5
Breakdown of Costs for Phases I and II for FK C System — Class B
5-12
5-6
Flow Rate Information —Thermo-System with Centrifuge
5-18
5-7
Flow Rate Information — Thermo -System with Rotary Drum Thickener
5-18
5-8
Evaluation Matrix for Processes
5-21
5-9
Storage Requirements of Final Product
5-28
SECTION 1.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida
Water Management District, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the University of Florida —
Institute of Food and Agricultural Studies, the Florida Department of Health and the Florida
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services have been studying Lake Okeechobee —
the largest freshwater lake in Florida. The agencies have determined that phosphorus
loadings within the Lake's watershed area have contributed to excessive phosphorus
loadings within the Lake itself.
High phosphorus levels lead to eutrophication which causes algal blooms, leadi ng to
unpleasant tastes and odor s in potable water withdrawn from the Lake. The Lak a is a major
source of revenue to the area for corn mercial and sport fishing. Eutrophication reduces the
ability of fish and other aquatic species and plants to grow and repro duce properly.
Many efforts have been extended by all of the above agencies to reduce the phosphor us
levels in the Lake to a "background" level of 40 ppb. Many p rojects are being designed and
constructed to red uce the quantity of phosphorus to this level. The Okeechobee Uti lity
Authority (Authority) intends to continue to provide sewerage facilities to remove septic
tanks and small package treatment facilities from the area adjacent to the Lake and within
the service area of the Authority. The Authority's service area is illustrated in Figure 1-1.
In December 2003, a repo rt entitled, Okeechobee Utility Authority Wastewater Facilities
Plan, was completed by Metzger & Willard, Inc., and submitted to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the Authority. A s a part of the report, it was determined that
by providing a regional sewage system for the collection, transmission, treatment and
disposal to the areas adjacent to the Lake approximately 6 tons of phosphorus per year will
be prevented from entering Lake Okeechobee, as shown in T able 1-1.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 1-1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
7oks
?chobee
mocks
FIGURE 1-1
OUA SERVICE AREA
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
T—pa, Aorido 33637 (813) 977-6005
•
0
TABLE 1-1. PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION TO LAKE OKEECHOBEE AS A RESULT OF
PROVIDING A REGIONAL SEWERAGE SYSTEM TO AREAS ADJACENT TO THE LAKE,
PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION,
AREA
FLOW, GPD
TONS/YEAR *
Taylor Creek Isles
246,900
1.54
Ousley Infill
12,400
0.08
Treasure Island
385,000
1.92
Big "O"
78,300
0.42
Buckhead Ridge
140,200
0.66
Ancient Oaks
156,040
0.73
Blue Cypress
57,800
0.27
TOTAL
1,076,640
5.62
=6
" Based upon 4.09 mg/L - Concentration reaching canals/Lake Okeechobee. Developed through
literature search and sampling program in Okeechobee. (40% of value of septic tank effuent
escaping into the soils.)
r�
•
In order to provide adequate capacity at the A uthority wastewater treatment plant and to
continue the program of phosphorus reduction to the Lake, the capacity will need to be
increased. Therefore, this technical memorandum addresses the needs of residuals
management for the expanded facility.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 1-4 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
•
C]
SECTION 2.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS
Domestic residuals are currently treated within the Authority's Cemetery Road wastewater
treatment facility to Class B Standards, which allows for land application at public -access
restricted sites.
The residuals are treated by aerobic digestion to reduce pathogens and vector attraction.
After treatment, the liquid residuals (approximatel y 1 percent solids) are then land applied at
the wastewater treatment plant site or dewatered using rented equipment and taken to the
Okeechobee County landfill for disposal.
The facility processes approximately 100 dry tons per year of domestic residuals, including
approximately 9.5 dry tons of residuals from Authority operated or contracted package
facilities.
Newly adopted setback requirements, provided in an Okeechobee County ordinance will
prohibit the use of much of the FD EP-approved land application site at the Authority's
Cemetery Road W WTP site. The Authority is considering additional residuals treatment —
by dewatering and stabilization to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of the
residuals to allow for land application to non -restricted sites (Class A or AA residuals).
Upon expiration of the current FDEP operating permit in July 2008, the County setback
requirements will take affect for the Authority site. Over one-half of the Authority site will
then be restricted from use for Class B residuals.
Currently, waste activated sludge is removed from the clarifiers at a rate of approximately
20,000 to 35,000 gpd (2700 — 4700 cubic feetiday) at 0.8 percent solids and pum ped to one
of the two aerobic digesters. E ach digester can contain a volume of approximately 60,000
CF of residuals. The historical residuals flows are shown in Figure 2-1.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 2-1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
O
Oct-98
Jan-99
Apr-99 -
Jul-99 -
Oct-99 -
Jan-00 -
Apr-00 -
Jul-00
Oct-oo
Jan-01 -
Apr-01
D Jul-o1
m Oct-01
Jan-02 -
Apr-02
Jul-02
Oct-02
Jan-03
Apr-03
Jul-03
Oct-03
Jan-04
Apr-04
RESIDUALS FLOW, MGD
o O o O
0
O O O N
cn s CJt N U7
C
m
N
X
m
v
c
D
r
N
2
-i
O
X
n
D
r
r
O
N
cc
cfl
00
N
O
O
w
AEROBIC DIGESTERS (2)
VOLUME 60,320 CIF EACH
I
WAS
0 = 1,100 CF/DAY
TS = 0.8%
RESIDUALS
VOLUME z 160,000
CF/YEAR
TS = 2.0% +/-
TRANSPORT
INTERMITTENTLY
ON SITE
RES TRANS
oo UU o
276 ACRES t
LAND APPLICATION SITE
TO LAND APPLICATION , ) „ 1
ZONES w u W
NOTE: SYSTEM BASED
UPON = 100 DRY
TONS/YEAR RESIDUALS
APPLICATION.
FIGURE 2-2:
EXISTING RESIDUALS
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • £nvironmentol Engineers
Tampa, Fl orido 33637 (813) 977-6005
The residuals are aerated for a period of at least 40 days with the supernatant returned to
the head of the plant. Treated residuals are then removed from the digester to a tanker
truck for applying to the surface of the disposal site. The existing program is illustrated in
Figure 2-2.
The disposal site i ncludes approximatel y 276 acres at the WWT P. As an alternate, the
residuals are de -watered and taken to the Okeechobee C ounty Landfill for disposal.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 2-4 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
•
•
Federal
SECTION 3.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
The appropriate federal regulations include 40CFR Part 503 — Standards for the Use or
Disposal of Sewage Sludge and 40 CFR Part 258 — Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Part 503 establishes "standards, which consist of general requirements, pollutant limits,
management practices, and operational standards, for the fin al use or disposal of sewage
sludge generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works." T he use
and disposal includes sewage sludge appli ed to the land, placed on a surface disposal site
or fired in an incinerator. Sewage sludge taken to a landfill is covered by 40CFR Part 258.
LAND APPLICATION
Part 503 provides for the following pollutant limits (503.13) — both concentrations and
loading rates, where land application is the method of disposal.
Metals: (1) For bulk sewage sl udge to be marketed or distributed, pollutant levels may not
exceed those listed in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3-1. CEILING CONCENTRATIONS FOR POLLUTANTS IN SEWAGE
SLUDGES.
POLLUTANT
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Technical Memorandum No. 2
Residuals Management
CEILING CONCETRATION
(MG/KG — DRY WEIGHT BASIS)
75
85
4300
840
57
75
420
100
7500
3-1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
July 2004
(2) For application to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, or a re clamation site, the
cumulative loading rate cannot exceed the following loading rates in Table 3-2, or the
concentrations for the pollutants provided in Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-2. CUMULATIVE POLLUTANT LOADING RATES FOR SEWAGE
SLUDGES.
POLLUTANT
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
CUMULATIVE POLLUTANT
LOADING RATE
(KG/HECTARE)
41
39
1500
300
17
N/A
420
100
2800
TABLE 3-3. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEWAGE SLUDGES.
POLLUTANT
MONTHLY AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION (MG/KG —
DRY WEIGHT BASIS)
Arsenic
41
Cadmium
39
Copper
1500
Lead
300
Mercury
17
Molybdenum
N/A
Nickel
420
Selenium
100
Zinc
2800
(3) For application to a lawn or home garden, the concentration of each parameter may not
exceed those listed in Table 3-3.
(4) For sewage sludge sold or given away for application to land (marketed and distributed
in containers, but not bulk), the concentration of each pollutant in the sewage sludge shall
not exceed the concentrations in Table 3-3, or the product of the concentration of each
pollutant in the sewage sludge and the annual whole s ludge application rate for the sewage
sludge shall not cause the annual pollutant loading rate for the pollutants in Table 3-4 to be
exceeded.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-2 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
TABLE 3-4. ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADING RATES FOR SEWAGE
SLUDGES.
POLLUTANT
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADING RATE
(KG/HECTARE PER 365 DAY PERIOD)
2.0
1.9
75
15
0.85
N/A
21
5.0
140
Pathogens: The Class A pathogen requirements in 503.32(a) or the Class B pathogen
requirements and site restrictions in 503.32(b) are required to be met when bulk sewage
sludge is applied to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site.
The Class A pathogen requirements are r equired to be met when bulk sew age sludge is
applied to a lawn or home garden.
The Class A pathogen requirements are required to be met when sewage sl udge (not bulk)
is sold or given away in a bag or other container for application to the land.
Vector Attraction Reduction: One of the vector attraction reduction require ments provided in
Part 503.33(b)(1) through (b)(10) shall be met for any of the above three uses for sludge is
performed.
Additional information on Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction is provided further in
this Section of the report.
Monitoring: The frequency of monitoring for the pollutants listed in Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 and
3-4; the pathogen density requirements; and the vector attr action reduction levels are as
provided in Table 3-5.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
TABLE 3-5. FREQUENCY OF MONITORING FOR LAND APPLICATION OF
SEWAGE SLUDGES.
AMOUNT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE (METRIC TONS FREQUENCY
PER 365 DAY PERIOD)
Greater than zero but le ss than 290 Once per year
Equal to or greater than 290, but less than 1500 Once per quarter
(four times per year)
Equal to or greater than 1500, but less than 15,0 00 Once per 60 days
(six times per year)
Equal to or greater than 15,000 Once per month
(12 times per year)
After the sewage sludge has been monitored for two years, the permitting authority may
reduce the frequency of the testing.
SURFACE DISPOSAL
Part 503.20 is appropriate for where sewage sludge is placed on a surface disposal site.
The land where the sludg a is placed is used only for the placement of sewage sludge.
Leachate may be collected for treatment.
Pollutant Limits: For an active sewage unit without a liner and a leachate collection system,
the concentration of each pollutant listed in Table 3-6 shall not be exceeded.
TABLE 3-6. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS —ACTIVE SEWAGE SLUDGE
UNIT WITHOUT A LINER AND LEACHATE COLLECTION.
POLLUTANT CEILING CONCETRATION
(MG/KG — DRY WEIGHT BASIS)
Arsenic 73
Chromium 600
Nickel 420
For surface disposal sites where there is less than 150 meters to the property line, the
pollutant concentrations decrease as shown in Table 3-7.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-4 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
Pathoqens: For the removal of pathogens from sewage sludge, the following requirements
listed in Table 3-8 are necessary to meet the Class A and Class B regulations.
TABLE 3-8. PATHOGEN REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS A AND CLASS B
SEWAGE SLUDGES.
Class A Density of fecal coliform in the sewage sludge shall be less than 1000 MPN per
gram of total solids (dry weight basis)
OR
Density of Salmonella sp. bacteria in the sewage sludge shall be less than three
MPN per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis)
at the time the sewage sludge is used or disposed; at the time the sewage sludge is
prepared for sale or give away in a bag or other container for application to the land;
or at the time the sewage sludge or material derived from sewage sludge is
prepared to meet the requirements for bulk sewage sludge disposal.
Alt 1. I The temperature of the sewage sludge that is used or disposed shall be
maintained at a specific value for a period of time.
7% or hiaher solids of sewaqe sludqe: Shall be 50 degrees C or higher for
20 minutes or longer. The temperature and time period are determined
using the following equation:
D = 131,700,000/100'1400t
Where,
D = time in days
t = temperature in degrees C
7% or hiqher solids and small particles of sewaqe sludge are heated by
either warmed qases or an immiscible liquid: Shall be 50 degrees C or
higher for 15 seconds or longer. The temperature and time period shall be
determined using the above formula.
< 7% and the time period is at least 15 seconds, but less than 30 minutes:
The temperature and time period shall be determined using the above
formula.
< 7%, temperature is 50 degrees C or higher, and the time Deriod is 30
minutes or longer: The temperature and time period shall be determined
using the following equation:
D = 50,070,000/100.14001
Where,
Technical Memorandum No. 2
Residuals Management
D = time in days
t = temperature in degrees C
3-6 Okeechobee Utility Authority
July 2004
•
•
TABLE 3-7. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS — ACTIVE SEWAGE UNIT
WITHOUT A LINER AND LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM THAT HAS A UNIT
BOUNDARY TO THE PROPERTY LINE LESS THAN 150 METERS.
Unit boundary to property
line Pollutant concentration
Distance (meters)
0 to less than 25
25 to less than 50
50 to less than 75
75 to less than 100
100 to less than 125
125 to less than 150
Chromium
Arsenic (mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Nickel (mg/kgL_
30
200
210
34
220
240
39
260
270
46
300
320
53
360
390
62
450
420
A sewage sludge unit suitable for surface dispos al is similar to a sanitary landfill. The
sludge is covered and the site is eventually "closed" in a fashion similar to a landfill. In
addition, after the site is closed, monitoring is required for a period of time.
Ground water monitoring is required and site restrictions for use are required. The
frequency of monitoring is simil ar to a land application site.
Pathogens: The Class A pathogen requirements or one of the Class B pathogen
requirements are required to be met when sewage sludge is placed on an active sewage
sludge unit, unless the vector attraction reduction requirement is met.
Vector Attraction Reductions: One of the vector attraction reduction requ irements is
necessary to be met when s ewage sludge is placed in an active sewage sludge unit.
Air: In addition to the other monitoring requirements, the air in buildings and structures is
required to be monitored continuou sly for methane gas while the system is in operation and
for a period of three years after the site is c losed.
PATHOGENS AND VECTOR ATTRACTION REDUCTION
As defined in Part 503.31, pathogenic organisms are disease -causing org anisms, and
include certain bacteria, protozoa, viruses, viable helminth ova, and other organisms. In
addition, vector attraction is the characteristic of sewage sludge that "attracts rodents, flies,
mosquitoes, or other organisms capable of transporting infectious agents".
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-5 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
TABLE 3-8. PATHOGEN REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS A AND CLASS B
SEWAGE SLUDGES.
Alt 2. 1 The pH of the sewage sludge that is used or disposed shall be raised to
above 12 and shall remain above 12 for 72 hours.
Class B
Alt 3.
The temperature of the sewage sludge shall be above 52 degrees C for 12
hours or longer during the period that the pH of the sewage sludge is above
12.
At the end of the 72 hour period during which the pH of the sewage sludge
is above 12, the sewage sludge shall be air dried to achieve a percent
solids in the sewage sludge greater than 50 percent.
Enteric Viruses: The sewage sludge shall be analyzed prior to pathogen
treatment to determine whether the sewage sludge contains enteric viruses.
<1: If the density is less than one Plaque -forming Unit per four grams of
total solids (dry weight basis), the sewage sludge is Class A with respect
to enteric viruses until the next monitoring episode for the sewage
sludge.
Helminth Ova:
<1: If the density is less than one per four grams of total solids (dry
weight basis) after pathogen treatment, the sewage sludge is Class A
with respect to viable helminth ova density.
Alt 4. The requirements for Alt 4 are the same as for Alt 3, unless otherwise
specified by the permitting authority.
Alt 5. Sewage sludge that is used or disposed shall be treated in one of the
Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens as defined later in this report.
Alt 6. Sewage sludge that is used or disposed shall be treated in a process that is
equivalent to a Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, as determined by
the permitting authority.
One of the following requirements for pathogens shall be met before sewage sludge
can be labeled as Class B.
Alt 1. Seven samples of the sewage sludge shall be collected. The geometric
mean in the samples collected shall be less than either 2,000,000 Most
Probable Number per gram of total solids (dry weight basis) or 2,000,000
Colony Forming Units per gram of total solids (dry weight basis)
Alt 2. Sewage sludge that is used or disposed shall be treated in one of the
Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens described later in this report.
Alt 3. Sewage sludge that is used or disposed shall be treated in a process that is
equivalent to a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, as determined
by the permitting authority.
Site Restrictions: Site restrictions regarding crops, harvest dates, animal grazing,
public access and other issues shall be met when sewage sludge that meets the
above Class B pathogen requirements are to be applied to land.
Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathoaens (PSRP): The following is a list of processes
to significantly reduce pathogens in sewage sl udge.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-7 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
1. Aerobic digestion: Sewage sludge is agitated with air or oxygen to maintain aerobic
conditions for a specific mean cell residence time at a specific temperature. Values for the
mean cell residence time and temperature shall be between 40 days at 20 degrees C and 60
days at 15 degrees C.
2. Air drying: Sewage sludge is dried on sand beds or on paved or unpaved basins. The
sewage sludge dries for a minimum of three months. During two of the three months, the
ambient average daily temperature is above zero degrees C.
3. Anaerobic digestion: Sewage sludge is treated in the absence of air for a specific mean cell
residence time at a specific temperature. Values shall be between 15 days at 35 to 55
degrees C and 60 days at 20 degrees C.
4. Composting: Using either within -vessel, static aerated pile, or windrow composting methods,
the temperature of the sewage sludge is raised to 40 degrees C or higher and remains at 40
degrees C or higher for five days. For four hours during the five days, the temperature in the
compost pile exceeds 55 degrees C.
5. Lime stabilization: Sufficient lime is added to the sewage sludge to raise the pH of the
sewage sludge to 12 after two hours of contact.
Processes to Further Reduce Pathoaens (PFRP): The following is a list of processes to
further reduce the pathogen density i n sewage sludge.
1. Composting: For the within -vessel composting method or the static aerated pile composting
method, the temperature of the sewage sludge is maintained at 55 degrees or higher for
three days. For the windrow composting method, the temperature of the sewage sludge is
maintained at 55 degrees or higher for 15 days or longer. During the period when the
compost is maintained at 55 degrees or higher, there shall be a minimum of five turnings of
the windrow.
2. Heat drying: Sewage sludge is dried by direct or indirect contact with hot gases to reduce
the moisture content of the sewage sludge to 10 percent or lower. Either the temperature of
the sewage sludge particles exceeds 80 degrees C or the wet bulb temperature of the gas in
contact with the sewage sludge as the sewage sludge leaves the dryer exceeds 80 degrees
C.
3. Heat treatment: Liquid sewage sludge is heated to a temperature of 180 degrees C or
higher for 30 minutes.
4. Thermophillic aerobic digestion: Liquid sewage sludge is agitated with air or oxygen to
maintain aerobic conditions and the mean cell residence time of the sewage sludge is 10
days at 55 to 60 degrees C.
5. Beta ray irradiation: Sewage sludge is irradiated with beta rays from an accelerator at
dosages of at least 1.0 megarad at room temperature (+/- 20 degrees C).
6. Gamma ray irradiation: Sewage sludge is irradiated with gamma rays from certain isotopes,
such as 60Cobalt and 13'Cesium, at dosages of at least 1.0 megarad at room temperature
(+/-20 degrees C).
7. Pasteurization: The temperature of the sewage sludge is maintained at 70 degrees C or
higher for 30 minutes or longer.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-8 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
The vector attraction reduction requirements apply to bulk sewage sludge applied to
agricultural lands, forests, public contact sites or reclamation sites. The rules apply also to
bulk sewage sludge applied to lawn or home gardens. The rules also are appropriate for
sewage sludge sold or given away in bags or other containers (not bulk) and for sludge
placed in an active sewage sludge unit (surface disposal). Vector attracti on reduction is
demonstrated by one of the following items.
1. Mass of volatile solids in sewage sludge shall be reduced by a minimum of 38 percent.
2. If (1) cannot be met, a laboratory bench scale study of anaerobically digested sewage sludge
is performed for a minimum of 40 additional days at between 30 and 37 degrees C. If at the
end of the 40 days, the volatile solids in the sewage sludge are reduced by less than 17
percent, vector attraction reduction is achieved.
3. If (1) cannot be met, a laboratory bench scale study of aerobically digested sewage sludge is
performed for a minimum of 30 additional days at 20 degrees C. If at the end of the 30 days,
the volatile solids in the sewage sludge are reduced by less than 15 percent, vector attraction
reduction is achieved.
4. The specific oxygen uptake rate (SOUR) of aerobically digested sludge is equal to or less than
1.5 mg of oxygen per hour per gram of total solids (dry weight basis) at 20 degrees C.
5. Sewage sludge treated in an aerobic digester for 14 days or longer at 40 degrees C with an
average temperature greater than 45 degrees C.
6. The pH of sewage sludge shall be raised to 12 or higher by alkali addition and shall remain at
12 or higher for an additional 72 hours.
7. The percent solids of sewage sludge that does not contain unstabilized solids generated in a
primary wastewater treatment process shall be equal to or greater than 75 percent based
upon the moisture content and total solids prior to mixing with other materials.
8. The percent solids of sewage sludge that does contain unstabilized solids generated in a
primary wastewater treatment process shall be equal to or greater than 90 percent based
upon the moisture content and total solids prior to mixing with other materials.
9. Sewage sludge shall be injected below the surface of the land.
10. Sewage sludge applied to the land surface or to an active sewage sludge unit shall be
incorporated into the soil within six hours after application or placement, unless otherwise
specified by the permitting authority.
11. Sewage sludge placed on an active sewage sludge unit shall be covered with soil or other
material at the end of each operating day.
INCINERATION:
Part 503 provides for the requiremen is for sewage sludge incineration; however, this report
will not address incineration as a disposal method, si nce it is a non -beneficial use of a
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-9 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
0
•
valuable product. Severe water and air quality standards apply to the incineration of
sewage sludge.
LANDFILL:
Part 258 — Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills — applies to the disposal of sewage
sludge in a sanitary landfill. This regulation provides for the permitting and monitoring of
municipal solid waste landfills and defines the materials that may be disposed of within a
landfill. Sewage sludge that is determined to be non -hazardous may be placed in a landfill.
Local ordinances may provide more stringent requirem ents on local landfills.
State
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection regulates the management, use, and
land application of residuals so as to "ensure protection of the environment and public
health." Chapter 62-640 FAC — Domestic Wastewater Residuals is the rule governing
domestic wastewater residuals. Chapter 62-640 provides the minimum standards "for the
treatment of residuals and septage to be applied to land or d istributed and marketed,
establish land application criteria, and define requirements for agricultural operations whic h
have received or wi II receive residuals or septage."
The FDEP (Chapter 62-640) defines the classes of residuals as follows:
Class A: Residuals that meet all the requirements of Rul a 62-640.600(1)(a), as
provided in Table 3-9.
Class AA: Class A residuals that meet all the requirements of Rule 62-640.850, as
provided in Table 3-9.
Class B: Residuals that meet the Class B pathogen reduction requirements of Rule 62-
640.600(1)(b), as provided in Table 3-9.
All land application sites used for the disposal of sewage sludge ( residuals) is required to
submit an Agricultural Use Plan (AU P), with updates as required, prior to using the site for
land application. The AUPs describes how the site meets regulations, establishes the
location of each application zone, and provides a nutrient balanc a for the site. The AUP
also projects the life of the site for the use of land application. Some areas, including areas
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-10 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed have been determ ined to be subject to restrictions
on phosphorus loadings. The AUP also considers the potential for phosphorus movement
from the site by considering the soils.
TABLE 3-9. CHAPTER 62-640 DESCRIPTIONS OF CLASS A, AA AND B SEWAGE SLUDGES
(RESIDUALS).
CLASS A Same as the Federal regulations defined in Part 503 of 40 CFR, if one of the
pathogen reduction requirements is met.
CLASS AA 1. Shall meet the requirements for Class A pathogen reduction standards.
2. Shall meet one of the vector attraction reduction requirements of 40CFR Part
503.
3. Shall be analyzed in accordance with Rule 62-640.650(1) on a monthly basis and
the results submitted to FDEP. The residuals products shall have monthly
average parameter concentrations not exceeding the following criteria:
MONTHLY AVERAGE
PARAMETER
(MG/KG DRY WEIGHT BASIS)
Arsenic
41
Cadmium
39
Copper
1500
Lead
300
Mercury
17
Nickel
420
Selenium
100
Zinc
2800
OUA (Jan 1, 2004)
(MG/KG DRY WEIGHT BASIS)
4.8
2.9
670
39
0.99
22
10
930
CLASS B Same as the Federal regulations as defined in Part 503 of 40 CFR, if one of the
pathogen reduction requirements is met.
PATHOGEN REDUCTION:
Pathogen reduction requirements are the same as for the Federal Guidelines as described
in Table 3-8.
VECTOR ATTRACTION REDUCTION:
All residuals applied to I and shall meet one of the vector attraction requirements provided by
the Federal regulations and as described previously.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-11 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
SITE USE RESTRICTIONS:
The following site use restrictions apply for the use of Classes AA, A and B residuals.
CLASS AA/A Allowed on unrestricted public access areas such as playgrounds, parks, golf
courses, lawns, and hospital grounds.
CLASS B Not allowed on unrestricted public access areas. Limited to use on restricted public
access areas such as agricultural sites, forests, and roadway shoulders and
medians. The public shall be restricted from the application zone for 12 months
after the last application of residuals. The following restrictions also apply:
1. Plant nursery: Limited to plants which will not be sold to the public for 12
months after the last application of residuals.
2. Roadway shoulders and medians: Limited to restricted public access roads.
3. Food crops with harvested parts that touch the residuals/soil mixture and are
totally above the land surface: May not be harvested for 14 months after the
last application.
4. Food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land and residuals
remain on the land surface for four months or longer before incorporation into
the soil: May not be harvested for 20 months after the last application.
5. Food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land and residuals
remain on the land surface for less than four months before incorporation into
the soil: May not be harvested for 38 months after the last application.
6. Food crops, feed crops, and fiber crops: May not be harvested for 30 days
following the last application.
7. Animals: May not be grazed on the land for 30 days after the last
application.
8. Sod which will be distributed or sold to the public or used on unrestricted
public access areas: May not be harvested for 12 months after the last
application.
9. Minimum setback distances: Stringent setback distances shall be adhered to
as defined within the rule for land application areas and a building occupied
by the general public.
LANDFILLS:
The FDEP (Chapter 62-701) provides the rules for the establishment, operation and closure
of solid waste management facilities. Chapter 62-701 does not prohibit the placement of
"sludge" within a landfill. In Chapter 62-701, sludge is defined as a" solid waste pollution
control residual which i s generated by any ... domestic wastewater treatment plant ... "
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-12 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
Local
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS:
In 2003, the Okeechobee County Board of County Commissioners passed ordinance
number 2003-06, which amends the County Land Development Regulations (LDRs),
"providing for the protection of the ground and surface waters of Okeechobee County from
the improper disposal of Class A and B residuals and septage". In general, the ordinance
provides for the following:
1. Limits land application of Class A and B residuals and septage;
2. Requires submittal of Agricultural Use plans;
3. Requires permits for vehicles used to transport and apply residuals;
4. Requires annual perm its for land application sites; and,
5. Provides for other administrative requirements.
The County defines Class A and B residuals in terms of the State definitions.
Land Application Sites for Class A and B Residuals and SeDtage: Owners of property used
for land application are required to obtain a permit from the Okeechobee County Heal th
Department (OCH D) — which requires submitting a form and an AU P in accordance with
FDEP form 62-640.210(2)(a) and the submittal of a fee. Permits are valid from October 1
through September 30. Only permitted vehicles can deliver/land apply residuals on the site.
Residuals and septage must be treated to reduce pathogens and achi eve vector attraction
reduction in accordance with state regulations prior to land applicati on. For residuals or
septage exceeding three percent solids, the material must be tilled into the soil, land spread
using a spreader bar, or otherwise disposed of in a manner approved by the OCH D within
24 hours of being placed on the site. No residuals or septage can be a pplied within 750 feet
of an adjoining property unless the adjoining property is also land applying. The County
ordinance requires a monthly report to the OCHD of the amount and source of the mater ial
land spread. The report should als o include the pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus ap plied
per acre and the location within the site where the residuals were applied.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 3-13 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
SECTION 4.
CURRENT AND FUTURE QUANTITY AND QUALITY
Existinq Quantitv
In September 1998, the existing Authority plant on Cemetery Road was placed on-line. At
that time, the older (1985) contact stabilization activated sludge (CSAS) facility was taken
off-line for maintenance and repairs. Currently, the existing CSAS facility remains off-line.
Historical flows at the existing WWTP are shown in Table 4-1 (October 1998 through June
2004). The facility is designed to waste approximately 2.7 percent of WAS daily (2.7% of
total flow to the plant).
Future Quantity
Projected flows were developed for the wastewater plant, based upon system growth
anticipated from infill, inclusion of existing package plants that are removed from service and
collection system expansion. The system expansion schedule and projected flows are
shown in Table 4-2 and illustrated in Figure 4-1. Based upon projected flows to the
wastewater treatment plant, the projected quantity of residuals is shown in Figure 4-2. The
quantity of residuals is based upon 4500 pounds BOD removed per day and 3600 pounds of
solids wasted per day in the treatment process.
Anticipated Qualitv
It is anticipated that the quality of the residuals at the OUA wastewater treatment facility will
remain fairly consistent, provided no new industries develop i n the area that could impact
the quality of the residuals. Table 4-3 summarizes the anticipated quality which is within the
Class A requirements for all param eters except for Molybdenum. The operations staff has
been making an effort to determine the source of the Molybdenum and to remove it from the
waste stream. The Molybdenum appears intermittently in the residuals and tracking down
the source has been difficult.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 4-1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
MONTHLY
3-MONTH
RUNNING ANNUAL
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
DATE
AVERAGE, MGD
AVERAGE, MGD
AVG, MGD
DESIGN CAPACITY
Oct-98
0.448
0.448
Nov-98
0.522
0.485
Dec-98
0.500
0.490
0.490
44.5
Jan-99
0.548
0.523
0.505
47.6
Feb-99
0.647
0.565
0.533
51.4
Mar-99
0.663
0.619
0.555
56.3
Apr-99
0.595
0.635
0.560
57.7
May-99
0.492
0.583
0.552
53.0
Jun-99
0.668
0.585
0.565
53.2
Jul-99
0.560
0.573
0.564
52.1
Aug-99
0.545
0.591
0.563
53.7
Sep-99
0.747
0.617
0.578
56.1
Oct-99
0.701
0.664
0.599
60.4
Nov-99
0.611
0.686
0.606
62.4
Dec-99
0.555
0.622
0.611
56.6
Jan-00
0.593
0.586
0.615
53.3
Feb-00
0.643
0.597
0.614
54.3
Mar-00
0.569
0.602
0.607
54.7
Apr-00
0.509
0.574
0.599
52.2
May-00
0.481
0.520
0.599
47.2
Jun-00
0.476
0.489
0.583
44.4
Jul-00
0.494
0.484
0.577
44.0
Aug-00
0.446
0.472
0.569
42.9
Sep-00
0.564
0.501
0.554
45.6
Oct-00
0.546
0.519
0.541
47.2
Nov-00
0.532
0.547
0.534
49.8
Dec-00
0.483
0.520
0.528
47.3
Jan-01
0.570
0.528
0.526
48.0
Feb-01
0.591
0.548
0.522
49.8
Mar-01
0.678
0.613
0.531
55.7
Apr-01
0.646
0.638
0.542
58.0
May-01
0.658
0.661
0.557
60.1
Jun-01
0.704
0.669
0.576
60.8
Jul-01
0.724
0.695
0.595
63.2
Aug-01
0.648
0.692
0.612
62.9
Sep-01
0.780
0.717
0.630
65.2
Oct-01
0.702
0.710
0.643
64.5
Nov-01
0.649
0.710
0.653
64.6
Dec-01
0.567
0.639
0.660
58.1
Table 4-1 7/16/2004
•
•
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
Jan-02
Feb-02
Mar-02
Apr-02
May-02
Jun-02
Jul-02
Aug-02
Sep-02
Oct-02
Nov-02
Dec-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Sep-03
Oct-03
Nov-03
Dec-03
Jan-04
Feb-04
Mar-04
Apr-04
May-04
Jun-04
MONTHLY
AVERAGE, MGD
0.601
0.612
0.567
0.533
0.483
0.493
0.618
0.552
0.660
0.608
0.622
0.735
0.777
0.729
0.711
0.660
0.638
0.696
0.656
0.815
0.766
0.716
0.696
0.666
0.685
0.716
0.683
0.658
0.631
0.616
3-MONTH
AVERAGE,MGD
0.606
0.593
0.593
0.571
0.528
0.503
0.531
0.554
0.610
0.607
0.630
0.655
0.711
0.747
0.739
0.700
0.670
0.665
0.663
0.722
0.746
0.766
0.726
0.693
0.682
0.689
0.695
0.686
0.657
0.635
RUNNING ANNUAL
AVG, MGD
0.662
0.664
0.655
0.645
0.631
0.613
0.604
0.596
0.586
0.579
0.576
0.590
0.605
0.615
0.627
0.637
0.650
0.667
0.670
0.692
0.701
0.710
0.716
0.711
0.703
0.702
0.699
0.699
0.699
0.692
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
DESIGN CAPACITY
55.1
53.9
53.9
51.9
48.0
45.7
48.3
50.4
55.5
55.2
57.3
59.5
64.7
67.9
67.2
63.6
60.9
60.4
60.3
65.7
67.8
69.6
66.0
63.0
62.0
62.6
63.2
62.3
59.8
57.7
Table 4-1 7/16/2004
TABLE 4-2. PROJECTED FLOWS FOR OUA WWTP (2003-2016)
MAKMO . >
; • ;.. ,
y
nd;vf Year
2003 2004'y.
2005
'2006
2007:
2008,
- 2009
2010'
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Taylor Creek Isles
122,500
122,500
Ousley Infill
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Treasure Island
112,000
223,000
50,000
SW (160 units)
30,000
10,000
SE (1000 units)
25,000
37,500
50,000
62,500
50,000
25,000
NE (300 units)
25,000
50,000
Misc Projects
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
Other Growth
19,150
22,691
27,696
33,563
43,040
47,491
51,116
54,269
56,875
58,922
61,020
63,171
65,375
TOTAL for YEAR, GPD1
141,650
200,191
234,696
379,063
178,040
144,991
126,116
104,269
81,875
83,922
86,020
88,171
90,375
AVERAGE DAY, GP 766,000 907,650 1,107,841 1,342,537 1,721,601 1,899,641 2,044,632 2,170,748 2,275,016 2,356,892 2,440,814 2,526,834 2,615,005 2,705,380
MAXIMUM DAY, GP 1,149,000 1,406,858 1,717,154 2,080,933 2,668,481 2,944,443 3,169,179 3,364,659 3,526,275 3,653,182 3,783,262 3,916,593 4,053,258 4,193,339
•
7/16/2004
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
0
a
O
3 1,500,000
O
J
LL
S
1,000, 000
500,000
0 1
O O
O O
N N
FIGURE 4-1. PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS, 2003 - 2016
Lo (D r- co O O N cM '7 Lo CO
O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N
END OF YEAR
•
•
180,000
160,000
140,000
0
a
0 120,000
J
Q
0 100,000
w
w
U.
O 80,000
H
z
60,000
C
40,000
20,000
0
2003
FIGURE 4-2. RESIDUALS QUANTITY BASED UPON PROJECTED FLOWS TO WWTP
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
END OF YEAR
0
•
•
•
TABLE 4-3. PROJECTED QUALITY OF RESIDUALS
PARAMETER UNIT
Total Nitrogen
TN
%
Total Phosphorus
TP
%
Total Potassium
TK
%
Total Solids
TS
%
Arsenic
As
mg/kg
Cadmium
Cd
mg/kg
Copper
Cu
mg/kg
Lead
Pb
mg/kg
Mercury
Hg
mg/kg
Molybdenum
Mb
mg/kg
Nickel
Ni
mg/kg
Selenium
Se
mg/kg
Zinc
Zn
mq/kg
AVERAGE VALUE
CLASS A *
2003
2002
2001
PROJECTED
REGULATIONS
5.05
4.35
4.1
4.50
3.45
2.3
3.2
2.98
0.54
0.48
0.5
0.51
1.46
1.38
1.4
1.41
11.75
19
27
19
41
3.45
4.075
3.7
3.74
39
650
612.5
730
664
1500
35.25
39.25
47
41
300
1.4
2.3
5
2.9
17
71
61.8
124.5
86
24.2
57.8
145.5
76
420
14
24
27
22
100
810
790
932.5
844
2800
* Monthly Average Concentration (mg/kg dry weight basis)
E
•
SECTION 5.
POTENTIAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL STRATEGIES
Residuals Treatment
Based upon prior research and investigati ons, four options were considered for purposes of
this evaluation as follows:
TABLE 5-1. RESIDUALS TREATMENT OPTIONS.
OPTION RESIDUALS TREATMENT LEVEL
1. Aerobic Digestion — Expand the existing Class B
system
2. BioSet System — Schwing Bioset Class A
Technologies, Danbury CT
3a. FKC System — FKC Co., Ltd., Port Class A
Angeles, WA
3b. FKC System — FKC Co., Ltd, Port Class B
Angeles, WA
4. Thermo -System — Parkson Corporation, Class A
Ft. Lauderdale FL
To continue with aerobic digesti on for the expanded facil ity, a third digester is required;
however, the level of treatment will only provide a Class B residual. The Authority has
chosen to go to the higher level of treatment, since the permitting and disposal requirements
are less stringent on the material. Therefore, aerobic digestion will not be considered
further. The remaining process es incorporate either alkali ne stabilization or composting.
The following description and analysis is provided for each.
Alkaline Stabilization Processes
Part 503 requires that wastewater sol ids be processed or stabilized before they can be
beneficially used. Stabilization helps to minimize the potential for odor generation, destroys
pathogens and reduces the material's vector attraction potential. Class A biosolids are
generally used like any commercial fertilizer.
An alkaline material, usually lime, is mixed into the residuals where the pH can be
maintained at or above 12 for a period of time that is dependent upon to mperature. The
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
higher the temperature within the residuals maintained, the shorter the time period. At a
temperature of 52 deg C (126 deg F ), the pH of 12 must be maintained for 72 hours. At 70
deg C (158 deg F), the p H of 12 must only be maintained for 30 or more minutes.
The alkaline stabilized product is suitable for application in landscapi ng, agricultural and/or
mine reclamation. The residuals act as a lime substitute, source of organic matter and
specialty fertilizer.
The alkaline stabilization facilities are suitable for use with liquid or dewatered wastewater
solids.
Alkaline stabilization has several advantages including the following:
1. Consistency with EPA's national beneficial reuse policy;
2. Simple technology, requiring few special skills for reliable operation;
3. Easy to construct;
4. Small land area required;
5. Flexible operation; and,
6. Help to create soil pH conditions in which metals are insoluble, minimizing
plant uptake and movement of metals to groundwater.
Possible disadvantages include the following:
1. The resulting product is not suitable for use with all soil types.
2. The volume of material i n increased by approximately 15 to 50 percent in
comparison to other stabilization techniques, such as digestion.
3. There is the potential for odor generation.
4. There is the potential for dust production.
5. There is the potential for pathogen regrowth if the pH drops below 9.5 while
the material is stored prior to use.
6. The nitrogen content in the final product is lower than that in several other
biosolids products. Nitrogen is converted to ammonia, which is lost to the
atmosphere or to the headworks of the treatment works. Plant available
phosphorus can be reduced through the formation of calcium phosphate.
7. There may be fees associated with proprietary processes.
When designing an alkaline stabilization facility, items to be considered include the
following:
1. Percent solids of infeed wastewater solids
2. Desired results (Class A or Class B), which affect the amount of alkaline
material needed and mixing time
3. Source and volume of alkaline material
4. Odor control equipment at the processing facility
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-2 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
C]
5. Storage and curing area s
Equipment required to produce a Class A product may include the following:
1. Wastewater solids feed system
2. Lime Storage
3. Lime transfer conveyor
4. Mixer
5. Air emission control equipment to m inimize odors and dust
6. Supplemental heat source
Figure 5-1 illustrates a typical alkaline stabilization operation.
Odors associated with alkaline stabilized products are dependent upon the characteristics of
the wastewater solids. In facilities where the sludge age in the wastewater treatment
process is minimized, the odors at the residuals processing facility and the end use site are
likewise minimized. The dryer the cake, the less I ime required and the easier the mater ial is
to process.
Maintenance on an alkaline stabi lization system is no more complicated than that required
for the wastewater treatment plant; however, some of the equ ipment may require higher
maintenance due to the caustic nature of the alkaline materials.
Two of the selected systems use alkaline stabilization as follows:
BIOSET SYSTEM
The Bioset system consists mainly of a pressure reactor where dewatered sludge is mixed
with lime (to increase the pH to or above 12) and sulfamic acid pow der (to increase the
temperature to 70 deg C (158 deg F)) and where the mixture is provided with suffi cient
reaction time under a controlled pressure. Figure 5-2 illustrates the process, while Figure 5-
3 illustrates the site specific system.
The residuals thicken to approximately twice the inlet solids, i.e., dewatered residuals from a
centrifuge enters the reactor at approximately 20 percent solids; residuals at 40 percent
solids is discharged from the reactor.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
STORAGE SILO
LIME
ALKALINE
ADDITIVE
RESIDUALS
MIXING
'TREATED AIR VENTED TO
ATMOSPHERE
PROCESS AIR
SUPPLEMENTAL
HEAT SOURCE
OR ALKALINE
MIXING TO
ACHIEVE
CLASS A
......................�...................... PRODUCT
DISTRIBUTION
PRODUCT CURING
AND STORAGE '
FIGURE 5-1: TYPICAL ALKALINE
TREATMENT FOR DOMESTIC
RESIDUALS
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmentol Engineers
6600 Kidd- River Perk—y, Suite 550
To po, FlaWo 33637 (817) 977-6005
•
0
POLYMER
STORAGE
POLYMER
MAKEDOWN
SYSTEM
290 CF/DAY ® 20%
FROM DIGESTER
1 GPM
(11 CY/DAY)
- 54,000 GPD ®
CENTRIFUGE
0.8%
IN -LINE ROTARY LOBE
z a
z
GRINDER PUMP
o w
On
0>
Q
Z
[1
a
U'1 O
O
00 w
O
O
LIME SILO
SULFAMIC
Ln I
ACID FEED
53,600 GPD TO
HEADWORKS
BIO SET REACTOR
333 CF/DAY ® 20%
It
® 40%
(6.2 CY/DAY)
2 - 40 CY ROLL -OFF
CONTAINERS FOR STORAGE
VENTED
FREE TO
ATMOSPHERE
AMMONIA
SCRUBBER
STABILIZED MATERIAL TO
DISTRIBUTION -
2 - 40 CY CONTAINERS
REMOVED FROM SITE
0
FIGURE 5-2:
BIOSET SYSTEM
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tompa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
1
I I I
(EXIST. TREATMENT PLANT
I TT _ _ _ _ _ r _
I
M I I
I I I
I I
o
O
i—
vrun1r %
V /
y a u
I:n
60 d NAIL
TA. 10+00 J
G. i 6+00 f
Je 1U f '
30 J• 0 75 50 . 1� ^ •fir
7.2 5
AGRICULTURAL FILTER
SCALE. 1 "=50'
CLARIFIER 1A
FIGURE 5-3:
SITE SCHEMATIC-
BIOSET SYSTEM
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
Nitrogen in the residuals reacts to f orm ammonia which kills the pathogens in the residuals.
The ammonia is released at the end of the reactor, captured in an air scrubbing system at a
concentration of less than one percent. The scrubbed air is released to atmosphere.
Dewatered, stabilized residuals are stored in a roll -off container until hauled for reuse or
disposal.
Lime is stored in a 35-foot tall silo and is automatically fed to the mixer. Lime is used at a
rate of 16 percent of sludge by mas s or 0.187 tons per hour (7.5 tons per week). Sulfamic
acid is fed through a metering conveyor that rem oves the powder directly from the hopper.
The acid is fed at a rate of 0.16 percent of sludge by mass or 0.0019 ton s per hour (0.075
tons per week). Sulfamic acid is stable and in crystalline form.
TABLE 5-2. FLOWRATE INFORMATION — BIOSET SYSTEM
Centrifuae Parameters
Input Solids Content
0.8 %
Output Solids Content
19.5 %
Estimated Polymer Feed Rate
1 gpm
Operation Schedule
8 hours/day — 5 days/week
Ultimate Volumetric Flowrate at Input Solids Content
54,000 gpd
Bioset Parameters
Input Solids Content
19.5 %
Output Solids Content
40.0 %
Estimated Lime Feed Rate
16% of sludge by mass
Estimated Sulfamic Acid Feed Rate
0.16% of sludge by mass
Flowrate Calculations
Mass Flowrate (dry solids) =
3638 #/day = 1.82 ton/day
(54,000 gpd) (0.8/100)(cf/7.48 gallons)(63#/cf)
Mass Flowrate (at 19.5%) =
2332 #/hr = 1.17 tons/hour
(3638 #/day)(1 00/19.5)(1 day/8 hours)
Mass Flowrate (w/lime and acid) =
2709 #/hour = 1.36 tons/hour
(2332 #/hr)(1 + 0.16 + 0.0016)
Mass Flowrate (at 40%) =
10,600 #/day = 5.3 tons/day
(2709 #/hr)(19.5/40.0)(8 hr/day)
Volumetric Flowrate (w/lime and acid) =
5.20 gpm
(2709 #/hour)(cf/65#)(7.48 gal/cf)(1 hr/60 min)
Based upon the above flow information, the probable construction cost for a BioSet system
is approximately $1.76 Million with an annual operating cost of approximately $63,000 per
year, excluding disposal costs.
Appendix A provides a breakdown of the opinion of probable construction and operating
costs.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-7 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
FKC SYSTEM — CLASS A
The FKC System consists mainly of a screw press where de watered residuals that have
been mixed with lime are reduced to approximately 25% solids. Steam is introduced into
the system to raise the temperature as required to kill the pathogens in the residuals. Figure
5-4 illustrates the FKC system. Basically, lime is added to the residuals in the lime addition
tank to raise the Ph to 12 for vector attraction re duction. The Ph adjusted residuals are
pumped to a flocculation tank where it is mixed with a high Ph suitable polymer to aid in
dewatering. The residuals then enter the rotary screen thickener where it is thickened to
approximately 5% solids, and then it falls into the hopper of the screw press, where
dewatering and pasteurizati on occurs. The rotary screen thickener is capable of handling
large amounts of liquid residuals. A fuel oil -powered boiler system produces steam which
heats the center of the screw press. The steam does not di rectly contact the residuals. The
condensate is re -cycled through the system. A site schematic for the FKC System is
provided in Figure 5-5.
The dewatered and pasteurized residual s fall from the screw press onto a conveyor t o a
container where they are stored until disposal.
Odors are removed from the residuals during the screw press process and enter the
pressate and are taken back to the headworks of the treatment facility.
Lime is stored in two tall silos next to the lime mixi ng tanks. Lime is fed at a rate of 500
pounds per ton of dry solids or 0.019 Tons/Hour (3.2 Tons/Week).
TABLE 5-3. FLOW RATE INFORMATION — FKC SYSTEM — CLASS A
Rotary Screen Thickener Parameters
Input Solids Content
0.8 %
Output Solids Content
5%
Estimated Polymer Feed Rate
1 gpm
Estimated Lime Feed Rate
500 #/Dry Ton of Solids
Operation Schedule (for 2 MGD)
Ultimate Volumetric Flowrate at Input Solids Content
Screw Press Parameters
Input Solids Content
Output Solids Content
25% of sludge by mass
8 hours/day — 7 days/week
54,000 gpd
5%
25%
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-8 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
26' 0
14' SWD
L1tINDUCTOR
FREEBOARD
OLI.ELIMECONVEYOR
1
500 LBS./TON
BIOSOLIDS
0.45 TONS/DAY
ILul
o000
2NoaR'
54,000 GPD0.8%
�<yll
SOLIDS
1.8 TONS/DAYRECIRCULATIONPUMPS
a
(100 GPM)
109
5 n.
v''i a
LIME LIME
SILO
2 CONVEYOR
2 INDUCTOR
ANK 2
26' 0
14' SWD
2' FREEBOARD
LIME/SLUDGE
MIXING TANKS
o:
zz
POLYMER
STORAGE
CONNECTION
TO WATER SYSTEM
POLYMER
MAKEDOWN
SYSTEM
ROTARY SCREEN
P1 =1 GPM THICKENER
R3
0
5%
5 CFM
SLUDGE FEED \2010 DRY LBS./HR
PUMPS (38 GPM)
Q (L
� a
FLOCCULATION vi n
TANK (285 GAL.)
z
¢
CONNECTION
TO WATER SYSTEM
CONNECTION
BOILER SYSTEM �- TO WATER SYSTEM
ST1 % IST,
SCREW PRESS
R` 257 HR�o
0 CF/DAY (52 CY/DAY)
200 DRY LBS./HR )
CONVEYOR TO
STORAGE & DISPOSAL
N 2-40 CY ROLL -OFF
CONTAINERS
w u
«a:
0. 0
53=36.4 GPM
TO ON -SITE
PUMP STATION &
HEAD WORKS
FIGURE 5-4:
FKC SYSTEM -CLASS A
METZGER &WILLARD,INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tamp., F1.6d. 33637 (613) 977-6005
lb
x
L— — — — — - — — -
0
:EXISTTREATMENT I
+ 7 . ENT PONT
I CLARIFIER to CLARIFIER 18
LIME;!
SIL011
:2 —
PROPOSED PIPING 37.4
WAS
PUMP
STATION
1XII N �p TOATION
FILTERS TANKS 11 DIGESTER IA
EXISTING 4" RWM
EXISTING ABOVE GROUND
FUEL TANK TO BE RELOCATED
00
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVEWAY —PAVED
50'X70'
COVERED AREA •
i7KC SYSTEM 34- -
FIGURE 5-5:
FKC RESIDUALS
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM —CLASS A
SITE SCHEMATIC
50 0 25 so 100
METZGER &WILLARD, INC.
SCALE: 1"=50' C - Environmental Engineers
livilp.. FI�Ido 33637 (813) 977-6005
0
Mass Flowrate (dry solids) _
(54,000 gpd) (0.8/100)(cf/7.48 gallons)(63#/cf)
Mass Flowrate (at 5%) _
(3638 #/day)(1 00/5)(1 day/8 hours)
Mass Flowrate (w/lime) _ (9095 #/hr)(1 + 0.25)
Mass Flowrate (at 25%) _
(11,369 #/hr)(5/25)(8 hr/day)
Volumetric Flowrate (w/lime) _
(11,369 #/hour)(cf/65#)(7.48 gal/cf)(1 hr/60 min)
3638 #/day = 1.82 ton/day
9095 #/hr = 4.55 tons/hour
11,369 #/hour = 5.68 tons/hour
18,200 #/day = 9.1 tons/day
21.8 gpm
Based upon the above, the opinion of probable construction cost for the com plete FKC
system is $3.1 Million, with an annual operating cost of $61,70 0, excluding disposal costs.
Appendix A provides a breakdown of the costs.
In April 2004, FKC set up a truck -mounted pilot unit at the Authority's WWTP to demonstrate
the system, to verify the performance of the unit and to allow Authority personnel to observe
and assess the benefits of the technology for the Authority's use as a residuals
management system. A copy of a letter summarizing the pilot demonstration and resu Its is
provided in Appendix B. Authority personnel were pleased with the system and the ease of
operation.
Eight separate test runs were performed and the results indicate that the FKC screw press is
capable of producing Class A or Class B residuals with the aerobically digested sludge. For
Class A residuals, outlet residuals will be approximately 25 — 30 percent solids. For Class B
residuals, outlet residuals will be approximately 18 percent solids.
The demonstration study shows that screw speed is critical to the operation — the lower the
speed of the screw, the dryer the cake/the higher the speed, the higher th a capacity of the
system. The study also showed the necessity for the Rotary Screen Thickener to allow for a
more efficient use of the screw press by removing "free water" prior to the press. In addition,
lime dosages were confirmed to be in the range of 400 — 600 pounds per dry ton of
residuals.
The demonstration study provided mix ed results for polymer dosages. FKC recommends
that a polymer supplier advise on the appropriate polymer.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-11 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
•
•
The demonstration project was performed on digested sludge, not raw waste activated
sludge.
FKC SYSTEM — CLASS B
As an alternative to the FKC System — Class A, the installation of the system can be
installed in phases. Phase I would include the installation of the rotary screen thickener and
polymer system, the screw press, pumps, and sludge conveyor. The lime thickening system
and boiler system is installed as a part of Phase 11. By breaking the system into two phases,
the initial costs are reduced; however, the final product is Class B and is subject to limits on
disposal. To upgrade to Class A at a later date, the lime thickening system, lime silos, boiler
system, etc., will require construction and/or installation.
TABLE 5-4. FLOW RATE INFORMATION — FKC SYSTEM — CLASS B
Rotary Screen Thickener Parameters
Input Solids Content
0.8 %
Output Solids Content
5 %
Estimated Polymer Feed Rate
1 gpm
Estimated Lime Feed Rate
N/A
Operation Schedule
8 hours/day — 7 days/week
Ultimate Volumetric Flowrate at Input Solids Content
54,000 gpd
Screw Press Parameters
Input Solids Content 5 %
Output Solids Content 18 %
Flowrate Calculations
Mass Flowrate (dry solids) =
3638 #/day = 1.82 ton/day
(54,000 gpd) (0.8/100)(cf/7.48 gallons)(63#/cf)
Mass Flowrate (at 5%) =
9096 #/hr = 4.55 tons/hour
(3638 #/day)(1 00/5)(1 day/8 hours)
Mass Flowrate (at 18%) =
20,213 #/day = 10.1 tons/day
(20,213 #/hr)(5/18)(8 hrs/day)
Volumetric Flowrate (w/lime) =
38.8 gpm
(20,213 #/hour)(cf/65#)(7.48 gal/cf)(1 hr/60 min)
Based upon the above, the opinion of probable construction costs and annual operat ing
costs are as follows:
TABLE 5-5.
CLASS B.
PHASE
I
I I
TOTAL
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS FOR PHASES I AND 11 FOR FKC SYSTEM —
CONSTRUCTION COST
$ 1.74 Million
$ 2.28 Million
$ 4.02 Million
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
$16,400
$61,700
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-12 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
Compostinq Process
The USEPA defines composting as the "biological degradation of organic materials under
controlled aerobic conditions. The process is used to stabilize wastewater solids prior to
their use as a soil amendment or mulch in landscaping, horticulture and agriculture." By
composting, pathogens are destroyed in the wastewater residuals, as well as, odors are
minimized, and vector attraction potential is reduced. The composting process is required to
maintain a temperature of at least 55 deg C (131 deg F) for at least thre a days to destroy
pathogens. While methods of composting vary; generally, the science is the same.
The residuals are thickened or dewatered and placed in the composting area — in a
windrow, an aerated static pile or a specially -constructed vessel. Some methods require the
introduction of a bulking agent — usu ally yard wastes. As the material composts,
microorganisms break d own organic matter into carbon dioxide, water, heat and compost.
Oxygen on a consistent basis is required to maintain the composting rate.
The major advantages of composting include the following:
1. Production of a reusable product;
2. Use of the product returns valuable nutrients to the soils;
3. Compost is easily handled —when compared to other processes; and,
4. Compost is not subject to end use restrictions.
The major disadvantages include the following:
1. Composting may increase the amount of material produced (1 cy of cake is
equivalent to 3 cy of compost);
2. Potential for fires — however, sufficient aeration and moisture will reduce the potential
for fires. In addition, proper design of the facilities will likewise reduce this potential.
3. Land requirements for windrow and static piles.
Environmental impacts to air and water are also reduced through proper design of th e
system.
PARKSON CORPORATION THERMO-SYSTEM SOLAR SLUDGE DRYING
The Thermo -System consists mainly of large, greenhouse -like solar drying facilities. Liquid
or thickened residuals are introduced into the solar chambers. A small mobile tiller,
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-13 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
resembling a state fair "bumper car" and called a "mole", travels though the residuals mix ing
and aerating, which allows the residuals to dry and prevents odor s. The mole is capable of
orienting itself in the drying chamber by using ultrasonic sensors and tills the material under
its carriage to prevent splashing. The unit can also be operated by remote control. The unit
does not compact the material.
A microprocessor monitors atmospheric conditions, and controls the ventilation system,
louvers, and the til ler operations. The microprocessor adjusts the ventilation system to allow
for optimization of the incoming solar ra diation.
The materials produced are between 75 percent and 90 percent solids. Thi s product
resembles either a dry palletized material or a fin er dirt -like material.
A typical thermo-system is illustrated in Figure 5-6 and is based upon thickened residuals.
For thickened residuals, the solar chambers do not require an underdrain system. For liquid
sludges, the facilities should include underdrains.
No chemicals are required for a composting system. Polymer is required for thickening prior
to composting if a centrifuge or belt press is used.
Operator attention is required for placing the material in the solar chambers and removing
the compost material at the end of the drying cycle, approximately 27 days. Operator
attention during the compost proced ure is limited.
The material is removed by use of a front-end loader and placed in a roll-o ff container for
disposal.
The material is placed in the solar chambers by piping (liquid residuals) or front-end loader
(thickened materials). A site schematic for the Thermo -System with centrifuge is shown in
Figure 5-7. The Thermo -System with drum thickener is shown in F igure 5-8.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-14 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
POLYMER
STORAGE
TO WATER SYSTEM POLYMER MAKEDOWN
SYSTEM
290 CF/DAY O 20%
P -1 GPM
(11 CY/DAY)
CENTRIFUGE
TER
FROM DIG:ZPO
- 54,00O
0.8%
IN -LINE GRINDER ROTARY LOBE
PUMP
5 CY FRONT END
c
LOADER
a
Qv
S
52,000 GPD TO HEADWORKS �^
t
COMPOSTING FACILITIES
2 - 42' X 204' SOLAR DRYING FACILITIES - (27 DAY DETENTION TIME EACH)
11 CY DAY O 20% INFLUENT
79.5 CY O 75% REMOVED AFTER 27 DAYS (2.8 CY/DAY)
SLUDGE MIXER -
FILL SOLAR FACILITY 1 FOR 27 DAYS.
FILL SOLAR FACILITY 2 FOR 27 DAYS.
REMOVE SOUDS FROM SF1 AND BEING FILLING SF1 FOR 27 DAYS.
REMOVE SOLIDS FROM SF2.
REPEAT CYCLE
COMPOSTED MATERIAL TO
DISTRIBUTION
79.5 CY O 75% EVERY 27 DAYS -
AFTFR C.pMPgSTING
(2.9 CY/DAY)
5 CY FRONT END 2 - 40 CY ROLL -OFF CONTAINERS
LOADER FOR STORAGE
•
FIGURE 5-6:
THERMO SYSTEM
WITH CENTRIFUGE
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
T—P., Fl.,id. 33637 (813) 977-6005
L3
6 r
FILTERS 4" RCWM TO BE
RELOCATED 1c]
at
EXISTING ABOVE GROUND n.STORAGE
o FUEL TANK TO BE RELOCATED 50'X50'
COVERED AREA
ROPOD A CESS DRIVEWAY -PAVED.'['[ ...
. . . . . . . . . .
?6
:R
Ll60 d NAIL
5TA. 10+00
1111413.16+00
-14
+ Jg 10
CEN',rI i!`UGE
(DEWAiTERING
1 I, I, EXISTING EXISTING
DIGESTER
1A DIGESTER 1B
37.0
-3+
-34
37--
COMPOST FACILITY A
COMPOST FACILITY 8
IPA
.,
•
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVEWAY —STABILIZED
50 0 25 50 100
SCALE: 1"=50'
FIGURE 5-7:
THERMO SYSTEM
MATH CENTRIFUGE
SITE SCHEMATIC
METZGER &WILLARD, INC.
Civil - Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
EXISTING LINED
HOLDING POND
RUM OTARY, D
R
E T14CKENES I
NG Me. DEWAtRING
ha 1 i II w. VFILTERS 4" RCWM TO BE )OSTING, DIGESTER
"UST'
RELOCATED 1A DIGESTER B
EXISTING ABOVE GROUND STc IRAGE
FUEL TANK TO BE RELOCATED 50=1
+ COVERED AREA ,'"
A fEWAy— k D:
. ......
E.STNQ 1.0.11
EXISTING LINED 111b cr-
HOLDING NO
MT.
60 d NAIL
',STA. I0+00
LINED
RIGATION PUMP STATION ANG. 16+00
—14e
0. CL
FIGURE 5-8:
THERMO—SYSTEM
W/DRUM THICKENER
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVEWAY —STABILIZED
6SITE SCHEMATIC
0 0 30 60 120
METZGER &WILLARD, INC.
SCALE. 1"=60' Civil - Environmental Engineers
Tompo, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
TABLE 5-6. FLOW RATE INFORMATION — THERMO-SYSTEM WITH CENTRIFUGE.
Centrifuge Parameters
Input Solids Content
0.8 %
Output Solids Content
19.5 %
Estimated Polymer Feed Rate
1 gpm
Operation Schedule
8 hours/day — 5 days/week
Ultimate Volumetric Flowrate at Input Solids Content
54,000 gpd
Thermo-Svstem Parameters
Input Solids Content
19.5 %
Output Solids Content
75 %
Required Drying Surface
1904 sy
No. of Chambers
2
Width, each
42 ft
Length, each
204 ft
Drying time per cycle
27
No. of Drying Cycles per chamber
12.5 per year
Flowrate Calculations
Mass Flowrate (dry solids) =
3638 #/day = 1.82 ton/day
(54,000 gpd) (0.8/100)(cf/7.48 gallons)(63#/cf)
Mass Flowrate (at 19.5%) =
2332 #/hr = 1.52 tons/hour
(3638 #/day)(100/19.5)(1day/8 hours)
Mass Flowrate (at 75%) =
4,900 #/day = 2.42 tons/day
(2332 #/hr)(19.5/75)(8 hr/day)
Volumetric Flowrate =
4.45 gpm
(2332 #/hour)(cf/65#)(7.48 gal/cf)(1 hr/60 min)
TABLE 5-7. FLOW RATE INFORMATION — THERMO-SYSTEM WITH ROTARY DRUM
THICKENER.
Drum Thickener Parameters
Input Solids Content
0.8 %
Output Solids Content
6.5 %
Operation Schedule
8 hours/day — 5 days/week
Ultimate Volumetric Flowrate at Input Solids Content
54,000 gpd
Thermo-Svstem Parameters
Input Solids Content
6.5 %
Output Solids Content
75 %
Required Drying Surface
5713 sy
No. of Chambers
6
Width, each
42 ft
Length, each
204 ft
Drying time per cycle
27 days
No. of Drying Cycles per Chamber
12.8 per year
Flowrate Calculations
Mass Flowrate (dry solids) =
3638 #/day = 1.82 ton/day
(54,000 gpd) (0.8/100)(cf/7.48 gallons)(63#/cf)
Mass Flowrate (at 6.5%) =
7,000 #/hr = 3.50 tons/hour
(3638 #/day)(100/6.5)(1day/8 hours)
Mass Flowrate (at 75%) =
4,900 #/day = 2.43 tons/day
(7000 #/hr)(6.5/75)(8 hr/day)
Volumetric Flowrate =
4.45 gpm
(2332 #/hour)(cf/65#)(7.48 gal/cf)(1 hr/60 min)
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-18 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
Based upon the above, the opinion of probable construction cost for the complete Thermo -
System using a drum thickener is approximately $3.78 Million, with an annual operat ing cost
of approximately $25,000. F or the Thermo -System usi ng the centrifuge, the opinion of
probable construction cost is approx imately $1.9 Million, with an annual operating cost of
approximately $17,000, excluding disposal costs.
Appendix A provides a breakdown of the costs.
Evaluation of Processes
The above processes were evaluated based upon the following criteria:
1. Capital Costs
2. Operation and Maintenance C osts
3. Odors
4. Public Acceptance
5. Volume Reduction
6. Marketing and Reuse Potential of the Final Product
7. Risk Factors
8. Complexity of Operation
9. Storage of the Final Product
The Capital Costs of the process is extremely important to a small utility such as the
Authority. Capital costs are assigned a maximum criteria weight of 10.
O & M Costs are a continuing cost to the Authority and represents a significant annual
investment. O&M Costs are likewise assigned the maximum weight of 10.
Odors are a significant concern for the Authority. The WWTP is placed within a 407 acre
site, but this site is adjacent to a residential treatment facility (Eckerd Youth Foundation) and
is close to a single family home subdivision. Due to the facility location, the odor criteria is
weighted at 8.
The Public Acceptance criterion includes health, odor issues, truck traffic and dust. Most of
the methods evaluated meet the EP A Part 503 requirements for a Class A residual;
therefore, the material and process should pose no impact on the public's health. The Class
B process is trucked to the landfill.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-19 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
0
.7
Odor was considered in the preceding criterion; however, the public's perception of odors
(real or imaginary) may depend upon relations with t he public during the construction and
operation of the facility.
Truck traffic during construction is important, as well as, traffic associated with transport and
delivery of chemicals, off -site -generated residuals, and hauling of the final product.
This criterion is weighted at 5.
Volume Reduction affects materials handling and storage requirements. The volume of
material to be handled affects the labor and equip ment necessary to transfer, store and haul
material. This criterion is weighted at 5.
The Marketing and Reuse Potential of the End Product criterion applies to the ability of the
Authority to find a market for the ultimate product — to either be removed at no charge to the
Authority or for a minimal fee. It is not anticipated that the Authority will be able to sel I the
product for an offset of operating costs. However, the marketability (quality) of the product
affects the ability to have the product hauled away for benefici al purposes. This is a major
criterion and is weighted at 10.
The Risk Factor criterion considers worker's health, safety and attitude toward their job.
Chemical type and handling procedures, fire and explosion potential are also consider ed.
This criterion is weighted at 3.
The Complexitv of Operation of the process is important in determining the level of operator
training, repair and maintenance schedules. Since the processes evaluated are all capable
of being operated by any competent operator, this criterion is weighted at 3.
The Storage of the Final Product is important as it considers the ease of storage, space
required, odors emitted, moisture content and eq uipment required for handling the final
product. This criterion is weighted at 3.
Table 5-8 provides the evaluation matrix for the p rocesses studied.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-20 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
TABLE 5-8. EVALUATION M,
EVALUATION CRITERIA
WEIGHT*
1. Capital Costs
10
2. O&M Costs
10
3. Odors
8
4. Public Acceptance
5
5. Volume Reduction
5
6. Marketing and Reuse Potential
10
7. Risk Factors
3
B. Complexity of Operation
3
9. Storage of Final Product
3
TOTAL SCORE
570
PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM***
Capital Costs, Phase I
Annual Costs, Phase I
Capital Costs, Phase II
Annual Costs, Phase II
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
* 1 is the least important
10 is the most important
ATRIX FOR P
BIOSET
SCORE** TOTAL
8
80
5
50
8
64
5
25
5
25
8
80
5
15
5
15
8
24
378
66.32
$ 1,764,800
$ 62,700
$ 1,764,800 1
ROCESSES
FKC S'
CLASS A
SCORE
TOTAL
5
50
10
100
8
64
5
25
4
20
8
80
5
15
5
15
5
15
384
67.37
'STEM
PARKSON CORP.
CLASS B
DRUM THICKENER
SCORE
TOTAL
SCORE TOTAL
10
100
1 10
10
100
8 80
4
32
10 80
3
15
8 40
4
20
10 50
1
10
10 100
4
12
5 15
8
24
5 15
3
9
10 30
322
420
56.49
73.68
$ 3,081,800 $
$ 61,700 $
$ 2,344,600 $
** 1 is the least favorable
10 is the most favorable
1,740,900
16,400
2,280,800
61,700
4,021,700
***
$ 3,781,400
$ 25,000
$ 3,781,400
100 is the maximum sc
THERMO-SYSTEM
CENTRIFUGE
SCORE
TOTAL
6
60
10
100
10
80
8
40
10
50
10
100
8
24
10
30
10
30
514
90.18
ore
1,901,000
16,900
1,901,000
r�
•
Matrix Evaluation
For each of the nine criteria used to evaluate the residual s processes, the following
summary is provided.
1. Capital Costs: Figure 5-9 illustrates the variance in the capital costs for the selected
processes. The lowest capital cost option is the FKC System — Class B. The
highest capital cost option is the Thermo -System with a drum thickener (6.5%
solids).
The FKC System — Class B system is upgradable to a Class A system at a future
date; however, the disposal opti ons for the Class B system are limited for the final
product. Some land spreading at an approved site may be appropriate, but it is
anticipated that the final product will be placed into landfill.
The BioSet option has the second lowest capital cost of the Class A options.
2. Annual Costs: Figure 5-10 illustrates the variance in the annual costs for the
processes. The lowest annual cost is found wi th the FKC System — Class B unit.
However, when the unit is upgraded to Class A, the annual operating cost will
increase. The highest annual cost is with the BioSet System.
3. Odors: Each of the Class A systems are fairly consistent in the removal of odors.
The BioSet system provides a separate scrubber for the removal of the ammonia
odors. The FKC System provides a rinse system in the rotary screen thickener and
in the screw press. With both of these options, the amm onia odor is rinsed out of the
air and sent back to the head of the treatment works.
The Thermo -System has a low odor since the composting materials are turned and
maintained at appropriate moisture levels to prevent odors from forming.
The FKC — Class B system provides no treatment, only thickening for transportation
to a landfill. Odors are possible with this system.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-22 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
FIGURE 5-9. PROCESS CAPITAL COSTS
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
FKC -CLA
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
FKC - CL B
Thermo - 6.5%
•
r -7
LJ
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
N
�6
o $40,000
0
V!
O
0
$30,000
Q
$20,000
$10,000
FIGURE 5-10. ANNUAL COST COMPARISON
BioSet FKC - CL A
FKC - CL B
Thermo - 6.5%
0
4. Public Acceptance: Public acceptance is a difficult criterion to gage. The public
acceptance criterion varies from 3 for a Class B residual — which has no marketable
value to an 8 for a composted material that can be used without restrictio ns on the
location.
Generally, the public is not interested in the actual treatment process; however, they
are concerned with odors, noise, and inconvenience. For all of the processes except
the Class B system, odors will be minimal. The noise levels will be similar for all
processes. The Thermo -System resembles a plant nursery from the property line.
Inconvenience to the public is judged based upon truck traffic to and from the site.
The BioSet system requires lime, polymer and acid delivery. The FKC System —
Class A requires lime, polymer and fuel oil delivery. The FKC System — Class B
requires polymer delivery only. The Thermo -System requires polymer delivery only.
All of the processes require the final product to b e removed from site; however, the
more percent solids, the fewer trucks required to remove the product.
5. Volume Reduction: Each of the processes reduces the percent solids in the
residuals. On a daily basis, the Thermo -System process reduces the final product
handling to 2.4 tons/day. T he BioSet System reduces the final product volume to 5.3
tons/day. The FKC System — Class A reduces the final product volume to 9.1
tons/day. The FKC System — Class B reduces the final product volume to 10.1
tons/day. For handling, the Thermo -System with drum thickener requires more
handling between the thickener an d the composting system. The Thermo -System
with centrifuge requires minimal interim handling. The FKC System operates 7 days
per week, while the other systems operate only 5 days/week. Figure 5-11 illustrates
the volume of residuals produced for each of the selected processes.
6. Marketing and Reuse Potential: The FKC System — Class B system has no
marketing or reuse potential. The BioSet and FKC System — Class A materials are
useful as a soil enhancer and may have a market to a bulk customer. The
composted material from the Thermo -System is easily handled and packaged for
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-25 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
FIGURE 5-11. QUANTITY OF RESIDUALS PRODUCED DAILY
12
FKC - CL B
10
•
•
7
f3
reuse and sale. It is anticipated that the final product will be provided to a bulk
customer for reuse and resale, rather than the Authority performing this function.
Risk Factors: Class A residuals are processed to reduce the vector attraction and to
reduce the risk from pathogens. The FKC System — Class B has not been
processed, only dewatered; therefore, this system has a potential risk to the safety
and health of the operations staff. The operations staff is aware of these potential
risks since the existing system is also Class B; no problems have been reported.
The other processes considered include pathogen removal and vector attraction
reduction.
The operator's attitude is usuall y directly proportional to the amount of maintenance
required on a piece of equipment. The FKC System — Class A has the most "moving
parts". The Thermo -System has the fewest "moving parts", but requires operator
activity to place the thickened residuals in the solar chambers.
Complexity of Operation: The FKC System and the BioSet System require minimal
operator attention after the system is activated. The Thermo -System requires the
operators to place the residuals in the solar chambers; however, after placement, the
Thermo -System performs all the activity by itself until the residuals are composted to
the final product.
The drum thickener and the rotary screen thickener are fairly comparable in
operations complexity. The BioSet reactor requires no operations input other than
temperature monitoring. The F KC System screw press requires operation and
maintenance attention. The "moles" in the T hermo-System require maintenance.
The operation and maintenance requirements for centrifuges have improved
considerably in the last 5 years or so. Maintenance require ments should be no more
complex than for a rotary screen thickener or a drum thickener. The product
produced is more easily processed.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-27 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
Belt filter presses were not considered in this analysis due to the operations staff
aversion to the proces s due to the odors and maintenance re quired to operate a belt
filter press.
9. Storage of Final Product: Storage of the final product is assumed to be in 40 cy roll -
off containers. The containers are removed from the site on an intermittent basi s.
The following table summarizes the requirem ents for containers and removal.
TABLE 5-9. STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PRODUCT
NUMBER OF REMOVAL
DESCRIPTION CONTAINERS FREQUENCY
1. BioSet System 2 7 days
2. FKC System — Class A 2 5 days
3. FKC System — Class B 2 5 days
4. Thermo -System 2 27 days
The FKC System — Class B material is likely to have more odors and attr act vectors
than the other processes and received the lowest "score" in the matrix.
Additional information on the processes selected is provided in Appendix C.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 5-28 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
SECTION 6.
SELECTED PROGRAM FOR RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
Meetings were held with Authority staff to discuss residuals management options and to
develop a program for implementation. B ased upon many factors including capital costs,
operating costs, potential market development, and operator satisfaction with equipment,
the following program was determined to meet the needs of the Authority for this expansion
of the process.
The installation of the FKC System — Class B will meet the immediate needs of the
Authority. At some future date, a bulk market may be developed to receive residuals from
the area, and at that time, the Class B system will be upgraded to Class A. The Class B
residuals will be transported to the landfill for disposal.
By dewatering the residuals, the cost of disposal of the residuals decreases considerably as
shown in the following Table 6-1. For a tipping cost of $35/ton of material and a trip cost of
approximately $5/ton of material, tipping costs are reduced by approximately $850,000 per
year. The capital cost associated with the F KC System — Class B is $1,741,000. The
system would pay for itself in less than three years, when comparing hauling "thickened"
residuals to "dewatered" residuals.
Technical Memorandum No. 2 6-1 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Residuals Management July 2004
TABLE 6-1. DISPOSAL CC
ALTERNATIVE
Liquid Residuals, No Thickening*
Capital Cost = $0
Liquid Residuals, Thickened
Capital Cost = $50,000
Class A Dewatered
Capital Cost = $3,081,800
Class B Dewatered
Capital Cost = $1,741,000
* Okeechobee County Landfil is not c
,STS FOR LIQUID AND DEWATERED RESIDUALS.
WARM MONTHS
COLD MONTHS
TIPPING
TIPPING
QUANTITY,
COST,
NUMBER OF
QUANTITY
COST,
NUMBER OF
VOLUME TONS/DAY
$/YEAR
TRIPS/DAY
VOLUME TON/DAY
$/YEAR
TRIPS/DAY
50,000GPD 208.5
$ 1,301,040
9
100,000GPD 417
$ 2,602,080
17
12,500 GPD 52.1
$ 325,104
3
25,000 GPD 104.3
$ 650,832
5
52 CY 9.1 $ 56,784 3
80 CY 10.1 $ 63,024 5
irrently equipped to receive liquid residuals.
52 CY
9.1
$
56,784
80 CY
10.1
$
63,024
3
5
TIPPING
COST, TOTAL
FOR YEAR
$ 3,903,120
$ 975,936
$ 113,568
$ 126,048
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX A
0
BUDGET ESTIMATE
Bioset Residuals Management System
22-Apr-04
1. Equipment -
Installation - Assume 50%
2. Concrete Slab, Building
3. Electrical, General
4. Centrifuge, Polymer System
Installation - Assume 50%
5. In Line Grinder, Installed
6. Rotary Lobe Pump, Installed
7. Acid Feed System, Installed
8. Ammonia Scrubber, Installled
9. Storage Containers
SUBTOTAL
Contingency, 30%
TOTAL
Annual Operating Costs, $NR
Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion
MWI: 11333.04 Page 1 of 10 Pages
400,000
200,000
= 600,000
150,000
50,000
335,000
167,500
= 502,500
20,000
= 25,000
INCLUDED
INCLUDED
= 10,000
1,357,500
407,300
1,764,800
= 62,700
7/16/2004
Bio-Set System
•
0
BUDGET ESTIMATE
FKC Residuals Management System
9-Jul-04
1. Equipment (Lime Silos, Recirculation Pumps, Sludge Feed Pumps, Polymer
System, Rotary Screen Thickener, Boiler System, Screw Press, RST
Support, Conveyor)
Installation - Assume 50%
2. Concrete for Steel Tanks, 60 CY @ $350/CY
3. Bldg, Slab, Cover and Walls
4. Storage Containers
5. Site Work, 5%
6. Electrical, 12%
7. Yard Piping, 15%
8. Mobilization, 10%
SUBTOTAL
Contingency, 30%
TOTAL
Annual Operating Costs, $/YR
Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion
MWI: 11333.04 Page 2 of 10 Pages
1,278,150
639,075
1,917,225
21,000
140,000
10,000
104,411
263,116
368,363
282,412
2,370,637
711,200
3,081,837
61,700
7/16/2004
FKC Class A
•
BUDGET ESTIMATE
FKC Residuals Management System - CLASS B
9-J u I-04
PHASEI
1. Equipment (Sludge Feed Pumps, Polymer System, Rotary Screen
Thickener, Screw Press, RST Support, Conveyor)
Installation - Assume 50%
2. Concrete for Steel Tanks
3. Bldg, Slab, Cover and Walls
4. Storage Containers
5. Site Work, 5%
6. Electrical, 12%
7. Yard Piping, 15%
8. Mobilization, 10%
SUBTOTAL
Contingency, 30%
TOTAL
Annual Operating Costs, $/YR
PHASEII
1. Equipment (Lime silos, tanks, recirculation pumps, boiler system, etc.)
Assume 5 year lag with 2.5% inflation per year (650,000 X 1.025b)
Installation - Assume 50%
2. Concrete for Steel Tanks
3. Site Work
4. Electrical, 12%
5. Yard Piping, 15%
6. Mobilization, 10%
SUBTOTAL
Contingency, 30%
TOTAL
Annual Operating Costs, $/YR
Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion
MWI: 11333.04 Page 3 of 10 Pages
528,700
264,350
793,050
140,000
10,000
47,153
= 113,166
= 141,458
94,305
1,339,132
401,739
= 1,740,870
16,400
811,550
405,775
1,217,325
21,000
148,599
= 208,039
159,496
1,754,459
526,300
2,280,759
61,700
7/16/2004
FKC Class B
0
•
BUDGET ESTIMATE
Thermo -System Residuals Management Facilities
22-Apr-04
Thermo -System with Drum Thickener - Requires 6 Solar Facilities
1. Equipment - Chambers (frames, walls, ends, doors, moles, ventilators,
climatic sensors, control panels, etc.)
Installation - Assume 75%
2. Concrete Slab and 3' Tall Walls (sides only)
3. Electrical, General
4. Drum Thickener, Polymer System
Installation - Assume 50%
5. In Line Grinder, Installed
6. Rotary Lobe Pump, Installed
7. Front End Loader, Used
8. Piping
9. Storage Containers
SUBTOTAL
Contingency, 30%
TOTAL
Annual Operating Costs, $NR
1,375,000
1,031,250
2,406,250
INCLUDED
INCLUDED
275,000
137,500
412,500
= 20,000
25,000
30,000
10,000
5,000
2,908,750
872,600
3,781,350
25,000
Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 7/16/2004
MWI: 11333.04 Page 4 of 10 Pages Thermo -System 6.5% - Drum Thick
11
U
BUDGET ESTIMATE
Thermo -System Residuals Management Facilities
22-Apr-04
Thermo -System with Centrifuge - Requires 2 Solar Chambers
1. Equipment - Chambers (frames, walls, ends, doors, moles, ventilators,
climatic sensors, control panels, etc.)
Installation - Assume 75%
2. Concrete Slab and 3' Tall Walls (sides only)
733 CY @ $350.00/CY
3. Electrical, General
4. Centrifuge, Polymer System
Installation - Assume 50%
5. In Line Grinder, Installed
6. Rotary Lobe Pump, Installed
7. Front End Loader, Used
8. Piping
9. Storage Containers
SUBTOTAL
Contingency, 30%
TOTAL
Annual Operating Costs, $/YR
497,000
372,750
869,750
INCLUDED
INCLUDED
335,000
167,500
502,500
= 20,000
= 25,000
30,000
= 10,000
5,000
= 1,462,250
= 438,700
1,900,950
16,900
Okeechobee Utility Authority
WWTP Expansion 7/16/2004
MWI: 11333.04 Page 5 of 10 Pages Thermo -System 20% - Centrifuge
•
•
BIO-SET System
Operation Schedule:
ANNUAL COSTS
H R/DY 8 H R/W K 40
DY/WK 5
WK/YR 52.14
Electrical:
Incidental 2 HP (EST)
Centrifuge 75 HP
Pumps 30 HP
Lime Silo 5 HP
Weigh Belt 5 HP
117 HP X 0.7458 KW/HP = 87.2586 KW
Electrical Costs 87.2586 KW X 40 HR/WK X $ 0.06 /KW-HR
= $ 209.42 M/K
Chemicals:
Lime Cost
($105/TN)
786.24
Acid Cost
($760/TN)
56.91
Polymer Cost
(EST)
150.00
Electrical Cost
($0.06/KW-H R)
209.42
TOTAL OPERATION
COSTS
= $ 1,202.57 /WEEK
ANNUAL COSTS
= $ 62,702.03 /YEAR
TM 2 - Residuals 7/16/2004
Okeechobee Utility Authority Page 6 of 10 Pages MWI: 11333.04
FKC System - CLASS A
Operation Schedule:
H R/DY 8 H R/W K 56
DY/WK 7
WK/YR 52.14
Electrical:
Screw Press
3 HP
RST
3 HP
Agitator
1 HP
Mixers X 2
10 HP
Boiler
5 HP
(EST)
Valves X 4
2 HP
(EST)
Sludge Pumps
15 HP
Sludge Recirc
20 HP
(EST)
Lime Silos X 2
10 HP
Incidentals
2 HP
(EST)
71 HP
X 0.7458 KW/HP = 52.9518 KW
Electrical Costs
52.9518 KW
X 56 HR/WK X $ 0.06 /KW-HR
= $ 177.92 /WK
Chemicals:
Lime Cost (EST) 756.00
Polymer Cost (EST) 250.00
Electrical Cost ($0.06/KW-HR) 177.92
TOTAL OPERATION COSTS = $ 1,183.92 IWEEK
ANNUAL COSTS = $61,729.49 NEAR
TM 2 - Residuals 7/16/2004
Okeechobee Utility Authority Page 7 of 10 Pages MWI: 11333.04
FKC System - CLASS B
Operation Schedule.
H R/DY
8
H R/W K 56
DY/WK
7
WK/YR
52.14
Electrical:
Screw Press
3 HP
RST
3 HP
Agitator
1 HP
Mixers X 2
0 HP
Boiler
0 HP
(EST)
Valves X 4
2 HP
(EST)
Sludge Pumps
15 HP
Sludge Recirc
0 HP
(EST)
Lime Silos X 2
0 HP
Incidentals
2 HP
(EST)
26 HP
X 0.7458 KW/HP = 19.3908 KW
Electrical Costs
19.3908 KW
X 56 HR/WK X $ 0.06 /KW-HR
_ $ 65.15 /WK
Chemicals:
Lime Cost (EST) 0.00
Polymer Cost (EST) 250.00
Electrical Cost ($0.06/KW-HR) 65.15
TOTAL OPERATION COSTS = $ 315.15 /WEEK
ANNUAL COSTS = $16,432.08 /YEAR
TM 2 - Residuals 7/16/2004
Okeechobee Utility Authority Page 8 of 10 Pages MWI: 11333.04
Thermo -System 6.5% w/Drum Thickener
Operation Schedule:
H R/DY 8 H R/W K 40
DY/WK 5
WK/YR 52.14
Electrical:
Grinder 3 HP
Pumps 7.5 HP
Drum Thickener 50 HP (EST)
Mole X 6 30 HP (EST)
Incidentals 10 HP (EST)
100.5 HP X 0.7458 KW/HP = 74.9529 KW
Electrical Costs 74.9529 KW X 40 HR/WK X $ 0.06 /KW-HR
= $ 179.89 /WK
Chemicals:
Polymer Cost (EST) 300.00
Electrical Cost ($0.06/KW-HR) 179.89
TOTAL OPERATION COSTS = $ 479.89 /WEEK
ANNUAL COSTS = $ 25,021.31 NEAR
TM 2 - Residuals 7/16/2004
Okeechobee Utility Authority Page 9 of 10 Pages MWI: 11333.04
Thermo -System 20% w/Centrifuge
Operation Schedule:
H R/DY
8
H R/WK 40
DY/WK
5
WKIYR
52.14
Electrical:
Grinder
3 HP
Pumps
7.5 HP
Centrifuge
75 HP
Mole X 2
10 HP
(EST)
Incidentals
2 HP
(EST)
97.5 HP
X 0.7458 KWiHP = 72.7155 KW
Electrical Costs
72.7155 KW
X 40 HRNWK X $ 0.06 /KW-HR
_ $ 174.52 /WK
Chemicals:
Polymer Cost (EST) 150.00
Electrical Cost ($0.06/KW-HR) 174.52
TOTAL OPERATION COSTS = $ 324.52 MEEK
ANNUAL COSTS = $16,920.33 NEAR
TM 2 - Residuals 7/16/2004
Okeechobee Utility Authority Page 10 of 10 Pages MWi: 11333.04
OKEECHOBEE UTILITY
AUTHORITY
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL AND REUSE
SYSTEM EXPANSION
July 2004
METZ43ER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
8600 HIDDEN RIVER PARKWAY
SUITE 550
TAMPA, FL 33637
913-977-6005
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
1.
INTRODUCTION
1-1
2.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING TREATMENT
2-1
GENERAL
2-1
3.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
3-1
STATE
3-2
4.
CURRENT AND FUTURE FLOWS AND QUALITY
4-1
EXISTING QUANTITY
4-1
FUTURE QUANTITY
4-1
ANTICIPATED QUALITY
4-6
5.
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL STRATEGIES
5-1
6.
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FOR EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
6-1
APPENDIX
A Design Calculations
B Opinion of Probable Construction C osts
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal TOC - 1 July 2004
•
•
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
2-1
Williamson Cattle Company Citrus Irrigation System
2-2
2-2
On -Site Spray Irrigation System
2-3
4-1
Projected Flows
4-5
5-1
Major Landowners in the Area
5-2
5-2
Hamrick & Sons, Inc., RIBs
5-4
5-3
Typical Deep Well Injection
5-6
5-4
Wetland Map of Florida
5-7
5-5
Typical Wetland Cross -Section
5-8
5-6
64.8 Acre Wetland
5-11
5-7
118.19 Acre Wetland
5-12
5-8
139.86 Acre Wetland
5-13
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal TOC - 2 July 2004
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
4-1
Historical Flows at the WWTP
4-2
4-2
Projected Flows
44
4-3
Characteristics of Flow and Strength of Waste
4-6
5-1
Allowable Loading Rates for a Man -Mad a Wetland
Treatment System
5-9
5-2
Wetland Sizing (Acres) Based upon Allowable Loading
Rates
5-g
5-3
Opinion of Costs for Man -Made Wetlands
5-10
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal
TOC - 3
July 2004
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
As a part of the on -going expansion program for the Okeechobee Utility Authority
(Authority) Wastewater Treatment Plant, this Technical Memorandum was developed to
address the effluent disposal options. T his Memorandum is provided to support the
efforts of Technical Memorandum No. 1 — Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion,
dated July 2004. The existing effluent disposal system will be discussed, flow
projections for effluent needs, develop alternatives for disposal, develop associated
costs with the alternatives and provide a recommendation for the effluent disposal
program.
It is anticipated that the Authority will continue to expand their collection system through
infill in existing areas, sewerage to areas already developed and sewerage to new
developments proposed through agreements with developers.
Another effort the Authority is making is in the reduction of phosphorus into Lake
Okeechobee by the removal of septi c tanks and small packaged wastewater treatment
plants from areas adjacent to the Lake. T he WWTP expansion program includes
providing service to these areas.
Additional information for these efforts is provided in Technical Memorandum No. 1.
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 1 - 1 July 2004
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF EXISTING TREATMENT
General
The existing WWTP treats the wastewater to an advanced secondary level with high-
level disinfection. Aftertreatment, the effluent is stored in open -topped ponds until
pumped to the reclaimed water user, Williamson Cattle Company or the on -site spray
irrigation system.
The ponds consist of a 2-acre lined pond, a 23-acre lined pond and a 17-acre unlined
pond. A second 2-acre lined pond is used for water that is `rejected" fr om the reclaimed
water system during monitoring of the effluent for high levels of turbidity and/or low
chlorine residuals. The effluent is placed automatically into the "reject pond" and must
be manually sent through the treatment process again.
Good, clean reclaimed water is pumped from the ponds through an agricultural filter and
sent to the citrus irrigation system of Williamson Cattle Company. The citrus system is
permitted for 0.8 MGD of reclaimed water on an annual average basis. The citrus
system is shown in Figure 2-1.
In addition, the existing WW TP has a spray irrigation system, permitted for 0.3 MGD of
reclaimed water use. The on -site sys tern is shown in Figure 2-2.
Williamson Cattle Company has indicated that they are not currently in need of any
additional reclaimed water.
The on -site spray irrigation system is also at the m aximum level permittable for the site.
Other alternatives for effluent disposal will be considered.
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 2-1 July 2004
--
22
ECaEND POUNDAIM
VOUTN DEVELOPMENT
CENTER
Riz. Jbt-- --
29
I
I
O I
Q�
VVV32
TWP 36S.
TWP 37S.
LEGEND
yi++..r NµOa[0 aN1A0Aa anDE
am Nm C4slwq wsrtw�rzw
LSlU1EwT gMNSAMN SK1S4
Op [wSlMa COMEa11O1 MI1lCa
[bs. roTrxc w�rza wtu
o, cmT PPgI.TwM uTca cu
•
FIGURE 2-1
ULLIAMSON CATTLE CO.
REUSE SITES
METZGER $ WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tompo, Florida 33637 (613) 977-6005
2',1" RED
Y BALL VALVIE
ED
CDAT EWOSPPE
SUPPORT
Y—Yvi' PTT ALL
y, REDI�RED A
q SPRP114ER HEADS
PER SPEORCATIONS
,EAg•R�
-••••
1' FULL CIRCLE IMPACT
SPRINKLER, RAINBIRD MODEL
R
70CSPH 5/i"x5/B" SD
2'v1' RED.
a' . x' avoss
(x' PLUD AT END DE ME)
"pM
Y BALL VALVE-
2' w
�TSPRINKLER SPACING
120' x 120'
PROPOSED SPRINIUR
PIPING ISOMETRIC
L-------- A
S µ7g,5 •
r-j
•
FIGURE 2-2
ON —SITE SPRAY
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florldo 33637 (613) 977-6005
•
•
SECTION 3
EXISTING REGULATIONS
State
In addition to the rules governing the treatment pr ocess itself, the following rules are the
main state regulations pertaining to effluent disposal.
1. 62-528 — Underaround Iniection C ontrol:
• Provides the conditions and requirements for the use of an Underground
Injection Well for disposal of effluent.
• Defines the rules that govern the construction and operation of injection
wells.
• Serves the purpose of preventing the degradation of the quality of other
aquifers adjacent to the injection zone.
2. 62-610 — Reuse of R eclaimed Water and Land Apoli cation:
• Defines reuse as deliberate application of reclaimed water for a beneficial
purpose.
• Provides a comprehensive and detailed set of requirements for the design
and operational criteria of a wide range of reuse and land application
systems consistent with EPA's Guidelines for Water Reuse.
3. 62-611 — Wetlands ADDlication:
• Provides state regulations and standards for domestic wastewater
discharges to wetlands, both man-m ade and natural.
• Establishes frequency and monitoring criteria of all treatment, receiving
and man-made wetlands.
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 3-1 July 2004
•
•
SECTION 4
CURRENT AND FUTURE FLOWS AND QUALITY
Existing Quantitv
In September 1998, the existing plant was placed on-line. At that time, the older (1985)
contact stabilization activated sludge (CSAS) facility was taken off-line for maintenance
and repairs. Currently, the existing CSAS facility remains off-line.
Historical flows at the existing WWTP are shown in Table 4-1 (October 1998 through
June 2004).
Future Quantity
Projected flows were developed based upon system growth anticipated from infill,
inclusion of existing package plants that are removed from service and collection system
expansion. Growth is the area appears to be increasing as evidenced by developer
agreement requests and the development of sewer systems for areas adjacent to the
Lake. The system expansion schedule and projected flows are shown in Table 4-2 and
illustrated in Figure 4-1.
The WWTP was originally designed to be expanded in 1 MGD increments. Based upon
the projected flows for 2004 — 2016, the Authority should consider a 2 MGD expansion
at this time.
As a part of this analysis, 2 MGD, 3 MGD and a 4 MGD alternatives are considered as
shown in the following sections.
From the projected flows, and based upon the existing wastewater treatment plant
design, the characteristics presented below are being used in the development of the
expanded facility.
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 4-1 July 2004
0 0
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
MONTHLY
3-MONTH
RUNNING ANNUAL
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
DATE
AVERAGE, MGD
AVERAGE, MGD
AVG, MGD
DESIGN CAPACITY
Oct-98
0.448
0.448
Nov-98
0.522
0.485
Dec-98
0.500
0.490
0.490
44.5
Jan-99
0.548
0.523
0.505
47.6
Feb-99
0.647
0.565
0.533
51.4
Mar-99
0.663
0.619
0.555
56.3
Apr-99
0.595
0.635
0.560
57.7
May-99
0.492
0.583
0.552
53.0
Jun-99
0.668
0.585
0.565
53.2
Jul-99
0.560
0.573
0.564
52.1
Aug-99
0.545
0.591
0.563
53.7
Sep-99
0.747
0.617
0.578
56.1
Oct-99
0.701
0.664
0.599
60.4
Nov-99
0.611
0.686
0.606
62.4
Dec-99
0.555
0.622
0.611
56.6
Jan-00
0.593
0.586
0.615
53.3
Feb-00
0.643
0.597
0.614
54.3
Mar-00
0.569
0.602
0.607
54.7
Apr-00
0.509
0.574
0.599
52.2
May-00
0.481
0.520
0.599
47.2
Jun-00
0.476
0.489
0.583
44.4
Jul-00
0.494
0.484
0.577
44.0
Aug-00
0.446
0.472
0.569
42.9
Sep-00
0.564
0.501
0.554
45.6
Oct-00
0.546
0.519
0.541
47.2
Nov-00
0.532
0.547
0.534
49.8
Dec-00
0.483
0.520
0.528
47.3
Jan-01
0.570
0.528
0.526
48.0
Feb-01
0.591
0.548
0.522
49.8
Mar-01
0.678
0.613
0.531
55.7
Apr-01
0.646
0.638
0.542
58.0
May-01
0.658
0.661
0.557
60.1
Jun-01
0.704
0.669
0.576
60.8
Jul-01
0.724
0.695
0.595
63.2
Aug-01
0.648
0.692
0.612
62.9
Sep-01
0.780
0.717
0.630
65.2
Oct-01
0.702
0.710
0.643
64.5
Nov-01
0.649
0.710
0.653
64.6
Dec-01
0.567
0.639
0.660
58.1
Table 4-1 7/16/2004
•
0
TABLE 4-1. OUA FLOW DATA - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATE
Jan-02
Feb-02
Mar-02
Apr-02
May-02
Jun-02
Jul-02
Aug-02
Sep-02
Oct-02
Nov-02
Dec-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Sep-03
Oct-03
Nov-03
Dec-03
Jan-04
Feb-04
Mar-04
Apr-04
May-04
Jun-04
MONTHLY
AVERAGE,MGD
0.601
0.612
0.567
0.533
0.483
0.493
0.618
0.552
0.660
0.608
0.622
0.735
0.777
0.729
0.711
0.660
0.638
0.696
0.656
0.815
0.766
0.716
0.696
0.666
0.685
0.716
0.683
0.658
0.631
0.616
3-MONTH
AVERAGE,MGD
0.606
0.593
0.593
0.571
0.528
0.503
0.531
0.554
0.610
0.607
0.630
0.655
0.711
0.747
0.739
0.700
0.670
0.665
0.663
0.722
0.746
0.766
0.726
0.693
0.682
0.689
0.695
0.686
0.657
0.635
RUNNING ANNUAL
AVG, MGD
0.662
0.664
0.655
0.645
0.631
0.613
0.604
0.596
0.586
0.579
0.576
0.590
0.605
0.615
0.627
0.637
0.650
0.667
0.670
0.692
0.701
0.710
0.716
0.711
0.703
0.702
0.699
0.699
0.699
0.692
3 MONTH AVERAGE AS %
DESIGN CAPACITY
55.1
53.9
53.9
51.9
48.0
45.7
48.3
50.4
55.5
55.2
57.3
59.5
64.7
67.9
67.2
63.6
60.9
60.4
60.3
65.7
67.8
69.6
66.0
63.0
62.0
62.6
63.2
62.3
59.8
57.7
Table 4-1 7/16/2004
TABLE 4-2. PROJECTED FLOWS FOR OUA WWTP (2003-2016)
Jul-04
,.v�O;k
y;r :p:K,' .�'' "§'" :"v'iCY'�f.s�Y''.'A'S:•f>,Su :. P>3+ 5:,' .ti,Yy, y.D,. pile
tErid.A.f;Year 1,,
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Taylor Creek Isles
122,500
122,500
Ousley Infill
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Treasure Island
112,000
223,000
50,000
SW (160 units)
30,000
10,000
SE (1000 units)
NE (300 units)
25,000
37,500
50,000
62,500
50,000
25,000
25,000
50,000
Misc Projects
Other Growth
19,150
25,000
22,691
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
27,696
33,563
43,040
47,491
51,116
54,269
56,875
58,922
61,020
63,171
65,375
TOTAL for YEAR, GPD1
141,650
200,191
234,696
379,063
178,040
144,991
126,116
104,269
81,875
83,922
86,020
88,171
90,375
AVERAGE DAY, GPC
766,000 907,650
1,107,841
1,342,537
1,721,601
1,899,641
2,044,632
2,170,748
2,275,016
2,356,892
2,440,814
2,526,834
2,615,005
2,705,380
MAXIMUM DAY, GP 1,149,000 1,406,858 1,717,154 2,080,933 2,668,481 2,944,443 3,169,179 3,364,659 3,526,275 3,653,182 3,783,262 3,916,593 4,053,258 4,193,339
•
7/16/2004
FIGURE 4-1. PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS, 2003 - 2016
3,000,000
2,500,000
9�
o
a
c�
1,500,000
O IU.
1.000,000
500,000
0 !
o OO 00 N cr)
N
N N N N N N N N N NO
END OF YEAR
v
O
N
•
Anticipated Qualitv
It is anticipated that the quality of the influent waste stream at the OUA wastewater
treatment facility will remain fairly consistent, provided no new industries develop in the
area that could impact the quality of the waste. Table 4-3 summarizes the anticipated
quality.
TABLE 4-3. CHARACTERISTICS OF FLOW AND STRENGTH OF WASTE.
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
1
DESIGN
Peak Daily Flow I
PDF
MGD
4.00
Maximum Monthly Flow j
MMF
, MGD
3.00 J
Annual Average Daily Flow I
AADF
1 MGD
2.00 f
Minimum Flow I
MF
1 MGD
0.80 )
Peak Hourly Flow I
PHF
I MGD
I 4.00
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
I INFLUENT EFFLUENT
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CBOD5
mg/L
j 300
< 10
Total Suspended Solids
I
TSS
mg/L
1 250
I < 10
1 Total Nitrogen I
TN
' mg/L
1 40 I < 3 1
1 Total Phosphorus I
TP
1 mg/L
1 10 I < 2 1
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 4-6 July 2004
SECTION 5
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL STRATEGIES
Effluent disposal capacity is critical to the expansion of the wastewater treatment
facilities. Possible sites in the area of the WWTP were evaluated using soils maps and
aerial photographs, as well as the proximity to the WWTP site. Previous hydrogeological
data from the initial expansion progra m were used to develop estimates for reuse
capacities on sites. Discussions with potential customers and regulatory agencies have
also been held throughout the planning process.
Reuse water is required to be treated to a high level (public access quality) so that the
water can be used for all types of landscape, crop, golf course, sod or pasture irrigation.
The use of reclaimed water in Florida by individual homeowne rs for lawn and
landscaping irrigation is common in areas where potable water shortages limit the
amount of irrigation water available. The majority of the development in the
Okeechobee area is far from the plant and adjacent to the La ke, which is approximately
5 miles away.
Figure 5-1 illustrates the major property owners in the vicinity of the WWTP. Many of
these sites have been reviewed during the expans ion process. Recent discussions have
been held with the Eckerd Youth Development Center, Hamrick & Sons, Inc., and
Williamson Cattle Company. Previous discussions (prior to 1998) have been held with
the then owners of Grassy Island Ranch, the C ounty for use of the Cemetery and the
Airport, and the Department of Corrections for u se of reclaimed water at the prison site.
The quantity of flow that could be taken to the E ckerd site is negligible, so serious
consideration has not been given to this site at this time. Grassy Island Ranch is now
owned by SFWMD and is being used for a demonstration project of man-made wetlands
treatment of surface water. The Cemetery use would also be negligible. The Airport
and the corrections sites are not economically feasible due to the costs of transport to
the sites.
For this study, the following alternatives were evaluated.
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 5-1 July 2004
• - M- O
• n.
r r
r
•
�' t_Y t t :aa?r�t'le•I `�� �� L t■I��t_ r
M
,,� ',s '�{t'- Sil �. y�-'F �j : 1 � 7 ,, r � �•� :�.�1,fI �, • iimnl�3y� :0C�11I11
1...•v' aF...�.11! 1`..� �tr .,. 11 t tj ��':',..l,k..—•��Ii1.`^l��l��i.........r r,.•.r, 1�tyLy�i1� as
•
1. Williamson Cattle Company —Additional Citrus Irrigation
2. Hamrick & Sons, Inc. — Rapid Infiltration Basins (RIBs)
3. WWTP Site — Underground Injection Well
4. WWTP Site — Man-made Wetlands
Opinions of probable construction costs for each of the viable alternatives were
developed and sketches of these alternatives are provided herein.
Williamson Cattle Comganv — Citrus Irriciation
The citrus site is currently receiving approximately 0.4 MGD annual average daily flow
(permitted for 0.8 MGD) for irrigation of citrus over 760 acres of land. The system is
shown in Figure 2-1. The total property is approximately 8600 acres, mostly used as
ranchland for cattle grazing. Williamson Cattle Company (WCC) has rights of first
refusal on the reclaimed water produced at the Autho rity facility; however, WCC has
indicated that they are at maximum capacity for application at this time. Further
evaluation was not performed.
Hamrick & Sons, Inc. — RIBs
The Hamrick property contains primarily Immok alee and Myakka fine sands, but doe s
have substantial areas of Pomello fine sand. The use of some or all of the Pomello fine
sand areas for RIBs was discussed. Approximately 130 acres were identified for use for
the ponds, as shown i n Figure 5-2. Previous soils analyses were performed at the site i n
1995 during the previous expansion program. Based upon this work and a loading rate
of 0.5 gpd/sf, it has been determined that the site m ay be able to handle approximately
0.44 MGD of effluent disposal. In addition, the I and (130 acres) would require a lease
and/or purchase agreement.
The opinion of construction cost for the improvements at the H amrick site was
determined to be approximately $1,620,000. In addition, the cost for the land is as
follows: $32,400/year to lease or $2,600,000 to purchase the 130 acre site.
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 5-3 July 2004
ECKERD YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
HRS-
WWTP SITE
1
� n
V
2,400 LF OF 10" P. V. C.
II II II 11 11 11
II II II II 11 II
it II II II 11 II
II 11 II II II II
II II II It II II
1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I
II II 11 II II II
II II II II II II
11 II 11 II II 11
II 11 II II II II
II II II I II II
11 II it it II II
II 11 II II II II
II II II II II II
II II II II II II
II II II II II II
It II It 11 11 11
i
WILLIAMSON CATTLE CO.
HAMRICK & SONS
OF 8" P.V.C.
0
0
FIGURE S-2
HAMRICK & SONS, INC.
PROPOSED RIBS
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, F1011da 33637 (613) 977-6005
WWTP Site - Underground Iniection Well
The cost for an underground injection well includes the drilling, testing, permitting and
inspection of the well. The main advantage of th a deep well is the ability to use the well
in wet or dry weather. The main disadvantages are that the water placed in the well is
not retrievable for use by agricultural interests and the costs of the well.
The capacity of the well is determined after the construction of an exploratory well and
the testing program is completed. Wells that have been developed in the area have
shown a high capacity and it is assumed that a well of the WWTP site would be rated in
the millions of gallons. A typical injection well is shown in Figure 5-3.
The costs for the development of the deep wells range from $2 Million to $5 Milli on,
based upon review of data available. Si nce the quality of the effluent is very high,
pretreatment is unlikely and the opinion of cos t for the development of the well is $3
Million. The on -site spray irrigation system would remain in service.
WWTP Site — Man-made Wetlands
Man-made wetlands are becoming a common method of effluent disposal in Florida.
Figure 5-4 shows a map provided by FDEP illustrating the wetlands in use for
wastewater treatment in the State. T he wetland system is very simple to operate —
clean, effluent is discharged into the head of the wetlands through a spreader system.
The water flows through the system, with a minimum travel time of 14 days, and out the
discharge structure to the existing perimeter ditch. From the perimeter ditch, the water
would flow to Taylor Creek directly, with possibly a portion sent through an existing
natural wetland to rehydrate that area and prevent degradation. The system requires
monitoring to prevent harm to the wetland plants and surface waters where the wetland
discharges. A typical cross-section of a wetland is shown in Figure 5-5. Fish are
provided to avoid excessive mosquito populations. Plants are chosen for their ability to
reduce nutrients in the effluent. The final di scharge would meet the requirements of the
FDEP for introduction into Taylor Creek.
Wetlands are sized based upon the nutrient levels introduced into them, as well as
hydraulic considerations. Allowable loading rates are as follows:
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Util ity Authority
Effluent Disposal System 5-5 July 2004
0
Potable Water 1
Casing
1500
Cement
2500
Open Hole
n
- SURFICIAL AQUIFER
-_-_-_-_-_-_ CONFINING ZONE
x , ,
UPPER FLORIDAN
AQUIFER
y
CONFINING LAYER
''. POSSIBLE PERMEABLE
Il l I I' II I 'I l i i LAYER
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I l l l l l
l l l i I I I l l l l CONFINING LAYER
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I ! I I I I I I
� V i
------- FIGURE ' , FIGURE 5-3
TYPICAL UNDERGROUND
INJECTION ZONE
INJECTION WELL
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
0
�=� .t � Map Of� ,;
WasftwoUr Wetlanlift In Flwida
Revised 4M/02
A
I Bayou Marcus 22 Northwood
2 Rice Creek 93 Door Park Wotlimdo
3 St. John's County SA16 224 Petra Trookstop
6 Spencer
4 Blacks Ford 26 ftoo WaUand
6 "urlburt Field 27 Lakeland, Glendale
0 Apalachicola 98 Ft. Meade
7 Soot Wetland 29 Glades County IE
8 Jasper 30 Port of the, wands South
9 Monticello 31 Orange County Northwest 21
10 009SA 32 ugh Springs Commercla-1 park
11 Orlando tav-teriy Wetlaticis
12 Slue Heron
13 Yulse
14 South Central Regional
16 Yankee Lalcts, Seminole
16 Hilliard
17' Waldo Wetlands
10 Emist0antral no&nial
It Indian River
20 Lessbwq
21 Wokodahatchoo Wetland
Color Key
Natural Wetlaids
Mart -made Wetlands
Combination of N aturall and Man-made
FIGURE 5-4
WETLAND MAP
METZGER &WILLARD, INC.
Civil - Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
EMERGENT PLANTS
\\/\ \/7 6
INLET flll�
i
FLOATING PLANTS
OPEN WATER
INLET/OUTLET
►'\`\►I. y' l'l- �jj �ij OUTLET
SUBMERGED PLANTS
STRUCTURE
FIGURE 5-5
PROPOSED WETLAND
CROSS SECTION
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florida 33637 (813) 977-6005
L]
TABLE 5-1. ALLOWABLE LOADING RATES FOR A MAN-MADE WETLAND
TREATMENT SYSTEM.
PARAMETER LOADING RATE
Hydraulic Loading Rate 6"/week
Total Nitrogen 75 g/m2-yr
Total Phosphorus 9 g/m2-yr
Currently, the average phosphor us in the reclaimed water is approximately 2.8 mg/L, as
P. In addition, the average nitrogen in the reclaimed water is approximately 7.7 mg/L, as
N. The following analysis of wetland sizing includes the use of the average nutrient
loadings, as well as, potential requirements from the FDEP permit as shown in the
following table.
TABLE 5-2. WETLAND SIZING (ACRES) BASED UPON ALLOWABLE LOADING RATES
FLOW
CONDITION
HYDRAULIC
PHOSPHORUS
NITROGEN
LOADING
LOADING
LOADING
1 MGD
I TP = 2.8 mg/L
43
106
35
TN = 7.7 mg/L
TP = 1.0 mg/L
43
38
14
TN = 3.0 mg/L
1.3 MGD
( TP = 2.8 mg/L
56
138
46
TN = 7.7 mg/L
TP = 1.0 mg/L
56
49
18
TN = 3.0 mg/L
2 MGD
I TP = 2.8 mg/L
86
213
70
TN = 7.7 mg/L
TP = 1.0 mg/L
86
76
27
TN = 3.0 mg/L
2.3 MGD
I TP = 2.8 mg/L
99
244
81
TN = 7.7 mg/L
TP = 1.0 mg/L
99
87
31
TN=3.0mg/L
3 MGD
I TP = 2.8 mg/L
129
319
105
TN = 7.7 mg/L
i TP = 1.0 mg/L
129
114
41
TN = 3.0 mg/L
3.3 MGD
I TP = 2.8 mg/L
142
351
116
TN = 7.7 mg/L
TP = 1.0 mg/L
142
125
45
TN = 3.0 mg/L
The limiting factors are as follows:
1. When the Phosphorus concentration is 2.8 mg/L in the i nfluent, the phosphorus
loading rate is the factor that determines the wetland size.
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 5-9 July 2004
•
•
2. When the Phosphorus concentration is 1.0 mg/L in the i nfluent, the hydraulic
loading rate is the factor that determines the wetland size.
Anticipated wetlands are illustrated in Figures 5-6, 5-7 and 5-8. The wetlands use the
existing area between the WWTP and the perimeter ditch system.
Figure 5-6 shows a 64.8 acre dual -cell wetland, which would be suitable for both the 1.0
MGD, 1.3 MGD and, possibly, 2.0 MGD flow ranges, with an influent phosphorus level of
1.0 mg/L.
Figure 5-7 shows a 118.19 acre dual -cell wetland which would be suitable for 1.0 MGD
at 2.8 mg/L of phosphorus and would also be suitable for flows up to 2.3 MGD with 1.0
mg/L of phosphorus.
Figure 5-8 illustrates approximately a 140 acre dual -cell wetland system. This larger
wetland is suitable for flows up to 1.3 MGD at 2.8 mg/L of phosphorus. This system is
also suitable for flows over 3.0 MGD at 1.0 mg/L of phosphorus.
For higher flows, larger wetlands would be necessary. There is approximately 270 acres
available on the site for this use.
It is anticipated that the on -site spray irrigation system would be eliminated due to the
space requirements of the man-made wetland systems.
An opinion of probable construction cost has been developed for the three wetland sizes
described above. Appendix B provides a detailed breakdown of the cost estimate.
TABLE 5-3. OPINION OF COSTS FOR MAN-MADE WETLANDS.
DESCRIPTION OPINION OF COST
1. 64.8 acre Wetland $1,093,900
2. 118.19 acre Wetland $1,464,800
3. 139.86 acre Wetland $1,615,400
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 5 - 10 July 2004
64.8 ACRE WETLANDS
• 1.3 MGD EFFLUENT
• PHOSPHORUS LOADING BASED UPON
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF 1.0 MGA
OR
• 1.0 MGD EFFLUENT
• PHOSPHORUS LOADING BASED UPON
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF 1.0 MGA
EMSMO lM•1NE0 HCUM POW
17 AA
m
\. (i
\�
WATER S1d1AM POND
IL AC
MIT
STRLKTM
jPROPOSED WETLAND 'A' 0
32.44 AC.
1 r.au Muw fT*J I
uuul
aut p� �
STRUCTURE PROP 3Z 38 ACTkNO'B• no,
----'------'1----------- �- NP-6 mom w 3 -
1cr umw EAST 91a
II I
II I
I
II I
I— 20• F•P L L EASEMENT
-----------------7
===_—Jul_----_..--�__._.___----�-----------=i—
0
FIGURE 5-6
64.8 ACRE ONSITE WETLANDS
METZGER & WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
TBmpO. FIDFi00 33637 (813) 977-6005
118.19 ArRF WFTI ANQ5
• 1.0 MGD EFFLUENT
• PHOSPHORUS LOADING BASED UPON
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF 2.8 MGA
EM M9 IAAIMm HMDMG PM
17 AC
10 UILRY EAgWff
8
j
rmucTm
j PROPOSED WETLAND A' ® IY
35.89 AC I 0
IS PROPOSED WETLAND
45.79 AC.
Ih
�.
U
PROP D B
:7!
EASEMENT
-- I -� �• T 1, ETW9ME
EL X
•
•
FIGURE 5-7
118.19 ACRE ONSITE WETLANDS
METZGER SE WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
T9mp9. F1.11d9 33637 (813) 977-6005
739.86 ACRE WETLANDC_ ' /
• 1.3 MGD EFFLUENT 1V WOM EAM3E11 i
• PHOSPHORUS LOADING BASED UPON
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF 2.8 MGA !/
0.0
0.0
f,f.. ®1.1 n III°
if
I
U
ut
II
trM 1m PROPOSED WETLAM�-
II 39.07 AC.
a >s
U
0
PROPOSED WETLAND 'C"
62.75 AC.00
FIGURE 5-8
139.86 ACRE ONSITE WETLANDS
METZGER 8f WILLARD, INC.
Civil • Environmental Engineers
Tampa, Florid. 33637 (B13) 977-6005
SECTION 6
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FOR EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
As a part of the development of this report, meetings were held with staff to review
operations and capital cost concerns. In additi on, a meeting was held with
representatives of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to discuss
permitting issues. As a result of these meetings and the recommended program for the
expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (Technical Memorandum No. 1), the
following program for the expansion of the Effluent Disposal Facility is recommended.
1. Expand the effluent disposal facility to accommodate a minimum of 3.0 MGD with
approximately 140 acres of on -site wetlands for a cost of approximately
$1,615,400 and an influent phosphorus level of 1.0 mg/L.
2. Continue the operation of the Williamson Cattle Compan y Citrus Irrigation
System with a capacity of 0.8 MGD.
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Okeechobee Utility Authority
Effluent Disposal System 6-1 July 2004
0
0
APPENDIX A
• •
APPENDIX A - WETLAND SIZING CALCULATIONS
WETLAND SIZE, ACRES
FLOW,
HYDRAULIC
PHOSPHORUS
NITROGEN
MGD
TP, MG/L
TN, MG/L I
LOADING
LOADING
LOADING
1
2.8
7.7
43
106
35
1
3
43
38
14
1.3
2.8
7.7
56
138
46
1
3
56
49
18
2
2.8
7.7
86
213
70
1
3
86
76
27
2.3
2.8
7.7
99
244
81
1
3
99
87
31
3
2.8
7.7
129
319
105
1
3
129
114
41
3.3
2.8
7.7
142
351
116
1
3
142
125
45
4
2.8
7.7
172
425
140
1
3
172
152
55
Typical Calculations:
Hydraulic Loading = 6"/week
Land Req'd =
Phosphorus Loading =
Land Req'd =
Nitrogen Loading =
Land Req'd =
0.8571 "/day
(Flow)(12"/ft)
(0.8571"/day)(7.48 gallons/cf)(43,560 sf/ac)
9 g/m2-yr
(TP)(Flow)(8.34 #/gal)(454 g/#)(365 d/yr)(3.281 ft/m)(3.281 ft/m)
(9 g/m2-yr)(43,560 sf/ac)
75 g/mZ-yr
(TN)(Flow)(8.34 #/gal)(454 g/#)(365 d/yr)(3.281 ft/m)(3.281 ft/m)
(75 g/m2-yr)(43,560 sf/ac)
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B - OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST FOR ON -SITE
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
64.8 AC WETLAND -1.0
MGD and 1.3 MGD
Earthwork
104,000
CY
4.07
423,280
Influent Structure
2
LS
15,000.00
30,000
Piping
1
LS
5,000.00
5,000
Discharge Structure
2
EA
15,000.00
30,000
Piping
1
LS
5,000.00
5,000
Gravel Bed
1
LS
7,500.00
7,500
Modifications to Perimeter Ditch Discharge Structure
1
LS
10,000.00
10,000
Landscaping
Sod
20,000
SY
3.01
60,200
Emergent Plants
35
AC
2,000.00
70,000
Submerged Plants
29
AC
3,000.00
87,000
Floating Plants
35
AC
1,000.00
35,000
Fish, Mosquitofish
200
EA
10.00
2,000
SUBTOTAL
764,980
10% Mobilization
1
LS
76,498.00
76,498
SUBTOTAL
841,478
30% Contingency
1
LS
252,443.40
252,443
TOTAL
1,093,921
118.19 AC WETLAND -1.0 MGD
Earthwork
170,000
CY
3.25
552,500
Influent Structure
3
LS
15,000.00
45,000
Piping
1
LS
12,000.00
12,000
Discharge Structure
3
EA
14,500.00
43,500
Piping
1
LS
7,500.00
7,500
Gravel Bed
1
LS
10,000.00
10,000
Modifications to Perimeter Ditch Discharge Structure
1
LS
10,000.00
10,000
Landscaping
Sod
35,000
SY
2.50
87,500
Emergent Plants
60
AC
1,800.00
108,000
Submerged Plants
46
AC
2,900.00
133,400
Floating Plants
60
AC
825.00
49,500
Fish, Mosquitofish
350
EA
10.00
3,500
SUBTOTAL
1,062,400
10% Mobilization
1
LS
106,240.00
106,240
SUBTOTAL
1,168,640
30% Contingency
1
LS
296,200.00
296,200
TOTAL
1,464,840
139.86 AC WETLAND -1.3
MGD AND 3.0
MGD
Earthwork
225,000
CY
2.75
618,750
Influent Structure
3
LS
15,000.00
45,000
Piping
1
LS
12,000.00
12,000
Discharge Structure
3
EA
14,500.00
43,500
Piping
1
LS
7,500.00
7,500
Gravel Bed
1
LS
10,000.00
10,000
Modifications to Perimeter Ditch Discharge Structure
1
LS
10,000.00
10,000
Landscaping
Sod
45,000
SY
2.00
90,000
Emergent Plants
75
AC
1,500.00
112,500
Submerged Plants
63
AC
2,500.00
157,500
Floating Plants
75
AC
800.00
60,000
Fish, Mosquitofish
450
EA
10.00
4,500
SUBTOTAL
1,171,250
10% Mobilization
1
LS
117,125.00
117,125
SUBTOTAL
1,288,375
30% Contingency
1
LS
327,000.00
327,000
TOTAL
1,615,375