First presented at the Fort Wayne Technical Seminar on Sept. 28, 2010 by Jeffrey Ponist, P.E., Senior Vice President of Commonwealth Engineers, Inc.

Advance slides by:

• Mouse: Clicking in the slide window
• Keyboard: Hitting the space bar, RIGHT arrow key or DOWN arrow key
• Hidden Controls: In the lower right corner (will appear on mouse-over)

Review past slides by:

• Keyboard: Hitting the LEFT arrow key or UP arrow key
• Hidden Controls: In the lower right corner (will appear on mouse-over)

Today's Discussion Points

1. Review the Process & Applications
2. Present Case Study
3. Review Observed Performance Data
4. Review Operational Costs
5. Photo Tour

Some Interesting Numbers!

$298.1 Billion = EPA 20 Yr WW Needs Report to Congress

$63.6 Billion = EPA 20 Yr. Est. of CSO Needs

$4.8-3.8 Trillion = 20 Yr Spending on Public Infrastructure (1)

$3.0 Billion = Recommended CSO Annual Grant Funding (1)

$50 Billion = Additional Annual Costs due to Climate Change Impacts (2)

1.5% = Water Sector Funding of ARRA Act

Wet Water Treatment Process

Wet Water Treatment Process

Typical Wastewater BHRC Applications

• CSO Satellite
• Advanced Primary Treatment
• Wet Weather Secondary Equivalence
  (Parallel Treatment-Recombination/Blending)
• Wet Weather Secondary Solids Contact
  (BioActiflo)
• Phosphorus Removal

Major Process Suppliers

• Kruger USA Inc. = ACTIFLO
• Degremont Technologies = Densadeg

Main Process Steps (ACTIFLO®)

ACTIFLO®

ACTIFLO®

ACTIFLO: Rapid start up

Reaches steady state very quickly

ACTIFLO® CSO/SSO US Facilities List

Bio ACTIFLO: Process Concept

Bio ACTIFLO: Process Concept

• Exploit "excess" or untapped biological treatment capacity
• Supplement limited clarification capacity
• 'Contact stabilization' - high rate biological secondary treatment
• Remove additional BOD, sBOD, sCOD, TSS
• Settled sludge routed back to the head of the aeration basins to complete oxidation of adsorbed CBOD/SCBOD

BHRC Capital Cost Projections

Main Process Steps (Densadeg®)

Densadeg®

Densadeg®

Greenfield, Indiana Case Study

History of City of Greenfield CSO Actions

1. Completed separation of isolated areas in 1997 and continue sewer rehab today at $300,000 +/- annually.
2. Sealed off all collection system overflow points in 2002. Overflows continued at Headworks.
3. Constructing additional 42" diameter interceptor to WWTP. Provide some in line storage with old 30" diameter interceptor
4. Expanded the WWTP in 2004 ($8.5 million)
   a. New screening and grit removal
   b. New raw sewage pumping
   c. Expanded primary
   d. New secondary clarifiers
   e. Rehab of tertiary filters
   f. New wet weather treatment system ($2.0 Million)
   g. New UV disinfection
   h. New Class A Biosolids process

City of Greenfield, Indiana

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Permitting Issues

Alternative Flow Paths

Greenfield Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Parameters

Average Design Flow: 4.0 MGD

Total Peak Flow Capacity: 18 MGD

BHRC Process: 2-each 6.0 MGD

Coagulation Tank HRT: 2 Min. (3 HP)
Injection Tank HRT: 2 Min. (3 HP)
Maturation Tank HRT: 6 Min. (5 HP)
Clarifier Rate: 30 gpm/Sq. Ft. (1.5 HP)
Sand Return Pumps: 175 gpm (15 HP)
Polymer Dosage: 0.5-1 mg/l
Alum Dosage: 70-100 mg/l
Process Size: 2300 Sq. Ft.

Main Process Instruments

City of Greenfield

Actual Performance Data

• CBOD removed: 78% Avg.
• TSS removed: 88% Avg.
• NH removed: 25% Avg.
• NTU removed: 95% Avg.

City of Greenfield

City of Greenfield

City of Greenfield

City of Greenfield

City of Greenfield

City of Greenfield

City of Greenfield

Final Plant Effluent

City of Greenfield

Final Plant Effluent

City of Greenfield

Final Plant Effluent

Operational Costs

BHRC System Operational Costs

• Cost per Volume Treated: $276 per MG
• Cost per Operating Hour: $50.00 (+/-)
• No Significant Maintenance Since Start-Up

Photo Tour

City of Greenfield: HRBC Building

Photo Tour

City of Greenfield: HRBC Building

City of Greenfield: Process Layout

City of Greenfield: SCADA Screen

City of Greenfield

City of Greenfield: Hydrocyclone and Mixers

City of Greenfield: Hydrocyclone

City of Greenfield: Lamella Plates

City of Greenfield: Dry Polymer System

City of Greenfield: Solids Return Pumps

City of Greenfield

Conclusions

1. Performance has exceeded design expectations.
2. BHRC system provides the process flexibility to eliminate overflows and assure NPDES permit compliance during high flow conditions.
3. BHRC process performance has provided the equivalence to secondary treatment standards.
4. Operational costs have been within the anticipated range.
5. The automated BHRC process has proven to be operator friendly and reliable.
6. There has been a slight foam issue in the effluent channel addressed with water spray system.
7. Floatable material prior to the clarifier requires a skimming means.

Questions?

Contact: jponist@contactcei.com