WASTEWATER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TREATMENT PLANT THE WALLACE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT #1 WASTEWATER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TREATMENT PLANT THE WALLACE GROUP Dallas, Texas Kevin Glovier, PE Project Manager March 22, 2014

The Wallace Group The Wallace Group Founded in 1976 – In Business 38 Years 4 Business Lines: • • Water & Wastewater • Comprehensive Engineering, • Civil • Architecture Architectural, and Survey Services • Survey & SUE • Serving North and Central Texas Clients • 4 Offices: • Dallas Staff of 45+: Professional Engineers, • • Waco • Architects, and Surveyors Killeen • Round Rock • Public and Private Sectors – Large and • TBPE F ‐ 54 / TBPLS 100517 ‐ 02 • Small Projects Small Projects

Plant History Plant History • Originally Constructed • Originally Constructed Mid 1970’s • Expanded in Mid 1980’s Expanded in Mid 1980 s to Capacity of 1.40 MGD • Expanded in 2002 to Expanded in 2002 to Capacity of 1.75 MGD

Existing WWTP Existing WWTP

Review of Improvement Process Review of Improvement Process • Initial Survey Work and Report y p • Identified Easily Identifiable Problem Areas

WWTP Current Site Plan WWTP Current Site Plan

Initial Survey Work and Report Initial Survey Work and Report • Effluent Permit Parameters Original Plant Current Plant Permitted Flow 1.4 MGD 1.75 MGD BOD 10 mg/l 5 mg/l TSS 15 mg/l 12 mg/l Ammonia ‐ Nitrogen 3 mg/l 3 mg/l

Preliminary Engineering Report Preliminary Engineering Report • Population Projections • Population Projections • Identified Existing and Future Volumes for Plant Future Volumes for Plant Design • Identified Problem Areas Identified Problem Areas • Identified Possible Alternatives • Projected Costs Associated with Various Alternatives

Researched Alternatives Identified in PER • CAS ‐ Conventional Activated Sludge • MBR ‐ Membrane Biological Reactor • BioMag System • TRA ‐ Trinity River Authority • IFAS ‐ Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge System

Evaluated the Five Alternatives Evaluated the Five Alternatives • Provided Positives and Negatives to TCMUD Board g • Presentation to TCMUD Board and Answered Questions Option Process Advantages Disadvantages   Proven Technology Nutrient Removal   Option 1 CAS Treatment Cost Effective Large Footprint   Operator Familiarity Infrastructure Intensive   Nutrient Removal Cost   Small Footprint p Two Parallel Plants During g Option 2 Option 2 MBR Treatment MBR Treatment  Effluent Quality Phase I  Approved Process   Nutrient Removal Cost   Option 3 BioMag System Small Footprint No TCEQ Pre-Approval   Effluent Quality Effluent Quality  Cost  Fewer MUD Operations  Option 4 TRA Services Loss of Control  TPDES Requirements  Future Rate Increases     Nutrient Removal Nutrient Removal Cost Cost   Option – Other IFAS Treatment Small Footprint No TCEQ Pre-Approval  Effluent Quality

WWTP Modified Site Plan WWTP Modified Site Plan

MBR System MBR System • Design Design • Bid Project Summer 2014 • Start Construction Fall 2014 – 18 Months Start Construction Fall 2014 18 Months Overview

MBR System MBR System • Design Design • Bid Project Summer 2014 • Start Construction Fall 2014 – 18 Months Start Construction Fall 2014 18 Months RAS Pumps to MBR

MBR System MBR System PA Tank and MBR Tank PA Tank and MBR Tank

MBR System MBR System • Design Design • Bid Project Summer 2014 • Start Construction Fall 2014 – 18 Months Start Construction Fall 2014 18 Months Diffuser Cleaning Tubes

QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS? Kevin Glovier, PE P Project Manager j t M The Wallace Group keving@wallace ‐ group.com (214) 747 ‐ 3733 (214) 747 3733