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:
• Comprehensive Engineering,

Architectural, and Survey Services

• Serving North and Central Texas Clients
• Water & Wastewater
• Civil
• Architecture
• Survey & SUE
• 4 Offices:
• Staff of 45+: Professional Engineers,

Architects, and Surveyors

• Public and Private Sectors – Large and

Small Projects

• Dallas
• Waco
• Killeen
• Round Rock
• TBPE F‐54 / TBPLS 100517‐02

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 BOD 1.4 MGD 10 mg/l 1.75 MGD 5 mg/l TSS Ammonia ‐ Nitrogen 15 mg/l 3 mg/l 12 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 Option 1 CAS Treatment  Proven Technology  Cost Effective  Operator Familiarity  Nutrient Removal  Large Footprint  Infrastructure Intensive Option 2 MBR Treatment  Nutrient Removal  Small Footprint  Cost  Two Parallel Plants During Option 2 MBR Treatment p  Effluent Quality  Approved Process g Phase I Option 3 BioMag System  Nutrient Removal  Small Footprint  Effluent Quality  Cost  No TCEQ Pre-Approval  Effluent Quality Option 4 TRA Services  Fewer MUD Operations  TPDES Requirements  Cost  Loss of Control  Future Rate Increases  Nutrient Removal  Cost Option – Other IFAS Treatment  Nutrient Removal  Small Footprint  Effluent Quality  Cost  No TCEQ Pre-Approval

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 j t M Project Manager The Wallace Group keving@wallace‐group.com (214) 747‐3733 (214) 747 3733