Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
R-2004-165 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan
RESOLUTION NO. R — 2004 - 165 A RESOLUTION to adopt the 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan prepared by Black & Veatch for the City of Yakima. WHEREAS, the City of Yakima owns and operates wastewater collection and treatment facilities in accord with applicable Federal, State and Local regulations; and WHEREAS, Black & Veatch Corporation was selected to provide professional wastewater engineering services in response to continuing environmental mandates, community growth, replacement needs, and operational efficiencies; and WHEREAS, an agreement with Black & Veatch, Inc. to provide these services to the City of Yakima was authorized on April 23, 2003, now, therefore WHEREAS, the draft 2004 Wastewater Facility Pian was submitted to Ecology for review and approval on February 26, 2004; and WHEREAS, a study session for City Council covering the 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan was held June 22, 2004; and WHEREAS, comments on the Facility pian were received from Ecology on September 2, 2004; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 7, 2004 and Wastewater staff were directed to review the Ecology comments and prepare legislation to adopt the draft 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan; and WHEREAS, responses to the comments were prepared and submitted to Ecology on October 1, 2004 and were provided to Council as an informational item on Oct. 8, 2004; and WHEREAS, approval by Ecology is required for constructing or modifying wastewater facilities and to be eligible for Centennial Clears Water, CCW, funds; therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: That the attached 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan is adopted. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 19th day of October, 2004 ATTEST: City Clerk „eV ayor, Paul George Information Item September 30, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council, City Manager From: Max Linden, Utility Engineer, Wastewater Division (509) 249-6814 Re: Draft 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan - Tables Clarifications During the recent study session and public meeting regarding the Draft 2004 Wastewater facility plan there was some confusion with the summary of recommended priority improvements for the in the Draft 2004 Wastewater facility plan. The improvements had been divided into near term (0-6 years), mid term (7-12 years) and long range (13-20 years) recommendations for implementation of projects. The number of 0-6 year priority improvements that were discussed at the study session and public meeting were not realistic and a revised table (Work packages #2 and #3), totaling about 18 million dollars was shown to you that reflected a more realistic approach to implementing the projects over the next 6 years. The Tables for the Priority Improvements in the Facility plan have been revised to reflect this. Attached with this Memo are copies of the corrected text and tables to insert into your copy of the Draft 2004 Wastewater Facility plan. The pages they will replace are 12-14 through 12-19 and 12-23 through 12-26. If you have any additional questions please give me a call. will be required to serve the newly connecting property and applying that percentage to the construction cost of the facility. 12.8.5.4 Connection Fees The City of Yakima currently has a connection charge in place for new connections to the system. As discussed previously in this section, the connection charge has three separate components: a base treatment plant charge, a base trunk/interceptor charge and a base collection pipes charge. These charges are levied as a one-time charge assessed against developers or new customers to recover an equitable share of the value of capacity in the facilities that are (or will be) available. Connection charges add equity to the system by requiring new connections to make up -front contributions and allow for growth to pay for itself in accordance with basic Growth Management Act principals. 12.9 Summary of Recommended Improvements This Section provides a summary of recommended improvements to the Yakima Regional WWTP and the collection system identified in previous sections of the Plan. Improvements have been divided into near term (0-6 years), mid-term (7-12 years) and long range (13-20 years) recommendations and further broken down into key treatment features projects, other wastewater treatment facilities projects and collection system improvements. Project prioritizations were determined based on relative need and regulatory requirements associated with each. 12.9.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Recommended improvements to the treatment facility include a variety of projects totaling an estimated $41 million in regulatory, capacity upgrade, health and safety features and regular renewal and replacement projects over the 20 -year planning horizon with approximately $17.5 million in improvements scheduled for the 0-6 year near-term capital improvement program. Wastewater treatment plant improvements are identified in Table 12-5. Estimated costs, relative schedules and the primaryreason for installation or upgrade are indicated. Indication of the reason for the upgrade should be a primary determination in deciding the type of funding to be utilized for each project. General speaking, upgrades that are mandated by regulation are most suitable for loan and grant fmancing, while smaller projects and regular renewal and replacements are most commonly financed from available cash and rates. This does not, however, preclude the packaging of several related improvements into funding applications that allow similar projects to be accomplished simultaneously. The inclusion of a variety of projects into one application also allows the more serious of the issues being addressed to carry less significant aspects of the overall project through competitive processes. Analysis of the treatment systems performed as part of this facility plan indicates the need to provide redundancy to several operations within the treatment plant. Redundancy is required to meet Washington. State Department of Ecology criteria for provision of backup facilities to major treatment processes to assure compliance with the City's NPDES permit and associated rules and regulations. The following areas have been identified and prioritized in the planning process as the most critical facilities requiring City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan - DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-14 • redundancy. These projects are included in the Series B bond proceeds funding received in 2003. • Centrifuge Dewatering (Project 23) — Currently only one of the two centrifuges is function for dewatering biosolids and this requires extensive maintenance to continue operating. A new centrifuge is required to maintain compliance when the older centrifuge is out of service. ® Solids Thickening (Projects 22) — The waste activated sludge thickening process reduces the total volume sent to the digestion process, and directly impacts regulatory compliance. Currently only one dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) unit is in place to thicken secondary sludge. A second thickening unit is needed to meet redundancy criteria. a RAS /WAS Pump Station (Project 20) — The RAS/WAS pump station is used to transport Return Activated Sludge (RAS) from the secondary clarifiers back to the aeration basin flow control system through two constant speed open screw pumps. Waste activated sludge is pumped from the two existing secondary clarifiers through two pumping systems. With the addition of a new secondary clarifier a new RAS/WAS pumping station will be required. This facility will resolve existing problems with the RAS pumping flow split and provide sufficient capacity to handle peak hour flow conditions. • Standby Power Capacity Addition (Project 38) - The emergency power system supplies a backup source of power to assure that minimum treatment is provided during a power failure. The existing generator set was installed in 1980 and at a minimum, requires a complete inspection/overhaul. An additional generator set is required to operate the minimum treatment process. ® New Blowers in New Blower Building (Project 7) — Existing VFDs that operate the four 400 horsepower blowers are far less efficient and generate more harmonic distortion on the electrical power system than newer technology. They are all at the end of their useful life, are difficult to fmd replacement parts for and require replacement. Construction of a new structure to accommodate new blowers is recommended. In addition to redundancy projects the following projects, also scheduled for the 0-6 near term planning horizon, have been identified as critical projects for renewal, safety and efficiency of operations. • Trickling Filter Door/Walkway Covers (Project 3) — Trickling filter door and walkway covers have rusted off and should be replaced with non-metallic materials. © Aeration Basin Diffusers Rehabilitation (Project 4) — The ceramic diffuser plates for basins No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 are 10 years old and need to be replaced with membrane fine bubble diffusers. • Upgrade Two Existing Secondary Clarifier Launders for Algae Control and Improved Access (Project 10) — To alleviate cleaning problems of secondary clarifier launders due to algae growth, a brush cleaning system or launder covers should be installed. o Secondary Clarifier Spray Nozzle Installation (Project 11) City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan - DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-15 • • Primary Sludge Pump Replacement (Project 17) — The air -diaphragm primary sludge pumps are .over 25 years old and should be replaced, possibly with a different type of pumps without the need for air compressors. • Replacement of Secondary Scum Pumps and Piping Modification (Project 19) — The air -diaphragm secondary scum pumps are over 25 years old and should be replaced. In addition, piping modifications will provide designated suction piping and valves for pumping of secondary scum and secondary clarifier bottom sludge. • Replacement of Digester Gas Piping, Valves and Flow Meters (Project 27) — The digester gas collection piping is over 20 years old and needs to be upsized. • Grease Receiving Facility (Project 30) • Enclosed Trailer and Cake Storage Facility (Project 33) — Because inclement weather can interfere with dewatered cake hauling and application operations in winter, an enclosed trailer and dewatered cake storage facility providing temporary on-site storage is necessary. • Laboratory/Instrumentation (Project 35) • Weather Protection for Odor Control towers (Project 36) • Odor Control Improvements (Project 37) — Odor control for the Parshall flumes/primary clarifier influent channels, primary clarifiers, RAS/WAS pump station, and trickling filter clarifier effluent pump station are needed. • Replace SCADA System (Project 39) — Major SCADA system components will be replaced, including PLCs, computer hardware and software, HMI software, and historical data logging software. • UV Disinfection (Project 40) — UV disinfection facilities will be installed to replace chlorine disinfection, reducing safety and security concerns. City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan - DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-16 • A E LEFT • :LANK INT TI NAL • City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan — DRAFT 9128 Page 12-17 • • • Table 12-5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Recommended Improvement Projects Project Number Facility Description Opinion of Probable Cost 0-6 Year 7-12 Year 13-20 Year Primary Project Purpose 1 Retrofit Primary Split Box $428,000 $428,000 Renewal/Safety 2 Replacement of Primary Clarifier Collector Mechanisms $2,275,000 $2,275,000 Renewal Safety 3 Trickling Filter Door/Walkway Covers $85,000 $85,000 Renewal/Safety 4 Aeration Basin Diffusers Rehab $50,000 $50,000 Renewal/Safety 5 Structural Repairs to Aeration Basins 1-3 & Internal Anoxic Zone $1,173,000 $1,173,000 Renewal/Growth 6 New Aeration Basin/Anoxic Zone $2,173,000 $2;173,000 Growth 7 New Blowers in New Blower Building $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Renewal 8 Refurbish Secondary Clarifier Bull -Gears $130,000 $130,000 Renewal/Safety 9 Replace Secondary Clarifier Skimmer Mechanism/Scum Box $362,000 $362,000 Renewal/Safety 10 Upgrade Two Existing Secondary Clarifier Launders for Algae Control and Improved Access $195,000 $195,000 Renewal/Safety 11 Secondary Clarifier Spray Nozzle Installation $15,000 $15,000 Renewal/Safety 12 New Secondary Clarifier $3,370,000 $3,370,000 Growth 13 project deleted - - - 14 Retrofit Grit Storage Hopper $118,000 $118,000 Renewal/Safety 15 Primary Sludge Pumping Density and Flow Meters $240,000 $240,000 Renewal/Safety 16 Primary Digester Building Lighting Replacement $49,000 $49,000 Renewal/Safety 17 Primary Sludge Pump Replacement $100,000 $100,000 RenewaUSafety 18 Raise Intermediate Degritter Center Wall $250,000 $250,000 Renewal/Safety 19 Replacement of Secondary Scum Pumps and Piping Modification $80,000 $80,000 Renewal/Safety 20 New RAS/WAS Pumping Station for new Secondary Process Units $1,020,000 $1,020,000 Growth 21 Refurbish DAFT Air Compressors/Pipelines $65,000 $65,000 Renewal/Safety 22 New DAFT Unit $2,043,000 $2,043,000 Regulatory 23 New Centrifuge and Polymer System $3,103,000 $3,103,000 Regulatory/Growth 24 New Centrifuge to replace Existing Unit (In 2014) $1,196,000 $1,196,000 Renewal/Safety 25 Centrate Equalization Tankage $1,515,000 $1,515,000 Renewal 26 Closure of South Lagoon Without Removal $111,000 $111,000 Regulatory 27 Replacement of Digester Gas Piping, Valves and Flow Meters $236,000 $236,000 Renewal/Safety 28 Replacement of Waste Gas Flare $68,000 $68,000 Renewal/Safety City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan - DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-18 • • • Table 12-5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Recommended Improvement Projects Project Number Facility Description Opinion of Probable Cost 0-6 Year 7-12 Year 13-20 Year Primary Project Purpose 29 New Boiler/Hot Water $245,000 $245,000 Growth 30 Grease Receiving Facility $125,000 $125,000 Regulatory/Safety 31 New Primary Digester $5,384,000 $5,384,000 Growth 32 Thermophilic Digestion (TPAD) $5,174,000 $5,174,000 Regulatory 33 Enclosed Trailer and Cake Storage Facility $1,926,000.. $1,926,000 Safety 34 Administration Building Modifications $500,000 $500,000 Growth 35 Laboratory/Instrumentation $210,000 $90,000 $85,000 $35,000 Renewal/Safety 36 Weather Protection for Odor Control towers $50,000 $50,000 Renewal/Safety 37 Odor Control Improvements $1,112,000 $1,112,000 Regulatory/Safety 38 Standby Power Addition to Trickling Filter Pump Station and Aeration System $647,000 $647,000 Growth 39 SCADA System Replacement $930,000 $930,000 Regulatory 40 UV Disinfection $2,584,000 $2,584,000 Renewal/Safety Total WWTP Opinion of Probable Costs $40,937,000 $17,506,000 $15,453,000 $7,978,000 City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan - DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-19 • lible 12-6 0 — 6 Year Priority Improvements Project Number Facility Description Opinion of Probable Cost Mandatory 1 Growth 2 Regulatory Renewal/ Safety 39 SCADA System Replacement $930,000 $930,000 7 New Blowers in New Blower Building $1,600,000 $1,600,000 23 New Centrifuge and Polymer System $3,103,000 $3,103,000 22 New DAFT Unit $2,043,000 $2,043,000 38 Standby Power Addition to Trickling Filter Pump Station, Aeration System, and New RAS/WAS Pump Station $647,000 $647,000 25 Centrate Equalization Tankage $1,515,000 $1,515,000 4 Aeration Basin Diffusers Rehab $50,000 $50,000 27 Replacement of Digester Gas Piping, Valves and Flow Meters $236,000 $236,000 30 Grease Receiving Facility $125,000 $125,000 35 Laboratory/Instrumentation $90,000 $90,000 40 W Disinfection $2,584,000 $2,584,000 17 Primary Sludge Pump Replacement $100,000 $100,000 33 Enclosed Trailer and Cake Storage Facility $1,926,000 $1,926,000 36 Weather Protection for Odor Control towers $50,000 $50,000 3 Trickling Filter Door/Walkway Covers $85,000 $85,000 37 Odor Control Improvements $1,112,000 $556,000 5556,000 19 Replacement of Secondary Scum Pumps and Piping Modification $80,000 $80,000 20 New RAS/WAS Pumping Station for new Secondary Process Units $1,020,000 $1,020,000 10 Upgrade two Existing secondary Clarifier Launders for Algae Control $195,000 $195,000 11 Secondary Clarifier Spray Nozzle Installation $15,000 $15,000 Subtotal Treatment Facility Improvements $17,506,000 $9,872,000 $5,967,000 $1,667,000 Collection System Model and Monitoring $400,000 $400,000 Collection System Facilities (Table 11-11) 3 $783,000 $783,000 Collection Facility Improvements (Table 11-13 & 11-15) 3 $1,324,000 $1,324,000 Collection Facility Improvements (Table 11-14) 20%4 $6,118,000 $1,835,400 $4,282,600 Subtotal Collection Facility Improvements $8,625,000 $2,235,400 $2,107,000 $4,282,600 TOTAL TREATMENT AND COLLECTION $26,131,000 $12,107,400 $8,074,000 $5,949,600 1 Compliance with federal/state laws and regulations, and the Four Party Agreement 2 System Improvements to accommodate growth related issues. 3 Table referenced is provided in the Attachment to Section 11 (multiplied by an inflation factor of 1.1283) 4 Costs shown are 30% Mandatory, 70% Growth City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan - DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-23 • • Table 12-7 7 —12 Year Priority Improvements • Project Number Description Opinion of Probable Cost 1 Mandatory Regulatory Renewal/ Safety Growth 2 1 Retrofit Primary Split Box $428,000 $428,000 2 Replacement of Primary Clarifier Collector Mechanisms $2,275,000 $2,275,000 5 Structural Repairs to Aeration Basins 1-3 $1,173,000 $750,000 $423,000 8 Refurbish Secondary Clarifier Bull -Gears $130,000 $130,000 9 Replace Secondary Clarifier Skimmer Mechanism/Scum Box $362,000 $362,000 12 New Secondary Clarifier $3,370,000 $3,370,000 14 Retrofit Grit Storage Hopper $118,000 $118,000 16 Primary Digester Building Lighting Replacement $49,000 $49,000 21 Refurbish DAFT Air Compressors/Pipelines $65,000 $65,000 31 New Primary Digester $5,384,000 $5,384,000 18 Raise Intermediate Degritter Center Wall $250,000 $250,000 24 New Centrifuge to replace Existing Unit (In 2014) $1,196,000 $1,196,000 28 Replacement of Waste Gas Flare $68,000 $68,000 34 Administration Building Modifications $500,000 $500,000 35 Laboratory/instrumentation $85,000 $85,000 Subtotal Treatment Facility Improvements $15,453,000 $0.00 $5,776,000 $9,677,000 Collection Facilities (Table 11-15 inc. only) 3 $8,584,000 $2,575,200 $6,008,800 Maintenance Building $3,676,000 $2,940,800 $735,200 Collection System Facilities (Table 11-14 (40%) 3 $12,237,000 $3,671,100 $8,565,900 Subtotal Collection Facility Improvements $24,497,000 $9,187,100 $15,309,900 TOTAL TREATMENT AND COLLECTION $39,950,000 $9,187,100 $5,776,000 $24,986,900 1 Compliance with federal/state laws and regulations, and the Four Party Agreement 2 System Improvements to accommodate growth related issues. 3 Table referenced is provided in the Attachment to Section 11 (multiplied by an inflation factor of 1.1283) - Costs shown are 30% Mandatory, 70% Growth City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan - DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-24 • s Table 12-8 13 — 20 Year Priority Improvements • Project Number Facility Description Opinion of Probable Cost Mandatory 1 Growth 2 Regulatory Renewal/ Safety 6 New Aeration Basin/Anoxic Zone $2,173,000 $2,173,000 15 Primary Sludge Pumping Density and Flow Meters $240,000 $240,000 26 Closure of South Lagoon Without Removal $111,000 $111,000 29 New Boiler/Hot Water $245,000 $245,000 32 Thermophilic Digestion (TPAD) $5,174,000 $5,174,000 35 Laboratory/Instrumentation $35,000 $35,000 Subtotal WWTP Opinion of Probable Costs $7,978,000 $5,285,000 $275,000 $2,418,000 Collection Facility Improvements (Table 11-14) 40%3 $12,237,000 $3,671,100 $8,565,900 Subtotal Collection Facility Improvements $12,237,000 $3,671,100 $8,565,900 TOTAL TREATMENT AND COLLECTION $20,215,000 $8,956,100 $275,000 $10,983,900 2 System Improvements to accommodate growth related issues. Compliance with federal/state laws and regulations, and the Four Party Agreement 3 Table referenced is provided in the Attachment to Section 11 (multiplied by an inflation factor of 1.1283) - Costs shown are 30% Mandatory, 70% Growth City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan — DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-25 *Table 12-8A shows the percentages of costs for Mandatory and Growth related projects. As indicated in the table the greater percentage of costs for the Wastewater treatment plant are mandatory whereas the greater percentage of costs for the collection system are growth related. Total Treatment and collection costs are equally divided between mandatory and growth related improvements. Table 12-8A % of Total Costs by Primary Project purpose Treatment and Collection Project costs Mandatory 1 Growth 2 Regulatory Renewal/ Safety Total WWTP Opinion of Probable Costs $40,937,000 $15,157,000 $12,018,000 $13,762,000 66% 34% Total Collection Facility Improvements $45,359,000 $15,093,600 $2,107,000 $28,158,400 38% 62% TOTAL TREATMENT AND COLLECTION $86,296,000 $30,250,600 $14,125,000 $41,920,400 51% 49% 1 Compliance with federal/state laws and regulations, and the Four Party Agreement 2 System Improvements to accommodate growth related issues. • City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan — DRAFT 9/28/04 Page 12-26 Information Item October 1, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council, City Manager From: Max Linden, Utility Engineer, Wastewater Division (509) 249-6814 Re: Draft 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan - Response to Ecology Comments As requested the Wastewater Division reviewed Ecology's comments on the Draft 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan. Responses were prepared and submitted to Ecology on October 1, 2004 and are enclosed for your information. Legislation will be prepared for adoption of the Draft 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan at the October 19, 2004 City Council meeting. If you have any questions please give me a call. CITY OF YAKIMA WASTEWATER DIVISION 2220 East Viola Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone: 575-6077 a Fax (509) 575-6116 October 1, 2004 David Dunn, P.E. Water Quality Program Department of Ecology 15 West Yakima Avenue Suite 200 Yakima, WA 98902 RE: Draft 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan Dear Mr. Dunn: This letter is intended to provide responses to the questions and comments posed in your September 2, 2004 letter regarding the City of Yakima's Regional Draft 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan. Thank you for reviewing and providing your comments on the draft document. Your participation at the September 7, 2004 Public Hearing for the Draft 2004 Wastetwater Facility Plan was also appreciated. We look forward to discussing these responses with you as necessary and fmalizing this Facility Plan to incorporate your comments as needed. If you have any questions please give me a call at (509) 249-6814. Sincerely, Max L'f den' Utility ngineer Wastewater Division Cc: Mayor Paul George Yakima City Council Dick Zais, City Manager 1 Response to Department of Ecology comments on the Draft 2004 WW Facility Plan General Comments Comment 1. Page 2-21 states that DOE is considering ground water protection regulations. WAC 173-200 — Water Quality standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington was promulgated in 1990. Response 1. The text will be corrected. Comment 2. Page 10-15 indicates the I/I is excessive, as does the City's 2003 I/I report to the department. In the past, the city has discussed a plan for evaluating and ranking I/1 removal projects in the collection system. What is the status of this report? Prior to considering any upgrades that are hydraulic bottlenecks (i.e. additional clarifiers), the cost effectiveness versus I/I reduction must be considered. Response 2. We have been implementing an ongoing Manhole rehabilitation project since 1998, as noted in the 2003 I&I Evaluation. Also stated in the evaluation was the documentation and prioritization of existing infiltration and inflow problems to be implemented. The city is in the process of prioritizing these to be repaired. The city is in the process of purchasing a manhole grouter and sewer pipe grouter for manhole, sideline, and pipe repair. This information will be reported in the 2004 I&I Report. We are not considering any upgrades that are hydraulic bottlenecks in this facility plan, but if there were the cost effectiveness versus I11 reduction would be considered. Comment 3. Page 2-19 states that the City's treatment plant is designated Reliability Class II. The Department concurs with this designation. At several later points in the report, processes are evaluated against the more stringent Class I criteria, where Class II criteria should apply. Response 3. In WDOE's review of the previous facility plan, (Letter from Norman Hepner dated 11/30/2000), it was stated: "The City of Yakima is currently classified a Class 2 reliability facility. The consultant should review and modem, as necessary, the reliability discussion of each process component and provide a discussion for the need of the facility to be Class 1." This is why Class I criteria is discussed. Comment 4. The draft plan does not establish the design capacity of the existing plant. Without this analysis the Department cannot finalize the permitted load to the treatment plant. Response 4. The design capacities are found in section 5.3.1 page 5-16 of the Facility plan. In section 5.3,1 Plant Capacity (pg. 5-16) the opening sentence should read: "The total capacity of the biological system, including primary clarifiers, trickling filters, trickling filter clarifier, aeration basins, and secondary clarifiers, is 53,400 ppd of total influent BOD during maximum month loading conditions with Del Monte loads." The 2 corresponding flows of 14mgd should be deleted and 53,400ppd is the BOD design capacity of the existing plant. On page 5-17 in the first Paragraph below Figure 5-5 the biological system design capacity is 21.5mgd. Comment 5. In several places the report simply asserts capacity values for process components. Calculations are typically not provided. The mass balance was not provided for the overall process. Provide the calculations or describe the basis for process evaluations or treatment unit capacities. Response 5. For processes that hydraulic limits such as clarifiers, the capacity calculation involves applying the appropriate WDOE limiting surface overflow rate (gpd/sf) multiplied times the surface area (sf) to obtain the capacity. Mass balance sheets are provided to show the basis for design of the trickling filter and the activated sludge processes. In the mass balance sheets, trickling filter/clarifier performance is based on data from 2002. The aeration basin performance was determined using a B&V complete mix activated sludge model. Comment 6. The Department has several questions regarding the process model referenced on page 5-14. Provide the mass balance for review. Response 6. Mass balance sheets are provided (enclosure) for annual average and maximum month conditions. Comment 7. The report typically describes the capacity of the trickling filters and aeration basin systems in terms offlow (MGD). This is misleading because the waste strength affects the `flow" capacity. To be consistent, describe the capacity of the system to oxidize BOD in lbs/day. Response 7. We concur with this comment and used organic load to calculate the capacity of biological processes. Comment 8. Modem the Metals Study Scope of Work (Appendix E) to include an evaluation of hardness adjustment for the City's source water. Metal toxicity is highly dependant on water hardness. In fact, the city's influent metals concentrations are not significantly higher than other cities; the City's extraordinarily low water hardness was the primary cause for metals limits. Response 8. The scope will be modified as indicated evaluating hardness addition at the WWTP. Comment 9. Appendix F — Mixing zone study. This was previously reviewed in Aug '03. Based on the Departments review, it appears reasonable to increase the 7Q10 used for permitting to 834 cfs from 632 cfs. 3 Response 9. Where did the 834 cfs you refer to come from? The 7Q10 used in the study were 908 and 899 cfs. Comment 10. The final report must describe compliance with SEPA and NEPA if applicable. Response 10. The city has provided extended public comment and review and will comply with SEPA as well as submitting an Environmental Report to the department soon. The State Environmental Review Process (SERP) has been documented and will be forwarded to the department for inclusion into the Facility Plan also. Projected Waste Loads (Chapter 4) Comment 1. Table 4-3 uses ammonia data, and appears to underestimate the nitrogen loadings to the plant by approximately 20%. TKN data available from June 2003 to June 2004 indicate an average annual loading of 2,330 ppd. These low estimates will impact the design of the activated sludge and aeration systems. The BOD/TKN ratio appears to be slightly greater than 10:1, indicating the highly industrial nature of the waste stream. Response 1. The most recent data referred to was not available at the time of this analysis and our analysis was limited to 2000-2002. However, this does not appear to be a problem. Table 4-3 shows the annual average ammonia load, while Table 4-4 shows the maximum month ammonia load of 2,822 ppd. The maximum month load is used as the basis of design, so this covers the higher average that occurred recently. Comment 2. What is the basis for the assumption thatflows will decrease drastically in the next 20 years (Section 4.3.2)? This plan does not propose the type of aggressive 1/1 removal program that wouldjustify this assumption. Response 2. Based on correlating seasonal operation of the regional irrigation system with WWTP flows, it is confidently estimated that infiltration from the operating irrigation system in to the sewer system adds approximately 3 mgd to the WWTP influent. As indicated in the 2002 and 2003 I&I Evaluations the plants high flows occur in late summer to early fall. This is typically the case because the Yakima area is heavily irrigated with many canals and old pipe running through the city limits. Leakage from these canals and pipes contributes significantly to the shallow ground water table that runs under the City of Yakima and along the Yakima River. When the irrigation canals are shut down in the fall the City's treatment flows are reduced significantly (by up to 3 million gallons per day over night) and when they are turned back on in the spring the plant flows begin to increase and peak out in late summer and early fall. For the Facility Plan, it was assumed that this excess flow would be reduced over time by the 308 Irrigation System Project sponsored by the City of Yakima Water and Irrigation Department that is being implemented to increase the efficiency of the irrigation system. Headworks 4 Comment 1. The Bar Screen and the Grit system do not appear to meet redundancy requirements. If one unit is out of service peak flows will exceed the capacity of the remaining unit. Discuss the resulting impact to the process (sewage overflow, poor screenings removal, equipment damage). Evaluate the need for additional redundancy. Response 1. Reliability Class I and Class II standards require that facilities "with only two bar screens shall have at least one bar screen designed to permit manual cleaning." Though somewhat difficult this condition is met as both mechanically cleaned screens can be manually cleaned as necessary. There is no Class I or II reliability requirement for grit removal. Comment 2. It is not clear from the text or figures that both flumes can operate in parallel and record the totalized flow. Is this mode of operation possible? Response 2. The two influent channels can operate individually or at the same time in parallel. Two parshall flumes (one in each channel) measure flow and the results are totalized. Text will be clarified as necessary. Primary Clarification Comment I. Page 5-14 indicates the primary clarifiers remove 36% of the BOD and 51% of the TSS. Do these estimates consider the impact of thickening trickling filter solids in the primary clarifiers. Response 1. The primary clarifier removal rates are based on actual performance data under current operating conditions, which involve pumping trickling filter solids to either the DAFTs or the primary clarifiers via the headworks. Similar operation and performance is assumed for the future. Comment 2. 1 can not duplicate the calculations that lead to the surface overflow rates shown on page 5-21. Response 2. The current average flow condition is listed in Table 4-1 and 4-4 as 11.3 mgd. The four 90 -foot -diameter primary clarifiers have a combined surface area of 25,447 sf. Therefore, the average SOR is 11.3 mgd/25,447sf or 444 gpd/sf. The peak hour flow is shown on Table 4-4 as 24 mgd, which yields an SOR of 943 gpd/sf, not 1,249 gpd/sf. This value will be corrected. Comment 3. Page 5-22 mentions grease and plugging problems in the primary clarifiers. While the plan proposes no specific solution preventing grease discharges through education and the pre-treatment program should be considered. Response 3. At the Time this Draft was prepared our pretreatment program had not been fully implemented. Since the submittal of the Facility plan the City's Pretreatment Program is implementing a fat, oil, and grease (FOG) program to all businesses that have the potential to introduce FOGs into the City's publicly owned treatment works (POTW). 5 This includes all food establishments, auto repair shops, auto detail shops, and car washes. Heavy FOG concentrations have the potential to cause sewer back-ups within the collection system, causing flooding of wastewater into residential homes and businesses. It also interferes with the process at the POTW. Not only is this an extremely expensive and unpleasant situation, it is also a health hazard. It costs an average of $300,000 per year for the City to manage the problems caused by FOGS. Unfortunately, the burden of paying this cost is passed onto the ratepayers of Yakima. For reasons mentioned, the Wastewater Division feels that this is an extremely important and worthwhile program to be initiated. The program will consist of three main components, education, testing, and inspections. 1. Education: Pretreatment has put together a FOG educational packet to be distributed to all the restaurants discharging to the City's POTW. Educating the managers of facilities that introduce FOGs into the POTW about proper FOG disposal is the first and most important step in implementing the program. The packet consists of an outline of each restaurant's responsibility to control the discharge of FOGS, a Pretreatment fact sheet, a copy of the City of Yakima's local limits, and a brochure on the best management practices (BMPs) on FOGs. This includes procedures for preventing FOGs from entering the wastewater and the maintenance of a grease trap. Brochures of the BMPs are also available in Spanish. An educational packet for the auto repair shops, auto detail shops, and car washes, will soon follow. 1. Testing: The City of Yakima conducts FOG testing to enforce the strict FOG limit of 100 mg/L. The limit is very much obtainable if best management practices (BMPs) are used in conjunction with a grease trap or oil interceptor. 2. Inspections: Inspections will be conducted by the Pretreatment Program to ensure that BMPs for FOGs are being implemented and that grease traps or oil interceptors are being cleaned out on a regular basis. Responsibility will fall on the business owners or managers for maintaining and presenting to Pretreatment, upon inspection, manifests indicating the cleaning schedule of the grease trap or oil interceptor. An inspection will be conducted at each business several times per year, as to reinforce the importance of continuing education and compliancy. Comment 4. It is unclear how replacing the sluice gates will solve the flow splitting problem into the primary clarifiers. Consider an energy dissipating weir or other hydraulic mechanism. Response 4. As discussed on page 6-2, the un -equal flow split is not ideal, but manageable by operations staff. The purpose of the improvement is to provide isolation gates that do not leak. When this improvement is designed, further investigation will be given to methods for improving the flow split. 6 Trickling Filters Comment 1. Page 5-14 assumes that the trickling filters can accept a surface load of 90 lb/kcf/day. Metcalf & Eddy indicate that 60 lb7kcf/day is a more appropriate maximum for rock trickling filters. It seems likely that trickling filter performance would degrade if loaded at 90 lb/kcf/day. Figure 5-6 seems to support this. Response 1. Page 5-14 refers to the detailed analysis of trickling filters in Section 5.4.3.3, which justifies the loading rate on page. 5-25 in the following statement: "The organic loading rate is limited to 90 lb/kcf/day, because the units have demonstrated effective treatment under those conditions as illustrated in Figure 5-6." As shown on Figure 5-6, effluent BOD increases with higher load, but limiting the load to 60 lb/kcf/day requires bypassing additional load to the aeration basins and diminishes the overall capacity of the existing system. Therefore, optimum secondary treatment capacity is obtained by optimizing the load to the trickling filters. It was noted in the facility plan that excessively high loading rates could lead to problems such as media plugging, so the upper limit for normal operation was set at 90 lb/kcf/day, which has been demonstrated to be effective. Higher loading rates are achievable because of the motor driven distribution arms, which allow for greater flushing intensity across the media. The Metcalf & Eddy reference is a "rule of thumb" guideline that is appropriate for some rock trickling filters, but higher rates are also used. At another municipal facility, B&V recently evaluated rock trickling filters with a loading rate of 72 ppd/kcf. It should be noted that the Yakima facility experiences the high loading rates only during the canning season, so the short time span may be a factor in avoiding problems. Comment 2. Figure 5-6 shows approximately 30% BOD removal through the trickling filter process. Page 5-14 states the assumption that the trickling filters remove 40% of the BOD and 60 percent of the TSS. Do both of these estimates make the same assumptions? Do they include the trickling filter clarifier or just the trickling filters themselves? Response 2. Figure 5-6 presents a plot of total BOD data across the trickling filter only. It was used to demonstrate that successful treatment was obtained at 90 ppd/kcf BOD loading. The trickling filter process converts soluble BOD (SBOD) into suspended material, which is then removed in the trickling filter clarifier. Page 5-14 refers to removals across the trickling filter clarifiers only. The removal across both trickling filters and clarifier is about 64 percent BOD and 57 percent TSS as indicated by data from 2002 after the clarifier was placed in operation. This is shown on the attached mass balance sheets. Comment 3. Figure 5-6 shows three different sets of data. What does each represent? They are not labeled in the figure. 7 Response 3. A version of Figure 5-6 with a legend is attached. The figure in the Facility Plan will be upgraded to clarify. Comment 4. Was any analysis performed to support the assumption that plastic media in the trickling filters would not increase their performance? It seems reasonable that plastic media could double the available surface area for biological growth. Response 4. Plastic media would increase the surface area, but the upper load limit of 90 ppd/kcf would remain the same, due to media structural concerns and potential biomass buildup and plugging. Therefore, no additional firm capacity would be gained. Removing the rock media and replacing with plastic media (which wouldn't add capacity) would be almost as expensive as building new aeration basin volume, which would increase the treatment capacity. Comment 5. What is the assumed recirculation rate for the trickling filters? Response 5. As stated on page 5-24, the hydraulic limit of the trickling filters is 36 mgd with three of the four pumps in operation. Typical operation is two pumps at 27.4 mgd. With a base flow around 10 mgd that means there is 17 mgd of recirculation flow for a ratio of 1.7:1.0. Comment 6. How does the plant staff currently thicken trickling filter solids? What thickening options does the existing plant allow? Page 5-1 indicates that the process model was based on a 50-50 flow split between DAF and primary clarifiers, but Page 9-3 indicates that trickling filter solids cannot be sent to both the DAF and headworks at the same time. Response 6. Both statements are correct, the trickling filter solids flow is split 50-50 by pumping to the DAF and headworks alternately. Aeration Basins Comment 1. The report cites three numbers as the "capacity" of the aeration basins, 53,400 lbs-BOD/day, 3,000 mg/L MLSS, and 14,400 scfm. Provide justification for these capacities. Include a process evaluation that includes the trickling filters, the aeration basins and aeration system. Include the mass balance with the analysis. Describe the reactor kinetics. Calculate oxygen requirements. Response 1. The capacity of the aeration basin is not reported to be 53,400 ppd BOD. As stated on page 5-16: The total capacity of the biological system, including the primary clarifiers, trickling filters, trickling filter clarifier, aeration basins and secondary clarifiers, is 53,400 ppd of total influent BOD. This includes the plant influent of 41,790- ppd BOD and Del Monte contribution of 11,610 ppd BOD, totaling 53,400-ppd influent BOD. The aeration capacity is 15.0 mgd, corresponding to a BOD load of 18,015 ppd and a TSS load of 12,760 ppd. These loads are shown in the 2019 MM mass balance 8 sheet and the corresponding Black & Veatch Activated Sludge Model for the 2019 MM conditions. The MLSS in the aeration basin was limited to 3,000 mg/L based on Black & Veatch experience as well as information that the operations staff has experienced problems with process upset at MLSS values in excess of this amount. MOP 8 also indicates that conventional air activated sludge system MLSS concentrations ranging from 1,500 mg/L to 3,000 mg/L are often used. The 14,400 scfm firm capacity of the blowers is the scfm that can currently be provided. As stated on page 5-29, the aeration is supplied to the basins fine bubble air diffuser system via four multistage, positive displacement blowers. The blowers have a capacity of 5,500 ICFM and 4,800 SCFM each, operated from 400 Hp motors. For three blowers in operation, and one in stand-by, the capacity is 14,400 scfm. The Black & Veatch Activated Sludge Model is attached for the maximum month 2024 conditions to indicate the oxygen requirements of 10,530 scfm with five basins in service (4 current + 1 new), as well as the mass balance for the process evaluation including the primary clarifier, trickling filters, trickling filter clarifier, aeration basins, and secondary clarifiers. The process evaluation completed as part of the plant capacity evaluation already includes the trickling filters, aeration basin and aeration system. The mass balance provided includes each of these processes. The mass balance was used in conjunction with the Black & Veatch Activated Sludge Model. The oxygen requirements are calculated for each of the design year increments, as shown in the Black & Veatch Activated Sludge Model printout. Comment 2. The plant will likely face discharge limitations for orthophosphate within 10 to 15 years. Investigate how phosphate treatment will be accomplished Consider the need to modify the plant to remove phosphate in each alternative considered. Response 2. It is acknowledged that phosphorous limits may be faced in the timeframe noted, which could probably be met by chemical addition or incorporation of an anaerobic zone in to the aeration basin design. None of the facility improvements evaluated precludes these possible approaches. We propose to add an additional segment in Section 6 that will address this topic. Comment 3. The alternatives considered in Chapter 6 cannot be objectively compared. Use consistent assumptions for time frame and treatment requirements when comparing alternatives. Response 3. The current facilities have sufficient capacity until 2019. The addition of an internal anoxic zone in the current aeration basins would provide denitrification until 2019. To maintain treatment consistency, alternatives were developed to determine how the plant could meet the required effluent requirements at design years 2024 and, then, at ultimate build out conditions. The tin -ie frames must be evaluated, as it compares the cost 9 of providing denitrification only with the current basins, with one additional basin up to 2024, or building two additional basins and providing capacity up to build -out conditions. Comment 4. All of the alternatives presented appear to undersize the anoxic zone, which is typically 30-40% of the aeration volume. No calculations are provided for denitrification kinetics. Based on the numbers available, I calculate a nitrate removal rate of 500 ppd, a fraction of the total nitrogen loading. The anoxic zone is too large to function effectively as a selector; the F/Mgradient is too small. I calculate an F/Mof 1.4 across the zone. Perhaps with internal compartments an adequate gradient could be maintained. Response 4. Black & Veatch has never designed an anoxic zone larger than 25% of the aeration volume and has experience with numerous facilities designed with anoxic zones at 10% - 15% of the aeration volume that are providing complete denitrification. The Black & Veatch Aeration Model shows complete denitrification with the provided anoxic zones for maximum month conditions in 2019 and 2024. The BOD to TKN ratio is 7:2, which provides a driving force that is capable of providing complete denitrification in the current anoxic zone. Comment 5. Evaluate an alternative that provides complete denitrification, which would then allow the basin to operate at a MLSS greater than 3,000 mg/L. Also full consider that denitrification will reduce the aeration requirements for the system. Compare the total life cycle costs of the alternatives. Response 5. The alternatives previously completed evaluate complete denitrification (see comment 4). The Black & Veatch Aeration Model takes into account the reduction in aeration requirements. Life cycle costs have already been completed. Operating consistently at a MLSS greater than 3,000 mg/L is not recommended. Comment 6. Page 6-15 recommends downsizing the capacity of the aeration blowers. No justification is provided for this recommendation. Provide calculation for the system aeration requirements. The final recommendation for the air system should address the reported blower cycling Evaluate an automatic feedback control loop to control DO in the basins. Response 6. The Black & Veatch Aeration Model calculates aeration requirements. The 2024 maximum month condition is attached and indicates the required scfm. Methods for DO control will be addressed during subsequent design phases. Secondary Clarification Comment 1. Calculations are generally not included for capacities presented in the report. I can't duplicate the calculation on page 5-32 of peak hour overflow rate of 1030 gpd/sffor the Secondary Clarifiers. I can't duplicate the calculations on page 5-33 that lead to 15.98 and 16.3 as the flow capacities based on solids loading considerations. 10 Also the numbers in Table 5-8 don't match the MLSS concentration assumptions made earlier in the chapter. Response 1. At a peak hour flow of 24.0 mgd (from Table 4-4), and a surface area of 30,788 sf, the peak hour overflow rate would be 780 gpolsf. This number will be corrected. The solids loading rates are calculated assuming 100% RAS and are shown in the Black & Veatch Aeration model (2024 maximum month condition). These models also show the MLSS concentrations for these conditions and match the numbers found in Table 5-6. Comment 2. The report recommends building a third secondary clarifier based on meeting Class 1 reliability; however only class II reliability is required. Page 5-34 further indicates that the new secondary clarifier is required to protect against the event that both the trickling filter clarifier and one of the secondary clarifiers are off line at the same time. No mass balance or process calculations are provided to justify this contention. Response 2. See Response 3 to the General Questions regarding Class I and Class II reliability. The discussion on page 5-34 does not justify a new secondary clarifier based on Class I reliability, but on the potential for the solids loading limit of the existing clarifiers to be approached if the (intermediate) trickling filter clarifier is offline and peak influent canning loads are experienced. The enclosed process calculations for this condition show this possibility. Comment 3. What assumption went into the estimated WAS pumping rates? I can't duplicate the flow rates presented on page 5-36. Response 3. The Black & Veatch Aeration Model is used in determining WAS flow in gpd. The conversion to gpm results in the numbers presented on page 5-36 for the 2024 annual average and maximum month conditions (5 total basins in service). Comment 4. Chapter 5 concluded that the odor control system was functioning adequately and effectively. Why are upgrades to the system ($1,112,000) proposed in chapter 6? Response 4. The "upgrades" are the inclusion of additional point sources, such as the influent channel and primary clarifier effluent launders, in to the existing system as detailed in Table 6-18 (page 6-41) and summarized on page 12-17. Disinfection Comment 1. The UV systems evaluated do not appear to be capable of disinfecting peak flows. In addition to average annual flow, disinfection systems need to disinfect peak flows. 11 Response 1. The UV systems evaluated were sized to provide a bioassay dose of 30 mJ/cm2 at peak flow conditions. Based on B&V experience, a review of UV information in the literature, and information from manufactures, the facilities will achieve a 30 -day geometric meant of 200 fecal coliforms per 100/mL at a transmittance of 65%. Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board (Ten States standards) "Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities" Section 1Q4 recommends a dose 30 mJ/cm2. Dose can be expressed as 30,000 uW-sec/cm2, 30 mJ/cm2 (watt -sec = Joule) or 300 J/m2. During schematic design, water quality parameters will be confirmed through on-site testing. After the on-site testing has been completed, dose requirement will be modified to ensure compliance with permit bacterial requirements. Comment 2. The draft plan does not make a recommendation regarding disinfection. The final report must contain a concrete proposal. Response 2. The final plan will indicate the City's desire to replace the gas chlorine system with UV disinfection. Solids Handling Comment 1. The report proposes a second DAFT unit ($2,000,000) to provide redundancy. In general Ecology only requires redundant equipment for the main wastewater treatment system, not the solids thickening or treatment. Evaluate the plant's ability to continue to provide adequate solids treatment if the DAF is offline for routine maintenance. Consider the ability of the digesters to thicken through decanting. Response 1. The proposed digester complex provides 1.7 MG of existing primary tankage plus 0.6 MG of new tankage, for a total of 2.3 MG. If thickening is out of service and no backup is available, the flow to the digesters at 2024 maximum month conditions is 516,000 gpd. This equates to a 4.5 day SRT in the primary digester tankage. Depending on decanting anaerobically digested sludge for a significant period to make up for this deficit is not recommended due to potentially poor settling and decant properties. Comment 2. The report proposes a new primary digester ($5,384,000) to provide redundancy. In general, Ecology only requires redundant equipment for the main wastewater treatment system, not solids thickening or treatment. Evaluate the plant's ability to comply with the 503 regulations with one digester cell is offline for routine maintenance. Evaluate the relative costs of constructing a new primary digester cell to another method. At a minimum consider: 1) Meeting 503 requirements by testing, 2) meeting the requirements by lime application, 3) hauling sludge to NSF composting facility for further stabilization. Response 2. Anaerobic digestion systems are typically designed to provide enough secondary digestion tankage to support 40 CFR Part 503 -designated 15 -day detention requirements for Class B pathogen treatment in the event that a primary tank is out of service. Primary digester tanks are expected to be out of service at least once every 5 12 years for cleaning and typically require 60 to 90 days to clean the tankage and restore full digestion. Fecal coliform monitoring can be used to show pathogen compliance in place of the 15 day SRT; however, a shortened SRT may result in difficulties in meeting the 38 percent volatile solids reduction requirement and may affect digester stability. Alkaline addition is not recommended as a back-up stabilization method in this case for the following reasons: ® Alkaline storage and feed equipment is not well suited to sitting idle for long periods of time due to clogging and chemical degradation. • A different, additional treatment process complicates operations and maintenance and is not desirable as a backup system. • Alkaline stabilized solids may not be suitable for the NSF land application program due to predominant soil types at the application area. The City may have opportunities to further compost the solids at the NSF facility and can investigate this as an alternate fmal use; however, while NSF is permitted to accept less than Class B in its composting facility, according to NSF staff, all solids accepted at the composting facility to date have met Class B requirements. Composting wastewater solids that have not met Class B pathogen reduction and adequate volatile solids destruction may lead to increased odor production during the composting process. Comment 3. Tables 5-9 and 5-11 appear inconsistent. Provide the solids treatment system mass balance. Response 3: The Current solids values in Table 5-9 reflect 2002 - 2003 operating data and 2024 projections. The solids values in Table 5-11 reflect 2004 and 2024 projected solids quantities. Note that the 2024 DAFT loading rates are based on 100 percent of trickling filter solids being thickened through the DAFT to allow flexibility of operation, while the 2024 digester feed was based on 50 percent of the trickling filter solids thickened through the DAFT to reflect the most common practice at the plant. Digester feed varies from 3.9 percent TS if all trickling filter solids are thickened through the DAFT to 4.1 percent TS if only 50 percent of the trickling filter solids are thickened through the DAFT. The solids values in the two tables have been adjusted to eliminate round -off variances and are presented below. The corrected tables are enclosed. Comment 4. The report proposes a new centrifuge and polymer unit ($3,103, 000) to provide redundancy. In general, Ecology only requires redundant equipment for the main wastewater treatment system, not solids thickening or treatment. Evaluate the plant's ability to store solids while the centrifuge is offline for routine maintenance. Evaluate the cost of hauling liquid sludge to natural Selection Farms during this time period. Response 4. The existing 0.65 MG of secondary digestion tankage provides 5 days detention at 2024 design conditions. Since the manufacturer typically performs major 13 centrifuge maintenance on the bowl or scroll, it is not uncommon to have a centrifuge out of service for several weeks during maintenance. The 5 days of detention in the secondary tank cannot support extended centrifuge downtime. NSF will accept liquid Class B biosolids for land application. Based on conversations with NSF staff, the cost to haul and land apply liquid sludge is 2 to 3 times the cost of hauling and land applying dewatered cake. It may be less expensive over the life of the project to use liquid land application as a backup to cake dewatering; however this option decreases the City's flexibility of outlets and relies on acquisition and rapid response to supply tanker trucks to haul the sludge. Comment 5. Page 9-10 discusses the centrate equalization facility. Evaluate the process impact of returning the centrate to headworks, the trickling filter pump station, or directly to the aeration basin. Response 5. Further design efforts will look at the capability to provide flexibility for returning this side stream to either the trickling filter pump station or to the aeration basin influent. There would be no treatment benefit provided by the headworks or primary clarifiers for this flow, as the primary constituent of concern is ammonia. Enclosures 14 *2001-2002 Baseline 02001 Canning 02002 Canning) OWNER PLANT PROJ NO. WORK . BLACK, &'VEATpH .ACTIVATED _SLU.pGE; MODEL, Yakima WWTP MM 2009 I_NRU.T TQ;"OMAS _MODEL Tot Vol, cu ft Anoxic Vol,(%) Tot det Tim, hr Anox Det Tim,hr Inf BOD, mg/I Inf TSS, mg/I Eff TSS, mg/I NonBVSS VSS/TSS Inf Ma, mg/I Flow, mgd MLSS Rec Q, mgd Carb Peak Factor Nitr Peak Factor No TF Clarifier Del Monte 4 basins in service COMPUTED BY DATE B&V FILE NO. CHECKED BY DATE 1! ADG 9/22/2004 GVD 9/22/04 Diffuser type (Gen. Fine =1, Coarse = 3, Stat. Tube = 4) CT:�nrnxr 561,600 alpha beta Min DO @Pk, mg/I Min DO @Ave,mg/I 172 Std Cs20, mg/I 167 Amb Cs, mg/I 15 SRT, days 0.30 RAS TSS, mg/I 0.82 MLSS, mg/I 40 Inf TKN, mg/I 13.1 NO3-N, mg/I Min Eff Alk, mg/I 1.3 Inf alk, mg/I 1.3 Temp, C TATE,:OPERATING>C HARAC.TE<RI S TI C S Tot Det time, hr Oxic Det time,hr Anox Det Time,hr CALC. SRT SRT, days Req SRT, days Min SRT, days CARBONACEOUS 0.65 Elevation, ft 0.95 Station Pres,psi 1 SW depth,ft 2 Diffus depth, ft 11.10 10.45 FINAL CLARIFIERS 8 No. of Clarifiers 2 7,500 Clarifier SWD, ft 15 Dia. of Clarifier, ft 140 20 Design SOR, gpd/sf Floc Well HRT, min 100 Floc Well SWD, ft 270 No. of Floc Turbines 20.78 Max G, 1/sec 1065 14.15 26 25 7.68 Tot Vol, cf 7.68 Oxic Vol, cf 0.00 Anoxi Vol, cf 8.89 8.00 BOD Load, ppd/kcf 5.69 3.00 561600 561600 0 34 -:FINAL;;CLARIF:IEERS ClarifierTot. Area, sf SOR, gpd/sf Dia. of Clarifier, ft SLR(100%RAS),ppd/sf Clarifier HRT, hrs Floc Well Diam., ft Turbine Power,bhp/unit 30787 426 140 26 6.3 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1 NITROGENOUS Unmet Frac, mg/I Act Mass, mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/l/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h DENITRIFICATION Ave ANXdO/dt,mg/l/h Ave Den AOS, pph Ave Anox AOR, pph Pk ANOdO/dt,mg/l/h Pk Den AOS, pph Pk Anox AOR, pph 1.40 912 739 2678 3594 0.20 4.4 14097 10503 3577 33.9 37.8 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 Eff SNH, mg/I Act Mass,mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h Alk Req, mg/I Eff NO3, mg/I Eff Alk, mg/I Eff TKN, mg/I N in WAS, mg/I Min N Req, mg/I 0.02 63 51 114 126 551 492 263 8.8 11.3 0 13.7 172 0.8 5.43 6.26 COMBINED Unmet Frac, mg/I Act Mass, mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/l/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h Pk Kla 20, l/h Ave KLa 20,1/h Ave TAOR, pph Ave SOTR, pph Pk TAOR,pph Pk SOTR, pph RAS Flow, mgd WAS Flow, gpd 1.40 975 791 2792 3720 0.19 4.5 14648 10995 3840 42.8 49.0 8.4 8.2 1498 3190 1718 3249 12.4 234189 INPUT TO: AERATION_:MMODEL AERATION:•EQUIPMENT DESIGN DIFFUSER SYSTEM Design SOTR, pph Lateral Spacing, ft Diffuser Area, sf Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff Min Air for Mixing, scfm/kcf (Fine = 15, Coarse = 20) Number of Diffuser BLOWER SYSTEM Peak Ambient Temp, F Average Ambient Temp, F Blower Efficiency,% Headloss thru Diffuser (Fine = 1, Coarse = 0.5) MECHANICAL AERATION Design SOTR, pph Transfer Efficiency, lbs 02/hr/bhp (Low Speed: 3.2 for <75 HP; 3.0 for 75<HP<100; 2.8 for HP>100);(High Speed = 2.0) Aerator Size, nhp/unit Minimum mixing power, bhp/kcf Motor Service Factor, bhp/nhp QUTRUT`FR'OM AERATfON::M;ODE;L • 3249 4 0.410 3.5 15 110 65 55 1 0 0.75 0.87 DIFFUSER SYSTEM Process Airflow,scfm Minimum Air for Mixing, scfm Design Airflow (without 10% safety factor), scfm Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (OTE), % (OTE = 0 for Mixing limited Cond.) Number of Diffusers Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff Tank Area/Diffuser Area (At/Ad) Diffuser Density, sq ft/diff BLOWER SYSTEM Blower HP at Peak Temperature, whp Blower HP at Ave. Temperature, whp Blower HP for Mixing at Ave. Temperature, whp MECHANICAL AERATION Total Aerator Process Power, bhp Total Aerator Mixing Power, bhp Design Aerator Power, bhp Number of Aerators 8263 8424 8424 0.0 2407 3.5 21.9 9.0 697 642 642 0 0 0 0 BLACK & VEATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL OWNER Yakima PLANT WWTP PROJ NO. WORK MM 2019 Del Monte 4 basins in service COMPUTED BY ADG DATE 9/14/2004 B&V FILE NO. CHECKED BY GVD DATE 9/14/2004 INPUT TO CMAS MODEL Tot Vol, cu ft 561,600 alpha Anoxic Vol,(%) beta Tot det Tim, hr Min DO @Pk, mg/I Anox Det Tim,hr Min DO @Ave,mg/I Inf BOD, mg/I 144 Std Cs20, mg/I Inf TSS, mg/I 102 Amb Cs, mg/I Eff TSS, mg/I 15 SRT, days NonBVSS 0.30 RAS TSS, mg/I VSS/TSS 0.82 MLSS, mg/I Inf Ma, mg/I 24 Inf TKN, mg/I Flow, mgd 15.0 NO3-N, mg/I MLSS Rec Q, mgd Min Eff Alk, mg/I Carb Peak Factor 1.3 Inf alk, mg/I Nitr Peak Factor 1.3 Temp, C 0.6 0.95 11.00 10.35 8,000 20 100 270 20.78 Elevation, ft 1065 Station Pres,psi 14.15 1 SW depth,ft 26 2 Diffus depth, ft 22.8 FINAL CLARIFIERS 8 No. of Clarifiers 2 Clarifier SWD, ft 15 Dia. of Clarifier, ft 140 Design SOR, gpd/sf Floc Well HRT, min Floc Well SWD, ft No. of Floc Turbines Max G, 1/sec Diffuser type (Gen. Fine =1, Coarse = 3, Stat. Tube = 4) 1 STEADY STATE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS FINAL CLARIFIERS Tot Det time, hr Oxic Det time,hr Anox Det Time,hr CALC. SRT SRT, days Req SRT, days Min SRT, days 6.72 Tot Vol, cf 6.72 Oxic Vol, cf 0.00 Anoxi Vol, cf 8.89 8.00 BOD Load, ppd/kcf 5.69 3.00 561600 561600 0 32 ClarifierTot. Area, sf 30787 SOR, gpd/sf 488 Dia. of Clarifier, ft 140 SLR(100%RAS),ppd/sf 25 Clarifier HRT, hrs 5.5 Floc Well Diam., ft #DIV/0! Turbine Power,bhp/unit #DIV/0! CARBONACEOUS NITROGENOUS COMBINED Unmet Frac, mg/I Act Mass, mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h Pk dO/dt, mg/I/h 1.34 819 664 2200 2873 0.23 4.8 10705 8197 3051 31.2 34.9 Eff SNH, mg/I Act Mass,mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/l/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h Alk Req, mg/I Eff NO3, mg/I Eff Alk, mg/I Eff TKN, mg/I N in WAS, mg/I Min N Req, mg/1 0.02 72 59 131 144 631 561 297 10.9 13.9 0 14.9 163 0.9 4.13 5.07 Unmet Frac, mg/I 1.34 Act Mass, mg/I 891 End Mass, mg/I 723 MLVSS, mg/I 2331 MLSS, mg/I 3017 F/Mv Ratio 0.22 Eff BOD, mg/I 4.9 WAS, ppd 11336 WVS, ppd 8758 WMa, ppd 3348 AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h 42.1 Pk dO/dt, mg/I/h 48.9 Pk Kla 20, I/h 9.1 Ave KLa 20,1/h 8.9 Ave TAOR, pph 1476 Ave SOTR, pph 3414. Pk TAOR,pph 1712 Pk SOTR, pph 3510 RAS Flow, mgd 8.8 WAS Flow, gpd 169901 DENITRIFICATION Ave ANXdO/dt,mg/I/h Ave Den AOS, pph Ave Anox AOR, pph Pk ANOdO/dt,mg/l/h Pk Den AOS, pph Pk Anox AOR, pph 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 BLACK & VEATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL OWNER Yakima PLANT WWTP PROJ NO. WORK MM 2019 Del Monte 4 basins in service COMPUTED BY ADG DATE 9/14/2004 B&V FILE NO. CHECKED BY GVD DATE 9/14/2004 INPUT TO AERATION MODEL AERATION EQUIPMENT DESIGN DIFFUSER SYSTEM Design SOTR, pph Lateral Spacing, ft Diffuser Area, sf Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff Min Air for Mixing, scfm/kcf (Fine = 15, Coarse = 20) Number of Diffuser BLOWER SYSTEM Peak Ambient Temp, F Average Ambient Temp, F Blower Efficiency,% Headloss thru Diffuser (Fine = 1, Coarse = 0.5) MECHANICAL AERATION Design SOTR, pph Transfer Efficiency, lbs 02/hr/bhp (Low Speed: 3.2 for <75 HP; 3.0 for 75<HP<100; 2.8 for HP>100);(High Speed = 2.0) Aerator Size, nhp/unit Minimum mixing power, bhp/kcf Motor Service Factor, bhp/nhp OUTPUT FROM AERATION MODEL 3510 3 0.410 1.5 15 7600 100 65 55 1 0 0.75 0.87 DIFFUSER SYSTEM Process Airflow,scfm Minimum Air for Mixing, scfm Design Airflow (without 10% safety factor), scfm Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (OTE), % (OTE = 0 for Mixing limited Cond.) Number of Diffusers Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff Tank Area/Diffuser Area (At/Ad) Diffuser Density, sq ft/diff BLOWER SYSTEM Blower HP at Peak Temperature, whp Blower HP at Ave. Temperature, whp Blower HP for Mixing at Ave. Temperature, whp MECHANICAL AERATION 7633 8424 8424 0.0 7600 1.1 6.9 2.8 639 599 599 Total Aerator Process Power, bhp 0 Total Aerator Mixing Power, bhp 0 Design Aerator Power, bhp 0 Number of Aerators 0 2019 Mrd 0.046 �,�e �B�u�iv 4i.'� :eirA�..4 PP ,R Flow B00 TSS 083-N Flay BOD TSS Flow BOB TSS NH3-N 288 194 10267 15105 '12 '1200 808' 3939 5795 4.5 Flow 900 TOS NH3-N 14.75 385 361 31 47,376 44,340 3,815 Primary Clarifier BOD %Rem 36 TSS % Rem 51 Sludge TSS % 4 P-'rt"ja'-ry';Siudg5- 0%'0' Flow 60D TSS NH3-N 0.066 30,169 40,000 31 17,055 22,813 18 'OB: 4194;ri(ie,F�. m��ue tr,.F7:Fd PP rs Flow 14.68 BOO 248 30,327 TS5 177 21,727 NH3-N 31 3,797 Flow BOD TSS NH3-N 4218 11,610 461 '11,289 90 ppd/kc( T7'cli��lin��nrgr'89t§II "nt Flow BOD TSS NH3-14 11.75 335 32,828 184 18,003 30 2,980 A'ar ('on-Baslneln`( Flow 15.01 BOD 167 20,927 TSS 102 12,719 NH3-N 16 2,002 Waste .A'c t lk o f39. S l U`dg a k$ Flow(mgd' 0.27 %cone 0.5 TSS 5000 11,336 144 702 24 Trickling Filter 17.75 121 11,818 S 79 7,727 H3 -N 12 1,176 FI OD 7S N CMAS 17966 12,719 2955 Ma 1:(0, k:.fi II(er..,ClariSludd6.. .r 611?'..+: PLd Flow (mgtl; 0.09 BOD 10197 TSS 15000 NH3-N 12 %cone 1.5 7,879 11,590 9 y5036 ;7EiS'od 0.045 mgtl 3940 ppd 5795 ppd 4.5 ppd 0.32 mgtl 17131 ppd Total Sludge = 39,744 p4 OWNER PLANT PROJ NO. WORK 1 BLACK & VEATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL Yakima WWTP Complete Denitrification MM 2019 Del Monte 4 basins in service INPUT TO CMAS MODEL Tot Vol, cu ft Anoxic Vol,(%) Tot det Tim, hr Anox Det Tim,hr Inf BOD, mg/I Inf TSS, mg/I Eff TSS, mg/1 NonBVSS VSS/TSS Inf Ma, mg/1 Flow, mgd MLSS Rec Q, mgd Carb Peak Factor Nitr Peak Factor Diffuser type (Gen. COMPUTED BY DATE B&V FILE NO. CHECKED BY DATE ]I ADG 9/14/2004 GVD 9/14/2004 STEADY STATE 0 Tot Det time, hr Oxic Det time,hr Anox Det Time,hr CALC. SRT SRT, days Req SRT, days Min SRT, days 561,600 alpha 12.5 beta Min DO @Pk, mg/1 Min DO @Ave,mg/I 144 Std Cs20, mg/I 102 Amb Cs, mg/I 15 SRT, days 0.30 RAS TSS, mg/I 0.82 MLSS, mg/1 24 Inf TKN, mg/I 15.0 NO3-N, mg/I 30 Min Eff Alk, mg/I 1.3 Inf alk, mg/I 1.3 Temp, C Fine =1, Coarse = 3, Stat. Tube = 4) PERATING CHARACTERISTICS 0.6 Elevation, ft 1065 0.95 Station Pres,psi 14.15 1 SW depth,ft 26 2 Diffus depth, ft 22.8 11.00 10.35 FINAL CLARIFIERS 8 No. of Clarifiers 2 8,000 Clarifier SWD, ft 15 Dia. of Clarifier, ft 140 20 Design SOR, gpd/sf Floc Well HRT, min 100 Floc Well SWD, ft 270 No. of Floc Turbines 20.78 Max G, 1/sec CARBONACEOUS 6.72 Tot Vol, cf 5.88 Oxic Vol, cf 0.84 Anoxi Vol, cf 8.89 8.00 BOD Load, ppd/kcf 6.50 3.43 561600 491400 70200 37 FINAL CLARIFIERS ClarifierTot. Area, sf SOR, gpd/sf Dia. of Clarifier, ft SLR(100%RAS),ppd/sf Clarifier HRT, hrs Floc Well Diam., ft Turbine Power,bhp/unit 30787 488 140 25 5.5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! NITROGENOUS Unmet Frac, mg/I Act Mass, mg/I End Mass, mg/1 MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h DENITRIFICATION 1.34 819 664 2200 2873 0.23 4.8 10705 8197 3051 31.2 34.9 Ave ANXdO/dt,mg/I/h Ave Den AOS, pph Ave Anox AOR, pph Pk ANOdO/dt,mg/I/h Pk Den AOS, pph Pk Anox AOR, pph 116.8 160 491 146.1 249 629 Eff SNH, mg/1 Act Mass,mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h Pk dO/dt, mg/I/h Alk Req, mg/I Eff NO3, mg/I Eff Alk, mg/I Eff TKN, mg/I N in WAS, mg/I Min N Req, mg/1 0.03 80 57 137 151 662 588 329 12.3 15.8 0 4.2 202 0.9 4.16 5.10 COMBINED Unmet Frac, mg/I Act Mass, mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h Pk Kla 20, I/h Ave KLa 20,1/h Ave TAOR, pph Ave SOTR, pph Pk TAOR,pph Pk SOTR, pph RAS Flow, mgd WAS Flow, gpd 1.34 899 721 2337 3024 0.22 4.9 11367 8785 3380 42.8 47.6 8.9 9.0 1313 3036 1459 2991 8.8 170365 BLACK & VEATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL OWNER Yakima COMPUTED BY PLANT WWTP DATE PROJ NO. Complete Denitrification B&V FILE NO. WORK CHECKED BY MM 2019 Del Monte DATE 4 basins in service ADG 9/14/2004 GVD 9/14/2004 AERATION EQUIPMENT DESIGN INPUT TO AERATION MODEL DIFFUSER SYSTEM Design SOTR, pph Lateral Spacing, ft 3036 3 Diffuser Area, sf 0.410 Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff 1.5 Min Air for Mixing, scfm/kcf (Fine = 15, Coarse = 20) 15 Number of Diffuser 7600 BLOWER SYSTEM Peak Ambient Temp, F 100 Average Ambient Temp, F 65 Blower Efficiency,% 55 Headloss thru Diffuser (Fine = 1, Coarse = 0.5) 1 MECHANICAL AERATION Design SOTR, pph 0 Transfer Efficiency, lbs 02/hr/bhp (Low Speed: 3.2 for <75 HP; 3.0 for 75<HP<100; 2.8 for HP>100);(High Speed = 2.0) Aerator Size, nhp/unit Minimum mixing power, bhp/kcf 0.75 Motor Service Factor, bhp/nhp 0.87 OUTPUT FROM AERATION MODEL DIFFUSER SYSTEM Process Airflow,scfm 6421 Minimum Air for Mixing, scfm 7371 Design Airflow (without 10% safety factor), scfm 7371 Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (OTE), % (OTE = 0 for Mixing limited Cond.) 0.0 Number of Diffusers 7600 Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff 1.0 Tank Area/Diffuser Area (At/Ad) 6.1 Diffuser Density, sq ft/diff 2.5 BLOWER SYSTEM Blower HP at Peak Temperature, whp 559 Blower HP at Ave. Temperature, whp 524 Blower HP for Mixing at Ave. Temperature, whp 524 MECHANICAL AERATION total Aerator Process Power, bhp 0 Total Aerator Mixing Power, bhp 0 Design Aerator Power, bhp 0 Number of Aerators 0 OWNER PLANT PROJ NO. WORK BLACK & VEATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL Yakima WWTP Complete Denitrification MM 2024 Del Monte 5 basins in service INPUT TO CMAS MODEL Tot Vol, cu ft Anoxic Vol,(%) Tot det Tim, hr Anox Det Tim,hr Inf BOD, mg/I Inf TSS, mg/I Eff TSS, mg/I NonBVSS VSS/TSS Inf Ma, mg/I Flow, mgd MLSS Rec Q, mgd Carb Peak Factor Nitr Peak Factor COMPUTED BY DATE B&V FILE NO. CHECKED BY DATE ADG 9/14/2004 GVD 9/14/2004 702,000 alpha 10 beta Min DO @Pk, mg/I Min DO @Ave,mg/I 156 Std Cs20, mg/I 108 Amb Cs, mg/I 15 SRT, days 0.30 RAS TSS, mg/I 0.82 MLSS, mg/1 21 Inf TKN, mg/1 16.3 NO3-N, mg/I 32.6 Min Eff Alk, ring/1 1.3 Inf alk, mg/1 1.3 Temp, C Diffuser type (Gen. Fine =1, Coarse = 3, Stat. Tube = 4) STEADY STATE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Tot Det time, hr Oxic Det time,hr Anox Det Time,hr CALC. SRT SRT, days Req SRT, days Min SRT, days 0.6 Elevation, ft 0.95 Station Pres,psi 1 SW depth,ft 2 Diffus depth, ft 11.10 10.45 FINAL CLARIFIERS 8 No. of Clarifiers 8,000 Clarifier SWD, ft Dia. of Clarifier, ft 20 Design SOR, gpd/sf Floc Well HRT, min 100 Floc Well SWD, ft 270 No. of Floc Turbines 20.78 Max G, 1 /sec 1065 14.15 26 25 2 15 140 CARBONACEOUS Unmet Frac, mg/I Act Mass, mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/1 F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/l/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h 7.73 Tot Vol, cf 6.96 Oxic Vol, cf 0.77 Anoxi Vol, cf 8.89 8.00 BOD Load, ppd/kcf 6.32 3.33 702000 631800 70200 34 FINAL CLARIFIERS 1 ClarifierTot. Area, sf SOR, gpd/sf Dia. of Clarifier, ft SLR(100%RAS),ppd/sf Clarifier HRT, hrs Floc Well Diam., ft Turbine Power,bhp/unit 1.26 747 606 2012 2630 0.24 4.7 12360 9456 3510 28.8 32.3 DENITRIFICATION Ave ANXdO/dt,mg/I/h Ave Den AOS, pph Ave Anox AOR, pph Pk ANOdO/dt,mg/l/h Pk Den AOS, pph Pk Anox AOR, • •h NITROGENOUS Eff SNH, mg/1 Act Mass,mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/I MLSS, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/l/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h 132.4 169 Alk Req, mg/I 557 Eff NO3, mg/I Eff Alk, mg/1 166.9 Eff TKN, mg/I 266 N in WAS, mg/I 719 Min N Re•, m•/I 30787 529 140 24 5.1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! COMBINED 0.02 Unmet Frac, mg/I 68 Act Mass, mg/I 50 End Mass, mg/I 118 MLVSS, mg/I 130 MLSS, mg/1 F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/I 711 WAS, ppd 633 WVS, ppd 351 WMa, ppd 10.3 AvgdO/dt, mg/l/h 13.2 Pk dO/dt, mg/I/h Pk Kla 20,1/h Ave KLa 20,1/h 0 Ave TAOR, pph 4.2 Ave SOTR, pph 203 Pk TAOR,pph 0.9 Pk SOTR, pph 4.38 RAS Flow, mgd 5.31 WAS Flow, .6d 1.26 815 655 2130 2760 0.23 4.8 13071 10089 3860 38.1 42.3 7.8 7.9 1500 3460 1668 341.7 8.2 195909 BLACK & VEATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL OWNER Yakima PLANT WWTP PROJ NO. WORK Complete Denitrification MM 2024 Del Monte 5 basins in service COMPUTED BY ADG DATE 9/14/2004 B&V FILE NO. CHECKED BY GVD DATE 9/14/2004 INPUT TO AERATION MODEL AERATION EQUIPMENT DESIGN DIFFUSER SYSTEM Design SOTR, pph Lateral Spacing, ft Diffuser Area, sf Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff Min Air for Mixing, scfm/kcf (Fine = 15, Coarse = 20) Number of Diffuser BLOWER SYSTEM Peak Ambient Temp, F Average Ambient Temp, F Blower Efficiency,% Headloss thru Diffuser (Fine = 1, Coarse = 0.5) MECHANICAL AERATION Design SOTR, pph Transfer Efficiency, lbs 02/hr/bhp (Low Speed: 3.2 for <75 HP; 3.0 for 75<HP<100; 2.8 for HP>100);(High Speed = 2.0) Aerator Size, nhp/unit Minimum mixing power, bhp/kcf Motor Service Factor, bhp/nhp OUTPUT FROM AERATION MODEL 3460 3 0.410 1.5 15 9500 110 65 55 1 0 0.75 0.87 DIFFUSER SYSTEM Process Airflow,scfm Minimum Air for Mixing, scfm Design Airflow (without 10% safety factor), scfm Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (OTE), % (OTE = 0 for Mixing limited Cond.) Number of Diffusers Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff Tank Area/Diffuser Area (At/Ad) Diffuser Density, sq ft/diff BLOWER SYSTEM Blower HP at Peak Temperature, whp Blower HP at Ave. Temperature, whp Blower HP for Mixing at Ave. Temperature, whp MECHANICAL AERATION 6692 9477 9477 0.0 9500 1.0 6.2 2.6 784 722 722 Total Aerator Process Power, bhp 0 Total Aerator Mixing Power, bhp 0 Design Aerator Power, bhp 0 Number of Aerators 0 2024 MM Raw Influent mg 7 ppd Flow 15.50 BOD 363 46,876 TSS 324 41,882 141-13-1,1 33 4,229 Primary Clarifier Influent itL pod Flow 1605 POD 388 51,974 TSS 363 48,519 5113-6 32 4,234 Primary Clarifier Effluent mg/L ppd Flow 1597 BOD 250 33,263 TSS 178 23,774 NH3.N 32 4.214 Sidestreams mg( ppd Flow 0.50 800 288 1200 TSS 154 80B NH3-N 0.045 Flow 0.047 800 9944 3,698 3898 TSS 14871 5,829 5826 NH3-74 12 4.7 4.5 Primary Clanfler BOD %Rem .3911..,36�`> "BST TSS %Rem ttyi Sludge TSS %.; .39.31.6243 Primary .Sludge + 50%TFC Sludge 3L ppd Flow 0.074 800 30,246 18,711 TSS 40,000 24,745 983-9 32 20 Del Monte Influent m /L ppd Flow 0 33 800 4218 11,610 TSS 461 1,269 NH3-N 4 10 Total PC Effluent mgfL ppd ppd/mgd Flow 1630 0.045 BOD 330 44,873 2752 TSS 184 25,043 1536 NH3-N 31 4,224 259 89 ppd/kf , By -Pass mg11. ppd Flow 4.50 800 330 12,394 TSS 184 6,917 NH3-N 31 1,167 • Basin 1 Trickling Filler Influent 9/L ppd Flow 11.80 800 330 32,479 TSS 184 18,126 NH3-N 31 3,057 Aeration Basin Influent mg/L ppd 16 30 177 24,087 108 14,687 17 2,348 Flow 805 TSS NH3.N Waste Activated Sludge mg/L ppd Flow (mgd, 031 %cont 0.5 TSS 5000 13,030 5 Basins Trickling Filter fnckling Filter Clar Eft m9IL ppd Flow 11,80 80D 119 11,693 TSS 79 7,770 NH3-N 12 1,181 CMAS 156 21164 108 14.687 21 2923 Ma PTnckl,ng Filter Clar/L Sludge T m• ••d 50% TF Sludge oDAF Flow (mgd; 0.09 0.045 mgd 800 10032 7.795 3898 ppd 0 36 mgd TSS 15000 11,655 5828 ppd NH3-N 12 9 4.5 ppd 18858 ppd %cont 1,5 Total Sludge= 43,602 ppd OWNER PLANT PROJ NO. WORK BLACK & VEATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL Yakima WWTP MM 2024 Del Monte 5 basins in service INPUT TO CMAS MODEL Tot Vol, cu ft Anoxic Vol,(%) Tot det Tim, hr Anox Det Tim,hr Inf BOD, mg/I Inf TSS, mg/I Eff TSS, mg/1 NonBVSS VSS/TSS Inf Ma, mg/1 Flow, mgd MLSS Rec Q, mgd Carb Peak Factor Nitr Peak Factor COMPUTED BY DATE B&V FILE NO. CHECKED BY DATE ADG 9/14/2004 GVD 9/14/2004 702,000 alpha beta Min DO @Pk, mg/I Min DO @Ave,mg/I 156 Std Cs20, mg/I 108 Amb Cs, mg/I 15 SRT, days 0.30 RAS TSS, mg/1 0.82 MLSS, mg/1 21 Inf TKN, mg/I 16.3 NO3-N, mg/I Min Eff Alk, mg/I 1.3 Inf alk, mg/I 1.3 Temp, C Diffuser type (Gen. Fine =1, Coarse = 3, Stat. Tube = 4L STEADY STATE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Tot Det time, hr Oxic Det time,hr Anox Det Time,hr CALC. SRT SRT, days Req SRT, days Min SRT, days CARBONACEOUS Unmet Frac, mg/1 Act Mass, mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/1 MLSS, mg/1 F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/I WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h Pk dO/dt, mg/I/h DENITRIFICATION 7.73 Tot Vol, cf 7.73 Oxic Vol, cf 0.00 Anoxi Vol, cf 8.89 8.00 BOD Load, ppd/kcf 5.69 3.00 0.65 Elevation, ft 0.95 Station Pres,psi 1 SW depth,ft 2 Diffus depth, ft 11.10 10.45 FINAL CLARIFIERS 8 No. of Clarifiers 7,500 Clarifier SWD, ft Dia. of Clarifier, ft 20 Design SOR, gpd/sf Floc Well HRT, min 100 Floc Well SWD, ft 270 No. of Floc Turbines 20.78 Max G, 1/sec 1065 14.15 26 25 2 15 140 FINAL CLARIFIERS 702000 702000 0 30 ClarifierTot. Area, sf SOR, gpd/sf Dia. of Clarifier, ft SLR(100%RAS),ppd/sf Clarifier HRT, hrs Floc Well Diam., ft Turbine Power,bhp/unit 30787 529 140. 24 5.1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Ave ANXdO/dt,mg/I/h Ave Den AOS, pph Ave Anox AOR, pph Pk ANOdO/dt,mg/I/h Pk Den AOS, pph Pk Anox AOR, ..h 1.26 747 606 2012 2630 0.24 4.7 12360 9456 3510 28.8 32.3 NITROGENOUS Eff SNH, mg/I Act Mass,mg/I End Mass, mg/I MLVSS, mg/1 MLSS, mg/1 WAS, ppd WVS, ppd WMa, ppd AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h Pk dO/dt, mg/l/h 0.0 0 Alk Req, mg/I 0 Eff NO3, mg/I Eff Alk, mg/1 0.0 Eff TKN, mg/1 0 N in WAS, mg/1 0 Min N Re., m./I COMBINED 0.02 Unmet Frac, mg/1 63 Act Mass, mg/1 51 End Mass, mg/I 114 MLVSS, mg/1 125 MLSS, mg/1 F/Mv Ratio Eff BOD, mg/1 685 WAS, ppd 609 WVS, ppd 324 WMa, ppd 9.3 AvgdO/dt, mg/I/h 12.0 Pk dO/dt, mg/I/h Pk Kla 20,1/h Ave KLa 20,1/h 0 Ave TAOR, pph 14.7 Ave SOTR, pph 165 Pk TAOR,pph 0.9 Pk SOTR, pph 4.36 RAS Flow, mgd 5.29 WAS Flow, ..d 1.26 810 657 2126 2755 0.23 4.8 13045 10065 3833 38.2 44.3 7.5 7.3 1673 3562 1938 3664 9.1 208549 OWNER PLANT PROJ NO. WORK BLACK & VEATCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE Yakima WWTP MM 2024 Del Monte 5 basins in service MODEL II COMPUTED BY ADG DATE 9/14/2004 B&V FILE NO. CHECKED BY GVD DATE 9/14/2004 INPUT TO AERATION MODEL AERATION EQUIPMENT DESIGN DIFFUSER SYSTEM Design SOTR, pph Lateral Spacing, ft Diffuser Area, sf Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff Min Air for Mixing, scfm/kcf (Fine = 15, Coarse = 20) Number of Diffuser BLOWER SYSTEM Peak Ambient Temp, F Average Ambient Temp, F Blower Efficiency,% Headloss thru Diffuser (Fine = 1, Coarse = 0.5) MECHANICAL AERATION Design SOTR, pph Transfer Efficiency, lbs 02/hr/bhp (Low Speed: 3.2 for <75 HP; 3.0 for 75<HP<100; 2.8 for HP>100);(High Speed = 2.0) Aerator Size, nhp/unit Minimum mixing power, bhp/kcf Motor Service Factor, bhp/nhp OUTPUT FROM AERATION MODEL DIFFUSER SYSTEM 3664 3 0.410 1.5 15 9500 110 65 55 1 0 0.75 0.87 Process Airflow,scfm Minimum Air for Mixing, scfm Design Airflow (without 10% safety factor), scfm Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (OTE), % (OTE = 0 for Mixing limited Cond.) Number of Diffusers Airflow per diffuser, scfm/diff Tank Area/Diffuser Area (At/Ad) Diffuser Density, sq ft/diff BLOWER SYSTEM Blower HP at Peak Temperature, whp Blower HP at Ave. Temperature, whp Blower HP for Mixing at Ave. Temperature, whp MECHANICAL AERATION 7184 10530 10530 0.0 9500 1.1 6.9 2.8 871 803 803 Total Aerator Process Power, bhp 0 Total Aerator Mixing Power, bhp 0 Design Aerator Power, bhp Number of Aerators 0 0 Table 5-9 Current DAFT Loading and Theoretical Capacity Current Operation Annual Average Combined WAS and Trickling Filter Solids (ppd) Maximum Month 2024 Operation with TF solids Annual Average 7,7003-- 8,9003 ,700 SLR! (lb/lir/sr) 8,9003 0.4 0.5 Annual Average (24 hour) Maximum Month 17,000 0.9 17.000 Maximum Month (24 hour) Theoretical DAFT Capacity Without polymer addition 25,000 25,000 0.4 1.3 0.7 8,000 0.4 Without polymer addition (24 hour) 16,000 Q.4 With polymer addition With polymer addition (24 hour) 38,000 1.0 v'SLR based on 12 hr/day, 7 day/week operating schedule, unless otherwise noted. 2Assumes 100 percent of trickling filter solids are thickened through DAFT. 3Current quantities do not always include trickling filter solids. 4Exceeds recommended SLR, 19,000 1.0 Table 5-11 Existing Digester Tankage Capacity 2004 Average Annual WAS, .pd 5,500 Primary solids, ppd 9,100 Trickling Filter solids, ppd 6,300 Total Solids, p.d 20,900 Combined Solids, % 4.1 Total Solids, gpd 61,100 Primary HRT, days 27 Secondary HRT, days 11 Maximum Month 7,400 12,500 11,200 31,100 Average Annual 7,500 13,000 4.1 9,500 30,000 4.1 2024 Maximum Month 13,000 91,000 88,000 18 19 19,000 12,000 44,000 4.1 129,000 132 7 7 5 Solids concentration based on treating 50 percent of the trickling filter solids through the DAFT and 50 percent through the primary clarifier. 2Primary digester capacity does not provide 15 day detention to meet 40 .CFR Part 503 requirements for Class B solids. BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 1413 For Meeting Of 10/19/04 ITEM TITLE: Request For Adopting the 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan prepared by Black & Veatch for the City of Yakima. SUBMITTED BY: Glenn Rice, ACM Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager Max Linden, Utility Engineer CONTACT PERSONf1 f,LEPHONE: Doug Mayo/575-6077 Max Linden/575-6077 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The draft 2004 City of Yakima Wastewater Facility Plan has been completed and submitted to Ecology on February 26, 2004 for review and approval. The Plan identifies the requirements by regulatory mandates, growth (capacity) issues, replacement of aging facilities, and improved efficiencies that are going to be needed over the next 20 years. An approved facility plan is required prior to constructing or modifying a wastewater facility and to be eligible for Centennial Clean Water Funds. (...continued on next page) Resolution X Ordinance Other (Specify) For adoption of the City of Yakima's 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan. Contract_ Mail to (name and address: Funding Source Wastew Capital funds (Fund 478) APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: '� 1 City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests City Council to adopt, by the attached Resolution, the 2004 Wastewater Facility Plan, BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. R-2004-165 (...continued from front page.) A study session was given for City Council on June 22, 2004 and a public meeting was held on September 7, 2004. Ecology has reviewed and commented on the 2004 Wastwater Facility Plan. The Wastewater Division responded to their comment on October 1, 2004 and provided copies of the responses for Council information. The Wastewater Division will also submit an Environmental Report and State Environmental Policy Act, SEPA, checklist as part of the State Environmental Review Process, which is also required by the State for approval of the Facility Plan. Submittal of an Ecology approvable Wastewater Facilities Plan is mandated under WAC 173-240 and must be approved by the Department of Ecology (WDOE). The plan identifies and prioritizes required plant improvements and expansions for the City of Yakima Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection system.