10-Hear and deliberate on presentation of wastewater treatment plant master plan

Home Browse Search

HAYTER ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTANTS PLANNERS ENG1NEERS MEIVIORANDUM L~:..:,_ ..i o,.J: v ;I:.•...~ DATE: July 30, 2010 n;.~,,,__. ..'V 4445 S. E. LOOP 288 PARIS, TEXAS 75460 (903) 785-0303 FAX (903) 785-030$ 1aao4o-1o0 -3.- .c.. ....r.., . SUBJECT: Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Feasibility Iteporti Per your request, I of£er the following summary of the engineering feasibility repore that I propose to present at the August 9`h council meeting: e The existinD plant was started in the ear(y 1940's, and has undergone a number of upgrades over the past 60-plus years. it has served its purpose well, but is reaIly showing its age. r~,_r,LL_...1_.'_ c.i _ r_ i•~t._ ..i . ii • .i.. . i , i _ ~ri....i. _ jili iuiSliii)it 'vi. iiiG ii~ iUii, iiiG ViitL-ai iU i.:' Ciii.al„i:ii ii7 maintain and aperate. • The average flow durisig the past five years is a little less than 4 MGD. There are a few i'ci:01'QS Oi -ic EriaiiL i G~'v' iiaCiiiilg tiiiv iilE U iYiii3 idiige, wiiii viic iili;iuciii ai, iii i:v"iu~T'i. iiiG rated capacity however is 7.25 MGD, but t}ie condition of the facilities prec;ludes it fra3n being operated at that rate for any significant Iength of time. _ , . • _ , A , , c , ~ x A .~r , ! . . . . , }ii;i~fiiii aii.itL iS iJ i i3 i c. ivi i.<.: iS'i'vil i1Lii . iiGi.iiiUiif.iiACiUii iS aCJlfu[IGu. operatianal staff has thus far been able to meet perinit most of tlle time despite the mechanical difficulties of doing so. ^ ,:.iic v~'aiQiivii "°v~~ l.L1LSi ia riai i;: :4i :c;it ~v ' -3iS-a iliiic "iO1:~iii "'i2d iGI :iZ iiL:ii f' r' i% a f~: j~~- 20 and a slight decline thereafter. It is nat anticipated that there wilJ be a large &qowth in the service area unless sorne large industry moves into the outskirts of town. - Ci_nxvl, 7000iiiie BO7i1, inritril.iiiivii ~)f Siiit% vev vsi~i~°,.iy iiu:i 'c'eiu~'~.-i. -^ri~,?~v vr i~ie v`r`vi,-,ll f30D total, but only 2.9% of the flow. Despite rumors that say Sara I.,ee is leawing, tlie recoilirnended 130D loading reaclling the plant was not changed from the average 214 / 217 ROr> :,nd TSc, p Months of conversations and e-mails with 'rCEQ about what they expect the future permit lilnits to 6e will depend on the locatioil of the iiew faci3ity. Pive locations wez•e studied-the existir3g, site; one southeast of towri in the Sulnhur River basin, and three to tlle east and south of'the existing p(ant site. A 7 I lS / 2 pecmit was anticipated for the existing site and two of tlle sites east of the plant. A 7/ 15 / 2 was anticipated for the site southeast of the plant, and a I~1 ! 15 3 was anticipated for the site soLttheast of Par?s. TCEQ hedged on their prediction by saying that their calculations were based on flow from Campbell Soup wou(d be a large iilfluence on the pennits for the existiiig site and sites 1 thr«ugh 3. * t1 discussior_ was given regard.ing re.modelii.g the existir.g E,lant, ?itiilding a new plant adjacent to the existing plant, building a new plant somewhere else in Pine Creek basin, and building a new plaiit in another basin (the SulpliurRiver basin). . }1u;ld:i1g w I121v pi..1"it BdjaCeF2t tO tjl{: 2}:iSi11'.b p:c'3:ir kS tiZt- TeC03"i::;:C3lL2d 31ter??at3vC. Ti N~-aS recommended becatlse ofthe fo(lowing reasons- Service Since 1957 rePF F-000315 73