|
1. Rebuilding ttie old plajit would still leave us with ail old plant with afacelift.
<br />2. Buiiding a new plant adjacent to the existing plant would allow tlie city to reuse the
<br />3. would allow the city to reuse the existing outfall main,
<br />4. woirlci allow the city ta reuse the eYisting master lift station and force main,
<br />' - i _n--..i-- ...•n i... ..ii . _,.t-' -r.r _rrr.■n~ ~.^r~
<br />. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
<br />YTVUIV {.I.l[VYY lll~. Vll~' LV JLII( 11GY~.. UL1'-YY1✓411.lI~. Ul.Yf,~J i/l.l lli 1I Y1 l LI 1~
<br />E>. would a11ow the city to minimize thc exteiisic>n o1'heavy 3-phase power to the site,
<br />7, would reduee the threat of lawsuits for p(acing the site anywhere elsc.,
<br />o ..,,,.,,t,a «,.,7.,,,~. .4.,. ...,,,.1f1 1,,. .L.,.
<br />r:,........ 4 ...ti~....,..._.._
<br />discliarge point,
<br />9. would still allow sorne of the existing plant's components to be reused ta reduce the
<br />nvvr,A7 nroinrf rnct
<br />10. would require less buffer zone to be acquired since some of the existing site would be
<br />part of the bttffcr rone required ior the new site,
<br />i l, anrj thY f-xi-ztins> _aciiarPrit nrnnPrtv nwnPr ha-, alrPariv iiirliratPrl a vvillincrnPCC to
<br />cooperate with the city for sludge disposal. 4
<br />12. Othei• sites would likely reqijire some coiidemnation and public f7earings that would
<br />undoubtedlv add vears to the proiect tirneline.
<br />• Six major stabilization processes were investi(yated in detlil:
<br />EiiY3co Carrousel racetraek, Fluidyne MuftiClaannel Keactor, Siemens VertiCell, AI3J
<br />`~,eniipnr_ino F3atr.h R_eactnr Ani_3a-Aerqhir,~ ~ern.nenr.irisr T{atch R.enctnr_ f'nnvr=ntinnn)
<br />aei ation
<br />All of these processes are variations of the activated sludge process. A side-by-side
<br />nr~trinaricnn r~at-t ~c ~rit:~~n
<br />a A present worth analysis of all of these alterrtatives was presented for 5.0 MGI.) and ] 0.0
<br />MGD average daily flow.
<br />_ ~.,.:~._..i...~._., c.._._n,.~ :__......~:,_....,a.
<br />AT'AD treatment to Class A followed by spra_y disposal (no dewatering), Drying bed
<br />dewatering foliowed by landtill disposal, Geotextile bad dewatering followed by landCll
<br />.~t-.°--._i n.i..._....._. .s_...._._..~.._ r.n........ai...i.....~f'ii _i[:..........iv.t
<br />
<br />A present worth analysis of all four of' thesc; sludge disposal alternatives was presented_
<br />Spray disposal was the recc>mmended solutian.
<br />. . . .
<br />Oi niliviliiL ui iaiiu iciIuiiCu iui aNiay ui~EiO>di Oi aiuugi5 ivdZ!, PcCiOiiircu ua5cii Oii
<br />metals aiialysis. It was found that only a very minor amount of lancl was required based on
<br />met.a.Is regulations. The controlling factor will likely be the allowable percolation rate of'the
<br />S01;.
<br />• f1 cost projeetion was put togetller based on $3.00 per gallon per day for the eonstruction cost
<br />of` the new plant. rldded to that nUinber was the constt•uction cost of other of'I=site
<br />~i:ai :C~.. i~~ ......':b~.. t~ u~.,....,,....,~.
<br />ofiexisting facilities, ete. The total cost projection is $45M.
<br />a A life cycle cost analysis was given for the main stabilization processes. It was based an a
<br />_ _ ~ •_J~_'__ . .
<br />Q ConclLisions arid recotnmendations arc given at the end, along with a conccphial layout of the
<br />proposed recotnmended facility.
<br />~
<br />$ 5;: .
<br />M?~7T
<br />74
<br />
|