10-Hear and deliberate on presentation of wastewater treatment plant master planCITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET
Submittal Date:
Originating Department:
Presented By:
Agenda Item No.:
08/02/10
Doug Harris,
Council Date:
Utilities
Director of Utilities
10.
08/09/ 10
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Not an action item - presentation only.
POLICY ISSUE(S):
Capital improvement
BACKGROUND:
On May 26, 2009, Council authorized Hayter Engineering to develop a master plan for the City of Paris
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Mike Tibbits, P.E., with Hayter Engineering will present their
engineering feasibility report and answer any questions. The report is in a separate binder
accompanying the council meeting packet.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
EXHIBITS:
Engineering feasibility report from Hayter Engineering, Inc.; Hayter Engineering, Inc. Memorandum to
Dou Harris, Director of Utilities
ACTION:
BUDGET INFO:
❑ Financial Report ❑ Minute Order
Expense
$59,785.00
❑ Department Report ❑ Resolution
gudgeted Amt.
$59,785.00
~ Presentation ❑ Ordinance
y'j'D Actual
$45,389.75
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other
Acct. Name
WWTP Master Plan
Acct. Number
10-0901-86-98
FISCAL NOTES:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Z Administration Z City Clerk ❑ Community Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire
❑ Municipal Court ❑ Legal ❑ Library ❑ Police Z Eng./Public Works Z Utilities
City of Paris ~1 2 Revised 2/04/08
/
HAYTER
ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSULTANTS PLANNERS ENG1NEERS
MEIVIORANDUM
L~:..:,_ ..i
o,.J: v ;I:.•...~
DATE: July 30, 2010
n;.~,,,__.
..'V
4445 S. E. LOOP 288
PARIS, TEXAS 75460
(903) 785-0303
FAX (903) 785-030$
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
1. Rebuilding ttie old plajit would still leave us with ail old plant with afacelift.
2. Buiiding a new plant adjacent to the existing plant would allow tlie city to reuse the
3. would allow the city to reuse the existing outfall main,
4. woirlci allow the city ta reuse the eYisting master lift station and force main,
' - i _n--..i-- ...•n i... ..ii . _,.t-' -r.r _rrr.■n~ ~.^r~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
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~
E>. would a11ow the city to minimize thc exteiisic>n o1'heavy 3-phase power to the site,
7, would reduee the threat of lawsuits for p(acing the site anywhere elsc.,
o ..,,,.,,t,a «,.,7.,,,~. .4.,. ...,,,.1f1 1,,. .L.,.
r:,........ 4 ...ti~....,..._.._
discliarge point,
9. would still allow sorne of the existing plant's components to be reused ta reduce the
nvvr,A7 nroinrf rnct
10. would require less buffer zone to be acquired since some of the existing site would be
part of the bttffcr rone required ior the new site,
i l, anrj thY f-xi-ztins> _aciiarPrit nrnnPrtv nwnPr ha-, alrPariv iiirliratPrl a vvillincrnPCC to
cooperate with the city for sludge disposal. 4
12. Othei• sites would likely reqijire some coiidemnation and public f7earings that would
undoubtedlv add vears to the proiect tirneline.
• Six major stabilization processes were investi(yated in detlil:
EiiY3co Carrousel racetraek, Fluidyne MuftiClaannel Keactor, Siemens VertiCell, AI3J
`~,eniipnr_ino F3atr.h R_eactnr Ani_3a-Aerqhir,~ ~ern.nenr.irisr T{atch R.enctnr_ f'nnvr=ntinnn)
aei ation
All of these processes are variations of the activated sludge process. A side-by-side
nr~trinaricnn r~at-t ~c ~rit:~~n
a A present worth analysis of all of these alterrtatives was presented for 5.0 MGI.) and ] 0.0
MGD average daily flow.
_ ~.,.:~._..i...~._., c.._._n,.~ :__......~:,_....,a.
AT'AD treatment to Class A followed by spra_y disposal (no dewatering), Drying bed
dewatering foliowed by landtill disposal, Geotextile bad dewatering followed by landCll
.~t-.°--._i n.i..._....._. .s_...._._..~.._ r.n........ai...i.....~f'ii _i[:..........iv.t
A present worth analysis of all four of' thesc; sludge disposal alternatives was presented_
Spray disposal was the recc>mmended solutian.
. . . .
Oi niliviliiL ui iaiiu iciIuiiCu iui aNiay ui~EiO>di Oi aiuugi5 ivdZ!, PcCiOiiircu ua5cii Oii
metals aiialysis. It was found that only a very minor amount of lancl was required based on
met.a.Is regulations. The controlling factor will likely be the allowable percolation rate of'the
S01;.
• f1 cost projeetion was put togetller based on $3.00 per gallon per day for the eonstruction cost
of` the new plant. rldded to that nUinber was the constt•uction cost of other of'I=site
~i:ai :C~.. i~~ ......':b~.. t~ u~.,....,,....,~.
ofiexisting facilities, ete. The total cost projection is $45M.
a A life cycle cost analysis was given for the main stabilization processes. It was based an a
_ _ ~ •_J~_'__ . .
Q ConclLisions arid recotnmendations arc given at the end, along with a conccphial layout of the
proposed recotnmended facility.
~
$ 5;: .
M?~7T
74