Expansion of theNewcastle Water Pollution
Control PlantWEF Student Design Competition 2013
Contents
Introduction
Stage 3 Design
Stage 3 Extras
Conclusions
Questions?
Who are we?
Bradley
FreeWater Resources
Engineering Graduate
Kyle
LockwoodEnvironmental Engineering
Graduate
Introduction
Robyn
ThompsonMechanical Engineering
Graduate
Tanzeel Ahmed
Environmental Engineering Graduate
BackgroundIntroduction
Clarington, Ontario
An expansion is planned for the Durham Region Newcastle Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), in the Municipality of Clarington, Newcastle, Ontario
The expansion of the WPCP is planned in four stages, to ultimately increase the capacity to six times that of the current operating capacity
University of Guelph
The Objectives:1.Preliminary Design and layout for Newcastle WPCP
for Stage 3 expansion including biosolids handling and energy recovery
2.Conceptual layout for Newcastle WPCP expansion for Stage 4 expansion
Stage 3 Design
Population Analysis
Selection of Processes
The Layout and Design
Receiving Station and Headworks
Primary Clarification
Secondary Treatment
Tertiary Treatment
Biosolid Handling and Treatment
Population AnalysisStage 3 Design
Based on previous growth data from the municipality of Clarington
Stage 3 to be completed when Stage 2 average day capacity reaches 75% of ADF
Peak Flow rates were estimated using the Harmon formula
Expected service capacity according to population growth against time
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 20800
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Average Inflow Rates
Peak Inflow Rates
Population
Ave
rag
e In
flo
ws
(m3/
d)
Stage 3 Completed: 2034
The LayoutStage 3 Design
1. Office Building
2. Headworks
3. Primary Clarifiers
4. Aeration Tanks
5. Secondary Clarifiers
6. Disinfection
7. Cloth Filters
8. Digester Gas Flaring
9. Dewatering Units
10. Chemical Storage
11. Anaerobic Digesters
12. CHP System
Receiving Station and HeadworksStage 3 Design
Mechanically Cleaned bar screen installedInstalled parallel to existing systemsIncreases existing treatment capacity
Two additional aerated grit tanks installedWill be able to process Stage 3 flows of 39,300 m3/dExtra unit provided for redundancy and maintenance
Primary ClarificationStage 3 Design
Circular Primary Clarification tank installed Existing clarifier tank will be modified during stage 3
installation as a circular tank Will eliminate maintenance issues of gross solids
buildup in corners of existing square clarifiers Performed during stage 3 installation
Will reduce BOD and TSS sufficiently for ADF and PDF
Secondary TreatmentStage 3 Design
Two aeration tanks will be installed in parallel to existing tanksAeration tanks will operate as a staged CAS process to allow operational flexibility
First stage fitted with jet aeration and diffuser grid Second stage has diffuser grid installed Can perform nitrification-denitrification for alkalinity recovery Will be consistent with existing plant systems Stage 3 of system will have an operational MLSS of 3500 g/m3
Will have an SRT of 12 days to achieve nitrogen removal
Two new secondary clarifiers will be installed in parallel to existing clarifiers Will have a recycle ratio of 50% Clarifiers are sized to treat the maximum daily flow of 39,300 m3/d
Tertiary TreatmentStage 3 Design
Alum Addition Will reduce the influent phosphorus by over 85% Added at the aeration tank effluent Chosen because it was the most effective treatment for the
lowest cost
Three Cloth Filtration Units (AquaDISK Tertiary Filtration system)installed TSS reduced below 5mg/L for ADF Will be able to process Stage 3 flows of 39,300 m3/d Extra unit provided for redundancy and maintenance
UV system (Trojan UV3000Plus™) selected as best method eliminating current chlorine disinfection methods
Current chlorine contact tank will act as a bypass channel Achieves desired monthly geometric mean density of
150cfu/100mL of Escherichia Coli Low Pressure/ High Intensity (LP/HI) lamps Horizontal Parallel to flow lamp configuration Automatic chemical/mechanical cleaning Weighted Gate Automated Level Controller
Sludge and Biosolid TreatmentStage 3 Design
ROTAMAT (HUBERTM) Screw Press dewatering system chosen 2 Dewatering units installed for Stage 3 Have a total dry solids throughout capacity of 280 kg Dry/h O/M costs are smaller than traditional centrifugal dewatering system Operates at <1.5 rpm screw rotation speed Requires <20 min/d of operator attention Produces 18 – 25% cake solids
2 Single stage high rate mesophilic anaerobic digesters installed parallel to Stage 2 Digesters
Digesters will treat the wasted solids from the primary clarifier and the WAS from the secondary clarifier
SRT of 20 days External pump recirculation mixing Biogas collection to for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) energy
recovery
Processed Sludge Disposal On approved agricultural land site under the Durham
Region Works Department’s Biosolids Management Program
Extras CHP Energy Recovery
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Noise and Odour Control
Hydraulic Profile
Modelling
Process Control and
Instrumentation
Construction Implementation
Cost Analysis
The Captures the biogas produced from the
Digesters and generate renewable energy Primary mover of the CHP system is 2
microturbines CHP Economic Feasibility
Generate approximately $130,000/year in energy savings
11 Year Payback Period Dependent upon obtaining Electricity
Contracts Fuel Gas Conditioning System will reduce
H2S, CO2, PM extending the lifespan of the microturbines and reducing greenhouse gases
Flare located southwest of the facility in case of CHP system failure
CHP Energy RecoveryThe Extras
Life Cycle Impact Assessment The Extras
Compares the environmental impact of anaerobic digestion against lime stabilization for sludge treatment
Pré developed SimaPro 7.0 software was used to conduct a comparative study
Life Cycle Impact Results Lime stabilization is worse in every impact category Lime stabilization produces more sludge
Anaerobic Digestion for sludge treatment is therefore the most environmentally sustainable solution
Climat
e ch
ange
Ozone
dep
letion
Photo
chem
ical o
xidan
t for
mat
ion
Partic
ulate
mat
ter f
orm
ation
Ionis
ing ra
diatio
n
Terre
stria
l acid
ificat
ion
Agricu
ltura
l land
occ
upat
ion
Urban
land
occ
upat
ion
Natur
al lan
d tra
nsfo
rmat
ion
Wat
er d
eplet
ion
Met
al de
pletio
n
Fossil
dep
letion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Land Application following Digestion Land Application following Lime Addition
ModellingThe Extras
WRc’s waste water modelling software
BOD, TSS and NH3 was modelled within the simulation
At an operational temperature of 10oC, the effluent objectives
were well below target
STOAT®
Parameter Proposed Effluent Objectives
Simulated Mean Effluent
BOD5 (10 mg/L) 10 mg/L 4.76 mg/LTSS (10 mg/L) 10 mg/L 6.61 mg/L(Ammonia + Ammonium) Nitrogen* 9 mg/L 15 mg/L 0.49 mg/L*The simulated ammonia effluent is assumed to be representative of both ammonia and ammonium* Concentration listed are for summer and winter objective respectively
Parameter Proposed Effluent Objectives
Simulated Mean Effluent
BOD5 (10 mg/L) 10 mg/L 4.76 mg/LTSS (10 mg/L) 10 mg/L 6.61 mg/L(Ammonia + Ammonium) Nitrogen* 9 mg/L 15 mg/L 0.49 mg/L*The simulated ammonia effluent is assumed to be representative of both ammonia and ammonium* Concentration listed are for summer and winter objective respectively
Process Control and InstrumentationThe Extras
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
Provides operational ease by reducing monotonous tasks for operators
Overall efficiency of the plant improved by maintaining steady state
process
Headworks and Clarifiers Monitoring and pumping controlAeration Basin Dissolved oxygen monitoring Aeration efficiency improvements of
up to 50% Monitoring and Pumping
Tertiary Treatment Flow monitoring and splittingDigesters Monitoring performance Controlling temperature, pressure,
recirculation and feed ratesCHP Monitoring and controlling flow rates
and energy production
TheControls
Hydraulic ProfileThe Extras
Available Head of 4.0m
E.L. 84.75m
E.L. 80.75m
Construction And ImplementationThe Extras
Task Name
Duration (
months)
2033 2034
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Construction Period 15 Mobilization and Erosion Control Systems 1 Site Preparation 1 Concrete Placing, Formwork and Reinforcing Steel 4 Piping and Mechanical Equipment Installation 6 Support Facilities 2 Electrical Work, Instrumentation and Controls 6 Landscaping and Final Clean-up 2 Commissioning 3
The completion date of Stage 3 is established as year-end of 2034 Using current data in the
population analysis Recommended that population
growth trends are rechecked every 5 years
Plant Design: 12 monthsPermits and Approvals: 12 monthsTendering/Awards: 2 monthsConstruction Period: 15 monthsCommissioning: 2 months
Minimizing Environmental Impact In accordance with Local Municipalities, by-laws and MOE Standards
Noise Control Dust Control Protection of Surface Water Erosion Control
Noise and Odour ControlThe Extras
Development of surrounding residential area of great concernProblem:
The Problem
Adequate buffer areas around the facility Housing facilities with adequate noise depletion technology (for pumps,
generators, etc.) All noise and odour sources will maintain the minimum separation distance of
100 meters in agreement to MOE odour and noise guidelines.
Solution?
111m
Cost AnalysisThe Extras
8%
64%
9%19%
Total Capital Cost:
$26,350,000.00
Cost AnalysisThe Extras
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $898,000.00
53%
22%6%4%
15%
Sludge Disposal Cost Savings
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ayJu
ne July
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octob
er
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Disposal Costs for Stage 1 operation as of 2011 Disposal Costs for Stage 3 operation without Sludge Treatment
Disposal Costs for Stage 3 operation with on site Sludge treatment
Operational Function* Average Monthly Cost Average Annual Cost
Stage 1 (from 2011 operational data) $ 9,388.54 $ 112,662.50Stage 2 (anticipated operation within 2014) $ 28,038.90 $ 336,466.84Stage 3 (anticipated operation within 2034) $ 2835.40 $ 34,024.85*Calculations for disposal are performed on a historical basis that sludge costs $12.50 to haul to the Duffin Creek WPCP
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ayJu
ne July
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octob
er
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Disposal Costs for Stage 1 operation as of 2011 Disposal Costs for Stage 3 operation without Sludge Treatment
Disposal Costs for Stage 3 operation with on site Sludge treatment
Operational Function* Average Monthly Cost Average Annual Cost
Stage 1 (from 2011 operational data) $ 9,388.54 $ 112,662.50Stage 2 (anticipated operation within 2014) $ 28,038.90 $ 336,466.84Stage 3 (anticipated operation within 2034) $ 2835.40 $ 34,024.85*Calculations for disposal are performed on a historical basis that sludge costs $12.50 to haul to the Duffin Creek WPCP
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Disposal Costs for Stage 1 operation as of 2011 Disposal Costs for Stage 3 operation without Sludge Treatment
Disposal Costs for Stage 3 operation with on site Sludge treatment
Operational Function* Average Monthly Cost Average Annual Cost
Stage 1 (from 2011 operational data) $ 9,388.54 $ 112,662.50Stage 2 (anticipated operation within 2014) $ 28,038.90 $ 336,466.84Stage 3 (anticipated operation within 2034) $ 2835.40 $ 34,024.85*Calculations for disposal are performed on a historical basis that sludge costs $12.50 to haul to the Duffin Creek WPCP
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Disposal Costs for Stage 1 operation as of 2011 Disposal Costs for Stage 3 operation without Sludge Treatment
Disposal Costs for Stage 3 operation with on site Sludge treatment
Operational Function* Average Monthly Cost Average Annual Cost
Stage 1&2 (from 2011 operational data) $ 9,388.54 $ 112,662.50Stage 3 (anticipated operation within 2014) $ 28,038.90 $ 336,466.84Stage 3 (anticipated operation within 2034) $ 2835.40 $ 34,024.85*Calculations for disposal are performed on a historical basis that sludge costs $12.50 to haul to the Duffin Creek WPCP
Annual Savings with the Proposed Solution: $302,442
Stage 4 LayoutThe Extras
Stage 4Stage 3Stage 1&2
Conclusions
Conclusion
Recommendations
Acknowledgements
Questions
The proposed processes for Stage 3 include
Additional headworks improvements
1 primary clarification tank
2 two-staged aeration tank
1 secondary clarification tank
3 cloth filters
1 UV disinfection unit
2 additional anaerobic digesters
2 screw press dewatering units
Stage 3 is to be completed by year-end of 2034
present cost of $26.3 Million
O/M of $0.9 Million annually
Further investigation should be conducted with respect to the integration of the microturbine CHP system for biogas handling
Issues such as the availability of obtaining contracts from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) and the Local Distribution Company (LDC) are of concern
Green incentive grants should be assessed to determine possible alleviation of total capital cost and further evaluation of the systems feasibility
Population growth trends are rechecked every 5 years to determine if the completion of Stage 3 construction schedule requires adjustment
Obtain additional specific order costing information from manufacturers
Hongde Zhou, Ph.D., P.Eng. – Faculty AdvisorProfessor of the School of Engineering – University of Guelph
Miles MacCormack, P.Eng. – Consultant Advisor Project Manager – Stantec Inc.
Rafiq Qutub, M.Eng., P.Eng.Subcommittee Chair, Student Design Competition – Water Environment Association of Ontario
Kirill Cheiko, EIT.Water EIT – Stantec Inc.
Yashar Esfandi, EIT.Inside Sale Representative – SPD Sales Limited
Hussein Abdullah, Ph.D., P.Eng. – Director The School of Engineering – Guelph University
Questions and…
Conclusions
The Credits
THANK YOU!THANK YOU!