Sustainably Upgrading the District

1
Loxahatchee
Respect the beauty of
Florida International University Invites you to

• Sustainably Upgrading the Districts Wastewater
  Treatment Plant

2
Introduction
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Background
• Objectives
• Planning
• Facility Assessment
• Design
• Dynamic Bio-Machine
• Costs
• Conclusion

3
Problem Definition
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• As a result of community growth, the WWTP is
  to be expanded.
• reuse being a favorable method of disposal
• contain nitrogen reduction processes

4
Loxahatchee River Control District
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Southeast Florida Coast
• South Florida Water Management District
• Drainage Basin of Loxahatchee River
• Within Palm Beach Martin Counties
• Area Population 46,000 (1996 US Census)
• 2010 Projected Population 90,000

5
Existing Facility
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• 4 MGD by 1978
• Oxygen Reactors (2)
• Clarifier (3)
• Filters (6)
• Upgrade by 1986
• IQ Reuse Program (90 of Effluent in 1999)
• DIW as backup (Rated At 18 MGD)
• At 9 MGD Capacity
• Average Flow 5.4 MGD
• Daily Peaks of 14 MGD
• Mostly Residential Sewage

6
Project Objectives
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Preliminary Design for Expansion (10 Years)
• Reuse as Method of Disposal
• Nitrogen Concentrations (lt10ppm)
• Phosphorus Concentrations
• Plant Specific Issues
• Complement Loxahatchee Ethic
• Sustainability and Environmental Consciousness

7
Facility Assessment
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Literature Review
• FDEP (Permits) Plant Records
• Question Administration Staff
• Tour Facility
• Inquire About Plant Specific Issues
• Evaluate Land Material Availability
• Refine Determination of Future Needs

8
Research Methods
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Journal Articles
• Standard Textbooks
• Internet Resources
• Graduate Student Consulting

9
Alternatives
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Conventional
• Standard Expansion with Bardenpho for N P
• Hybrid 1
• Second Set of Oxygen Reactors
• Lake Wetlands for N P Treatment
• Hybrid 2
• Living Machine Turn Key Biological System
• 3 - 1MGD Units in Parallel
• Aggressive
• Aquatic Plant Treatment
• Innovative, Progressive, Most Sustainable

10
Weighted Sum Method
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Feasibility Screening
• Method Source EPA
• Evaluating Criteria Included

• Ease of OM (5)
• Low Operational Costs (8)
• Low Maintenance Costs (4)
• Low Capital Costs (9)
• Short Implementation Period (3)
• Potential to Remove N P (10)

• Reliability of Performance (9)
• Innovation (10)
• Pollution Prevention (7)
• Maximum Use of Facilities (5)
• Long Useful Life (9)
• Minimal Plant Disruptions (10)

11
Result Aggressive Alternative
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Most Cost Effective
• Satisfies Objective Criteria
• Incorporates Existing Facility into Design
• Fits Within Spatial Parameters
• Uses Energy Efficient Concepts
• Coexists with Neighboring Nature Center
• Reinforces the Loxahatchee Ethic

12
Advantages Limitations
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Advantages
• Provides High Treatment
• Operation Costs Minimal
• Zero Chemical Usage
• Low or Non-Existent Odors
• Variable Loads Capacity
• Pleasing Aesthetics
• All Wastes Reusable

• Limitations
• Requires Large Land Area
• Requires Continuous Water Supply
• Seasonal Fluctuations
• Estimated Removal Efficiency Rates
• Harvesting Laborious
• Solids/Ammonia Overloads Threat
• Planting Nursing Before Operation

13
Universal Upgrade
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• 9 MGD ? 12.4 MGD
• New Mechanical Bar Screens
• Equalization Basin
• Primary Clarifiers
• Replace Oxygen Compressors
• Dewatering of Filter Backwash
• Plant Automation

14
Universal Upgrade Details
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Headworks
• Existing Capacity of 30 MGD
• Motorized Barscreens Controlled Via Automation
• Address Rag Problem
• Projected Peak Flow of 19.8 MGD
• Equalization Basin
• Stabilize Projected Peak Flow of 19.8 MGD
• Use Existing Lined Pond
• Floating Aerators to Control Odors
• Prevent Hydraulic Overloading of Secondary
  Clarifiers

15
Universal Upgrade Details (cont.)
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Primary Clarifiers
• Detention Time 1.7 Hours
• Diameter 100 ft
• Depth 15 ft
• Sludge Mixed with Waste Activated Sludge
• Handles Settling for Entire Plant
• Oxygen Compressors
• Replace Existing Units
• Annual Energy Savings Approximately 192,863

16
Universal Upgrade Details (cont.)
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Dewater Filter Backwash
• Reroute to Avoid Closed-Loop
• Dewater and Include with Solids Disposal
• Plant Automation
• Simplify Operations Maintenance
• Allow for Robust Data Collection
• Connect to Neighboring Facilities
• Reduce Health and Safety Risks

17
FIU Bio-MachineAn Engineered Ecosystem
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• 8-1 MGD Bio-Machine Streams
• Selected Aeration
• Cattail, Water Hyacinth, Duckweed, Various Fish
• BOD Requirements Satisfied
• TN Requirements Satisfied
• TSS Requirements Satisfied
• TP Requirements Satisfied

• Bio-Machine Pond
• Aerobic Environment
• Floating Aerators
• Water Hyacinth
• Odors Controlled
• BOD Levels Reduced

18
Bio-Machine Pond
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• 810,000 ft2 ( 18.6 acres)
• Detention Time 3 Days
• Floating Aerators
• Water Hyacinth Cover
• BOD Reduced from 179 to 80 mg/l
• Nitrifying Bacteria Enabled to Flourish

19
Plug Flow Model for Natural Systems
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion
(Ce,i/Co,i) e-ki(t)

• i Individual Constituent
• Ce,i Effluent concentration (mg/l)
• Co,i Influent concentration (mg/l)
• ki First order reaction rate coefficient
  (1/day)
• t Detention time (day)
• Retarded Plug Flow May Be Used for Extended
  Systems

20
Bio-Machine Streams
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• 8 - 1 MGD Streams in Parallel
• 4 Depth X 20 Width X 15,000 Length
• Detention Time 11.67 Days
• Aerated Sections
• BOD Reduced from 80 to lt1 mg/l
• Cattails ? TSS via Settling
• Water Hyacinth Duckweed ? Nitrogen
• Pest Management ? Mosquito Fish

21
Bio-Machine Constituent Removal
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion
22
Sludge Management
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Current Disposal of Sludge to Triple E Ranch in
  Martin County
• Martin County Considering Elimination of Sludge
  Disposal
• Cattail Reed Beds Only Require Dredging at 5 Year
  Intervals
• Sludge Disposal Frequency Significantly Reduced

23
Harvesting Detritus
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Surface Vegetation Harvest Schedule
• Mechanical Bar Screen Used in Lakeland
• Detritus Dewatering
• Multiple Uses
• Fermentation for Bio-Fuel (Ethanol)
• Composting for Land Application
• Chopping for Livestock Fodder

24
Pilot Study
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Use Existing Lined Pond (.77 acres)
• Construct 1 MGD Stream
• Determine Actual First Order Reaction Rate
  Coefficients for Individual Parameters
• Experiment with Best Combination of Plant Types
  for Particular Sewage Treatment
• Acquire Empirical Harvest Data for Utility
  Analysis
• Lime Dosages and Polymer Types Determined for
  Sludge Treatment
• Data from Pilot Plant Valuable Information for
  Regional Plants with Interest in Expansion Using
  Natural System

25
Individual Unit Upgrade Costs
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• (Estimated In Millions)
• Automation 0.2
• Improved Headworks 2.6
• Equalization Basin 0.9
• Primary Clarifier 3.1
• Oxygen Compressors 0.5
• Bio-Machine (Pond) 8.2
• Bio-Machine (Streams) 12

26
Total Cost Summary
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Estimated Capital Costs 27.5M
• Estimated Annual OM Costs 5.6M

27
Summary of Results
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• WWTP Expanded to 12.4 MGD Average Flow
• Influent Treated to IQ Reuse
• Nitrogen Level Treated to lt10ppm
• Plant Specific Issues Resolved
• Sludge Production Minimized
• Plant Operates More Efficiently
• Energy Savings Subsidize Capital Costs
• Intensifies Loxahatchee Sustainable Ethic

28
Selected References
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Tchobanoglous, George. Small and Decentralized
  Wastewater Management Systems. Boston WCB
  McGraw-Hill, 1998.
• United States. Environmental Protection Agency.
  Aquacluture Systems for Wastewater Treatment
  Seminar Proceedings and Engineering Assessment
  Utilization Of Water Hyacinths for control of
  Nutrients in Domestic Wastewater. Washington
  D.C EPA Office of Water Program Operation, 1979.
  273-293.
• Reynolds, Tom D., Paul A. Richard. Unit
  Operations And Process In Environmental
  Engineering. Second Edition. New York PWS
  Publishing Company, 1996.
• Santos, E. J., H. B. C. Silva, J. M. Fiuza, T.
  R. O. Batista, P. P. Leal. A High Organic Load
  Stabilization Pond Using Water Hyacinth___ A
  Bahia Experience. Vol. 19 (1987) 25-28.
• Imaoka, Tsutomu, Seiji Teranishi. Rates of
  Nutrient Uptake and Growth of the Water Hyacinth
  Eichhornia Crassipes (Mart.) Solms. Water
  Resources Vol. 22, No. 8, 1988 (943-951).

29
Acknowledgements
Background ? Planning ? Design ? Costs ?
Conclusion

• Florida Water Environment Association, Board of
  Directors
• Loxahatchee River District WWTP
• Tom Vaughn, Chief Operator
• Mike Spannick, Operator
• Living Machine Technologies, Inc.
• Florida International University Department of
  Civil Environmental Engineering
• Dr. L. David Shen, Department Chair
• Dr. Hector R. Fuentes, Advisor