November 8, 2011

City of Portsmouth Wastewater Division

Briefing #2 June 11, 2012

WastewaterWastewaterFacilities and ProgramsFacilities and Programs

City Council Briefing and Public Input SessionCity Council Briefing and Public Input Session

Topics for Discussion

• Introduction

• Regulatory Framework and Issues

• Collection System

• Wastewater Treatment Facilities

• Funding

• Questions and Comments

Regulatory Framework and Issues

• NPDES Permit Status

• US House Over-sight Hearing

• Status of Legal Actions

Lincoln Area Contract 3A

Lincoln Area Contract 3B

Cass Street Sewer Separation

Contract 3A - Initial Results S. Mill Pond CSOs

3.45 inches

3.12 inches

Rain

1.28 Million Gallons

June 2, 2012 Storm - After Completion of Contract 3A

2.747 Million Gallons

April 22, 2012 Storm - Before Completion of Contract 3A

CSO Volume

~53% Reduction in CSO volume

Collection System

Collection System

Wastewater Treatment Facility

Wastewater Master Plan – Preferred Alternative

•• Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative –– Phased Expansion at Pease Phased Expansion at Pease WWTFWWTF

•• EPA/NHDES Response to Draft WMP Preferred EPA/NHDES Response to Draft WMP Preferred AlternativeAlternative– Phased approach does not achieve secondary treatment for Consent

Decree compliance quickly enough– EPA pushing to achieve secondary treatment for Peirce Island flows in

next 5-7 years– Affordability issues do not warrant spreading the project out over 20 years

• Pilot Effort

Piloting Outline

• Initial technology selection

• Pilot description

• Key observations to date

• Pilot timeline

• Key regulatory issues

• Process layouts

• Consent Decree dates

Existing Treatment Process

Outfall To Piscataqua River

Chlorine Contact Tanks

Primary Clarifiers

Grit Chambers

Raw Wastewater

Conventional Secondary Treatment Process

Outfall To Piscataqua River

Chlorine Contact Tanks

Primary Clarifiers

Grit Chambers

Raw Wastewater

Aeration Tanks

Final Clarifiers

Return Activated Sludge

Conventional Secondary Treatment Layout

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/l Layout – Sec. Treatment

Pilot Program Goals

• Pilot test the most promising technologies with Portsmouth's wastewater to:

Best meet Portsmouth specific sizing criteria (i.e. fit within fence line of existing plant)

Minimize capital and operational cost

Ability to meet current and future permit limits

Push the technologies to assess how each responds to high flows and loadings

Gain insight into operational requirements and other factors for each technology

Option Evaluation Matrix

Option 1 - BAF

Option 2 - SBR w/

BioMag (Not Feasible)

Option 3 - CAS w/ BioMag

Option 4 - MBBR & ActiFlo

Option 5 - MBBR & CoMag

Option 6 - MBBR & DAF

Option 7 - MBR

Option 8 - Conventional

Activated Sludge

Evaluation Criteria Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score

Operational Track Record/Established Process 18 3 54 2 36 2 36 1 18 2 36 4 72 5 90Operability (No. of Processes/Complexity of Processes) 22 3 66 3 66 2 44 2 44 3 66 2 44 4 88Ability to Retrofit Conv. Secondary Treatment Meet Future Nitrogen Limits of 8 mg/l 20 1 20 5 100 1 20 1 20 1 20 3 60 4 80Ability to Retrofit TN 8 to Meet Future Nitrogen Limits of 5/3 mg/l 2 5 10 3 6 4 8 4 8 4 8 2 4 4 8Constructability 4 4 16 2 8 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 1 4Site Layout Hydraulic Complexity 8 4 32 3 24 4 32 3 24 4 32 4 32 1 8Ability to Stay Within Fence Line for Secondary Treatment 14 5 70 5 70 5 70 5 70 5 70 5 70 1 14Ability to Stay Within Fence Line for Future TN Treatment 4 2 3 3 3 5 1Ability to Treat High FOG Levels 14 3 42 4 56 3 42 3 42 3 42 4 56 3 42Total Weighted Criteria 310 366 268 242 290 350 334Capital Cost (estimated - in millions) $33.0 $37.0 $32.0 $34.0 $32.0 $42.0 $39.0Value Ratio (criteria/capital cost) 9.4 9.9 8.4 7.1 9.1 8.3 8.6Life Cycle Cost (in millions) $40.8 $46.7 $41.2 $47.4 $39.7 $53.3 $46.8Value Ratio (criteria/ life cycle cost) 7.6 7.8 6.5 5.1 7.3 6.6 7.1

BioMag

• Conventional activated sludge with BioMag iron ore (magnetite) ballast that is 5.2 times the weight of water

• Conventional clarification at higher loading rates

• Magnetite feed & recovery equipment

• Proprietary process– Siemens (Formerly Cambridge

Water Technologies)

BAF (Biologically Aerated Filters)

• Upflow packed bed filter

• Treatment and clarification in one vessel

• Backwash required

• Two main vendors: – Kruger: polystyrene media (floats)– IDI: clay shale media (sinks)

Moving Bed Bioreactor

• Media suspended in reactor basin

• No return sludge

• High rate solids separation – Dissolved air flotation

• Many vendors

Pilot Timeline

• Fall 2011 – Secure vendor equipment and construct pilot units

• January, 2012 – Pilot operation start-up

• February Through April, 2012 – Conduct secondary treatment experimental trials

• May/June, 2012 – Conduct nitrogen removal and hydraulic stress test experimental trials

• July through September, 2012 – Analyze data and update Technology Selection Memorandum

• October 1, 2012 – Submit Technology Selection Memorandum to regulatory agencies

Key Observations to Date

Raw Wastewater:

• Influent organic loading variability

• Large component of influent organic loading is in the soluble form

• Influent nitrogen concentrations lower than originally estimated

Raw Wastewater BOD Concentration 2008-2012

Key Observations to Date

Raw Wastewater:

• Influent organic loading variability

•Large component of influent organic loading is in the soluble form

•Influent nitrogen concentrations lower than originally estimated

Key Observations to Date

CAS With BioMag:

• Settling of Magnetite

• Minimize handling of Magnetite

• Requires careful operator attention

Key Observations to Date

MBBR & DAF:

•Biomass Growth Period for Secondary Treatment of about 6-8 Weeks

• Quality Assurance of Media

• Series Reactors

Key Observations to Date

BAF:

•Biomass growth period for secondary treatment of about 3-4 weeks

• Nitrifier growth stage slower than other processes

•System is highly automated

Pilot Experimental Trial StatusPilot Configuration Experimental Trial Status

Secondary BioMag – Average Daily Flow Complete

Secondary MBBR/DAF – Average Daily Flow Complete

Secondary BioMag – Maximum Month Flow Complete

Secondary MBBR/DAF – Maximum Month Flow Complete

Secondary BAF – Maximum Month Flow Complete

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L BioMag – Maximum Month Flow Complete

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L MBBR/DAF – Maximum Month Flow Complete

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L BAF – Maximum Month Flow Pending

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L BioMag – Hydraulic Stress Ongoing

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L MBBR/DAF – Hydraulic Stress Ongoing

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L BAF – Hydraulic Stress Pending

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L BioMag – Nitrogen Stress Pending

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L MBBR/DAF – Nitrogen Stress Pending

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L BAF – Nitrogen Stress Pending

Key Regulatory Questions

Peirce Island WWTF:

• Will Peak Design Flow Be 7.62 MGD or 10.5 MGD ?• Will Total Nitrogen Effluent Limit Be 8 mg/l ?• Will Total Nitrogen Effluent Limit Be A Seasonal Average ?• Will Wet Weather Treatment Train Be Allowed ?

Pease WWTF:

• Will Total Nitrogen Effluent Limit Be 8 mg/l ?• Will Total Nitrogen Effluent Limit Be A Seasonal Average ?• Will An Increase in Flow Through WWTF Outfall Be Allowed ?

The Answer to these Questions Impacts Size and Cost of WWTF Upgrades

Conceptual Facility Layouts

Secondary Treatment Facility Conceptual Layouts

Secondary Treatment Layout – MBBR & DAF

Secondary Treatment Layout - BAF

Secondary Treatment Layout – CAS with BioMag

Conceptual Facility Layouts

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L Facility Conceptual Layouts

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/l Layout – MBBR & DAF

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/l Layout - BAF

Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/l Layout – CAS with BioMag

Key Consent Decree Dates

• June 30, 2012 – Complete initial pilot testing

• July 30, 2012 – Submit pilot data

• October 1, 2012 – Submit Piloting Technical Memorandum and recommended secondary treatment capacity

• July 1, 2013 – Commence final design of secondary treatment facilities

• August 31, 2014 – Complete design of secondary treatment facilities

• March 1, 2015 – Commence construction of secondary treatment facilities

• March 1, 2017 – Complete construction of secondary treatment facilities

• May 1, 2017 – Achieve compliance with secondary treatment limits

Funding

• Projected Rate Impacts

• Rate Model RFQ

User Rate Projections User Rate Projections

As Presented June 23, 2010 Public MeetingAs Presented June 23, 2010 Public Meeting

2012 User Rate

Current and Projected Sewer Rates

Billing Unit = 748 gallons or 100 Cubic Feet of water

Cost per Unit

Projected Capital Cost

Current Sewer Rate Lower Tier $ 8.29 Current Sewer

Rate Upper Tier $ 9.11 Projected Sewer

Rate for Secondary Only $ 16.05 $40MProjected Sewer Rate for 3 mg/L

TN $ 20.10 $80M

Water & Sewer Rate Study

• Review and update both water and sewer rate structures and rates (previous rate study was in 2006)

• Assure rate structures promote sustainable water and sewer practices

• Assure equitable sharing of water and sewer costs

• Assure capability to pay for needed improvements and operations

Action Items

• 1.1 - Details on the Maine experience and relationship to New Hampshire issue

• 1.2 - Provide legal and consultant costs for wastewater issues and legal challenge

• 2.1 – Schedule Next Meeting

Action Item 1.2 Coalition Cost Summary

Total Invoiced to Date

Portsmouth Cost

Regulatory Effort $386,800.63 $77,360.13

Memorandum of Agreement

$237,375.00 $47,475.00

Total

Cost Per Year

$124,835.13

$62,417.56

Costs Since June 2010

Questions & Answers