Spinning Into Control · PDF file · 2016-11-154 Historical Solids Handling Filter Waste Washwater fill-decant to load FWW basins pile-spread for solar drying to >50% solids...

Spinning Into Control:City of Sacramento’s

New 360 mgdSolids Handling Facilities

Ian PietzCity of Sacramento

Tom GilloglyCarollo Engineers

2

City of Sacramento WTPs

Image Source: Google Earth Pro

Sacramento River WTP(160 MGD)

EA Fairbairn WTP

(200 MGD)

You are here

3

HISTORICAL SOLIDS HANDLING

4

Historical Solids HandlingFilter Waste Washwater

fill-decant to load FWW basins pile-spread for solar drying to >50% solids

Landfill Disposal

Sedimentation Basin Blowdown

fill-decant to load Sludge Lagoons

5

Flow x (Turbidity + Chemicals) = Solids

Historical2005-2009 Solids Production

SR EAFFlows (mgd)

Capacity 160 200Max 122 112Ave 63 57

Raw Turbidity (NTU)Max 225 178Ave 13 3.0

555

6

Historical Solids Production

SR EAFEAF[dry ton/day] SR EAF95th Percentile 80.7 2350th Percentile 6.2 1.7

7

SR

Historical Landfill Disposal

[ave ton/yr] Dry Wet % SolidsSR 1,994 3,527 56%EAF 483 1,250 39%

Not enough drying area

7

• <50% pay to haul water to more expensive LF

• % solids anticipated to decrease as WTPs production increases

• Losing 1 lagoon/WTP drove $1M/yr in contract dewatering

8

DEWATERING SYSTEM DESIGN

9

When is mechanical dewatering better than solar drying? • When there is a preference for mechanical dewatering over solar drying, and staff

are OK with associated mechanical maintenance

• When site footprint available for PROPERLY SIZED solar drying bed is not available(i.e. 6 – 10 lbs/ft2/year solids loading)

• Raw water turbidity and chemical dosing is relatively high (i.e. >100 lbs/MG solids)

• When “GUARANTEED” solids dewatering capacity, throughout the year and during all seasons, is required.

• When COST of equivalent solar drying beds is greater than mechanical dewatering equipment

10

Residuals Handling Alternatives

• No change

• Contract dewatering

• All mechanical

• Hybrid (mechanical + existing infrastructure)

o Already overloaded, existing operational challenges, anticipated to get worse with time, unable to address future flows

o $52.8M20-yr present worth

o $143M20-yr present worth process peak events

o $68M20-yr present worth ~1/4th capacity of “all mechanical” through peak storage

11

Hybrid Peaking at SR

0

50

100

150

200

250

Dai

ly T

otal

Res

idua

ls P

rodu

ctio

n (1

,000

lb/d

ay)

To Lagoon for Peaking No Peaking

Mechanical Dewatering

Peak Storage

12

Overview of Residuals Handling Process

Sed. Basins

ThickenersHomogenizing Tanks

Centrifuges

1.5%

3-6%

3-6%

>20%

13

Sed. Basins

ThickenersHomogenizing Tanks

Centrifuges

FWW Basins

Filters

1.5%

1.5-7%

1.5-7%

0.1-1.5%

>20%

SewerTruck

Drying50-60%Truck/Landfill

Recycle to head of WTP

Overview of Residuals Handling Process

14

Design BasisProcess Units SR EAF

FWW Sludge CollectorsNumber No. 10 8

Total Area ft2 48,000 46,600Gravity Thickeners

Number No. 2 2Diameter ft 80 65

HomogenizersNumber No. 4 3

Total Volume gal 220,000 135,000Centrifuges

Number No. 3 2Total Capacity lbs/hr 3,600 (+1,800) 1,800 (+1,800)Total Capacity gpm 320 (+160) 160 (+160)

15

NEW THICKENING & DEWATERING FACILITIES

16

FWW Hoseless Sludge Collectors

17

Gravity Thickeners

1117

SR WTP

EAF WTP

18

Polymer System

19

Homogenizers

20

Five 43,200 lb/day Centrifuges

21

Conveyors and Off-Haul

21

22

Conveyors and Off-Haul

23

STARTUP AND OPTIMIZATION

24

Effect of Solids Loading on Cake Solids

25

Solids Loading Effect on Recovery

26

Effect of Feed Solids on Cake Solids

27

Cake Solids Across Feed Flow Range

28

Acrylamide Management

• US EPA limits acrylamide by Treatment Technique

• Polymer to Centrifuge– Control Strategy 1 – Centrate to Sewer

• No additional action– Control Strategy 2 – Centrate to Gravity Thickener

• For max dose (20 lb polymer/ton) at max SR solids processing (3,600 lb solids/hr), WTP -mgd

• 14-17 ug/L acrylamide in grab centrate samples (6 to 8 lbs/ton Clarifloc A-333P; 98% recovery)

• 0 ug/L acrylamide in control (settled water)

29

Acknowledgements

– Amy Kral– Rod Frizzell– Ryan Palmer– Craig Chalmers

– Ricky Gutierrez– Patrick Carlson– Mark Gross– Yifan Zhang– Chris Cleveland

Tom Gillogly, Ph.D., P.E.

IAN PIETZipietz@cityofsacramento.org

TOM GILLOGLYtgillogly@carollo.com

Questions?