HomeMy Public PortalAbout2000 - Water Pollution Control Facility Improvements PlanWater Po lution Control
Facility Improvements
Facility Plan
City of Jefferson
March 2000
Sverdrup Civil, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
,J
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF JEFFERSON
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY PLAN
March 2000
By
SVERDRUP CIVIL, INC.
St. Louis, Missouri
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY: ......................................•........•....•.•........•.....•.•.•...•......•...•........................................................•............... S-1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••...•••••...••••..•.•... 1-1
SECTION2 EXISTING CONDITION AND PROJECTIONS .................................................................... 2-1
2.1 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................ 2-l
2.2 STUDY AREA CONDITIONS ................................................ ~ .......................................................................... 2-1
2.3 POPULATION PROJECI10NS ........................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4 LAND USE AND AREAs OF PROJECTED FuTuRE GROWTH ............................................................................ 2-4
2.4.1 Residential .......................................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.2 Commercial and Industrial ................................................................................................................. 2-7
2.5 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ........................................................................................... 2-7
2.5.1 Gravity Sewers ................................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.5.2 Sewage Pump Stations ....................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.6 DESIGN ClUTERIA ....................................................................................................................................... 2-13
2.6.1 Average Wastewater Flow Criteria .................................................................................................. 2-13
2.6.2 Peak Hourly Flow Criteria ............................................................................................................... 2-13
2.6.3 Wet Weather Peak Flow Criteria ..................................................................................................... 2-13
2.6.4 Basis for WPCF Design Flow .......................................................................................................... 2-14
SECTION3 EXISTING FACILITIES EVALUATION ................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT SITE .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 EXISTING FACIIJ'I1ES .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3 .2.1 Influent Pulnpin& ................................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.2.2 Screening and Flow Measurement ..................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.3 Grit Removal ...................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.4 Primary Clarification .......................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.5 Trickling Filttation .............................................................................................................. , .............. 3-6
3.2.6 Final Clarification .............................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.2.7 Final Discharge .................................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.2.8 Plant Water ......................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.2.9 Sampling ............................................................................................................................................ 3-7
3.2.10 Sludge Thickening ............................................................................................................................. 3-7
3 .2.11 Sludge Storage ................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.2.12 Sludge Conditioning and Dewatering ................................................................................................ 3-7
3.2.13 Sludge Stabilization and Disposal ...................................................................................................... 3-7
3 .2.14 Odor Control ...................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.2.15 Buildings ............................................................................................................................................ 3-8
3 .2.16 Electrical Systems .............................................................................................................................. 3-8
3.3 PERFORMANCE AND CAPACITY OF EXISTING PLANT .................................................................................... 3-8
3.3.1 Influent Pump Station and Force Mains ............................................................................................. 3-8
3.3.2 Preliminary and Primary Treatrnent ................................................................................................... 3-8
3.3.3 Secondary Treatment ......................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.4 Plant Outfall ....................................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.5 Sludge Processing .............................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.4 SUMMARY OF PLANT CONDIDON AND CAPACITY ........................................................................................ 3-9
SECTION 4 EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ..... -.... ,_ ..... .-••• -. .................. 4-1
4.1 DESIGN WASTEWATERCHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................... 4-l
4.2 RECEIVING WATER C0NSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 4-l
4.3 EFFLUENTLIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 TREATMENT PLANT SrrE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.5 ALTERNA11VES ............................................................................................................................................. 4-4
4.5.1 Activated Sludge Options .................................................................................................................. 4-4
4.5.2 Trickling Filtration ............................................................................................................................. 4-6
4 .5 .3 Ballasted Coagulation ........................................................................................................................ 4-6
4 .6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNA11VES .................................................................................................................. 4-7
4.6.1 Alternative No. 1 ................................................................................................................................ 4-8
4 .6.2 Alternative No. 2 .............................................................................................................................. 4-10
4.6.3 Alternative No. 3 .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 2
4.6.4 Alternative No. 4 .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 4
4.6.5 Alternative No. 5 .............................................................................................................................. 4-16
4.6.6 Alternative No. 6 .............................................................................................................................. 4-18
4. 7 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE AND SITE ............................................................................................................ 4-18
4 .7.1 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 4-18
4.7.1.1 Alternative Summary ................................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.7.1.2 Capital Cost .................................................................................................................................................. 4-21
4.7.1.3 Operation & Maintenance Cost .................................................................................................................... 4-21
4.7.1.4 Odor Potential .............................................................................................................................................. 4-21
4.7.1.S River Crossing Redundancy ......................................................................................................................... 4-22
4.7.1.6 TreatmentFlexibility .................................................................................................................................... 4-23
4.7.1.7 Environmental lmplct .................................................................................................................................. 4-23
4.7.1.8 Public Accepe8ncc ........................................................................................................................................ 4-24
4.7.2 Selected Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 4-24
4.7.3 Preliminary Design Selected Plan .................................................................................................... 4-24
4.7.3 .1 Plant Layout ................................................................................................................................................. 4-25
4.7 .3.2 Walnut Street Pump Station ......................................................................................................................... 4-25
4.7 .3.3 Design Plrlmctas ........................................................................................................................................ 4-28
4 .7 .4 Environmental Assessment .............................................................................................................. 4-33
SECTION S PROJECT IMPLEJ\>IENT A TION ......................... -................. -................ -................................. 5-1
5.1 C0STIMPACfSAND FINANCING ...•..•............•.........•...•.•..........................•.................................................... 5-l
5.2 SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................................................... 5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1 CITY OF JEFFERSON WPCF FACILITY PLAN STUDY AREA ............................................. 2-2
FIGURE 2-2 MISSOURI RIVER INFLUENCE ON AVERAGE DAILY WPCF FLOW ........•....................... 2-5
FIGURE 2-3 MAJOR WATER USERS AND AREAS OF PROJECTED GROWTH ......................••...•.......... 2-8
FIGURE 2-4 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ............................................................. 2-9
FIGURE 3-1 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES ...............................•........................ 3-2
FIGURE 3-2 EXISTING SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITIES .................................................................... 3-3
FIGURE 4-1 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 .............................................................................................. , .......•......... 4-9
FIGURE 4-2 ALTERNATIVE N0.2 ..••........•..... .-........•........•.•••...•••••.•••.........•.............•.•.•.•......•...............•..... 4-1 1
FIGURE 4-3 ALTERNATIVE NO.3 .............................................................................................................. 4-13
FIGURE4-4 ALTERNATIVE NO.4 .••.••.•..............••••••.•.••..•..••.•..•...•••.•......••.••.••...•.•..•••..•......••.............••.•.... 4-15
FIGURE 4-5 ALTERNATIVE NO.5 .•...•...••.•..•.•...•....•.............•.....•.•...••..........•...••.............•.•........................ 4-17
FIGURE 4-6 WPCF-60 MGD PEAK FLOW SBR SYSTEM (ALTERNATIVE 5), PRELIMINARY
LAYOUT .................................................................................................................................... 4-26
FIGURE 4-7 WALNUT STREET PUMP STATION SITE .•.....•.•......•.•................•.•...................•................... 4-27
FIGURE 4-8 60 MGD PEAK FLOW SBR SYSTEM NEW ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT ........................................................................................................ 4-3 1
FIGURE 4-9 60 MGD PEAK FLOW SBR SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING OFFICE AREA
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT ........................................................................................................ 4-32
TABLES
TABLE2-1 AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION ................•...•.......................•........•........ 2-3
TABLE 2-2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS ................................................................................................... 2-6
TABLE 2-3 CURRENT WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ........................................................... 2-1 0
TABLE 2-4 CURRENT SUBMERSffiLE TYPE WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS .............................. 2-11
TABLE2-5 CURRENT WET WELL/DRY WELL TYPE WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS ............... 2-12
TABLE2-6 HISTORICAL ANNUAL AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOW .............................................. 2-15
TABLE2-7 DESIGN AVERAGE FLOW PROJECTION ....•...•...••..........•..•....•...............•......•...•................• 2-16
TABLE 4-1 COMPARISON OF SITE LOCATION OPTIONS ...................................................................... 4-3
TABLE4-2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................... 4-20
TABLE 5-1 WCF IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE KEY DATES ............................................................. 5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
APPENDIX
COST BACKUP
• Alternative 1
• Alternative 2
• Alternative 3
• Alternative 4
• Alternative 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY
This Facility Plan summarizes a study of the City of Jefferson Water Pollution Control Facility
(WPCF) to identify improvements. that are needed to meet wastewater treatment needs until the
year 2020. The planning area tributary to the WPCF includes all of the area within the city
limits, portions of Cole County and Callaway County, and approximately one half the
wastewater generated by the City of Holts Summit which is treated under contract.
Findings:
• J>opulation and~ commercial/industrial Jand use will continue to exeanJ! in the planning area .
.Population is expected to increase from 51,500 in 2000 to 62,400 in 2020.
• During those same years, annual average wastewater flows will increase from 8. 7 mgd to
10.6 mgd. For design purposes, the average annual design flow to the WPCF in 2020 is 11
mgd. The .design flow includes~ approximate 26 percent commercial/industrial flow and
500,000 gal/day from Holts Summit. · 8 For 2020 the design niw wastewate~ BOD, concentration is 210 mg/1 (19,260 lb/day) and the
suspended solids concentrations is 235 mg/1 (21,500 lb/day).
• -~ to the WPCF ~ignificantly increases during wet weather because of infiltration and
inflow J!al: Some of this flow currently overllows at various points in the collection system.
The sanitary sewer overflow SSO is rohibited and sholild be eliminated.
• An III reduction erogram cari be expected to re uce peak wet weather flow to the WPCF to
about 60 mgd. Si nificant · ef ewers will be required to transport the wet weather flow to
the WPCF. (Collection system improvements are 1 enti 1ed in a separate Sewer System
Master Plan) _
• The Walnut Street Pump Station pumps all of the wastewater collected on the south side of
the Missouri River to the WPCF which is on the north side of the river. Significa&
improvements to the WPCF and Walnut Street Pump Station are needed to sufficiently
handle and treat the 2020 design flows. G The Missouri River is the receiving Stream and is not water quality limited.
• The City plans to fund construction of the WPCF improvements using a Missouri
Department of Natlll'al Resources (DNR) administered State ..Revolving ]'und ~ WPCF
operating costs and debt service on the loan will be funded through user charges.
Conclusions:
• Replacing the existing WPCF trickling filter treatment system with a Sequencing Batch
Reactor (SBR) system best meets the needs of the City. The SBR will treat the low volume
dry weather flow and the high volume wet weather flow in the same system.
• '[!le existing sludge dewatering system can handle the sludge from the SBR system with
minor modification.
• Effiuent limits will be a monthly average of 30 mg/1 BODS and 30 mg/1 suspended solids.
• The current Walnut Street Pump Station can not be efficiently upgraded to 60 mgd peak flow
capacity and should be replaced with a new pump station to be located as close as practicable
to the existing location.
S-1
I
I
I
I
.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• A new 30-inch force main should be constructed under the Missouri River. This in parallel
with the existing 30-mch force mam Wi ll convey the 60 mid peak design flow tinder the
Missoun ver to the WPCF . The damaged 24-inch force main will be retired from service.
• It is most efficient to provide new preli · treatment (screening and grit removal) .UL
handle the entire 60 m eak flow . The weather susceptible components should be
enclosed to avoid cold weather issues.
• The new SBR and prelimin treatment s stem should be constructed west of t existin
WPCF facilities. The primary and secondary clarifiers can ecome ponds or fountains and
be the focal pomt for a landscaped area. The trickling filters and the current preliminary
treatment tanks should be de olished.
• The proposed Corps of Engineers flood control levee will block the existing entrance to the
WPCF. The entrance should be moved from Mokane Road to the north s1de of the trei tment
plant.
• A new administration building should be built near the north entrance. It can be located to
overlook the landscaped area. The new building should include:
• Large conference room for tour group orientation, general meetings, and training
programs
• WPCF main control room
• Laboratory and sampling station
• Office for the Plant Superintendent
• Office for the Lead Operator
• The space vacated from the existing administration should be modified to include:
• Large lunchroom
• Expanded locker room facilities
• Office for the head of maintenance
• Small conference room.
There would be no modifications to the sludge dewatering facilities and the garage area
except the temporary construction in the garage area would be removed.
• The budget capital cost of the new facilities should be $22.7 million.
• To fund the WPCF improvements user charges should be increased as follows:
User Charge Component Current Rate Proposed Rate
(Since November I, (Begin July I,
1986) 2001)
City Residential User Fixed Monthly Minimum Charge $3.33 $4.16
Outside City Residential User Fixed Monthly Minimum $9.99 $12.47
Volume Charge per 100 cu. ft . $1.055 $1.32
Recommendations:
• The modifications listed above to t.'le Water Pollution Control Facility and the Walnut Street
Pump Station and force mains should be implemented.
• This Facility Plan should be approved by tJ1.e City of Jefferson and then submitted to the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources for approval. --
S-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• During the Facility Plan approval process, the City should hold a bond election to authorize
the bonds to be used for the State Revolving Fund construction financing.
• The City should hold a public meeting to e~lain the alternatives that have been evaluated
and solicit public comment on the proposed WPCF modifications. A second public meeting
is required to explain the impact of the cost of the WPCF improvements on user charges.
• ~fter approval of the Facility _ Plan by the DNR, the de~ocuments needed to solicit bids
for constrUcting the new facilities ~hould be prepar~.
• While the bid documents are being prepared, the City should work with DNR to complete
other documents that are required for Revolving Fund loan approval including:
• User Charge Ordinance ---
• Sewer Use Ordinance
• Easements and/or purchase of required property
• Engineers Agreement for design, construction and follow-up phase services
• The bid documents should be approved by the City and then submitted to DNR for approval
along with the construction permit application and associated fee.
• Upon approval of all of the above documents and the bond issue, DNR will allow the WPCF
improvements to be bid and construction to proceed.
S-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The .Q.tt..of Jefferson constructed the first treatment system at the current Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) site in 1968. Since that time, the plant has been expanded from primary treatment
to secondary treatment, and sludge handling taCmties have 6een modified. The most recent
construction upgraded the sludge handling and dewatering system and was completed in 1999. The
wastewater flow and loading to the WPCF exceeds design capacity in several areas. This Facility
Plan is the first step in the process to improve the WPCF to meet current and future wastewater
treatment needs.
The City anticipates construction financing for the WPCF improvements through the State _].evolving
Jund administered by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The process has four
steps :
• Preparation of the Facility Plan and related clearances, public comment and DNR approval
• Preparation and approval of construction documents
• Construction
• Follow-up to confirm that constructed facilities meet design expectations
~ WPCF Facility Plan summarizes a planning process that culminates in a plan for improvements
to the treatment plant to meet wastewater treatment needs for the next 20 years until the year 2020.
The Plan describes the current situation with the wastewater system, projects future wastewater
loading, investigates alternatives to best treat that wastewater and then recommends the alternative to
best meet the needs of the City. The final chapter describes the impact of the WPCF modifications
on user charges.
~e Walnut Street Pump Station is part oftb..e Facility Plan. Walnut Street is the influent
pump station for the WPCF. The volume of wastewater reaching the WPCF is related to the .
condition of the collection (sewer) system that conveys the wastewater to treatment~ Estimates of the
current volume of wastewater generated within the City of Jefferson collection area and projected
future flows are being developed in another study. That study will develop a Sewer System Master
Plan identifying projects to reduce infiltration and inflow .W of extraneous water into the collection
system~ also to provide relief sewers for overloaded portions of the system.
This Facility Plan is prepared at a time when the United States _§nvironmental...f.rotection Eency
(EPA) is moving aggressively toward a policy of eliminating untreated sanitary sewer overflow
(SSO). SSOs have always been unacceptable but correcting existing overflows was not a major
priority. EPA has been developing background on the issue for years and is now expected to
promulgate regulations in the year 2000 that will require communities with SSOs to have a proactive
program for elimination., Extraneous wet weather flows will have to be reduced or the collection
·system capacity increased to conve..r all flows that enter the sewers to the treatment plant. l_ Full
secondary treatment will be required with possibly some variance during extreme wet condit'ions.
Treatment of the flows that exceed the capacity of the secondary treatment system will still be ~
required but possibly to some lower degree of treatment. Missouri regulations currently allow SSO
discharge only at the treatment plant and require any flows that must bypass secondary treatment be
treated to at least 45 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids. Pending SSO requ~ments were a factor in
considering alternative treatment technologies for the WPCF improvements)
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION2
EXISTING CONDITION AND PROJECTIONS
2.1 Study Area
The planning area for the City of Jefferson Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) comprises
all of the City of Jefferson, areas outside the city limits in both Cole County and Callaway
County and pumped flow from Holts Summit, Missouri. The study area is approximately 66
square miles and is shown on Figure 2-1. The areas currently served by the WPCF are divided
.!!!!o 21 drainage basins. In addition to the current service area, the study area includes some
areas not presently served by the ~ity of Jefferson collection syStem and WPCF. These areas
outside the service area represen/~~as of potential future developmen9 which are likely to be
connected to the existing system ht"the future.
The Missouri River divides the study area, with the majority of the area located south of the river
and the WPCF located north of the river.
The current service area north of the Missouri River, located in Callaway County, includes the
area within city limits and a small area north of the city limits. Much of the northern service area J.A __, r
was flooded in 1993 and because most of the residential areas were bought out, the area within 'T3'Cf"s
the city limits is primarily commercial and light industrial. £low from Holts Summit is pumped Sv?r 177,~
to the North City of Jefferson Sewer Extension near the intersection of Route AC and Highway ,
54. The City of Jefferson has an interm~cipal agreement wi~ the City of Holts Summit to
provide wastewater treatment capacity fo~OO,OOO gallons per daV
The majority of the current service area is located south of the Missouri River in Cole County .
The southern service area is general! bordered by the Moreau River to the east and south and by
the Grays reek drainage are]. to the west. The Grays Creek drainage area was· originally
sewered by the Cole County Regional Sewer District (CCRSD) in the early 1980's. The CCRSD
is no longer in operation and responsibility for the collection system in the Grays Creek drainage
area is now handled by the City of Jefferson.
2.2 Study Area Conditions
The average monthly temperature and precipitation data for City of Jefferson is summarized in
Table 2-1. !_he annual average temperature is 53 .6 F and the annual ave e rainfall is 38.43
inches. Typical to Midwest rainf1 patterns, the late spring and early fall months tend to receive
the most rainfall.
(aecause of the severe topography of the planning area, all of the wastewater flow requires
pumping to the WPCF. North of the Missouri River, all wastewater flow reaches the
Westinghouse Pump Station and is pumped to the WPCF. South of the Missouri River, all
?
' wastewater flow reaches the Walnut Street Pump Station to be pumped across the river to the LV
WPCF. The central portion of the southern service area drains by gravity to the Walnut Street
Pump Station. Areas surrounding the centr&_ portion must be pumped once or twice to the
central gravity sewer system. The six drainage basins outside the current service area will
require pumping to the central gravity sewer system.
2-1
1-
~ a::
LEGEND
--STUDY AREA/MAJOR
DRAINAGE BAS IN BOUNDAR Y
------CITY LIM ITS
~
(/)
(/)
0 c :!!!
:!!!
~
~
~
¢-<v
'?-CJ
r JEFF ER SO
CIT Y WPC
STATE
CAP ITOL
FIGUR E 2-1
CITY OF JEFFE RSON
WPCF FACILITY PLAN
STUD Y AREA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLEl-1
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
Month Mean Precipitation
Temperature Mean
January 27.4 1.38
February 31.6 1.73
March 42.7 3.28
April 54.2 3.55
May 63.4 4.94
June 72.0 4.41
July 77.4 3.04
August 75 .4 3.14
September 67.4 3 .97
October 55 .8 3.49
November 43 .6 2.88
December 31.9 2.62
Annual 53.6 38.43
Data provided by Midwestern Climate Center
Averages: 1961-1990
Extremes: 1890-1996
2-3
High-Year
7 .82 1897
6 .20 1892
11.51 1922
13.89 1922
11.02 1892
10.18 1969
13.38 1993
12.37 1946
12.83 1993
14.12 1941
9 .86 1992
9 .20 1895
66.13 1993
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Missouri River divides the study area and can have an impact on the wastewater flows to the
WPCF . Fig_ure 2-2 shows the average daily flows for various daily precipitation amounts at river
stage 1 i through 30. This graph .illustrates that average daily flows to the WPCF tend to increase
as river stage increases . The City is curreirtiy conducting a program to identify and correct
sources of river infiltration and inflow.
2.3 Population Projections
The Year 2000 is the baseline condition and the Year 2020 is the future design basis for this
study . Population projections for the 20-year design period are summarized in Table 2-2.
Populations for the Year 1990 are based on census data. Growth in City of Jefferson is based on
a projected increase of 4.7% per decade, the average growth over the past 20 years . The
decrease in population between the Year 2000 and the Year 2010 is due to the expected closing
of the Missouri State Prison within the next 5 years .
Population projections for service areas in Cole and Callaway County are developed from the
Comprehensive Plan Update prepared for City of Jefferson1• Growth in the service area located
in Cole Count.y conservatively assumes a high projection increase of 10% per decade, slightly
higher than the low and moderate projections in the Comprehensive Plan Update. In addition,
growth projections in the Cole County service area assume 73% of the Cole County population
will locate within the Ci.!}' of Jefferson service area, similar to the results of the 1990 census data.
Growth in the service area located in Callaway Countt is based on a high projection increase of
20% per decade and does not include Holts Summit. According to census data, the population of
Holts Summit decreased between the years 1980 and 1990, while the population of Callaway
County increased as a whole. Population projections for Holts Summit are beyond the scope of
this plan. Therefore, the existing and future wastewater flows from Holts Summit are to be
based on past billing records and the maximum wastewater treatment capacity allowed in their
intennunicipal agreement with City of Jefferson.
2.4 Land Use and Areas of Projected Future Growth
The City of Jefferson WPCF serves approximately _18,000 acres (about 28 square miles) within
the city limits and approximately 24,000 acres (about 38 square miles) outside the city limits.
Currently, just over half of the area within the city limits is developed .
2.4.1 Residential
Developed land usage in City of Jefferson is predominately residential. Distribution of the
baseline (Year 2000) residential population in the current WPCF service area is based on the
1990 census tracts and development that has occurred over the past 1 0 years . Discussions with
city planning personnel indicate that residential growth within the city limits in the past 1 0 years
has focused in the west and south central ortions of the City, as well as continued development
WI n existing residential areas. Future growth is expected to be similar to the past 10 years .
1 "Comprehensive Plan Update, C ity of Jefferson, Missouri", prepared by Landfonn Urban Planning Services, St.
Lo uis, Missouri, March 1996. 2-4
---------
FIGURE 2-2
MISSOURI RIVER INFLUENCE ON AVERAGE DAILY WPCF FLOW
(January 1997 through December 1998)
--
9.5~--------------------------------------------------~
9 .-.. = I 1--+-RS < 11' ~ ~s ::g I-RS <1 2' '-' 8.5 -
~ ,/ I I-A-RS < 13'
Q $.0 -1 1-w-RS < 14' ~ -• ~ 8 = I ~ iS"" I I--Rs < 15' ~
= I ~ -______. • ~ == .. P4 13 T 1-+-RS < 20' ~ ..
t)l) 7.5
I 1-+-RS < 25' ~ a. ,a_ ~ > • • • T I -RS <30' < • • • • • I l
7
6.5+-------~--------r-------~--------r-------~------~
0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Precipitation -Less Than or Equal To (inches)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE2-2
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
. ' YEAR
SERVICE AREA 1990 (Actual) · 2000
Jefferson City/South of Missouri River 35,175 36,800
Jefferson City/North of Missouri River and 319 400
Service Area in Callaway County
Service Area in Cole County 11,122 14,300
(outside of city limits)
TOTAL SERVICE AREA POPULATION 46,616 51,500
Notes:
1. Jefferson City population projections based on a 4.7% increase per decade.
2010
36,400
500
19,800
56,700
2. Jefferson City Year 2010 population projection includes loss of Missouri State Prison.
3. Jefferson City/North of Missouri River and Service Area in Callaway County population
projections based on a 20% increase per decade.
2020
38,000
600
23,800
62,400
4. Service Area in Cole County (outside city limits) population projections based on a 10% overall
increase per decade in Cole County, and asswnes 73% of Cole County population resides in
Jefferson City service area.
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Q!Qwth Qutside the city limits has been primari_!y west of the City !!! the Grays Creek drainage
~Based on review of the Annexation Plan for the City of Jefferson, Missoure, growth areas
outside the city limits are. expected to focus in the areas southwest and west of the city limits.
Areas of expected residential growth are shown m Figure 2-3.
2.4.2 Commercial and Industrial
Existing (Year 2000) commercially developed land within City 2f Jefferson is res.
Existin indus · velopment is also 600 acres. In addition, the followin major industrial and
commercial water user are shown on Figure 2-3 .
Missouri State Penitentiary (Year 2000 only)
ABB Power T & D Co.
Modine Manufacturing Company
Unilever/Chesebrough Ponds
Mo State Capital and Harry S . Truman State Office Builiing
St. Mary's Health Center
Von Hoffinann Press, Inc.
Commercial growth in the City 1!_ based on a projected increase of 24 acres per year, the average
growth from 1977 to 1992. Future commerclalare"as are assumed to be located in undeveloped
land within the city limits zoned for commercial use and in outlying areas of St. Martins, along
Business 50 West and along Frog Hollow Road.
Industrial owth is projected to be approximately 12 acres r ear slightly less than the growth
from 1977 to . uture m ustri areas are assumed to be located in undeveloped land within
the city limits zoned for industrial use. Industrial growth is difficult to predict and is affected by
available industrial park settings, severe topography south of the Missouri River and areas north
of the Missouri River located in the 100-year floodplain.
2.5 Existing Wastewater Collection System
2.5.1 Gravity Sewers
The gravity sewer system for the City of Jefferson service area is shown in Figure 2-4. The
current service area has been divided into 21 drainage basins. Table 2-3 summarizes the size and
major sewer length for each drainage basin. There are over 1.2 million feet (233 miles) of major
gravity sewer in the current service area, ranging in siZe from 8-inch up to 48-inch in diameter.
"'\
2.5.2 Sewage Pump Stations
As discussed previously, because of the topography of the City of Jefferson study area,~
wastewater collection ~stem includes exte~vepumping_. There are currently 29 sewage
.P...umping stations. Fifteen stations ~ the submersible type. Submersible pump station
capacities, pump information and year of construction are summarized in Table 2-4. Fourteen
stations are the wet welVdry \Ven type. Wet welVdry well pump station capacities, pump
information and year o f construction are summarized in Table 2-5 .
2 "City of Jefferson Annexation Plan, 1996", by D.R. Preston, December 1996.
2-7
I
[
r
..--...-.,
I
\
\
\
. ~-\
I
....
'
(
\
ST. MAR TINS
--.... ' l
EL ST ON
______ ,
I
\
t
I
/
I----1 ....
___/ ....
"-........
\
' ~
f', \ fJ?
I ' 8 I ',__ -_.:u q'_,.
I ', v-f I ',, ~ f ----\/ .... , HWY 54
I ' ~ I -.. \__
I Ol ',, / • ' .... \ 2... ABB
I ,....._ ''---I ' \
I \ ' I I=! \ I ' / I a::: ',, (/ Rrt 94 • ~
__ r J ' ', 1 ',
~--: \--------' • llvous ' ... ,,,
1
) / r JEFF ERSONI
I ---~ _} "?1-4( '-..1 CITY WPC F I
I CH ESEB ROUGH • J. 0-?. ;-I
___ l PONDS / ST ATE I
(J HwY so -• r CAPI TOL I
l'1 VON HOFFMANN j
I ~---·------, . • I
MISSO URI
STATE
PENITENT IARY I ~ PR ESS j . I
I ST. MA R.Y'S .• l \_ . I
.,-' \ I . • I....
/
,.-----MODINE MFG "l I HEAL TH CENTER ' -'-..,,
[ __ ....... ~-------~-----~~~· ____ j -L I TRUM AN STATE ................ , __ _
I I --9 I "/· .}'>. J OFFICE SLOG . ----1__ (~---.J r-.v 1 -. --, v --~....., 1 ,t(.
/ G • Ol 1 cc-4 1r--_
L ___ j <t..Q;;-
0 ~· ! ~· Rrr sr :
__...--\ 0:: I II / I
N
.... _____ ""
'' )
\ u.J I I
0:: I I ~ I I
HWY c ~ I Hwy so/BJ 1 l ,
/
LEGEND
-··-STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
------CITY LIMI TS
• MAJOR WAT ER US ER
AREAS OF PROJECTED D GRO WTH OUTS ID E CITY
LIM ITS
----
I
\ ,
(
\
\
u u
I II ----_,.""" I r ---------,------=~~ -----_/_,.,.
I_ I / , ---~---~----, ~L--'
1 / ', r \ l --~--..... ,\ '\ \ --'' ~ ',
-----....._ I \ ' \ ( '' _j_,.._ ______ ,~\ \....... j ___ ..,..
(
\
\
\ ' / ... _ ...
'
FIGURE 2 -3
MAJOR WAT ER USERS
AND AR EAS OF
PROJECTED GROWTH
' I
/
\
J
r
r
LEGEND
3
•
WEST'v1EW
N
STUDY AREA /MAJOR
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDAR Y
PUMP STATION
SEWER SYSTEM
21A
RAN DALL •
HW Y 5o
~
8
?d
?d
~ ..
\_
~ I
FIGURE 2-4
EX IST ING WASTE WATER
CO LL EC TI ON SYS TEM
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE2-3
CURRENT WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Drainage Basin No. Area (acres) Estimated Length of Major Sewers (ft)
North of Missouri River
1 222 20,700
2 1,817 12,300
Subtotal 2,039 33,000
South of Missouri River
3 1,078 45,800
4 375 31,800
5 816 59,600
6 592 51,900
7 435 68,700
8 302 21,800
9 864 72,100
10 4,910 85,300
11 1,264 132,600
12 856 93,500
13 1,601 88,500
14 403 31,300
15 393 22,000
16 1,749 110,100
17 936 67,400
18 347 29,300
19 127 15,600
20 3,483 50,000
21 11,747 120,000
Subtotal 32,278 1,197,300
Proposed Future Service Area
A 581 Unknown
B 1,447 Unknown
c 1,011 Unknown
D 1,647 Unknown
E 750 Unknown
F 2,067 Unknown
Subtotal 7,503
TOTAL 41,820 1,230,300
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pump Station Name
Covington
Southridge
Cedar City
Dover
Randall
Sylvan Hills
Gun Club
Woodward
Bonita Paseo
Windriver
Haaf
Iven
Westport
Scholastic
Command Web
Notes:
TABLE2-4
CURRENT SUBMERSIBLE TYPE
WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS
Drainage !Pump Pump No. of Type of Station
Basin Capacity Motor Pumps
(gpm) (hp)
10 800 90 2 Submersible
9 300 ·22.5 2 Submersible
1 260 7.5 2 Submersible
13 200 23 2 Submersible
21 100 7.5 2 Submersible
15 50 7.5 2 Submersible grinder
21 50 5 2 Submersible grinder
21 30 3 2
Submersible grinder
21 Unknown"' (2) 1 Submersible pump
16 50 5 2 Submersible grinder
16 Unknown 5 2 Submersible grinder
3 Unknown 2 1 Submersible grinder
10 Unknown j 3 1 Submersible grinder
16 50 5 2 Submersible grinder
out 1 Unknown 3.5 2 Submersible grinder
1. Command Web pump station is east of Moreau River and is outside the study area.
2. Bonita Paseo Pump Station serves a single basement.
3. Westport Pump Station serves approximately 5 houses.
2-11
Year
Constructed
1998
1980
1990
Unknown
1991
1983
Unknown
Pumps
replaced 1990
1994
1988
Unknown
1987
1995
1992
1994
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pump Station Name
Walnut Street
Cole Junction
Binder
Riverside Park
Westview
Moreau (Greenberry)
Westinghouse
Idlewood
Hayselton
Green Meadow
St. Martins #2 (South)
St. Martins #1 (North)
T-Road
Indian Hills
Notes:
TABLE2-S
CillUmNT~T~LLIDRY~LLnTE
WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS
Drainage !Pump Pump No. of Type of Station
Basin Capacity Motor Pumps
(gpm) (hp)
19 12500 400 2 Wet well/Dry well
5600 100 1
21 1925 150 3 Wet well/Dry well
20 1700 100 2 Concrete wet well with
buried metal dry well
17 1500 50 2 Wet well/Dry well
10 950 60 2 Concrete wet well with
buried metal dry well
4 800 100 2 Wet well/Dry well
1 700 10 2 Concrete wet well with
buried metal dry well
8 350 60 2 Concrete wet well with
buried metal dry well
15 300 20 2 Wet well/Dry well
3 300 . 14.6 2 Concrete wet well with
buried metal dry well
21 150 10 41 Wet well/Dry well
21 140 15 2 Wet well/Dry well
21 25 3 1 Wet well/Dry well
16 100 20 2 Wet well/Dry well
Year
Constructed
1968
1982.1.
1983
1966
1987
1965 ..
1971
1983
1956 ~
1969 °
1994
1994
Unknown
1979
1. St. Martins #2 (South) Pump Station includes two duplex pump stations piped with pumps in
series (4 pumps total).
2. Cole Junction Pump Station: one pump is new, another was rebuilt, all have original motors.
3. Riverside Park Pump Station: pumps have been rebuilt, but have original motors.
4. Moreau Pump Station: new pumps with soft starters installed in 1994.
5. Hayselton Pump Station: pumps replaced in 1983.
6. Green Meadow Pump Station: pumps replaced in 1996.
2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.6 Design Criteria
2.6.1 Average Wastewater Flow Criteria
Wastewater flow rates are developed for several types of land uses including residential,
commercial/light industrial, and major users. The average flow criteria for these sources are:
Residential: 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
Commercial/Lt Industrial:1,000 allons er acre erda (gpad)
'ajar Water Users:Based on water usage records
The residential wastewater contribution of 100 gpcd is based on MoDNR recommended criteria
for sewer design and includes some allowance for infiltration.
Typical values in literature for estimation of peak flows from commercial and light industrial
sources range from 3,600 gpad to 5,000 gpad. Because major water users are taken into account
separately, an average flow of 1,000 gpad, with an 8-hour per day operation, is used for this
study, resulting in a peak flow rate of3,000 gpad.
For the purposes of this study, major water users are defined as facilities that average over
50,000 gallons per day water usage. Based on water usage information provided by the City,
major water usage is summarized in Table 2-7.
Additional allowance is included in the design average flows to account for wet weather and
Missouri River influences. The additional average flow component is based on the historical
average flows to the WPCF.
2.6.2 Peak Hourly Flow Criteria
Peak hourly flow criteria is based on the Missouri DNR peaking factor criteria:
18 + (Population in thousands t"5
4 +(Population in thousands)0·5
2.6.3 Wet Weather Peak Flow Criteria
Development of wet weather peak flows is based on the recent hydraulic modeling of the
collection system at selected design storms. Calibration of the hydraulic model developed for
the wastewater collection system was based on the results of a spring 1999 flow monitoring
program that is part of the Sewer Master Plan Project. The flow-monitoring program was
conducted from March 21 through May 31, 1999 at 20 locations throughout City of Jefferson.
Precipitation was normal for this period.
Major contributors to wet weather peak flows are rapid infiltration and inflow. Rapid infiltration
is defined as rainfall dependant infiltration that enters the collection system below ground.
Typical sources of rapid infiltration include defective pipe joints, cracked pipe, or faulty
manholes. Inflow is unwanted surface water that enters the collection system during storm
events. Typical sources of inflow include submerged (or missing) manhole covers, roof drain
connections, broken pipe in creek crossings or improper connections to storm sewers. Sources of
2-13
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
inflow and infiltration can also be located on private property, such as roof drain or foundation
drain connections, and in private sewer laterals.
Infiltration and inflow are extremely variable and to a large extent depend on the intensity and
duration of a storm event. Wet weather peak flows for existing conditions were used as the basis
for calibrating the hydraulic model infiltration and inflow components. Wet weather peak flows
for future conditions are based on design storms with 10-year and 5-year frequency.
The design storm for evaluating the collection system hydraulics is the 10-year, 6-hour storm.
The 1 0-year, 6-hour design storm is an intense storm, which generally occurs over a small area.
Because of the size of the City of Jefferson service area, peak wet weather flows to the WPCF
and to Walnut Street Pump Station are based on the 5-year, 6-hour storm. Characteristics of
these two design storms are:
Return Period: 10 years5 years
Duration: 6 hours6 hours
Total Volume:3.6 inches3.1 inches
2.6.4 Basis for WPCF Design Flow
The historical annual average wastewater flows to the City of Jefferson WPCF are summarized
in Table 2-6. Fluctuations in the average annual wastewater flow can be attributed to the impacts
of wet weather and Missouri River stage on influent flows. The estimated existing (Year 2000)
annual average flow is 8. 7 million gallons per day (mgd), the average of years 1997, 1998 and
1999.
The design (Year 2020) average flow is 11 mgd. Development of the design average flow is
summarized in Table 2-7. The design average flow includes an allowance of 1.5 mgd for wet
weather conditions and river influence. The allowance is derived from the difference between
the estimated actual 2000 flow of 8. 7 mgd and the calculated 2000 flow of 7.2 mgd.
Based on the MoDNR peaking factor formula and a Year 2020 population projection of 62,400,
the design peak dry weather hourly flow is 25 mgd. The peak hourly flow is based on the design
average flow of 11 mgd and a peaking factor of2.2.
The design wet weather peak flow to the WPCF is a combination of flow from the service area
north of the Missouri River and the service area south of the river. The majority of the City of
Jefferson service area is located south of the Missouri River, where the flow drains to Walnut
Street Pump Station to be pumped to the WPCF. The 1999 flow-monitoring program indicated
significant infiltration and inflow in all of the drainage basins in the south service area.
Hydraulic modeling using the 5-year, 6-hour design storm basis estimates a wet weather peak of
86mgd.
Evaluation of wet weather flow reduction indicates it will be cost effective to develop and
maintain a program of infiltration and inflow (III) reduction throughout the majority of the
collection system. Based on the hydraulic modeling for the 5-year, 6-hour design storm,
reducing inflow in a majority of the drainage basins can decrease the wet weather peak to 63
mgd. The wet weather peak flow can be reduced to 58 mgd by also addressing infiltration in six
major drainage basins. The recommended infiltration and inflow reduction program also
includes addressing sewers which may be impacted by the Missouri River.
2-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
TABLE2-6
HISTORICAL ANNUAL AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOW
Year Jefferson City Annual Annual Above or Below
Population Averafe Precipitation Annual Average4
(mgd) (inlyr)
1980 33,619 4.6 26.7 Below
1981 5.8 45.9 Above
1982 6.5 52.4 Above
1983 6.3 37.5 Below
1984 8.2 33.1"' Unknown
1985 9.6 53.1 Above
1986 6.6 39.5 Above
1987 6.2 33.1 Below
1988 6.4 36.2 Below
1989 6.1 31.9 Below
1990 35,494 7.1 52.1 Above
1991 6.6 35.6 Below
1992 7.2 38.9 Above
1993 7.6 1 66.1 Above
1994 7.4 33.3 Below
1995 7.2 37.9 Below
1996 7.2~ 38.0 Below
1997 8.2 36.3 Below
1998 9.3 61.6 Above
1999 (Estimated) 8.5 na na
2000 (Estimated) 37,200 8.7 na na
Notes:
1. Plant was shut down in 1993 for several months
2. Based on WPCF Operating Data, with some missing data in September, October,
and December
3. Missing September data
4. Average annual precipitation= 38.43 in/year (1961-1990)
5. Walnut Street Pump Station was limited in pumping due to the hydraulic capacity
of the head works.
2-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I I
I
I
I
TABLE2-7
DESIGN AVERAGE FLOW PROJECTION
Year 2000
Type of Flow and Design Criteria Design Average Flow
Basis (mgd)
Residential:
Study Area Population 51,500
less MO State Prison 2,000
Estimated Population 49,500
Residential A vg Flow (at 100 gpcd) 5.0
Major Water Users (gallons per day):
MO State Prison 400,000
ABB 55,000
ModineMfg. 95,000
Unilever/Chese. 70,000
MO State Capitol 40,000
Harry S. Truman State 68,000
St. Mary's Med. Cen. 62,000
Van Hoffmann Press 50,000
Major Water Users Avg. Flow 840,000 0.8
Commercial & Light Industry
Max. Flow (gallons per acre per day, gpad) = 3,000
Assume 8 hour oper., average flow (gpad) = 1,000
Commercial Area (acre) 600
Light Industry Area (acre) 600
Comm. & Lt. Industrial A vg. Flow 1,200 1.2
Holts Summit 0.2
Total Average Flow 7.2
Year 2000 Estimated Average Flow (based on historical 8.7
annual average flows)
Additional flow (MO River influence, precipitation) 1.5
DESIGN YEAR 2020 AVERAGE FLOW
2-16
Year 2020
Design Average Flow
Basis (mgd)
62,400
6.2
0
55,000
95,000
70,000
40,000
68,000
62,000
50,000
440,000 0.4
1,100
850
1,950 2.0
0.5
9.1
1.5
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Year 2020 estimated wet weather peak flow for the area south the Missouri River of 58 mgd
is based on the following assumptions:
• Design storm is 5 year, 6 hour storm event
• Inflow will increase 0.5% per year
• Infiltration will increase 2% per year
• III reduction in selected basins
The service area north of the Missouri River is small. Because of limited development in the
area, no flow monitoring was conducted. The pump station serving Holts Summit discharges to
the upper end of the service area. The Year 2020 design wet weather peak flow of 2 mgd is
based on the following assumptions:
• Peak factor of 4 on residential flows
• Peak factor of 3 on commercial and industrial flows
• Infiltration allowance of 30,000 gallons per day per mile of trunk. sewer
• Holts Summit pump station has both pumps in operation and assuming maximum
capacity is 1.5 times one-pump capacity
Based on the study results, the peak wet weather flow to the WPCF from both the north and
south service areas would be approximately 60 mgd, for the 5-year, 6-hour design storm.
Therefore, 60 mgd is used as the peak wet weather design flow for the WPCF.
2-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION3
EXISTING FACILITIES EVALUATION
3.1 Existing Treatment Plant Site
The existing Jefferson City Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is located on a 22.42 acre
plot on Mokane Road, approximately 0.4 miles north of the Missouri River, directly opposite the
State Capitol Building. The property surrounding the facility is largely vacant, being in the
unprotected Missouri River flood plain; several light industrial facilities are situated within about
2,000 to 2,500 feet of the plant. No water supply structures are located near the plant.
Expansion of the Water Pollution Control Facility is possible to the east and to the west of the
existing facility. Expansion to the north is limited by the presence of the Jefferson City
Memorial Airport. The terrain is flat, though the land east of the plant was used as a borrow area
during the original plant construction. Vegetation in the area of the plant is sparse.
The existing plant site is located within the 1 00-year flood plain. During the flood of 1993 (a
500-year event), the Water Pollution Control Facility was inundated and suffered significant
flood-related damage. Treatment was suspended for four months. During the 1995 flood (a 10-
year event), treatment was suspended for approximately one month. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is planning to construct a levee to protect the airport, treatment plant, and other land
owners to a river stage of 43.9 (approximately a 1 ,000-year event). The presence of this levee
will likely result in an increase in flood plain development adjacent to the treatment plant.
3.2 Existing Facilities
The existing Jefferson City Water Pollution Control Facility is a secondary treatm~nt facility,
discharging to the Missouri River at River Mile 143.3, under NPDES Permit Number M0-
0094846. Current (1999) wastewater flows and characteristics are summarized below:
Average Daily Flow
Peak Hourly Flow
Average Influent BODs
Average Influent TSS
8.5 mgd
18mgd
200 mg/1
235 mg/1
Current NPDES permit discharge limits are 45 mg/1 for BODs and TSS on a monthly average,
and 65 mg/1 on a weekly average.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 present schematics of the current wastewater and sludge treatment processes.
The plant was originally constructed in the late 1960s as a primary treatment facility, consisting
of an influent pump station and force mains across the Missouri River, a headworks that included
a Parshall flume and comminutors, two aerated grit tanks and a grit classifier/cyclone, two
primary clarifiers, and an effluent pump station. Sludge was processed through a gravity
thickener, centrifuges, and an incinerator.
3-1
-------______ .. ____ _
1---+-PLANT
WATER
HIGH WATER
PUMP STATION
GRIT REMOVAL
AND
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
I I PREAERATION
FINE SCREEN
AND PARSHALL
FLUME
I
-------------------------.
: SETll.ED SEWAGE
: PUMP STATION
UNDERFLOW AND
FILTRATE FROM TRICKLING FILTERS
SLUDGE
PROCESSING
------------------+------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I MISSOURI
RIVER
WALNUT
PUMP
STATION
:.-------RECYCLE LINE -------------------------------
FIGURE 3-1
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
-------------------
PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY
SLUDGE
FERROUS
CHLORIDE
GRAVITY
SLUDGE
THICKENERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
......... :
-~
FERROUS
CHLORIDE
THICKENED
SLUDGE
STORAGE
POLYMER
HYDROGEN
PEROXIDE
BELT FILTER
PRESSES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
!"'------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' UNDERFLOW
AND FILTRATE
TO
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
FIGURE 3-2
EXISTING SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITIES
LIME
L. ['ol
TOLAND
DISPOSAL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In the late 1970s, two additional primary clarifiers were added, along with secondary treatment
facilities consisting of a settled sewage pump station, two trickling filters, two final clarifiers,
and effluent chlorination. Vacuum filters were added for sludge dewatering and the centrifuges
were abandoned.
In the mid-1980s, the comminutors were replaced by a mechanically-cleaned climber screen
upstream of the Parshall flume, chlorination was abandoned, and the sludge incinerator was
taken out of service.
In 1998 and 1999, a continuous mechanical fme screen replaced the climber screen, the grit
classifier was replaced, structural repairs were made to the aging trickling filter towers, and
sludge handling operations were significantly upgraded. A second gravity thickener was added,
a thickened sludge storage tank was constructed, and the vacuum filters were replaced with two
belt filter presses. Various ancillary systems were built or expanded, including polymer feed
systems, sludge pumping, sludge conveyors and lime addition. The paragraphs below describe
the facilities and their condition as they exist in 1999.
3.2.1 Influent Pumping
The influent wastewater pump station is located on the south side of the river at Walnut Street
and West Main. The pumping system consists of a diversion/bypass structure where the two
main trunk sewers serving the project area south of the Missouri River are combined, the pump
station, and force mains that convey the wastewater to the treatment plant on the north side of the
river. The pump station contains two 18 mgd pumps and one 8 mgd pump. The original force
main system consisted of parallel 24-inch diameter mains laid across the river bottom. One 24-
inch main was destroyed during the flood of 1993 and the other suffered significant damage,
requiring the installation of a new 30-inch diameter horizontal directionally drilled force main
under the river bed in 1995. -
Although the pump station is in fair condition structurally, mechanical and electrical equipment
within the pump station is in very poor condition. Pumping tests performed in March 1999
confirmed that the pumps are not operating at their original design specifications.
The new 30-inch river crossing force main is in good condition. The 24-inch force main still in
service is in very poor condition.
3.2.2 Screening and Flow Measurement
All wastewater entering the treatment plant is screened through a new Parkson Aquaguard®
continuous fme screen with 6-mm openings. Movement of the screen can be continuous, or can
be controlled by level sensors mounted in the flow channel. Flow in excess of the fme screen
capacity (25 mgd) passes through a coarse bar rack with 3/4-inch openings between the bars.
The screened flow passes through a 4-ft Parshall flume, providing flow measurement up to 34
mgd.
The screening equipment is in very good condition, but is prone to freezing in cold weather; a
temporary enclosure and heater have been constructed. The influent structure is in fair condition.
3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2.3 Grit Removal
Screened wastewater enters two aerated grit basins. Each basin has dimensions of 45-ft long by
12-ft wide, with a volume of 48,000 gallons, and can be isolated by use of slide gates. Weirs at
the discharge end maintain the flow depth in the basins. Aeration is provided by coarse bubble
diffusers supplied with air by two rotary-lobe positive displacement blowers, each rated for 344
cfm.
One blower is normally operated to serve both grit basins. The grit basins are covered and
odorous air is collected for treatment. Settled grit is collected by a screw at the bottom of each
basin, designed to move 16 cubic feet of material per hour when rotating at 2.2 rpm. The
collected grit is then pumped by two recessed impeller centrifugal pumps rated for 250 gpm at
37-ft TDH to a grit classifier/cyclone and dumpster. The collector screws and grit pumps are
operated on a timer basis.
The concrete grit basins have experienced moderate corrosion above the water line due to
hydrogen sulfide emissions. Manual slide gates used to isolate tanks are difficult to operate. The
aeration blowers are in fair condition considering their outdoor location. The grit screws/drives
provide continual problems to the plant and require much maintenance. The grit pumps are in
good condition. The grit classifier/cyclone is in excellent condition, although the building
housing it is too small and has no ventilation.
3.2.4 Primary Clarification
Following grit removal, the wastewater enters a splitter box for division to the four primary
clarifiers. The splitter box contains a skimming device for removal of accumulated scum. Each
clarifier is a 60-ft diameter center-feed unit with a side water depth of 9 feet. Iron salts are
sometimes added to the flow following grit removal to control odors and enhance the
performance of the primary clarifiers. Polymer can also be added at the splitter box. Sludge
from each clarifier is collected by a scraper mechanism and pumped by a dedicated air-operated
diaphragm pump to the sludge thickeners. Each pump has a 164 gpm maximum capacity when
working at 40 strokes per minute, and is operated on a timer basis, alternating between the four
pumps. Currently, the pumps are run at about 9 strokes per minute, or 3 7 gpm. Air for the
pumps is provided by a dual reciprocating compressor rated for 52 cfm at 1 00 psig. The
compressed air is cooled and dried prior to use in the pumps. Skimmings are pumped back to the
headworks by a diaphragm pump identical to the sludge pumps. A 500 gpm (24-ft TDH)
centrifugal drain pump is provided for dewatering the clarifiers.
The splitter box and slide gates are in fair condition although the scum removal system in the
splitter box is inoperable. It has been noticed that the flow to the four clarifiers is not distributed
evenly, and that under high flow conditions, the box can overflow. The primary clarifiers are in
good shape structurally, but the groundwater relief system gates are inoperable. The clarifier
drives were rebuilt after the flood of 1993 and appear to be in good condition. The scum troughs
and rakes on the two older units (Nos. 1 and 4) are undersized, and the entire scum disposal
system poses operating problems. Sludge withdrawal from the two newer clarifiers is difficult
due to their distance from the sludge pumps. The sludge pumps, scum pump, and air delivery
system (compressors, cooler, dryer) are all in fair condition but require frequent maintenance.
3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The clarifier drain pump is undersized, requiring 8 hours to drain a tank, and its location makes
maintenance difficult.
3.2.5 Trickling Filtration
Settled sewage, together with recycled filter effluent, is pumped to the trickling filter towers by
four vertical turbine pumps. Two of the pumps are driven by constant speed motors and are
rated for 4,000 gpm at 46-ft IDH. The other two pumps are driven by motors controlled by
variable speed drives. These two pumps are rated for a maximum flow of 4,600 gpm at 46-ft
IDH. Normally, both variable speed pumps and one constant speed pump are operated; the
constant speed pumps are alternated. A minimum wet well level is maintained to prevent
vortexing. The pumped flow passes through magnetic flow meters and then to the two trickling
filter towers. Each tower is 65-ft diameter and contains 21 ~ feet of PVC corrugated-sheet,
vertical flow media. Flow distribution is by four-arm reaction-type rotary distributors. The
distributors currently were observed to operate at a St of about 5 to 10 mm/pass. Ventilation is
natural, and can be controlled by 32 dampers around the periphery of each tower base.
Trickling filter effluent can be recycled. The present mode of operating the trickling filters is to
establish a minimum flow rate to the filters, and modulate the valve on the recycle line to
maintain the flow rate at or above this minimum setpoint.
The settled sewage pumping station appears to be in good condition, though one of the variable
speed pumps was observed to vibrate slightly at certain speeds. The trickling filter towers were
repaired recently by the addition of a top ring beam, but still exhibit some leakage at joints
between the precast wall panels and cast-in-place columns. The concrete underdrain system
appears to be in good condition. The trickling filter media modules are nearing the end of their
useful life, have become unglued, and are quite brittle especially in the upper layers. It is
suspected that some portions of the media are plugged. The rotary distributors are also quite old,
show signs of corrosion, and at high flows, wastewater is forced into the oil reservoirs ."
3.2.6 Final Clarification
Trickling filter effluent enters a splitter box for division to the two final clarifiers. Each clarifier
is a 75-ft diameter center-feed unit with 10-ft side water depth. Sludge from each clarifier is
collected by a scraper mechanism and pumped by a dedicated centrifugal pump to the sludge
thickeners. Each pump has a 210 gpm capacity at 26-ft IDH, and is operated on a timer basis.
Skimmings are collected and pumped by a centrifugal pump rated for 210 gpm at 23-ft IDH.
The splitter box and slide gates are in good condition. The final clarifiers are in good shape
structurally, but the groundwater relief system gates are inoperable. The clarifier drives were
rebuilt after the flood of 1993 and appear to be in good condition. The sludge and scum pumps
are in fair condition, though the sludge pumps may be slightly undersized.
3.2. 7 Final Discharge
Final effluent flows by gravity to the Missouri River through 2,000 lineal feet of 54-inch
diameter outfall pipe at times when the river stage is less than 24. When the river exceeds this
level, flow is lifted by three vertical turbine pumps located in the high water pump station. Two
are rated for 3,900 gpm at 7-ft IDH and the third is rated for 5,450 gpm at 7-ft IDH. The pumps
appear to be operable and in good condition.
3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2.8 Plant Water
A small portion of the fmal effluent may be pumped for use in the plant as non-potable service
water by two 600 gpm pumps (120-ft TDH) and one 120 gpm pump (70-ft TDH). Normally,
only one of these pumps is operating when demand exists.
3.2.9 Sampling
Flow is sampled by automatic composite samplers at various locations for process control and
for NPDES permit reporting. The following streams are sampled: plant influent, influent
including returned flows from sludge processing, primary effluent, trickling filter effluent, and
final effluent.
3.2.10 Sludge Thickening
Primary and secondary sludges are combined in a splitter box and then split for thickening in two
gravity thickeners. The original thickener is a 30-ft diameter unit with a 10-ft side water depth.
This unit has minor corrosion on the walls; these corroded areas have been recently recoated.
The new thickener is 45-ft diameter with a 1O-ft side water depth. Ferrous chloride can be fed to
the thickener feed to enhance performance and control odors. Overflow and skimmings from the
thickeners return to the head end of the treatment plant. The plant's existing odor control system
has provisions for treating odorous air from the thickeners. Currently, however, the thickeners
are not covered, and odors are released to the environment.
3.2.11 Sludge Storage
Thickened sludge is pumped by two 64-gpm thickened sludge pumps to a new two-cell
thickened sludge storage tank. Each cell of the tank is 28-ft square, is mixed by submersible
mixers, and can accommodate up to approximately 100,000 gallons of sludge. The tanks are
covered, and the vent lines are equipped with activated carbon canisters for odor control. The
storage tanks provide several days of sludge storage, allowing for intermittent operation of the
belt filter presses.
3.2.12 Sludge Conditioning and Dewatering
Sludge is fed by 175-gpm progressing cavity pumps to two new 2-meter wide belt filter presses
for dewatering. The presses are provided with plant water pumps to supply belt wash water,
hydraulic power packs, and polymer feed facilities. Hydrogen peroxide can be fed upstream of
the filter feed pumps for controlling odors. Odorous air from the belt filter press room is
collected for treatment.
3.2.13 Sludge Stabilization and Disposal
Dewatered sludge is stabilized by the addition of quick lime in sufficient quantity to raise the pH
to a value of 12 for at least two hours. The dewatered sludge is loaded onto trucks and hauled to
nearby farm fields where it is applied as a soil conditioner and fertilizer.
3.2.14 Odor Control
Odorous air from the aerated grit basins and belt filter press room is treated in a new biofiltration
system that is sized for 5,900 cfm air containing an average of 3 ppm hydrogen sulfide. The
system has capacity to accept additional odorous air from the sludge thickeners, should they be
covered in the future.
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2.15 Buildings
In general, the buildings are in good condition, although many doors and windows either need
replacement or new hardware. HV AC systems are inadequate in the sludge hopper building,
main garage, primary solids/grit building, and main building. The size and layout of offices,
laboratory, and employee facilities (locker rooms and lunch room) is inadequate for current
staffing levels.
3.2.16 · Electrical Systems
In general, the electrical systems at the plant are old and in questionable condition. Most
systems were submerged during the flood of 1993 and have been repaired. Motor control centers
and breakers are generally in fair to poor condition, and are difficult to repair and/or expand due
to the inability to get replacement parts. Transformers are old and relatively inefficient. The
condition of underground ductbanks is suspect. Several buildings need rewiring.
3.3 Performance and Capacity of Existing Plant
The existing Water Pollution Control Facility generally produces an effluent quality of 30 to
40 mg/1 BODs on a monthly average basis, and 20 to 30 mg/1 TSS. Performance is generally
better in the warmer summer months than in winter.
An evaluation of the capacity of the existing treatment plant was made as part of the facility
planning effort. Design guidelines from the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (10 CSR
20-Chapter 8) were used as an initial basis for determining treatment capacity. These were
supplemented with guidelines from the Great Lakes -Upper Mississippi River Wastewater
Committee (Ten States Standards) and the Water Environment Federation's Manual of Practice.
Actual operating data were also analyzed to assess plant performance under various loading
conditions.
3.3.1 Influent Pump Station and Force Mains
The Walnut Street Pump Station was originally designed for a flow capacity of 18 mgd.
However, pump station performance testing of the existing system demonstrated a maximum
flow capacity of about 15 mgd.
The new 30-inch diameter river crossing force main, in conjunction with the buried parallel
24-inch diameter force mains on the north side of the river, has a design capacity of30 mgd.
3.3.2 Preliminary and Primary Treatment
The inlet screening structure was designed to properly handle up to 20 mgd flow, but can
probably handle flows up to 30 mgd before overflowing. The influent Parshall flume can
measure flow rates up to 34 mgd.
The capacity of the existing grit removal system is considered to be 20 mgd. Above this flow
rate, the grit basin outlet weirs cause the water level in at the Parshall flume outlet to back up,
reducing the flow measurement accuracy of the flume .
With all four units in operation, the primary clarifiers are adequately sized to handle an average
daily flow of 11 mgd, and a peak hourly flow of 17 mgd, based on Missouri DNR design
3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
guidelines. While the weir loading rate at the current maximum influent flow rate exceeds the
MoDNR design guideline, actual operating data show no significant performance reduction.
3.3.3 Secondary Treatment
The capacities of the trickling filters and final clarifiers were evaluated as a combined system
because the performance of the secondary treatment system depends both upon the soluble BOD
removal of the filters and the suspended solids removal of the final clarifiers. System
performance is dependent on flow rate, BOD concentration, and temperature. Recent system
performance was evaluated using the Germain formula. Based on this analysis, it appears that
the secondary treatment process has a capacity ranging from 8.5 mgd in winter to 16.5 mgd in
summer. One of the major factors limiting performance is that the fmal clarifiers are
significantly undersized, having a peak hourly flow capacity of only 7.1 mgd based on Mo DNR
design guidelines. While the system analysis showed that the actual clarifier capacity exceeds
this value, solids carryover becomes a significant concern at higher flow rates.
From a purely hydraulic standpoint, the rotary distributors have a total maximum hydraulic
capacity of about 19.6 mgd with the currently installed orifices. At high flows, however, water
can be forced into the oil reservoirs, and flows in excess of about 20 mgd will likely cause the
trickling filter outlet boxes and final clarifier weirs to flood.
3.3.4 Plant Outfall
The outfall sewer consists of approximately 2,000 lineal feet of 54-inch diameter pipe
discharging to the Missouri River at River Mile 143.3. The flow capacity of the line is
dependent on river stage. Under gravity flow conditions, the capacity of the line exceeds 50 mgd
at river stages less than 20, but this drops off rapidly at higher stages, particularly above stage 24.
With the high water pump station in operation, flows of up to 25 mgd can theoretically be
handled to river stage 34, although the installed pump capacity limits actual operation to 19 mgd.
Above stage 34, the outfall's hydraulic capacity rapidly decreases.
3.3.5 Sludge Processing
The existing sludge processing system is sized to be operated only for one shift on weekdays.
Consequently, it has significant excess capacity that could be utilized if sludge processing were
to be expanded beyond a one-shift operation. The existing facilities have sufficient capacity to
handle the solids produced from an average daily flow of at least 20 mgd. Sludge dewatering
would likely become a two-shift process at average daily flows above 14 mgd.
3.4 Summary of Plant Condition and Capacity
While the existing Water Pollution Control Facility currently meets its permit limitations, the
plant is currently at its treatment capacity (8.5 mgd) during the winter months. Future flow
increases will continue to stress the performance of the plant. Hydraulically, the existing plant
capacity is limited to about 20 mgd. Many of the wastewater treatment units are reaching the
end of their useful lives and will require repairs or replacement to continue offering reliable
service. The recently renovated sludge handling systems are in good condition and have
adequate capacity to serve the facility in future years.
3-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 4
EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 Design Wastewater Characteristics
Currently, the City of Jefferson Water Pollution Control Facility receives wastewater with the
following characteristics:
Average Daily Flow
Average Influent BODs
Average Influent TSS
8.5 mgd
200 mg/1
235 mg/1
Design wastewater flows, as previously discussed in Section 2,and wastewater characteristics for
the year 2020 are as follows:
Daily average flow
Peak hourly flow
Peak wet weather flow
BODs
TSS
11
25
60
210
19,260
235
21,500
mgd
mgd
mgd
mg/1
lb/day
mg/1
lb/day
The year 2020 BODs and TSS loadings include allowances for projected population growth at
rates of 0.17 lb BODs per capita per day and 0.2 lb TSS per capita per day, as well as an
allowance for projected commercial and industrial growth. ·
4.2 Receiving Water Considerations
The Missouri River at City of Jefferson is a Class P receiving stream -one that maintains
permanent flow even in drought periods. Designated protected uses for the river are as follows:
• Irrigation
• Livestock and wildlife watering
• Warm water aquatic life & human health protection (fish consumption)
• Boating and canoeing
• Drinking water supply
• Industrial use
The Missouri River is included on Missouri DNR's Final 1998 Section 303(d) List of impaired
waters. The listing of the Missouri River is due to habitat loss from channelization, rather than
failure to meet water quality standards for any particular pollutant(s). No TMDLs have been
proposed for any pollutants for the receiving stream.
The river has an average daily flow in excess of 63,000 cfs at the City of Jefferson. The
estimated flow associated with a 1 00-year flood event is 550,000 cfs. The impact on the river of
the current discharge (13 cfs average daily flow) as well as the future discharge (17 cfs average
daily flow) from the City of Jefferson Water Pollution Control Facility is negligible.
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 Emuent Limitations
Eftluent limitations for the City of Jefferson Water Pollution Control Facility will have to meet
one or more of the following sets of requirements, depending on the fmal treatment process
selection:
4.4
Trickling Filter Plant
BODs monthly average
BODs weekly average
TSS monthly average
TSS weekly average
pH all times
New Trickling Filter Plant
BODs monthly average
BODs weekly average
TSS monthly average
TSS weekly average
pH all times
Activated Sludge Plant
BODs monthly average
BODs weekly average
TSS monthly average
TSS weekly average
pH all times
45 mg/1
65 mg/1
45 mg/1
65 mg/1
6to 9
40 mg/1
60 mg/1
40 mg/1
60 mg/1
6to9
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
6to9
Peak Excess Flow Treatment Facility
BODs weekly average 45 mg/1
TSS weekly average 45 mg/1
pH all times 6 to 9
Treatment Plant Site Requirements
Several different locations were considered for locating the new or expanded wastewater
treatment facilities:
• Locating part or all of the wastewater treatment facilities on the south side of the
Missouri River, at or near the Walnut Pump Station, and continuing to use the
existing sludge processing facilities on the north side of the river.
• Locating the wastewater treatment facilities on the north side of the Missouri River,
adjacent to .the existing sludge processing facilities at the Water Pollution Control
Facility,
• Locating the wastewater -treatment facilities on the north side of the river, at a
location distant from the existing sludge processing facilities at the Water Pollution
Control Facility.
Advantages and disadvantages of the different location options are presented in Table 4-1.
4-2
--------------
TABLE 4-1
COMPARISON OF SITE LOCATION OPTIONS
Option Advantages Disadvantages
Locating part of the wastewater treatment • Minimizes pwnping of flow across • Limited availability and high cost of land on
facilities on the south side of the Missouri the Missouri River south side of river
River, at or near the Walnut Pwnp Station, • Greater impact from potential odor releases
and continuing to use the existing sludge • Higher operating and maintenance costs for
processing facilities on the north side of facilities split between south and north side
the river of river
Locating the wastewater treatment • Minimizes operating & • Higher O&M costs for pwnping of all
facilities on the north side of the Missouri maintenance costs due to co-located wastewater (dry and wet weather) flows i
River, adjacent to the existing sludge wastewater and sludge processing across the Missouri River I
processing facilities at the Water Pollution facilities
Control Facility.
Locating the wastewater treatment • Situates the wastewater treatment • Higher operating and maintenance costs for
facilities on the north side of the river, at a facilities farthest from populated non-adjacent wastewater and sludge
location distant from the existing sludge areas processing facilities
processing facilities at the Water Pollution • Higher O&M costs for pwnping all
Control Facility. wastewater (dry and wet weather) flows
across the Missouri River plus the additional
distance down-river to the new plant
• Higher O&M costs for pwnping sludge and
filtrate streams between facilities
-------·--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based on a review of the advantages and disadvantages of the various options, it appears that the
best option, at least for dry weather flows, is to locate the wastewater treatment facilities on the
north side of the Missouri River, adjacent to the existing sludge processing facilities at the Water
Pollution Control Plant. The disadvantages associated with the other location options outweigh
the benefits of these alternatives.
4.5 Alternatives
In order to meet the secondary effluent limitations identified in Section 4.3, several biological
treatment alternatives were evaluated including activated sludge processes (conventional
continuous-flow versus sequencing batch reactors) and aerobic attached-growth processes
(trickling filters). Because of the extreme difference between the average dry weather flow and
peak wet weather flow, a ballasted coagulation treatment system was also evaluated for treatment
of wet weather flows that exceed the practical capacity of biological treatment systems.
4.5.1 Activated Sludge Options
Two different types of suspended growth activated sludge systems were considered for the new
wastewater treatment facilities:
• A standard continuous-flow activated sludge system consisting of aeration
tanks operating at an F:M ratio of 0.2 lb BODs/dayllb ML VSS, and secondary
clarifiers loaded at a peak rate of 1 ,200 gpdlttl.
• A sequencing batch reactor plant consisting of parallel batch reactors
operating at an F:M ratio of 0.1 lb BODs/day!lb ML VSS.
One of the major concerns with any suspended growth system is the ability of the system to
withstand peak hydraulic flows without washing substantial portions of the active biomass out of
the system. To be able to retain biomass in the treatment system at peak wet weather flows of
60 mgd, a continuous flow-through activated sludge system would need to be eqwpped with .
significantly over-sized final clarifiers. A sequencing batch reactor plant, on the other hand,
would simply revert to shorter cycle times or parallel reactor operation under peak flow
conditions, and thus would be able to safely retain biomass in the reactors.
A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment system was chosen over conventional flow-through
activated sludge systems for further evaluation, because the SBR system would have lower
capital costs, a smaller plant footprint, and a higher degree of operational flexibility. Footprint
requirements and capital costs are less for the SBR system because both aeration and settling are
performed within a single reactor tank whereas separate tankage is required for conventional
continuous flow-through systems. Additionally, the SBR tankage does not need to be oversized
to the same degree as conventional final clarifiers would be to handle peak wet weather flows.
The SBR treatment system is operationally more flexible, and more resistant to shock loadings
than are conventional continuous flow systems.
A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a fill and draw activated sludge treatment system, and as
such is quite capable of treating the municipal and light industrial wastewater streams. The
processes involved in an SBR system are identical to a conventional continuous-flow activated
sludge system with the exception that all processes are carried out sequentially in the same
reactor tank. Since the SBR operates on the fill and draw principle, two or more reactor tanks
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
are usually employed so that one tank receives influent wastewater while the other tank(s) are
carrying out the treatment cycle.
An SBR system incorporates five major treatment steps, which are carried out in sequence as
follows:
• FILL
• REACT (Aeration)
• SETTLE (Sedimentation/Clarification)
• DRAW (Decant)
• IDLE (Sludge Wasting)
During the FILL step, raw wastewater is introduced to the reactor tank. Since the reactor tank
acts as an equalization basin during the FILL step, it can tolerate greater peak flows and/or shock
loadings of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) without degradation of effluent quality.
During the REACT step, mixing and aeration of the reactor tank contents occur to achieve the
treatment objectives. Levels of treatment can be optimized by varying the duration and
dissolved oxygen concentration of the reactor tank during this step. During the SETTLE step,
solids separation occurs to provide a clarified supernatant for effluent discharge. Since this step
occurs under nearly ideal quiescent conditions (no water inflow or outflow) the solids separation
is very good. During the DRAW step, treated clarified water is removed from the reactor tank
by a decant mechanism (gravity flow or by pumping). The IDLE step is the time between
treatment cycles in the reactor tank. During this step, accumulated excess sludge is wasted.
Waste sludge would be treated by the existing sludge treatment facilities.
One of the key advantages of the SBR treatment option is the system flexibility over the plant
life cycle. Precise control of the volume of wastewater and the time associated with each of the
treatment steps means that that the system can be operated to achieve a variety of treatment
objectives. Additionally, nitrification, denitrification, and phosphorous removal are ·achievable
with an SBR system without chemical addition. This is important for being able to handle
possible future changes in regulatory effluent discharge limits, and to handle wastewaters from
possible future industrial clients seeking to develop in the Jefferson City area.
Some additional advantages of an SBR treatment system are the flow and waste loading
equalization inherent in the fill and draw treatment cycle. This also assures that hydraulic surges
will not result in ''washout" of the reactor mixed liquor solids. Recycle of the mixed liquor
activated sludge is not required as in conventional continuous flow activated sludge systems
since it always remains in the reactor tank. Highly efficient clarification is achievable under the
almost quiescent settling conditions. Filamentous growth can be easily controlled by varying the
operating strategies during the FILL step. Lastly, objectionable odors are not typically a problem
with activated sludge treatment processes.
Some disadvantages of an SBR treatment system are the increased complexity and sophistication
of the control systems required to meet the treatment objectives under various influent
conditions. Additionally, higher power consumption is associated with the SBR treatment
process (as with any activated sludge treatment process), in comparison to trickling filters.
4-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.5.2 Trickling Filtration
Aerobic attached-growth treatment processes (trickling filters) were evaluated as a treatment
alternative because that is the current process being utilized at the City of Jefferson WPCF. The
process is familiar to the current plant operations staff, and this treatment alternative would
involve expansion of existing facilities.
The trickling filter process is preceded by primary clarification to remove suspended solids and
organic matter that can easily be removed by the sedimentation process. The trickling filters
consist of beds of highly permeable plastic media to which microorganisms are attached. The
influent wastewater is distributed over the top of the media by a rotary distributor. The
wastewater percolates through the media, where the microorganisms degrade the organic
material present in the wastewater. During the treatment process, a biological film or slime layer
builds on the filter media as the organic material is degraded. As the biological film layer builds
in thickness, it reaches a point where it can no longer adhere to the media surface, and sloughs
off into the filter underdrain system. A portion of the water collected in the underdrain system
may be recycled to the trickling filters to dilute the strength of the influent wastewater, and to
maintain the biological film layer in a moist condition. The trickling filters are followed by
secondary clarification to remove the suspended solids and biological film sloughed off of the
filter media.
Maintaining the correct hydraulic loading rate for the trickling filters is essential to good
operating performance. Too low a rate will result in excess biomass accumulation within the
trickling filter and subsequent odor problems. Too high a rate can damage the media, reduce
performance, and cause too much biomass to slough off.
Advantages of the trickling filter treatment process are its operational simplicity and the
familiarity of the process to the current plant operating staff. Under most conditions, the power
costs associated with a secondary treatment trickling filter process will be considerably lower
than those associated with an activated sludge process.
One disadvantage of the trickling filter process is that the level of treatment achievable is not as
good as that from an activated sludge process. Additionally, the trickling filter process is
susceptible to poor eftluent quality due to either hydraulic or organic shock loadings. Another
key disadvantage to the trickling filter process is that under certain operating conditions,
noticeable odors emanating from the process will have to be controlled. Trickling filters
characteristically emit from one-third to two-thirds of any dissolved gaseous odors (e.g.,
hydrogen sulfide) present in the feed to the filters. In addition, complex reduced sulfur
compounds such as mercaptans are formed within the biomass of even well-operated trickling
filters . A fraction of these odors also escape as the filters are ventilated.
4.5.3 Ballasted Coagulation
A ballasted coagulation treatment technology was evaluated as a treatment alternative for the
peak wet weather flows. Ballasted coagulation is a high efficiency clarification system using
microsand-enhanced flocculation and settling for removal of influent suspended solids. The
microsand serves as a flocculent aid and a ballasting agent allowing overflow rates as high as 80
gpm!ttl in wastewater treatment applications. An eftluent quality of 45 mg/1 for BODs and TSS
4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
should be achievable for treated wet weather flows.
The process uses flash mixing with a chemical coagulant and the introduction of the microsand
in an injection tank. The wastewater then flows to a maturation tank where slow mixing aids in
the formation of floc particles. The final step is a Lamella plate clarifier where the suspended
solids are settled out. The settled sludge from the classifier is run through a hydrocyclone where
the microsand particles are separated for reuse in the treatment process. Waste sludge would be
forwarded to the existing sludge handling facilities.
Advantages of the ballasted coagulation technology over conventional clarifier systems are that
reduced capital costs and a significantly smaller facility footprint are possible due to the high
clarifier overflow rates achievable. Better treatment performance is also generally possible.
Disadvantages of the ballasted coagulation technology include high operating costs when the
system is in operation, due to high coagulant chemical consumption rates.
4.6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Evaluation of treatment alternatives for the Jefferson City Water Pollution Control Facility is
complicated by two factors:
• First, the primary collection point and pump station for the facility is located
on the south side of the Missouri River at the Walnut Street Pump Station,
while the existing wastewater and sludge treatment facilities are located on the
north side of the river.
• Second, the range of average dry weather flows to peak wet weather flows
requiring treatment is large.
These factors impact the equipment sizing and location of the proposed treatment alte~atives.
Several components of the treatment alternatives for the City of Jefferson Water Pollution
Control Facility are common to all of the alternatives. These include a new plant headworks
located on the north side of the Missouri River. The age and condition of the existing plant
headworks as well as the design capacity and current operational problems associated with the
existing headworks will require it to be replaced. The new -plant head works will consist of
screening of the influent wastewater and grit removal, and will be sized to accommodate the
influent flow rate required for each of the alternatives. Portions of the head works will be located
indoors to facilitate winter operation and odor control.
A new 60 mgd Walnut Street Pump Station, located on the south side of the Missouri River, is
common to all of the treatment alternatives. Modeling of the City of Jefferson sewer system
provided results indicating a peak wet weather flow of 60 mgd requiring treatment. The existing
Walnut Street Pump Station has mechanically and electrically reached the end of its useful life,
and an evaluation concluded that the existing station could not be expanded beyond a 40 mgd
pumping rate. Additional upgrades would be required to bring the existing facility into
compliance with current MoDNR regulations regarding elimination of the existing bypass
structure, providing 100 year flood protection, and provisions for emergency operation (power
generation). The evaluation concluded that it would be more beneficial to provide a new facility
capable of handling the full 60 mgd flow rather than upgrading the existing facility to its
4-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
maximum capacity and providing a supplemental pump station to handle the peak flows. To
minimize pump station footprint and capital costs, a submersible pump station designed to
handle the peak wet weather flows is included for each of the alternatives.
The need for installation of a new 30-inch diameter force main under the Missouri River was
evaluated for each of the alternatives. The capacity of the existing force main system is half of
that required for the peak wet weather flow. Some of the treatment alternatives considered
placing a wet weather treatment process on the south side of the river to eliminate the need for a
second wastewater force main. This approach leads to other items which must be included in the
overall evaluation including the need for redundancy in the force main system, operation and
maintenance of two separate treatment facilities, land availability for an additional treatment
system located on the south side, and public perception of a treatment facility in that location.
A new Office/ Administration building located at the treatment plant is included for all of the
treatment alternatives. The size and functionality of the existing administration building is
insufficient for long-term operation of the plant. Additionally, the Missouri River Levee System
Unit L142 proposed by the Corps of Engineers would eliminate access to the treatment plant and
the existing administration building from Mokane Road, requiring the new plant access to be
located on the north side of the existing facility.
The following treatment alternatives incorporate various combinations of the aforementioned
treatment processes and system components to identify the best treatment option for the present
and future needs of City of Jefferson.
4.6.1 Alternative No.1
Alternative No. 1 consists of expanding the existing trickling filter plant to handle the future
11 mgd dry weather flow. This expanded facility would also handle peak hourly flows of up to
25 mgd, the practical upper limit for the secondary treatment trickling filters. Wet weather flows
in excess of the 25 mgd peak capacity would be treated in a new ballasted coagulation system
located on the south side of the Missouri River. Figure 4-1 presents a schematic of this
alternative.
The primary components for this alternative include a new 60 mgd Walnut Street Pump Station
and a new 35 mgd peak wet weather flow treatment system located on the south side of the
Missouri River. Upgrades required for the existing wastewater treatment plant located on the
north side of the Missouri River to increase capacity to 11 mgd average flow and 25 mgd peak
flow include a new 25 mgd plant headworks, one new 65-foot diameter trickling filter tower, and
two new 90-foot diameter final clarifiers. The two existing trickling filters would be
rehabilitated with new media and rotary distributors. Both the old and new trickling filters
would be equipped with covers and odor control equipment. Various repairs and modifications
to the remaining facilities would be included in the project to extend the useful life of the facility
for the planning period.
Estimated capital improvement costs total $18,860,000 and the estimated annual operation and
maintenance costs total $1 ,31 5,994 per year for this treatment alternative. The developed cost
4-8
---~·--------------
.____.PLANT
WATER
HIGH WATER
PUMP STATION
(NEW PUMPS) EXISTING PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
----------------------·--
MISSOURI
RIVER
NEW
HEADWORKS
-~
--------~----------__ _! _________ _
35MGD
PEAK' I I
NEW WET-WEATHER
FLOW TREATMENT
NEW I MODIFIED
WALNUT PUMP
STATION
FIGURE4-1
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
ONE NEW 65-FT+
TRICKLING FILTER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
estimates are included in the Appendix. A lifecycle cost comparison of all of the alternatives is
included in Section 4.7.
Advantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Meets current effluent discharge requirements.
• Has the lowest capital cost (excluding land acquisition).
• Has the lowest annual operation and maintenance cost.
• Utilizes most of the existing structures at the WPCF.
• The process is simple to operate, and is familiar to the operating staff.
Disadvantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Physical separation of the two main treatment processes.
• Additional costs will be incurred for land acquisition and development on the
south side of the river.
• Public resistance to treatment facilities being located on the south side of the
river.
• Lack of a redundant river crossing force main.
• High odor potential due to the operational reliability of odor control
equipment associated with the trickling filter towers.
• The process does not have the flexibility to meet possible future regulatory
discharge limits for nutrient removal or future industrial waste streams.
4.6.2 Alternative No.2
Alternative No. 2 is essentially the same as Alternative No. 1, except that the peak wet weather
flow treatment system has been moved to the north side of the Missouri River at the existing
treatment plant facility. Refer to Figure 4-2 for a schematic of Alternative No.2.
Additional components required for this alternative include providing a second 30-inch diameter
force main under the river, a new larger headworks, and a new high water pump station. These
additional components are required for conveying and treating the entire peak flow capacity of
60 mgd on the north side of the Missouri River.
Estimated capital improvement costs total $22,980,000 and the estimated annual operations and
maintenance costs total $1,318,970 per year for this treatment alternative. The developed cost
estimates are included in the Appendix. A lifecycle cost comparison of all of the alternatives is
included at the end of this Section.
4-10
~--------------------
NEW SPLITTER BOX AND
WET-WEATHER FLOW
TREATMENT
1.. I 35MGD
PEAK
PLANT
WATER
NEW HIGH
WATER PUMP
STATION EXISTING PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
MISSOURI
RIVER
NEW
HEADWORKS
ADDITIONAL
FORCE MAIN ---
---
NEW I MODIFIED
WALNUT PUMP
STATION
SETIELD &:WAGE
PUMP STATION
(NEW PUMPS)
!... ...................................................................................................................................... ..1
FIGURE 4-2
ALTERNATIVE NO.2
RECYCLE LINE
ONE NEW 65-FT+
TRICKLING FILTER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Advantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Meets current effluent discharge requirements.
• Centralizes the location of the treatment processes at the existing Water
Pollution Control Facility.
• Has a low annual operation and maintenance cost.
• Utilizes most of the existing structures at the WPCF.
• The process is simple to operate, and is familiar to the operating staff.
• Provides for a redundant river crossing force main.
Disadvantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Has the highest capital improvement cost.
• High odor potential due to the operational reliability of odor control
equipment associated with the trickling filter towers.
• The process does not have the flexibility to meet possible future regulatory
discharge limits for nutrient removal or future industrial waste streams.
4.6.3 Alternative No.3
Alternative No. 3 consists of replacing the existing wastewater treatment facilities with a new
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) plant designed for the 11 mgd average flow rate and a 30 mgd
peak flow rate. Sizing of the SBR plant in this alternative was to match the hydraulic capacity of
the existing 30-inch diameter force main under the river. An additional wet weather treatment
system, located on the south side of the Missouri River, and utilizing ballasted coagulation
treatment technology, is required to handle the remaining peak flows in excess of the 30 mgd.
Figure 4-3 provides a diagram of the proposed treatment alternative. ·
The primary components for Alternative No. 3 include a new 60 mgd Walnut Street Pump
Station and a new 30 mgd peak wet weather flow treatment system located on the south side of
the Missouri River. The new 30 mgd treatment facility on the north side of the river would
include a new plant headworks, four separate sequencing batch reactor basins, and new larger
pumps in the existing high water pump station.
Estimated capital improvement costs total $22,560,000 and the estimated annual operations and
maintenance costs total $1,395,314 per year for this treatment alternative. The developed cost
estimates are included in the Appendix. A lifecycle cost comparison of all of the alternatives is
included in Section 4.7.
Advantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Low odor potential associated with the activated sludge treatment process.
• Meets current effluent discharge requirements and has the potential to meet
possible future regulatory discharge limits for nutrient removal or future
industrial waste streams.
• Incorporates all new treatment facilities.
4-12
-------------------------
~·
11 MGDAVG. I --
'" 30 MGD PEAK
___.PLANT '
WATER
-HIGH WATER
PUMP STATION
(NEW PUMPS) NEW -HEADWORKS
----~-----=--.. --
MISSOURI
RIVER
,----~ ~
~ --_;; --~
I
NEW I MODIFIED ... WALNUT PUMP
30MGD STATION
PEAK • ~
t
FLOW TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE NO.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
Disadvantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Physical separation of the two main treatment processes.
• Additional costs will be incurred for land acquisition and development on the
south side of the river.
• Public resistance to treatment facilities being located on the south side of the
river.
• Has a high capital improvement cost.
• Has the highest annual operation and maintenance cost.
• Lacks a redundant river crossing force main.
• Abandons the existing treatment facility structures.
• New treatment processes to learn with the SBR plant and the wet weather
ballasted coagulation facility.
4.6.4 Alternative No. 4
Alternative No. 4 consists of replacing the existing treatment plant facility with a new
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) plant designed for the 11 mgd average flow and 30 mgd peak
flow. The existing primary and secondary clarifiers would be reconfigured to provide primary
clarification for wet weather flows in excess of 30 mgd. Figure 4-4 provides a diagram of the
proposed treatment alternative.
Components required for this alternative include providing a new 60 mgd Walnut Street Pump
Station and a second 30-inch diameter force main under the river, a new 60 mgd headworks and
splitter box, four separate sequencing batch reactor basins, and a new high water pump station.
Estimated capital improvement costs total $22,650,000 and the estimated annual operations and
maintenance costs total $1,354,848 per year for this treatment alternative. The developed cost
estimates are included in the Appendix. A lifecycle cost comparison of all of the alternatives is
included in Section 4.7.
Advantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Centralizes the location of the treatment processes at the existing Water
Pollution Control Facility.
• Low odor potential associated with the activated sludge treatment process.
• Meets current effluent discharge requirements and has the potential to meet
possible future regulatory discharge limits for nutrient removal or future
industrial waste streams.
• Provides for a redundant river crossing force main.
• Utilizes existing clarifier structures.
4-14
-------------------
PLANT
WATER
NEW HIGH
WATER PUMP
STATION
EXISTING
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
11 MGDAVG.
30MGDPEAK
----------MISSOURI
RIVER --· ---
NEW
HEADWORKS
ADDITIONAL
FORCE MAIN
NEW I MODIFIED
WALNUT PUMP
STATION
FIGURE4-4
AL TERNATIVE NO.4
NEW SEQUENCING
BATCH REACTOR
PLANT
EXISTING
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Disadvantages of this treatment alternative are:
4.6.5
• Has a high capital improvement cost.
• Has a high annual operation and maintenance cost.
• Marginal ability of the existing clarifiers to meet effluent discharge limitations
for the maximum wet weather flows.
• Odor potential for existing clarifiers if not drained and properly maintained
after wet weather treatment.
• Reliability and maintenance of the existing clarifiers being used for periodic
wet weather flow events.
• New treatment process to learn with the SBR plant.
Alternative No.5
Alternative No. 5 consists of replacing the existing treatment plant facility with a new
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) plant designed for the 11 mgd average flow and 60 mgd peak
wet weather flow. The existing wastewater treatment facilities would be abandoned.
Components required for this alternative include a new 60 mgd Walnut Street Pump Station, a
second 30-inch diameter force main under the river, a new 60 mgd headworks and splitter box,
four separate sequencing batch reactor basins, and a new high water pump station. Figure 4-5
provides a diagram of the proposed treatment alternative.
Estimated capital improvement costs total $22,71 0,000 and the estimated annual operations and
maintenance costs total $1,320,106 per year for this treatment alternative. The developed cost
estimates are included in the Appendix. A lifecycle cost comparison of all of the alternatives is
included in Section 4.7.
Advantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Centralizes the location of the treatment processes at the existing Water
Pollution Control Facility.
• Utilizes a single treatment process for all flows.
• Low odor potential associated with the activated sludge treatment process.
• Meets current effluent discharge requirements and has the potential to meet
possible future regulatory discharge limits for nutrient removal or future
industrial waste streams.
• Provides for a redundant river crossing force main.
• Relatively low operation and maintenance cost.
Disadvantages of this treatment alternative are:
• Has a high capital improvement cost.
• New treatment process to learn with the SBR plant.
4-16
~----------~-------
__,..,
11 MGDAVG.
I
60MGDPEAK
I
.,... PLANT
WATER -,_
NEW HIGH
WATER PUMP NEW
STATION HEADWORKS
ADDITIONAL
FORCE MAIN
-~
MISSOURI
RIVER
--
NEW I MODIFIED
WALNUT PUMP
STATION
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.6.6 Alternative No. 6
Alternative No. 6 is the No-Action alternative which would continue the current practice of
bypassing the peak wet weather flows in excess of the current treatment plant capacity directly to
the Missouri River or tributary streams, in violation of the SSO control policy.
Reliability of the No-Action alternative is poor. The evaluation of the existing treatment
facilities (See Section 3) indicates that many treatment components are approaching the end of
their useful service life. Repair and/or replacement of these components would be required even
to maintain the current level of treatment at the facility.
Environmental impacts from the No-Action alternative include untreated SSO discharges to the
Missouri River and tributary streams due to the inability of the existing collection system, pump
station, and treatment facility to handle peak wet weather flows in excess of 18 mgd.
Additionally, the frequent odor problems associated with the existing trickling filters would not
be addressed under the No-Action alternative.
4. 7 Selected Alternative and Site
The alternatives presented above were evaluated to determine which alternative best meets the
needs of the City during the 20 year planning period while also providing flexibility to respond
to future growth and or regulatory requirements. Preliminary design criteria have been
developed for the selected alternative. These will be the basis for the final design documents that
will be developed in the next phase of the project.
4.7.1 Comparison of Alternatives
The alternatives have been evaluated to determine which alternative best meets the needs of the
City. The key factors in the evaluation are presented in Table 4-2. The first part of the table
presents estimated capital and operating costs. These are presented in year 2000 dollars and also
as present worth assuming a 20 year period and 5.5% interest. The present worth values make it
possible to compare the costs on a life cycle basis.
The second part of the table ranks the impact of the alternatives in several areas that are of
interest to the public, regulatory agencies and the plant staff. Taking all of the impact factors
into account, Alternative 5 appears to best meet the needs of the interested parties.
Based on the evaluation, Alternative 5, a new SBR system capable of treating both dry and wet
weather flows in a single system, is the selected alternative. The basis for that selection is
discussed below. The no action alternative, Alternative 6, is not an acceptable alternative and is
not further discussed. No action is eliminated because the current treatment system is at capacity
and can not accept future dry weather flows, periodic treatment plant odors must be eliminated
and action must be taken to deal with significant wet weather overflows from the collection
system.
4-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.7.1.1 Alternative Summary
Alternative 1
• 25 mgd peak upgraded trickling filter system
• 35 mgd peak wet weather treatment at Walnut Pump Station
Alternative 2
• 25 mgd peak upgraded trickling filter system
• 35 mgd peak wet weather treatment at WPCF site
• New 30-inch force main
Alternative 3
• 30 mgd peak SBR
• 30 mgd wet weather treatment Walnut Pump Station
Alternative 4
• 30 mgd peak SBR
• 30 mgd wet weather treatment using existing clarifiers
• New 30-inch force main
Alternative 5
• 60 mgd peak SBR
• New 30-inch force main
4-19
-------------------
COST SUMMARY*
Type of Cost
Capital Cost
Annual O&M Cost
Present Worth of O&M Costs
Total Present Worth
EVALUATION RANKING**
Type of Impact
Capital Cost
O&MCost
Odor Potential
River Crossing Redundancy
Treatment Flexibility
Environmental Impact
Public Acceptance
Total
• Present Worth based on:
n = 20 years
i = 5.5%
•• Ranking
1 = Most Favorable
5 = Least Favorable
TABLE4-2
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
$ 18,860,000 $ 22,980,000 $ 22,560,000 $ 22,650,000
$ 1,315,994 $ 1,318,970 $ 1,395,314 $ 1,354,848
$ 15,726,637 $ 15,762,191 $ 16,674,532 $ 16,190,950
$ 34,586,637 $ 38,742,191 $ 39,234,532 $ 38,840,950
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
2 5 5 5
2 2 3 3
5 4 3 2
2 1 2 1
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
3 3 3 3
24 23 22 18
4-20
Alternative 5 Alternative 6
$ 22,710,000 $ -
$ 1,320,106 $ 1,218,850
$ 15,775,772 $ 14,565,724
$ 38,485,772 $ 14,565,724
Alternative 5 Alternative 6
5 1
2 1
1 5
1 2
1 5
1 5
3 5
14 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.7.1.2 Capital Cost
The $18.9 million capital cost for Alternative 1 is significantly less than the other alternatives
which essentially all have the same capital cost of about $22.7 million. $2.3 million of the $3.8
million difference is in the new 30-inch force main provided under alternatives 2,4, and 5. Land
costs are not included in ·the alternatives cost estimates because significant negotiations will be
required to determine those costs. However, land costs and associated mitigation could also
narrow the difference with Alternative 1 by another $500,000 to $1 million. The only land
available near the Walnut Street Pump Station (the cost effective location for south of the river
treatment because collection sewers converge at this point and the existing bypass line can be
used for discharge to the river) is State of Missouri parking area. Parking space is a valuable
commodity and it is anticipated that the State will require equivalent spaces be provided. A
parking garage may be the only way to mitigate the lost spaces.
4.7.1.3 Operation & Maintenance Cost
Operation and maintenance costs are essentially the same for all five alternatives. The
alternatives that include sequencing batch reactors have higher power costs, due to aeration, than
the alternatives that include trickling filtration. The alternatives that include sequencing batch
reactors have lower sludge processing costs, because the SBR process generates less sludge than
trickling filter alternatives. The alternatives that include ballasted coagulation have significant
chemical and manpower costs associated with their operation. Overall, the cost factors for the
various alternatives offset each other, resulting in annual operating & maintenance costs that
vary by only a few percent between the five alternatives.
4.7.1.4 Odor Potential
Aside from the need to increase capacity to meet future flow requirements, odor is. the major
driver for treatment plant improvements. When trickling filter odors combine with an inversion
or light northerly winds, strong odors are apparent in many areas of the City. Trickling filters
generate odors in two different ways. By design, trickling filters expose large surface areas of
wastewater to the air as the flow is distributed over the filter media Within the two filters at the
existing plant, there are over 4 million square feet of filter media surface area. Any dissolved
odorous gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, will have an opportunity to escape from the wastewater
to the atmosphere as the wastewater trickles over the media. Typically, from one-third to two-
thirds of the dissolved hydrogen sulfide will be stripped and exit the filters as odors.
The second way in which odors are generated in a trickling filter is that, over time, excess
biomass can build up on the media surface. While the outer surface of the biomass is in an
aerobic state, the inner layers of a thick biomass will be under anaerobic conditions. Hydrogen
sulfide and more complex reduced sulfur compounds, such as methyl mercaptan and dimethyl
sulfide, are formed under such conditions. These odorous compounds may escape the biomass
gradually, but more typically, they are released in larger quantities when the excess biomass is
sloughed off. It is these sloughing episodes that cause the periodic intense odors experienced at
the present facility.
Other potential sources of odor include the plant headworks, primary clarifiers, activated sludge
basins, secondary clarifiers, sludge storage and dewatering facilities, and any peak wet-weather
4-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
flow treatment units. Based on observations of the existing treatment facilities, and typical odor
emissions from similar treatment facilities, the potential odor sources included in the five
treatment alternatives were ranked in order, from highest to lowest potential to emit odors. The
ranking is as follows:
• trickling filters
• sludge storage/dewatering
• plant headworks
• primary clarifiers
• peak wet-weather flow treatment units
• aeration basins
• secondary clarifiers
Based on this ranking of odor sources, and also taking into consideration the location of the
treatment units relative to the city, the five treatment alternatives are ranked as follows in terms
of odor generation potential:
4.7.1.5
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
River Crossing Redundancy
highest odor release potential
lowest odor release potential
Over 90 percent of the City of Jefferson wastewater is collected on the south side of the Missouri
River and must be pumped to the north side. There must always be a means to convey the
wastewater under the river or it will be discharged untreated. Currently there are two force
mains under the river. One of two 24-inch force mains originally installed in 1968 remains. The
condition of this main is precarious. During the 1993 flood the high river velocity exposed and
severely relocated the mains from their original crossing coordinates. One of the mains failed.
Soundings after the flood showed that portions of the remaining main were suspended in the
river. The remaining force main may fail at any time. A new 30-inch main was installed in
1995. This main is expected to be in good condition. At reasonable wastewater flow velocities
this main has a capacity of 30 mgd.
A second 30-inch force main will be constructed with Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. The second force
main will provide redundancy should some type of failure or blockage occurs with the existing
30-inch force main. Redundancy is needed because of the long time period (about a year) that
will be required to replace the 30-inch force main should some type of major failure occur. It
would not be tolerable to allow wastewater to be discharged untreated for an extended period.
4-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. 7 .1.6 Treatment Flexibility
The trickling filter system currently providing treatment at the WPCF and the SBR systems
considered in Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 provide significantly different degrees of flexibility to deal
with future changes in raw wastewater loading and/or eftluent requirements. Typically
secondary treatment eftluent is required to meet monthly limits of 30 mg/1 for BOD and
suspended solids. This level of treatment can not be achieved with trickling filters. Trickling
filter have been used extensively in the past but now are allowed only on large rivers where
current water quality criteria still allow the lower degree of treatment. For the existing WPCF
system, the monthly average BOD and suspended solids limit is 45 mg/1. For the upgraded
system using Alternatives 1 and 2, the monthly average limits would be 40 mg/1 BOD and
suspended solids. Another treatment system would have to be added (tertiary treatment) should
it ever be required to meet lower BOD or suspended solids limits or to remove nutrients such as
phosphorus or nitrogen.
The sequencing batch reactor system offers a great deal of flexibility in dealing with present and
future treatment needs. By modifying operating cycles and mixed liquor criteria, significant
additional waste loads can be handled. With Alternative 5, the tankage will be sufficiently large
so as to accommodate dry and wet weather flows in the same system by varying operating
cycles. The tanks will be in place to handle new high-BOD industrial sources should such
facilities wish to relocate in the City of Jefferson. The SBR system can also be operated to
enhance phosphorus and nitrogen removal. While requirements to reduce nutrients are not likely
in the next few years, there is increasing concern about nutrient induced dead zones in the
Mississippi River delta which may at some point cause limits to be imposed on upstream
discharges.
Alternative 5 allows the most flexibility because of the large tank volume and ability to treat both
dry and wet weather flows in the same system. Alternatives 3 and 4 allow SBR flexibility but
only for a portion of the flow. The trickling filter alternatives provide only BOD and suspended
solids removal to 40 mg/1.
Placing all of the treatment systems at the same location provides flexibility in utilizing operating
staff and makes operation more efficient. Therefore Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 receive higher
ratings for this aspect of flexibility than Alternatives 1 and 3.
4.7.1.7 Environmental Impact
Environmental impacts relate to the removal of pollutants, affects of immediate and long term
construction impacts on plants and wildlife and esthetic factors such as impact on the area
around the treatment system and historic preservation issues. The SBR alternatives provide a
higher degree of treatment and are therefore more environment friendly. Construction impacts
will be minor with any of the alternatives.
Alternative 5 disturbs more land adjacent to the existing WPCF but avoids construction of wet
weather treatment on the south side of the river. A voiding a wet weather treatment system in
the vicinity of the Walnut Street Pump Station avoids the esthetic issues associated with a major
wastewater treatment system in the vicinity of the State Capitol Building.
4-23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 5 has the most favorable environmental impact because 30 mg/1 BOD and suspended
solids effluent is provided for both wet and dry weather flows and because there is no wet
weather treatment system near the capital building. Alternative 2 provides 30 mg/1 BOD and
suspended solids for some of the wet weather flow and no wet weather treatment near the capital
building. Alternative 3 provides the 30 mg/1 treatment level but also includes wet weather
treatment near the Walnut Street Pump Station. Alternative 4 avoids treatment near Walnut
Street but may have difficulty meeting 45 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids effluent quality for
storm flows. Alternative 1 provides the lower degree of treatment and also would have wet
weather treatment near the Walnut Street Pump Station.
4.7.1.8 Public Acceptance
Public acceptance of the Water Pollution Control Facility improvements is crucial to the
advancement of the project to the final design and construction phases. The public will register
that acceptance in a bond issue vote. Citizens are expected to have three major concerns: impact
of the new facilities on user charges, correction of odor problems that have plagued the City for
years and concern about a major wastewater treatment facility in the downtown area. Cost
differences, to a great extent, depend on the need for a second force main under the Missouri
River. The impact of this cost difference is reduced by the high cost of obtaining and mitigating
land for a wet weather treatment system (see Capital Cost above). Odor control will be provided
with all of the alternatives but that control will be most positive with the SBR systenis, especially
with Alternative 5 which treats all flows in the SBR. Odor control will be somewhat less
positive with the non-SBR (trickling filter and wet weather treatment) systems. Wet weather
treatment in the downtown area is considered potentially more troublesome than at the WPCF
site. The public is not expected to favor a major wet-weather treatment system in the downtown
area. Weighing public acceptance of lower cost with the desire for the most positive odor
control and avoiding treatment downtown, all of the alternatives have been given a neutral
ranking of 3 for public acceptance. ·
4.7.2 Selected Alternative
With the exception of cost, Alternative 5 showed a ranking equal to or better than the ranking for
the other alternatives. Alternative 5 has a capital cost significantly higher than the lowest cost
alternative, Alternative 1. Operating costs for all the alternatives are essentially the same.
Alternative 5 has the most positive impact on odor control, provides the redundancy of a second
river crossing, provides flexibility to handle a wide range of future wastewater loading scenarios
and/or effluent requirements and provides the most favorable environmental impact. The public
is expected to offset the higher cost of Alternative 5 with positive odor control and avoidance of
treatment in downtown Jefferson City. Alternative 5 is therefore the selected plan to be further
developed with preliminary design.
4.7.3 Preliminary Design Selected Plan
Alternative 5, a new Sequencing Batch Reactor plant designed for 11 mgd average flow and 60
mgd peak wet weather flow best meets the needs of the City of Jefferson for the 20 year planning
period and potentially beyond. SBR technology allows wet and dry weather flows to be treated
in the same system, eliminating the need for a separate wet-weather treatment system using
different technology and at a different location. The large volume of the system and the
programmable logic controller allow the flexibility to optimize treatment for a wide range of
4-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
influent conditions and/or effluent requirements. The system can adjust to future industrial or
regulatory requirements without significant additional capital facilities.
4.7.3.1 Plant Layout
The SBR system and new headworks will essentially replace the existing trickling filter system.
So that the existing system can remain in operation as the new facilities are being constructed,
the new headworks, screening, grit removal and SBR tanks will be constructed east of the
existing facilities. The levee will pass very near the current entrance to the WPCF and prevent
entry to the plant from Mokane Road. As part of the construction and in preparation for the new
levee, the entrance to the WPCF will be moved to the north side of the plant property and a new
administration building constructed near what is now the north west primary clarifier. The
existing administration building will remain in service, housing sludge dewatering, maintenance,
and facilities for the plant staff.
Unneeded facilities such as the trickling filter towers and current headworks will be demolished.
The recently upgraded sludge handling system has capacity for the increased loading from the
new SBR system and will not be modified. The current secondary treatment area will become a
landscaped area centered around the primary and secondary clarifier structures. The clarifiers
will be partially filled to serve as ponds or fountains. The details of the landscaping will be
determined during final design. Several possibilities will be considered from a conventional park
like setting to perhaps plantings of native grasses. The new administration building will
overlook the landscaped area.
Figure 4-6 illustrates the preliminary layout of the WPCF as it would appear after the
modifications have been completed.
4.7.3.2 Walnut Street Pump Station
It is not cost effective to upgrade the current Walnut Street Pump Station to handle the 60 mgd
design flow. A new pump station will be constructed near the existing station. The exact site
has not been determined pending additional design analysis and negotiations on purchase of the
needed additional property. Figure 4-7 illustrates the location of the current pump station and
two potential locations for the new lift station. The foot print of the new 60 mgd pump station
will not be significantly larger than for the current pump station.
4-25
_CJ ________________ _
...
~
N
RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
NEW ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
BLDG. RESTRICTION LINE
-4-o,o. ~o~.
'"'-11(-
<oc ~~O..Jt
0,{' (
~('(
.... ,~<
FERROUS
CHLORIDE TANK
BIOFILTER
. FIGURE 4-6
CITY OF JEFFERSON
WPCF 60 MGD PEAK FLOW SBR SYSTEM
{AL lERNA TIVE 5)
PREUMINARY LAYOUT
RUNWAY
PROPERTY LINE~
SCREENING/GRIT/ I
BLOWER BLDG.
----------1----
SBR
TANKS
I
I
I
NEW INFLUENT I
FORCE MAIN 1
I
-------
POTENTIAL NEW
PUMP STATION
-
LOCATIONS · "" ", ....!
W. HIGH ST.}
~
MISSOURI BLVD.
FIGURE 4-7
CITY OF JEFFERSON
--
MISSOURI RIVER
EXISTING 30" FORCE MAIN
EXISTING 24" FORCE MAIN
WALNUT STREET PUMP STATION SITE
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.7.3.3 Design Parameters
Additional preliminary design detail for the new 60 mgd peak flow SBR system is provided
below:
Walnut Street Pump Station
Wastewater will be pumped to the treatment facilities by a new submersible pump station located
near the existing Walnut Street Pump Station. The new station will have five 15-mgd pumps.
Two of the pumps will be equipped with variable speed drives; the other three units will operate
as constant speed pumps. A second 30-inch diameter force main will be added under the
Missouri River to the new plant headworks. This will provide redundancy to the existing 30-
inch force main for dry weather flow. Both 30-inch force mains are needed to convey the 60
mgd peak flow. The damaged 24-inch diameter main under the river will be retired.
Influent Screens
At the new treatment plant, raw wastewater will be passed through fine mechanical screens with
approximately 6-mm (~-inch) openings. Multiple screens, most likely three units, located in
parallel channels will be used. The screens will be sized to handle the peak flow with one screen
out of service. To save costs, reusing the existing Parkson Aquaguard screen will be considered.
Screenings will be washed, concentrated, and conveyed to a dumpster. The screens, washer and
dumpsters will be housed in a building to prevent cold-weather operating problems.
Grit Chambers
Screened wastewater will be degritted in two vortex-type grit chambers. Each chamber will be
capable of handling up to 30 mgd flow, providing complete redundancy under dry-weather flow
conditions. Normally, however, both units would be kept in operation at all times; both would
need to operate during peak wet-weather flows. Each unit will be capable of being isolated by
means of gates, and a bypass channel around the grit chambers will be provided. Collected grit
will be pumped from each chamber to a grit classifier/dewatering unit and dumpster. The grit
chambers will be located outdoors. Grit discharge lines will be heat traced and insulated as
required for cold-weather protection. The grit classifier/dewatering unit and dumpster will be
housed in a building to prevent cold weather operating problems.
Flow Monitoring
Influent flow will be measured with either a 60-inch or 72-inch Parshall flume, equipped with a
suitable level sensor. The flume will have the ability to accurately measure the plant influent
flow rate over the range of anticipated dry and wet weather flows.
4-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sequencing Batch Reactor
The preliminary-treated flow will then enter a channel that feeds four sequencing batch reactor
basins. The four basins will be rectangular in shape and constructed with common interior walls
to minimize costs. Each basin will have multiple inlet gates from the influent channel. These
multiple gates will provide for operational redundancy, better influent distribution, and the
ability to handle the wide range of flows occurring from dry to wet weather conditions. Fail-safe
methods, such as weir walls, will be employed in the design to prevent bypassing of untreated
flows in the event of mechanical or electrical failure of the gates. Consideration will also be
given, during the final design, to configuring one of the basins for use as an emergency
equalization basin, to be used in case of equipment or controls failure. Preliminary design
criteria for the SBR system are summarized below:
Design Parameter Value
daily average flow 11 mgd
maximum daily hydraulic flow 30mgd
peak hourly flow 60mgd
number of tanks 4
lbs oxygen supplied per lb BOD applied 1.25
lbs oxygen supplied per lb ammonia applied 4 .60
MLSS 3,000 mg/1
design F:M ratio 0.108 day"'
cycles per basin per day 6
hydraulic retention time at low water level 15.5 hours
lbs waste sludge per lb BODs applied 0.79
Aeration will be provided by diffused air, assisted if necessary by mechanical miXing. It is
anticipated that positive displacement blowers will be used for aeration due to the range in
operating pressures experienced with an SBR system. Blowers will be sized for a site elevation
of 550 feet above MSL, and a temperature range of 0 to 100° F .
High Water Lift Station
Decanted liquid from the reactor basins will enter a common discharge channel and flow to the
high-water lift station. Multiple decanters will be provided for redundancy and to handle the
wide range of design flows. A new high-water lift station will be constructed, or the existing
station will be modified with larger pumps and higher walls. The station will have the capacity
to lift the entire 60 mgd flow under 1 00-year river flood conditions. The existing 54-inch outfall
line will be used without modification.
Sludge Handling
Waste sludge will be pumped from the SBR units to the existing sludge thickeners. The existing
sludge handling system will handle the sludge generated by the SBR system without
modification except covers will be added to the thickeners for odor control. The existing odor
control biofilter has sufficient vacuum and volume capacity to handle the thickeners.
Supernatant from the thickeners as well as filtrate from the belt filter presses will be pumped,
via a new pump station, back to the headworks downstream of the Parshall flume.
4-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Administration Building
The existing administration building was built to accommodate the original primary treatment
plant. Since that time secondary treatment has been added and the volume of wastewater treated
has increased significantly. Additional building space is needed to handle increased staff and
operating needs. A larger laboratory, control room and lead operators office are needed. Because
access to the existing administration building from the south (the current main entrance) will be
eliminated by the proposed Corps of Engineers flood control levee, it is appropriate to construct
the additional office space on the north side of the WPCF near the new entrance. Office and
staff functions will be split between the new and existing building.
The new administration building will be located near the northwest primary clarifier as
illustrated in Figure 4-6. The main components of the building are offices and laboratory for the
plant operating staff and a conference area for use by plant personnel and also as an educational
area for plant tours. The WPCF . staff encourages plant tours to educate student groups and the
public at large to the functions of a wastewater treatment plant and the benefits to the
environment. Tours can provide citizens an understanding as to the disposition of user charges.
The convenient location with respect to the State Capitol might make the WPCF of interest to
some out of town visitors as well.
The new administration building will house a large conference room off a lobby large enough for
groups to congregate. Offices for the Plant Superintendent and the lead operator will be
provided as well as a larger laboratory area and control room. The preliminary layout of the
administration building is illustrated in Figure 4-8. The building will overlook a landscaped area
centered around the no longer needed primary and secondary clarifiers. This recycling of
unneeded facilities will enhance the experience of visitors and will save the considerable cost of
demolition.
Maintenance and staff functions will remain in the existing building. The maintenance managers
office will remain there, and the space made available by moving some functions to the new
administration building will allow enlarging the lunch and locker areas while still providing a
small conference room. The modifications to the existing building are illustrated in Figure 4-9.
The sludge dewatering functions and maintenance area functions will not be modified other than
removing the temporary extension of the lunch area into the maintenance area, opening up more
maintenance space.
Geotechnical Issues
Geotechnical issues are always a concern when large structures are to be constructed. While
borings and geotechnical evaluation are not part of this study effort, a very crude and brief
review was given based on available soils information. Preliminary indications are that
liquefaction, a potentially major cost factor, may not be significant. Other factors such as poor
soil conditions and ground water may be able to be adequately addressed within the budget
contingency of about $500,000. The cost of geotechnical requirements will not be known until
foundation conditions are investigated early in the final design phase of the project.
4-30
--------------------
MEETING
ROOM
LOBBY
FIGURE 4-8
CITY OF JEFFERSON
60 MGD PEAK FLOW SBR SYSTEM
NEW ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
L./\llOR/\TORY
----------------·---
SLUDGE HANDLING
(}
D MAINTENANCE
RESTROOM/
SHOWERS
FIGURE 4-9
CITY OF JEFFERSON
(}
LUNCH ROOM
MAINTENANCE
OFFICE
60 MGD PEAK FLOW SBR SYSTEM
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING OFFICE AREA
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
GARAGE
TOOL ROOM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. 7.4 Environmental Assessment
The immediate and long term environmental impacts of the construction and other issues needed
to implement the 60 mgd peak flow SBR system are not expected to be significant. The new
facilities at the WPCF site will be constructed in what is currently farm land, but land that is
destined to be developed when the new Corps of Engineers flood control levee eliminates the
flood potential. The Walnut Street Pump Station area is heavily disturbed, being adjacent to
active railroad tracks. The land required to construct the new facilities is relatively small and
adjacent to already active sites, so minimum impact on fish and wildlife is expected.
Appropriate measures will be taken during construction to minimize soil erosion. There will be
temporary construction disturbances related to dust, noise and aesthetics. These will not be long
term and should end with construction. No wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas are ·
known to be associated with the construction. No secondary impacts such as increased property
values or induced population growth are anticipated.
The completed construction should improve aesthetics by essentially eliminating odor from the
secondary treatment process and providing a new landscaped area. Because WPCF effluent
limits will decrease from a monthly average of 45 mg/1 BOD and 45 mg/1 suspended solids to 30
mg/1 for both BOD and suspended solids, and because the actual eftluent quality is expected to
be significantly below these limits, there will be a significant positive impact on the Missouri
River. Also, wet weather flows will receive secondary treatment.
In summary, the net environmental impact of the proposed WPCF improvements is strongly
positive.
4-33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTIONS
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Cost Impacts and Financing
Cost is a major consideration in implementing the selected Water Pollution Control Facility
(WPCF) Improvements. Costs to be considered include both the capital cost to construct as well
as costs associated with operating the new facilities. The impact of the new construction on
current operating costs is essentially neutral. The sequencing batch reactor system (SBR) with
three major unit operations (screening, grit removal and SBR) replaces the trickling filter system
with five major unit operations (screening, grit removal, primary clarifiers, trickling filters,
secondary clarifiers) and more complex sludge and scum pumping systems. The maintenance
prone Walnut Street Pump Station will be replaced by an efficient new pump station. The SBR
process should produce less waste sludge with associated lower sludge handling costs but will
have higher power costs. The City currently has two unfilled wastewater treatment operating
positions. It is believed that at least one of these positions can be eliminated because of the
efficiencies of the new system and equipment. The net result is that operating costs will not
differ significantly from current costs
Construction financing for the capital portion of the Water Pollution Control Facility
Improvements will be through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund administered by the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources Division of Environmental Quality. Bonds are sold
and as bond proceeds are spent, the Revolving Fund puts an amount equal to 70 percent of the
bond proceeds into a reserve fund. Interest from this fund is used to subsidize interest on the
bonds. The subsidy allows the City an interest rate about half the normal municipal rate.
As discussed in Part 2.6.4 of Section 2, it is intended for the WPCF to treat wet weather flows for
all but the most intense storms. The current wet weather flow exceeds the design capacity of
new SBR system because of infiltration and inflow (Ill) into the sewer system. The III must be
reduced sufficiently for the wet weather flow to be no greater than the design capacity of the
SBR system. To efficiently address the III problems, the sewer system must first be studied to
determine the sources of the III and then repaired as indicated by the study. Implementation of
the WPCF Improvements will, therefore, include construction of the new SBR treatment system
and Walnut Street Pump Station as well as an III correction component. The estimated
$22,710,000 cost of the selected 60 mgd Sequencing Batch Reactor system plus closing costs
will be funded using a 20 year uniform annual payment loan from the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund. The III portion includes annual funding for a fifteen year study program and
also an annual budget allocation for repairing the problems identified by the study.
The additional annual revenue needed to fund the WPCF Improvements is therefore:
Cost Component Annual Cost
(2000 dollars)
Payment to Retire WPCF Construction Loan (fixed annual payment for 20 years) $1,488,000
Study of Sewer System III Problems (15 year program) 263,000
Allocation for 20 years to fund Improvements Identified in Sewer Master Plan 500,000
Additional Annual Cost $2,251,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The needed additional revenue reduced by current surplus revenue and reserves from the City
Wastewater Enterprise Fund will require an average annual increase in revenue from user
charges over the 20 year study period of about $916,000 a year. This will be distributed among
users by continuing the current user charge structures and maintaining the same percentages
between City users and outside the City users. Commercial and industrial users will receive the
same percentage increase as residential users.
The monthly user charge for average City and outside the City residential users will increase as
follows:
User Charge Component Current Rate Proposed Rate
(Since November 1, 1986) (Begin July l, 2001)
City Residential User Fixed Monthly Minimum Charge $3.33 $4.16
Outside City Residential User Fixed Monthly Minimum $9.99 $12.47
Volume Charge per 100 cu. ft . $1.055 $1.32
It is anticipated as this Facility Plan is prepared that rate increase will begin in July 2001;
however, the City may choose to modify this schedule somewhat. Rates have not been
increased for over 1 0 years. The new rate is still less than the average for cities in the
classification of the City of Jefferson, according to a survey by Raftelis Financial Consultants.
At the new rates, a City customer using 900 cubic feet a month would pay $16.04 per month
compared to an average of about $19.00 a month for the same usage for the 73 systems in the
survey that were grouped with the City of Jefferson.
5.2 Schedule
As discussed previously in this Facility Plan, the WPCF is currently at design capacity. Little
additional flow or loading can be accepted without jeopardizing eftluent quality.
Implementation of the WPCF improvements needs to move expeditiously. The schedule listed
in Table 5-1 shows key dates that should be met to move the WPCF toward design, construction
and operation.
S-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLES-I
WPCF IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
KEY DATES
Facility Plan submitted for DNR review April 2000
Public meetings May 2000
DNR approves Facility Plan and issues FNSI June 2000
City begins acquiring needed property and easements June 2000
Begin WPCF Improvement design/bid documents June 2000
50% WPCF design/bid documents submitted to DNR October 2000
City of Jefferson residents approve Revolving Fund bond issue November 2000
Draft User Charge and Sewer Use Ordinances submitted to DNR November 2000
Complete WPCF design/bid documents submitted to DNR January 2001
Construction permit application and fee submitted to DNR January 2001
City issues assurance of property/easement acquisition with DNR January 2001
Bid documents and ordinance issues resolved with DNR February 2001
Bid documents advertised for bid March 2001
State Revolving Fund loan closing April 2001
Bids for WPCF construction received April2001
Contract for WPCF construction awarded and notice to proceed June 2001
Draft Plan of Operation & O&M Manual submitted to DNR December 2001
Final Plan of Operation & O&M Manual approved by DNR August 2002
WPCF construction complete, SBR plant goes into operation November 2002
5-3
I
I
I
I
I I
I APPENDIX
I COST BACK-UP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 1
• 25 mgd peak upgraded trickling filter system
• 35 mgd peak wet weather treatment at Walnut Pump Station
A-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cost Estimate -Alternative No. 1
Item Quantity Unit Price
Headworks
Demolition of existing 1 ! LS
New 1 LS
Settled Sewage Pump Station
Pumps & modifications 2 ea $100 ,000
Trickling Filter
One New Tank 1 LS
Two Existing Tanks 1 LS
Odor Control 1 LS
Final Clarifiers
New Tanks 2 ea $725 ,000
Sludge Pumps & Piping 2 ea $75 ,000
High Water Pump Station
Pumps & modifications 3 ea $100 ,000
Yard Piping 1 LS
Wet Weather Treatment Unit 1 LS
Walnut Pump Station 1 LS
Repairs to Existing Facilities 1 LS
Building Rehab I Remodel 1 LS
Electrical and I&C Work 1 LS
Total
Total
$120,000
$1 ,460 ,000
$200 ,000
$1 ,000,000
$1,220 ,000
$1 ,120,000
$1 ,450,000
$150,000
$300,000
$890,000
$4,700,000
$3,200 ,000
$1,000,000
$750,000
$1,300,000
$18,860,000
-----
I I
I Alternative 1
Personnel Services
I
Superintendent see current total
Lead Operator see current total
Operator see current total
Operator see current total
I Laboratory Manager see current total
Maintenance Head see current total
Mechanic see current total
Mechanic see current total
Mechanic see current total
Maintenance see current total
Maintenance see current total
I Open see current total
Open see current total
Current Staff Total (incl OT & seasonal) $410,000
I Additional Staff $30,000
Subtotal $440,000
Fringes 34.00% $149,600
Total Personnel Services $589,600
I Contractual Services
Trash $10,000
I Other $10,000
Total Contractual Services $20,000
I Materials & Supplies
Chemicals
-sludge polymer $61,101
I
-sludge lime $73,321
-Odor control $10,000
-Miscellaneous $25,000
-Actiflo sand $255
I -Actiflo coagulant $38,250
-Actiflo polymer $3,825 $211,752
Other (fuel, oils, etc ... ) $25,000
I
Total Materials & Supplies $236,752
Utilities
Other $25,000
Electric Power (see sheet 2) $229,642
Total Utilities $254,642
I Repairs & Maintenance
Buildings and Grounds $30,000
Equipment $75,000
I Vehides $50,000
Pumping Systems $50,000
Other $10,000
I Total Repairs & Maintenance $215,000
Total Annual O&M Cost $1,315,994
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 1
Power
Unit Operation hp factor kwh/year Annual Cost
Walnut Pump Station 1,074,264 $59,085
Actiflo 100 0.15 124,830 $6,866
Inlet Fine Screening 3 1.00 24,966 $1,373
Grit Removal 3 1.00 24,966 $1,373
Grit Pumping I Classifying 15 0.50 62,415 $3,433
Pre aeration 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Primary Settling 4 1.00 33,288 $1,831
Primary Sludge/Scum Pumping 20 0.50 83,220 $4,577
Settled Sewage Pump Station 146 1.25 1,518,765 $83,532
Trickling Filters 3 1.00 24,966 $1,373
Trickling Filter Ventilation & Odor Control 25 1.00 208,050 $11,443
SBR n/a
Final Clarifiers 4 1.00 33,288 $1,831
Secondary Sludge/Scum Pumping 5 0.50 20,805 $1,144
Plant Water Pumping 30 0 .25 62,4 15 $3,433
High Water Pump Station 44 0.15 54,925 $3,021
Sludge Thickening/Pumping 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Sludge Storage 30 1.00 249,660 $13,731
Sludge Dewatering/Stabilization 100 0 .25 208 ,050 $11,443
Site Ughting & Miscellaneous NIA 200,000 $11,000
4,175,313 $229,642
kwH calculation includes motor and drive efficiency corrections, and a power factor correction,
so that 1 hp-hr requires approx 0.95 kw-hr.
Factor adjusts for non-continuous operation and/or recycle flows.
Unit cost of electricity (dollars per KwHr) $0.055
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 2
• 25 mgd peak upgraded trickling filter system
• 35 mgd peak wet weather treatment at WPCF site
• New 30-inch force main
A-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cost Estimate -Alternative No. 2
Item Quantity Unit Price
Headworks
Demolition of existing 1 LS
New 1 LS
Settled Sewage Pump Station
Pumps & modifications 2 ea $100 ,000
Trickling Filter
One New Tank 1 I LS
Two Existing Tanks 1 LS
Odor Control 1 i LS
Final Clarifiers
New Tanks 2 ea $725,000
Sludge Pumps & Piping 2 ea $75,000
High Water Pump Station
New station 1 LS
Yard Piping 1 LS
Wet Weather Treatment Unit 1 LS
Walnut Pump Station 1 LS
New 30-inch Force Main 1 LS
Repairs to Existing Facilities 1 LS
Building Rehab I Remodel 1 LS
Electrical and I&C Work 1 LS
Total
Total
$120,000
$2,480,000
$200,000
$1,000,000
$1,220 ,000
$1,120,000
$1 ,450,000
$150,000
$1,190,000
$800,000
$4,700,000
$3,200,000
$2,300,000
$1,000,000
$750,000
$1,300,000
$22,980,000
I
I
I Alternative 2
Personnel Services
I
Superintendent see current total
Lead Operator see current total
Operator see current total
Operator see current total
Laboratory Manager see current total
Maintenance Head see current total
Mechanic see current total
I Mechanic see current total
Mechanic see current total
Maintenance see current total
Maintenance see current total
Open see current total
Open see current total
Current Staff Total (ind OT & seasonal) $410,000
I Additional Staff $30,000
Subtotal $440,000
Fringes 34.00% $149,600
Total Personnel Services $589,600
Contractual Services
Trash $10,000
Other $10,000
Total Contractual Services $20,000
I Materials & Supplies
Chemicals
• sludge polymer $61,101
I • sludge lime $73,321
• Odor control $10,000
• Miscellaneous $25,000
• Actiflo sand $255
• Actiflo coagulant $38,250
• Actiflo polymer $3,825 $211,752
Other (fuel, oils, etc ... ) $25,000
I Total Materials & Supplies $236,752
Utilities
I
Other $25,000
Electric Power (see sheet 2) $232,617
Total Utilities $257,617
Repairs & Maintenance
Buildings and Grounds $30,000
Equipment $75,000
I Vehides $50,000
Pumping Systems $50,000
Other $10,000
I Total Repairs & Maintenance $215,000
Total Annual O&M Cost $1 ,318,970
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 2
Power
Unit Operation hp factor kwh/year Annual Cost
Walnut Pump Station 1,074,264 $59,085
Aditio 100 0 .15 124,830 $6,866
Inlet Fine Screening 6 1.00 49,932 $2,746
Grit Removal 4 1.00 33,288 $1,831
Grit Pumping I Classifying 20 0.50 83,220 $4,577
Preaeration 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Primary Settling 4 1.00 33,288 $1,831
Primary Sludge/Scum Pumping 20 0.50 83,220 $4,577
Settled Sewage Pump Station 146 1.25 1,518,765 $83,532
Trickling Filters 3 1.00 24,966 $1,373
Trickling Filter Ventilation & Odor Control 25 1.00 208,050 $11,443
SBR n/a
Final Clarifiers 4 1.00 33,288 $1 ,831
Secondary Sludge/Scum Pumping 5 0.50 20,805 $1 ,144
Plant Water Pumping 30 0 .25 62,415 $3,433
High Water Pump Station 44 0 .15 54,925 $3,021
Sludge Thickening/Pumping 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Sludge Storage 30 1.00 249,660 $13,731
Sludge Dewatering/Stabilization 100 0.25 208,050 $11,443
Site Ughting & Miscellaneous N/A 200,000 $11 ,000
4 ,229,406 $232,617
kwH calculation indudes motor and drive efficiency corrections, and a power factor correction,
so that 1 hp-hr requires approx 0.95 kw-hr.
Factor adjusts for non-continuous operation and/or recyde flows.
Unit cost of electricity (dollars per KwHr} $0.055
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 3
• 30 mgd peak SBR
• 30 mgd wet weather treatment Walnut Pump Station
A-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cost Estimate -Alternative No. 3
Item Quantity Unit Price
Demolition of Existing Plant 1 LS
Headworks
I New 1 LS
SBRs
!Tankage 1 LS
I Equipment & mechanical 1 LS
High Water Pump Station
I Pumps & modifications 3 ea $100,000
Wet Weather Treatment Unit 1 LS
Walnut Pump Station 1 LS
Yard Piping 1 LS
Repairs to Existing Facilities 1 LS
Building Rehab I Remodel 1 LS
Electrical and I&C Work 1 LS
Total
Total
$1,000,000
$1,630,000
$4,900,000
$3,500,000
$300,000
$4,300,000
$3,200,000
$880,000
$100,000
$750,000
$2,000,000
$22,560,000
I Alternative 3
Personnel Services
I Superintendent see current total
Lead Operator see current total
Operator see current total
Operator see current total
I Laboratory Manager see current total
Maintenance Head see current total
Mechanic see current total
I Mechanic see current total
Mechanic see current total
Maintenance see current total
Maintenance see current total
I Open see current total
Open see current total
Current Staff Total (incl OT & seasonal) $410,000
I Additional Staff $0
Subtotal $410,000
Fringes 34.00% $139,400
Total Personnel Services $549,400
I Contractual Services
Trash $10,000
I Other $10,000
Total Contractual Services $20,000
I Materials & Supplies
Chemicals
-sludge polymer $41,665
I
-sludge lime $49,998
-Odor control $1,000
-Miscellaneous $25,000
-Actiflo sand $225
I -Actiflo coagulant $33,000
-Actiflo polymer $3,300 $154,187
Other (fuel, oils, etc •.. ) $25,000
I
Total Materials & Supplies $179,187
Utilities
I
Other $25,000
Electric Power (see sheet 2) $406,726
Total Utilities $431,726
I Repairs & Maintenance
Buildings and Grounds $30,000
Equipment $75,000
I Vehicles $50,000
Pumping Systems $50,000
Other $10,000
Total Repairs & Maintenance $215,000
Total Annual O&M Cost $1,395,314
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 3
Power
Unit Operation hp factor kwh/year Annual Cost
Walnut Pump Station 1,074,264 $59,085
Actiflo 100 0 .15 124,830 $6,866
Inlet Fine Screening 3 1 .00 24,966 $1,373
Grit Removal 4 1 .00 33,288 $1,831
Grit Pumping I Classifying 15 0.50 62,415 $3,433
Preaeration 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Primary Settling 0 1.00 0 $0
Primary Sludge/Scum Pumping 0 0.50 0 $0
Settled Sewage Pump Station 0 1.25 0 $0
Trickling Filters 0 1.00 0 $0
Trickling Filter Ventilation & Odor Control 0 1.00 0 $0
SBR 0 5,317,685 $292,473
Final Clarifiers 0 1.00 0 $0
Secondary Sludge/Scum Pumping 0 0.50 0 $0
Plant Water Pumping 30 0.25 62,415 $3,433
High Water Pump Station 50 0.15 62,415 $3,433
Sludge Thickening/Pumping 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Sludge Storage 30 0.50 124,830 $6,866
Sludge Dewatering/Stabilization 100 0.17 141,474 $7,781
Site Lighting & Miscellaneous NIA 200,000 $11,000
7,395,022 $406,726
kwH calculation includes motor and drive efficiency corrections, and a power factor correction,
so that 1 hp-hr requires approx 0.95 kw-hr.
Factor adjusts for non-continuous operation and/or recycle flows.
Unit cost of electricity (dollars per KwHr) $0.055
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 4
• 30 mgd peak SBR
• 30 mgd wet weather treatment using existing clarifiers
• New 30-inch force main
A-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cost Estimate -Alternative No. 4
Item Quantity Unit Price
Partial Demolition of Existing Plant 1 LS
Headworks
!New 1 i LS
SBRs
!Tankage 1 I LS
l Equipment & mechanical 1 LS
Walnut Pump Station 1 LS
New 30-inch Force Main 1 i LS
High Water Pump Station
lNew station 1 LS
Yard Piping 1 LS
Repairs to Existing Facilities 1 LS
Building Rehab I Remodel 1 LS
Electrical and I&C Work 1 LS
Total
Total
$530,000
$2,480,000
$4,900,000
$3,500,000
$3,200,000
$2,300,000
$1,190,000
$1,300,000
$500,000
$750,000
$2,000,000
$22,650,000
I I
I Alternative 4
Personnel Services
I
Superintendent see current total
Lead Operator see current total
Operator see current total
Operator see current total
I Laboratory Manager see current total
Maintenance Head see current total
Mechanic see current total
I Mechanic see current total
Mechanic see current total
Maintenance see current total
Maintenance see current total
I Open see current total
Open see current total
Current Staff Total (ind OT & seasonal) $410,000
I Additional Staff $0
Subtotal $410,000
Fringes 34.00% $139,400
Total Personnel Services $549,400
I Contractual Services
Trash $10,000
I Other $10,000
Total Contractual Services $20,000
I Materials & Supplies
Chemicals
-sludge polymer $41,665
I
-sludge lime $49,998
-Odor control $0
-Miscellaneous $25,000
-Actiflo sand $0
I -Actiflo coagulant $0
-Actiflo polymer $0 $116,662
Other (fuel, oils, etc ... ) $25,000
I
Total Materials & Supplies $141,662
Utilities
I
Other $25,000
Electric Power (see sheet 2) $403,785
Total Utilities $428,785
I Repairs & Maintenance
Buildings and Grounds $30,000
Equipment $75,000
I Vehides $50,000
Pumping Systems $50,000
Other $10,000
I Total Repairs & Maintenance $215,000
Total Annual O&M Cost $1,354,848
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Altemative4
Power
Unit Operation hp factor kwh/year Annual Cost
Walnut Pump Station 1,074,264 $59,085
Actiflo 0 0.15 0 $0
Inlet Fine Screening 6 1.00 49,932 $2,746
Grit Removal 4 1.00 33,288 $1,831
Grit Pumping I Classifying 20 0 .50 83,220 $4,577
Preaeration 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Primary Settling 4 0.15 4,993 $275
Primary Sludge/Scum Pumping 20 0.08 12,483 $687
Settled Sewage Pump Station 0 1.25 0 $0
Trickling Filters 0 1.00 0 $0
Trickling Filter Ventilation & Odor Control 0 1.00 0 $0
SBR 0 5,317,685 $292,473
Final Clarifiers 4 0.15 4,993 $275
Secondary Sludge/Scum Pumping 5 0.08 3,121 $172
Plant Water Pumping 30 0.25 62,415 $3,433
High Water Pump Station 50 0 .15 62,415 $3,433
Sludge Thickening/Pumping 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Sludge Storage 30 0.50 124,830 $6,866
Sludge Dewatering/Stabilization 100 0 .17 141,474 $7,781
Site Ughting & Miscellaneous N/A 200,000 $11,000
7 ,341,553 $403,785
kwH calculation includes motor and drive efficiency corrections, and a power factor correction,
so that 1 hp-hr requires approx 0.95 kw-hr.
Factor adjusts for non-continuous operation and/or recycle ftows.
Unit cost of electricity (dollars per KwHr) $0.055
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 5
• 60 mgd peak SBR
• New 30-inch force main
A-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cost Estimate -Alternative No. 5
Item Quantity Unit Price
Demolition of Existing Plant 1 LS
Headworks
l New 1 LS
SBRs
!Tankage 1 ! LS
I Equipment & mechanical 1 l LS
High Water Pump Station
I New station 1 LS
Walnut Pump Station 1 LS
New 30-inch Force Main 1 LS
Yard Piping 1 LS
Repairs to Existing Facilities 1 LS
Building Rehab I Remodel 1 LS
Electrical and I&C Work 1 LS
Total
Total
$1,000,000
$2,480,000
$4,900,000
$3,900,000
$1,190,000
$3,200,000
$2,300,000
$890,000
$100,000
$750,000
$2,000,000
$22,710,000
Alternative 5
Personnel Services
I
Superintendent see current total
Lead Operator see current total
Operator see current total
Operator see current total
I Laboratory Manager see current total
Maintenance Head see current total
Mechanic see current total
I Mechanic see current total
Mechanic see current total
Maintenance see current total
Maintenance see current total
I Open see current total
Open see current total
Current Staff Total (incl OT & seasonal) $410,000
Additional Staff -$30,000
Subtotal $380,000
Fringes 34.00% $129,200
Total Personnel Services $509,200
I Contractual Services
Trash $10,000
I Other $10,000
Total Contractual Services $26,006
I Materials & Supplies
Chemicals
-sludge polymer $41,665
I
-sludge lime $49,998
-Odor control $0
-Miscellaneous $25,000
-Actiflo sand $0
I -Actiflo coagulant $0
-Actiflo polymer $0 $116,662
Other (fuel, oils, etc ... ) $25,000
I Total Materials & Supplies $141,662
Utilities
I
Other $25,000
Electric Power (see sheet 2) $409,244
Total Utilities $434,244
I Repairs & Maintenance
Buildings and Grounds $30,000
Equipment $75,000
I Vehicles $50,000
Pumping Systems $50,000
Other $10,000
I Total Repairs & Maintenance $215,000
Total Annual O&M Cost $1,320,106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
Alternative 5
Power
Unit Operation hp factor kwh/year Annual Cost
Walnut Pump Station 1,074,264 $59,085
Actiflo 100 0 .15 124,830 $6,866
Inlet Fine Screening 6 1.00 49,932 $2,746
Grit Removal 4 1.00 33,288 $1 ,831
Grit Pumping I Classifying 20 0 .50 83,220 $4,577
Preaeration 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Primary Settling 0 1.00 0 $0
Primary Sludge/Scum Pumping 0 0 .50 0 $0
Settled Sewage Pump Station 0 1.25 0 $0
Trickling Filters 0 1.00 0 $0
Trickling Filter Ventilation & Odor Control 0 1.00 0 $0
SBR 0 5,317,685 $292,473
Final Clarifiers 0 1.00 0 $0
Secondary Sludge/Scum Pumping 0 0 .50 0 $0
Plant Water Pumping 30 0.25 62,415 $3,433
High Water Pump Station 50 0.15 62,415 $3,433
Sludge Thickening/Pumping 10 1.00 83,220 $4,577
Sludge Storage 30 0.50 124,830 $6,866
Sludge Dewatering/Stabilization 100 0.17 141,474 $7,781
Site Lighting & Miscellaneous N/A 200,000 $11,000
7,440,793 $409,244
kwH calculation includes motor and drive efficiency corrections , and a power factor correction,
so that 1 hp-hr requires approx 0.95 kw-hr.
Factor adjusts for non-continuous operation and/or recycle flows.
Unit cost of electricity (dollars per KwHr) $0.055