Wastewater Treatment

Facility Plan
Grand Forks City Council

May 3, 2021
Facility Plan Drivers

Age

Condition

Original Design Deficiencies

Loading and Capacity Limitations

Future Permitting

2
Wastewater Treatment Facility Overview

➢ Located Northeast of City

➢ Key regional asset serving Grand Forks
and East Grand Forks
➢ Key economic development driver serving
large industry - wastewater treatment
capacity is a common site selector
question

GRAND FORKS
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY

3
Wastewater Treatment Basics

How do you define wastewater treatment capacity?

Hydraulic Capacity: total water volume/flow (measured in millions of
gallons per day) discharged on average and under peak conditions

Loading Capacity: total pollutant loading (measured in mg/l and

lbs/day) in the wastewater that must be removed to meet effluent permit
requirements
Strength - Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TKN)
Solids - Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

4
Mechanical Facility

2. BIOLOGICAL Facility Statistics

TREATMENT
Population
64,634 people
1. HEAD 4. UV Served
WORKS DISINFECTION
Industry 10 Significant Permits

Average
8.6 MGD
Daily Flow

3. LIQUIDS - BOD5: 19 tons

SOLIDS
Average
SEPARATION Pollutant TKN: 6 tons
Loadings
TSS: 34 tons
5
Facility Timeline

1995 2003 2006 2008

Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Plant Significant
Plant Design Plant Begins Deficiency Lawsuit Industry (RDO)
Begins Operations Settlement Ceases
Operation
2000 2003 2007
Mechanical Plant AE2S/B&V Interim
Construction Begins Biosolids Master Biosolids
with Multiple Plan Handling
Progressive Packages Implemented

POPULATION POPULATION
49,707 52,423

6
 Facility Timeline

2013 2017 2020

Significant Industry EGF Interconnect Chemical Feed &
(Simplot) Changes Operational MBF
Discharge Improvements

2015 2019 March 2020

AE2S/B&V UV Disinfection & Direct Significant Industry
Biosolids Master Discharge Project (RRB) Starts
Plan Update Discharging

POPULATION POPULATION
56,535 (GF + EGF)
64,634

7
Facility Deficiencies & Challenges

Current code requirements not Lack of management flexibility for

fully met industrial influents

Hydraulic limitations restrict ability to Lack of long-term biosolids

treat highly concentrated pollutant loads strategy

Excessive complexity in Lack of emergency backup power

biological process for aeration

Nearing capacity limits due to strength Anticipated regulations on

loadings effluent nutrients

8
 Providing Flexibility for Influent Variations

Complex userbase and large

loading variations require
redundancy, adaptability, and
flexibility

9
Hydraulic and Capacity Limitations

Complex interdependent /
inefficient flow pattern
limits operational flexibility
and capacity

10
Capacity Limitations

! ! !
! BOD at 99% of Firm Capacity
! TSS at 86% of Firm Capacity
! TKN at 94% of Firm Capacity
Addressing Code Requirements and Safety

Correcting original
Mitigating Addressing maintenance
design deficiencies
ventilation and ingress / egress deficiencies
and maintenance
explosion risks and safety concerns
access issues
12
Planning for the Future

13
 WWTF Improvement
Alternatives Considered
Front-Runner Alternatives

1. Primary Clarifiers (PCs) & Anaerobic

Digestion (AD)

2. Retrofit Bioreactors to BNR

Preferred Alternative
& Dewatering/Air Dry Solids

3. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

& Dewatering/Air Dry Solids
15
Kepner-Tregoe Decision Scoring Analysis

100.0
100
82.0 78.8
30.0
80
27.6
29.4
60

40 60.0
44.4 40.8
20

10.0 10.0 8.9

0
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Stakeholders/Public Cost O&M

16
Alternative 2 Summary

Key Feature: Independent Bioreactor Operations

Alternative 2 Addresses:
✓ Inefficient Flow Patterns
✓ Operational Flexibility
✓ Long-term Capacity and
Future Expandability
✓ Future Regulations
✓ Safety and Code Deficiencies

17
Alternative 2 Summary

Distribution Channel Piping

Mods

Existing Reactor Mods

18 18
Phasing Recommendations

Phase 1:
Yard & Process Piping, General/Misc.
Improvements, PC2 Biosolids Redistribution

Phase 2:
BNR Modification of Bioreactors

Phase 3:
Biosolids Dewatering & Air-Drying Facilities (Pending Need)

Phase 4:
Bioreactor Installation of IFAS (If Necessary)
19
Phasing Recommendations

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Phase
$13.7M
1

Phase
$31.3M
2

Phase
$23.6M
3 Critical
Pending Need
Phase If Necessary
$7.8M
4
Current CIP
$31.2M
Outlay 20
Budget Planning and Rate Analysis

Implementation planning is underway with 2022 budgeting

Key Considerations:
➢ Expiration of existing facility debt service is very near
➢ Utility has seen revenue growth from expanded service to large users
➢ Past rate planning considered upcoming needs
➢ 6-year improvement cost In-line w/ previous capital improvements plan
➢ Rate impacts expected to be near inflationary (more to come w/ Budget)

24
Next Steps

Informational Update, May 3rd

Facility Plan Further Detail at Committee of the Whole Meeting, May 10 th

Facility Plan Adoption at Council Meeting, May 17th

Facility Plan Submitted North Dakota Department of Environmental

Quality, May 2021

Approval of Revised CIP and Budget, July-September 2021

Present Preliminary Design Task Order, September 2021

25