NC0024911_Report_20010418

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER :SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024911
MSD Buncombe County WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
April 18, 2001
This document is printed on reuse paper - iaaore auy
coateat on the reirerse side

CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
consulting
engineering
construction
operations
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
April 12, 2001
/V600 Mil
[ ,'.._" S
c:71
I (NJ
m
CO Cr: 43
mac-?
CC
I. (-� n_ cc,-
x
41 j
Mr. Michael Myers
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Additional Information Regarding Wet Weather Treatment
Dear Mr. Myers:
We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and others last Friday to discuss the
concept of employing wet weather treatment technologies at the Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MSD) of Buncombe County treatment plant. Attached is additional information
(two copies) regarding predicted flows in the MSD system as well as some pilot testing
results of wet weather treatment systems from a project in Galveston, Texas. While the
information is largely self-explanatory, please call me with any question you may have.
I will contact you shortly after you have a chance to review this information. Thank you
for the opportunity to discuss these options with you.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
C�sC QQ : u,
K. Richard Tsang, Ph.D.,
Associate
Attachments.
cc: Stan Boyd, MSD
John Kiviniemi, MSD
Wayne Miles, CDM
Document code

Summary of Predicted Overflows on Modeled Interceptors
Scenario
# Overflows
Volume (MG)
Existing, Dry Weather Flow
0
0
Future, Dry Weather Flow
26
8
Existing w/ 2-year Design Storm
91
26
Future w/ 2-year Design Storm
141
42
•
cD
CO
_1r
D G.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT APR 2001

DRAFT MARCH 01
CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
MSD VWVTP
Pump Stations
Overflows
• Greater Than 1.00 MG
• 0.50 to 1.00 MG
• 0.25 to 0.50 MG
• Less Than 0.25 MG
/ V Sewers in MOUSE Model
/V Roads
Figure 1
Predicted Overflows
Existing Conditions
2-Year Design Storm

DRAFT MARCH 01
CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
MSD VVVVf P
Pump Stations
Overflows
Greater Than 1.00 MG
• 0.50 to 1.00 MG
• 0.25to0.50MG
• Less Than 0.25 MG
A V Sewers in MOUSE Model
/ U Roads
Figure 3
Predicted Overflows
Future Conditions
2-Year Design Storm

Flows at the MSD Wastewater Treatment Plant
Scenario
Estimated Peak
Flow (MGD)
Future Peak Wet Weather Flow with Upstream Storage (1)
78
Future Peak Wet Weather Flow with Pumped Conveyance (1)
106
125
Theoretical Future Peak Wet Weather Flow with no system storage/surcharge (1)
Future Peak Dry Weather
45
Existing Peak Dry Weather
32
(1) Peak Wet Weather Flows are based on the 2-year Design Storm Event
CDM Camp Dresser & McKcc
DRAFT APR 2001

DRAFT APRIL 01
CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
LEGEND
1�1 Upstream Storage Location (3 MG)
Relief/Replacement Projects
CEN1-2
SEFB1-2
WEAV 1-2
At Project 1
A/ Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Af Project 7
Project 8
Project 9
Project 10
isV Project 11
WEAV FM
A Pump Station that Requires
Upgrading
MSD WWTP
L Pump Stations
A/ Sewers in MOUSE Model
A/ Roads
Figure 4
Option 3
Upstream Storage, Pipe Relief or
Replacement, & Pump Upgrades
to Prevent Interceptor Overflows
During Future Dry Weather Flow,
2-Year Design Storm

7 •�
flMir
r- 11P•*Wito`�•�rryri, �1y
'vs Altcw. 0 i.2.. diki '112mwl le ..; 4*'
R i`
lk
oaf
kVir ,
DRAFT APRIL 01
CDM .:amp Dresser & McKee
cf
}
LEGEND
S. Upstream Storage Location (3 MG)
Relief/Replacement Projects
CEN1-2
SEFB1-2
N wEAV 1-2
A/Project 1
A/Project 2
Project 3
tv Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
A/ Project 7
A/Project 8
Project 9
Project 10
Project 11
WEAV FM
Aor Force Main from Pump Station
at Railroad Site to WVVTP
A Pump Station that Requires
Upgrading to Prevent Overflows
MSD WWTP
A Pump Stations
A/ Sewers in MOUSE Model
// Roads
Figure 5
Option 4
Replacement of Storage at Railroad
and Racetrack Sites with Pumped
System to Wastewater Treatment Plant

CDM's Wet Weather Technology
Assessment
• Visited European facilities with new technologies
• Evaluated peak flow capabilities of new
technologies
• Retained the services of three manufacturers to
pilot test technology
• Worked with EPA Region 6 on pilot test protocol
• Targeted municipalities in EPA Region 6 to
9 p 9
perform pilot testing
• Briefed EPA Region 4 on ballasted flocculation
Treatment of Peak Wet Weather Flows with
High Rate Physical Chemical Process
Complements Water Quality Goals
• Utilize ballasted flocculation process for
peak wet weather flows in excess of
efficient biological treatment capacity
• Utilize ballasted flocculation process for
short-term overloads
• Establish a start-up and exercise
procedure, allowing process to reach peak
efficiency prior to receiving peak wet
weather flow
Page 1

Typical Removal Efficiencies of BFRs
BOD
TSS
Phosphorus
Actiflo®
60-65
85-90
85-90
Microsep®
60-65
85-90
85-90
Galveston Pilot
(Actiflo®)
65-75
90-95
Not Tested
* Microsep Pilot Scheduled for June, 1998
* Densadeg Pilot Scheduled for August, 1998
Turbidity Removal During Startup
1i0,
�
Turbidity (NTU)
200
160
120
80
40
0
Reduction
Raw Turbidity
Effluent Turbidity
I I I I I I I
0 5 7 9 12 15 18 23 31
Time (Minutes)
100
80
60 j
0
E
40 Cr
20
0
Page 2

BOD Removal During Startup
300
240
180
en 120
60
Raw BOD
% Reduction
`nt BOD
: MI•111••...
0 I I I I 1 1 I I
0 5 7 9 12 15 18 23 31
Time (Minutes)
100
80
60 >
0
E
v
40 cc
20
0
BOD Removal
rn
E
0
m
Coagulant : FeCI3 = 100 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, FeCI3 = 120mg/I @ 40 gpm/sf
Polymer : LT25 = 1.0 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, LT25 = 1.15 mg/I @ 40 gpm/sf
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
■ Raw
Effluent'
■
■
Removal
Removal Removal
= 69°i
= 63°0 = 66°0
■
ACTIFLO Study
Galveston, TX
March 24 - April 8, 1998
20 30
Rise Rate (gpm/sf)
40
Page 3

TSS Removal
Coagulant : FeCI3 = 100 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, FeCI3 = 120 mg/I@ 40 gpm/sf
Polymer : LT25 = 1.0 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, LT25 = 1.15 mg/I @ 40 gpm/sf
140
120
rn
100
N
cn
80
60
40
20
0
■ Raw
Effluent
Removal
= 95%
Removal
= 97%
Removal
= 94%
ACTIFLO Study
Galveston, TX
March 24 - April 8, 1998
20 30
Rise Rate (gpmisf)
40
BOD / TSS Removal - Simulated
Wet Weather Condition
Concentration (mg / I)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ACTIFLO Study
Galveston, TX
March 24 - April B, 1998
Coagulant : FeCI3 =100 mg/I
Polymer: LT25 = 1.0 mg/I
• Raw
Effluent
Removal
=75%
Removal
= 93%
TSS
BOD
Page 4

COD Removal
Coagulant: FeCI3 = 100 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, FeCI3 = 120 mg/I @ 40 gpm/sf
Polymer: LT25 = 1.0 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, LT25 = 1.15 mg/l @ 40 gpm/sf
800
700
600
E 500
0 400
U
300
200
100
0
ACTIFLO Study
Galveston, TX
March 24 - April 8, 1998
20 30
Rise Rate (gpm/sf)
40
Page 5

Summary of Predicted Overflows on Modeled Interceptors
Scenario
# Overflows
Volume (MG)
Existing, Dry Weather Flow
0
0
Future, Dry Weather Flow
26
8
Existing wl 2-year Design Storm
91
26
Future wl 2-year Design Storm
141
42
CT":
� ;T
r
CDM camp [hcaser & McKee
DRAFT APR 2001

ru
DRAFT MARCH 01
CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
,t a Parkwa
▪ MSD VWVfP
Pump Stations
Overflows
• Greater Than 1.00 MG
• 0.50 to 1.00 MG
• 0.25 to 0.50 MG
• Less Than 0.25 MG
/ V Sewers in MOUSE Model
Roads
Figure 1
Predicted Overflows
Existing Conditions
2-Year Design Storm

r
CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
• MSD VVVVfP
Pump Stations
Overflows
• Greater Than 1.00 MG
• 0.50 to 1.00 MG
• 0.25 to 0.50 MG
• Less Than 0.25 MG
/\/ Sewers in MOUSE Model
/V Roads
Figure 3
Predicted Overflows
Future Conditions
2-Year Design Storm

Flows at the MSD Wastewater Treatment Plant
Scenario
Estimated Peak
Flow (MGD)
Future Peak Wet Weather Flow with Upstream Storage (1)
78
Future Peak Wet Weather Flow with Pumped Conveyance (1)
106
Theoretical Future Peak Wet Weather Flow with no system storage/surcharge (1)
125
Future Peak Dry Weather
45
Existing Peak Dry Weather
32
(1) Peak Wet Weather Flows are based on the 2-year Design Storm Event
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT APR 2001

r
DRAFT APRIL 01
COMCamp Dresser & McKee
LEGEND
Upstream Storage Location (3 MG)
Relief/Replacement Projects
CEN1-2
SEFB1-2
WEAV 1-2
N Project 1
Af Project 2
Project 3
Al Project 4
A/ Project 5
A/ Project 6
Ai Project 7
Project 8
Aof Project 9
iv Project 10
A/ Project 11
WEAV FM
L Pump Station that Requires
Upgrading
MSD WWTP
Pump Stations
Sewers in MOUSE Model
/\/ Roads
Figure 4
Option 3
Upstream Storage, Pipe Relief or
Replacement, & Pump Upgrades
to Prevent Interceptor Overflows
During Future Dry Weather Flow,
2-Year Design Storm

-‘
r
('
DRAFT APRIL 01
CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
LEGEND
• Upstream Storage Location (3 MG)
Relief/Replacement Projects
N CEN1-2
Ai SEFB1-2
Al WEAV 1-2
A/ Project 1
Af Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Ae Project 7
Project 8
Aie Project 9
Project 10
Aief Project 11
WEAV FM
Ai Force Main from Pump Station
at Railroad Site to WWTP
`, Pump Station that Requires
Upgrading
111 MSD WWTP
A Pump Stations
A/ Sewers in MOUSE Model
f \/ Roads
Figure 5
Option 4
Replacement of Storage at Railroad
and Racetrack Sites with Pumped
System to Wastewater Treatment Plant

i
CDM's Wet Weather Technology
Assessment
■ Visited European facilities with new technologies
■ Evaluated peak flow capabilities of new
technologies
■ Retained the services of three manufacturers to
pilot test technology
■ Worked with EPA Region 6 on pilot test protocol
■ Targeted municipalities in EPA Region 6 to
perform pilot testing
■ Briefed EPA Region 4 on ballasted flocculation
Treatment of Peak Wet Weather Flows with
High Rate Physical Chemical Process
Complements Water Quality Goals
Utilize ballasted flocculation process for
peak wet weather flows in excess of
efficient biological treatment capacity
Utilize ballasted flocculation process for
short-term overloads
Establish a start-up and exercise
procedure, allowing process to reach peak
efficiency prior to receiving peak wet
weather flow
Page 1

Typical Removal Efficiencies of BFRs
BOD TSS Phosphorus
Actiflo® 60-65 85-90 85-90
Microsep® 60-65 85-90 85-90
Galveston Pilot 65-75 90-95 Not Tested
(Actiflo®)
* Microsep Pilot Scheduled for June, 1998
* Densadeg Pilot Scheduled for August, 1998
M
Turbidity Removal During Startup
Turbidity (NTU)
200
160
120
80
40
Reduction
Ravel Turbidity
Effluent Turbidity
0 �••....
a• I I I I I I li
0 5 7 9 12 15 18 23 31
Time (Minutes)
100
80
60
0
E
m
40 CC
20
0
Page 2

BOD Removal During Startup
300
240
E 180
0 120
60
Raw BOD
`nt BOD
°0 Reduction
0 I 1 I I 1 I I I
0 5 7 9 12 15 18 23 31
Time (Minutes)
100
80
60Ter
0
d
40 CC
20
0
r--
BOD Removal
Coagulant : FeCI3 = 100 mg/1 @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, FeCl3 = 120mg/l @ 40 gpm/sf
Polymer : LT25 = 1.0 mg/1 @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, LT25 = 1.15 mg/1 @ 40 gpm/sf
180
160
140
120
g 100
80
m
60
40
20
0
■ Raw
■
Effluent
I
■
■
Removal
Removal
Removal
■
■
■
= 69'0
=63%
= 66%
ACTIFLO Study
Galveston, TX
March 24 - April 8. 1998
20 30
Rise Rate (gpm/sf)
40
Page 3

TSS Removal
Coagulant : FeCI3 = 100 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, FeCI3 = 120 mg/I@ 40 gpm/sf
Polymer : LT25 = 1.0 mg/l @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, LT25 = 1.15 mg/I @ 40 gpm/sf
140
120
tss
100
80
60
40
20
0
■ Raw
Effluent
Removal
Removal Removal
= 9500 = 97% = 9400
ACTIFLO Study
Galveston, TX
March 24 - April 8, 1998
20 30
Rise Rate (gpm/sf)
40
BOD / TSS Removal - Simulated
Wet Weather Condition
Concentration (mg / I)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ACTIFLO Study
Galveston. TX
March 24 - April 8, 1998
Coagulant : FeCI3 =100 mg/l
Polymer: LT25 = 1.0 mg/l
Raw
Effluent
Removal
=75°.0
Removal
= 93°0
TSS
BOD
Page 4

COD Removal
Coagulant: FeCI3 = 100 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, FeCI3 = 120 mg/I @ 40 gpm/sf
Polymer: LT25 = 1.0 mg/I @ 20 & 30 gpm/sf, LT25 = 1.15 mg/I @ 40 gpm/sf
800
700
600
rn
E 500
O 400
U
300
200
100
0
ACTIFLO Study
Galveston. TX
March 24 - April 8, 1998
1 1 I
20 30
Rise Rate (gpm/sf)
40
Page 5