SEWPCC Upgrading/Expansion

Conceptual Design Report

SECTION 10 - Secondary Clarifier

Table of Contents

10.0 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS........................................................................................10.1

10.1 PURPOSE OF UNIT PROCESS..................................................................................10.1
10.2 EXISTING SECONDARY CLARIFIERS ......................................................................10.1
10.3 DESIGN OF SECONDARY CLARIFIERS....................................................................10.2
10.4 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS – FACILITY LAYOUT .....................................................10.6
10.5 MIXED LIQUOR CHANNEL AND INFLUENT FLOW ..................................................10.7
10.6 SECONDARY CLARIFIER MECHANISMS .................................................................10.7
10.6.1 Existing Clarifiers..............................................................................................10.7
10.6.2 New Clarifiers .................................................................................................10.10
10.7 SLUDGE HANDLING .................................................................................................10.10
10.8 RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE HANDLING............................................................10.11
10.9 WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE HANDLING ..............................................................10.13
10.10 SCUM HANDLING .....................................................................................................10.14
10.11 DOME COVERS ........................................................................................................10.15
10.12 HEATING AND VENTILATION ..................................................................................10.16
10.13 CONSTRUCTABILITY ...............................................................................................10.17
10.14 RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................10.17
10.14.1 New Secondary Clarifiers .............................................................................10.17
10.14.2 Retrofit of Existing Clarifiers .........................................................................10.17
10.14.3 Sludge Handling ...........................................................................................10.17
10.14.4 Scum Handling .............................................................................................10.17
10.14.5 Clarifier Domes.............................................................................................10.17
10.14.6 Heating and Ventilation ................................................................................10.18
10.14.7 Possible Deferred Work................................................................................10.18

i
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT

10.0 Secondary Clarifiers

10.1 PURPOSE OF UNIT PROCESS

The secondary clarifiers receive mixed liquor from the discharge channel downstream of the
bioreactors. Their main objective is solids-liquid separation of the mixed liquor prior to
discharging effluent to the disinfection facility and outfall sewer. The secondary clarifiers also
provides thickening of the underflow (settled solids) which are removed for further processing.
Figure 10.1 identifies the flow streams to and from the secondary clarifiers.

SECONDARY CLASSIFIERS
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
2 NEW

0.7 QAAF

Figure 10.1: Secondary Clarifier Flow Stream Schematic

10.2 EXISTING SECONDARY CLARIFIERS

The SEWPCC is currently equipped with three (3) center column siphon feed and peripheral
overflow type secondary clarifiers. Each has a central bridge driving mechanism that supports
and rotates a center cage with two sludge rake arms and two scum blades.

10.1
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

Mixed liquor from the bioreactors is

conveyed to Secondary Clarifiers No. 1, 2
and 3 via influent pipes. Each influent pipe
is fitted with a magnetic flow meter and
butterfly control valve to regulate and
record the flow of mixed liquor, as shown in
Figure 10.2. Mixed liquor is introduced to
the clarifier, which provides quiescent
conditions to promote settling of solids.
Effluent overflows a V-notch weir into a
circumferential launder around the
perimeter of each clarifier. The effluent in
the launder drains to a conduit that
discharges into an effluent drop shaft.
Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 share a common
drop shaft while Clarifier No. 3 drains to a
separate dropshaft. The dropshafts
discharge to the plant bypass channel that
runs the length of the secondary clarifier
area. The plant bypass channel conveys
both secondary effluent and any raw or
primary effluent bypass flows from the
upstream bypass facilities.

Figures 10.2: Secondary Clarifier Influent

Pipeline and Flow Meter

Each secondary clarifier is equipped with a center column siphon feed and peripheral overflow
with a central bridge driving mechanism that supports and rotates a center cage with two sludge
rake arms and two scum blades. Sludge is siphoned off by draft tubes to a central hopper. The
draft tubes consist of a series of 200 mm diameter suction pipes that are connected to the
600 mm diameter Returned Activated Sludge (RAS) suction header. Scum is collected from the
water surface, dewatered on a beach plate and dumped into a hopper that drains to a scum
tank. Clear liquid from the surface of the clarifier flows over a double weir to a launder and
subsequent downstream disinfection processes.

10.3 DESIGN OF SECONDARY CLARIFIERS

In the proposed upgrade/expansion, the secondary clarifiers are sized to handle a peak summer
flow of 175 ML/d and an average annual flow of 90.4 ML/d. The secondary clarification design
was compared to the following requirements limits:

• Average surface overflow rate (SOR) = 24 m3/m2/d.

10.2
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

• Maximum SOR = 44 m3/m2/d.

• Average solids loading rate (SLR) = 144 kg/m2/d.

• Maximum SLR = 216 kg/m2/d.

The existing clarifiers (Final Settling Tanks or FSTs) No. 1 and 2 each have an area of 880 m2
and FST-3 has an area of 1,640 m2.

In order to provide the additional capacity required for secondary clarification, two new clarifiers
are required. To maintain consistency in the facility in terms of operation and maintenance, the
size of the new clarifiers are recommended to be the same as the existing large clarifier. This
would provide two (2) additional 45.7 m diameter secondary clarifiers (FST-4 and FST-5).

Table 10.1 – Summary of Secondary Clarifier Design

Ex. FST-3
Clarifier Number Ex. FST-1 Ex. FST-2
Prop. FST- 4 & 5 *
Clarifier Dimensions
Diameter (m) 33.5 33.5 45.7
Side Wall Depth (m) 4.6 4.6 4.6
3
Volume (m ) 4048.0 4048.0 7544.0
Surface Area (m2) 880.0 880.0 1640.0
Weir Length (m) 105 105 144
Flow Distribution (ML/d)
At 90.4 ML/d 11.3 11.3 22.6 (each)
At 175 ML/d 22 22 44 (each)
Percent of Total Flow 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% (each)
Surface Overflow Rate
At 90.4 ML/d 12.8 m3/m2/d 12.8 m3/m2/d 13.8 m3/m2/d
At 175 ML/d 25 m3/m2/d 25 m3/m2/d 26.8 m3/m2/d
Weir Loading Rate
At 90.4 ML/d 108 m3/m/d 108 m3/m/d 157 m3/m/d
At 175 ML/d 210 m3/m/d 210 m3/m/d 306 m3/m/d
* Values shown are per clarifier for Ex. FST-3, proposed FST-4 and proposed FST-5

With two new 45.7 m diameter secondary clarifiers, the total surface area will be increased to
6680 m². Dynamic simulation was run in BioWinTM for the design year and the simulated

10.3
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

surface overflow rate and solids loading rate are presented in Figures 10.3 and 10.4. The
results indicate the following:

• The average SOR design criteria of 24 m3/m2/d was met at all times during the design year
except the summer maximum week flows, where the maximum SOR of 44 m3/m2/d should
be applied and was met.

• The average SLR design criteria of 144 kg/m2/d was met at all times, even under peak flow
conditions.

• The proposed secondary clarifiers meet the design requirements.

The secondary clarifiers were analyzed with one 45.7 m diameter secondary clarifier out of
service to determine the effects on SOR and SLR. The purpose of this analysis is to determine
the sensitivity of the system to changes in flow and clarifier capacity (should one clarifier be out
of service). Three flow scenarios were tested in BioWinTM for two conditions: all of the
secondary clarifiers in operation; and one large clarifier out of service. The three flow scenarios
tested were: annual average flow (AAF) of 90.4 ML/d; maximum month flow (MMF) of 111 ML/d
in spring; maximum week flow (MWF) of 178 ML/d in summer. The results are shown in Table
10.2.

Table 10.2 - Sensitivity analysis on Secondary Clarifier (SC) SLR and SOR
3 2 2
Surface Overflow Rate (m /m /d) Solids Loading Rate (kg/m /d)
Flow One Design SOR One Design SLR
(MLD) All SC’s in large SC All SCs in large SC
operation out of Average Peak operation out of Average Peak
service condition condition service condition condition
90.4 13.4 17.8 24 - 72 96 144 -
111 16.5 21.9 24 - 118 156 144 -
178 25.8 34.2 - 44 125 166 - 216

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results presented:

• With all of the secondary clarifiers being operated, the design criteria were met in both
conditions for the five different flow scenarios.

• With one 45.7 m diameter secondary clarifier out of service, the design criterion (solids
loading rate) is breached only under the scenario of MMF. The significance of this relates
more to operation and maintenance than normal facility treatment capabilities. This
scenario demonstrates that clarifier maintenance should not be undertaken when flows are
anticipated to exceed the average annual flow.

BioWinTM dynamic simulation results for SOR and SLR are shown in Figures 10.3 and 10.4 for
the scenario where all clarifiers are in operation.

10.4
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

50

45 Design SOR Peak: 44 m3/m2·d Secondary Clarifier SOR

SC SOR daily average
40

35
SOR (m3/m2/d)

30

25 Design SOR average: 24m3/m2·d

20

15

10

0
12/1/2030 3/1/2031 6/1/2031 9/1/2031 12/1/2031
DATE

Figure 10.3 - Secondary Clarifier Surface Overflow Rate (SOR)

220

200 Design SLR peak: 216 kg/m2/d Secondary Clarifier SLR

SC SLR daily average
180

160

140
SLR (kg/m2/d)

Design SLR average: 144 kg/m2/d

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
12/1/2030 3/1/2031 6/1/2031 9/1/2031 12/1/2031
DATE

Figure 10.4: Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Rate (SLR)

The proposed secondary clarifier expansion will result in no design criteria breaches under
normal operating conditions and will only breach under maximum month flow when one clarifier
is out of service. The BioWinTM analysis was undertaken using Bioreactor Option C and now
that Option G (the IFAS Option) has been selected, solids loading to the secondary will be
reduced which will help to mitigate the breach condition. This presents a low risk and the
proposed clarifier expansion is recommended.

10.5
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

10.4 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS – FACILITY LAYOUT

The existing facility layout was developed with the future plan to install a new 45.7 m diameter
secondary clarifier opposite the existing clarifier FST-3. Based on discussions with the City,
there is a desire to continue the philosophy of channel flow and pipe galleries with indoor
maintenance access. To accommodate this, the proposed layout expands upon the existing
infrastructure.

BY-PASS PIPE

SECONDARY SECONDARY
CLARIFIER No. 5 CLARIFIER No. 4

FUTURE SECONDARY
CLARIFIER No. 6

EXPANDED UV
DISINFECTION
FACILITY

Figure 10.5: Proposed Secondary Clarifier General Layout

There was a previous plan to add one 45.7 m diameter clarifier across from FST-3. We are
proposing to install one of the new clarifiers in this location with the second new clarifier
installed adjacent to it. Provision will also be made for installation of a future clarifier opposite
FST-5 and adjacent to FST-3. See Figure 10.5 for the general site layout.

10.6
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

Installation of the new clarifiers to the west of the existing clarifiers will reduce project cost by
taking advantage of equipment and layouts already provided in the previous expansion as well
as connecting to flow channels, piping and access ways already in place. This concept will
require greater coordination and some operational interruptions for tie-ins but should not have
any significant impacts. See Figure 10.6 for greater detail of the facility layout including
preliminary mechanical layouts.

10.5 MIXED LIQUOR CHANNEL AND INFLUENT FLOW

Flow will be directed from the bioreactors down the existing mixed liquor flow channel. The
existing clarifier mixed liquor feed pipes that contain a magnetic flow meter and modulating
butterfly valve will remain in place. For the new clarifier opposite FST-3, stop logs and a
knockout panel have already been incorporated into the previous upgrade. Thus, connection of
a new mixed liquor feed pipe should be relatively simple. For the second new clarifier and
proposed future clarifier, the mixed liquor channel will be extended. New stop logs will be
installed for both and a mixed liquor feed pipe will be installed for the new clarifier. A knock out
panel will be provided for the future clarifier feed. New magnetic flow meters and control valves
will be installed similar to those already in place. See Figure 10.7 for details of the proposed
influent works.

The existing mixed liquor channel was analyzed to determine if it has adequate capacity to
convey future design flows. The conceptual future design flow value used was 250 ML/d to
account for future secondary clarifier expansion and optimization even though the capacity
required under this expansion is 175 ML/d. The analysis indicates that the extended channel
has adequate capacity for this future flow.

10.6 SECONDARY CLARIFIER MECHANISMS

10.6.1 Existing Clarifiers

Each existing clarifier is equipped with a rotating sludge collector mechanism that withdraws
settled sludge through multiple collection pipes called draft tubes. The collector mechanism
rotates continuously while the clarifier is in service. Each clarifier has a series of 200 mm
diameter suction pipes that are connected to the 600 mm diameter RAS suction header. This
type of mechanism (shown in Figure 10.8) adequately collects the sludge in the tank given the
existing high purity oxygen activated sludge process. However, this type of mechanism allows
some sludge to collect between the suction pipes. As this sludge ages, it will negatively affect
the treatment process and could result in phosphorus release into the effluent. Therefore, this
mechanism needs to be upgraded as part of the process upgrade.

10.7
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

Figure 10.8: Sectional View of Existing Secondary Clarifier Mechanism

An effective technology at removing sludge from secondary clarifiers and reducing sludge age is
the helical sweep mechanism as shown in Figure 10.9. The existing clarifiers would need to be
converted from the existing draft tubes to helical sweeps. Through discussion with the clarifier
equipment suppliers, we have determined that the existing clarifier mechanisms can be
retrofitted to the helical sweep type.

Eimco (the manufacturer of the existing clarifier equipment) indicated that the drives and non-
wetted parts should be able to be reused. They assumed that the outer feed wells can be
reused. These assumptions are reasonable but further analysis will be required during the
detailed design phase to confirm what equipment can be re-used for a retrofit. The condition of
the existing clarifier mechanisms is good. Eimco identified the supply cost to retrofit each
existing clarifier mechanism to rotating helical sweeps as $125,000 for each of the 3 existing
clarifiers. Eimco provided an illustrative drawing of a similar retrofitted clarifier shown in Figure
10.10. Conversion from draft tubes to helical sweeps will require:

• Remove sludge lines and sludge collection box.

• Installation of smaller diameter center columns.

• Modification of cage and rake arms, sandblasting and repainting.

• Installation of spiral blades, squeegees and supports.

Information was obtained from WesTech for retrofitting of the secondary clarifier mechanisms.
WesTech has provided the clarifier equipment for the WEWPCC and is very reputable but they

10.8
Figure 10.9: Sectional View of Typical Helical Sweep Type Secondary Clarifier Mechanism
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

are less familiar with the existing mechanisms. As such they quoted a more encompassing
scope of work that includes:

• A new center cage to transmit torque to the rake arms.

• Two (2) new rake arms per clarifier c/w stainless steel spiral blades.

• Two (2) new scum skimmers and scum box.

• New sludge withdrawal ring.

WesTech’s quote is provided with the assumption that the motor drive unit, controls, center
column and feed well are in useable condition. As with the Eimco assumptions, a more detailed
analysis will be required during detailed design to determine exactly what components of the
existing clarifier mechanisms can be incorporated into the retrofitted mechanisms. WesTech
provided pricing for this work of $205,000 to retrofit each of the smaller clarifiers and $350,000
to retrofit the larger clarifier.

Figure 10.10: Sectional View of Sample Retrofitted Secondary Clarifier Mechanism

One item that needs to be provided as part of the existing secondary clarifier mechanism
upgrade is additional corrosion protection. Sandblasting and epoxy coating of existing
equipment was included in the scope of work provided to the two mechanism manufacturers.
The City indicated that they recently used ARC S1 as a coating on Clarifier no. 3. This and
other coating options will be investigated further during detailed design.

10.9
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

10.6.2 New Clarifiers

As previously mentioned, helical sweep style sludge collection mechanisms are likely the best to
minimize sludge age and a phosphorus release. The two proposed clarifiers should be
designed with helical sweep style sludge collection mechanisms.

In general, new mechanisms should have helical sweep arms, center column siphon feed,
circular energy dissipating inlet, and effluent weirs and scum baffles. Budget pricing from
EIMCO indicates a supply cost for each new clarifier mechanism of $450,000, with WesTech
providing a price of $475,000.

The intention is for the secondary clarifiers to all contain helical sweeps. In order to reduce
cost, retrofitting of the existing secondary clarifiers is recommended whereby as much of the
equipment is reused as possible while helical sweeps are added. Due to this integration of
existing and new components for the existing secondary clarifiers, the new mechanisms will be
similar but not duplicates of the mechanisms recommended for the new secondary clarifiers.

10.7 SLUDGE HANDLING

There are presently connections for return activated sludge and waste activated sludge
collection from each of the existing secondary clarifiers. With the new BNR treatment process,
this philosophy will be changed. The revised flow scheme and sludge routing is shown in Figure
10.11.

Sludge collected in the Secondary Clarifiers will be returned to the front of the Bioreactors as
RAS. No connections for Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) will be made to the new clarifiers.
WAS systems in place for the existing clarifiers will remain in the event that sludge needs to be
wasted but this would not be a normal operation and should not be required. All WAS will be
collected from the last aerobic zone of each bioreactor train.

10.10
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

SECONDARY CLARIFIERS

Figure 10.11: Secondary Clarifier Flow Schematic

10.8 RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE HANDLING

Sludge collected in the secondary clarifiers will be continuously removed from each clarifier by
variable speed RAS pumps. Three pumps are currently dedicated to Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 (one
duty pump for each clarifier and one standby pump), and two pumps are dedicated to Clarifier
No. 3 (one duty/one standby). The pumps and mechanical installed for RAS handling for FST-
3 also included provision for the addition of a 3rd duty pump when FST-4 is constructed. This
will result in a setup similar to FST-1 and 2 where there are two duty RAS pumps and a
common standby. For the two new clarifiers, we propose to provide three pumps, one duty
pump for each clarifier and one common standby pump. The configuration would be similar to
what was setup for FST-3 and 4. Each existing pump is equipped with a magnetic flow meter
(magmeter) to monitor RAS and we will install a magmeter for each new RAS pump.

The existing five RAS pumps are connected to a common 750 mm diameter transfer pipe. This
pipe will be extended to the new pumps installed for FST-5. Its current discharge locations will
be modified to convey RAS to the upstream end of the new bio-reactors. From the three
proposed RAS pumps, new pipes will run to a common pipe header, very similar to that

10.11
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

previously installed for FST-3 and 4. Individual RAS feed pipes (one for each bio-reactor) will
be teed from the 750 mm diameter common header to the influent chamber of each bio-reactor.
Each RAS feed pipe will be equipped with a magnetic flow meter and an automatic positioning
valve for control of RAS flow to each bio-reactor.

In order to determine the adequacy of the existing RAS infrastructure, we determined the
pumping requirements. Design parameters for RAS pumping are as follows:

Normal RAS Flow = Average Day Flow x 70%

= 90.4 ML/d x 0.7
= 64 ML/d

For pump sizing, RAS flow can fluctuate between 50% and 100% of average day flow
= 45 ML/d to 90 ML/d

The proposed RAS pumping system was analyzed and it was determined that additional pumps
the same as the recessed impeller centrifugal pumps already existing for FST-3 could be used
for FST-4. One pump would be added where space was provided for a future pump, making the
current setup for FST-3 and FST-4 two duty and one common standby pump. The existing
pump make and model are not adequate for the new clarifier FST-5 and future FST-6. The
same pump model but with a larger motor is recommended. A duty and standby pump would
be installed for FST-5 with provision for another duty pump installation for future FST-6.

The existing 750 mm diameter RAS transfer pipe would be extended to FST-5 and future FST-
6. The piping configuration would mirror that already installed for FST-3 and FST-4. Some
concern was expressed about corrosion protection of buried steel pipelines. Corrosion
protection measures presently in place are to epoxy coat the lines externally and this would be
implemented for the new buried RAS and drain pipes. Additionally, cathodic protection is
recommended for these lines, specifically a sacrificial anode as is used in underground
waterline protection, to protect them from corrosion at locations where the epoxy coating is
damaged during installation.

Preliminary head loss calculations were completed to determine the adequacy of the existing
pumps to carry the additional flow as well to determine if additional pumps for the new
secondary clarifiers could be the same make and model. The calculations indicate that the
existing pumps are adequate for FST-1, 2 and 3 and for proposed FST-4. For proposed FST-5
and future FST-6, head losses are higher and require the same pump but with a 40 HP motor
instead of the 30 HP motor existing for FST-3. Using the same pump but with the larger motor
would maintain consistency in the plant.

The current pumps for FST-1 and 2 are rated for 2.5 ML/d to 20.7 ML/d @ 7.6 meters and the
pumps for FST-3 are rated for 5 ML/d to 30 ML/d @5.5 meters (as confirmed with the original
supplier). All pumps are controlled by VFD and will be programmed to adjust operational speed
relative to plant flow.

10.12
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

10.9 WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE HANDLING

The following discussion on WAS pumping is intended to be general. It provides an
understanding of the proposed WAS handling scheme because it differs from the existing
scheme that involves taking WAS directly from the secondary clarifiers and RAS lines.

The existing WAS system is comprised of two variable speed positive displacement progressive
cavity pumps in a duty/standby arrangement. The pumps withdraw excess sludge from the 750
mm diameter RAS header and also draw WAS directly from Final Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 via two
– 150 mm diameter drain pipes. The WAS pumps convey sludge to the primary settling tanks
(PST) through a 200 mm diameter header. WAS is discharged into the PST influent channel
from four 150 mm diameter ports, which are equipped with magnetic flow meters to monitor and
record WAS volumes.

Two WAS removal options were analyzed as part of the design. These were:

• Remove WAS from the secondary clarifiers with the benefit being more concentrated sludge
and thus smaller WAS pumps. Many older designs utilize this philosophy.

• Remove WAS from the last anaerobic zone of the bioreactors, which results in increased
pump size (likely double) as the WAS is less concentrated but allows the WAS system to
remove scum (which can be problematic) from the bioreactors. More recent designs
incorporate this setup mainly to enhance scum removal.
The recommended option is to remove WAS from the bioreactors.

The existing WAS systems for the secondary clarifiers will be left in place, but will not normally
be used. They will be left in place in the event that sludge wasting from the secondary clarifiers
is ever required, however, this is not anticipated under normal operating conditions. The new
secondary clarifiers will not have connections for WAS to be removed either directly or
indirectly. Only RAS will be removed from the Secondary Clarifiers and pumped to the inlet to
the bioreactors.

The existing WAS pumps are connected to the secondary clarifiers such that they can be used
to completely drain the tanks. Although WAS pumps and lines will not be associated with the
new secondary clarifiers, lines will be installed to permit draining of the secondary clarifier tanks.
This will likely be incorporated into the RAS pumping system. This concept will be further
refined during the detailed design. There is the possibility that the RAS pump turndown may be
insufficient to drain the tanks properly, in which case a portable dewatering pump should be
provided and a sump included in the design.

As described above, WAS will be pumped from the last aerobic zone of the bioreactor rather
than the secondary clarifiers. The reason is that scum can easily be collected at the end of the
bioreactors. This is a good location for scum collection as it is prevalent in the bioreactors and
collection at the bioreactors prevents significant carryover to the secondary clarifiers. From the

10.13
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

last aerobic zone of the bioreactors, WAS will be pumped to an equalization/holding tank. From
there, sludge will be pumped to the DAF unit and consequently the existing sludge holding tank,
which forms part of the proposed solids handling facility.

10.10 SCUM HANDLING

Scum removal is primarily intended to be done in the PSTs and in the bioreactors. However,
some scum is anticipated to carry over to the secondary clarifiers and thus scum collection
equipment is required in the secondary clarifiers. Scum will be collected from the surface of the
secondary clarifiers by sweep arms that convey it to a collection trough with each revolution of
the clarifier mechanism. The scum will be flushed from the collection trough to scum holding
tanks. Scum in the holding tanks will be pumped to the new dissolved air flotation (DAF)
process for dewatering.

Figure 10.12: Existing Scum Handling Equipment

Existing Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 share a common scum tank designated as Scum Tank No. 1,
which is equipped with two-constant speed pumps (duty/standby) Clarifier No. 3 has a
dedicated scum tank (Scum Tank No. 2), which is equipped with one-constant speed pump.

10.14
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

Each of the two new clarifiers will be fitted with individual steel scum holding tanks similar to the
arrangement for FST-3. A dedicated constant speed pump will be provided for each tank. See
Figure 10.12.

Operationally, the existing scum pumps can circulate scum back to the scum tanks. This
feature maintains consistency within the tank and reduces pumping problems. Recirculation
capabilities will be provided with the new tanks. The scum removal system also includes
flushing water connected to the suction side of each scum pump.

There has been discussion regarding the need for scum handling at the Secondary Clarifiers.
This has partially been a result of the removal of scum equipment from the secondary clarifiers
at the WEWPCC. We believe that scum equipment is necessary at the secondary clarifiers.
The bioreactors produce scum that is primarily taken out by the WAS pumping system but not
entirely. The design of the SEWPCC also allows for bypassing the PSTs during wet weather
flows. This will result in additional scum that would need to be handled by the secondary
clarifiers. There is also likely to be some carryover from the bioreactors to the secondary
clarifiers during normal plant operation. Other major facilities with similar design processes
utilize scum collection at the secondary clarifiers.

Based on this information, it is recommended that scum collection equipment be included with
the secondary clarifiers.

10.11 DOME COVERS

Dome covers are proposed over the new secondary clarifiers in lieu of concrete structures as
are present over the existing secondary clarifiers. This rationale deviates from the City’s
previous practice to provide a building enclosure for the final clarifiers. However, the cost of the
dome covers ($650,000 supply) is less than 50% than to provide a building over the clarifiers.

Figure 10.13: Typical Dome for Secondary Clarifiers

10.15
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

The following features are proposed for each dome:

• Either fiberglass or aluminum construction with insulation.

• Dual entrances.

• Integrated HVAC options that can include venting from each dome individually or providing
inlet air through the top of each dome.

• The domes do not contain any perimeter walls so perimeter walkways will be constructed as
part of the secondary clarifier concrete and miscellaneous metal work. The clarifier tank
walls will have to extend 1200 mm above the walkways in order to provide adequate
headroom at the side of the dome.

Due to the relatively low cost of the domes and their numerous features, we recommend that
domes be used in the secondary clarifier design.

10.12 HEATING AND VENTILATION

A number of documents were reviewed to determine the ventilation requirements for the
secondary clarifier domes. NFPS 820 has no specific requirements pertaining to secondary
clarification tanks. The Canadian electrical code also does not require rated equipment in this
area. The time weighted average (TWA) for exposure to H2S over an 8 hour average is 10ppm
and the short term exposure limit (STEL) is 15 ppm according to the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Based on the measured gas levels undertaken during the
odor control sampling in the existing secondary clarifiers, theses criteria are currently met. The
national Manual of Good Practice for Biosolids recommends an air exchange of 12 to 15 air
changes per hour for a secondary clarifier. Thus the clarifier structures should be designed for
12 air changes per hour or approximately 41,000 cfm. Since this is based on recommendations
and not code requirements, this rate should likely be reduced to 6 air changes per hour for the
winter months.

There are many design details that require further exploration. These include how air is
supplied to and discharged from each dome. One option is to duct air to the domes and vent
through the top of each dome. A second option is to have the top center of the dome provide
the primary intake and draw foul air off the top of the launder for release through the main vent
stack. This option has not been included in the proposed vent stack capacities. These options
will be analyzed in greater detail as part of the detailed design.

For heating of the secondary clarifiers and ancillary spaces, heat recovery units will be used to
draw effluent from the new secondary clarifiers, pass it through filters and a heat exchanger,
and inject it back into the secondary clarifier from which it was taken. This concept duplicates
what is being done currently. Specifics on the heat exchange equipment will be provided in the
detailed design.

10.16
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

10.13 CONSTRUCTABILITY
The impacts of the proposed modifications to the secondary treatment facility on constructability
and maintaining plant operations are minimal. The new secondary clarifiers can be constructed
adjacent to the existing facility without interrupting plant operation. Temporary shutdowns of
FST-3 will be required for interconnections between the new and existing influent and effluent
channels. There will also be interruptions to the RAS pumping systems as various modifications
are required to connect the new clarifiers and change the discharge locations.

10.14 RECOMMENDATIONS

10.14.1 New Secondary Clarifiers

• Add two new 45.7m diameter secondary clarifiers to obtain the design capacity of 175ML/d.

• The addition of two new secondary clarifiers meets the design conditions for the surface
overflow rate and solids loading rate.

• The new secondary clarifiers shall be located between the existing secondary clarifiers and
UV building with the ability to add a future FST-6.

• The new secondary clarifier mechanisms will have helical sweep sludge collection arms,
center column siphon feed, circular energy dissipating inlet, and effluent weirs and scum
baffles.

10.14.2 Retrofit of Existing Clarifiers

• Require new center column, new helical sweeps, upgrade and refurbish the existing sweep
arms.

10.14.3 Sludge Handling

• Provide new RAS pumping similar to that already provided for FST-3. This will require two
new duty pumps and one standby pump. Flow will be directed to the front of the
bioreactors.

• Modify the WAS pumping system so that WAS is pumped from the end of the bioreactors
and not from the secondary clarifiers.

10.14.4 Scum Handling

• Provide scum holding tanks and pumping for each new secondary clarifier similar to that
already provided for FST-3.

10.14.5 Clarifier Domes

• Aluminum or FRP dome structures should be provided as a cost savings measure.

10.17
SEWPCC UPGRADING/EXPANSION
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT
Secondary Clarifiers
June 1, 2009

• Inside access would be provided to all domes.

10.14.6 Heating and Ventilation

• The proposed domes can provide either exhaust air from the top center of the dome or
intake air. This will be incorporated to either the current fresh air supply system or foul air
ducts based on further design analysis.

• Heat recovery equipment will be installed for each dome to help reduce heating costs.

10.14.7 Possible Deferred Work

As a result of discussions with the City and additional analysis during development of the
opinion of probable cost, it has been determined that the construction of one secondary clarifier
could be deferred. Modeling was undertaken for the 10 year design period and shows that one
new secondary clarifier is adequate to provide treatment for this design period. Based on
hydraulic calculations, a new secondary clarifier would be required at just prior to year 10 of the
design period (approximately 9.5 years).

The main benefit of deferring the work is that it would help to defer the capital cost, thus
reducing the initial cost of the upgrade. It is important to recognize that deferral of this work
would lead to the design not meeting the stipulated 20 year design flows. A determination on
whether or not to proceed with this work will have to be made once a project implementation
method is determined and budgetary considerations are evaluated.

For the purposes of this section of the conceptual design report, it is recommended that two
secondary clarifiers be constructed as this meets the 20 year design period.

10.18