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
