1 / 25

Big Sky Wastewater Facility Plan Update

This final report details the updated projections and capacities for the Big Sky Wastewater Facility. It addresses necessary upgrades, storage requirements, alternatives considered, and treatment plant upgrades. The report also outlines growth projections, existing storage, and future needs to meet disposal requirements, especially during winter. Key recommendations and cost estimates for various disposal options are included. Additionally, improvements to the existing treatment plant and capacity enhancements are discussed to ensure efficient operations and compliance with quality standards.

cdinkins
Download Presentation

Big Sky Wastewater Facility Plan Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Big Sky Wastewater Facility Plan Update Final Report August 25, 2015

  2. Updated Projected flow Flows updated to include LMM and Spanish Peaks

  3. Growth Projections

  4. Calculated irrigation Disposal capacity(Million Gallons per year) * Per DEQ approval ** Based on Design Reports

  5. REASONS FOR DIFFERENCES • Percolation rates used • Spanish Peaks = 0.2 inches/hour (Based on SCS data) • YC = 2.0 inches/ hour (Based on SCS data) • Meadow Village = 1.58 inches/ hour (Based on perc tests) • Nitrogen uptake • Spanish Peaks= 178.4 pounds/ acre • YC= 147 pound/acre • Meadow Village 108 pound/acre ( from irrigation) • Irrigation Period • Spanish Peaks and YC used 24 hours/day • Meadow Village used 6 hours/day • 137 day growing season used for all three courses

  6. Growth Projections 218 MGY 182 MGY

  7. Golf course Upgrades and recommendation • Do testing on the YC and SP courses to determine actual percolation rates

  8. Storage requirements no winter disposal

  9. Existing storage • Meadow Village • Large Pond = 60.1 MG • Small Pond = 19.6 MG • Total Filtered Storage = 79.7 MG • SBR Effluent = 8.2 MG ( but effectively zero due to piping) Yellowstone Mountain Club • 80 MG Total Existing Storage = 159.7 MG

  10. Existing & Future storage • Meadow Village • Large Pond = 60.1 MG • Small Pond = 19.6 MG • SBR Effluent =8.2 MG (with piping change) • Total Storage = 87.9 MG Yellowstone Mountain Club • Existing = 80 MG • Future = 50 MG • Total Storage = 130 MG Grand Total Existing and Future = 217.9 MG Storage Needs (no winter disposal)= 226 MG

  11. Storage requirement with winter disposal 100,000 gallons per day of winter disposal

  12. Need for Project • Projected Flows exceed current disposal capacity by 95.8 to 131.8 MGY • Reduce the level of nutrients applied to the Meadow Village Couse to reduce impacts to the Middle Fork • Provide additional disposal to allow the District to exercise its water right on the West Fork.

  13. Alternatives considered for additional Disposal • 1. Disposal on the west side of the Madison Range near Ennis. Estimated Cost $13.1 million • 2. Construct purple pipe system for effluent reuse in Meadow Village area. Estimated Cost $5 million + treatment plant upgrades. • Could also be part of an expanded golf course irrigation • 3. Indirect Potable Reuse • Deep Injection Wells (not considered viable) • Shallow injection Wells ( rough estimate $350,000 to $500,000 + advanced treatment $7-$9 million)

  14. Alternatives considered for additional Disposal • 4. Subsurface Disposal (drainfields) • 5. Surface Discharge to the Gallatin River during the winter • 6. Snowmaking • 7. Direct Potable Reuse

  15. Winter Disposal Options • Subsurface drain fields or aquifer injection • Indirect Potable Reuse • Unlikely to meet all discharge needs • Aquifer injection- must meet primary drinking water standards or non-degradation requirements at discharge point • Additional treatment required • Surface discharge • Possible based on DEQ rules and non-degradation criteria

  16. Existing treatment plant • Plant Capacity • Effluent Quality • Metering • Additional Process Monitoring • Ammonia and ORP probes for SBR’s and digesters • TSS meter for waste sludge to help control solids in system • Adding VFD’s to blower motors to control DO

  17. Plant Capacity • Design Capacity – Peak Day 1.3 MGD • Current Capacity – Peak Day 1.04 MGD • Cycle time increased to improve nitrogen removal • Current Peak Day 0.923 in 2014 but has been around 0.7 MGD in prior years • Third basin needed by 2021, start planning by 2018.

  18. Effluent Quality

  19. Cold Weather impacts

  20. Aeration control

  21. Metering

  22. Metering

  23. Treatment plant upgrades • Add VFD drives to blowers • $216,000 • Modify piping for SBR effluent storage pond • $187,000 • Additional monitoring probes • District has already purchased • Additional work to resolve metering

More Related