From: David Randolph
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:15 PM
To: Tom Giese
Cc: Chris Kelsey; James Kelly; Eric deMontigny; Paul Reardon
Subject: RE: Neuros Blowers
Tom,
I do not have a problem with fixed diffusers in any portion of the system that has redundancy so we can drain the tank for repairs.  Areas such as the flow EQ basin should either be sized to allow maintenance to the equipment during peak winter flows or equipment that is in the EQ basin should be retrievable.  I have seen were the worst case always happens sooner or later.  As to the BNR basin/ secondary process I would think a more evenly distributed diffuser grid will be much more economical as well as more consistent mixing.  Since there are three basins and diffusers problems usually happen over a period of time, we should be able of performing our maintenance during lower flows, so it would only make sense to install fixed aeration diffusers.
 
David


From: Tom Giese [mailto:TomGiese@KennedyJenks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:35 AM
To: David Randolph
Cc: Chris Kelsey; James Kelly; Eric deMontigny; Paul Reardon
Subject: RE: Neuros Blowers

David,

 

Thanks for the information.  We currently don’t have Neuros blowers as an option in the MBR RFQ/RFP package, due to the expense of the blowers, but we still plan to look into this option and could change the MBR system scope later if the City decides it wants Neuros blowers.  I think the first step is to talk to the PUD to see how much of the capital cost they would be willing to pay for the City to have the more efficient blowers, and then perform a preliminary life cycle cost analysis.  If the numbers come out relatively close or in favor of the Neuros blowers, the City can then decide if that is what they want to specify.

 

On a related subject, we currently have a fixed grid diffuser system specified in the MBR RFQ/RFP package.  I know you have a strong preference for the retrievable diffuser racks.  However, the arrangement of diffusers in those racks is quite dense, such that the air would not be evenly distributed throughout the basins without supplemental mixing.  This would require the use of mixers in the aerobic zone (additional equipment and energy) to distribute the air.  Also, the aerobic zone would then be completely mixed.  To obtain similar treatment as a plug flow aeration basin, the aerobic zone would need to be compartmentalized into two or three cells with baffles, and each cell would need its own mixer.  The alternative is to have a fixed diffuser grid that distributes the air and provides enough air to keep solids in suspension, allowing for plug flow in a single long aerobic zone.  As you are aware, the tank would need to be drained (we would include a sump, guide rails, etc. to drop a submersible pump to dewater the tank back to the EQ basin) to gain access to the fixed diffuser grid.  Also, Aqua-Aerobics is the only manufacturer that we’ve been able to identify so far that manufactures diffuser racks that are retrievable with a small davit crane that can be hand or motor operated.  It is not clear at this time if they will provide those diffusers separately from their package SBR system.  We recommend specifying a fixed grid diffuser system in the MBR RFQ/RFP package.  This does not preclude making a change later if the City decides to stick with the retrievable diffuser racks and would represent a deduct, rather than an addition to the original proposal price.  As part of the proposal alternate, we’ve allowed them the option to make use of those existing diffusers if they so choose.  Furthermore, there could still be a use for those diffuser racks in the aerobic digesters, particularly if supplemental mixing is included to enhance denitrification.

 

Tom Giese


From: David Randolph [mailto:drandolph@ci.arlington.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:32 PM
To: James Kelly; Chris Kelsey
Cc: Randy Norman; Tom Giese
Subject: Neuros Blowers

 

Good day,

 

Randy and myself took a tour of the Renton WWTP today to look at the Neuros Blower.  It is Randy's and my opinion that we should look into the feasibility of using the system.  The following are some of the pro and cons that we saw.

 

Pros

Cons

If you have any questions let Randy or myself know.

 

Thank you

 

David B. Randolph

Wastewater Utility Supervisor

City of Arlington

(360) 403-3515

drandolph@ci.arlington.wa.us