My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-063
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2003
>
2003-063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2016 9:33:35 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 6:25:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Report
Approved Date
03/11/2003
Control Number
2003-063
Agenda Item Number
11.H.1.
Entity Name
PBS & J
Subject
February 2003, IRC Central Wastewater Treatment Facility Odor Control St
Archived Roll/Disk#
3160
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
3185
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ODOR CONTROL STUDY <br /> the plenum and supply ducts occupy a larger area . The supply ducts are typically <br /> constructed from 6 to 8-inch drainage pipe and the plenum consists of hardwood chips . <br /> A 50 : 50 mix of hardwood chips and compost could be used for the biofilter media . Drip <br /> tubes could be used to provide moisture inside the biofilter. A small moisturizinTp <br /> sray <br /> chamber is often provided to assure the process gas. is at 100 % humidity at all imes . <br /> The advantages and disadvantages of a custom biofilter is as follows : <br /> Advantages <br /> • Lowest capital costs <br /> • Low operations and maintenance costs <br /> • Good H2S and VOC control <br /> Disadvantages <br /> • Possible poor removal of organic sulfur <br /> • Periodic reconstruction of biofilter (2-5 year intervals) <br /> • Large land area required <br /> • Most difficult to construct <br /> • Higher engineering and operating costs <br /> Because custom biofilters require considerable maintenance and periodic <br /> reconstruction , modular biofilters are preferred . It is conservatively estimated that this <br /> alternative could reduce sulfide emissions from the Anoxic Tank by approximately 90 % . <br /> The construction and engineering costs for a modular biofilter are estimated to be <br /> approximately $450 , 000. The operating costs are estimated to be $ 10 , 000 per year, <br /> mostly for power. <br /> 3 . 1 .4 Cover and Control with RSF Scrubber <br /> This alternative is the same as the two alternatives above , except the existing RSF <br /> Scrubber would be used in lieu of a new 2-stage scrubber or biofilter. Blowers and a <br /> long duct from the Anoxic Tank to the RSF scrubber would be needed . Because there <br /> are no primary clarifiers at the Central WWTF, the existing RSF scrubber would have to <br /> be modified for National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) , Standard 820 . The existing <br /> blowers and controls would need to be modified with explosion-proof motors and <br /> intrinsically safe controls . Check valves would also be needed on ducts from the <br /> Dewatering Building and Sludge Storage Tanks so that the air from the Anoxic Tank <br /> would not be blown into these structures . The existing RSF scrubber would be operated <br /> 24 hours per day. The construction and engineering costs for this alternative is <br /> estimated to be approximately $ 350 , 000 . The operating costs are estimated at $ 80 , 000 <br /> for chemical and power required to operate the scrubber at current conditions for 24 <br /> hours per day. <br /> J 17 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility <br /> PBSU #071230, February 2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.