Get documents about "Technology Selection Criteria
Description
Technology Selection Criteria document sample
Document Sample
BROCKVILLE WPCC SECONDARY TREATMENT UPGRADE SELECTION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #1
Technical Memorandum #1 - Evaluation Criteria for Technology Selection
PREPARED FOR: City of Brockville
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
DATE: November 22, 2007, revised November 29, 2007, revised December
12,2007
PROJECT #: 366480
This memorandum provides the final evaluation criteria as developed with the City of Brockville, for use in
selecting the secondary treatment and disinfection technologies for implementation at the Brockville
WPCC. Draft criteria were reviewed at a workshop on November 26, 2007, with additions and modifications
made to the draft list to arrive at the final criteria. The workshop included both engineering staff and
operations staff from the Operations Department at the City of Brockville, and the City’s Project
Management consultant.
The final evaluation criteria are provided in Table 1 and Table 2, along with weightings reflecting the
relative importance of each criterion as determined at the workshop.
The four major categories of criteria include:
Technology Performance
Project Implementation
Operations Impacts
Life Cycle Cost
Each cateogry has an overall weighting, which totals 100%. Each category has been broken down into a
number of sub-criteria. The weighting percentage for the category, multiplied by the scoring for each sub-
criterion will give the final score for each alternative being evaluated.
A preliminary screening of the three secondary treatment technologies identified in the Environmental
Assessment will be conducted using the final criteria, excluding cost. This will determine those technologies
to be carried forward to conceptual design. Following the preliminary screening, and after completion of the
conceptual design phase for each technology, the criteria will again be used to complete a final evaluation
and recommendation for a path forward for the upgrade project.
Table 1 provides the criteria for secondary treatment technology evaluation. Table 2 provides the criteria for
disinfection technology selection.
328304_WB092007004OTT
1
BROCKVILLE WPCC SECONDARY TREATMENT UPGRADE SELECTION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #1
TABLE 1
Evaluation Criteria for Secondary Treatment Technology Selection
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE 40.0%
1 Universal technology 15.0%
2 Process Flexibility (Response to Influent Variances) 8.0%
3 Impact on existing processes 4.0%
4 Suitability to meet future effluent requirements 5.0%
5 Capability for future expansion 4.0%
6 Impact on hydraulic rating of existing plant 1.0%
7 Environmental impacts (e.g. effluent quality) 1.0%
8 Sustainability (e.g. energy efficiency) 1.0%
9 Biological Phosphorus removal potential 1.0%
OPERATIONS IMPACTS 25.0%
1 Occupational Health and Safety 7.0%
2 Flexibility of technology to respond to process control 5.0%
3 Major maintenance requirements 5.0%
3 Ease of operation (Skills required by staff) 3.0%
5 Staffing requirements (# of staff) 2.0%
6 Dependence on instrumentation 2.0%
7 Requirements for Standby Power 1.0%
LIFE CYCLE COST 20.0%
1 O&M Cost 9.0%
2 Capital Cost 9.0%
3 Cash flow requirements 2.0%
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 15.0%
1 Impact on existing process during construction (i.e. tie-ins, impact on daily operations) 4.0%
2 Impact to existing facility (i.e. long term, footprint, layout, etc.) 3.0%
3 Constructability 2.0%
4 Staging Areas/Access 2.0%
5 Security 1.0%
6 Construction schedule 1.0%
7 Impact on surrounding community 1.0%
8 Environmental impacts 1.0%
328304_WB092007004OTT
2
BROCKVILLE WPCC SECONDARY TREATMENT UPGRADE SELECTION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #1
TABLE 2
Evaluation Criteria for Disinfection Treatment Technology Selection
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE 35.0%
1 Universal technology 10.0%
2 Flexibility and reliability 10.0%
3 Suitability to meet future effluent requirements 7.0%
4 Capability for future expansion 3.0%
5 Environmental impacts (e.g. effluent quality) 3.0%
6 Sustainability (e.g. energy efficiency) 2.0%
OPERATIONS IMPACTS 25.0%
1 Occupational Health and Safety 7.0%
2 Flexibility of technology to respond to process control 5.0%
3 Major maintenance requirements 5.0%
3 Ease of operation (Skills required by staff) 3.0%
5 Staffing requirements (# of staff) 2.0%
6 Dependence on instrumentation 2.0%
7 Requirements for Standby Power 1.0%
LIFE CYCLE COST 25.0%
1 O&M Cost 10.0%
2 Capital Cost 10.0%
3 Cash flow requirements 5.0%
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 15.0%
1 Impact on existing process during construction (i.e. tie-ins, impact on daily operations) 5.0%
2 Impact to existing facility (i.e. long term, footprint, layout, etc.) 3.0%
3 Constructability 2.0%
4 Staging Areas/Access 1.0%
5 Security 1.0%
6 Construction Schedule 1.0%
7 Impact on surrounding community 1.0%
8 Environmental impacts 1.0%
328304_WB092007004OTT
3
BROCKVILLE WPCC SECONDARY TREATMENT UPGRADE SELECTION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2
Technical Memorandum #2 - MBBR Technology for Secondary Treatment
Expansion at the Brockville WPCC
PREPARED FOR: City of Brockville
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
DATE: November 22, 2007, revised December 12, 2007, revised January 7, 2008
PROJECT #: 366480
In January 2005, as per the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, June 2000
(Municipal Engineers Association), the Study Team of Simcoe Engineering Group Ltd. in association with
Hydromantis Inc. presented a study report summarizing Phase 1 and 2 of the Class Environmental
Assessment (EA). Table 1 indicates the three alternative technologies, recommended for Phase 5-
Implementation by the Study Report, for consideration as the secondary treatment processes to consider
for the upgrade of the Brockville WPCC.
TABLE 1
Proposed Alternative Technologies for Consideration – Secondary Treatment
Technology Weighted Score on Class EA
Activated Sludge Process (ASP) 235
Biological Aerated Filter (BAF) 233
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) 233
Preliminary Screening of Alternatives
Based on concerns outlined further in this memo with respect to implementation, operations and a technical
perspective, a further review of the three recommended technologies from the EA was performed. This
evaluation was carried out based on a set of criteria developed in cooperation with the City Operations
department and wastewater plant operations staff, and is further outlined in Technical Memorandum #1. All
three technologies were evaluated on an equal basis during this screening.
The preliminary screening resulted in the scoring summarized in Table 2. This screening was conducted
without the consideration of life cycle cost, in order to ensure that the City was carrying forward the most
suitable technologies for secondary treatment to the conceptual design stage, at which point cost would be
developed and considered. The preliminary screening evaluation supporting materials are attached to this
memorandum.
328304_WB092007004OTT
1
BROCKVILLE WPCC SECONDARY TREATMENT UPGRADE SELECTION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2
TABLE 2
Preliminary Screening of Proposed Secondary Treatment Technologies
Technology Weighted Score – Preliminary Screening
(Total Possible Score = 8.0)
Activated Sludge Process (ASP) 6.2
Biological Aerated Filter (BAF) 5.4
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) 4.2
The MBBR technology received the lowest score, and in consideration of the overall weighting given to life
cycle cost in the evaluation criteria (20%), this technology could not be recommended, even if it was
determined to be the lowest cost option, should it be carried forward to the conceptual design stage. For
the preliminary screening the total possible score was 8, based on the removal of the cost criteria.
Therefore, a score of 6.2 for ASP represents 77.5% of the total possible points available (without cost),
BAF received 67.5% or 5.4 points and MBBR 52.5% or 4.2 points.
Technology Risk
The MBBR technology was evaluated in the EA as potentially offering the benefits of competitive capital
costs and a compact footprint. MBBR technology, however, has the disadvantage of being relatively
unproven. Pilot testing was undertaken in the summer of 2005 in Brockville in order to evaluate the
feasibility of the process for implementation in Brockville. The pilot test results were mixed, both in terms of
process performance and equipment reliability. Technical support for the process during the pilot study was
difficult, and the City is not confident about using this relatively unproven technology.
Size of Existing Primary Clarifiers
The existing primary clarifiers are not large enough to meet the process requirements of the MBBR
technology. Sufficient volume is required to allow for the transfer of oxygen into the bioreactor to meet the
process needs of the MBBR technology, which would not be available within the existing primary clarifiers
at the Brockville WPCC. The peak oxygen transfer capacity of the existing primary clarifiers, if retrofitted to
MBBR is expected to be insufficient compared to the industry recognized peak rate of 150 mg/L/hr.
Process Oxygen Transfer and Mixing Issues
MBBR systems are typically required to be operated at a dissolved oxygen concentration of at least 4 mg/L,
for process oxygen transfer. In addition, MBBRs are normally designed with coarse bubble aeration for
mixing reasons. These two requirements mean that the aeration power required by an MBBR system could
be double that of Activated Sludge System, which is designed with fine bubble aeration. Aeration systems
are typically one of the largest power consumption items in a secondary treatment plant, therefore, this
relatively large increase in required aeration power would lead to increased life cycle costs through
operations and maintenance cost increases.
Compatibility with Anaerobic Digestion
The MBBR alternative described in the Class EA as a design basis does not include primary clarifiers. This
would therefore generate only secondary sludge, which is not regarded as being compatible with anaerobic
digestion. The Brockville WPCC currently utilizes two existing anaerobic digesters and it would not be
328304_WB092007004OTT
2
BROCKVILLE WPCC SECONDARY TREATMENT UPGRADE SELECTION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2
economically feasible to discontinue use of this facility and/or provide significant modifications to the solids
digestion process to accommodate the 100% secondary sludge.
System Flexibility
The ability to modify the process operations of a technology in situations of instability is an important
characteristic of the ease of operability of the system. ASP systems have a reliable control parameter, the
systems solids retention time (SRT). BAF systems can modify the frequency and length of backwash
cycles. On the contrary, MBBR systems, by their nature, have reduced ability to modify process operations
to mitigate upsets. The ease of operability of the upgraded Brockville WPCC is an important consideration
for operations staff as is the ability of the process to deal with variations in incoming wastewater stream that
can be affected by industries contributing to the wastewater stream in Brockville. Brockville currently
experiences some difficulties in dealing with variations in wastewater influent due to industry.
Screening Requirement
As a part of the MBBR system, there is a need for fine screening ahead of the MBBR bioreactors (i.e.
converted primary clarifiers). This would mean that screenings would be collected at two locations, i.e. in
the existing headworks and prior to the converted MBBR reactors, which would complicate operations.
Recommendation
MBBR is considered a newer unproven technology that was not well demonstrated at the Brockville WPCC
during pilot testing, and through preliminary screening has scored below a threshold where further
investigation is not warranted. Based on the above noted points, of the three recommended technologies
indicated in Table 1, CH2M HILL recommends elimination of the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor technology
from the possible alternative technologies.
328304_WB092007004OTT
3
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
Selection of Technologies
1.0: Technical Performance 2.0: Operations Impact 3.0: Life Cycle Cost 4.0: Project Implementation
4.1: Impact on existing process during construction
1.1: Universal Technology 2.1: Occupational Health and Safety 3.1: O&M Cost
(ie. tie-ins, impact on daily operations)
Weight 15% Weight 7% Weight 9% Weight 4%
1.2: Process Flexibilty (Response to Influent 2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to process 4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term, footprint,
3.2: Capital Cost
Variances) control layout, etc.)
Weight 8% Weight 5% Weight 9% Weight 3%
1.3: Impact on existing processes 2.3: Major maintenance requirements 3.3: Cash Flow Requirements 4.3: Constructability
Weight 4% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight 2%
1.4: Suitability to meet future effluent
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff) 4.4: Staging Areas/Access
requirements
Weight 5% Weight 3% Weight 2%
1.5: Capability for future expansion 2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff) 4.5: Security
Weight 4% Weight 2% Weight 1%
1.6: Impact on hydraulic rating of existing
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation 4.6: Construction schedule
plant
Weight 1% Weight 2% Weight 1%
1.7: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power 4.7: Impact on surrounding community
quality)
Weight 1% Weight 1% Weight 1%
1.8: Energy efficiency 4.8: Environmental impacts
Weight 1% Weight 1%
1.9: Biological Phosphorous removal potential
Weight 1%
Sum of Sum of Sum of Sum of
40% 25% 20% 15%
Weights Weights Weights Weights
Total
100%
Weight
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2008
Reactor
Option 3) Moving Bed Biofilter
Filter
Option 2) Biological Aerated
Activated Sludge
Option 1) Conventional
Weight 15%
10
1.1: Universal Technology
3
8
1.2: Process Flexibilty (Response to Influent
8%
3
5
8
Variances)
4%
1.0: Technical Performance
1.3: Impact on existing processes
8
8
8
1.4: Suitability to meet future effluent
5%
5
3
8
requirements
4%
1.5: Capability for future expansion
7
8
5
1%
1.6: Impact on hydraulic rating of existing plant
5
5
8
1%
1.7: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent quality)
5
5
8
1%
1.8: Energy efficiency
5
5
8
1%
1.9: Biological Phosphorous removal potential
3
3
8
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
7%
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
8
6
8
Selection of Technologies
2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to
5%
5
6
8
2.0: Operations Impact
process control
5%
2.3: Major maintenance requirements
4
6
8
3%
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff)
8
6
8
2%
2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff)
6
6
6
2%
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
7
5
7
1%
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power
5
5
8
3.0: Life Cycle
9%
3.1: O&M Cost
Cost
9%
3.2: Capital Cost
2%
3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
4.1: Impact on existing process during
4%
10
construction (ie. tie-ins, impact on daily
6
6
operations)
4.0: Project Implementation
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term,
3%
10
6
6
footprint, layout, etc.)
2%
10
4.3: Constructability
5
6
2%
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
6
8
6
1% 1% 1% 1%
4.5: Security
6
6
6
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2008
4.6: Construction schedule
6
8
6
4.7: Impact on surrounding community
6
6
6
4.8: Environmental impacts
6
6
6
Reactor
Bed Biofilter
Option 3) Moving
Aerated Filter
Option 2) Biological
Activated Sludge
Conventional
Option 1)
Weight 15%
0.5
1.2
1.5
1.1: Universal Technology
1.2: Process Flexibilty (Response to
8%
0.2
0.4
0.6
Influent Variances)
4%
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.0: Technical Performance
1.3: Impact on existing processes
1.4: Suitability to meet future
5%
0.3
0.2
0.4
effluent requirements
4%
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.5: Capability for future expansion
1.6: Impact on hydraulic rating of
1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
existing plant
1.7: Environmental impacts (eg.
1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
effluent quality)
1%
0.1
0.1
0.1 1.8: Energy efficiency
1.9: Biological Phosphorous removal
1%
0.0
0.0
0.1
potential
7%
0.6
0.4
0.6
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
2.2: Flexibility of technology to
5%
0.3
0.3
0.4
respond to process control
2.0: Operations Impact
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
2.3: Major maintenance
5%
0.2
0.3
0.4
requirements
Selection of Technologies
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills
3%
0.2
0.2
0.2
required by staff)
2%
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff)
2%
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
2.7: Requirements for Standby
1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
Power
9%
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1: O&M Cost
Cycle Cost
3.0: Life
9% 2%
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
3.2: Capital Cost
3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
4.1: Impact on existing process
4%
0.2
0.4
0.2
during construction (ie. tie-ins,
impact on daily operations)
4.0: Project Implementation
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie.
3%
0.2
0.3
0.2
long term, footprint, layout, etc.)
2% 2% 1% 1%
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
4.3: Constructability
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
4.5: Security
4.6: Construction schedule
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2008
4.7: Impact on surrounding
1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
community
1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.8: Environmental impacts
Score
Total
4.2
5.4
6.2
4.8: Environmental impacts
10 4.7: Impact on surrounding community
4.6: Construction schedule
9 4.5: Security
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
4.3: Constructability
8
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term, footprint,
layout, etc.)
4.1: Impact on existing process during construction (ie.
tie-ins, impact on daily operations)
7 3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
3.2: Capital Cost
3.1: O&M Cost
6
Weighted Score
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
5
2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff)
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff)
4 2.3: Major maintenance requirements
2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to process
control
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
3
1.9: Biological Phosphorous removal potential
1.8: Energy efficiency
2 1.7: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent quality)
1.6: Impact on hydraulic rating of existing plant
1 1.5: Capability for future expansion
1.4: Suitability to meet future effluent requirements
1.3: Impact on existing processes
0
1.2: Process Flexibilty (Response to Influent Variances)
Option 1) Conventional Option 2) Biological Aerated Option 3) Moving Bed
Activated Sludge Filter Biofilter Reactor 1.1: Universal Technology
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
Selection of Technologies
1.0: Technical Performance 2.0: Operations Impact 3.0: Life Cycle Cost 4.0: Project Implementation
4.1: Impact on existing process during construction
1.1: Universal Technology 2.1: Occupational Health and Safety 3.1: O&M Cost
(ie. tie-ins, impact on daily operations)
Weight 15% Weight 7% Weight 9% Weight 4%
1.2: Process Flexibilty (Response to Influent 2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to process 4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term, footprint,
3.2: Capital Cost
Variances) control layout, etc.)
Weight 8% Weight 5% Weight 9% Weight 3%
1.3: Impact on existing processes 2.3: Major maintenance requirements 3.3: Cash Flow Requirements 4.3: Constructability
Weight 4% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight 2%
1.4: Suitability to meet future effluent
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff) 4.4: Staging Areas/Access
requirements
Weight 5% Weight 3% Weight 2%
1.5: Capability for future expansion 2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff) 4.5: Security
Weight 4% Weight 2% Weight 1%
1.6: Impact on hydraulic rating of existing
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation 4.6: Construction schedule
plant
Weight 1% Weight 2% Weight 1%
1.7: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power 4.7: Impact on surrounding community
quality)
Weight 1% Weight 1% Weight 1%
1.8: Energy efficiency 4.8: Environmental impacts
Weight 1% Weight 1%
1.9: Biological Phosphorous removal potential
Weight 1%
Sum of Sum of Sum of
40% 25% 20% 15%
Weights Weights Weights
Total
100%
Weight
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2008
Filter
Option 2) Biological Aerated
Activated Sludge
Option 1) Conventional
Weight 15%
10
1.1: Universal Technology
8
1.2: Process Flexibilty (Response to Influent
8%
5
8
Variances)
4%
1.0: Technical Performance
1.3: Impact on existing processes
8
8
1.4: Suitability to meet future effluent
5%
3
8
requirements
4%
1.5: Capability for future expansion
8
5
1%
1.6: Impact on hydraulic rating of existing plant
5
8
1%
1.7: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent quality)
5
8
1%
1.8: Energy efficiency
5
8
1%
1.9: Biological Phosphorous removal potential
3
8
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
7%
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
6
8
Selection of Technologies
2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to
5%
6
8
2.0: Operations Impact
process control
5%
2.3: Major maintenance requirements
6
8
3%
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff)
6
8
2%
2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff)
6
6
2%
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
5
7
1%
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power
5
8
3.0: Life Cycle
9%
8.5
10
3.1: O&M Cost
Cost
9%
9.8
10
3.2: Capital Cost
2%
3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
8
8
4.1: Impact on existing process during
4%
10
construction (ie. tie-ins, impact on daily
6
operations)
4.0: Project Implementation
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term,
3%
10
6
footprint, layout, etc.)
2%
10
4.3: Constructability
6
2%
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
8
6
1% 1% 1% 1%
4.5: Security
6
6
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2007
4.6: Construction schedule
8
6
4.7: Impact on surrounding community
6
6
4.8: Environmental impacts
6
6
Aerated Filter
Option 2) Biological
Activated Sludge
Conventional
Option 1)
Weight 15%
1.2
1.5
1.1: Universal Technology
1.2: Process Flexibilty (Response to
8%
0.4
0.6
Influent Variances)
4%
0.3
0.3
1.0: Technical Performance
1.3: Impact on existing processes
1.4: Suitability to meet future
5%
0.2
0.4
effluent requirements
4%
0.3
0.2
1.5: Capability for future expansion
1.6: Impact on hydraulic rating of
1%
0.1
0.1
existing plant
1.7: Environmental impacts (eg.
1%
0.1
0.1
effluent quality)
1%
0.1
0.1 1.8: Energy efficiency
1.9: Biological Phosphorous removal
1%
0.0
0.1
potential
7%
0.4
0.6
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
2.2: Flexibility of technology to
5%
0.3
0.4
respond to process control
2.0: Operations Impact
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
2.3: Major maintenance
5%
0.3
0.4
requirements
Selection of Technologies
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills
3%
0.2
0.2
required by staff)
2%
0.1
0.1
2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff)
2%
0.1
0.1
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
2.7: Requirements for Standby
1%
0.1
0.1
Power
9%
0.8
0.9
3.1: O&M Cost
Cycle Cost
3.0: Life
9% 2%
0.9 0.2
0.9 0.2
3.2: Capital Cost
3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
4.1: Impact on existing process
4%
0.4
0.2
during construction (ie. tie-ins,
impact on daily operations)
4.0: Project Implementation
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie.
3%
0.3
0.2
long term, footprint, layout, etc.)
2% 2% 1% 1%
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
4.3: Constructability
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
4.5: Security
4.6: Construction schedule
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2008
4.7: Impact on surrounding
1%
0.1
0.1
community
1%
0.1
0.1
4.8: Environmental impacts
Score
Total
7.2
8.2
4.8: Environmental impacts
10 4.7: Impact on surrounding community
4.6: Construction schedule
9 4.5: Security
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
4.3: Constructability
8
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term, footprint,
layout, etc.)
4.1: Impact on existing process during construction (ie.
tie-ins, impact on daily operations)
7 3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
3.2: Capital Cost
3.1: O&M Cost
6
Weighted Score
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
5 2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff)
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff)
2.3: Major maintenance requirements
4
2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to process
control
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
3 1.9: Biological Phosphorous removal potential
1.8: Energy efficiency
1.7: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent quality)
2
1.6: Impact on hydraulic rating of existing plant
1.5: Capability for future expansion
1 1.4: Suitability to meet future effluent requirements
1.3: Impact on existing processes
1.2: Process Flexibilty (Response to Influent Variances)
0
Option 1) Conventional Activated Sludge Option 2) Biological Aerated Filter 1.1: Universal Technology
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
Selection of Technologies
1.0: Technical Performance 2.0: Operations Impact 3.0: Life Cycle Cost 4.0: Project Implementation
4.1: Impact on existing process during construction (ie.
1.1: Universal Technology 2.1: Occupational Health and Safety 3.1: O&M Cost
tie-ins, impact on daily operations)
Weight 10% Weight 7% Weight 10% Weight 5%
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term, footprint,
1.2: Flexibility and Reliability 2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to process control 3.2: Capital Cost
layout, etc.)
Weight 10% Weight 5% Weight 10% Weight 3%
1.3: Suitability to meet future effluent
2.3: Major maintenance requirements 3.3: Cash Flow Requirements 4.3: Constructability
requirements
Weight 7% Weight 5% Weight 5% Weight 2%
1.4: Capability for future expansion 2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff) 4.4: Staging Areas/Access
Weight 3% Weight 3% Weight 1%
1.5: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent quality) 2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff) 4.5: Security
Weight 3% Weight 2% Weight 1%
1.6: Energy efficiency 2.6: Dependence on instrumentation 4.6: Construction schedule
Weight 2% Weight 2% Weight 1%
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power 4.7: Impact on surrounding community
Weight 1% Weight 1%
4.8: Environmental impacts
Weight 1%
Sum of Sum of Sum of Sum of
35% 25% 25% 15%
Weights Weights Weights Weights
Total
100%
Weight
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2008
Option 2) Chlorination/Dechlorination
Option 1) UV
Weight 10%
1.1: Universal Technology
8
7
1.0: Technical Performance
10%
1.2: Flexibility and Reliability
8
7
1.3: Suitability to meet future effluent
7%
8
8
requirements
3%
1.4: Capability for future expansion
8
7
3%
10
1.5: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent quality)
6
2%
1.6: Energy efficiency
9
7
7%
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
6
9
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to
5%
8
7
process control
2.0: Operations Impact
Selection of Technologies
5%
2.3: Major maintenance requirements
9
7
3%
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff)
9
9
2%
2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff)
8
8
2%
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
8
7
1%
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power
9
7
3.0: Life Cycle Cost
9%
4.9
10
3.1: O&M Cost
9%
5.2
10
3.2: Capital Cost
2%
3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
7
7
4.1: Impact on existing process during
5%
construction (ie. tie-ins, impact on daily
8
8
operations)
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term,
3%
6
8
footprint, layout, etc.)
4.0: Project Implementation
2%
4.3: Constructability
7
7
1%
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
7
7
1%
4.5: Security
0
0
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2008
1%
4.6: Construction schedule
6
8
1%
4.7: Impact on surrounding community
5
8
1%
10
4.8: Environmental impacts
6
ination
Chlorination/Dechlor 0.8
Option 2)
Option 1) UV
Weight 10% 10%
0.7
1.1: Universal Technology
1.0: Technical Performance
0.8
0.7
1.2: Flexibility and Reliability
1.3: Suitability to meet future
7%
0.6
0.6
effluent requirements
3%
0.2
0.2
1.4: Capability for future expansion
1.5: Environmental impacts (eg.
3%
0.2
0.3
effluent quality)
2%
0.2
0.1
1.6: Energy efficiency
7%
0.4
0.6
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
2.2: Flexibility of technology to
5%
0.4
0.4
respond to process control
2.0: Operations Impact
2.3: Major maintenance
5%
0.5
0.4
requirements
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills
3%
0.3
0.3
required by staff)
Brockville WPCC Secondary Upgrade
2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of
2%
0.2
0.2
staff)
Selection of Technologies
2%
0.2
0.1
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
2.7: Requirements for Standby
1%
0.1
0.1
Power
10% 10% 5%
0.5
1.0
3.1: O&M Cost
Cycle Cost
3.0: Life
1.0 0.4
0.5 0.4
3.2: Capital Cost
3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
4.1: Impact on existing process
5%
0.4
0.4
during construction (ie. tie-ins,
impact on daily operations)
4.0: Project Implementation
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie.
3%
0.2
0.2
long term, footprint, layout, etc.)
2% 1% 1% 1%
0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
4.3: Constructability
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
4.5: Security
4.6: Construction schedule
4.7: Impact on surrounding
1%
0.1
0.1
community
1%
0.1
0.1
4.8: Environmental impacts
Copyright by CH2M HILL, 2008
Score
Total
7.51
7.56
4.8: Environmental impacts
10
4.7: Impact on surrounding community
4.6: Construction schedule
9 4.5: Security
4.4: Staging Areas/Access
8 4.3: Constructability
4.2: Impact to existing facility (ie. long term, footprint,
layout, etc.)
7 4.1: Impact on existing process during construction (ie.
tie-ins, impact on daily operations)
3.3: Cash Flow Requirements
3.2: Capital Cost
6
Weighted Score
3.1: O&M Cost
2.7: Requirements for Standby Power
5
2.6: Dependence on instrumentation
2.5: Staffing Requirements (# of staff)
4
2.4: Ease of Operation (Skills required by staff)
2.3: Major maintenance requirements
3 2.2: Flexibility of technology to respond to process
control
2.1: Occupational Health and Safety
2 1.6: Energy efficiency
1.5: Environmental impacts (eg. effluent quality)
1.4: Capability for future expansion
1
1.3: Suitability to meet future effluent requirements
1.2: Flexibility and Reliability
0
Option 1) UV Option 2) Chlorination/Dechlorination 1.1: Universal Technology
Related docs
Other docs by pit66159
