X hits on this document

PDF document

Date: September 17, 1999 - page 9 / 9

29 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

9 / 9

Aerobic Digestion/Land close proximity to the

Application

existing

solids

In this approach an aerobic digester would be constructed in

handling

building

(one

65’

diameter

x

28’

high

tank

was

assumed). The unit would be operated to produce a Class B biosolid. The stabilized then be transferred to a storage tank (same size as aerobic digester). Adjoining property would be leased and the stabilized liquid biosolids would be applied with mobile cannons, in accordance with all state and federal regulations.

sludge would to the WWTP reel irrigation

The preceding briefly describes the site-specific approaches that were evaluated as viable alternatives for the WWTP. The attached financial evaluation provides a cost comparison of these approaches and ranks them based on a ten-year cost estimate. These costs include capital as well as yearly operations

and maintenance costs.

Capital

operations

and

maintenance

costs

costs are are based

based on vendor quotations, where on manufacturer’s recommendations

possible.

Yearly

and Earth

Tech’s

experience in operating similar systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Earth Tech has found that the quick dry filter beds in combination with an air curing process will achieve Prescott Valley’s goals of properly handling all biosolids produced at the WWTP and providing Class A biosolid for beneficial reuse throughout the community at the lowest cost. This is also deemed the most viable option when applicability, site constraints, public perception, odor, noise, and future growth are considered.

Document info
Document views29
Page views29
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 10:15:44 UTC 2017
Pages9
Paragraphs412
Words3028

Comments