PORT DARLINGTON WPCP EXPANSION PROJECT

PORT DARLINGTON WPCPEXPANSION PROJECT

Ryerson University Design Team: Nancy Afonso

Ruston Bedasie

Kirill Cheiko

Andrew Iammatteo

WEAO Student Design Competition

• Objectives:

– Develop preliminary design and layout for Phase I expansion

– Conceptually design the Phase II expansion

– Adhere to design philosophy and limit usage of chemicals

Port Darlington WPCP

• Regional Municipality of Durham has identified a need to expand the Port Darlington WPCP in two phases

• Port Darlington WPCP – services the Bowmanville Urban Area

Introduction

Achieve innovation based on field proven projects, with environmental sustainability

and cost awareness always in mind. (Courtesy of Google Maps)

Outline

• Design Basis and Challenges

• Process Selection and Facility Design:

– Headworks– Primary Treatment– Secondary Treatment– Disinfection– Solids Handling– Additional Considerations

• Process Control

• Phase I Economic Analysis

• Recommendations and Closing Remarks

• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

4• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Design Basis and Challenges

Plant Loading

• Hydraulic Loading:

ADF (m3/d) PDF (m3/d)Added

Capacity Total Plant Capacity

Added Capacity

Total Plant Capacity

Current Plant - 13,638 - 34,095

Phase I 13,638 27,276 45,005 90,010Phase II 13,201 40,477 43,563 133,574

Pollutant Annual Avg. Concentration (mg/L)BOD5 160TSS 180

Total Phosphorus 7Ammonia + Ammonium 36

TKN 54

• Pollutant Loading:

D.O = Design ObjectiveC.L = Compliance Limit

Existing Estimated Phase

I & Phase II Estimated

Existing + Phase I

D.O C.L D.O C.L D.O C.L

BOD5 (mg/L) 15 25 5 25 10 25TSS (mg/L) 15 25 5 25 10 25

Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 1 1 0.3 1 0.65 1Total Ammonia as N (mg/L)

- Summer14 N/A 10 14 12 14

Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Winter

14 N/A 14 24 14 24

E. Coli (org./100 mL) 100 200 100 200 100 200Total Residual Chlorine

(mg/L)0.5 N/A 0 0.2 0.25 0.2

Effluent Criteria• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Design Challenges

• An alternative method of disinfection

• Nitrification

• Technologies selected must integrate into the existing plant

• Al2(SO4)3 for P removal must be reconsidered

• Phase I design and layout must take into account space limitations for Phase II

Process Selection and Facility Design

PFD – Phase I

Preliminary Treatment

Primary Treatment Secondary

TreatmentDisinfection

Phase I Sludge

Thickening

Existing Sludge

Stabilization

Plant Layout• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

10(Courtesy of Google Maps)

Phase I Expansion• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Headworks

Phase I Expansion

Primary Clarifiers

Phase I Expansion

BNR Bioreactors

Phase I Expansion

Secondary Clarifiers

Phase I Expansion

UV Facility

Phase I Expansion

Fermenter

Phase I Expansion

Gravity Belt Thickener

Phase I Expansion

Hydraulic Profile• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Available head = 3.0 m

L.L.EL. 79.66 m

Outfall Pipe

L.L.EL. 76.64 m

Conduit from

Headworks

Headworks• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Headworks

• Installation of two 94 kW raw sewage pumps

• Commissioning of third headworks channel

• Commissioning of aerated grit tank

Primary Treatment• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Primary Clarifiers

• Four (4) rectangular clarifier installation

• Total Volume: 1960m3

– BOD Removal: 30%

– TSS Removal: 55%

– HRT: 3.5h @ ADF

• Chain & flight scum/sludge collection

Primary Treatment• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Secondary Treatment• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

BNR Bioreactors

Process Selection

• Activated Sludge with incorporated biological nutrient removal (BNR)

– Reduced chemical dependency

– Reliable effluent quality

– Low sludge production

• Sludge has higher levels of bioavailable nutrients

– Reduced aeration requirements

– Improved sludge settleability

– Environmentally sustainable

26Process Selection: WESTBANK

Influent

Secondary Effluent

RAS WAS

BNR Bioreactor Secondary Clarifier

Equipment Design

40%20% 40%

= Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic

Equipment Design

Mechanical Mixers

Fine Bubble Diffusers

Equipment Design

4.8% 8% 7.8%

Mechanical Mixers

Fine Bubble Diffusers

• Total Bioreactor Volume: 1,782m3

• SRT: 12 days• HRT: 12.5 hours @ ADF • Average MLSS: 3,000 mg/L• Required VFA concentration: 15 – 25 mg/L

Secondary Treatment

• Based on the solids loading rate

• “Gould II” type clarifiers

• Common sludge collector between sets of two clarifiers

Disinfection• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

UV Facility

Process Selection

• Provide additional hydraulic capacity and meet new compliance criteria

• Selection between chlorination/dechlorination and UV disinfection

• UV disinfection selected:

– Effluent toxicity and safety issues with chlorination

– Costs of two processes are becoming comparable

– UV capable of the same process reliability, performance track record, and full automatic control capability

– Minimal space requirements

• Open – channel, modular design with horizontal, LP-HI lamps

• Design Objective: 100 E.Coli/100 mL at PDF

• UV Transmittance of 65%

Design Basis• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

(Courtesy of Trojan Technologies Inc.)

• UV Dose of 30 mW.s/cm2 using LP-HI lamps

• 3 channels constructed: 1 Duty and 1 Redundant (equipped); 1 for Phase II (channel only)

UV Facility Design• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

∆ Water Level = 0.881m

UV Banks

Automatic Level Controller

PDC and Hydraulic Manifold

48 lamps/bank

Variable output electronic ballasts

Automated quartz sleeve cleaning system

(Courtesy of Trojan Technologies Inc.)

Solids Handling• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Fermenter

• Bio-P removal requires VFAs as a source of energy

• Insufficient VFA supply during winter

• Addition of a static fermenter will accomplish two goals:– Provide a source of additional VFA’s– Increase sludge solids concentration

Fermenter Schematic• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Influent Sludge from Primary Clarifiers

Effluent Sludge to DigestersVFA Rich Supernatant to Anaerobic Zones

VFAVFAVFA

(Courtesy of www.gc3.com)

Fermenter Design

• Design Basis:– SRT required: 3-5 days– Sludge loading: 1517 kg/d or 36.8 m3/d (PMF)

• Fermenter Design Summary:– Volume: 157 m3 (10 m diameter, 2 m tall)– Sludge solids concentration increased from 4% to

6%– Additional VFAs supplied to the BNR process:

11.2 mg/L

Solids Handling• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

Thickening

• Construction of a new digester incurs large capital investments

• Thickening can reduce the volume of sludge and allow the use of the existing digesters

• Gravity Belt Thickener– Good control capabilities– High cake solids concentration – Relatively low capital and operating costs

Gravity Belt Thickener• DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES• PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN• PROCESS CONTROL• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS• RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

- Sludge - Separated water

• Design Basis:– Peak solids loading: 13,784 kg/d– Peak hydraulic loading: 675 m3/d– Desired cake solids concentration: 7%

• GBT Design Summary:– Length-Width-Height: 5.1 m : 1.7m : 1.5 m– Belt width: 1.2 m– Solids capture: ~95%– Polymer Usage: 2-4 kg/tonne of sludge

46Additional Considerations

• Noise & odour control• Septage receiving station• Backup generator• Phase II Conceptual Design

Courtesy of Envirocan

Phase II Conceptual Design

Phase IILiquidFacility

47Phase II Conceptual Design

Phase IISolidsFacility

Process Control

49Highlights of Process Control

• Plant to be operated with minimum supervision required

• Process Control will rely on automation and plant operators

• Existing SCADA system is to be upgraded to include control in addition to monitoring

(Courtesy of Port Darlington WPCP)

MOE Requirements

Compliance Sampling required by the MOE

(To be done by the operators)

Raw Sewage Influent

• BOD5

• TSS

• NH3 and NH4

• TP

Final Effluent

• BOD5

• TSS

• NH3 and NH4

• TP

• E. Coli

Process Control

Performance monitoring Sampling

Raw Sewage Influent

Headworks Effluent

Primary Clarifier

Secondary Clarifier

UV Influent

Final Effluent

1 2 3 4 5 6

• pH

• Temperature

• BOD5

• TSS

• TP

• NH3 and NH4

• BOD5

• TSS

• TP

• NH3 and NH4

• SVI

• MLSS

• NO2

• TP

• E. Coli

• pH

•Temperature

• DO

• NO2

2 3 4 5 6

Raw Sewage Influent

Headworks Primary Clarifier

BNR Reactors

Secondary Clarifier UV Influent Final

Effluent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• Flow-Rate

• Air flow-rate to the

Grit Chamber

• Flow-rate

• Primary Sludge

pumping

• Flow-rate

• Temp.

• MLSS

• DO

• Sludge Age

• Recycle Rate

• Ortho-Phosphorus

• WAS rate

• RAS rate

• Alum addition

(Polishing)

• UV Transmittance

• UV Intensity

• Level

• Flow-rate

•UV Dose

• Flow-rate

Automatic Monitoring and Control (SCADA)

Process Control

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Phase I Economic Analysis

Capital Investment

• Trade form with 16 Market Price Divisions

• Detailed analysis for major equipment and concrete costs

• Mark-ups, allowances and contingencies based on industry recommendations (Hussein, 2010)

• Phase I estimation: $36 M

• Accuracy within +50/-30 % for this conceptual level of design

Capital Investment

Total Project Cost = $36 M

$25.9 M

$3.2 M

$3.9 M

$3.0 MBasic Facility Cost

Engineering Services

Allowances and Contingencies

General Contractor’s Overhead & Profit

Capital Investment

$25.9 M

$3.2 M $3

$3.0 M

Basic Facility Cost

Engineering Services

Allowances and Contingencies

General Contractor’s Overhead & Profit

$2.6 M

$7.3 M

$5.7 M

$1.6 M $2.

8 M $1.0 M

$4.9 M

Mechanical

Electrical

Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance

Retrofit/Upgrade Allowance

Concrete

Major Equipment

Total Project Cost = $36 M

O&M Costs

Total Annual O&M Costs = $927K

Maintenance

Labour Electrical

Chemical

Recommendations and Closing Remarks

D.O = Design ObjectiveC.L = Compliance Limit

Existing Estimated Phase

I & Phase II Estimated

Existing + Phase I

D.O C.L D.O C.L D.O C.L

BOD5 (mg/L) 15 25 5 25 10 25

TSS (mg/L) 15 25 5 25 10 25Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 1 1 0.3 1 0.65 1

Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Summer

14 N/A 10 14 12 14

Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Winter

14 N/A 14 24 14 24

E. Coli (org./100 mL) 100 200 100 200 100 200Total Residual Chlorine

(mg/L)0.5 N/A 0 0.2

Recommendations

• Implement dechlorination in existing facility

• Retrofit of existing plant to incorporate BNR

• Increase hydraulic capacity of Headworks

• Biogas capture and reuse

– OPA Feed-in Tariff program (14.7¢/kWh generated)

– Potential O&M Savings: $382 K /yr

0.25 0.2

Closing Remarks

• Phase I uses AS process with incorporated BNR and UV

• Effluent will meet more stringent compliance levels

• Economically feasible

– Total Phase I Expansion Cost: $36 M

– Annual Phase I Operating Cost: $927 K

• Environmentally Sustainable

Acknowledgements

Dr. Manual Alvarez – Cuenca, Faculty Supervisor Professor of Chemical Engineering – Ryerson University

Gisselly Anania, Consultant Advisor Associate Project Manager – CH2M Hill, Water Business Group

Jeremy KraemerAssociate Engineer – CH2M Hill, Water Business Group

Abu HusseinRegional Estimator – CH2M Hill, Canada Region

WEAO Student Design Competition Sub - Committee

Vendors: • Rob Anderson H2Flow Equipment Inc.• Edward M. Pikovnik ENV Treatment Systems Inc.• Allen Vivian, Geoff Coate Pro Aqua Inc.• Frank Ferrie ITT Water & Wastewater• Dale Jackson ACG Technology Ltd.• Darrin Hopper H2Flow Tanks & Systems Inc.• Michel Bruneau John Meunier Inc.

Questions

Supporting Documentation

BNR Bioreactors

65Biological Nutrient Removal

• Anaerobic Zone

P Release

Energy

66Biological Nutrient Removal

• Anoxic and Aerobic Zones

Energy

O2 or NO3

CO2 + H2O

Cell growth

67Aerobic Zone Assumptions

• 20% of the influent TSS are considered inert

• 40% of the remaining TSS are non-biodegradable

• 10% of the influent TKN is incorporated into the heterotrophic biomass

• Heterotrophic organisms do not differentiate between forms of nitrogen in the wastewater

• Autotrophic organisms do not assimilate an appreciable amount of nitrogen

• Average sewage temperature of 15°C (minimum: 10°C; maximum 20°C)

Parameter Symbol 15ºC 10ºC 20ºCHeterotrophic organisms

True Yield(kg VSS/kg BOD5)

Yhtrue 0.6 does not vary with temperature

Observed Yield(kg VSS/kg BOD5)

Yh-obs -- 0.38 0.33

Decay Coefficient(d-1)

bh 0.06 0.05 0.07

Autotrophic organisms

True Yield(kg VSS/kg BOD5)

Yatrue 0.15 does not vary with temperature

Observed Yield(kg VSS/kg BOD5)

Yh-obs -- 0.10 0.09

Decay Coefficient(d-1)

ba 0.05 0.04 0.06

Half-velocity constant for N(mg/NH3-N/L)

Ksn 1 does not vary with temperature

Half-velocity constant for O(mg DO/L)

Ko 0.5 does not vary with temperature

Max. growth rate(d-1)

µmax 0.47 0.29 0.77

Sizing Aerobic Zone

)(5 * TobsT YBODM

YY true

Tobs *1)(

produce biomass cAutotrophi+

produced biomass hicHeterotrop+

VSS dableNonbidegra+SolidsInert =PT

P*SRT=V C10

biomass2

ionnitrificat2BOD2total2

demand) (O+

demand) (O+demand) (O=demand) (O

• Anoxic Zone

• Anaerobic Zone

Sizing Zones

Parameter Symbol Unit Coming from Aeration tank

Nitrate in influent TKNomg/L 53.6

Nitrate in effluent Nemg/L 10

Nitrogen in cell tissue PX,biomg/L 4.35

bioX,er P-N-TKN=) Ooxidized(NNitrogen

VSS))(SDNR)(ML (V=NO ANOr

0.029+M):0.03(F=SDNR

Q*HRT=VANA

SS)0.029)(MLV+M):(0.03(F

Other Design

72Primary Clarifier Specifications

Parameter PDF ADF

Total Volume 1960 m3

Number of clarifiers 4

Volume per clarifier 490 m3

Dimensions (Length : Width : Depth) 25.5 m : 6.3 m : 3.05 m

L:D 8.36

Weir Length 30 m/clarifier

Hydraulic Retention Time 1.05 h 3.45 h

Overflow Rate 70 m3/m2*d 21.2 m3/m2*d

TSS Removal (55%* Removal)1 4208 kg/d 1275.2 kg/d

BOD5 Removal (30%* Removal)2 2070.23 kg/d 627.35 kg/d

73Primary Clarifier Profile

Factor ValueUV Dose 30,000 mWs / m2

Channel Dimensions(Length : Width : Depth)

10 m : 0.61 m : 1.575 m

Number of Channels (equipped) 2 (1 Duty, 1 Redundant)Number of Banks/Channel 2

# of Modules/Bank 6# of Lamps/Module 8

Total # of Lamps/channel 96

Power Requirement/ChannelConnected Load = 24 kW

Average power draw (avg. flow) = 7.2 kWHydraulic Design 0.881 m of head lossLevel controller Automatic Level Controller

Guaranteed lamp life 12,000 hoursControl of UV dose delivery Yes, automatic dose pacing

Cleaning Mechanism Automatic mechanical/chemical cleaning

UV Facility Design

75Sludge Stream Evaluation

Stream 5 Properties

Mass Flow-rate: 4970.7 kg/d

Solids Concentration: 2%

Volume Flow-rate: 243 m3

Stream 8 Properties

Mass Flow-rate: 1476 kg/d

Volume Flow-rate: 24.6 m3

Stream 9 Properties

Mass Flow-rate: 6322 kg/d

Solids Concentration: 6.7%

Volume Flow-rate: 95 m3

Desired Stream 6 PropertiesMass Flow-rate: 4970.7 kg/d

Volume Flow-rate: 70.4 m3

Thickening

76Septage receiving station

77Hydraulic Profile Equations

• Manning equation of head loss through open channels

• Minor head losses through pipes

Economics

79Inclusions, Assumptions and Allowances

• Equipment estimates are based on vender quotations or catalogue costs

• Major Equipment Installation Costs: 30% of delivered major equipment cost

• Major Equipment Costs: 15% allowance for equipment not included (eg: RAS, WAS, and primary sludge pipe, UV grates, etc.)

• Allowances for the 16 Market Price Divisions: see Table D1.1 (Hussein, 2010)

• Retrofit Allowance for building renovations and facilities that require significant tie-ins to existing facilities: 5% (Hussein, 2010)

• Contractors’ Markup (Overhead and Profit): 15% (Hussein, 2010)

80Inclusions, Assumptions and Allowances

• Contingencies (Hussein, 2010):

– Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance: 20% (Hussein, 2010)

– Construction Contingency: 5%

– Construction Escalation and Market Contingency: 3% each of total estimated

• Engineering Services for Design and Construction Administration: 12% of total facility construction costs (Hussein, 2010)

• Concrete:

– $ 1100 / m3 (frame, concrete, rebar) (Hussein, 2010)

– Allowances (Anania, 2010):

• 7% for common channels

• 20% for galleries and tunnels

Exclusions

• GST

• Timeline escalation contingency

• Non-competitive market conditions (i.e. shortage of materials, shortage of skilled labour)

• Additional costs if construction is accelerated

Total Project Cost

Port Darlington WPCP Phase I Expansion - CAPITAL COST

Sub-Total Basic Facility Costs $20.09 M

Retrofit & phasing, demolition & upgrades $1.01 M

General Contractor's Overhead & Profit $3.17 M

Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance $4.85 M

Construction Contingency (Change Orders) $1.21 M

Construction Escalation $0.91 M

Market Contingency $0.91 M

Engineering Services for Design and Construction Administration

$3.86 M

Total Estimated Project Cost - Excluding GST $36 M

Annual O&M

Port Darlington WPCP Phase I Expansion - ANNUAL O&M COST Item Units

Unit Cost

Daily Quantities

Yearly Quantities

Yearly Cost

1. Electrical Total - Electrical Costs (see Electricity Cost Table) $153,6002. Chemical - aluminum sulphate kg $1.2 669.6 244,404 $293,300 - polymer kg $6 12.2 4,453 $26,700Total - Chemical Costs $320,0003. Maintenance Total Major Equipment Cost (see Major Equipment Table) $5,746,387 % of Major Equipment Cost 5% Total - Maintenance Costs $287,3004. Labour Full Time Operators 2 $40/hr Total yearly hours (8 hrs/day, 5 days/week) 4160 Total - Labour Costs $166,400

Total Annual Operating Cost: $927,300

Process Control

85Operator’s Sampling Duties

Parameter to measure

Raw Influent

Head works

Primary Clarifier

BNR Reactors

Secondary Clarifier

UV Facility

Final Effluent

Frequency

BOD Daily Monthly Monthly - - - Daily

TSS Daily Monthly Monthly - - - Daily

SVI - - - - Daily - -

pH Daily - - - - - Daily

Total Phosphorus

Daily - - - - - Daily

RAS blanket depth

- - - - Daily - -

Primary Sludge

blanket depth- - Daily - - - -

Ammonia Daily - - - - - Daily

Nitrate - - - - - - Daily

Dissolved Oxygen

- - - - - - Weekly

E. Coli - - - - Weekly - Weekly

86Process Control - Solids

Performance monitoring Sampling – Solids Handling

Fermenter GBT Primary Digester

Secondary Digester

1 2 3 4 & 5

% Solids % Solids pH % Solids

VFA VSS TP

87Process Control - Solids

Automatic Monitoring and Control – Solids Handling

(SCADA)

Fermenter GBT Primary Digester

Secondary Digester

1 2 3 4 & 5

Sludge Wasting Flow-Rate Level Level

Polymer Dosing Flow-rate

Temperature

Alum Dosing

Phase II Considerations

• New headworks facility • Four additional liquid trains (identical to Phase I)• Installation of UV equipment in 3rd chamber• Fermenter• Gravity Belt Thickener• Primary High Rate Anaerobic Digester

90Implementation and Construction Schedule

PORT DARLINGTON WPCP EXPANSION PROJECT

Documents

Darlington PushPull

Darlington Primary School

Site Build - Darlington

October 2014 WKCE Pre-Test Workshop For MPCP, RPCP and WPCP Schools

Consent Decree Overview - Fort Wayne, Indiana...Consent Decree Exhibit 3 (LTCP Table 4.2.4.1) 1. WPCP Primaries – 2008 2. WPCP Phase III – 2015 3. Early Floatables Control (pilot)

DARLINGTON PRIMARY SHOOL

Ebook sophia darlington

SWPPP and WPCP Guidance Manual - California Department of

Darlington Local Development Framework

II DARLINGTON

Invest in Darlington

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION APPLICATION … · DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION APPLICATION FOR LICENCE ... 11.0 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND FIRE PROTECTION ... 1.2 Darlington

Silicon NPN Darlington Transistor

SIDNEY DARLINGTON 1906 1997 - National Academy of Sciencesnasonline.org/.../memoir-pdfs/darlington-sidney.pdf · 2016-08-31 · 83 SIDNEY DARLINGTON July 13, 1906–October 31, 1997

Ch205i1-6766.ppt / 1. ch205i1-6766.ppt / 2 What the WPCP Expansion Project Is Increase treatment capacity to 12 million gallons per day (mgd) ADWFIncrease

School Certs Darlington

Darlington Magazine

3238 Darlington Road

Darlington County - Community Profiles site/Documents...Community Profile Darlington County March 2018 Characteristics of Unemployment Insurance Claimants Gender Darlington CountySouth

City of Pinole Pinole/Hercules WPCP Project