HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/1995 City Council MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
HELD ON
FEBRUARY 27, 1995
The Regular Session of the City Council of the City of The Colony, Texas was called to
order at 6:30 p.m. on the 27th day of February, 1995, at City Hall with the following Council
roll call:
William W. Manning, Mayor Present
Mike Lynch, Mayor Pro-Tem Present
Toby Pollard, Councilman Present
Kay Hardin, Councilman Present
Rob Burchard, Councilman Present
John Dillard, Councilman Present
David Heiman, Councilman Present
and with seven present, a quorum was established and the following items were addressed:
6:32 p.m.
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551 OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION, REAL
PROPERTY AND PERSONNEL, TO-WIT
A. GIBSON VS THE CITY OF THE COLONY (551.071)
B. GIFFORD PROPERTY REQUESTS AND POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO
THE CITY (551.071)
C. PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND EVALUATION
FORMS- CITY MANAGER AND CITY SECRETARY/DIRECTOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - PRESENTATION ONLY BY THE CITY
ATrORNEY (551.074)
7:35 p.m
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Mayor Maxmlng.
3. CITIZEN INPUT
Cindy Buerke. 5017 Crawford. Problems with flooding in street and yard. Her
address is on the mud jacking schedule for this week.
4
Rich Lewis. 5013 Ashlock. thanks to David Swain and Parks and Recreation staff for
hard work at the 3 on 1 tournament.
4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT OF A 5.801 ACRE
TRACT LOCATED SOUTH OF N. COLONY BOUI.RVARD, ON THE WEST
SIDE OF MAIN STREET, CURRENTLY ZONED FOR COUNTY ANNEX
Denton County has requested approval of the final plat into a legal lot of record for
purposes of future construction. The 5.8 acre site is currently developed and unplatted.
Planning and Zoning met on February 14, 1995 to address this request and does
recommend approval of the final plat subject to all staff stipulations as follows:
1. Add city file No. 02-95FPI to the plat.
2. Add the City Signature Block, Utility Certificate, Standard Notes and Dedication
Statement to the plat.
3. Label and dimension the right-of-way for Main Street (F.M. 423) on the plat.
4. Label Main Street (F.M. 423) north of Nash Drive as the 6300 Block and south
of Nash Drive as the 6200 Block on the plat.
5. Provide a 15.0 foot wide utility easement along Main Street (F.M. 423) within the
boundaries of the lot for the future location of a water main.
6. Add the 30.0 foot wide drainage easement along the south property line on the
plat.
7. Amend the alley dimension for the subdivisions located adjacent to the site to 15
feet on the plat.
Motion to approve the final plat with stipulations as set out - Lynch; second - Dillard,
carried with a unanimous roll call vote.
5. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ACTION REGARDING THE CITY OF THE
COLONY ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT TO TAKE OVER OPERATION
OF LAKE LEWISVILLE STATE PARK
For the past several months, the City Council and staff have been investigating the
feasibility of the City taking over the operation of Lake Lewisville State Park. The Park is
an Army Corps of Engineers park which has been operated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department. Mr. Smith presented revenue and budget projections for the next year and
identified capital needs at the park. Mr. Smith expressed concern for the city to absorb all
the costs without subsidy from the Corps of Engineers or Texas Parks and Wildlife. Mr.
5
005570
Smith said using projections provided by the State and the Parks & Recreation Board __
recommended $5.00 per car fee along with their suggestion to parallel the usage with that
at Stewart Creek Park, the project did show (it could) break even.
The council discussed the latest information and received input from citizens. After
a lengthy discussion regarding the pros and cons of taking over the park a motion was made
as follows:
Motion to enter into an agreement to take over the operations of Lake Lewisville State Park
by May 1, 1995 - Lynch; second - Burchard, carried with the following roll call vote:
Ayes - Lynch, Pollard, Hardin, Burchard, Dillard.
Nays - Heiman, Manning
6. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH RICHARD FERRARA
ARCHITECT, INC. FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR STATE
HIGHWAY 121 CORRIDOR, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
AND REVISIONS AND UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE
The Council has received proposals from the above named architectural firm for two
sets of standards for development and revisions to The Colony's zoning ordinance. At this
time, the council will consider authorizing an agreement with the firm to complete the
standards and the revisions.
Mr. Smith reminded the council this is a result of a request from Councilman
Burchard for Mr. Ferrara's firm to prepare development standards for the city. Discussion
followed regarding the purpose and need for all three sets of standards. Questions were
raised about the cost of all three sets and specifically a question about Section 9.1 of the
agreement regarding liability. It was generally agreed the residential standards are the most
needed at this time.
Mr. Ferrara summarized the purpose of each set of standards:
1. Residential Standards involve staff, architectural firm and home builders -
$12,500.
2. 121 Corridor Standards deal with all aspects of development along Hwy. 121 -
$15,700.
3. Zoning Ordinance Review and involve staff heavily, P&Z and Council with
public hearings - $47,500.
After lengthy discussion the motion was made as follows:
Motion to enter into a contract with Richard Fen'ara Architect to prepare Residential
Development Standards, subject to city attorney review of contract (specifically Section 9.1)
- Burchard; second - Heiman, carried with a unanimous roll call vote. ""
6
00557
9. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM CITIZENS REGARDING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWAI.K ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF
ETHERIDGE DRIVE, FROM NORTH COLONY TO THE NORTHERN MOST
END OF ETHERIDGE DRIVE
Citizens in the area named above presented a request for a sidewalk to be
constructed along Etheridge Drive. Staff presented estimates for cost of this project and Mr.
Rusty Nichols advised his company had planned on constructing a winding sidewalk in this
area in the future and that they will reimburse the city for the cost of the sidewalk at the
time they (his company) are ready to develop that property. The estimate for a concrete
sidewalk is $22,030.00
The Council discussed this request and received input from Dave Darnell, dtizen as
well as staff. Foremost in this discussion was the safety of children going to Etheridge
Elementary school at the south end of Etheridge Drive. It was agreed the sidewalk would
provide a safer route to school than currently exists. Staff was asked to compare costs of
a concrete sidewalk and an asphalt sidewalk. Concrete would be the preferable material.
Motion to authorize construction of a sidewalk along the western side of Etheridge Drive
from N. Colony to the northern most end of Etheridge Drive - Dillard; second - Heiman,
carried with a unanimous roll call vote
7. PRESENTATION OF WASTEWATER SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL
REPORT BY WASTELINE ENGINEERING
Mr. Smith advised the council that in addition to receipt and discussion of the
Wasteline Engineering report, he would like to get direction from the council regarding the
overall wastewater expansion project. He advised that due to all the research and numbers
available his recommendation is to terminate the existing engineering contract and negotiate
a new contract to handle the reduced immediate needs of sludge handling, holding pond
elimination and necessary facilities construction for sludge and effluent treatment. Mr.
Smith said according to all information expansion ground breaking should be done in early
2000, but said the numbers will be reviewed annually and updated as needed.
The City council discussed the report from Wasteline Engineering regarding options
for handling and disposal of sludge with representative Glenn Breisch. The report gave
information on the centrifuge and the belt press for sludge handling. Mr. Breisch stated the
results of the report recommend using a centrifuge. Tom Cravens and Kenneth Huffman
both agreed that either would be acceptable. Mr. Huffman could not give a
recommendation because his only experience has been with a belt press. Councilman Lynch
recommended going with the centrifuge because it's initial cost is $103,000 less than the belt
press and there would be no additional building needed.
After a brief discussion, council directed the Wasteline Engineering Contract be
placed on the March 6, 1995 agenda for further discussion and possible action.
12. DISCUSSION OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING CONTRACTORS TO CARRY
INSURANCE
Councilman Burchard requested the council to re-visit this issue. Ordinance 757 and
Ordinance 768 were passed in 1992 relating to this issue. Mr. Smith advised the council
there are pros and cons to the issue, stating it would protect the citizens but might restrict
their choices and cause small businesses not to get jobs. Councilman Burchard expressed
concern that all homeowners assume contractors have insurance. He indicated that most
contractors are in favor of the requirement and asked that the ordinance be placed on an
upcoming agenda. Brief discussion followed.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE
COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 6, 1995
Councilman Hardin noted that the word "no" had been left out of Item 8 on page 10,'
and she was also concerned that the discussion regarding the financing of capital purchases,
specifically regarding "line of credit" was not written as it had occurred. She said the
statement Councilman Lynch made about line of credit was correct but the minutes do not
reflect Mr. Johnston's rebuttal in which he referred to the amount of $350,000 as a loan.
Mr. Smith clarified the ~mount of $350,000 is the what we are taking from the bank to be
able to borrow against as a "line of credit" and whatever amount we actually use of that "line
of credit" will be the loan amount. Mr. Smith said the two terms could be interchanged.
Councilman Hardin said if the terms are the same thing then she has no problem with these
minutes. Mr. Smith indicated the ratification will be in the minutes of this meeting.
Motion to approve the minutes as prepared and with change as noted on page 10 - Hardin;
second - Lynch, carried with a unanimous roll call vote.
B. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE AND AWARD OF BIDS FOR
THE ANNUAL MOWING CONTRACT AND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING CONTRACT(S) FOR SAME
Bids were opened and read publicly on February 16, 1995. Staff recommendation
is to award the mowing contracts to three bidders as follows:
Ellis Lawn Care - Pocket Parks, Aquatic Park and rough cut mowing
All Seasons - Stewart Creek and Bill Allen Memorial Parks, Medians/Parkways and
FM 423
Sunbelt Landscaping - Residential mowing
Motion to accept the bids and award the contracts as recommended by staff- Heiman;
second - Pollard, carried with a unanimous roll call vote.
8
00558
C. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF A CONTRACT
WITH SATURDAY NIGHT OUT
Kris and Carol Sharp, of Funscape, Inc. dba as "Saturday Nite Out" were present to
respond to questions. The program, formerly known as Friday Nite Live, has been in place
at the Recreation Center for 3 years and has been very successful. Staff recommended
approval of this renewal. Council discussed the insurance requirements, providing a
program for older youth and the city receiving a percentage of the concessions. After a
brief discussion:
Motion to renew the contract with the amendment to show the city as the additional insured
- Burchard; second - Lynch, carried with a unanimous roll call vote.
D.· CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING FLOWER MOUND MAYOR
LARRY LIPSCOMB AS REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL OF THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENTS
The cities of The Colony, Lewisville and Flower Mound have previously joined
together to appoint a representative to serve on the RTC. Mayor Lipscomb has been
serving in this capacity and would like to continue to do so. The City of Lewisville has
already approved his appointment. Staff recommended the appointment of Mayor
Lipscomb.
Motion to approve the appointment of Mayor Lipscomb - Pollard; second - Heiman, carried
with a unanimous roll call vote.
10. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 904.2.8 OF THE
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE RELATING TO SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN
APARTMENTS, CONGREGATE RESIDENCES AND HOTELS
In an effort to ensure safety in future developments the council will consider this
amendment to the Uniform Building Code requiring all apartment buildings, congregate
residences and hotels to be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems.
Motion to approve the ordinance as written - Lynch; second. Pollard, tan'led with a
unanimous roll call vote.
11. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATE MEANS OF TAKING AND PREPARING
MINU'I~S OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS
Mayor Manning advised that he had requested this discussion due to the amount of
time spent in preparing and re-writing minutes in the past several months. Councilman
9
Burchard indicated the City Secretary's summary is not always what his summary would be.
The City Secretary, Patti Hicks, addressed the council and explained that the problem with
preparing minutes in the way she had been is that there is no way to put in everything that
everyone says or wants to see in writing. She indicated the only way would be to do a
verbatim transcript of every meeting and that she and her deputy do not have time to do
that for every meeting.
Ms. Hicks recommended a brief style of minutes, the preparation of a second audio
tape during each meeting which will be made available to the council to listen to whenever
they desire. She reminded them that every action the council takes results in a document
of some kind and those documents are the records which really tell what action the council
took on a particular issue.
Mr. Smith said minutes should be outlines and overviews, not narratives. Ms. Hicks
is to prepare some alternatives and present to the council as soon as possible.
13. CITY MANAGER AND STAFF REPORTS
1. Mr. Smith is going to Austin to meet with Southwestern Bell and the PUC about
caller I.D., and the TNRCC and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. He will be
working with TCI and Texas Waste Management on negotiations of their contracts in the
very near future so he can be sure the contracts are to the benefit of the citizens.
14. CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION TO BE TAKEN AS A
RESULT OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION
No action.
With no further business to address, Mayor Manning adjourned the meeting at 10:46
p.m.
APPROVED:
lham W l~anning, Mayor &
ATrEST:
Patti A. Hicks, TRMC, City Secretary
10
0(Jbbsa
ATTACHMENT "A"
A Comparison of a Sludge Belt Filter Press and Centrifuge
Performed for Stewart Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
The City of The Colony, Texas
'February 21, 1995
~.~.~. ..... .......
by
Wastel~e Eng~ee~g, Inc.
P.O. Box 3~1
~o~ Wo~, Texas 76113
WASTEUNE
February 21, 1995
The City of The Colony
5151 N. Colony Blvd.
The Colony, Texas 75056
Atto: Mayor and City Council
RE: Review of Sludge Dewatering Equipment
Gentlemen:
In response to the Request for Extra Services No. 1 dated October 17, 1994, we offer the
following information for your perusal.
As the costs of sludge hauling and disposal have steadily increased, the City of The Colony
has made upgrading of the sludge dewatering facilities at Stewart Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant a top priority. The City is currently spending approximately $1,200.00
per week to dispose of sludge generated by the treatment process.
As requested, we have performed a comprehensive comparison of the two most commonly
used methods of sludge dewatering for inclusion at The Colony's wastewater treatment
facility. The methods reviewed are a sludge belt filter press and a decanter centrifuge.
The sludge belt filter press which we used for comparison purposes is a unit manufactured
by Andritz Ruthner, Inc., of Arlington, Texas. Andritz is world recognized as a leader in
the belt filter press dewatering system industry. Their units are known to be of quality
construction and long lived. Andritz has several hundred units in operation - many in the
north central Texas area. Operators we. have contacted like the unit for both operation and
maintenance and recommend it.
The decanter centrifuge which we used for comparison purposes is a unit manufactured by
Nifo Separation, Inc., of Houston, Texas. Nifo, too, is world recognized as a leader in the
decanting centrifuge system indusU-y. Their units, also, are known to be of quality
construction and long lived. Nifo has over one thousand units in operation world-wide -
several in south Texas and Louisiana, but none in north central Texas. Again, operators
we have contacted like these units as well and recommend them.
POST OFFICE BOX 3441
ONE SUMMIT AVENUE
SUITE 1005
FORT WORTH, TI~(AS 76t 13
817/877-4242
FAX 817/'877-4251
The Ci~ of The Colony
Fcbnmry 21, 19~
pa~e 2
A sludge decanting centrifuge was brought to The Colony last fall by Nifo Separation, Inc.
(for demonstration purposes only), so that the plant operators, city staff, and city council
could see it in action. The system was demonstrated using sludge produced at The
Colony's own Stewart Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The results of that
demonstration were very good. The maximum sludge cake produced was approximately
25 % dry solids content. In their letter dated February 3, 1995 (attached), Niro guarantees
a sludge cake end product in the 22-24% dry solids content range. Andritz also
guarantees, in their letter dated January 26, 1995 (also attached), a sludge cake end product
with dry solids content in the 18-20% range.
On February 8, 1995, in the absence of Mr. Ken Huffman, we spoke with Mr. Mike
SloggeR, an operator at the Stewart Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Slogger
advised that The Colony is presently hauling approximately 20 truckloads of sludge per
week to the CDR Environmental disposal site near Ponder, Texas. This sludge has a
typical dry solids content between 6.8 % and 7.3 %. The installation of a new dewatering
system (either the sludge belt ~ter press or the decanter centrifuge) should reduce the
amount of sludge to be hauled for disposal by approximately two-thirds.
As stated in the accompanying letter from Andritz (dated November 1, 1994), the belt filter
press has advantages which the centrifuge does not and, conversely, the centrifuge has
advantages that the belt filter press does not. On the attached three sheets entitled 'A
Comparison of a Sludge Belt Filter Press and Centrifuge", we have compared some of
these advantages/disadvantages.
Both Andritz and Niro keep an inventory of spare parts in stock. Andritz's spare parts are
in stock in Arlington, and Niro's spare parts are in stock in Houston. Both manufacturers
have advised that they can perform any repairs that may be required on-site in a matter of
days.
The comparison which we have performed has concluded that the purchase and subsequent
installation of an Andritz belt filter press will require that a new building to house the unit
be constructed due to the physical size of the unit. The building will need to have a
minimum floor area of 20 feet by 40 feet and will need to be at least 14 feet tall. In the
"Comparison", we have estimated a building of this type and size to cost $25.00 per square
foot to construct (therefore, $20,000.00). Some site piping modifications will also be
necessary. In contrast, a Niro decanter centrifuge will fit into the existing sludge building
at Stewart Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant with only modifications to the existing
interior piping necessary.
Table One of the three page "Comparison" lists various inquiries which were made of each
manufacturer along with the manufacturers' response; Table Two compares costs and
performance of the two units and makes a selection based upon the response presented by
005586
The C~ of The Coloay
February 21, 1995 --
page 3
the manufacturer; and Table Three makes a f'mal comparison based on capital expenditures
and annual operation and maintenance expenditures.
The "Comparison" of the two units - the sludge belt filter press and the decanter centrifuge
yields the result that the unit of choice for installation at Stewart Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant is the decanter centrifuge. Based upon all data presented by the two
manufacturers, we recommend that the City of The Colony select a decanter centrifuge for
sludge dewatering.
Should you have any questions concerning any of the above data, or the attachments, please
do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very truly yours,
WASTELINE ENGINEERING, INC.
Glenn Breisch, P.E.
attachments
9412SLUDGE.wpwin52.ad
A Comparison of a Sludge Belt Filter Press and Centrifuge
performed for Stewart Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
The City of The Colony, Texas
February 15, 1995
Table One
Response from Response from
Inquiry Andritz Belt Filter Press Niro Hysep Centrifuge
Which of your units do you recommend
for use? 1.0 meter SMX-S8-LP MD-44
Not to Exceed pdce $190,000 $165,000
What is the minimum solids content that
this unit will produce (based on the
criteria presented)? 18 - 20% 22 - 24%
Will you guarantee this performance? Yes Yes
What is the amount of polymer dose (in
pounds per dry ton) that will be required
to achieve the guaranteed performance? 12 - 14 12 - 14
What is your best estimate of the cost of
this polymer?. $2.00 ! lb. $2.00 - 2.50 / lb.
Will you guarantee this polymer usage if
the unit recommended is operated in
accordance with your operating
instructions? Yes, with an operating Yes
contract
How many manhours per week for O&M
of the recommended unit? 7.5 3.75
What are the electrical power
requirements including drive motors, was
water pumps, etc., for the recommended
unit? 15 HP connected 35 HP connected
What size building would you suggest to
house the recommended unit (floor
space, ceiling height, etc.)? 20' x 40' floor space 12' x 20' floor space
(no ceiling height given. 10' ceiling height
Assume at least six feet
above top of unit - 147
What size building would you suggest to
house two of the recommended units? 40' x 40' x 14' 20' x 21' x 10'
What should we anticipate the annual
,maintenance costs to be during the first
five years of operation? $2,500 $1,200
Is odor control equipment recommended Yes Yes
005580
A Comparison of a Sludge Belt Filter Press and Centrifuge
performed for Stewart Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
The City of The Colony, Texas
February 15, 1995
Table Two
Sub-Catego~ Andritz Belt Filter Press Nifo Hysep Centrifuge Selection
Initial capital expenditure $190~000 $165~000 Centrifuge
Minimum solids content produced 18 - 20% 22 - 24% Centrifuge
Guaranteed performance Yes Yes -
Polymer cost / year $12t480 $12~480 -
Guaranteed polymer consumption Yes~ with contract Yes Centrifuge
Manhours per week for O&M 7.50 3.75 Centrifuge
HP on-line 15 35 Filter Press
~,nnual electrical power consumption 20~365 K~NH 47,520 KVVH Filter Press
Electrical cost per year ~ $0.05093/KVV $1,037 $2,420 Filter Press
Unit will fit in existing building No Yes Centrifuge
Unit annual O&M costs $2,500 $1,200 Centrifuge
Cost of odor control equipment $52,000 $25,000 Centrifuge
00558°
A Comparison of a Sludge Belt Filter Press and Centrifuge
performed for Stewart Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
The City of The Colony, Texas
February 15, 1995
Table Three
Category Andritz Belt Filter Press Niro H),sep Centrifuge Selection
Capital Expenditures
Equipment $190,000.00 $165,000.00
Equipment Installation $32~500.00 $30,000.00
Ancillary Equipment $3,300.00 not applicable
* Discha~e Conveyor $52~750.00 $52~750.00
Odor Control Equipment $52~000.00 $25,000.00
Odor Control Equipment Installation $23,000.00 $4~800.00
Building to house unit $20~000.00 $0.00
Interconnecting Piping $8,500.00 $2,200.00
Initial Capital Expenditure $382~050.00 $279~750.00 Centrifuge
O&M Expenditures
Electrical (~ $0.05093/kwh $1,037 $2,420
Labor (~ $8.65/hr $3,373 $1,687
Polymer $12,480 $12,480
Odor Control $910 $910
Equipment $2,500 $1,200
Annual O&M Expenditures $20,300 $18,697 Centrifuge
* Anddtz has suggested $25,000 as the cost of a Discharge Conveyor in their November 1, 1994
letter. However, Fairfield Conveyor Systems suggests that this figure is probably well below
actual cost and recommends that we use $52,750 as the cost for a Discharge Conveyor.
F£B-13-gS 1S,37 FROM~4£C ID:30329S614~ PAG]E 1/1
NuTe
environmen~ ODOR CON~O~
co~. , " SOLUTIONS
DA~: Feb~ I3, 1~5 T~PAG~: (O~)
Including ~s
TO: Glenn B~i~h F~ ~ 817~W~251
~OM: Jori Heller
RR Ci~' of Colony, ~. ~ ~or consol for sludge ~lt p~ss dewatefing
If ~c slud~e if ~ly digestS, ~d not stored ~aembic~ly for ~ extended ~fi~, ~I ~e ~or
should ~ iow ~t~U org~c wi~h ve~ little if any H~S. As we have no way of insuring
~c wo~d ~u~e venfila~g thc building ~d ~at th~ e~aust with o~ v~or ph~caustic
d~r open~gs for thc roHoff con~mne~ or o~cr ~uipment. ~s c~culatcs out to 2240 ~.
Idly ~ ~ pic~ h~ o~'er ~e p~ wo~d ~ help~ to ins~: ~ ~st con~l of ~e va~m
in th~room. ~e Q~ va~r ph~e u~t ~ats ~e org~c loa~ng ~d ~e caustic packed ~d
~mb~ ~a~ ~ H~S. ~s would ~ o~ M~I 20 ~/Causfic Scmb~r Odor Con~l
Svst~ ~is unit would cost ~o~d $52,000 ~d would ~so use our NuTr~it~ Odor
~li~nstor. ~ ch~c~ o~mfing cost would ~ ~out $.25 to $.50 ~r hour.
H you went wi~ a cen~fuge ~ sysmm a~ow ~q~emenm would be ~een 3~ ~d 5~
C~ ~d ~m ventiladon probably would not be m~imd d0 to ~c closed nature of this system.
~e pfic~ for a M~eI .5 Q~/Ca~tic Scmb~r would ~ ~ound $25,~.
Bo~ systems were ~stimatcd wi~out ~y freight or insmllation. ~ you n~d ~y~ing els: let
me ~ow.
Sincerely,
NuTech Em'i. ronmental Corp.
5558 N. WASHINGTON STR£[~T, O~NU~R, COI. 08ADO 80216-1951
(383) 295-3762 I~: (:$8:5) Z95-6145 TOLL FREE: (~(18) $ZI-8874
s #'z 7 005'59_
via Facsimile
817-877..4251
,UTH NER, INC.
Febma~ 9, 1995
Mr. Glenn Breis~
Wasteline Engineering Inc.
P.O. Box 3~1
Foal Wodh, TX 76113
Ref: ~e Colony, Texas
Dear Glenn:
In response to your questions concerning ancillary equipment, please review the
following information:
H. P. Requirement
A. Wastewater pump Option 1.10 H.P. w/no head pressure, cost $ 1,800
Option 2. 5 H.P. w/20-30 psi head pressure cost $ 1,200
B. Air compressor Option 1. Plant air is acceptable
Option 2. Quincy FX8 1.5 H.P. compressor with
30 gallon tank cost $ 1,500
C. Polymer system Option 1. Fluid dynamics emulsion system cost $10,000
wi1.5 H.P. progressive cavity
pump cost $ 5,000
D. Feed sludge pump Option 1. Moyno or Netzch progressive cavity
pump w/AC mechanical variable
speed motor 10 H.P. cost $15,000
General Thou.qhts
ANDRITZ would recommend the following redundancy if a two press layout is chosen.
A) In either event, the polymer pump and sludge feed pump should have VFDs
with controls at the belt press panel. This adds approximately $10,000 to all
previously quoted prices. Polymer pump VFD 2 H.P., Sludge pump VFD 10
H.P.
B) If two presses are chosen, then the one air compressor is sufficient for both.
Plant air would also be acceptable for both if it is available.
1010 Commercial Blvd. S.,Arlington, TX 76017 1817) 465-5611 FAX (817) 468-3961
00 59
$ ~?
817-877-4251
C) Each press should have a dedicated polymer system and feed sludge pump.
D) One discharge conveyor should be provided for both presses. H.P. is
dependent on length of conveyor but typically 5 H.P. is sufficient.
Per your questions concerning the on-line power requirement (1.7 H.P.) vs. nameplate
(3.0 H.P.), we are referring to the true power consumption vs. nameplate requirement.
Naturally the plant electrical infrastructure must be designed on an equation based on
nameplate horsepowers.
We trust this answers your questions. Should any others arise, please don't hesitate to
call us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
David Bartlett
Regional Sales Manager
DLB/jg
cc: Bob Landry, Metro Quip ,
ff"~-~l~ 17:~ CITY OF ~ COL~ P.06
TO: GLENN
WASTE~INE ENGINEERING
FROM: TOM CRAVENS, Director of Public Works
CITY OF THE COLONY '4 .
RE: ELECTRIC RATE FOR ~ASTEWATER TREaTMENT'PLANT ''
DAT~:
VIA FA~: 817-877-42§1
Please {lnd the attached ~n~ormation ~rom T.U. Electric concerning the
electric rate ~or the wastewater treatment pla~t. As yOU can see on
the fi=st page, the average rate has been calculated and is 5.09?
cent~ per KWH.
We have a~so enclosed a recent invoice ~r'om T.U. Electric.
Please contact me if you have any qu~stioa$ or require ~urther
information.
WASTELINE
ENGINEERING, INC
Facsimile Cover Sheet
Total Number of Pages: 1
Date: February 09, 1995
Time: 09:10 hrs.
To: Mr. Tom Cravens
Director of Public Works
214-370-2515
From: Glenn Breisch
Subject: The City of The Colony WWTP
Comments: Tom, I have finally received almost all of the information that I have
requested from the sludge belt press and centrifuge manufacturers.
So that I may get a lot closer to finishing my comparison of the units,
could you please fax to me today the electrical rate which the City is
paying at the wastewater treatment plant per kilowatt-hour.
Please respond by facsimile to 817-877-4251 at your earliest
convenience.
Thank you.
Please call 817-877-4242 should you have any difficulty receiving this
facsimile transmission.
WASTELINE
ENGINEERING, INC.
Facsimile Cover Sheet
Total Number of Pages: 1
Date: February 09, 1995
Time: 09:00 hrs.
To: Mr. Jon Heller
NuTech Environmental Corp.
303-295-6145
From: Glenn Breisch
Subject: The City of The Colony WWTP
Comments: Jon, the City of The Colony is considering the installation of a sludge
belt press within the confines of a 20'x40'x14' building. The press is
working with aerobically digested sludge from a contact stabilization
wastewater treatment plant. At this time, we do not know what the air
quality is, so please take your best shot based upon your company's
vast experience.
What I need is a ballpark estimate of the cost of odor control
equipment (and a model selection) for this proposed facility.
The City is also considering the use of a centrifuge in a 12'x20'x10'
building. What odor control will be needed for this facility working with
the same sludge product?
Please respond by facsimile to 817-877-4251 at your earliest
convenience.
Thank you.
Please call 817-877-4242 should you have any difficulty receiving this
facsimile transmission.
Niro Separation, In~--
5202 Brittmoore
Houston, TX 77041
February 3, 1995 Te~ (713) 849-2181
Fax (713) 849-2185
Mr. Glen Breisch
Waste Line Engineering, Inc. ,i~!.. ~; ....... ~";:".i; 7 .~.r.., ...
P.O. Box 3441
Fort Worth, Texas 76113 - '-
Subject: The City of Colony Our reft 12537
Dear Mr. Breisch,
In reference to your request to Regency Engineering, enclosed please find the requested
information regarding HYSEP Decanter Centrifuges for the subject project.
Using the specified design criteria we would recommend a HYSEP MD 44 for the
project, and we would be willing to guarantee the following performance and not to
exceed cost.
Not to exceed price: $165,000.00
Not to exceed installed price*: $195,000.00
*(Installation by Nifo Separation, Inc.)
Feed flow capacity: 70 GPM
Solids capacity: 600 lbs/h
Production at 7 hours/day: 4,170 lbs
Dry solids content in cake: 22-24 %
Polymer consumption: 12-14 lbs/ton TS
Polymer cost: $ 2.00 - $ 2.50/lbs (Depending of quantity
purchased)
Max Power consumption: 35 HP (worst case scenario= max speed, max
flow rate, max torque)
Maintenance cost first 5 years: $ 6,000.00 (1,200/year)
Required manhours per week: 3.75 hours (45 minutes/day)
Required space for installation 1 unit: 20' x 12'
Required space for installation 2 units: 20' x 21'
The ceiling height required will depend of how the unit is installed and the conveying
system used for transportation of the dewatered sludge.
Assuming that the unit is placed on a 3' stand with a belt or screw conveyor under the
centrifuge, and leaving enough space above the unit for easy lift of the rotating assembly,
we would recommend 10' minimum.
The performance is based on full scale testing at the Colony WWTP with an identical
centrifuge as the one proposed for the project, Niro Separation Inc. is willing to
guarantee all the above and to issue a performance bond if required.
The polymer consumption guaranteed is higher than what we normally would have
expected on this type of sludge, but again, it is based on our experience during the test
in September 1994. I have enclosed some test samples showing HYSEP's polymer
consumption vs belt presses in side by side tests on some U.S. waste water treatment
plants.
It is our hope that you will find our HYSEP centrifuge suitable for the subject project, as
well as for future projects.
Respectfully,
Torben Kristensen
Vice President
Enclosures: Test results HYSEP vs Belt Presses
005590
Indianapolis, IN __
Location: Belmont WWTP, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Supervisor: J. Card Adriaans, P.E.
Telephone: 317 327-2310
Sludge type: Municipal undigested mix of primary and secondary sludge.
Side by side test HYSEP vs existing Belt presses of three (3) different brands.
HYSEP obtained more than 30% dry solids content in the sludge cake, the Belt
presses 19-22% with similar polymer consumption.
- Sharpies has also tested at Belmont and obtained 25% dry solids in the sludge
cake.
Peshtigo, WI
Location: Peshtigo WWTP, Wisconsin
Client: Engineered Products Incorporated, Mr. Edward Proctor
Telephone: 414 432-5770
Sludge type: Undigested secondary mix of municipal and industrial sludge. .--.
Municipal installation with a high load of secondary sludge from paper pulp production.
The existing Belt press is currently not in operation due to difficulties in handling these
specific sludge.
- HYSEP obtained 30.9% dry solids content in the sludge cake, the Belt press 8-
10%.
- HYSEP's capture rate was 99%, the Belt press less than 50% due to problems
with the sludge cake sticking to the belt and being flushed back with the filtrate.
Marrero, LA
Location: Marrero WWTP, Marrero, Louisiana
Supervisor: Mr. Ron Johnson
Telephone:
Sludge type: Municipal aerobically digested secondary sludge
Side by side test HYSEP vs existing Belt presses.
- HYSEP obtained 28% dry solids content in the sludge cake, the Belt presses 18-
20%.
The capture rate for HYSEP was 98% vs 95% for the presses. --:
HYSEP's polymer consumption was 5-7 lbs/ton TS, the Belt presses polymer ~
consumption unknown.
Listing of test work HYSEP vs Belt presses within the last 12 months.
Avalon, CA
Engineer: Montgomery Watson
Project Engineer: Mr. Ajit Bhamrah
Telephone: 818 796-9141
Client: The City of Avalon, California
Contact: Mr. Dick Gosselin, C.I.P. Director
Telephone: 310 510-0220
Sludge type: Municipal aerobically digested secondary sludge
Side by side test. IHI, Sharpies, HYSEP centrifuges and Ashbrook Belt press.
HYSEP obtained 26% dry solids in the sludge cake, closest competitor (Sharpies)
obtained 21.7%.
According to the Engineer HYSEP's polymer consumption was only half of the
competition.
- HYSEP was awarded the contract.
Montgomery, AL
Location: Econate WWTP, Montgomery, Alabama
Supervisor:. Mr. George Brown
Telephone: 205 240-1600
Sludge type: Municipal Anerobically digested sludge.
Side by side demo HYSEP centrifuge vs existing Ashbrook Belt presses.
- HYSEP dry solids content 35%, Ashbrook 25%.
HYSEP polymer consumption 4,3 lbs/ton TS Ashbrook 10-15 lbs.
HYSEP capture rate 99.5%, Ashbrook 95%.
S #2367
via Fncsimile
817-877-4251
/"~ UTH N ER~ INC..
January 26, 1995
Mr. Glenn Briesch, P.E.
Wasteline Engineering
P.O. Box 3441
Fort Worth, Texas 76113
Re: Request dated 1-23-95
Dear Mr. Briesch:
As you are aware, we manufacture both centrifuges and belt filter presses. Each offer
significant benefits. Naturally the features each technology offers are "worth" more under
certain conditions. These conditions are a reflection of the owners preferences.
Centrifuges are better at odor control but at a much higher cost of ownership. If the owner
told me that odor control and or maximum cake dryness were the primary design
concerns, I would recommend centrifuge technology.
However, for 90% of the WWTPs in North America, ease of maintenance, cost of
ownership and reliability are primary concerns. For those people (and I believe The
Colony fits into this group) I recommend belt filter press technology.
One ANDR/TZ 1.0 meter SMX~-S8 belt filter press can accomplish dewatering 4,170
lbs. of solids in about five hours. The 20 year cost using belt filter press technology will be
less than half of the cost with centrifuge technology.
ANDRITZ will guarantee our performance. We typically require a five gallon sample.
Without testing, we can offer a performance guarantee providing the following design
parameters are maintained.
L Design Criteria
A. Slurry type aerobically digested
B. Solids concentration 1.5-2.0% TS
C. Solids loading 550-850 lbs TS/hr
D. Ash content 38%
E. Digester temp. 90° F +
1010Commercial BIvd. S.,Arlington, TX 76017 (817) 465-5611 FAX (817) 468-3961 TELEX794053
S #2367
via Fa~_'mil¢
817-877-4251
Page 2
IL Performance & Layout
A. Recommended Technology Belt press
B. Model CPF 1.0 meter SMX~-S8-LP
C. Cake dryness 18-20% TS
D. Polymer consumption 12-14 lbs. ton/TS
E. Solids capture 98%
F. Throughput 550-850 lbs. TS/hr
III. Price
ANDRITZ will not exceed $190,000 for one CPF 1.0 meter SMX~-SS-LP if
bid within the next 200 days. ANDRITZ maintains the right to bid our
standard model SIVIX~-S8 if the advanced design features of the SMX~-SS-LP
are not specified. These advanced features are:
· replaceable wear bars in the gravity and wedge zone that do not cause
frame disassembly to replace.
· 165 sq. i~. of total effective filtration area
Our price is based on the attached ANDR/TZ standard SlVlX~-S8-~ specifications. Start
up and freight are included.
The one meter press and ancillary equipment will require approximately 1 hour at start up
and 30 minutes at shut down to maintain the equipment. The feed sources to our press are
outlined in the attached brochure. We recommend a building size of 20' x 40' or 40' x 40'
if two presses are required.
The standard yearly costs of operation for one CPF 1.0 meter SMX*-S8 or SSLP press is
approximately $4,000. This costs includes one set of belts, water seals and doctor blades.
It appears that one set of belts will last two years for your application. Thus the O&M
costs would be more like $5,000 per two years or $2,500 per year. Polymer as outlined
above would costs $2.00 per pound. If twelve pounds are required per ton of solids, then
$48.00 per day would need to be budgeted for chemicals. Electrical power consumption
at 1.7 operating horsepower 5 hours a day is really not worth calculating.
ANDRITZ would gladly guarantee all these costs with an operating contract.
Unfortunately without our personnel on site we can only offer recommendations.
However, we are interested in your ideas and are open to discussions that would lead to a
mutually agreeable solution.
S g2367
via Facsimile
817-877-4251
Page 3
We trust this addresses your questions for now. Please let us know if we can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
David Bartlett
Regional Sales Manager
DLB/~g
Enclosures
ex: Bob Landry
John Madden
00 '60
WASTELINE ENGINEERING, INC.
January 23, 1995
Andritz Ruthner, Inc.
1010 Commercial Blvd. S.
Arlington, Texas 76017
Ama: Mr. David Bartlett
Regional Manager
RE: The City of The Colony
Dear David:
Thursday, January 19th, we had another meeting with the staff of The Colony. There are
now additional questions to which we need your response. Let us assume the following hold
true:
Plant Flow Rate 2.5 MGD
Influent BOD5 200 rog/1
Treatment Process Contact Stabilization
Plant Process - Headworks' Screening, Grit Removal
Plant Process - Secondary Aerobic Digestion with 2040 day
detention to 0.75 % TS,
125,000 gallon tank, followed by
. existing thickener . :' ..
Dry Solids Production 4,1.70 lbs. per day
Solids Content in Sludge to be dewatered 2% (maximum)
1.5 % (minimum)
Ultimate Solids Disposal Landfill
Weekly Operating Cycle Eight (8) hours per day (max.),
five (5) days per week (max:)
Using the above criteria, how would you respond to each of the following:
Which of your units do you recommend for use?
Please provide a "Not to Exceed" price for this unit.
What is the minimum solids content that this unit will produce based on the above
criteria? Is Andritz willing to guarantee this minimum solids content if the unit is
operated in accordance with your operating instructions?
What is the amount of polymer dose (in pounds per dry ton) that will be required to
P.O. Box 3441 Fort Worth, Texas 70113 817-877-4242
Andritz RuthneT, Inc. ' .....
Jnnuary 2:3, 1995
page 2
achieve thc guaranteed minimum solids content? What is your best estimate of the
cost of this polymer? Is Andrit. z willing to guarantee,this usage if thc unit is operated
in accordance with your operating instructions?
How many manhours per week are required for operation and maintenancc of thc
recommended unit?
What are the electrical power requirements including drive motors, wash water.
pumps, etc., for the recommended unit?
What size building would you suggest that we use to house the recommended unit
(floor space, ceiling height, etc.)? What size building would be suggested to house
the recommended unit and a second identical unit?
What should we anticipate the annual maintenance costs will be during the first five
(5) years of operation? Is Anddtz willing to guarantee these costs if the unit is
maintained in accordance with your maintenance instructions and schedule?
David, the city is closing in on a decision' concerning specifying your press or a centrifuge.
Our job is to not only compare the initial capital expenditure, but to also look at the annual
operating costs of the units recommended, the ease of operation for personnel unfamiliar with
either product, and the necessary/recommended maintenance on each unit.
All the help that you can afford us would be greatly appreciated. Fortunately, we have a
little more time (until February 16th)' to prepare our final recommendation to the city.
However, as usual, thc information requested would be useful at your earliest convenience.
Thank you again for your help in this matter.
Very truly yours,
WASTELINE ENGINEERING, INC.
Glenn Breisch, P.E.
9~1.12AND2 .wpwin52.ed
WASTELINE ENGINEERING, INC.
January 23, 1995
Niro Separation, Inc.
5202 Brittmoore
Houston, Texas 77041
Attn: Mr. Torben Kristensen
Vice President
RE: The City of The Colony
Dear Dave:
Thursday, January 19th, we had another meeting with the staff of The Colony. There are
now additional questions to which we need your response. Let us assume the following bold
tree:
Plant Flow Rate 2.5 MGD
Influent BOD5 200 rog/1
Treatment Process Contact Stabilization
Plant Process - Headworks Screening, Grit Removal
Plant Process - Secondary Aerobic Digestion with 2040 day
detention to 0.75% TS,
125,000 gallon tank, followed by
existing thickener
Dry Solids Production 4,170 lbs. per day
Solids Contem in Sludge to be dewatered 2% (maximum)
1.5% (minimum)
Ultimate Solids Disposal Landfill
Weekly Operating Cycle Eight (8) hours per day (max.),
five (5) days per week (max.)
Using the above criteria, how would you respond to each of the following:
Which of your units do you recommend for use?
Please provide a "Not to Exceed" price for this unit.
What is the minimum solids content that this unit will produce based on the above
criteria? Is Niro willing to guarantee this minimum solids content if the unit is
operated in accordance with your operating instructions?
What is the amount of polymer dose (in pounds per dry ton) that will be required to
P.O. Box 3441 Fort worth, Texas 76113 817-877-4242
Nifo Separation, Ira:.
page 2
achieve the guaranteed minimum solids content? What is your best estimate of the
cost of this polymer? Is Nifo willing to guarantee this usage if the unit is operated in
accordance with your operating instructions?
How many manhours per week are required for operation and maintenance of the
recommended unit?
What are the electrical power requirements including drive motors, wash water
pumps, etc., for the recommended unit?
What size building would you suggest that we use to house the recommended unit
(floor space, ceiling height, etc.)? What size building would be suggested to house
the recommended unit and a second identical unit?
What should we anticipate the annual maintenance costs will be during the fa'st five
(5) years of operation? Is Niro willing to guarantee these costs if the unit is
maintained in accordance with your maintenance instructions and schedule?
Torben, the city is closing in on a decision concerning specifying your centrifuge or a belt
press. Our job is to not only compare the initial capital expenditure, but to also look at the
annual operating costs of the units recommended, the ease of operation for personnel
unfamiliar with either product, and the necessary/recommended maintenance on each unit.
All the help that you can afford us would be greatly appreciated. Fortunately, we have a
little more time (until February 16th) to prepare our final recommendation to the city.
However, as usual, the information requested would be useful at your earliest convenience.
Thank you again for your help in this matter.
Very truly yours,
WASTELINE ENGINEERING, INC.
Glenn Breisch, P.E.
9412reg2.wpwin.52.cd
via Facsimile 877..4251
S-2367
'~t UTH N Erl~ INC.
November 1, 1994
Mr. Glenn Breisch
Wasteline Engineering
P.O. Box 3441
Ft. Worth, Texas 76113
(817) 877-4242
Reference: The Colony WWTP Upgrade
Dear Glenn:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry. In response to our conversation, please
accept and review the enclosed information. Our design response is based on the following
general plant information.
Location The Colony, Texas
Current Plant Capacity 2.5 MGD
Projected Upgrade Capacity 5.0 MGD
Plant Process (Headworks) Screening, Grit Removal
Plant Process (Primary) Clarification to 1-2% TS
Plant Process (Secondary) Aerobic Digestion with 20-40 day detention
to 2-4% TS, 125,000 gallon tank
Solids Handling Belt Press or Centrifuge
Ultimate Solids Disposal Landfill
Based on this information, ANDRITZ has included two (2) different solutions: one traditional and
one innovative approach. Our traditional response is as follows;
TRADITIONAL RESPONSE
Technology - Centrifuge
Advantages
· Odor control is easy
· High dryness with some centrifuges - this reduces hauling and landfill costs
· Clean work environmental - all processes are contained
1010 Commercial Blvd. S., Arlington, TX 76017 (817) 465-5611 FAX (817) 468-3961 TELEX 794053
5-2367
Page 2
· 2X-4X more expensive to own than belt filter presses
· Ownership costs for a small centrifuge would probably average out to $10,000 per year
· Operator can not see the process so all adjustments are essentially made blind
· All repairs are typically made back at the manufacturing plant which leads to as much as 4-5
months downtime for each repair
Budget Costs - $250,000 for unit dewatering 40 GPM at 4% TS feed
Technology - Belt Filter Press
Advantages
· Operator can see process changes and visually make corrections
· Low cost of ownership - $2,000 per year
· High performance in throughput and dryness
· Repairs are rare for a premium unit
· High uptime with only a couple of days down for major repairs
· Very low operation attention
Disadvantages
· Could require odor control
· Wet work environment
Budget Cost - $185,000 for unit dewatering 40 GPM at 4°/· TS feed
Our recommendation would be for belt filter press technology only because the technology is
easier to use and costs less to own. We might tend to the other technology if it were a 50 MGD
facility with the cake either being hauled a great distance or further processed thermally.
Since our recommendation is for belt filter press technology, we suggest the following sizing
criteria. Typically engineers want to dewater on a 6 hour cycle, leaving two hours for dean-up or
shut-down. We estimate your solids production at 2500 lbs. day of total solids at 5 MGD. Cfiven
2500 lbs. day of total solids, our CPF 1.0 meter SMX*-S8-LP would be more than adequate. The
CPF 1.0 meter unit would dewater 2500 lbs. of solids in 4 hours, at a rate of 40 GPM to the
press.
S--2367
Page 3
The ancillary equipment necessary to operate a belt filter press is as follows;
CPF 1.0 meter SMX~-S8-LP $185,000
Feed Sludge Pump (P.C.) $ 15,000
Polymer System $ 15,000
Washwater Booster Pump $ 1,800
Discharge Conveyor $ 25,000
Odor Control $ 10,000 (wild guess)
Total Mechanical Cost $251,800
Building, Erection of Press $80,000
Piping to Building & ?
Other Site Work ?
INNOVATIVE APPROACH
ANDRITZ will finance, supply, erect, and operate per State and Federal guidelines the facility per
your specifications for five (5) years for a set monthly rate. This proposal will include a total mm-
key approach for the complete project upgrade. The benefit of this approach is simply that any
new employees required to operate facility will be on our payroll. As an incentive to accept the
innovative approach, ANDRITZ will give the plant to the City at the end of the five (5) years for
one dollar or extend the contract for an additional five (5) years. We think this approach makes
sense.
Enclosed is a set of specifications for our 1.0 meter press and centrifuge. Should your project take
the traditional approach, please note we only offer a bid against one other belt filter press. The
premium press category is dominated by two models. The SMX*-S8-LP and Winklepress from
Bellmer of Germany as distributed by Ashbrook in Houston, Texas.
Please call us if we can be of service at 1-800-433-5611.
Sincerely,
David L. Bartlett
Regional Sales Manager
DLB/msu
cc: Forrest Johnson, Metro-Quip
·
Niro Separation, In!" ,
5202 BrJttmoore
Houston, TX 77041
October 31, 1994 Tel (713) 849-2181
Fax (713) 849-2185
Mr. Glen Breisch
Wasteline Engineering, Inc. , n ~,, ,~. ~ ,--, ,~, .... .-
One Summit Avenue, Suite 1005 =~,: , ~ ·
, .~-~ ,'~.1;I ~ :;:~ 4~,'~:, .
Fort Worth, Texas 76113 "~ "~" '? ~?
Subject: Colony. Our ref.: # 1:2537
Dear Mr. Breisch
Enclosed please find the information requested for the subject project.
Availabili _ty of HYSEP spare parts
Nifo Separation Inc. guarantees that all standard parts for HYSEP Decanter Centrifuges
can be shipped out of Houston TX, within 24 hours.
Wear parts
Wear parts are available as exchange parts and can be delivered to the plant site prior to
taking the centrifuge out of operation. This will minimize down time on location to the
time needed for the change over only. (12 - 16 hours).
On a decanter centrifuge, wear will occur on the centrifuge scroll (conveyor) over time.
The content of grit and sand in the sludge and the number of operating hours will
determine when a repair is needed. The centrifuge scroll flights are protected by means
of hardfacing, either flame sprayed alloy containing tungsten carbide particles or by a
series of sintered tungsten carbide tiles mounted on the flights.
The wear on the flights can be monitored from the outside without dismantling the
centrifuge, therefore the repair/change over can easily be planned ahead.
Frequently needed parts ,
HYSEP Decanter Centrifuges are extremely well protected against wear and abrasion by
field exchangeable wear parts. However, these parts are all designed to last 10,000 to
20,000 hours so frequently needed parts are limited to oil filters and lubricants etc.
Manpower and Maintenance
The time needed for daily attendance and Maintenance of a HYSEP Decanter
Centrifuge is less than 1/2 hour a day. Start, stop and cleaning of the centrifuge after
operation, is fully automatic.
Best regards
Torben Kristensen
Vice President