Wyoming Clean Water Plant

Tertiary Treatment Final Report

Team 12: Anna Boersma, Bonnie Robison, Mark Stehouwer, Mike Troupos

Calvin College ENGR 340 Senior Design Project

May 8, 2012

©2012 Calvin College and Anna Boersma, Bonnie Robison, Mark Stehouwer, Mike Troupos

Executive Summary

The team designed a preliminary plan for replacement of the tertiary treatment at the City of

Wyoming Clean Water Plant (CWP). The CWP’s chlorine based disinfection system will be replaced

with a more sustainable and safe ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection system, while still maintaining the

efficiency and effectiveness of the chlorine gas system. The team also researched applying advanced

oxidation processes (AOPs) to remove emerging contaminants present in the treated effluent of the CWP.

The Clean Water Plant treats an average of sixteen million gallons of wastewater per day, and

typically meets wastewater requirements specified by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) regulations for dissolved oxygen. However, during large rain events, the dissolved oxygen

content of the wastewater can drop below permitted levels. As a result, the team designed a cascade

aerator for the CWP to ensure compliance with NPDES regulations.

Based on research and client needs, the team selected ultraviolet disinfection as the tertiary treatment

alternative because it provided a cost effective, chemical-free treatment option that reduces disinfection

byproducts in the effluent stream. The team recommends low pressure, high intensity ultraviolet lamps in

closed vessels for energy efficiency and compatibility with an ozone AOP system. A system of six Trojan

UV Fit 32AL50 reactors is proposed because it meets all of the design criteria while offering flexibility

and redundancy. The proposed UV disinfection system is expected to cost $900,000 for construction with

an annual operation cost of approximately $60,000.

In April, the team performed UV/ozone bench-scale testing to observe degradation of three

contaminants of interest – atrazine, carbamazepine, and erythromycin. At optimal ozone dosage, results

showed atrazine and carbamazepine removals of 58% and 53% respectively. Erythromycin could not be

isolated and quantified during analysis, resulting in inconclusive data. A 13% degradation of atrazine was

observed with UV alone; this suggests that UV provides disinfection of wastewater and partial

degradation of some emerging contaminants. Additional bench-scale and pilot testing is recommended

before the CWP implements an ozone/UV AOP system. The ozone/UV AOP company will also provide

the system design.

To provide treatment and removal of emerging contaminants at the CWP, the team performed an in

depth feasibility study on the requirements of an ozone/UV AOP system. Ozone is an emerging water

treatment technology commonly used for disinfection of drinking water and wastewater. When ozone is

coupled with a UV disinfection system, synergistic removal of emerging contaminants can be achieved.

The team recommends that the water treatment company, Ozonia, to be the vendor for the ozone system.

After hydraulically modeling the plant, the team determined that an additional pumping station would

be required to operate the proposed UV system. The unused settled sludge pumping station can be

retrofitted to house the additional pumps. Because of the additional pumping, the decision of fine bubble

diffusers for reaeration was reevaluated, and a cascade reaeration system located in Chlorine Contact

Tank No. 1 was proposed instead.

A basic concrete block building was designed to house the UV reactors, the ozone generator, and

associated equipment. The proposed 60 ft by 35 ft building will be located near the chlorine contact basin

for ease of integration with the plant; it will cost approximately $230,000.

Total capital cost for the project without AOP installation is estimated to be $1.7 million, with an

annual operating cost estimated to be $140,000. AOP installation would cost approximately $3.7 million

with a total annual operating cost of $330,000.

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. ii Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................... v Report Tables ...................................................................................................................................... vii Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... viii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Project ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Wastewater Treatment Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

2 Client ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 City of Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Wyoming Clean Water Plant .................................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Plant System .................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.3 Plant Layout .................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.4 Influent .......................................................................................................................... 5

3 Background Information ............................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Government Regulations and Requirements ............................................................................. 7 3.2 Chlorine to Ultraviolet Disinfection.......................................................................................... 7 3.3 Addition of AOPs...................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Dissolved Oxygen Contents ...................................................................................................... 7

4 Overall Design Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................ 8 5 Bench-Scale Testing .................................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Emerging Contaminants ............................................................................................................ 9 5.1.1 Erythromycin ................................................................................................................. 9 5.1.2 Atrazine ....................................................................................................................... 10 5.1.3 Carbamazepine ........................................................................................................... 10

5.2 Equipment and Materials ........................................................................................................ 10 5.3 Setup and Procedure................................................................................................................ 11 5.4 Discussion and Results............................................................................................................ 12

6 UV Disinfection Design ............................................................................................................. 16 6.1 Disinfection Overview ............................................................................................................ 16 6.2 UV Disinfection Background .................................................................................................. 17 6.3 UV Technology Options ......................................................................................................... 18 6.4 Selecting a UV Manufacturer ................................................................................................. 19 6.5 Optimum Design for CWP ...................................................................................................... 19 6.6 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................... 21 6.7 Installation ............................................................................................................................... 21 6.8 10 States Standards Compliance ............................................................................................. 21

7 Advanced Oxidation Design ..................................................................................................... 22 7.1 Advanced Oxidation Overview ............................................................................................... 22 7.2 Ozone and UV Overview ........................................................................................................ 22 7.3 Feed Gas for Ozone Generation .............................................................................................. 23

7.3.1 Prepared Ambient Air ................................................................................................. 23 7.3.2 Liquid Oxygen Delivery .............................................................................................. 23 7.3.3 On-site Oxygen Generation......................................................................................... 24 7.3.4 Feed Gas for Ozone Generation Recommendation..................................................... 24

iii

7.4 Air Preparation for Ozone Generation .................................................................................... 24 7.5 Off-Gas Treatment of Ozone .................................................................................................. 25

7.5.1 Ozone Off-Gas Destruction Technologies .................................................................. 25 7.5.2 Off-Gas Treatment of Ozone Recommendation .......................................................... 26

7.6 Impacts of Ozone on Wastewater ........................................................................................... 27 7.7 Ozone Suppliers and Design ................................................................................................... 27 7.8 Bench Scale Testing ................................................................................................................ 29 7.9 Ozone Generator Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................ 29 7.10 Regulations and Concerns ................................................................................................... 29 7.11 10 States Standards Compliance ......................................................................................... 30

8 Reaeration .................................................................................................................................. 31 8.1 CWP DO Concentrations ........................................................................................................ 31 8.2 CWP’s Existing Reaeration System ........................................................................................ 32 8.3 Recommended Reaeration Process ......................................................................................... 32 8.4 Cascade Aeration Design ........................................................................................................ 33 8.5 Aeration Plant Integration ....................................................................................................... 35

9 Plant Integration ....................................................................................................................... 37 9.1 Hydraulics ............................................................................................................................... 37

9.1.1 Plant Hydraulics ......................................................................................................... 37 9.1.2 Pump Station Design ................................................................................................... 37 9.1.3 10 States Standards for Pumping ................................................................................ 39 9.1.4 UV Pump Station Changes to Plant Flow ................................................................... 39

9.2 Disinfection and Ozone Building ............................................................................................ 40 9.2.1 Location ...................................................................................................................... 40 9.2.2 Design ......................................................................................................................... 40 9.2.3 Stormwater Management ............................................................................................ 41 9.2.4 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 42

9.3 Electrical Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 42 9.4 Transition from Chlorine to UV .............................................................................................. 42

10 Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 43 10.1 Ultraviolet Disinfection ....................................................................................................... 43 10.2 Advanced Oxidation ........................................................................................................... 43 10.3 Building ............................................................................................................................... 44 10.4 Pumping .............................................................................................................................. 45 10.5 Reaeration ........................................................................................................................... 45 10.6 Total Costs .......................................................................................................................... 46

11 Impacts of the Proposed System .............................................................................................. 47 12 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 48 13 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 49 References ........................................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix A: CWP Data and Information ....................................................................................... 54

Site Layout and Location.................................................................................................................. 54 CWP NPDES Permit ........................................................................................................................ 58 Influent and Effluent Contaminants ................................................................................................. 59

Appendix B: Bench-Scale Testing Data ............................................................................................ 61 Appendix C: Technical Calculations ................................................................................................ 71

UV Disinfection Calculations........................................................................................................... 71 AOP Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 75 Bench-Scale Testing ......................................................................................................................... 81 Structural Loading Calculations ....................................................................................................... 85 Reaeration Calculations .................................................................................................................... 87

iv

Plant Hydraulics ............................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix D: Hydroxyl Radical Information ................................................................................... 96 Appendix E: Required Electrical Infrastructure ............................................................................ 97 Appendix F: Cost Estimate Data ....................................................................................................... 99 Appendix G: Project Management ................................................................................................. 103

Team Members ............................................................................................................................... 103 Method of Approach ...................................................................................................................... 104 Team Organization ......................................................................................................................... 104 Scheduling ...................................................................................................................................... 105 Project Documentation ................................................................................................................... 105 Team Budget .................................................................................................................................. 105

Appendix H: Equipment Specification Sheets ............................................................................... 110

v

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Typical layout for a conventional wastewater treatment plant. .............................................. 2 Figure 2. City of Wyoming and surrounding communities, with the outlined areas included in the

plant’s service area. The star is the location of the CWP................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Process schematic of the CWP’s wastewater treatment system. ............................................. 4 Figure 4. 30-day average influent flows from the four communities that send their wastewater to

CWP. ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 5. Bench scale testing set-up. .................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6. HPLC machine and testing apparatus. .................................................................................. 12 Figure 7. Removal of the contaminant atrazine by ozone/UV treatment during bench-scale testing at

select ozone dosages. ..................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8. Removal of the contaminant carbamazepine by ozone/UV treatment during bench-scale

testing at select ozone dosages. ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9. Removal of the contaminant atrazine by UV treatment during bench-scale scale testing .... 14 Figure 10. Cut-away views of UV disinfection systems with (a) horizontal lamps parallel to flow and

(b) vertical lamps perpendicular to flow. ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 11. Trojan line of UV Fit closed vessel UV Reactors. .............................................................. 19 Figure 12. Diagram of UV Fit reactor based on dimensions. ............................................................... 20 Figure 13. Construction of a LPHI UV lamp. ...................................................................................... 20 Figure 14. Effect of moisture content on ozone production. ................................................................ 24 Figure 15. Typical arrangement of an air preparation unit for ozone generation. ................................ 25 Figure 16. Ozonia CFV ozone generator .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 17. Ozonia VOD Series RB Model off-gas destruction unit. .................................................... 28 Figure 18. DO content in the effluent wastewater compared with the NPDES requirements. ............. 31 Figure 19. Diagram of flow through the weir during dry weather flows (left) and wet weather flows

(right). ............................................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 20. Cascade aeration system in Marshall, Montana. ................................................................. 32 Figure 21. Cross section of the proposed cascade aeration system (1:80 scale). ................................. 34 Figure 22. Estimated effluent DO concentration after cascade aeration of ten drops at 0.75 ft per drop.

For this graph, the additional DO was added to the effluent DO concentrations for 2009. ........... 34 Figure 23. Summer 2009 effluent DO concentrations with varying levels of aeration. ....................... 35 Figure 24. Reaeration flow schematic. Drawing not to scale. .............................................................. 36 Figure 25. Picture of a vertical solids handling pump. ......................................................................... 38 Figure 26. Flow from the UV pumping station (#1) to the UV building (#4). ..................................... 39 Figure 27. Plan view of ozone and UV disinfection building. ............................................................. 40 Figure 28. Layout of beam designs for the ozone and UV disinfection building. Grid marks are 2.5 ft

apart. .............................................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 29. The catch basin located in the field. .................................................................................... 42 Figure 30. Plan view of the site layout at the CWP (1:80 scale), including proposed additions. ......... 54 Figure 31. View of integration between reaeration in the old chlorine contact chamber and the UV

and ozone building (1:40 scale). .................................................................................................... 55 Figure 32. Aerial view of the settled sludge pumping station converted to the UV pump station (1:40

scale). ............................................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 33. Firmette including CWP site location (approximate location shown with dashed box). .... 57 Figure 34. Calibration curve for atrazine testing with UV light. .......................................................... 61 Figure 35. Removal of atrazine by UV light over different trials. The dashed line represents the

average of the three runs at 12.5% removal. .................................................................................. 62 Figure 36. Calibration curve for atrazine testing with ozone and UV light. ........................................ 63

vi

Figure 37. Removal of atrazine by ozone and UV light. ...................................................................... 64 Figure 38. Calibration curve for carbamazepine testing with UV light. .............................................. 65 Figure 39. Removal of carbamazepine by UV light over different trials. The dashed line represents the

average removal over the trials of 29%. ........................................................................................ 66 Figure 40. Calibration curve for carbamazepine testing with ozone and UV light. ............................. 67 Figure 41. Removal of carbamazepine by ozone and UV light. ........................................................... 68 Figure 42. Calibration curve for erythromycin testing with UV light. ................................................. 69 Figure 43. Calibration curve for erythromycin testing with ozone and UV light. ................................ 70 Figure 44. Assumed cross section of the Trojan UV Fit reactor. Small circles represent the UV lamps.

....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 45. Correlation between set dial reading on Poseidon unit and desired ozone output. ............. 84 Figure 46. Detail of the connection between concrete step and concrete wall (1:16 scale). Dashed

lines represent #4 rebar . ................................................................................................................ 89 Figure 47. Aerial view of the cascade aeration structure (1:60 scale). Light gray lines represent rebar.

....................................................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 48 Flow through entire CWP. ................................................................................................... 91 Figure 49. Hydraulic profile from the CWP entrance to the primary clarifiers.................................... 91 Figure 50. Hydraulic profile from the primary clarifiers through the aeration basins.......................... 91 Figure 51. Hydraulic profile from the aeration basins to the effluent junction chamber. .................... 92 Figure 52. Hydraulic profile from the effluent junction chamber to the UV building. ........................ 92 Figure 53. Hydraulic profile through the UV building. ........................................................................ 92 Figure 54. Hydraulic profile from the UV building to the outfall. ....................................................... 92 Figure 55. Hydroxyl radical diagram. .................................................................................................. 96 Figure 56. Work breakdown schedule of tasks from February 19, 2012 to April 14, 2012. ............. 108 Figure 57. Work breakdown schedule of tasks from April 15, 2012, to May 12, 2012. .................... 109

vii

Report Tables

Table 1. Treatment facilities in operation in 2008 by flow range. ......................................................... 1 Table 2. Flow data from the CWP. ......................................................................................................... 6 Table 3. Contaminants of interest ........................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Decision matrix for disinfection. The assigned values range from 1 to 5, with 1 being poor

and 5 being excellent. .................................................................................................................... 17 Table 5. Typical ultraviolet system design parameters. ....................................................................... 17 Table 6. Impacts of wastewater constituents on ozone AOPs. ............................................................. 27 Table 7. Technical data for Ozonia RB-63 off-gas destruction unit..................................................... 28 Table 8. Ambient air quality standards and ratings for ozone .............................................................. 30 Table 9. Decision matrix for CWP reaeration system. ......................................................................... 33 Table 10. Cascade aeration configuration alternatives and provided DO concentrations. ................... 33 Table 11. 5700 Angleflow 16" 5711(AM) pump characteristics ......................................................... 38 Table 12. 5700 Angleflow 16" 5711(AM) performance data .............................................................. 38 Table 13. Cost estimate of UV disinfection system for the CWP. ....................................................... 43 Table 14. Cost estimate of ozone/UV AOP system for the CWP (ozone dose of 4 mg/L). ................. 44 Table 15. Building cost estimates. ........................................................................................................ 44 Table 16. Pumping cost estimates. ....................................................................................................... 45 Table 17. Cascade aeration cost estimates. .......................................................................................... 45 Table 18. Overall project cost estimates without advanced oxidation. ................................................ 46 Table 19. Overall project cost estimates with advanced oxidation. ..................................................... 46 Table 20. Data supplied by the Clean Water Plant on influent and effluent concentrations of certain

contaminants. All units are in ng/L. ............................................................................................... 59 Table 21. Calibration curve data for atrazine concentrations with UV light. ....................................... 61 Table 22. Removal of atrazine from water by UV light. ...................................................................... 62 Table 23. Calibration curve data for atrazine concentrations with UV light and ozone. ...................... 62 Table 24. Removal of atrazine from water by UV light and ozone. ..................................................... 63 Table 25. Calibration curve data for carbamazepine concentrations with UV light. ............................ 64 Table 26. Removal of carbamazepine from water by UV light. ........................................................... 65 Table 27. Calibration curve data for carbamazepine concentrations with UV light and ozone. .......... 66 Table 28. Removal of carbamazepine from water by UV light and ozone. ......................................... 67 Table 29. Calibration curve data for erythromycin concentrations with UV light. .............................. 68 Table 30. Calibration curve data for erythromycin concentrations with UV light and ozone. ............. 69 Table 31. Breakdown of team calculations and calculation checks. .................................................... 71 Table 32. Loading for 8 x 10 roof beams. ............................................................................................ 86 Table 33. Calculations and results for the W8x10 hand calculations. .................................................. 86 Table 34. Electricity needs and costs for UV disinfection. .................................................................. 97 Table 35. Electricity needs and costs for Ozone .................................................................................. 97 Table 36. Electricity needs and costs for the pumping system. ............................................................ 98 Table 37. Construction cost data for the disinfection and ozone building design. ............................... 99 Table 38. Construction cost data for the pumping station. ................................................................. 101 Table 39. Construction cost data for reaeration system. ..................................................................... 102 Table 40. Tasks of individual team members. .................................................................................... 104 Table 41. Team budget management and costs incurred. ................................................................... 106 Table 42. Work breakdown schedule listing of tasks. ........................................................................ 107

viii

Abbreviations

AOP Advanced Oxidation Process

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CCL Chemical Contaminant List

cfu Colony Forming Units

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CWP Wyoming Clean Water Plant

DBP Disinfection Byproduct

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acids

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EC50 Half Maximum Effective Concentration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GAC Granular Activated Carbon

ksi Kilopounds per square inch

LC50 Lethal Dose at a single time for half of a population

LPHI Low Pressure, High Intensity

MF Membrane Filtration

MSDS Material Safety and Data Sheet

ND No data available

NOM Natural Organic Matter

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPSH Net Positive Suction Head

PLC Programmable Logic Controller

ppb Parts per Billion

PPCP Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products

PPFS Project Proposal and Feasibility Study

psi Pounds per Square Inch

RNA Ribonucleic Acid

RPM Rotations per Minute

SWMM Stormwater Management Model

THM Trihalomethane

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UF Ultrafiltration

UV Ultraviolet

WBS Work Breakdown Schedule

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Statement

The purpose of the project is to create a preliminary design for ultra-violet light tertiary treatment at

the Wyoming Clean Water Plant (CWP) in Wyoming, Michigan. The design also includes advanced

oxidation and reaeration processes.

1.2 The Project

In 2011, Black & Veatch prepared a facility plan for the CWP. However, the facility plan only briefly

covered replacing chlorine gas disinfection with ultraviolet light. David Koch, facility plan project

manager and employee of Black & Veatch, recommended to Anna Boersma that a senior design team

could complete a preliminary design of an ultraviolet disinfection system for the plant. At the same time,

Mark Stehouwer was in contact with Myron Erickson, the CWP’s laboratory services manager and now

CWP superintendent. After collaboration with David Koch and Myron Erickson, the senior design team

formed a project that would investigate an ultraviolet disinfection system coupled with an advanced

oxidation process for removal of select microcontaminants from the CWP.

1.3 Wastewater Treatment Introduction

There are currently 16,583 wastewater treatment facilities in the United States.1 Data from a 2008

study for Congress regarding different treatment plant sizes is shown below (Table 1). The CWP falls in

the existing flow range of 10 to 100 MGD with an average flow of 16 MGD, placing it in the top 3.5% of

facilities based on the magnitude of treated flows.

Table 1. Treatment facilities in operation in 2008 by flow range.

Facilities in the “Other” category did not report flow data.2

Existing Flow Range

[MGD]

Number of

Facilities

Total Existing

Flow [MGD]

Present Design

Capacity [MGD]

0 to 0.1 5,703 257 490

0.1 to 1 5,863 2,150 3,685

1 to 10 2,690 8,538 13,082

10 to 100 480 12,847 17,267

100 and greater 38 8,553 10,344

Other 6 - -

Total 14,780 32,345 44,868

Wastewater treatment typically involves four phases: preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary,

also known as disinfection (Figure 1). During preliminary treatment, wastewater flows through screens

that remove large objects such as rags and plastics that can damage downstream equipment. Preliminary

treatment usually consists of a series of screens, where each consecutive screen has a smaller mesh to

remove smaller sized particles. The removed solids are then sent to a landfill or incinerator. After the

wastewater is screened, it travels through a grit removal tank where solids such as sand and gravel settle

out of the stream.

2

Figure 1. Typical layout for a conventional wastewater treatment plant.3

Primary treatment is the second phase in the wastewater treatment process. During primary treatment,

the wastewater is held in clarifiers. Clarifiers are large, concrete basins that allow large sludge particles to

settle and grease and oils to rise and be scraped off of the water. The sludge particles that settled to the

bottom are collected in a hopper and pumped to the sludge treatment facility at the wastewater treatment

plant. From there, the sludge is commonly applied to land as fertilizer, but can also be incinerated to

produce electricity or anaerobically digested to produce biogas.

Secondary treatment, the third phase of wastewater treatment, is designed to remove the organic

content in wastewater. Bacteria that digest the organic matter in the water are added to the wastewater

stream flowing through aeration basins, which provide the oxygen needed for the bacteria to live.

The final treatment phase is tertiary treatment. In tertiary treatment, a disinfectant reduces the

population of the remaining microorganisms and pathogens. The most common disinfectant is chlorine.

However, plant operators have concerns about the use of chlorine due to safety hazards associated with

the transportation, handling, and storage of chlorine. Because of this concern, many treatment plants are

now switching to alternative forms of disinfection such as ultraviolet light.

3

2 Client

2.1 City of Wyoming

The city of Wyoming lies within the western half of Michigan’s lower peninsula. The city is directly

southwest of Grand Rapids, as shown in Figure 2. Wyoming spans 24.5 square miles. According to the

2010 U.S. Census, the city has a population of 72,125 people divided over 26,970 households. The city

also has 1850 commercial users.4

Figure 2. City of Wyoming and surrounding communities, with the outlined areas included in the plant’s

service area. The star is the location of the CWP.

4

2.2 Wyoming Clean Water Plant

2.2.1 Overview

Wyoming operates its own drinking water and wastewater treatment plants. The city refers to its

wastewater treatment plant as the Wyoming Clean Water Plant (CWP). In addition to treating wastewater,

the plant manages a household hazardous waste program for the proper disposal of household hazardous

wastes such as prescription drugs, cleaning products and used oil.

The CWP has received many awards and much recognition, including the National Biosolids

Partnership’s certificate in 2010 for the plant’s biosolids management system. The plant also received the

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Clean Corporate Citizen Award in May of 2011 and

two EPA awards in 2000 for excellence in biosolids and industrial pretreatment program management.5

2.2.2 Plant System

Figure 3. Process schematic of the CWP’s wastewater treatment system.

Influent entering the CWP flows through the typical preliminary process of screening and grit

removal (Figure 3). Next, the water is pumped to a higher elevation to provide enough head for gravity to

carry the flow through the remaining treatment processes. The flow then enters a flocculation basin that

removes small particles from the water. After flocculation, the flow goes through primary clarification

and then to the aeration basins, where activated sludge is used to decompose the organic matter and

phosphorus. Next, the flow flows through secondary clarifiers to allow the activated sludge to settle out of

the water. Some activated sludge returns to the aeration basins. The remaining sludge is either land

applied to farmer’s fields as a liquid or dewatered and transported to the Grand Rapids’ wastewater

treatment facility to be used in their biosolids management program. The last process is disinfection,

where chlorine is injected into the flow. Finally, residual chlorine is removed using sulfur dioxide (SO2).

Enough chlorine is removed so as not to discharge excessive chlorine into the Grand River. Finally, the

flow is discharged into the Grand River.6,7

Influent

Flocculation

Screening

Primary

Clarification

Grand River

Activated Sludge Recycling

Sludge to Agricultural Use or Grand Rapids

Disinfection Secondary Clarification

Aeration Basin

5

2.2.3 Plant Layout

The CWP has plenty of available space to construct a new disinfection system and an advanced

oxidation process. The older chlorine contact tank (Chlorine Contact Basin No. 1) is also available for

reuse. The plant layout and available space is seen in Appendix A: CWP Data and Information.

2.2.4 Influent

The CWP treats the wastewater from Wyoming and the neighboring communities of Kentwood,

Grandville, and Byron and Gaines Townships (Figure 2). The plant serves a total population of 140,000

people, with an average flow of 16 MGD and a maximum month flow of 16.2 MGD (Figure 4).6 Table 2

gives additional influent data such as influent biological oxygen demand (BOD) and fecal coliform. The

2020 and 2030 year designs were approximated by Black & Veatch assuming a yearly, exponential 1.5%

population growth. Grandville is in the process of expanding its own wastewater treatment facility, and

will not be sending its 1.6 MGD to the CWP starting in the spring of 2013.8 Black & Veatch took into

consideration this loss of flow when estimating the future flows. Disinfection and advanced oxidation

process design will be based on the projected flows for 2030, allowing for the increased flow to the plant.

Figure 4. 30-day average influent flows from the four communities that send their wastewater to CWP.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Infl

ue

nt

Flo

w [

MG

D]

Wyoming Grandville Byron Center Kentwood Total

6

Table 2. Flow data from the CWP.

2009 2010 2011 4-year

average

Year 2020

Design

Year 2030

Design

Flow, Annual Average [MGD] 16.0 15.0 15.8 15.7 18.3 22

Flow, Max. Month [MGD] 16.8 16.8 16.2 16.9 19.9 24

BOD [mg/L] 298 337 320 308 375 458

TSS [lbs/day] 213 229 231 221 269 328

NH3-N [mg/L] 19.9 21.7 20.7 20.6 3,200 3,850

Fecal Coliform [cfu] 147 186 172 158 180 243

Total Phosphorus [lbs/day] 756 834 839 805 960 1,160

Temperature [°F] 52.5 64 62 59.5 54 54

7

3 Background Information

3.1 Government Regulations and Requirements

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a part of the Clean Water Act,

regulates the quality of wastewater discharged into surface waters. The EPA bases it permits on the

discharger’s receiving stream. The permit limits the concentrations of pollutants that can be discharged.9

Therefore, the team’s design must comply with the CWP’s permit. A copy of the CWP effluent permit,

which is valid until October 1, 2015, can be found in Appendix A: CWP Data and Information.

3.2 Chlorine to Ultraviolet Disinfection

The desire for disinfection systems that are safe for the environment and require minimal chemicals is

the primary reason for the switch from a chlorine-based disinfection system to a UV disinfection system.

Treatment plant operators have safety concerns associated with a chlorine-based disinfection system,

including chemical transportation, handling, and storage. In addition, there is a concern that certain

microorganisms, such as cryptosporidium which can cause severe diarrhea in humans, may survive

chlorine disinfection processes. Chlorine disinfection also has the potential to produce chlorine

byproducts that are hazardous and carcinogenic.10

3.3 Addition of AOPs

The threat of emerging contaminants in the environment is an increasing concern leading government

agencies to look at the feasibility of regulating emerging contaminants. The CWP hopes to have a leading

role in the removal of emerging contaminants from wastewater streams.

The only way to remove emerging contaminants is through advanced oxidation processes (AOPs),

because conventional treatment methods do not remove the emerging contaminants.11,12

In order for the

CWP to play a leading role, the plant needs to operate an AOP that removes the emerging contaminants

from the plant’s discharge.

3.4 Dissolved Oxygen Contents

The CWP’s current NPDES permit requires the dissolved oxygen (DO) of the effluent stream to be

greater than 5 mg/L between June 1 and September 30 and greater than 3 mg/L for the remainder of the

year (CWP NPDES Permit, Appendix A: CWP Data and Information). Minimum DO concentrations are

regulated to maintain enough oxygen in surface waters for fish and other aquatic life.13

From January

2006 to August 2010, dissolved oxygen levels for the CWP ranged from 1.3 mg/L to 12.5 mg/L with an

average of 7.0 mg/L from June to September and an average of 8.0 mg/L from October to May. The CWP

increases its DO concentrations by making water flow over weirs after the chlorine contact basin.

However, during wet weather events the river level rises and restricts the flow over weirs, causing the DO

concentration to be lower than the permit regulates.7

8

4 Overall Design Goals and Objectives

The proposed systems outlined in this report reflect an attitude of stewardship and accountability. The

main goal of the team was to design a disinfection system with the needs of the CWP in mind. After all, if

the system does not properly serve the CWP and the residents of Wyoming, then the customer has not

received what it requested. Furthermore, it is important to consider design goals and constraints that exist

beyond the technical aspects of the project.

The proposed upgrades for the CWP are economically viable and effectively use the financial

resources of the City of Wyoming. Designing a tertiary treatment system that balances adequate

wastewater treatment with capital and operational costs is challenging. The proposed system was

designed with ratepayers in mind.

Because advanced oxidation has not yet been widely used as a treatment method for emerging

contaminants, the system must be designed with a focus on integrity. Advanced oxidation is designed as a

segment of the tertiary treatment process, but it fits into the greater disinfection scheme with a synergistic

relationship.14

Overall integrity of the facility is also important due to the scope of the project; when

dealing with wastewater, there is little opportunity for remediation if improperly treated sewage were to

be released into the environment.

Operators at the CWP are well-trained, so adding new processes will not hinder plant operations.

However, the UV system was selected, in part, because it has an intuitive operator interface and extensive

automated controls. This will reduce confusion when introducing the proposed Trojan UV disinfection

system, as well as allow for easier training of future operators.

The CWP must meet government regulations for effluent as previously described (3.1 Government

Regulations and Requirements), but the goal of discharging clean water into the environment exists even

without the imposed constraints. Raw sewage pollutes fresh water, stressing many organisms such as fish,

birds, and amphibians that are dependent on rivers. The proposed disinfection setup will result in an

upgrade in the existing facilities and ensure that effluent water quality is at the highest level possible,

helping the Grand River and ultimately Lake Michigan remain habitable to wildlife and organisms.

The team is also worked to make the proposed technologies understandable not just to engineers, but

also the public. Because the CWP is a publicly-funded utility, a high level of transparency is important so

that all taxpayers and city officials understand where their money is going.

9

5 Bench-Scale Testing

The team performed bench-scale testing to determine the optimal ozone dosage of an ozone-based

AOP system for contaminant removal at the CWP and to better understand the ozone/UV advanced

oxidation process. Bench-scale testing occurred throughout the month of April. All testing and

experimentation took place in the environmental engineering laboratory located inside the Science

Building at Calvin College. Water samples collected from bench-scale testing experiments were analyzed

at Calvin College using high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).

5.1 Emerging Contaminants

Three emerging contaminants were selected to be targeted for removal by advanced oxidation

processes during disinfection (Table 3). These contaminants were chosen from a list of eighty-seven

pollutants that the CWP has been monitoring in the influent and effluent wastewater streams (Figure 18,

Appendix A: CWP Data and Information). The list of pollutants includes pharmaceuticals, antibiotics,

steroids, pesticides, and personal care products. The team selected contaminants based on four criteria:

1. Presence in Clean Water Plant wastewater

2. Class of contaminant

3. Environmental and health concern

4. Available information

All pollutants on the list were ranked according to their effluent concentrations in the CWP. The

scope and class of each contaminant was then considered to ensure that each contaminant was

representative of a different sub category of emerging contaminants found in wastewater. Environmental

and health concerns associated with each contaminant were then researched to determine the impacts of

the contaminant on humans and aquatic ecosystems. If there was not enough research and documentation

on a contaminant and its treatment, the team began the contaminant selection process again, evaluating

the next potential contaminant on the list following the same steps and criteria.

Table 3. Contaminants of interest

Wyoming Clean Water Plant Contaminants and Concentrations

Contaminant Influent [ng/L] Effluent [ng/L] Class of Contaminant

Erythromycin 0 - 360 0 - 150 Antibiotic

Atrazine 13 - 36 13 - 37 Pesticide/Herbicide

Carbamazepine 80 - 350 230 - 380 Anticonvulsant/Analgesic

5.1.1 Erythromycin

Erythromycin is an antibiotic that doctors use to treat bacterial infections such as whooping cough,

pneumonia and bronchitis.15

Studies have reported that erythromycin has been found in surface and

wastewater streams at concentrations of parts per billion and parts per trillion.16,17,18

High COD levels in wastewater deplete dissolved oxygen content, and therefore adversely affect

biological treatment processes in water treatment plants and aquatic ecosystems downstream of discharge

sites.16

Miao et al., after conducting a study on antibiotics in wastewaters, concludes that chronic exposure

of bacteria and other microorganisms to antimicrobials such as erythromycin can contribute to the

development of antibiotic resistance in the environment.18

10

There are no current regulations on erythromycin in wastewater or drinking water. However, the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has placed erythromycin on the Chemical

Contaminant List (CCL). This is a list of contaminants that are not yet subject to drinking water

regulations despite potential occurrence in public water systems. Contaminants in the EPA’s CCL list are

anticipated to be regulated in the future by the Safe Drinking Water Act.19

5.1.2 Atrazine

Atrazine is a widely used pesticide used to control broadleaf and grassy weeds, with approximately

76.5 million pounds of atrazine applied every year. According to the National Center for Biotechnology

Information, atrazine does not cause certain cancers such as prostate cancer. However, there could be

links between atrazine and the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, lung cancer and bladder

cancer.20

Atrazine is also a known endocrine disruptor, causing tumors in rats during laboratory studies.21

In 1991, the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act limited the concentration of atrazine to 0.003 ppm in

drinking water. The CWP has influent and effluent atrazine concentrations of 36 ppt, indicating that

atrazine is not being removed during the treatment processes.

5.1.3 Carbamazepine

Carbamazepine is an anticonvulsant that is used to prevent and control seizures. In addition to

controlling seizures, it is also used for psychiatric disorders such as bi-polar disorder and to relieve nerve

pain by reducing excessive nerve signals in the brain.22

Like other drugs such as erythromycin, the body

cannot absorb all of the medicine. As a result, a fraction of the carbamazepine daily dosage is excreted in

urine and feces which can then enter the influent stream of a wastewater treatment plant.

According to research by Oetken on the effects of pharmaceuticals on aquatic invertebrates,

carbamazepine is characterized by low acute toxicity to aquatic organisms. Oetken also concludes that

long-term exposure to low concentrations of carbamazepine can be dangerous to aquatic life. Specifically,

Oetken through a study on the effects of carbamazepine on Chironomus riparius, a common fly, observed

that carbamazepine at concentrations ranging from 70 µg/kg to 210 µg/kg in sediment near water sources

could impact reproduction of aquatic insects.23

The CWP, during 2010 PPCP testing, detected an influent carbamazepine concentration of 350 ng/L

and an effluent concentration of 340 ng/L. From these influent and effluent concentrations, it can be

concluded that at present, the CWP has a 3% removal rate of carbamazepine.24

5.2 Equipment and Materials

Bench-scale testing was performed in the environmental engineering laboratory at Calvin College.

General laboratory equipment was available such as tubing, beakers, and pumps. Special materials and

equipment including an ozone generator and the contaminant carbamazepine were purchased using the

team’s budget. At first, the team purchased an ozone generator from The Ozone Company, but had to

return the unit because it could not perform as required for bench-scale testing and was in a used

condition. A Poseidon ozone generator was then purchased from Ozotech, which did meet bench-scale

testing requirements. A previous senior design team at Calvin College had used a Trojan UV Max Model

B4 residential UV lamp system, and this was available for the team to use. Erythromycin and atrazine

were available for use in the engineering laboratory; carbamazepine was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.

The team acquired wastewater from the CWP, but later decided not use the wastewater for testing because

of complications that would occur during data analysis. Tap water was used instead to further control

results and variables during bench-scale testing. The team recognizes that tap water has a much better

quality than wastewater and has taken this into consideration when discussing their results from bench-

scale testing.

Safety equipment including lab coats, goggles, and gloves were available in the environmental

engineering laboratory. The team had the MSDS for the microcontaminants available and to wear safety

equipment during bench-scale testing.

11

5.3 Setup and Procedure

The team constructed a bench-scale testing setup inside the fume hood located in the environmental

engineering laboratory. The fume hood was necessary to vent off any residual ozone lingering in the air

after operating the ozone generator. Tap water feeds were made in 4 L batches and contaminants were

added from prepared stock solutions which resulted in the following concentrations: 100 ng/L atrazine,

400 ng/L carbamazepine, and 400 ng/L erythromycin.

The contaminated tap water feed was then fed at 150 mL/min using a peristaltic pump to an

Erlenmeyer flask mixing chamber. Ozone produced by the ozone generator was injected at this point into

the mixing chamber using a diffuser rod. Ozone dosage ranged from 0 mg/L to 8 mg/L. Contaminated tap

water that had been exposed to ozone was pumped at 150 mL/min into the Trojan UV Reactor. The

Trojan UV Reactor served as contact chamber allowing for ozone and UV to synergistically degrade the

microcontaminants. The set-up is shown below in Figure 5. Water samples were then collected from the

effluent of the Trojan UV Reactor. The water samples were filtered and 1.5 mL was pipetted into micro

amber bottles designed for HPLC (Figure 6). A method was developed for the HPLC that used runs of 15

min per sample with an eluent solution of 45:45:10 using ultrapure water, methanol, and acetonitrile

respectively. Samples were stored in a 4 ˚C freezer until HPLC analysis.

Figure 5. Bench scale testing set-up.

12

Figure 6. HPLC machine and testing apparatus.

5.4 Discussion and Results

Through bench-scale testing and subsequent data analysis, the team was able to observe degradation

of the emerging contaminants atrazine and carbamazepine. Atrazine experienced 58% removal when an

ozone dosage of 8 mg/L was applied with UV light (Figure 7). Atrazine data also showed that removal

increased as ozone dosage increased. Carbamazepine was removed up to 53% (Figure 8). Carbamazepine

data showed a relatively consistent removal of around 35% to 40%, despite variance in ozone dosage.

Erythromycin was not able to be successfully isolated and quantified using HPLC, resulting in

inconclusive data. Further data can be found in Appendix B: Bench-Scale Testing Data.

13

Figure 7. Removal of the contaminant atrazine by ozone/UV treatment during bench-scale testing at select

ozone dosages.

Figure 8. Removal of the contaminant carbamazepine by ozone/UV treatment during bench-scale testing at

select ozone dosages.

The team discovered that the application of UV alone can provide approximately 13% removal of

atrazine and 29% removal of carbamazepine (Figure 9). The extent of this removal depends on contact

time in the UV reaction chamber, UV wavelength, UV intensity, and water quality. These findings may

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Pe

rce

nt

Re

mo

va

l

Ozone Dose [mg/L]

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Pe

rce

nt

Rem

ova

l

Ozone Dose [mg/L]

14

suggest that by incorporating a UV system into their existing wastewater treatment system, the CWP will

indirectly provide degradation of some emerging contaminants while disinfecting the wastewater.

Figure 9. Removal of the contaminant atrazine by UV treatment during bench-scale scale testing

The team determined through bench-scale testing that the optimal ozone dose to remove

microcontaminants from the wastewater of the CWP is approximately 4 mg ozone /L. At this ozone

dosage, atrazine and carbamazepine experience removals around 50% and 35%, respectively. This ozone

dose serves as a preliminary design estimate for the actual ozone dose required to provide degradation of

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

1 2 3 4 5

Pe

rce

nt

Re

mo

va

l

UV Treatment Run

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1 2 3 4 5

Pe

rce

nt

Rem

ova

l

UV Treatment Run

15

microcontaminants in wastewater at the CWP. The team highly recommends performing additional

bench-scale or pilot testing in the future when the CWP may decide to implement an ozone/UV system.

This is because actual wastewater contains many constituents (bacteria, suspended solids, organic

compounds, etc.) and quality factors (turbidity, pH, chemical oxygen demand, temperature, etc.) that will

affect and decrease degradation of microcontaminants. This pilot testing is often provided by the

engineering company designing the ozone/UV AOP system.

16

6 UV Disinfection Design

The team separately examined each component of the overall UV disinfection system to determine

the best option for the CWP. Interactions between the components were taken into account with the

decisions.

6.1 Disinfection Overview

Disinfection rids wastewater of pathogens and microorganisms by chemical or irradiation processes.

The disinfectant is added to the wastewater, mixed, and allowed time to react. A good disinfection system

will kill pathogens and microorganisms while being nontoxic to humans, animals and other aquatic

species. The system will also allow for safe transportation, handling, and storage of the disinfecting

chemical or operating mechanism while being economically viable and easily understood or analyzed.25

Chlorination and ultraviolet irradiation are the two most commonly used methods in the United States;

they have proved to be simple, safe, reliable, and cost-effective.26

Before continuing with the proposed UV disinfection system, the team researched and compared a

range of disinfection alternatives (Table 4). Different design considerations were taken into account,

including cost, safety, size of system, pathogen removal, and monitoring needs. The decision matrix

shows UV as the best disinfection option for the CWP. This is due, in part, to the client’s preferences for

a new disinfection system that requires minimal onsite storage of chemicals and contains low DBPs in the

effluent stream. Chlorine gas was the second highest option because it is already being used at the plant

for disinfection; as a result, it would not have installation costs. The criteria used in the rating of

disinfectant options for the decision matrix are listed below.

Capital Cost: What is the initial cost of the system including installation and setup?

Operational Cost: What is the annual cost to operate and maintain the system?

Storage: Does the system require onsite storage of chemicals?

Safety: If the system requires chemicals, how volatile are they?

Familiarity: How familiar are the operators at the WCWP with the proposed method?

Contact Time/Footprint: How much space does the system require? How long will the

wastewater need to be stored in that space to be properly treated?

DBPs: Does the system produce DBPs? If so, to what extent are they produced?

Ease of Integration: How well does the proposed disinfection method fit into the existing facility?

Ease of Use/Monitoring: To what extent will the operators need to monitor and calibrate the

system?

Bacteria Removal: What percent of the bacteria are eradicated with this method?

Virus Removal: What percent of the viruses are eradicated with this method?

Protozoa Removal: What percent of the protozoa are eradicated with this method?

17

Table 4. Decision matrix for disinfection. The assigned values range from 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5

being excellent.

Weight

Chlorine

Gas

Chlorine

Dioxide

Sodium

Hypochlorite Ozone UV

Capital Cost 3 5 4 4 1 1

Operational Cost 3 4 4 3 1 1

Safety 4 1 1 3 3 5

Storage 5 4 3 3 3 5

Familiarity 2 5 4 5 5 3

Contact Time/ Footprint 2 3 3 3 4 5

DBPs 5 2 3 2 4 5

Ease of Integration 4 5 3 3 1 3

Ease of Use/Monitoring 3 4 3 4 1 5

Bacteria Removal 5 5 5 5 5 4

Virus Removal 4 5 5 5 5 5

Protozoa Removal 4 2 4 2 4 4

Total

162 154 151 139 175

6.2 UV Disinfection Background

Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation disinfection is a process which uses UV radiation from lamps to rid the

wastewater of microorganisms. Typical design considerations for UV disinfection are shown below

(Table 5).

Mercury-vapor lamps generate short range UV light (UVC) between 235 to 270 nm, which is

especially effective at eradicating the bacteria and viruses found in wastewater.8 The electromagnetic

energy from the light is readily absorbed by deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA), and the radiation renders the

organism unable to replicate. Although this effect can be reversed in some cases, overall, UV is a proven

method for disinfection during wastewater treatment.27

The effectiveness of a UV disinfection system

depends on the characteristics of the wastewater before treatment; high levels of TSS, BOD, ammonia,

and nitrate can diminish the efficiency of UV treatment. Water, pH, and hardness affect the solubility of

metals that readily absorb UV irradiation, thereby hindering disinfection. In addition, uniform flow of

wastewater through a system is necessary to allow for maximum exposure to irradiation.

Table 5. Typical ultraviolet system design parameters.26

Design Parameter Typical Design Value

UV dosage 20 to 140 mW/-s/cm2

Contact time 6 to 40 seconds

UV intensity 3 to 12 mW/-s/cm2

Wastewater UV transmittance 50 to 70%

Wastewater velocity 0.17 to 1.25 fps

UV disinfection systems are typically more expensive than chlorine disinfection. However, if costs of

dechlorination are considered, UV disinfection becomes competitively priced with chlorination. UV

disinfection requires fewer safety parameters to meet fire code regulations as well as eliminating process

safety management and emergency response plans that are associated with using a hazardous chemical.27

These factors provide additional cost benefits for UV disinfection over chlorination.

18

6.3 UV Technology Options

Three main technologies exist for UV disinfection. Each system uses a different combination of

pressure and intensity. The pressure of a UV system refers to the internal pressure of the mercury-vapor

lamp used in the system. The intensity of a UV system refers to the power emitted from a lamp per unit

area. Intensity is used to measure the magnitude of UV light radiation.28

All lamps have a typical length

ranging from 0.75 m to 1.5 m.27

Low pressure, low intensity systems are the oldest of the three technologies; they were the form in

which UV disinfection processes were pioneered. They can be configured with horizontal or vertical

lamps (Figure 10) and run on power of 0.065 kW to 0.085 kW per bulb.8 However, low pressure, low

intensity systems are no longer being developed or updated since newer technologies have emerged.

Medium pressure systems were developed next. These systems allowed fewer bulbs to be used in an

open channel or a closed pipe because of an increased ultraviolet intensity around 15 to 20 times the

intensity of low-pressure lamps. These systems are typically used at larger facilities because they can

provide disinfection faster and are therefore more efficient, especially when operating under higher flow

conditions.27

The tradeoff, however, is that medium pressure systems have a much higher power

consumption requiring between 2.8 kW to 10 kW per bulb.8 An automatic cleaning system was developed

for medium pressure disinfection because the high lamp temperature caused a material to form a film on

the lamp.

The most recent development in UV technology is a low pressure, high intensity (LPHI) UV system.

This technology has fewer lamps than a normal low pressure system, but more than the medium pressure

system; however, the system still can run on the same amount of power as a low pressure system. The

system is self-cleaning like the medium pressure system and can be operated in an open or closed

channel. A LPHI system uses 15 to 20 lamps per MGD and 3.8 kW to 4.8 kW per MGD at a lamp

temperature near 60 °C,8 an average of 0.23 kW to 1.5 kW per bulb.

28

Figure 10. Cut-away views of UV disinfection systems with (a) horizontal lamps parallel to flow and (b)

vertical lamps perpendicular to flow.27

UV lamps that are made with exterior quartz sleeves operate between 250 nm and 270 nm to most

effectively eradicate harmful organisms.29

Low pressure lamps emit light at 253.7 nm and have a typical

diameter of 1.5 cm to 2.0 cm. The temperature of the lamp exterior is ideally between 95 °F and 122 °F.27

UV lamps generally need to be replaced every 10,000 to 12,000 hours.8

UV systems are made as contact or noncontact systems. Contact systems have lamps enclosed in

quartz sleeves to decrease the cooling of the lamps by the wastewater flow in which the lamps are

submerged. Noncontact systems have UV lamps contained in a transparent pipe through which the

wastewater flows. Contact reactors are more common than noncontact reactors.27

19

6.4 Selecting a UV Manufacturer

Many companies offer drinking water UV disinfection systems; however, the list of UV wastewater

disinfection companies is much smaller. The team researched three of larger UV disinfection suppliers –

Trojan, Ozonia, and Siemens. Trojan UV out of London, Ontario, Canada has been in the UV disinfection

business for over 25 years, and they have the largest installed base of UV systems in operation in the

world.30

Contact was made with a representative for Trojan through Dr. David Wunder in the Calvin College

Engineering Department. The team discussed the CWP’s disinfection needs with Brent Charlton from

Trojan who offered advice as to which UV system would be the best fit for the CWP.

6.5 Optimum Design for CWP

A LPHI system is recommended for the plant because of the system’s reduced footprint and higher

energy efficiency compared to other UV systems. Trojan offers a variety of LPHI UV disinfection

systems for wastewater treatment facilities. When determining the specific LPHI system, the two most

important factors affecting the decision were the volume of wastewater that needs to be disinfected and

the ability to integrate the UV setup with a future ozone system for an AOP. Trojan’s UV Fit line of

closed vessel reactors met both of these requirements. Two different models from the Trojan UV Fit line

were proposed – the 72AL75 reactor or the 32AL50 reactor. The 72AL75 reactors are much larger, and

are more costly for both capital and operation. Therefore, the specific system that best fits the plant’s

needs is the Trojan Fit 32AL50.31

Each 32AL50 reactor contains 32 UV lamps oriented along the direction of flow, as seen in Figure

11. The exterior of the reactor is 90 inches long with a 19.7 inch diameter (Figure 12). The inner pipe

diameter through the reactor is 12 inches, except the area of the UV lamps, which has a diameter of 18

inches.31

The dosage of these lamps was verified with calculations found in Appendix C: Technical

Calculations.

Figure 11. Trojan line of UV Fit closed vessel UV Reactors.32

20

Figure 12. Diagram of UV Fit reactor based on dimensions.

The 32AL50 UV reactors utilize newer technology that offers many benefits that older UV reactors

do not have. First, Trojan Fit reactors utilize LPHI amalgam lamps, meaning they are composed of a

mercury alloy that maximizes output at the desired wavelength. Lamps utilizing this technology are

generally the most energy efficient and long lasting type of UV lamps today. Trojan’s lamps maintain

98% output throughout their lifetime, compared to other UV lamps that have a much greater decrease in

output over the lifetime of the lamps.32

Figure 13. Construction of a LPHI UV lamp.28

The proposed UV disinfection system also contains programmable logic controllers (PLCs), a new

innovation in wastewater disinfection. A PLC communicates with sensors located upstream and

downstream of the reactor that are measuring wastewater quality. The controller then adjusts the UV dose

based on the information received from the sensors. By adjusting the UV dose, the PLC generates

considerable energy savings while maintaining adequate treatment.

A concern about the Trojan UV disinfection system is the fact that treatment is only recommended for

streams with TSS concentrations below 5 mg/L.33

The CWP has an average TSS concentration of 7 mg/L,

which could be considered close enough to the requited level.8 However, concentration can spike up to

45mg/L of TSS during rain events; this is an unacceptable level for ultraviolet disinfection. Therefore, the

CWP must look at measures that reduce TSS to a recommended level. The best option to reduce TSS is

filtration because the additional pumps can provide enough head for filtration. Ultimately, further TSS

21

analysis should be done before the proposed UV disinfection system is installed.33

Another concern was

that the 32AL50 reactors require an approximate UV transmittance of 65%. However, Black & Veatch

confirmed that the CWP meets this criterion.8

After determining the specific UV system, the team had to determine the optimal number of reactors

for the CWP. A configuration of six reactors allows for redundancy and flexibility in the system. The

2030 projected maximum flow at the CWP is 24 MGD and the projected average flow is 22 MGD. With

each reactor capable of treating about 4.5 MGD, this allows one reactor to go offline during average flows

for maintenance or reduced energy consumption. To protect the UV reactors, they will be housed in a UV

and ozone building. Specific details of this building can be found in 9.2 Disinfection and Ozone Building.

6.6 Operation and Maintenance

Trojan designs their UV systems for ease of maintenance. UV systems must be consistently cleaned

to prevent fouling of the quartz sleeves encasing the lamps. However, the Trojan Fit system includes an

automated wiper that ensures the lamps stay clear of buildup; the wipers clean while the reactor is

operational, allowing for maximum flexibility between reactors. The Trojan Fit system is also designed

with a removable end cap, providing easy access to the wiping system, lamps, and sleeves. The end cap is

also calibrated to deactivate the system when it is removed, thus maximizing safety to personnel working

on the reactor.32

For a UV system to disinfect, its lights must be consistently operational. Therefore, it is extremely

important to replace lamps at a specific age. The proposed lamps have a lifetime of 12,000 hours, so the

reactors must be re-lamped approximately every 1.25 years.31

Re-lamping is an easy process that can be

carried out by the facility’s maintenance personnel. The end cap of the Trojan reactor is designed for

quick removal. After the cap is removed, the lamps may be easily replaced.

Again, the Trojan UV Fit reactors have a PLC that automatically adjusts the UV dosage based upon

wastewater quality sensors upstream and downstream of the reactor. Chlorine based disinfection systems

are not necessarily more difficult to properly dose, but the chemicals require much more time and

resources of personnel. The CWP currently spends considerable time and resources transporting,

handling, and storing chlorine while also updating an annual emergency response plan.8 Because UV

disinfection does not utilize chemicals and does not create any DBPs, many of the safety concerns are

alleviated.27

6.7 Installation

For the system to be installed, the building contractor on site will complete the pumping and electrical

work that the UV reactors will connect to. When that is finished, Trojan UV technicians will come to the

site for the final commissioning, installing the reactors. Reactor installations for the CWP should take

approximately one and a half weeks.33

After the system is installed and before it is operational, system

performance will be tested using a standard biodosimetry test to ensure quality treatment. Biodosimetry

uses bench-scale and field-scale tests with biological test organisms to determine a conservative dosage

for the reactor.34

6.8 10 States Standards Compliance

The Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and

Environmental Managers first created a Water Supply Committee to review water works policies,

practices, and procedures in 1953. This document, known as the 10 States Standards, is updated every

four to eight years and outlines water works policies. In 2003, the Water Supply Committee added a

“Policy Statement on Ultra Violet Light for Treatment of Public Water Supplies” to the standards. The

statement outlines specific criteria for UV water treatment systems and sets rigorous maintenance and

recordkeeping requirements. The proposed Trojan UV disinfection system for the CWP fulfills the

requirements set by the 10 States Standards for UV regarding reactor materials, water pretreatment,

equipment access, and water quality characteristics.35

22

7 Advanced Oxidation Design

Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are emerging water treatment methods that can eliminate

elusive compounds of concern. Current research has led to a variety of advanced oxidative treatments

available for use in wastewater treatment systems based on desired removal efficiencies and contaminants

of interest. AOPs use chemical oxidants and are frequently coupled with ultraviolet light to synergistically

reduce biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and organic and inorganic compounds. The

high reactivity of hydroxyl radicals drives the oxidation process, resulting in elimination and

mineralization of less reactive wastewater pollutants.12

The primary advantage of an AOP treatment process is that can provide destruction of

microcontaminants without needing a final filtration or sedimentation step to remove its byproducts. The

only byproducts from an advanced oxidation process are carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, or

transformation of contaminants into innocuous products. Biological processes are often combined with

AOPs to provide additional treatment and allow for biodegradation of remaining intermediate

compounds.

Scientists and engineers are researching many different advanced oxidation alternatives. These

alternatives range from ozone or hydrogen coupled with UV to a reaction involving hydrogen peroxide

and iron or photo catalytic oxidation. The team chose the ozone and UV combination as the advanced

oxidation choice because this combination does not require on-site chemical storage, the ozone increases

the DO content of the water, reducing the need for reaeration, and the combination is reliable.

7.1 Advanced Oxidation Overview

Ozone/UV is an AOP that utilizes gaseous ozone (O3) and UV light to produce hydroxyl radicals in

wastewater, a process explained in more detail in Appendix D: Hydroxyl Radical Information. The

hydroxyl radicals formed by ozone/UV act as reactive agents, degrading and transforming

microcontaminants present in the wastewater into non-hazardous byproducts.36

Microcontaminants

include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and personal care products. UV and ozone must be present together

because the introduction of ozone alone into a wastewater stream is not sufficient to remove these

microcontaminants; ozone injected into a wastewater stream can only produce hydroxyl radicals under

high pH conditions. UV light is needed in the ozone/UV AOP for a synergistic effect in which the UV

light excites ozone molecules to form hydrogen peroxide in the wastewater. Immediate subsequent

reactions involve the photolysis of those hydrogen peroxide molecules to produce highly reactive, free

roaming hydroxyl radicals in the wastewater. Hydroxyl radicals are a non-selective species and react with any contaminant in the wastewater, both

organic and inorganic.36

In a process called scavenging, hydroxyl radicals, meant to react with and

degrade microcontaminants, are lost by reacting with other compounds or contaminants in the

wastewater.37

As a result, it is necessary for the preliminary design of an ozone/UV AOP to make an

initial assumption concerning the scavenging of hydroxyl radicals. Pilot testing is required at a later phase

in the design to determine the actual scavenging of hydroxyl radicals for the wastewater stream of

interest. This pilot testing often takes place on site at the wastewater treatment plant using their stream.

Testing and water sample analysis can take place on site, if a lab with appropriate equipment is available,

or performed at a commercial water analysis lab.

7.2 Ozone and UV Overview

Ozone, or ozonation, is an AOP that utilizes gaseous ozone (O3) to produce hydrogen peroxide,

which then forms the hydroxyl radicals (Equation 1 and Equation 2).38,39

Because ozone decomposes

quickly, it is typically produced on site with an ozone generator. Ozone from the generator is injected into

a preliminary mixing vessel with clean water before injection into the actual wastewater stream. Off-gas

23

of ozone from the mixture vessel is collected and treated to decompose any remaining ozone that could

escape into the environment. After mixture, the ozone/water stream from the mixing vessel is fed to a

contact reactor where it is introduced to the wastewater stream. The combined stream then flows through

a section of the contact tank with ultraviolet light, forming hydroxyl radicals and providing disinfection.

The combination of ozone and ultraviolet light as an advanced oxidation process creates a synergistic

contaminant degradation process.

( ) Equation 1

Equation 2

Ozone has been shown to produce a higher concentration of hydroxyl radicals in wastewater streams

than other AOP technologies. In addition, ozone has disinfection potential while being used as an AOP,

making it also effective at immobilizing specific pathogens and disease-causing protozoan such as

cryptosporidium and giardia. However, ozonation requires substantial energy to produce appropriate

concentrations of ozone for contaminant removal. The process requires an air preparation unit, a generator

to produce ozone, and an off-gas destruction unit following injection into the mixing tank. In addition, use

of ozone as an AOP must take into account the conditions of the specific wastewater stream. If a

wastewater stream has concentrations of bromide greater than 10 µg/L, then byproduct formation of

bromoform, a potential human carcinogen, is a concern.39

The CWP does not have any issues with high

bromide concentrations, thus carcinogenic compounds are not a concern.

7.3 Feed Gas for Ozone Generation

There are three sources of oxygen that can be used for ozone generation. Each source supplies or

produces different concentrations of pure oxygen that can then be fed into the ozone generator and

converted into ozone.

7.3.1 Prepared Ambient Air

Ambient air is the most accessible oxygen source and contains approximately 21% oxygen by

volume. It is economically appealing compared to other oxygen sources with higher or pure oxygen

content because there is no charge for ambient air. Treatment, though minimal, is required to reduce

moisture and particulate content in the air. Excessive moisture or particulate levels reduce ozone

generation efficiency and can react with nitrogen present in the air to form nitric acid, damaging the

ozone generator. Treatment techniques for ambient air make use of compression filtration, refrigeration,

and desiccant drying to remove particulates and reduce moisture content down to 1.5 ppm. Ambient air is

typically associated with a 3% by weight ozone generation efficiency.40

7.3.2 Liquid Oxygen Delivery

Liquid oxygen is a commercially available source of pure oxygen that can be vaporized and fed into

an ozone generator. It requires delivery of pressurized tanks (volumes around 225 m3) to the plant and

cost is dependent on market prices. This oxygen source can be inconvenient because of pricing

fluctuations and increased truck traffic for a wastewater treatment plant. In addition, liquid oxygen

requires a hazardous substance and safety plan. However, liquid oxygen has a high oxygen content and

low contamination by particulates and water vapor, providing greater ozone generation efficiency around

10%. Liquid oxygen only needs to be vaporized and does not require treatment before introduction to the

ozone generator.40

24

7.3.3 On-site Oxygen Generation

There are two types of on-site oxygen generation: pressure or vacuum swing adsorption (PSA or

VSA) and cryogenic oxygen generation. These methods of oxygen generation are costly and are normally

only employed in large operations requiring high oxygen levels. The high purity oxygen output of these

methods increases ozone generation efficiency by about 6% to 10%. However, these on-site oxygen

generation methods require complex systems to produce their oxygen outputs.34,40

7.3.4 Feed Gas for Ozone Generation Recommendation

A prepared ambient air oxygen source and associated treatment system is recommended for the CWP

in conjunction with the recommended ozone generator. Ambient air is a readily available feed gas

compared to liquid oxygen and on-site oxygen generation, thereby eliminating the need for monthly

deliveries, significantly increased costs, and highly complex oxygen generating processes. The prepared

ambient air system has sufficient oxygen content to produce a 3% by weight ozone output from the ozone

generator. This output can effectively generate hydroxyl radical concentrations to degrade trace

contaminants in a contact time of less than one second. Considering the economic factors and size of the

CWP, an ambient air oxygen source is appropriate because it is a cost-effective treatment system for

removing trace contaminants.

The team recommends side stream injection for incorporating ozone into the wastewater stream

before it passes through the UV reactor. Side stream injection requires a small part of the main

wastewater flow to be diverted into a side stream. Ozone is injected and mixed with this side stream,

which is then mixed back into the main flow. Side stream injection makes use of a booster pump and

venturi injector, an air to water transfer apparatus. The venturi system uses a low flow bypass stream that

is rapidly mixed with ozone and then reintroduced to the main wastewater stream by means of a pressure

difference between the two wastewater streams. An ozone destruction unit is required downstream after

the UV contact chamber to remove residual ozone in the off-gas before it is discharged into the

atmosphere. The team recommends that the plant hire Ozonia to design the injection system because

information on these systems is proprietary and currently limited.

7.4 Air Preparation for Ozone Generation

Air preparation is required for ambient air feed gas because of possible high concentrations of

moisture and dust particulates. Water decreases the overall ozone production efficiency (Figure 14) and

can lead to the formation of corrosive nitric acid.

Figure 14. Effect of moisture content on ozone production.41

25

Air fed into an ozone generator should be dried in a desiccant dryer unit to a dew point of at least -60

°C at atmospheric pressure. Dust particles must be removed from air entering the ozone generator to

prevent build-up in the generator, associated valves, and instrumentation. Hydrocarbons, freons, and

solvents in the air also can lead to the formation of nitric acid and to the decrease of ozone production

efficiency. However, these trace components are not normally present in ambient air. Typical air

preparation systems include a filter, compressor, pressure receiver, and double column desiccant drier

(Figure 15). The compressor draws in ambient air, removing undesirable components such as water and

dust through the filter and dryer, therefore obtaining optimal ozone production. The team recommends

that Ozonia be contacted for design of an air preparation unit for the CWP, which should be located close

to the ozone generator.

Figure 15. Typical arrangement of an air preparation unit for ozone generation.42

7.5 Off-Gas Treatment of Ozone

Off-gases from the ozone contact chamber require destruction because they contain trace levels of

unreacted and undissolved ozone that are reactive and harmful to humans.34,43

These residual

concentrations of ozone are present even with the highest efficiency ozone generators, which transfer up

to 87% of the ozone into the water, depending on the application and wastewater.44,45

The off-gases from

the contact chamber must therefore be collected and vented to the ozone destruction unit. Air dilution

methods and direct release of off-gases into the atmosphere are both prohibited by the Environmental

Protection Agency.

7.5.1 Ozone Off-Gas Destruction Technologies

Generally, ozone generators are designed to reduce the off-gas ozone concentration to less than 0.1

ppmv.34, 36,43

Each of three primary ozone off-gas destruction technologies is designed to degrade ozone

using high temperature contact chambers to reduce the half-life of ozone. These high temperatures reduce

the half-life of ozone from up to 100 hours at room temperature to 5 s at temperatures greater than 350

°C.34,43,44

Some destruction units have the ability to reduce the half-life of ozone to milliseconds by

heating reaction chambers to temperatures greater than 400 °C or using special metal catalysts; however,

this sort of rapid treatment is often not necessary.44

7.5.1.1 Thermal Destruction

Off-gases from the contact chamber are passed through a thermal vent before entering the destruction

unit. The thermal destruct unit raises the temperature of the off-gas to levels at which the half-life of

ozone is greatly reduced, accelerating the ozone decomposition rate. Temperature in the destruct unit is

thermostatically controlled and adjusted using a control panel. In addition, heat exchangers are sometimes

necessary to prevent environmental damage that can result from discharge of off-gases at high

temperatures.

26

7.5.1.2 Thermal/Catalytic Destruction

Off-gases with ozone residual are collected from the ozone contact chamber and are passed into the

destruction unit. Ozone decomposition occurs because of reactions with specialty metal or metal oxide

catalysts and slightly increased temperatures (30 °C to 80 °C), which vary depending on the catalyst

used.34,44

Information on the exact material of the catalysts in thermal/catalytic destruction units is

proprietary; however, it is known that palladium, manganese, or nickel oxide is the basis for many

catalysts. Thermal/catalytic destruction of ozone off-gases is a rapid and efficient process for providing

ozone destruction at lower temperatures, thereby not requiring the use of a heat exchanger. However,

catalysts may be deactivated by other compounds in the off-gases including nitrogen oxides, chlorine

compounds, and sulfides. As a result, catalyst life expectancy can vary depending on the composition of

the off-gas coming from the ozone contact chamber. The life expectancy of catalysts currently is

approximately five years, but proper maintenance and regeneration techniques using intermittent intense

heating cycles can help extend the life of the catalysts before replacement is necessary.44

7.5.1.3 Adsorption and Reaction with Granular Activated Carbon

Off-gases from the ozone contact chamber are collected and passed on to the destruction unit.

Granular activated carbon (GAC) is present in the destruction unit in a steam-activated, elemental form to

provide a large surface area for reaction with ozone. The GAC is consumed through an adsorption process

as it reacts with ozone residuals in the off-gases. Carbon molecules in the GAC are oxidized as they react

with ozone, producing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. This reaction consumes and destroys any

off-gas ozone residual. Increased temperatures are not needed for this process like those required for

thermal and thermal/catalytic processes for ozone destruction. However, since carbon is consumed during

the adsorption process, the GAC media must be replaced and cleaned regularly. Off-gases with high

moisture contents, such as those from ozone applications for wastewater, require larger volumes of GAC

than other applications. As a result, this ozone destruction technology is typically used for smaller

applications. Adsorption processes with GAC for ozone destruction are not compatible with a pure

oxygen feed gas for the ozone generator, because combustion may result due to GAC, oxygen, and ozone

interactions.44

7.5.2 Off-Gas Treatment of Ozone Recommendation

The team recommends using thermal destruction and a gas collection chamber to remove the residual

ozone present in the off-gas. Thermal destruction does not require catalysts or carbon media to destroy

ozone, therefore simplifying the destruction process, overall maintenance, and operation of the off-gas

treatment system. The process is also appropriate for large-scale applications, such as the CWP. The gas

collection chamber will collect the gas and house the thermal destruction process.

An RB-63 thermal ozone destruct unit with heat recuperation made by Ozonia is recommended for

off gas treatment. The RB-63 destruction unit should be equipped with ambient ozone monitors, so that

any leakage or destruction malfunction can be detected. Detectors would provide, at minimum, a warning

at 0.1 ppm and alarms stopping ozone generation at 0.3 ppm.

The existing Chlorine Contact Basin No.1 could be used as the off-gas collection chamber. It is

underground and can provide adequate volume for headspace above the treated wastewater stream leaving

the UV reactors. A lid or cover will be needed to seal the basin. The ozone off-gas destruction unit would

be constructed alongside this contact basin to treat and release the off-gas.

The team also recommends that the CWP consider design of a heat exchanger in conjunction with the

ozone destruction unit. Actual design of this heat exchanger must be performed by the design company

because there is not enough information currently to determine an appropriate unit. Ozonia is capable of

providing design of a heat exchanger if such a unit is necessary to meet atmospheric discharge

regulations.

27

7.6 Impacts of Ozone on Wastewater

Ozone has multiple impacts on wastewater and its constituents. First, as an AOP, ozone provides

degradation of emerging contaminants. These contaminants include both natural and synthetic chemicals,

which are being detected in wastewater at increasing concentrations. Examples include pesticides,

herbicides, pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, personal care products, and hormonal drugs. The health effects of

these contaminants at these levels is yet unknown.

Second, ozone has the potential to produce intermediate compounds in wastewater that result from

interactions of hydroxyl radicals produced by ozone and targeted microcontaminants. Intermediate

species production is dependent on the strength of the ozone AOP. Generally, intermediate species are

degraded during ozone AOPs. Information on intermediate compound formation is limited and their

health effects are generally unknown, like their parent compounds. However, there is the potential that

some intermediate compounds may be more hazardous than their parent compound, stressing the need for

an ozone AOP with sufficient strength to degrade both parent compounds and subsequent intermediate

compounds.

Third, various wastewater constituents can reduce the effectiveness of an ozone AOP at providing

degradation of microcontaminants. Table 6 includes a list of common wastewater constituents and the

impacts they may have on ozone AOPs.36

Table 6. Impacts of wastewater constituents on ozone AOPs.36

Constituent Effect

BOD, COD, TOC, etc. Can exert an ozone demand

NOM Affects the rate of ozone decomposition and the ozone demand

Oil and Grease Can exert an ozone demand

TSS Increases ozone demand and shielding of microcontaminants

Alkalinity No or minor effect

Hardness No or minor effect

Ammonia No or minor effect, can react at high pH

Nitrite Oxidized by ozone

Nitrate Can reduce effectiveness of ozone

Iron Oxidized by ozone

Manganese Oxidized by ozone

pH Affects the rate of decomposition

Industrial Discharges Potential diurnal and seasonal variation in the ozone demand

Temperature Affects the rate of ozone decomposition

7.7 Ozone Suppliers and Design

Ozone/UV AOPs are emerging treatment processes and therefore, only a few suppliers exist that

provide the necessary equipment for implementing the AOP. Lead suppliers for ozone/UV design and

technologies are Spartan Environmental Technologies (USA), ESCO International (UK), and Ozonia

(USA, UK, Asia). The team recommends that the CWP contact Ozonia in the future for further ozone/UV

AOP design, provided that treatment for microcontaminant removal is still desired and funds become

available. Ozonia was founded in 1990 and is owned by Degremont, a subsidiary of the international civil

engineering company Suez Environment. The company has more than twenty years of experience in the

development of synergistic ozone and UV technologies. Offices are within the United States, and

extensive laboratory resources and mobile AOP pilot plants are available in North America.

28

The team recommends three Ozonia CFV-20 ozone generators for advanced oxidation (Figure

16). Two generators are needed for daily operation and one for redundancy in the case of maintenance or

failure. The Ozonia CFV-20 ozone generators have a maximum output of 8.97 kg ozone/hr. This output is

capable of providing a maximum ozone dose of 4.4 mg/L at the CWP 20 year design flow (24 MGD),

which is sufficient for removal of emerging contaminants in the wastewater.

Figure 16. Ozonia CFV ozone generator

Based on CWP and supplier datasheets, the team determined that an Ozonia VOD Series RB-63 unit

is best suited for off-gas treatment of ozone at the CWP (Figure 17). Two RB-63 units are recommended

to allow for redundancy. Only one destruction unit is necessary for operation under average or maximum

flow conditions. The destruction unit has an air flow capacity of 630 kg/hr which exceeds the 590 kg/hr

that is required and can reduce the ozone concentration level to less than 0.1 ppmv. It also has high ozone

destruction efficiency, easy system integration, thermostatic control, and a long, relatively maintenance

free service life. General specifications of the Ozonia VOD Series RB-630 can be found in Table 7.

Figure 17. Ozonia VOD Series RB Model off-gas destruction unit.

Table 7. Technical data for Ozonia RB-63 off-gas destruction unit.43

Model

Mass Flow [kg/h] Ozone Level Operating

Pressure

[barg]

Electrical

Rating

[kW]

Dimensions

LxHxW [mm]

Weight

[kg] Air Oxygen Inlet

[wt%]

Outlet

[ppm]

RB-63 630 700 < 1.5 < 0.1 +/- 0.1 27.7 5050 x 1915 x

1000 1670

29

7.8 Bench Scale Testing

Execution of a successful ozone advanced oxidation system in the future requires onsite pilot testing

at the CWP. This involves conducting preliminary tests of the ozone AOP system over a series of weeks

using wastewater from the treatment plant. The ozone AOP design company will perform the pilot testing

and bring their own equipment and setup apparatus. The pilot testing occurs at the plant and uses

laboratories at the plant, if available; otherwise, samples are shipped out to an approved commercial

laboratory. The pilot test system is scaled down to a bench or skid-size system because full-scale testing

would disrupt operation of wastewater treatment processes.

Extensive data collection accompanies pilot testing so that the system can be fine-tuned and scaled up

to full size. Pilot testing ensures that the ozone AOP system will work, while also determining

preliminary conditions for full-scale operation. Another test period will occur after application of the

ozone AOP system, consisting primarily of monitoring the newly installed system to ensure that the pilot

testing results were appropriately scaled to full-scale treatment conditions.

Pilot testing is essential for selecting an appropriate ozone generation system and associated

equipment, such as ozone destruct units and mixing chambers, because pilot testing is used to determine

various ozone/hydroxyl radical kinetic parameters. These kinetic parameters are used to predict the

removal of emerging contaminants from the wastewater at full-scale application. Pilot testing provides the

values of these parameters as well as physically confirming contaminant removal by water sample

comparison. Without pilot testing, contaminant removal and kinetic parameters can only be assumed

based on a limited knowledge of ozone AOPs.

Pilot testing is specifically performed to determine the optimal ozone dosage and the rates of

hydroxyl radical production, consumption, and scavenging in wastewater. These rates and the ozone

dosage vary depending on wastewater conditions, and therefore should be found for the specific plant.

General theoretical and stoichiometric yield models dealing with hydroxyl radical chemistry are not yet

refined to an extent that they can be broadly applied because hydroxyl radical chemistry is difficult to

study and is a new, evolving science.

7.9 Ozone Generator Operation and Maintenance

An ozone generation system has relatively easy maintenance and operation. All units, including the

air driers, the ozone generators, and the ozone destruction unit, have panel input systems or specific

operation programs. Because ambient air is recommended as the feed gas, operation demands for ozone

generation are significantly reduced. Units simply need to be monitored to ensure they are working

properly.

Maintenance is necessary to provide consistent production of ozone and prevent production

inefficiencies. The ozone feed gas preparation unit consisting of the filter, compressor, pressure receiver,

and double column desiccant drier should be cleaned once a month. Cleaning typically consists of

scrubbing down the inside of each unit in the air preparation system.

7.10 Regulations and Concerns

Ozone is an irritating and acutely toxic gas when present at high concentrations. The United States

Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set standards concerning ozone exposure, ozone

atmospheric release, and indoor air quality.46

Current standards and air quality ratings can be found in

Table 8.

30

Table 8. Ambient air quality standards and ratings for ozone

O3 [ppmv] 8-hour O3 [ppmv] 1-hour Rating

0.000 - 0.059 - Good

0.060 - 0.075 - Moderate

0.076 - 0.095 0.125 - 0.164 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

0.096 - 0.115 0.165 - 0.204 Very Unhealthy

> 0.116 > 0.205 Hazardous

Typical residual ozone concentrations exiting in the ozone contact chambers are near or greater than

600 ppm, but can vary depending on the application, dosage, and ozone transfer efficiency. This residual

concentration of ozone greatly exceeds ambient air quality standards of 0.075 ppm, which is the minimum

acceptable level. Prolonged exposure to ozone or brief exposure at extremely high concentrations can

result in throat and lung irritation as well as edema, which causes excessive accumulation of serous fluid

in the intercellular tissue spaces. Despite these ozone dangers, no deaths have ever been reported related

to operation of wastewater ozone applications. Ozone is also not suspected as a human carcinogen,

despite its toxicity.44

7.11 10 States Standards Compliance

The 10 States Standards enforced by the Wastewater Committee of the Great Lakes do not address

the use of ozone as an AOP. In 2004, the standards for wastewater did not even address ozone as a

disinfectant, but concluded that ozone systems should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.47

The 2007

water treatment standards, however, include regulations and requirements for ozone disinfection systems.

These standards for ozone disinfection should be assumed to apply to ozone AOP systems.48

The recommended ozone generator and off-gas destruction unit supplied by Ozonia meets the

requirements of the 10 States Standards. The CFV-20 ozone generator uses air, an appropriate feed gas,

and can produce ozone at concentrations greater than 1% by weight exiting the generator. The Ozonia

RB-63 off-gas destruction unit is capable of reducing the ozone concentration in the off-gas to below 0.1

ppmv and the team has recommended that two full scale units be installed for redundancy. Regulations

concerning catalysts in ozone destruction units are not an issue since the Ozonia RB-63 units use thermal

destruction to degrade the ozone.

The 10 States Standards contain additional regulations concerning air preparation, piping, alarms,

construction, and safety associated with design and installation of an ozone disinfection system or

assumed ozone AOP system.48

The team recommends that these standards be looked at in greater detail in

the future when the CWP is fully considering the need for an ozone AOP system to remove emerging

contaminants.

31

8 Reaeration

Approximately one third of all wastewater treatment plants, including the CWP, have dissolved

oxygen (DO) regulations on their NPDES permits (Appendix A: CWP Data and Information). The EPA

imposes these minimum DO levels because surface waters receiving wastewater require certain

concentrations of DO to maintain healthy aquatic life. The CWP currently has an exception in the permit

that allows the plant to not meet its required DO concentration during large rain events. However, the

CWP will still need an additional reaeration process that increases the DO levels in the effluent to meet

the permit without exceptions.

8.1 CWP DO Concentrations

The CWP’s NPDES permit requires the dissolved oxygen of the effluent stream to be greater than 5

mg/L between June 1 and September 30 and greater than 3 mg/L for the remainder of the year (Figure

18). From January 2006 to August 2010, dissolved oxygen levels for the CWP ranged from 1.3 mg/L to

12.5 mg/L with an average of 7.0 mg/L from June to September and an average of 8.0 mg/L from October

to May, as shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18. DO content in the effluent wastewater compared with the NPDES requirements.

Based on the CWP data gathered over the years, the DO concentrations for the CWP effluent

wastewater stream do not normally drop below the NPDES permit limitation of 5.0 mg/L and 3.0 mg/L

for the months of June to September and October to May respectively. In fact, the CWP often is able to

exceed mandatory DO level required by the NPDES permit by approximately 2 mg/L and 5 mg/L for the

months of June to September and October to May respectively. There are a few times in the past years

that the CWP’s effluent wastewater stream DO concentrations have dropped below the NPDES permit

levels. These anomalies can usually be attributed to large rain events.

The team considered reaeration because with the addition of UV disinfection, the flow would lose its

increase in DO when it falls over the current chlorine contact basin.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

DO

Co

nte

nt

[mg

/L]

DO in effluent NPDES Limit

32

8.2 CWP’s Existing Reaeration System

The CWP increases its DO concentrations by having the water flow over a weir following the

chlorine contact basin. As the water flows over the weir, water molecules collide with air particles and

entrain the air. Once the water submerges into the receiving water, the entrained air disperses through the

water as bubbles, changing the dissolved oxygen content. The CWP’s current reaeration system works

well during dry weather events. However, during wet weather events, the water depth in the Grand River

rises and river water enters the outfall, flowing to the top of the chlorine contact basin weir. The river

water restricts the flow over the weir, thereby preventing an increase in DO concentrations in the water

from the fall over the weir (Figure 19). This causes the DO concentration to be lower than the permit

allows.7

Figure 19. Diagram of flow through the weir during dry weather flows (left) and wet weather flows (right).

8.3 Recommended Reaeration Process

There are many types of reaeration processes. Some processes, including bubble diffusers and surface

aerators, require mechanical blowers to push air into the water. Another option is gravity cascade

aeration, which allows water to flow downward over a series of steps while exposing it to air.25

Figure 20

shows a current cascade aeration system in Montana.

Figure 20. Cascade aeration system in Marshall, Montana.

In the PPFS, the team used a decision matrix to determine that fine bubble diffusers would be the

optimal choice for the CWP because of their low construction costs due to available unused infrastructure

at the CWP.49

Cascade aeration was ranked the lowest, mainly because it would require additional pumps

to provide the additional head needed to flow down the steps. However, as design work progressed, the

team realized the need for a pumping station for the UV disinfection system. Therefore, cascade aeration

became a competitive reaeration option because of its simplicity and low maintenance. The team revised

the decision matrix (Table 9) and determined that cascade aeration is the optimal choice for the plant.

33

Table 9. Decision matrix for CWP reaeration system.

Category Weight Fine Bubble Coarse Bubble Surface Cascade

Construction Cost 4 2 3 4 5

Operation Cost 5 3 3 2 5

Flexibility 4 5 3 4 2

Implementation 2 4 4 3 5

Ease of Use 2 3 3 4 5

Maintenance 2 3 2 3 5

Total 63 59 62 83

8.4 Cascade Aeration Design

The most important factors affecting cascade aeration are the flow rate, height of each cascade, and

the number of cascades. Because the flow rate will be the flow through the CWP, the variables affecting

the aeration will be the height of cascade drop and the number of cascades. The team calculated the

increase in DO concentration for varying heights. The number of drops was the total allowable elevation

change (7.5 ft) divided by the height of each drop. These calculations are shown in Appendix C:

Technical Calculations. Table 10 below summarizes the results of these calculations.

Table 10. Cascade aeration configuration alternatives and provided DO concentrations.

Alternative Number 1 2 3

Height of Drop [ft] 0.75 2 2.5

Number of Drops 10 3 2

DO Transfer Efficiency 0.893 0.738 0.640

Final DO Concentration [mg/L] 7.485 6.361 5.565

As Table 10 demonstrates, the most efficient aeration system (Alternative 1) consists of many small

rather than a few large cascades. Therefore, it is recommended that the CWP have an aeration system

with 10 drops of 0.75 ft, as shown in Figure 21. This structure will be constructed in the old Chlorine

Contact Basin No. 1 using reinforced concrete steps. Detailed calculations and drawings can be found in

Appendix C: Technical Calculations: Reaeration Calculations. Figure 22 shows the estimated DO effluent

concentration after the suggested cascade aeration.

34

Figure 21. Cross section of the proposed cascade aeration system (1:80 scale).

Figure 22. Estimated effluent DO concentration after cascade aeration of ten drops at 0.75 ft per drop. For

this graph, the additional DO was added to the effluent DO concentrations for 2009.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

DO

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n [

mg

/L]

Effluent DO Concentration

Permit Level

Ø3’

35

As mentioned before, the difficulty with the current reaeration process is that once the water level

rises to 597.5 ft, river water backs up into the outfall and up to the weir in the chlorine contact basin,

preventing the flow from falling over the weir. The proposed cascade aeration system would allow the

river water to rise an additional 2.5 ft, to an elevation of 600 ft, before not making the DO permit level.

To prevent river water from flowing into the plant, a check valve should be installed at the connection of

Chlorine Contact Basin No.1 to the effluent discharge pipe.

Figure 23. Summer 2009 effluent DO concentrations with varying levels of aeration.

8.5 Aeration Plant Integration

The team recommends that the cascade aeration system be installed in Chlorine Contact Basin No. 1.

This contact chamber is located directly in between the proposed UV building and the effluent discharge

pipe and already conveys wastewater. In addition, since the chamber basin is no longer is use, the

conversion of the contact chamber demonstrates good environmental stewardship by reusing existing

facilities.

The contact chamber is divided into two sections. The reaeration system would be located on the left

side of Figure 24 below (the east chamber). The first ten feet will consist of the aeration steps. The water

will then flow through the remainder of the chamber before entering the discharge pipe.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Efl

lue

nt

DO

[m

g/L

]

Current River Level at low flow River Level at 600 ft Permit Level

36

Figure 24. Reaeration flow schematic. Drawing not to scale.

37

9 Plant Integration

The new combined UV disinfection and AOP system will be placed near the chlorine contact tanks

that currently exist at the CWP. Piping already exists from this area to discharge the effluent to the Grand

River, thus reducing the need for additional construction with a new tertiary treatment system. Land area

is available in this region for construction as well. This area of the site plan can be seen in Figure 30,

Appendix A: CWP Data and Information.

9.1 Hydraulics

9.1.1 Plant Hydraulics

The team used the EPA’s Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) software to model the CWP’s

hydraulics. This water modeling program was available to the team through the engineering department at

Calvin College. The CWP currently uses only one pumping station, located after preliminary treatment.

After this pumping station, wastewater flows through the system by gravity.

The current pumping station at the CWP is would work with the proposed UV disinfection system

provided that the UV reactors be installed about twelve feet below ground level at an elevation of

approximately 593 ft. (Elevations are relative to sea level as determined by the USGS). A new

disinfection building constructed 15 ft below ground level would have long-term seepage and other water

problems due to the high water table resulting from close proximity to the Grand River. In addition,

maintenance would be very difficult because the UV disinfection system would be located 15 ft below

ground.

The team suggests that another pumping station be installed to raise the elevation of the wastewater

after secondary treatment at the CWP. This would allow for a UV disinfection system to be installed at an

elevation approximately at ground level. In the facility plan, Black and Veatch mentioned the need for a

second pumping station if a cascade aerator was to be installed. Black and Veatch offered two pumping

alternatives. The first option was the building of a new pumping station with three screw pumps for a cost

of approximately $1,876,875. The second option was a renovation of the unused settled sewage pumping

station at a cost of approximately $1,078,125.8 The team chose the latter option because has a cost of

$800,000 less than the screw pumps. In addition, the latter option has fewer environmental impacts

because of reuse of the old sewage pumping station and subsequent less construction.

9.1.2 Pump Station Design

9.1.2.1 Pump Selection

To raise the hydraulic head for ground-level UV disinfection and reuse of the old sewage pumping

station at the CWP, there are certain design constraints that must be met. First, the pumps must provide a

head of at least 20 ft and must be able to a combined total flow of 24 MGD. Second, the number of

pumps cannot exceed five because of space constraints associated with reusing the old sewage pumping

station.

A combination of Fairbanks Morse vertical angleflow solids-handling pumps meets these design

constraints (Figure 25).50

It is important to note though, that at this stage in the treatment process, solids-

handling pumps are not needed. However, due to proprietary information on pump curves, the vertical

angleflow pump is the closest match for the plant that could be found. Therefore, with the information

available, the team is recommending the Fairbanks Morse solids-handling pumps, but recognizes that

using a clear water pump could increase pumping efficiency.

38

Figure 25. Picture of a vertical solids handling pump.50

The specific pump that the team recommends is the 5700 Angleflow vertical solids handling pump.

This pump has a 17.75 in diameter and operates at a speed of 585 RPM. Pump properties are shown

below in Table 11 and Table 12. In addition, the pump curve can be found in Appendix H: Equipment

Specification Sheets. These pumps require a Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) of 9.85 ft when operating

at 8 MGD and a NPSH of 11.6 ft when operating at 9 MGD. Calculations in Appendix C: Technical

Calculations show that the NPSH available for the pumps is 14.6 ft which is greater than the minimum

required head of 11.6 ft for pump operation.

Table 11. 5700 Angleflow 16" 5711(AM) pump characteristics

Property Value

Diameter 17.75 in

Total Width 40.13 in

Total Height 60.13 in

Speed 585 RPM

Min. Speed 300 RPM

Max. Speed 900 RPM

Max. Temp 150 °F

Min. Flow 4.32 MGD

Table 12. 5700 Angleflow 16" 5711(AM) performance data

8 MGD 9 MGD

Head 23.00 ft 20.30 ft

NPSH Required 9.85 ft 11.60 ft

Efficiency 85% 85%

Power 37.8 hp 37.8 hp

The team recommends that the CWP purchase three pumps. Assuming an average day flow of 18

MGD, only two pumps need to be operated at 9 MGD and the third pump can be off-line for maintenance

and redundancy. During wet weather conditions with a maximum flow of 24 MGD, all three pumps can

be on-line, each pumping 8 MGD.

39

9.1.3 10 States Standards for Pumping

The proposed pump renovation plan fulfills the 10 States Standards for pumping stations. The

standards require a minimal pipe diameter of 4 in, which the CWP will exceed with a diameter of 42 in.

With a 42 in diameter pipe, the minimal flow velocity is 2.89 ft/s, exceeding the required minimum flow

velocity of 2 ft/s.

The 10 States Standards also has additional requirements concerning the protection of electrical and

mechanical equipment from flooding, OSHA certified confined space entry training, the electrical

systems complying with the National Electric Code, proper air inlets and outlets, and enough on-site

power to run the pumps during a power outage. Most likely, these requirements are already met for the

settled sewage pump station. However, they should still be checked to make sure all existing structures

and pumping components meet the current standards

9.1.4 UV Pump Station Changes to Plant Flow

Flow will be diverted from the current pipe that brings wastewater from the effluent junction chamber

and Parshall flume to the converted sewage pumping station in a 60 in diameter concrete pipe.

The pumping station will raise the head of the water from an elevation of 587 ft to an elevation of 606

ft, providing enough head for UV disinfection and cascade aeration. The flow from the UV pumping

station to the UV building will follow four steps. (The four steps are labeled below in Figure 26). First,

the water will leave the converted UV pump station in a pressurized, 42 in diameter pipe and at an

elevation of 606 ft. Second, the water level will drop to an elevation of 600 ft, in order for the pipe

connecting the UV pump station and UV building to be underground. This will place the pipe below

ground level and prevent exposure of the pipe to the atmosphere. Third, the pipe will enter the UV

building at an elevation of 606ft, the same elevation of the pipe leaving the UV pumping station. Finally,

the water will enter a 60” diameter pipe and become un-pressurized before entering the UV reactors.

Figure 26. Flow from the UV pumping station (#1) to the UV building (#4).

40

9.2 Disinfection and Ozone Building

A building will need to be constructed to house the new UV disinfection system, since the UV

reactors cannot be outdoors like the current chlorine contact basin. The team designed a simple structure

for this purpose.

9.2.1 Location

The proposed ozone and disinfection building will be located in the northwest corner of the facility in

a field where the final clarifiers and trickling filters used to be. This is suggested because it is near the

currently-used Chlorine Contact Basin No. 1. By locating the new disinfection building near the existing

chlorine tank, rerouting of the wastewater stream is minimized. This location also minimizes excavation

and materials costs. As previously mentioned (9.1 Hydraulics), additional pumping is required with the

new UV disinfection system. The proposed location of the building will alleviate the need for an

additional pump station due to the proximity to the unused settled sewage pump station. This pump

station can be retrofitted to house the additional pumps required to operate the proposed UV disinfection

system (9.1.2 Pump Station Design).

9.2.2 Design

A basic building design was created with two main purposes: to demonstrate the proposed space

requirements on site and to determine estimated construction costs. The proposed building will be simple

concrete block structure providing adequate space for the six Trojan UV reactors, the Ozonia ozone

generator, and all associated components (Figure 27). It will be 60 ft by 35 ft with 12 ft high walls

constructed of 8 in. x 16 in. x 8 in. concrete masonry units.

Figure 27. Plan view of ozone and UV disinfection building.

41

The roof will be constructed of 36 ksi steel wide flange beams (W8x10 and W16x31) with steel

decking, insulation, and an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber on top. A flat roof was

selected to match the other buildings on site. Beam sizes were selected using RAM Structural System, a

computer modeling program (Figure 28). Three doors will provide access to the building from different

sides; one larger door will provide vehicular access, if necessary, while the other two will provide access

for personnel.

Figure 28. Layout of beam designs for the ozone and UV disinfection building. Grid marks are 2.5 ft apart.

Overhead fluorescent lighting is spaced every four feet for sufficient visibility in the building. A

continuous concrete footing acts as the foundation for the building. Geotechnical testing and analysis will

need to be completed before a foundation design can be done (9.2.4 Soils).

9.2.3 Stormwater Management

The proposed location for the disinfection and ozone building contains a catch basin that aids the

drainage for the field to the south (Figure 29). The catch basin drains into a pipe run straight north to the

Grand River. This catch basin and associated piping must be moved when the building is constructed. The

team suggests moving the catch basin south of the building, so it can still drain the field. Piping must then

run straight east and then straight north to connect with the existing storm sewer.

42

Figure 29. The catch basin located in the field.

There is also a drainage swale that runs between Chlorine Contact Basin No.1 and Chlorine Contact

Basin No. 2. Like the stormwater main, the swale is also in the proposed building site. The swale should

be moved to the east when construction begins on the proposed facility; this will allow for proper

drainage of surface waters. If the swale and catch basin are not properly relocated, the construction could

cause unwanted ponding in the field to the south or erosion to the soils around the proposed facility.

Also, it is worth noting that the proposed disinfection building is in the FEMA 100 year flood plain,

along with the entire CWP.51

9.2.4 Soils

No geotechnical data for the CWP was available to the team. The plant should perform soil testing

and geotechnical analysis before constructing the proposed building in order to design an appropriate

foundation. The water table level should also be examined in order to provide appropriate flood control

measures if necessary.

9.3 Electrical Infrastructure

The proposed building will require basic electrical infrastructure. First, the building will need service

from the power company. Second, two standard step down transformers will be required to take the power

down to 480 V 3-phase power for the Trojan UV system and down to 360 V 3-phase power for the

Ozonia system.32,43

Third, the power must be sent through a breaker panel, where it will be divided into

the specific circuits. Breakers ensure the system is safe and allow for any reactor to be taken offline

without disturbing the other systems in the building. The total demand for the building is expected to be

approximately 230 kW.

9.4 Transition from Chlorine to UV

The transition from chlorine disinfection to UV disinfection is expected to be seamless because the

two are distinctly separate systems. The chlorine disinfection process will remain operational while the

UV and ozone building is constructed and while the Trojan UV reactors are installed. After the UV

system is in place, the flow can then be diverted to the proposed system without loss of treatment. There

is no need to remove Chlorine Contact Basin No.2.

43

10 Costs

The amount of financial resources required for these systems is one of the key factors of feasibility

for the plant. Therefore, the team calculated cost estimates for each of the different parts of the design to

compile an overall estimated cost for the project. All construction costs listed below were scaled to 2012

Grand Rapids costs; all other costs were found in 2012 and some have substantial variability. If the

proposed designs are not adopted in the near future, the costs should be reexamined.

10.1 Ultraviolet Disinfection

The proposed Trojan Fit system will have comparable operational costs to the existing chlorine gas

disinfection system. Operation costs for the UV system are reduced because the CWP pays 7.5 cents per

kilowatt-hour, which is lower than the 2012 national average of 9.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.52,53

At peak

operation, the proposed UV system will require 50 kW (Appendix E: Required Electrical Infrastructure).

However, the system does not run at full capacity continuously. In fact, due to redundancy and variation

of flow, the system will have an average operation of 65% of capacity. Therefore, the annual electricity

costs for operating the proposed UV system is $22,000. The other major cost associated with UV

disinfection is lamp replacement. Trojan’s UV lamps are rated for 12,000 hours, or about 1.25 years.

Although relamping does not occur every year, the lamps costs were found for an annual time period, this

allows for easy cost comparison with other annual expenses. The annual relamping cost for the proposed

Trojan UV system is $32,000.33

Therefore, the expected annual operation and maintenance cost for the

proposed UV disinfection system is $68,000. Trojan also quoted a price of $850,000 for the six Trojan

32AL50 Fit reactors. This is the price for the reactors and associated components; no pipes or building

costs are included in this number. Complete UV costs are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13. Cost estimate of UV disinfection system for the CWP.

Capital Costs

Reactors $ 850,000

Installation $ 10,000

Total (10% contingency) $ 990,000

Annual Costs

Operation $ 22,000

Maintenance $ 32,000

Total (25% contingency) $ 68,000

10.2 Advanced Oxidation

There is little information on the costs associated with construction and operation an ozone/UV based

AOP. However, the team was able to find estimated costs through research and case studies to provide a

preliminary cost estimate.54

The costs (Table 14) are based on an ozone/AOP system that operates the

entire year with an ozone dosage of 4 mg/L. Because of the lack of cost information, the contingency

factors were increased for advanced oxidation.

44

Table 14. Cost estimate of ozone/UV AOP system for the CWP (ozone dose of 4 mg/L).

Capital Costs

Air Preparation $ 1,100,000

Ozone Generators $ 1,500,000

Off-Gas Destruction $ 1,000,000

Pipes, Fittings, Valves $ 100,000

Installation $ 1,000,000

Total (30% contingency) $ 6,100,000

Annual Costs

System:

Air Preparation $ 17,150

Ozone Generation $ 86,300

Off-Gas Destruction $ 15,000

Maintenance:

Labor (250 hrs - $30/hr) $ 7,500

Parts and Incidents $ 20,000

Total (30% contingency) $ 190,000

10.3 Building

Based on the proposed basic building design, construction of the UV and advanced oxidation building

will cost approximately $96,000 according to calculations in Appendix F: Cost Estimate Data. This

number does not include any construction management fees, so the cost could rise significantly. Electrical

framework in the building is assumed to be an additional 25% of total costs from the Black & Veatch

facility plan.8 In addition, because of the simplicity of the model, the proposed estimate for the facility

including fees is $260,000 (Table 15). An annual cost of $1,250 was added for maintenance of overhead

lights, doors, and other building fixtures.

Table 15. Building cost estimates.

Capital Costs

Building & Piping $ 96,000

Electrical $ 80,000

Consultants $ 27,000

Field Analysis $ 3,000

Total (25% contingency) $ 260,000

Annual Costs

Maintenance $ 1,000

Total (25% contingency) $ 1,250

45

10.4 Pumping

The capital costs for renovating the settled sludge pumping station is approximately $690,000. This

price includes the pumping station and additional pipes from the current pipe to the UV reactor building.

This number came from a combination of estimates from the Black and Veatch facility plan and costs of

the specific materials. Black and Veatch estimates were used because certain costs, such as the costs of

the pumps, were not available. The renovation will require new pumps, pipes, valves and fittings, and

electrical infrastructure.

The annual electricity costs were estimated assuming two pumps operated at 9 MGD 11 months of

the year (average flow), and three pumps operated at a flow of 8 MGD during 1 month of the year

(maximum month flow).

Table 16. Pumping cost estimates.

Capital Costs

Centrifugal Pumps $ 225,000

12 in. concrete pipe $ 2,100

42 in. concrete pipe $ 41,000

60 in. concrete pipe $ 34,000

Pipe laying/excavation $ 10,500

Concrete mix (2500 psi) $ 4,500

Pumping into slab $ 630

Valves and fittings $ 40,000

Electrical and Instrumentation $ 90,000

Professional Costs $ 54,000

Site Work $ 53,000

Total (25% contingency) $ 690,000

Annual Costs

Electricity $ 38,500

Maintenance:

Labor (250 hrs - $30/hr) $ 7,500

Parts and Incidents $ 20,000

Total (25% contingency) $ 83,000

10.5 Reaeration

The capital cost for converting Chlorine Contact Basin No. 1 to the cascade aeration system is

approximately $63,000. This estimate was compiled using the costs of specific materials based on

volumes from the proposed design and from Black and Veatch’s facility plan.

Table 17. Cascade aeration cost estimates.

Capital Costs

Construction $ 50,000

Total (25% contingency) $ 63,000

46

10.6 Total Costs

The total capital cost for the UV disinfection system, UV building, pumping station renovation, and a

cascade aerator is $2 million (Table 18). The annual costs operational cost of this system is expected to be

approximately $145,000 for 2030 flows, which averages to approximately $0.01 to $0.02 per 1,000

gallons. The CWP currently spends $100,000 in chlorine purchases per year;55

current disinfection costs

are therefore at least $0.017 per 1,000 gallons. The current disinfection cost does not include

dechlorination or maintenance. Therefore, the switch to UV will not raise the cost of disinfection. Rather,

UV could decrease disinfection costs. The operational costs are calculated based upon the current rate that

the CWP pays for electricity (7.5 cents per kW-hr).55

Table 18. Overall project cost estimates without advanced oxidation.

Capital Costs

UV Disinfection $ 990,000

Pumping $ 690,000

Building $ 260,000

Reaeration $ 63,000

Total $ 2,000,000

Annual Costs

UV Disinfection $ 60,000

Pumping $ 83,000

Building $ 1,250

Reaeration $ 0

Total $ 145,000

The addition of advanced oxidation increases the total capital costs to $8.1 million (Table 19). The

annual operational cost of this system is expected to be between $280,000 and $335,000 or $0.035 to

$0.045 cents per 1000 gallons. This increase is due to the large costs of the ozone generators and the high

cost of ozone production. The operation and maintenance budget for the plant is approximately $7

million,55

making the addition of advanced oxidation about a 3% increase in operational costs.

Table 19. Overall project cost estimates with advanced oxidation.

Capital Costs

UV Disinfection $ 990,000

Ozone $ 6,100,000

Pumping $ 690,000

Building $ 260,000

Reaeration $ 63,000

Total $ 8,100,000

Annual Costs

UV Disinfection $ 60,000

Ozone $ 190,000

Pumping $ 83,000

Building $ 1,250

Total $ 335,000

47

11 Impacts of the Proposed System

The greatest advantage to switching from the chlorine system to the proposed UV system is reduction

in hazardous chemicals. The CWP stores the chlorine gas on site in large tanks. Because the chlorine is so

toxic to both humans and the environment, great care must be taken to ensure the chlorine is properly

contained. The CWP must inspect the chlorine system to ensure it is up to fire code, and they must always

have an up-to-date emergency response plan. The chlorine is also hazardous after it has been used as a

disinfection agent, forming NDMA and other DBPs. Because of these toxic chemicals, the wastewater

must be dechlorinated before it is discharged into receiving waters. UV Disinfection does not require any

chemicals to disinfect, and it does not leave any residual toxins after disinfection.36

Although the proposed AOP system does utilize ozone, a toxic chemical, it is generated and destroyed

onsite. After generation, the ozone is immediately input into a closed piping system where it works with

the closed vessel UV reactors to reduce the levels of emerging contaminates. After adequate contact time,

any remaining ozone gas is collected and destroyed. Again, the proposed system is designed to avoid any

potential for ozone to be a health threat to employees of the CWP and the surrounding environment.

Instead, when the ozone is used properly, it will work towards a net reduction of toxic chemicals in the

effluent stream. Although emerging contaminates are generally found in very low concentrations, the

effect can be paramount. Fish, in sore rivers, are becoming feminized due to low levels of hormones that

are discharged into the river. Ozone can reduce concentrations of emerging contaminate like the ones that

are adversely affecting fish.56

UV disinfection is comparable in energy consumption to chlorine gas disinfection when all the

aspects of chlorine are considered; the gas must be generated, transported, stores, and removed. However,

the team recognizes that AOPs require substantial quantities of additional energy to remove emerging

contaminates. This is a major tradeoff that must be carefully considered before the proposed ozone system

is implemented.

48

12 Conclusion

Over the course of two semesters, the team designed an ultraviolet disinfection system that meets the

needs of the CWP. Six Trojan Fit 32AL50 reactors are proposed to replace the existing chlorine gas

disinfection system. An ozone/UV system was selected as the preferred AOP for the project, for which

three Ozonia CFV-20 Ozone Generators will sufficiently meet the CWP’s needs. The unused settled

sludge pump station can be converted to a UV pumping station to provide enough head for the UV

reactors. A simple building is proposed to house the UV and ozone systems. In addition, a cascade aerator

was recommended to ensure the effluent stream has sufficient DO.

The design of these systems for the CWP taught the team about tertiary wastewater treatment. Both

UV disinfection and AOPs are cutting-edge technologies in the treatment industry. AOPs are especially

new and are expected to see a great deal of growth in the upcoming years as emerging contaminant

removal becomes necessary and research on them progresses. The project gave the team a solid

understanding of AOPs and also provided the team an opportunity to be a part of the growth of advanced

oxidation alternatives by providing a preliminary AOP design for the CWP.

Through this project the team learned importance of teamwork and communication. Since each team

member was responsible for a different portion of the project, keeping teammates updated on the status of

individual tasks was very important. Communication became even more important as team members

relied on each other for design information. Frequent meetings and email correspondences aided

communication. More information on the team’s project management can be found in Appendix G:

Project Management.

While it was exciting to design an emerging technology, AOPs accounted for the most frustration by

the team because using ozone as a treatment for emerging contaminates has not been widely used yet. No

record of large scale ozone/UV case studies made it much more difficult to create a system with the level

of integrity and specificity desired. This difficulty increased the importance of good communication

within the team to guarantee that any possible information learned about AOPs could be shared amongst

team members.

Overall, the team is very pleased with the proposed preliminary design and hopes that the report can

serve as a guide to CWP personnel as they move forward with tertiary treatment upgrades.

49

13 Acknowledgements

Many companies and individuals aided the team in the design of the CWP’s disinfection system. The

team is very grateful to them and would like to give special thanks to the following people for their

involvement in the project.

Wyoming Clean Water Plant

The personnel at the CWP suggested the project, provided necessary plant data, answered multitudes

of questions, and gave continual support and encouragement throughout the year. The team would

specifically like to thank Myron Erickson (Former CWP Lab Services Manager, Present CWP

Superintendent), Tom Kent (Deputy Director of Public Works), Craig Smith (Past CWP Superintendent),

and Tom Wilson (CWP Maintenance Supervisor).

Black & Veatch

Black & Veatch, especially David Koch, P.E. and Jeff Glover, P.E., provided the team with the initial

idea for the project and provided the team with the CWP’s facility plan and other data needed for

modeling plant hydraulics.

Trojan UV

Brent Charlton from Trojan UV Technologies was exceptionally helpful while helping the team work

through UV system details and providing suggestions for an appropriate UV system and its specifications.

Ozotech

Ozotech was very helpful in providing a discount for the team on the ozone generator used for bench-

scale testing. The company was also very cooperative in answering any questions about the system.

Calvin College Engineering Department

The professors were very helpful in giving project guidance and answering questions concerning

process design. The engineering department also provided the funding for the bench-scale testing. In

addition, the team would like to thank engineering lab manager Bob DeKraker for his aid in ordering

bench-scale testing parts.

Calvin College Chemistry Department

Scott Prentice, Equipment Technician, was helpful in learning how the HPLC at Calvin College

works, so that the team could analyze bench-scale testing results.

Team Advisors

Dr. David Wunder, P.E. and Professor Leonard DeRooy, P.E. provided the team with guidance during

the writing of the PPFS and final report.

Family and Friends

All the team members’ family and friends supported the team through this process with words of

encouragement.

50

Additional Acknowledgements

Jack Rafter from Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber provided the team with guidance during the

compilation of the team’s PPFS in the fall semester. Also, Mike Lunn of Grand Rapid’s wastewater

treatment plant was helpful in providing a tour and information regarding the Grand Rapids WWTP and

its UV disinfection system.

51

References

1 O'Brien, Daniel, and Carl Pawlowski. "Long-Range Residuals Planning." Massachusetts Water Resources

Authority. Boston. 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.

<http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/monthly/wac/presentations/2011/101411-residualsplanning.pdf>. 2 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress. United States Environmental Protection Agency,

2008. 128-29. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/cwns/upload/cwns2008rtc.pdf>. 3 "Treatment Process." Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.

<http://v3.mmsd.com/TreatmentProcess.aspx>. 4 "Facts and Demographics." City of Wyoming. 2010. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.

<http://www.ci.wyoming.mi.us/About/facts.asp>. 5 City of Wyoming Utilities. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ci.wyoming.mi.us/Utilities/Utilities.asp>.

6 "How Our Plant Cleans Water and What We're Doing to Protect the Environment." Wyoming Clean Water

Plant. Wyoming, MI. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ci.wyoming.mi.us/Utilities/operations.asp>. 7 Erickson, Myron. Personal interview. 3 Oct. 2011.

8 Black & Veatch. Wyoming Clean Water Plant Facilities Plan Update. Grand Rapids, MI: Black & Veatch,

Nov. 2011. 9 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4 Jan.

2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. 10

"UV Disinfection Replaces Chlorine As The Disinfection Of Choice." Business Wire 11 May 1999. 11

Gogate, Parag R., and Aniruddha B. Pandit. "A Review Of Imperative Technologies For Wastewater

Treatment I: Oxidation Technologies At Ambient Conditions." Advances in Environmental Research 8 (2004): 501-

51. 12

Andreozzi, Roberto, Vincenzo Caprio, Amedeo Insola, and Raffaele Marotta. "Advanced Oxidation

Processes (AOP) For Water Purification And Recovery." Catalysis Today 53 (1999): 51-59. Print. 13

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aquatic Life Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen – (Saltwater) Cape Cod

to Cape Hatteras. Washington, D.C.: USEPA Office of Science and Technology, 2000. Fact Sheet. Web. 1 Nov.

2011. 14

Ermer, Gayle E., and Steven H. VanderLeest. "Using Design Norms to Teach Engineering." American

Society for Engineering Education. Montréal. 2002. Reading. 15

"Erythromycin." AHFS Consumer Medication Information. The American Society of Health-System

Pharmacists, Inc., 2011. PubMed Health. Web. 31 Oct. 2011.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000662/>. 16

Gobel, Anke, Angela Thomsen, Christa S. McArdell, Adriano Joss, and Walter Giger. "Occurrence and

Sorption Behavior of Sulfonamides, Macrolides, and Trimethoprim in Activated Sludge Treatment." Environmental

Science and Technology 39.11. 27 Apr. (2005): 3981-89. Print. 17

McArdell, Christa S., Eva Molnar, Marc J. Suter, and Walter Giger. "Occurrence and Fate of Macrolide

Antibiotics in Wastewater Treatment Plants and in the Glatt Valley Watershed, Switzerland." Environmental

Science and Technology 37.24 28 Oct. (2003): 5479-86. Print. 18

Miao, Xiu-Sheng, Farida Bishay, Mei Chen, and Chris D. Metcalfe. "Occurrence of Antimicrobials in the

Final Effluents of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Canada." Environmental Science and Technology 38.1326 May

(2004): 3533-41. Print. 19

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water: Contaminant Candidate List. Environmental Protection

Agency, 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/ccl3.cfm>. 20

Rusiecki, J. A., A. De Roos, M. Dosemeci, J. H. Lubin, J. A. Hoppin, A. Blair, and M.C. Alavanja. "Cancer

Incidence Among Pesticide Applicators Exposed To Atrazine In The Agricultural Health Study." Journal of the

National Cancer Institute 96.1815 Sept. (2004): 1375-82. Print. 21

"Atrazine Background." Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets. EPA, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.

<http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/atrazine_background.htm>. 22

"Carbamazepine Drug Information." Drug Information Online. N.p., 2000. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

<http://www.drugs.com/ingredient/carbamazepine.html>.

52

23

Oetken, M., G. Nentwig, D. Löffler, T. Ternes, and J. Oehlmann. "Effects of Pharmaceuticals on Aquatic

Invertebrates. Part I. The Antiepileptic Drug Carbamazepine." Archives of Environmental Contamination and

Toxicology 49 (2005): 353-61. Print. 24

"Carbamazepine." Sigma-Aldrich. Sigma-Aldrich, 2011. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.

<http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=C4024|SIGMA&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_

PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC>. 25

Droste, Ronald L. Theory and Practice of Water and Wastewater Treatment. Hoboken, New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. 355-543. 26

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Technology Fact Sheet.”

Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Research and Development, 2004.

Web. 24 Oct. 2011. 27

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ultraviolet Disinfection. Washington, D.C.: USEPA Office of Water,

1999. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet. Web. 7 Oct. 2011. 28

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Carollo Engineers, P.C., The Cadmus Group, Inc., Dr. Karl G. Linden, and Dr. James P.

Malley, Jr. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, 2006. 1-6-54. Web. 28

Nov. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/compliance.html>. 29

Sullivan, Ed. "UV Disinfection's Secret." Pollution Engineering Sept. (2010): 40-41. 30

Trojan UV. Trojan Technologies, 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2012. <http://trojanuv.com/>. 31

Charlton, Brent. Message to Mike Troupos. 4 Apr. 2012. Web. 32

Trojan UV. Wastewater Disinfection Filtered In-Pipe Treatment. London, Ontario, Canada: Trojan UV,

2010. N. pag. Web. 29 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.trojanuv.com/resources/trojanuv/Products/TrojanUVFit/UVFit_Detailer_2010_LR.pdf>. 33

Charlton, Brent. "Calvin College UV Project." Message to Mike Troupos. 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 34

MWH. Water Treatment: Principles and Design. 2nd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

2005. 1131-46. Print. 35

Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental

Managers. Recommended Standards for Water Works. 10th ed. Albany: Health Research Inc., Health Education

Services Division, 2007. Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://10statesstandards.com/waterstandards.html#ultra>. 36

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications. Chicago: McGraw-Hill, 2007.

599-724. Print. 37

Nöthe, Tobias, Hans Fahlenkamp, and Clemens Von Sonntag. "Ozonation of Wastewater: Rate of Ozone

Consumption and Hydroxyl Radical Yield." Environmental Science & Technology 43.15 June (2009): 5990-95. 38

Poyatos, J M. "Advanced Oxidation Processes for Wastewater: State of the Art." Water, Air, Soil Pollution 7

Apr. (2009): 187-204. Web. 6 Oct. 2011. 39

Asano, Takashi, Franklin Burton, Harold Leverenz, Ryujiro Tsuchihashi, and George Tchobanoglous. Water

Reuse: Issues, Technologies and Applications. New York City: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Print. 40

ESCO International. Ozone Generators ECF-XT Range. Conwy, UK: ESCO International Ltd, n.d. 1-2.

Advanced Treatment Technologies. 41

Smith, Wayne. Principles of Ozone Generation. Waterford, Austraila: Watertec Engineering Pty Ltd, n.d. 1-

17. Information Sheet. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <http://www.watertecengineering.

com/TZ000002%20Principles%20of%20Ozone%20Generation.pdf>. 42

Stanley, Bruce T. Feedgas for Modern High-Performance Ozone Generators. Duebendorf, Switzerland:

Ozone Ltd, 1999. 1-7. 43

Ozonia. Degremont Technologies, 2012. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://ozonia.com/>. 44

Barlow, Philip J. An Introduction to Ozone Generation. N.p.: Watertec Engineering Pty Ltd, 1994. 1-16. 45

Rakness, Kerwin L., Enos L. Stover, and David L. Krenek. "Design, Start-Up, and Operation of an Ozone

Disinfection Unit." Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) 56.11 Nov. (1984): 1152-59. JSTOR. Web. 18

Apr. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25042467>. 46

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Ozone." EPA Guidance Manual: Alternative Disinfectants and

Oxidants. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. 1-17. 47

Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental

Managers. "Ozone." Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. 9th ed. Albany: Health Research Inc.,

Health Education Services Division, 2004. Web. 25 Apr. 2012.

<http://10statesstandards.com/wastewaterstandards.html#105>.

53

48

Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental

Managers. "Ozone Design Considerations." Recommended Standards for Water Works. 10th ed. Albany: Health

Research Inc., Health Education Services Division, 2007. Web. 27 Apr. 2012.

<htthttp://10statesstandards.com/waterstandards.html#4.3.7>. 49

Boersma, Anna, Bonnie Robison, Mark Stehouwer, and Mike Troupos. "Wyoming Clean Water Plant

Tertiary Treatment Project Feasibility Study." Wyoming Clean Water Plant. N.p., 7 Dec. 2011. Web. 19 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/2011-12-team12/Documents/Team12_PPFS.pdf>. 50

Fairbanks Morse Engineered Pump Products. Pentair Inc., 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.fmpump.com/>. 51

"Flood Insurance Rate Map: City of Grandville." Map. FEMA Map Service Center. Federal Emergency

Management Agency, 16 Sept. 1982. Web. 4 Apr. 2012.

<https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView>. 52

Erickson, Myron. "Fwd: Electricity and Plant Costs." Message to the author. 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 8 Apr.

2012. 53

Data for November 2011. January 2012 ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Energy Information Administration,

2012. Electric Power Monthly. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_year/January2012%28Nov%29.pdf>. 54

Solomon, Clement, Peter Casey, Colleen Mackne, and Andrew Lake. "Ozone Disinfection." Environmental

Technology Institute (1998): 1-4. Print. 55

Erickson, Myron. "Re: Electricity and Plant Costs." Message to the author. 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 56

Hinck, Blazer, Schmitt, Papoulias, and Tillitt. "Widespread Occurrence of Intersex in Black Basses

(Micropterus Spp.) From U.S. Rivers, 1995–2004." Aquatic Toxicology 95.119 Oct. (2009): 60-70. Web. 28 Apr.

2012

54

Appendix A: CWP Data and Information

Site Layout and Location

Figure 30. Plan view of the site layout at the CWP (1:80 scale), including proposed additions.

.

N

55

Figure 31. View of integration between reaeration in the old chlorine contact chamber and the UV and ozone

building (1:40 scale).

.

N

56

Figure 32. Aerial view of the settled sludge pumping station converted to the UV pump station (1:40 scale).

.

N

57

Figure 33. Firmette including CWP site location (approximate location shown with dashed box).51

58

CWP NPDES Permit

Below is the NPDES permit for the CWP, valid through October 1, 2015.

59

Influent and Effluent Contaminants

Table 20. Data supplied by the Clean Water Plant on influent and effluent concentrations of certain

contaminants. All units are in ng/L.

Compound August 2008 May 2009 August 2010

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent

1,7-Dimethylxanthine 21800 16 8900 9.1

2,4-D 98 100

4-Methylphenol 43000 ND

4-Nonyl Phenol ND ND 7500 7100

Acetaminophen 82000 ND 75800 ND 140000 ND

Albuterol 17 ND 18 ND

Amoxicillin (semi-

quantitative) 290 ND 330 23

Andorostenedione 18 ND 29 ND

Atenolol 4900 3700 1100 320

Atrazine 36 37 13 12

Bezafibrate ND ND 260 ND

BHT-d21 (70-130) 0 40

Bis Phenol A (BPA) 54000 ND 2700 160 260 ND

Bromacil 17 ND

Butalbital ND 29 6.5 13

Butylparaben 160 ND

Caffeine 32000 ND 120000 84 95000 22

Caffeine by GCMS LLE 14000 ND

Carbamazepine 80 230 190 380 350 340

Carisoprodol ND 7.2

Cimetidine 1000 ND 1500 ND

Cotinine 1200 26 2600 12 1200 23

Cyanazine ND ND

r 60 ND 430 69

DEA 100 23 22 19

DEET ND 37 630 1300 4500 94

Dehydronifedipine 20 30

DIA 36 40

Diclofenac 37 44 850 49

Dilantin 270 280 170 130

Diuron 8.1 100

Erythromycin 360 150

Ethinyl Estradiol-17 alpha ND ND ND 1600

Fluoxetine ND 104 61 ND

Furosimide 3700 570

Gemfibrozil 800 98 3600 220 3300 55

Ibuprofen 7900 6.5 22000 ND

60

Compound August 2008 May 2009 August 2010

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent

Iohexal 3100 5000

Iopromide ND 8.2 ND ND 1200 1900

Ketoprofen 34 15 30 22

Ketorolac ND 5.4 25 ND

Lidocaine 120 94

Lopressor 19100 410 180

Meprobamate 110 130 76 64

Methylparaben 570 ND

Naproxen 19800 39 20000 ND

Nifedipine 370 ND

Pentoxifylline 13 ND

Primidone 180 140 440 160

Progesterone ND ND 9.8 ND

Propylparaben 1300 ND 12 ND

Simazine 6.2 7.9 12 ND

Sucralose 44000 29600 24000 17000

Sulfadiazine 62 10 15 ND

Sulfadimethoxine 1000 ND 3100 ND

Sulfamethoxazole 1500 82 2500 370 3100 45

Sulfathiazole ND ND

TCEP 39 300 21 20

TDCPP ND 242

Testosterone ND ND 44 ND

Theobromine 72100 550 56000 1000

Theophylline 26800 ND 18000 23

Triclosan 1400 8 8800 270 650 ND

Trimethoprim ND 74 730 300 900 45

Tris (2-butoxyethyl)

phosphate 97000 ND

Tris (2-chloroethyl)

phosphate ND 226

Warfarin 6.6 ND

61

Appendix B: Bench-Scale Testing Data

Atrazine

UV Treatment

Following is collected bench-scale testing data for atrazine and only UV light. Retention time was

between 5.3 min and 5.4 min.

Table 21. Calibration curve data for atrazine concentrations with UV light.

Calibration Curve Concentration [ng/L]

0 25 50 75 125

Injection 1 0 68.6 139.9 240.9 358.1

Injection 2 0 73.9 139.3 241.3 356.0

Average 0 71.2 139.6 241.1 357.0

Figure 34. Calibration curve for atrazine testing with UV light.

[ATZ] = 2.9321 (Area) R² = 0.9925

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Are

a U

nd

er

Cu

rve

Un

its

(A

UC

U)

Atrazine Concentration (ng/L)

62

Table 22. Removal of atrazine from water by UV light.

UV Treatment Experimental Run

1 2 3 4 5 6

Injection 1 257.1 259.1 259.9 253.3 249.7 260.3

Injection 2 262.7 262.4 257.9 248.7 250.1 258.9

Average 259.9 260.8 258.9 251.0 249.9 259.6

Removed Concentration 88.7 88.9 88.3 85.6 85.2 88.5

Initial Concentration 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Final Concentration 11.3 11.1 11.7 14.4 14.8 11.5

Percent Removal 11% 11% 12% 14% 15% 11%

Figure 35. Removal of atrazine by UV light over different trials. The dashed line represents the average of the

three runs at 12.5% removal.

Ozone/UV Treatment

Following is collected bench-scale testing data for atrazine and a combination of ozone and UV light.

Retention time was between 5.3 min and 5.4 min.

Table 23. Calibration curve data for atrazine concentrations with UV light and ozone.

Calibration Curve Concentration [ng/L]

0 25 50 75 125

Injection 1 0 67.7 135.5 236.1 335.0

Injection 2 0 66.5 135.7 235.2 338.3

Average 0 67.1 135.6 235.7 336.7

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nt

Rem

ova

l

UV Treatment Run

63

Figure 36. Calibration curve for atrazine testing with ozone and UV light.

Table 24. Removal of atrazine from water by UV light and ozone.

UV/Ozone Treatment Experimental Run - Ozone Dosage [mg/L]

0 1 3 5 8

Injection 1 260.8 248.2 180.5 143.3 117.6

Injection 2 --- 250.0 181.3 140.9 115.7

Average 260.8 249.1 180.9 142.1 116.7

Removed Concentration 93.2 89.0 64.6 50.8 41.7

Initial Concentration 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Final Concentration 6.8 11.0 35.4 49.2 58.3

Percent Removal 7% 11% 35% 49% 58%

[ATZ] = 2.7985 (Area) R² = 0.9879

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Are

a U

nd

er

Cu

rve

Un

its

[A

UC

U]

Atrazine Concentration [ng/L]

64

Figure 37. Removal of atrazine by ozone and UV light.

Carbamazepine

UV Treatment

Following is collected bench-scale testing data for carbamazepine and only UV light. Retention time

was between 6.1 min and 6.2 min.

Table 25. Calibration curve data for carbamazepine concentrations with UV light.

Calibration Curve Concentration [ng/L]

0 25 50 75 125

Injection 1 0 68.6 139.9 240.9 358.1

Injection 2 0 73.9 139.3 241.3 356.0

Average 0 71.2 139.6 241.1 357.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pe

rce

nt

Re

mo

va

l

Ozone Dose [mg/L]

65

Figure 38. Calibration curve for carbamazepine testing with UV light.

Table 26. Removal of carbamazepine from water by UV light.

UV Treatment Experimental Run

1 2 3 4 5 6

Injection 1 296.3 251.1 251.3 250.9 249.7 249.5

Injection 2 264.3 253.2 252.7 247.6 251.8 246.1

Average 280.3 252.2 252.0 249.2 250.8 247.8

Offset Concentration 80.3 52.2 52.0 49.2 50.8 47.8

Removed Concentration 452.2 293.9 293.0 277.3 286.1 269.3

Initial Concentration 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0

Final Concentration -52.2 106.1 107.0 122.7 113.9 130.7

Percent Removal 0% 27% 27% 31% 28% 33%

[CARB] = 0.1775 (Area) R² = 0.9876

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Are

a U

nd

er

Cu

rve

Un

its

[A

UC

U]

Carbamazepine Concentration [ng/L]

66

Figure 39. Removal of carbamazepine by UV light over different trials. The dashed line represents the

average removal over the trials of 29%.

Ozone/UV Treatment

Following is collected bench-scale testing data for carbamazepine with a combination of ozone and

UV light. Retention time was between 6.1 min and 6.2 min.

Table 27. Calibration curve data for carbamazepine concentrations with UV light and ozone.

Calibration Curve Concentration [ng/L]

0 25 50 75 125

Injection 1 0 68.6 139.9 240.9 358.1

Injection 2 0 73.9 139.3 241.3 356.0

Average 0 71.2 139.6 241.1 357.0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1 2 3 4 5

Pe

rce

nt

Re

mo

va

l

UV Treatment Run

67

Figure 40. Calibration curve for carbamazepine testing with ozone and UV light.

Table 28. Removal of carbamazepine from water by UV light and ozone.

UV/Ozone Treatment Experimental Run - Ozone Dosage [mg/L]

0 1 3 5 8

Injection 1 233.5 229.7 238.9 238.9 240.7

Injection 2 0.0 227.6 238.4 241.8 240.5

Average 233.5 228.7 238.7 240.4 240.6

Offset Concentration 33.5 28.7 38.7 40.4 40.6

Removed Concentration 218.5 186.9 252.1 263.2 264.8

Initial Concentration 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0

Final Concentration 181.5 213.1 147.9 136.8 135.2

Percent Removal 45% 53% 37% 34% 34%

[CARB] = 2.9321 (Area) R² = 0.9925

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Are

a U

nd

er

Cu

rve

Un

its

[A

UC

U]

Carbamazepine Concentration [ng/L]

68

Figure 41. Removal of carbamazepine by ozone and UV light.

Erythromycin

UV Treatment

Following is collected bench-scale testing data for erythromycin and only UV light. Retention time

was between 4.2 min and 4.3 min.

Table 29. Calibration curve data for erythromycin concentrations with UV light.

Calibration Curve Concentration [ng/L]

0 25 50 75 125

Injection 1 0 68.6 139.9 240.9 358.1

Injection 2 0 73.9 139.3 241.3 356.0

Average 0 71.2 139.6 241.1 357.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pe

rce

nt

Re

mo

va

l

Ozone Dose [mg/L]

69

Figure 42. Calibration curve for erythromycin testing with UV light.

Data could not be collected for erythromycin because the poor quality calibration curve (Figure 42)

developed from HPLC analysis. This was due to the inability to identify and quantify erythromcyin using

HPLC with the analysis method used.

Ozone/UV Treatment

Following is collected bench-scale testing data for erythromycin and the combination of ozone and

UV light. Retention time was between 4.2 min and 4.3 min.

Table 30. Calibration curve data for erythromycin concentrations with UV light and ozone.

Calibration Curve Concentration [ng/L]

0 25 50 75 125

Injection 1 68.9 63.68 66.86 --- ---

Injection 2 63.8 59.7 --- --- ---

Average 66.35 61.69 66.86 --- ---

[ERY] = 0.0461 (Area) + 80.682 R² = 0.4971

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Are

a U

nd

er

Cu

rve

Un

its

[A

UC

U]

Erythromycin Concentration [ng/L]

70

Figure 43. Calibration curve for erythromycin testing with ozone and UV light.

Data could not be collected for erythromycin because the poor quality calibration curve developed

from HPLC analysis. This was due to the inability to identify and quantify erythromcyin using HPLC

with the analysis method used.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Are

a U

nd

er

Cu

rve

Un

its

[A

UC

U]

Erythromycin Concentration [ng/L]

71

Appendix C: Technical Calculations

By maintaining a list of calculation checks, the team was able to track throughout the semester what

information needed to be verified. The verification process is important to system integrity and

accountability within the team.

Table 31. Breakdown of team calculations and calculation checks.

Calculations: Program(s) Used: Done By: Verified By:

Ozone MathCAD Mark Anna/Bonnie

Bench-scale Testing MathCAD/Excel Mark Anna

UV Disinfection MathCAD Bonnie Mike

Hydraulic Modeling SWMM/AutoCAD Anna Mark/Mike

Building Design AutoCAD Mike Anna/Bonnie

Building Structural Design RAM Structural/MathCAD Bonnie Mike

Building Costs Excel Bonnie Mike

Pumping Design MathCAD Anna Mark

Reaeration MathCAD Anna Mark

Reaeration Cost Excel Bonnie Mike

Electricity Costs Excel Mike Mark

UV Disinfection Calculations

Clean Water Plant Standards

The effluent fecal coliform requirement for the CWP is regulated by the NPDES. A copy of the

permit for the plant can be found in Appendix A: CWP Data and Information. The lower of the two

maximum limits for quality was used to ensure the appropriate level of disinfection.

where Nfc = effluent fecal coliform.

The influent fecal coliform count was said by the plant to be too numerous to count. Therefore, an

assumption was made based on Table 11-29 in Water Reuse by Metcalf & Eddy,36

which lists the

approximate initial coliform amount for activated sludge effluent to be between 105 and 10

6 MPN/100

mL. However, even if the plant had a level of fecal coliform 200,000 times greater (1011

MPN/100 mL),

the system would still provide sufficient disinfection, as long as there is not significant fouling of the

lamps.

where Nfc0 = influent fecal coliform to disinfection process.

Nfc 2001

100mL

Nfc0 5000001

100mL

72

The inactivation rate coefficient used is the coefficient for E. coli from Table 16.5 in Theory and

Practice of Water and Wastewater Treatment.25

We can assume that this value is appropriate for use for

fecal coliform based on Table 11-30 in Water Reuse.36

E. coli requires the same UV dosage as total

coliform, and fecal coliform requires 0.9 to 1.0 times the total coliform dosage. Using the higher value for

fecal coliform implies that it would require the same dosage as E. coli.

where k = inactivation rate effluent.

The radiation dosage is calculated using Equation 11-64 in Water Reuse.36

where D = radiation dosage.

Based on Water Reuse Table 11-29,36

since the effluent standard is 200 MPN / 100 mL, the dosage

required should be between 0.05 and 0.07 J / cm2. Therefore, these calculations seem reasonable.

Trojan Lamp System

Reactors

Using six reactors with a 32LA50 Trojan Fit system, five reactors will be running at any given time,

with the sixth for redundancy. These numbers are based on communications with Trojan UV.31

Reactor

dimensions are from the Trojan Technologies UV Fit details.32

The inner reactor diameter was assumed to be slightly less than the outer reactor diameter to account

for wall thickness.

UV Bulbs

The power of each lamp was provided in the Trojan Technologies information. The lamp length is

assumed to be 50 inches based on photographs of the system. Lamp diameter was assumed to be 2 in.

based on the later diagram of the reactor cross section and examination of lamps during the team’s visit to

the Grand Rapids Wastewater Treatment Plant (Figure 44).

k 0.013m

2

J

D

lnNfc

Nfc0

k0.0602

J

cm2

NumberReactors 5

ReactorLength 90in

ReactorDiameter outer 50cm 19.685 in

ReactorDiameter inner 18in

ReactorVolume 0.5 ReactorDiameter inner 2

ReactorLength 99.144 gal

LampPower 250W

LampLength 50in

73

Intensity at the lamp's surface could be calculated by dividing the output power by the surface area,

based on Equation 11-64 in Water Reuse.36

Transmittance was monitored by Black & Veatch over a period of time at the plant, and their

measured value from their plant update was used in calculations.8

Based on Equation 11-61 in Water Reuse, the ultraviolet light intensity at a distance of 1 cm from the

outer surface of the bulb can be calculated using the transmittance.36

Flow and Timing

The flow through the plant used was the average flow predicted for 2030 in the Black & Veatch plan

update.8 The maximum flow through a reactor, therefore, would be this flow divided amongst the five

reactors. The maximum flow for 2030 would be divided amongst six reactors, so would have a lower flow

per reactor.

Exposure time is the period of time over which any contaminant would be exposed to UV light,

calculated using the flow rate through a reactor and the volume of an individual reactor.

Dosage provided to the system, to compare with the required dosage above, was calculated using

Equation 11-9 in Water Reuse.36

This dosage is significantly more than the required dosage, ensuring that the microorganisms will be

killed. It also accounts for the quartz sleeve fouling that will undoubtedly occur, allowing still enough

dosage. This extra amount of dosage also assures us that even if the plant has a higher influent amount of

fecal coliform than we estimated, the effluent fecal coliform concentration will still stay within NPDES

limits.

LampDiameter 2in

LampSurfaceArea LampDiameter LampLength 314.16in2

LampIntensity 0LampPower

LampSurfaceArea123.345

mW

cm2

Transmittance .65

LampIntensity 1cm Transmittance LampIntensity 0 80.174mW

cm2

FlowTotal 22 106

gal

day

MaxFlowReact or

FlowT otal

NumberReact ors4.4 10

6

gal

day

ExposureT imeReact orVolume

MaxFlowReact or

1.947s

Dosage LampIntensity 1cm ExposureTime 0.156J

cm2

74

UV Cross-section

Figure 44. Assumed cross section of the Trojan UV Fit reactor. Small circles represent the UV lamps.

75

AOP Calculations

Ozone Demand

Ozone dose required (optimal dose):

Current average and maximum flow rate at the CWP:

Concentration increase factor, i, and projected design life, tdesign:

Future average and maximum flow rate at the CWP:

Future required average and maximum ozone demand:

Maximum ozone output (Ozonia CFV-20 Ozone Generator):

Average Flow Design

Number of ozone generators required to meet average flow ozone demand

Redundancy Factor,

Total number of ozone generators required to meet average flow ozone demand and provide for

redundancy in the system

Ozone 4mg

L

Flowave 16mgd Flowcmax 18mgd

i 1.016 tdesign 20

Flowfave Flowave itdesign 21.978mgd Flowfmax Flowcmax i

tdesign 24.726mgd

O3reqave Ozone Flowfave 13.866kg

hr O3reqmax Ozone Flowfmax 15.599

kg

hr

OutputO3 8.97kg

hr

O3unavop ceilO3reqave

OutputO3

2

Red 1

O3utotave O3unavop Red 3

76

Maximum Flow Design

Number of ozone generators required to meet maximum flow ozone demand

Redundancy Factor,

Total number of ozone generators required to meet maximum flow ozone demand and provide for

redundancy in the system:

Ozone Air Preparation and Ozone Generation

Ozone dosage:

20 year design flow for wastewater treatment:

Hourly ozone generation requirement:

Annual ozone generation requirement:

A CFV-20 Ozone Generator by Ozonia was selected.43

Number of operating ozone generators:

Maximum ozone production based on air feed gas:43

Operating level for air preparation and ozone generation:

The two ozone air preparation/generation provide enough capacity for the plant.

O3unmop ceilO3reqmax

OutputO3

2

Red 1

O3utotm O3unmop Red 3

O3dose 4mg

L

Flowfmax 24.726mgd

O3reqrate O3dose Flowfmax 15.6kg

hr

O3req O3dose Flowfmax 1 yr 1.367 105

kg

unitsop 2

O3prodmax unitsop 8.97kg

hr17.94

kg

hr

Oplevel.AP

O3reqrate

O3prodmax

0.87

77

Electrical Costs for Air Preparation

Electrical rating of air preparation unit at maximum feed gas rate:

Electrical rating of air preparation unit at design feed gas rate:

Cost of electricity:7

Annual electrical cost for air preparation:

Off-Gas Destruction

Off-gas destruction was determined using a mass balance around the AOP system.

Air flow rate required for maximum ozone production:

Air flow rate required for ozone production at design flow conditions (volumetric flow rate):

Density of air at 20° C:a

Air flow rate required for ozone production at design flow conditions (mass flow rate):

Air flow rate required for ozone off gas treatment at design flow conditions:

Selection of Ozonia RB-63 Off-Gas Destruction Unit; maximum flow rate for off-gas destruction:43

a Haynes, William M. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 92nd ed. Florida: CRC Press, 2011.

EmaxAP 30kW

EopAP EmaxAP Oplevel.AP 26.086kW

EcostAP 0.0751

kW

EtotcAP EcostAP EopAP 8760 1.714 104

Airmax unitsop 231.0m

3

hr462

m3

hr

Airreq Oplevel.AP Airmax 401.731m

3

hr

air 1.293kg

m3

Airdesign air Airreq 519.438kg

hr

Offgas req Airdesign 519.438kg

hr

RBmaxflow 630kg

hr

78

CRp

35

350

350

ug

L

Operating level for off-gas destruction:

The off-gas destruction unit provides sufficient capacity for the proposed ozone generator.

Electrical Costs for Off-Gas Destruction

Electrical rating of air preparation unit at maximum feed gas rate:

Electrical rating of air preparation unit at design feed gas rate:

Cost of electricity:7

Annual electrical cost for air preparation:

Degradation of Emerging Contaminants

Definition of the unit “microgram,” since it is not a default in MathCAD.

Targeted percent removal of contaminant:

Current concentrations of contaminants in wastewater:

Atrazine (pesticide/herbicide)

Carbamazepine (anticonvulsant)

Erythromycin (antibiotic)

Concentration increase factor, i, and projected design life, tdesign:

Oplevel.OG

Offgas req

RBmaxflow

0.825

EmaxOG 27.7kW

EopOG EmaxOG Oplevel.OG 22.839kW

EcostOG 0.0751

kW

EtotcOG EcostOG EopOG 8760 1.501 104

ug1mg

10001 10

9 kg

%rem .90

i 1.016 tdesign 20yr

79

Future concentrations of contaminants in wastewater, using the interest equation:

Atrazine

Carbamazepine

Erythromycin

Initial concentration of contaminant in wastewater:

Atrazine

Carbamazepine

Erythromycin

Final concentration of contaminant in wastewater:

Atrazine

Carbamazepine

Erythromycin

Concentration of hydroxyl radicals assumed to be produced by an ozone dosage of 4 mg/L:36

Second order rate constant for destruction of contaminant with hydroxyl radicals, KR, and adjusted

reaction rate constant, K’:34,b,c,d,e

b Huber, Marc M. Elimination of Pharmaceuticals during Oxidative Treatment of Drinking Water and

Wastewater: Application of Ozone and Chlrine Dioxide. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich,

2004. 1-187. c Acero, Juan L., and Urs Von Gunten. "Characterization of Oxidative Processes: Ozonation and the AOP

O(3)/H(2)O(2)." American Water Works Association Journal 93.10 Oct. (2001): 90-100. d Stefan, Mihaela I., Shane A. Snyder, Dric C. Wert, and Steve McDermid. "UV Light-Induced Oxidation of

Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disruptors in Drinking Water: A Pilot Study." Trojan Technologies : 1-16. e Huang, Ling. "Ozonation of Erythromycin and the Effect of pH, Carbonate System, and Initial Ozone Dose."

University of Texas. Austin. 21 Apr. 2011. Address.

COH 1.00109

mol

L

KR

2.60109

8.80109

4.44109

L

mol s K' KR COH

2.6

8.8

4.44

1

s

CRf CRp i

tdesign

yr

48.078

480.775

480.775

ug

L

CR0 CRf

48.078

480.775

480.775

ug

L

CR CR0 CR0 %rem

4.808

48.078

48.078

ug

L

80

Contact time required for 90% contaminant degradation:34,36

Atrazine

Carbamazepine

Erythromycin

The short contact times are below those times provided by the UV system reactors.

t901

K'

ln

CR00

CR0

0.886

0.262

0.519

s

81

Bench-Scale Testing

Bench scale contaminant feed flow rate

Volume of UV reactor (contact chamber):

Contact time:

Flow at the Clean Water Plant:

Scale of the bench-scale testing:

Bench-Scale Components

Antibiotic feed

Ozone generator

Ozone injection apparatus

UV lamp and reactor

Masterflex pump

Masterflex tubing: size 16

General lab equipment

Amber bottles for effluent sample collection

Definition of nanogram unit:

flow 150mL

min0.04gpm

Vc 250mL

tc

Vc

flow100s

flowp 16 106

gal

day

scaleflowp

flow2.804 10

5

ng1mg

1000

82

Injection Dosages

Influent Concentrations of Contaminants

Erythromycin:

Atrazine:

Carbamazepine:

Volume of one batch of tap water feed:

Stock Solutions of Contaminants

Erythromycin

Atrazine

Carbamazepine

Injection Volume of Contaminants for Feed

Erythromycin

Atrazine

Carbamazepine

wwce 400ng

L

wwca 100ng

L

wwcc 400ng

L

v0 4L

sce 256.32mg

L

sca 21.08mg

L

scc 91.54mg

L

ve 0.01L

va 0.01L

vc 0.01L

83

Solve block used to calculate the injection dosages of each contaminant to make up the contaminated

tap water feed.

Given

Erythromycin stock solution

Atrazine stock solution

Carbamazepine stock solution

Ozone Generator Controls

Applied ozone dosages (concentration):

Applied ozone dosages (mass flow rate):

Redefined applied ozone dosages as mass flow rates without units:

wwce v0 ve va vc sce ve

wwca v0 ve va vc sca va

wwcc v0 ve va vc scc vc

O3dosem

0

1

3

5

8

mg

L

O3doseq O3dosem flow

0

9

27

45

72

mg

hr

O3dosef O3doseqhr

mg

0

9

27

45

72

Find ve va vc 6.31

19.18

17.667

mL

84

Poseidon Ozone Generator Operating Curve at 15 psi

Applied ozone dosages (without units):

Operating conditions of Poseidon ozone generator unit:

Figure 45. Correlation between set dial reading on Poseidon unit and desired ozone output.

optest O3dosef

0

9

27

45

72

opx

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

opy

0

22

44

88

132

176

220

0 2 4 60

100

200

300

opy

optes t

opx

mg

hr

dailreading

85

Structural Loading Calculations

Load Values

Loading values are taken as general numbers from various manufacturers and from the Michigan

building code for Kent County.f,g,h

Miscellaneous loading is an approximate value that will cover any

weight from lighting or other lightweight fixtures hanging from the beams.

Concrete density is based on a general value; concrete density varies depending on cement to water

ratio, amount of aggregate, cement to water ratio, and the amount of entrained air.i

Floor Loading

Loading on each 5 ft section of the floor was calculated based on the 5 ft by 17 ft spacing outline by

the overhead beams.

Half of the beam loading and roof loading from each section goes towards the side, and half is

directed toward the center beam.

f Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth. Construction Code. Lansing: Michigan

Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth, 2010. 11-13 g Vulcraft Steel Roof & Floor Deck. St. Joe, IN: Nucor Vulcraft Group, 2008. 6-7. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.vulcraft.com/products/catalogs/steelroof/>. h EnergyGuard™ Composite Board Roof Insulation. Wayne, NJ: GAF Materials Corporation, 2010. 48-49.

Data Sheet. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.gaf.com/roofing/commercial/products/roof-insulation-and-fastening-

systems/energyguard-insulation/documents/energyguard__composite_board_insulation_-_data_sheet-173-125-

v2.pdf>. i "Frequently Asked Questions." Concrete Technology. Portland Cement Association, 2012. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.cement.org/tech/faq_unit_weights.asp>.

SnowLoad 35lb

ft2

DeckingLoad 2lb

ft2

InsulationLoad 2lb

ft2

MiscellaneousLoad 5lb

ft2

concretedensity 145lb

ft3

beamloading 5ft 31lb

ft17.5ft 10

lb

ft 330 lb

roofloading DeckingLoad MiscellaneousLoad SnowLoad( ) 17.5 ft 5 ft 3.675 103

lb

wallloading 12ft 8 in 5 ft concretedensity 5.8 103

lb

totalloadingwallloading 0.5beamloading 0.5roofloading( )

5ft1560.5

lb

ft

86

Soils and Foundation

A conservative value for soil bearing capacity was chosen since no soil data was available.j

Since the loading of the building is estimated to be less than the bearing capacity, the foundation does

not need to be very large. However, a general foundation size was assumed in the possibility that there

would need to be one, so that it could be included in costs. The foundation was assumed to be 2 ft deep

with a 1 ft thick slab and 1.5 ft wide at the base around the perimeter of the building.

Roof Beams

Base hand calculations were done on Excel to confirm the RAM Structural model, using loading

values assumed previously (Table 32).

Table 32. Loading for 8 x 10 roof beams.

Dead Load [psf] Dead Load [plf] Live Load [psf] Live Load [plf]

9 45 35 175

Calculations complete show that the beam deflections are less than the maximum allowed deflections

(allowed deflections are L/360 for live loading and L/240 for total loading) and the total load is less than

the maximum allowed load, showing a stable beam (Table 33).

Table 33. Calculations and results for the W8x10 hand calculations.

Selected Beam W8x10

Self-Weight 10 plf

Beam Loading 230 plf

Beam Length 17.5 ft

Allowed LL Deflection 0.583 in.

Beam LL Deflection 0.413 in.

Allowed TL Deflection 0.875 in.

Beam TL Deflection 0.543 in.

E (Young’s modulus) 29000 ksi

I (moment of inertia) (AISC Table 1-1) 30.8 in.4

Maximum Allowed Load (AISC Table 3-6) 15.05 kips

Total Load 4.6 kips

j Holtz, Robert D., William D. Kovacs, and Thomas C. Sheahan. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.

2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.

BearingCapacity 3000lb

ft2

totalloading

BearingCapacity0.52 ft

Perimeter 60ft 2 35ft 2 190 ft

ConcreteVolume 2ft 8 in 1ft 1.5 ft( ) Perimeter 19.938yd3

87

Reaeration Calculations

Henry's Law and Saturation Concentrationk

General Equation for Henry's Law

DOsat = Kh * PO2

Henry's constant at 10 °C

Partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere

Molecular weight of oxygen

Saturated dissolved oxygen concentration

Step Characteristics

Number of steps during reaeration

n = 10

Efficiency coefficient for oxygenl

K = 0.40

Depth of each step

h = 0.75ft

Total efficiency of gas transfer for reaeration system

Final Dissolved Oxygen

Entering dissolved oxygen concentration

DO ent = 1mg/L

Equation correlating efficiency and oxygen transfer during reaerationl

k Mihelcic, James R., and Julie B. Zimmerman. Environmental Engineering: Fundamentals, Sustainability,

Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2010. Print. l Water Treatment: Aeration and Gas Stripping. N.p.: Delft University of Technology, n.d. 136-51.

Kh .00123mol

L atm

PO2 0.21atm

MWO2 32gm

mole

DOsat Kh PO2 MWO2 8.266mg

L

K 1 1 k( )n

0.994

KDOexit DOent

DOsat DOent

DOexit Find DOexit( )

88

Final dissolved oxygen concentration

DO exit = 8.22 mg/L

Specific Dimension Calculationsm

Calculating the fall time from one trough to the next

Flow rate of water

Gravity

Length of aerator

L = 22.6ft

Flow Velocity

Distance between edge of upper trough and jet stream landing in lower trough

Minimal trough width (minimum width should be at least twice the distance of the jet stream landing)

Minimal tray depth (minimum must be greater than 2/3 of jet stream fall height)

m Water Treatment: Aeration and Gas Stripping. N.p.: Delft University of Technology, n.d. 136-51. Web. 15

Apr. 2012.

t 2h

g

0.5

0.216s

Qw 24mgd

g 9.807m

s2

VoQw

L h2.191

ft

s

x Vo t 0.331ft

B 2x 0.663ft

H2 h

30.5ft

89

Reaeration Drawings

Figure 46. Detail of the connection between concrete step and concrete wall (1:16 scale). Dashed lines

represent #4 rebar .

90

Figure 47. Aerial view of the cascade aeration structure (1:60 scale). Light gray lines represent rebar.

Ø3’

Ø3’

91

Plant Hydraulics

Hydraulic Modeling

The plant was modeled with SWMM. The figures shown below show water flowing through the plant

under future average day conditions (18 MGD). Note that the figures read from left to right. Figure 48

shows the entire hydraulic profile of the CWP. Figure 49, Figure 50, Figure 51, Figure 52, Figure 53, and

Figure 54 are close up views of flow through individual sections of the CWP. Note that the hydraulic

profiles read from right to left.

Figure 48 Flow through entire CWP.

Figure 49. Hydraulic profile from the CWP entrance to the primary clarifiers.

Figure 50. Hydraulic profile from the primary clarifiers through the aeration basins.

CWP Water Elevation Profile

01/23/2012 00:05:00

Distance (ft)

6,200 6,000 5,800 5,600 5,400 5,200 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

Pre

lim1

Pre

lim2

Pre

lim3

ParF

lum

e

Pre

lim4

Chem

Flo

c1

Prim

Cla

r2A

EffC

ont

Split

2A

Baffle

Ente

r3

Baffle

3

Aer3

A

Aer3

B

Spill3

Fin

Cla

r7A

Junc7and9

EffJunc

PS

2a

BU

1

UV

3C

Cascade1

Cascade3

Outfall

Ele

vatio

n (

ft)

622

620

618

616

614

612

610

608

606

604

602

600

598

596

594

592

590

588

586

584

582

580

578

576

574

572

92

Figure 51. Hydraulic profile from the aeration basins to the effluent junction chamber.

Figure 52. Hydraulic profile from the effluent junction chamber to the UV building.

Figure 53. Hydraulic profile through the UV building.

Figure 54. Hydraulic profile from the UV building to the outfall.

93

Net Positive Suction Head Calculations

NPSHa is the net positive suction head available (absolute dynamic head in the impeller eye)

NPSHr is the net postive suction head required

To avoid cavitation within a pump, NPSHa must be greater than NPSHr.

The NPSHr is given by the manufacturer. For the recommended pumps, NPSHr = 11.6 ft.

NPSHa Equation

Patm: atmospheric pressure head

Zs: static suction head at the impeller eye

Pv: vapor pressure head

hlent: entrance head loss

hlf: friction head loss

Σ hlm: sum of the minor losses of valves and fittings

g: gravity

ρ: density of water

List of Constants for Calculations

Gravity constant:

Specific gravity of water:

Area of the pipe for a 12 in diameter impeller:

Maximum volumetric flow rate through individual pump:

Velocity of the water through pump:

Definition of Values

Static suction head at impeller eye:n

Height of water:

Vapor pressure head calculation:

Vapor pressure head:

n 5710 Vertical Dry Pit Angleflow Pumps Data. N.p.: Fairbanks Morse Pump: Pentair Pump Group, 2011. pg

31.

g 32.174ft

s2

62.4lb

ft3

A17.75in

2

2

Q 8mgd

VQ

A7.203

ft

s

Zs 2ft

WaterHeight 20ft

Pv WaterHeight g

Pv 0.59atm

94

Head Loss due to Flow Friction in 1000 ft Pipe

Coefficient of Friction Loss for Flow through 1000 ft Pipe

Friction loss through 1000 feet of pipe.

Redefining the volumetric flow rate as a unitless flow in gallons per minute:

Pipe diameter (in.):

Hazen Williams "worst-case" coefficient:o

Hazen Williams Head Loss Equation:

System Friction Head Loss

Redefining the friction head loss coefficient with correct units:

Adjusting friction loss for only 5ft of pipe:

Resulting head loss in pump from friction

Minor Head Loss Calculations

Minor Head Loss due to Entrance:

Entrance loss coefficient:o

General head loss equation:

Entrance head loss:

Minor Head Loss due to Gate Valve:

Gate valve loss coefficient:o

o Mays, Larry W. Water Resources Engineering. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2010. 473-

89. Print.

Q 6000

D 17

C 145

hlf1000 10500Q

C

1.85

D4.87

10.47

hlf1000 57.099ft

hlf hlf10005ft

1000ft0.285ft

Kent 0.5

hlent KentV

2

2 g

hlent 0.403 ft

Kvalve 0.2

95

Head loss due to gate valve:

Minor Head Loss due to 90 Degree Bends:

90 degree bend loss coefficient:o

General head loss equation:

Head loss due to 90° bend:

Solution to NPSHa Equation

Atmospheric pressure:

NPSHa equation:

Net positive suction head available:

NPSHa = 14.661 ft

Hydraulic Profile

The hydraulic profile of the plant can be viewed on the team’s website under the Documents &

Resources tab: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/2011-12-team12/Documents/Team12_HydraulicProfile.pdf

hlvalve KvalveV

2

2 g 0.161ft

Kbend 0.25

hlbend KbendV

2

2 g 0.202ft

hlm 2 hlbend hlvalve 0.564ft

Patm 1atm

NPSHaPatm

gZs

Pv

g hlent hlf hlm

96

Appendix D: Hydroxyl Radical Information

Molecules with an odd number of electrons in their Lewis structures are called free radicals. This

means that the octet rule is not satisfied, since the outermost shell of at atom requires eight electrons to be

the most stable. A molecule with an incomplete octet is unstable and highly reactive. The hydroxyl radical

is a free radical and therefore has an incomplete octet. One electron is missing from the outermost shell of

the oxygen atom, leaving a free, unpaired electron (Figure 55).

Figure 55. Hydroxyl radical diagram.

The hydroxyl radical can be abbreviated by using dot terminology and simply including a dot after

the molecule’s name. This indicates that the atom has one unpaired electron. Thus, the hydroxyl radical

can be written as HO·. In reactions, excited oxygen atoms react with water vapor to form the hydroxyl

radical. Ultraviolet light often provides the energy for this reaction. Hydroxyl radical formation

mechanisms include:

System of Equations

H3O+ + e

- → HO· + H2 (1a) Dissociative recombination

H3O+ + e

- → HO· +

•H +

•H (1b) Dissociative recombination

HCO2+ + e

- → HO· + CO (2a) Dissociative recombination

·O + HCO → HO· + CO (3a) Neutral-neutral

H· + H3O+ → HO· + H2 +

•H (4a) Ion-molecular ion neutralization

HCO2 + e- → HO· + CO (5a) Dissociative recombination

97

Appendix E: Required Electrical Infrastructure

UV Disinfection

Six Trojan Fit 32AL50 UV reactors are proposed. Each reactor has 32 lamps that require 250 W per

lamp. The maximum demand is based upon all six reactors running at 100% output. Electricity costs were

found assuming the reactors run, on average, at 65% capacity (Table 34).

Table 34. Electricity needs and costs for UV disinfection.

Six Trojan Fit 32AL50 UV Reactors

Cost of Electricity [$/kW-hr] $0.075

Annual Operation of the Facility [hrs] 8760

Total System Lamps 192

Ballast factor 0.05

Lamp demand [kW] 0.25

Estimated Utilization Percentage 65%

Maximum Demand of the System [kW] 50.4

Annual Electrical Consumption [kW-hr] 286,978

Annual Electricity Cost $21,523

Ozone

One Ozonia CFV-20 ozone generator is proposed. The entire system has a maximum demand of

180.3 kW (Table 35).

Table 35. Electricity needs and costs for Ozone

Integrated Ozone AOP System

Cost of Electricity [$/kW-hr] $0.075

Annual Operation of the Facility [hrs] 8760

Air Preparation 30

Ozone Generation [kW] 151

Off-Gas Destruction [kW] 27.7

Air Preparation Utilization Percentage 87%

Generation Utilization Percentage 87%

Off-Gas Utilization Percentage 82.5%

Maximum Demand of the System [kW] 180.3

Annual Electrical Consumption [kW-hr] 1,579,625

Annual Electricity Cost $118,472

98

Pumping

Electricity needed for Fairbanks Morse 5700 Angleflow pumps are listed below (Table 36).

Table 36. Electricity needs and costs for the pumping system.

Pumping System

Cost of Electricity [$/kW-hr] $0.075

Avg Flow Operation Time [hrs] 7920.00

Avg Flow Number of Pumps [9 MGD each] 2

Avg Flow Pump Demand [kW-hr] 20632

Cost per Avg Flow Pump/Month $1,547.40

Max Flow Operation Time [hrs] 730

Max Flow Number of Pumps [8 MGD each] 3

Max Flow Pump Demand [kW-hr] 20589

Cost per Max Flow Pump/Month $1,544.18

Annual Electrical Consumption [kW-hr] 515,671

Annual Electricity Cost $38,675

99

Appendix F: Cost Estimate Data

Building Costs

Building cost estimate data (Table 37) was found based on materials needed for building design as

outlined previously (9.2.2 Disinfection and Ozone Building Design). Cost per unit is scaled for Grand

Rapids in 2012.p,q

Table 37. Construction cost data for the disinfection and ozone building design.

Material Unit Cost per

Unit

Units

Required Total Cost

Walls

Normal Wt. Concrete Masonry Units, 8"

x 16" x 8" Sq. Ft.* $8.91 2280 $20,314.80

Economy Face Brick, 4" x 4" x 8" M $773.78 10.26 $7,938.98

Roofing

Fiberboard high density, 1 1/2" thick

roof deck insulation Sq. Ft $1.14 2100 $2,394.00

Steel roof decking, open type, 1.5" deep,

type B Sq. Ft $1.51 2100 $3,171.00

Asphalt shingles, strip shingles, organic,

pneumatic nailed

100 Sq.

Ft $164.01 21 $3,444.21

W8x10 steel beam L.F. $22.34 385 $8,600.90

W16x31 steel beam L.F. $46.80 60 $2,808.00

Doors

Aluminum 3'x7' door each $1,004.28 1 $1,004.28

Aluminum 6'x7' door pair $1,735.37 1 $1,735.37

Steel rolling service door, 10'x10' each $1,155.00 1 $2,732.00

Interior

Painting masonry or concrete block,

brushwork Sq. Ft $0.25 2280 $570.00

Fluorescent lights, surface mounted, 4'

long two 40 watt each $98.96 44 $4,354.24

Foundation

Based on 3000 lb/ft2 bearing pressure for a very general estimate. Soil data will need to be obtained

for the actual site.

4500 psi concrete mix C.Y. $114.14 45.9 $5,241.99

Footings, continuous, deep, direct chute,

pumped C.Y. $27.44 20 $548.80

Slab on grade, 4" thick C.Y. $23.97 25.9 $621.44

Excavation 1' to 4' deep, 1/2 c.y.

excavator B.C.Y. $6.46 1140 $7,364.40

Piping

5' diameter reinforced concrete pipe L.F. $211.28 50 $10,564.00

p RSMeans CostWorks. Reed Construction Data, 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. <http://meanscostworks.com>.

q RSMeans. Building Construction Cost Data. RSMeans. 65th ed. Kingston, MA: Reed Construction Data,

2006. 8-769. Print.

100

3' diameter reinforced concrete pipe L.F. $109.43 82 $3,720.62

1' diameter reinforced concrete pipe L.F. $29.56 39 $1,152.84

Excavation, 4 to 6' deep, 5/8 C.Y.

excavator L.F. $6.09 48 $292.32

Backfill (C.Y.) (roller compaction) C.Y. $36.33 44.2 $1,605.16

Base Construction Cost $96,061.36

Professional Consultants

Minimum

Percentage

Maximum

Percentage Average Cost

Construction Management

$0.05 7.5% $5,763.68

Architectural

$0.05 16.0% $10,038.41

Electrical Engineering

$0.04 10.1% $6,820.36

Mechanical (plumbing & HVAC)

$0.04 10.1% $6,820.36

Structural Engineering

$0.01 2.5% $1,681.07

Professional Consultant Cost $29,442.81

Field Personnel

Geotechnical Analysis

$2,500.00

Surveying

$500.00

Field Cost $3,000.00

Total Cost $128,504.16

*Abbreviations for units are as follows: square feet (Sq. Ft), thousand units (M), linear foot (L.F.),

cubic yard (C.Y.), bank cubic yard (B.C.Y.).

101

UV Pumping Station Costs

Table 38. Construction cost data for the pumping station.

Material Unit Cost per

Unit

Units

Required Total Cost

Flooring

Concrete Mix (2500psi) lb* $8.31 540 $4,487.40

Valves and Fittings

Check Valves each $4,603.00 3 $13,809.00

Gate Valves each $5,000.00 3 $15,000.00

Isolation Valves each $6,000.00 2 $12,000.00

Pump

Centrifugal Pump each $75,000 3 $225,000

Piping

5' diameter reinforced concrete pipe L.F. $211.28 50 $10,564.00

3' diameter reinforced concrete pipe L.F. $109.43 34 $3,720.62

1' diameter reinforced concrete pipe L.F. $29.56 39 $1,152.84

Excavation, 4 to 6' deep, 5/8 C.Y.

excavator L.F. $6.09 462 $2,813.58

Backfill (C.Y.) (roller compaction) C.Y. $36.33 213 $7,729.32

Base Construction Cost $73,597.08

Professional Consultants

Minimum

Percentage

Maximum

Percentage Average Cost

Construction Management

5% 7.5% $22,246.57

Electrical Engineering

4% 10.1% $6,273.53

Mechanical (plumbing & HVAC)

4% 10.1% $25,094.13

Professional Consultant Cost $53,614.23

Total Cost $559,056

*Abbreviations for units are as follows: square feet (Sq. Ft), thousand units (M), linear foot (L.F.).

102

Reaeration Costs

Table 39. Construction cost data for reaeration system.

Material Unit Cost per

Unit

Units

Required Total Cost

Gravel

3/4" crushed stone (1.4 tons per C.Y.) C.Y.* $36.74 48.96 $1,798.79

roller compaction, hand tamp E.C.Y $54.94 48.96 $2,689.86

Concrete

Cast in place concrete forms (forms in

place, stairs) Sq. Ft $20.64 361.6 $7,463.42

Placing Concrete (slabs less than 6"thick

with crane and bucket) C.Y. $27.7 14.28 $395.45

4500 concrete mix C.Y. $114.14 14.28 $1,629.48

Reinforcing

Reinforcing Steel, A615 grade 40 ton $701.42 9.34 $6,551.26

Extra for size #4 ton $72.59 9.34 $677.99

bending, limited percent of bars ton $125.57 9.34 $1,172.82

Delivery to shop ton $32.37 9.34 $302.34

Delivery to site ton $16.19 9.34 $151.21

Footings, #4, for under 10 ton lot ton $1,898.71 9.34 $17,733.97

Unloading and sorting ton $46.48 9.34 $434.12

Waterstop

Sodium bentonite waterstop L.F. $8.34 45.2 $376.97

Base Construction Cost $41,377.69

Professional Consultants

Minimum

Percentage

Maximum

Percentage Average Cost

Construction Management

5% 7.5% $2.482.66

Structural Engineering

1% 2.5% $724.11

Professional Consultant Cost $3,206.77

Total Cost $44,584.46

*Abbreviations for units are as follows: cubic yard (C.Y.), embankment cubic yard (E.C.Y.), square

feet (Sq. Ft), linear foot (L.F.).

103

Appendix G: Project Management

Although the technical details of this project were clearly important to this project’s completion, team

management was just as important to the success of the team. Respect and trust among the team members

were key factors in the team’s approach to project management.

Team Members

Each team member has a different background, with various experiences and interests. This diversity

contributed to the strong teamwork ethic present amongst group members and the strength of the team.

Anna Boersma

Anna Boersma will be graduating with a B.S. in Engineering with a Civil/Environmental

Concentration. She is from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She interned two summers for the Milwaukee

Metropolitan Sewerage District where she learned about large-scale conveyance systems, wastewater

treatment processes, and what is needed to know to operate wastewater treatment plants. She is also

involved in Calvin’s American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) chapter. She was the secretary her

junior year and recently finished her term as chapter president. After graduation, Anna will obtain her

master’s degree in environmental engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.

Bonnie Robison

Bonnie Robison will be graduating with a B.S. in Engineering with a Civil/Environmental

Concentration. She grew up in Irvine, California, and sometimes still wonders why she came to school in

a place with so much snow. Bonnie enjoyed the semester she spent in Amsterdam studying Dutch

environmental history and water management with Calvin’s engineering program, and was also happy to

serve as secretary for the student chapter of ASCE in 2011. For the past two years, she has worked with

Dr. David Wunder at Calvin College conducting research on the adsorption capabilities of charcoal made

from sugarcane bagasse, with the goal of finding a drinking water treatment process able to be used in

developing countries. After graduating, she plans on continuing on in her education to obtain a master’s

degree in environmental engineering at University of California at Davis, with a focus on water quality in

natural systems.

Mike Troupos

Mike Troupos will be graduating in the spring with a B.S in Engineering with a Civil/Environmental

Concentration. He was born in Chicago, Illinois, but has spent the last ten years in Grand Rapids. Mike

has worked for the Plainfield Township Water Department and the Kent County Drain Commission, but

currently works for the Calvin Energy Recovery Fund program at Calvin College. He is also active with

Calvin clubs, serving as the treasurer of both the Calvin College student chapter of ASCE and the

Renewable Energy Organization. After graduating, Mike will be working for Midwest Energy Group in

Hudsonville, Michigan, doing energy engineering consulting.

Mark Stehouwer

Mark Stehouwer will be graduating with a B.S. in Engineering with a Civil/Environmental

Concentration. He is originally from Kalamazoo, Michigan and has loved growing up in southwest

Michigan. Throughout his time at Calvin College, Mark has been involved with multiple student

organizations, serving as president for Calvin Engineers Without Borders and vice president for Calvin’s

student chapter of ASCE. Mark has been performing research with Dr. David Wunder for the past two

years on the impacts of antibiotics on biological systems and the denitrification process. Following

104

graduation, Mark will intern at the City of Wyoming Clean Water Plant for the summer. In the fall, he

will attend graduate school at the University of Texas at Austin to earn a master’s and Ph.D. degree in

environmental engineering, focusing on biological treatment systems and removal of emerging water

contaminants.

Method of Approach

Information concerning the team’s method of approach to task division, research methods and team

communication are shown below. Specifics on the execution of these approaches are described in

upcoming sections.

Task Division

During one of the initial team meetings at the beginning of the school year, the team assigned each

individual a specific role of the project, based on personal likes, personalities, and experience.

Research Methods

Because advanced oxidation and emerging contaminant removal are very new technologies, the team

needed to spend significant time researching different options during the fall semester. Most of the

research on advanced oxidation and emerging contaminant removal was found through peer-reviewed

scientific journals. The majority of UV information and overall WWTP processes was found in

environmental engineering handbooks and design manuals, with additional information from case studies.

As research was collected, team members saved the articles in the team’s research article folder. After

team members cited information from the articles, they would immediately add the citation to the report

so as not to err on citations.

Team Communication

Overall, the team communicated very well with each other. The team used a combination of emails

and face-to-face conversations to communicate. If a disagreement between two team members would

arise, each team member would calmly state their reasoning. If the problem could still not be solved, the

entire team would discuss the problem and determine the optimal choice. The team also found that

making fun of other senior design teams was a great way to ease tension and create team unity.

Team Organization

Each team member has specific responsibilities, as seen below in Table 40. In addition to these

responsibilities, team members assisted each other in these aspects of the project. All team members

helped write the PPFS and final report. In addition, all team members were responsible for a share of the

team’s presentations.

Table 40. Tasks of individual team members.

Team Member Responsibilities

Anna Boersma Plant hydraulics, plant integration

Bonnie Robison UV research, structural design, cost analysis, website, and posters

Mark Stehouwer Emerging Contaminants, advanced oxidation, and bench-scale testing

Mike Troupos UV research and design, team schedule

During the fall semester, the team met twice a week. On Tuesday evenings, team members would

update each other on work completed since the previous meeting. Following the update, the team would

spend time in a computer lab with each person either working on their individual responsibilities or

working on an aspect of the project with teammates, such as two team members practicing an upcoming

105

presentation. The team also met on Friday mornings with the team advisor, Dr. David Wunder. The team

would provide Dr. Wunder with a list of project tasks completed during the previous week and a list of

what the team hoped to accomplish in the upcoming week. Dr. Wunder would critique the team’s

progress and answer technical questions.

The team also met twice a week during the spring semester, on Tuesday evenings and Thursday

afternoons. These team meetings were similar to the Tuesday evening during the fall semester, with

project updates followed by project work time.

In addition to the scheduled weekly meetings, team members also met outside of the team meetings

for meetings with the CWP, when large decisions needed to be discussed, and to work with another team

member on calculations or another aspect of the project.

The team documented its meetings through a shared online document during the fall semester and

Microsoft Word documents during the spring semester.

Scheduling

Typically, every week the team would discuss the progress of the project and what team members

planned to complete in the upcoming week. These suggested dates, along with the due dates of the senior

design documents were posted on the team’s calendar, visible at the team’s design station in the

engineering building. Bonnie Robison would update the team calendar on a bimonthly basis. Team

members respected and cared about each other, so understanding any small delays in schedule allowed the

team to figure out how to reschedule to stay on track for project completion.

Mike Troupos was in charge of updating the team’s work break down schedule (Table 42, Figure 57,

Figure 56), which he did on a bimonthly basis. The work breakdown schedule helped the team understand

the scope of the project and the order of project completion. On average, team members worked on the

project for ten hours each week. This time, however, fluctuated over the course of the year. When large

amounts of work needed to be completed before a deadline, members would work more hours per week,

but when the team was waiting on certain information or was busy with other commitments, this time

would decrease.

Overall, the team did an excellent job of staying on schedule, with the exception of the bench-scale

testing, because of equipment problems. During that delay, the team found ways to work ahead on aspects

of the project other than bench-scale testing, to guarantee that the team was making progress toward the

completion of the project.

Project Documentation

The team documented its meetings and correspondence. The team stored many files in a team shared

drive on Calvin College’s network. The files can be viewed at S:\Engineering\Teams\Team12. Multiple

copies of many files were saved throughout the year, to provide examples of the team’s completed work

at specific times throughout the year.

Team Budget

Mark Stehouwer was assigned the task of managing the team budget. Since the team had relatively

few purchases – only the ozone generator and the emerging contaminants – budget management was very

straightforward and no large budget problems arose. The largest portion of the budget went to purchasing

the ozone generator. Travel expense reimbursements for transportation to and from the CWP also took up

a significant portion of the budget. A budget increase was requested to purchase the second ozone

generator, before the reimbursement was received for the first ozone generator. At the end of the project,

the team ended approximately $300 under budget (Table 41).

106

Table 41. Team budget management and costs incurred.

Allotted Funds $ 500.00

Budget Increase (requested 2/27/2012) $ 150.00

Ozone generator 1 - (Model CYS300C) $ (358.00)

Shipping for ozone generator 1 $ (22.00)

Return shipping for ozone generator 1 $ (20.00)

Reimbursement for ozone generator 1 $ 358.00

Ozone generator 2 - (Model Poseidon 30281) $ (163.00)

Shipping for ozone generator 2 $ (14.52)

Carbamazepine $ (21.40)

Shipping for carbamazepine $ (12.03)

Transportation reimbursement (Mark) $ (48.45)

Transportation reimbursement (Mike) $ (30.60)

Total Expenditures $ (332.00)

Unused Funds $ 318.00

107

Table 42. Work breakdown schedule listing of tasks.

Task Name Duration Start Finish

Design Research 9 days 2/20/12 3/1/12

Final UV research 9 days 2/20/12 3/1/12

Final AOP research 9 days 2/20/12 3/1/12

Final hydraulic research 9 days 2/20/12 3/1/12

Final site research 9 days 2/20/12 3/1/12

UV Disinfection 21 days 3/2/12 3/29/12

Work with Brent to develop a design 11 days 3/2/12 3/16/12

Finalize dosing / requirements 6 days 3/17/12 3/23/12

Write up the design 4 days 3/26/12 3/29/12

Establish an operation and maintenance plan 11 days 3/16/12 3/29/12

Verify UV design with calculations 7 days 3/16/12 3/23/12

Advanced Oxidation 21 days 3/2/12 3/29/12

Finalize O3 design 10 days 3/2/12 3/15/12

Write up design 11 days 3/16/12 3/29/12

Hydraulics 28 days 2/22/12 3/29/12

Model the plant in SWMM 13 days 2/22/12 3/9/12

Analyze model and select pumps 11 days 3/12/12 3/23/12

Write up hydraulic design 4 days 3/26/12 3/29/12

Final Design Report 34 days 3/26/12 5/9/12

Write the design draft 5 days 3/26/12 3/30/12

Edit and update 2 days 4/2/12 4/3/12

Submit first draft 1 day 4/4/12 4/4/12

Receive comments on draft 1 day 4/16/12 4/16/12

Update report 12 days 4/17/12 5/2/12

Submit report 1 day 5/9/12 5/9/12

Verbal Presentations 52 days 2/27/12 5/5/12

Verbal presentation 3 prep 4 days 2/27/12 3/1/12

Deliver verbal presentation 3 1 day 3/2/12 3/2/12

Verbal presentation 4 prep 5 days 4/25/12 5/1/12

Deliver verbal presentation 4 1 day 5/2/12 5/2/12

Senior banquet presentation 1 day 5/5/12 5/5/12

Consume Cake/ BBQ With Myron 1 day 5/10/12 5/10/12

BBQ 1 day 5/10/12 5/10/12

108

Fig

ure

56

. W

ork

bre

ak

do

wn

sch

edu

le o

f ta

sks

fro

m

Feb

rua

ry 1

9, 2

012

to

Ap

ril

14

, 20

12

.

109

Fig

ure

57

. W

ork

bre

ak

do

wn

sch

edu

le o

f ta

sks

fro

m A

pri

l 1

5,

20

12

, to

Ma

y 1

2, 2

01

2.

110

Appendix H: Equipment Specification Sheets

Pump Characteristic Data

WASTEWATER DISINFECTIONFILTERED IN-PIPE TREATMENT

Around the globe, wastewater treatment plants of all sizes are responding to the water quality and quantity demands of the communities they serve. As more municipalities adopt wastewater reuse policies and practices, wastewater treatment plants are required to treat effluent to higher levels –essentially eliminating all pathogens prior to reuse or discharge. Depending on site and design conditions, wastewater treatment plants producing

filtered effluent sometimes prefer a disinfection solution using closed-vessel or pressurized UV reactors. The TrojanUVFit™ offers an effective and energy-efficient closed-vessel UV solution. This compact reactor is available in multiple configurations to treat a wide range of flow rates. The streamlined hydraulic profile of closed-vessel systems disinfect filtered effluent without breaking head in the treatment process. These benefits along with UV’s ability to provide environmentally-friendly, chemical-free treatment for chlorine resistant microorganisms (such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia) make the

TrojanUVFit™ closed-vessel solution an attractive option for wastewater disinfection.

Trojan Technologies is an ISO 9001:2000 registered company that has been leading the UV disinfection market with open-channel solutions for wastewater disinfection (e.g. TrojanUV3000Plus™) in over 5,000 municipal installations worldwide – the largest UV installation base. The TrojanUVFit™, the latest addition to the Trojan product line, rounds out a complete portfolio of products for wastewater disinfection and reuse applications.

Proven Trojan products. A new application.Validated, chemical-free disinfection from the industry leader

roducts. A new application.e disinfection from the industry leader

Key Benefits TrojanUVFit™

Fully Validated Performance. System sizing is based on actual dose delivery

verified through bioassay validation. Real-world, field performance data eliminates sizing

assumptions and risks associated with theoretical dose calculations.

Compact Design. The small reactor footprint simplifies indoor retrofit installations and

reduces construction costs.

Reliable, Proven Components. UV lamps, quartz sleeves, electronic ballasts, sensors

and sleeve wiping system have been tested, proven reliable and are operating

in hundreds of installations.

Design Flexibility. Reactors can be installed in parallel or in series, making it simple to

incorporate redundancy or future expansion needs.

Wide Range of Flow Rates. Peak flow rates per reactor are suitable for either

individual post-filter or manifold installation. Flows up to 7 MGD per reactor – the largest

validated low-pressure lamp in-pipe wastewater system in the industry.

Validated Lamp Performance. Lamp output and aging characteristics validated

through industry protocols and proven through years of operating experience.

Automatic Wiping. Automatic sleeve wiping saves operator’s time and money. Ensures

the maximum UV output is available for disinfection and minimizes energy consumption.

Global support. Local service. Trojan’s comprehensive network of certified service

providers offers fast response for service and spare parts.

Guaranteed Performance and Comprehensive Warranty. Trojan systems

include a Lifetime Disinfection Performance Guarantee. Ask for details.

Amalgam Lamps High-output amalgam lamps are energy-efficient and save operating costs due to reduced electrical consumption. Lamps are located within protective quartz sleeves with easy access from the service entrance.

Sleeve Wiping System Automatic sleeve wiping system operates on-line without interrupting disinfection. The wiping sequence occurs automatically at preset intervals without operator involvement.

UV Intensity Sensor Highly accurate, photodiode sensor monitors UV output within the reactor. The sensor ensures UV light is fully penetrating the water for complete disinfection.

System Control Center The microprocessor or PLC-based controller continuously monitors and controls UV system functions. SCADA communication via ModBus for remote monitoring, control and dose pacing is available. Programmable digital and analog I/O capabilities can generate unique alarms for individual applications and send signals to operate valves and pumps.

Compact reactors designed for high flow rates also available. This reactor contains lamps in both ends of the reactor. Multiple inlet and outlet flange orientations are available.

Designed for efficient, reliable performance

UV Reactor Electropolished 316L stainless steel chamber available in multiple configurations for a wide range of flow rates. Optional flange orientations allow reactors to fit into existing piping galleries or tight spaces.

Power Distribution Center (PDC) The PDC panel distributes power to the reactor, UV intensity sensor and sleeve wiping system. The panel also houses high-efficiency, variable-output (60 – 100% power) or constant-output ballasts with proven performance in hundreds of installations around the world.

End Cap The end cap protects and isolates connections for components such as lamps, sleeves and wiping system. Power is automatically disconnected if end cap is removed thereby ensuring a safe working environment for operators.

Benefits:

Validated in accordance with industry protocols established by National Water Research Institute (NWRI)

(UV transmission)

delivery – not theoretical calculations

Benefits:

installation and minimizes related capital costs – ideal for retrofit and new construction applications

serviceable from the reactor end – allowing the system to be installed

or piping

integration into existing process, and avoids additional pumping and associated capital and operational costs

– increasing design flexibility

Benefits:

Each lamp draws 250 Watts

competitive UV lamps

Regulatory-Endorsed Bioassay ValidationField testing ensures accurate dose delivery

Compact Reactor for Installation FlexibilityEfficient, cost-saving design enables retrofit or new construction

Maintain maximum output and reduce O&M costs

Reactors can be installed in parallel or in series for increased design and installation flexibility.

Benefits:

lamp changeouts are simple and

maintenance costs

(lamps, sleeves, cleaning system) through service entrance at one end.

connections isolated and protected by end cap

monitors UV output to ensure dose delivery

Robust Sleeve Wiping SystemAutomatic wiping system maintains consistent dose delivery

Built for Reliable Performance and Easy MaintenanceDesigned for trouble-free operation and minimal service

User-Friendly Operator InterfaceTouch-screen display allows easy operation and monitoring

The TrojanUVFit™ lamps are easily replaced in minutes without the need for tools.

Benefits:

with manual cleaning

Benefits:

Microprocessor or PLC-based system controls all functions and dose pacing to minimize energy use while maintaining

graphical display for at-a-glance system status

with plant SCADA systems for centralized monitoring of performance, lamp status, power levels, hours of operation and alarm status

The PLC-based controller combines sophisticated system operation and reporting with an operator-friendly, touch screen display.

Head Office (Canada)3020 Gore RoadLondon, Ontario, Canada N5V 4T7

www.trojanuv.com

Products in this publication may be covered by one or more of the following patents:

Other patents pending.

Printed in Canada. Copyright 2010. Trojan Technologies London, Ontario, Canada.No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trojan Technologies.MWW (0910)

System Specifications

Model 04AL20 32AL50 72AL75 D72AL75

Number of Lamps 4 8 18 32 72 144

Lamp Type High-efficiency, High-output, Low-Pressure Amalgam

Sleeve Wiping Automatic Wiping System

Ballast Electronic, constant output (100% power) or Electronic, variable output (60 to 100% power)

Reactor Chamber

Materials of Construction 316L Stainless Steel

Standard Flange Size (ANSI/DIN), inches (mm) 6 (150) 10 (250) 12 (300) 20 (500) 20 (500)

Outlet Flange Orientation Multiple orientations available 3, 6, 9, or 12 o’clock position

Approx. Reactor Length, inches (mm) 80 (2032) 80 (2032) 82 (2083) 90 (2286) 90 (2286) 152 (3860)

Max. Operating Pressure, PSI (bar) 150 (10) 150 (10) 150 (10) 100 (6.8) 65 (4.5) 65 (4.5)

Dry Reactor Weight, lbs (kg) 107 (49) 115 (52) 400 (181) 1600 (726) 2100 (953) 3700 (1678)

Wet Reactor Weight, lbs (kg) 230 (105) 877 (398) 2200 (998) 3700 (1678) 7200 (3265)

Power Distribution Center

Electrical Supply208V, 1 phase, 2 wire + GND, 50/60 Hz 240V, 1 phase, 2 wire + GND, 50/60 Hz (other options available with transformer)

480Y/277 V, 3 phase, 4 wire + GND, 50/60 Hz (other options available with transformer)

Dimensions, inches 24 x 24 x 10 30 x 24 x 10 36 x 48 x 10 40 x 86 x 18 48 x 86 x 24 96 x 86 x 24

Dimensions, mm 610 x 610 x 254 762 x 610 x 254 914 x 1219 x 254 1016 x 2184 x 457 1219 x 2184 x 610 2438 x 2184 x 610

Available Materials of ConstructionMild Painted Steel

304 Stainless Steel

Panel Rating NEMA 12, 3R or 4X NEMA 12 or 4X

System Control Center

Controller* MicroprocessorMicroprocessor

or PLCPLC

Electrical Supply N/A (see PDC)For PLC -120 V, 1 phase, 2 wire + GND, 60Hz

(other options available with transformer)

Panel Rating N/A (see PDC) NEMA 12 or 4X

Typical Outputs Provided Reactor status, common alarms and SCADA communication

Find out how your wastewater treatment plant can benefit from proven TrojanUVFIT™ solutions. Contact us today.

* Microprocessor is built into PDC. PLC is stand alone.

The OZAT® CFV ozone generators incorporate Ozonia’s patented “Advanced Technology” dielectric segments together with a state-of-the-art IGBT power supply unit.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS• Advanced technology• Fully assembled and tested• Compact dimensions

MAIN FEATURES• Production rates up to 26kg O3/h from oxsgen• Productionratesupto9kgO3/h from air• Highozoneconcentrationatfull-load• Robustindustrialqualityforreliabilityandlongservicelife• Skidmountedwithasmallfootprintforeasyintegration• Minimummaintenanceandservicepersonnelrequirement• ChoiceofPLCwithuserfriendlyinterfaceandoptionalbus• Watercooledhorizontalvesseltypeozonegenerator

APPLICATIONS• Drinking water treatment• Effluent treatment• Process related use

OZO

NE

OZAT® CFVOXYGEN & AIR - Fed Compact Ozone Generators

OZAT® CFV SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGYThe CFV range is Ozonia’s latest development of generators formedium-sizedozoneapplications.Thedesignisbasedonfeedbackfromhundredsofoperatorsand includes the latest technology toensurecontinuousoperationatfull-loadinindustrialenvironments.A feature of the larger units is the fused dielectric tubes whichmakes them particularly suitable for remote service in drinkingwaterplants.

An OZAT® CFV unit is integrated from the ozone generator, thepowersupplyforthehighvoltagemediumfrequencysupplytothegenerator,PLCcontrol,processrelatedcontrolequipmentandskidinterconnections.ThePLCsystemandoptionalbusensuresflexibleoperationandallowsintegrationintoalltypesofplantconcepts.

HOW IT WORKSOzone,thetriatomicformofoxygen, isgeneratedbyrecombiningoxygenatomswithoxygenmolecules.Thisprocesstakesplace inthegapbetweenthedielectriclayeronthehighvoltageelectrodeandanearthelectrode in theozonegeneratorvessel.Whenhighvoltage isappliedtothisarrangementasilentelectricaldischargeoccursinthegapwhichexcitestheoxygenmoleculesinthefeedgasflowingthroughthegapwhichcausesthemtosplitandcombinewithotheroxygenmoleculestoformozone.

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

> Highperformance> Compactversatileskid> Low-cost> Highozoneconcentration> Lowspecificpower> Userfriendly> Easilyintegrated> Lowservicerequirement

©2011DegrémontTechnologiesLtd.•Subjecttochangewithoutnotice.•www.ozonia.com

TECHNICALDATAOZAT® MODEL

OzoneProduction

OzoneConcentration

OutletPressure

Oxygen or AirRequirement Cooling

Waterm3/h

PowerConsumption

kWOxygenkg/h

Airkg/h

Oxygenwt%

Airwt%

Oxygenbar(g)

Airbar(g)

OxygenNm3/h

AirNm3/h

CFV-02Oxygen-Air 1.32 0.75 10 3 <~0.8 <~1.5 9.20 19.3 1.9 14

CFV-03Oxygen-Air 1.98 1.12 10 3 <~0.8 <~1.5 13.80 29.0 2.8 20

CFV-04Oxygen-Air 2.64 1.50 10 3 <~0.8 <~1.5 18.40 38.7 3.7 26

CFV-05Oxygen-Air 4.00 2.27 10 3 <~0.8 <~1.5 27.88 58.6 5.6 39

CFV-10Oxygen-Air 8.21 4.65 10 3 <~0.8 <~1.5 57.0 120.0 11.5 78

CFV-15Oxygen-Air 12.43 7.04 10 3 <~0.8 <~1.5 86.30 176.0 17.4 118

CFV-20Oxygen-Air 15.81 8.97 10 3 <~0.8 <~1.5 109.87 231.0 22.0 151

CFV-30Oxygenonly 26.00 - 10 - <~0.8 - 180.0 - 35.0 257

OZONE

TECHNICAL FEATURES• Ambienttemperature:+5...40ºC• Designaltitude:<1000m.a.s.l.• Humidity:RH<65%(yearlyaverage)• Voltage:3x360...495VAC• Frequency:50/60Hz• Feedgasinletpressure:3to8bar(g)• Coolingwaterpressure:2to6bar(g)• Coolingwaterinlettemp:20°C/68°F

MATERIALS• Enclosure:powdercoatedmildsteel• Incontactwithozone:ANSI316,PTFE,PVDF,Viton• Incontactwithwater:PE,brass,ANSI304/316

OPTIONS*• ChoiceofPLC(Siemens,AllenBradley,Schneider)• Bussystem(Profibus,Modbus,Ethernet,DeviceNet)• Power-cutandlightningprotection*Options for CFV-30 on request

REMOTE CONTROL AND ALARMS• SupplyON/OFF• EnableREMOTE• RESET• ProductionSTOP*• GasvalvesOPEN• CollectiveALARM*CFV-30 Emergency Stop

Therecommendedconcentrationrangecanbeselectedbetween6wt%and12wt%(02)

Therecommendedconcentrationrangecanbeselectedbetween3wt%and5wt%(Air). OZAT® CFV MODEL

LxHxW(mm)

Weight(kg)

CFV-02 2000x2000x1150 ~750

CFV-03 2000x2000x1150 ~850

CFV-04 2000x2000x1150 ~950

CFV-05 2500x2000x1500 ~ 2000

CFV-10 2900x2000x1900 ~2050

CFV-15 2900x2000x1900 ~2500

CFV-20 2900x2000x1900 ~ 3000

CFV-30Vessel 3450x2000x1550 ~ 3200

CFV-30PSU-Cubicle 3000x2990x1110 ~ 2000

Width

WidthWidth

Heigh

t

Heigh

t

Heigh

t

Length

LengthLength

OZAT CFV-30 VesselCFV-30 PSU-Cubicle

OZAT CFV-02 to OZAT CFV-20

CONTACTS OZONIASwitzerland salesCH@ozonia.com +41448018511

OZONIAFrance salesFR@ozonia.com +33158815069

OZONIARussia salesRU@ozonia.com +78314341628

OZONIANorthAmerica sales@ozonia.com +12016762525

OZONIAChina salesCN@ozonia.com +861065973860

OZONIAKorea salesKR@ozonia.com +82317019036

OZONIAJapan salesJP@ozonia.com +81354446361

Yourlocaldistributor:

5

Features:

• Patented “Cold Spark” corona discharge • 12 VDC, 800 ma

• Rugged aluminum enclosure

• Stainless Steel C/D manifold

• Low maintenance

• Factory tested and calibrated

•••• Medium frequency, solid state electronics • Wall mountable

• Corrosion resistant

Benefits:

•••• Unlike UV ozone generators, the output does not degrade over time • High output gas concentration for enhanced solubility

• Simple and reliable operation

• Easy to service, virtually maintenance free

• The only true 200 mg/hr generator at useable air flow rates

Part # Part # Part # Part # Model # Model # Model # Model #

30281 30281 30281 30281 POSEIDON POSEIDON POSEIDON POSEIDON

30296 30296 30296 30296 POSEIDON JR. POSEIDON JR. POSEIDON JR. POSEIDON JR.

Shipping & Lead Time Dimensions: W 4.25" x H 2.5" x L 7.5"

Shipping Weight: 5 Lbs

Max. Lead Time: 10 Days

(These are normally stocked items)

The Poseidon, when compared to other ozone generators offered in the 200 mg/hr range, outperforms them all. Based

on a patented “Cold Spark” technology, the output remains constant for years, is higher in concentration by weight at

useable air flow rates, possesses superior quality and workmanship and is manufactured in the U.S.A.

Replacement parts are listed in the operation and maintenance manuals supplied with equipment. Ozotech, Inc.

generators should be accompanied by air preparation.

Poseidon = 200 mg/hr (Variable Output)

“Low Cost” Poseidon Jr. = 100 mg/hr

(No variable output control)

Front Panel Dial Reading 1 2 3 4 5 Max

Percent Of Max Output 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 100%

Ozone Output Per Hr. 22 mg 44 mg 88 mg 132 mg 176 mg 220 mg

Gas Concentration 1.0

gm/m3

1.1

gm/m3

1.3

gm/m3

1.6

gm/m3

2.5

gm/m3

2.8

gm/m3

Poseidon and Poseidon Jr.

Off-gases containing trace levels of un-reacted ozone must be passed through a thermal or catalytic type vent ozone destruct unit before venting to the atmosphere.

APPLICATIONS• Thermal ozone destruct units are suitable for all types of

processes where catalytic poisons are present

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS• The RB units include a heater, reaction chamber, suction

fan, control system and are an energy-efficient solution

OZONE DESTRUCT TECHNOLOGY:VOD SERIES RB™Exhaust gases from processes where ozone has been used invariably contain residual amounts of un-reacted ozone. Before this exhaust can be vented into the atmosphere, it is necessary to decompose the traces of ozone. In most countries it is prohibited to release even low-level concentrations into the atmosphere. There are various methods available to treat vent gas.

Two popular methods are thermal and catalytic destruction which are selected to match the process in question. The thermal destruct units raise the temperature of the off-gas to a level where the half-life of the ozone is reduced to milliseconds and in the catalytic units the ozone molecule decay rate is accelerated on the surface of the catalyst converting the ozone to oxygen.

HOW IT WORKSThe vent gases leaving the process are routed to the RB vent ozone destruct unit. In the reaction chamber the gases are heated-up to around 400°C which radically reduces the half-life of the ozone molecule and, consequently, accelerates the decomposition rate so that the ozone content in the gas stream leaving the VOD is well below the recognised safety limits (< 0.1 ppm). In order to reduce the electrical requirement for heating the system incorporates a heat recuperation feature.

OZO

NE

VOD Series RB™Thermal Ozone Destruct Units with Heat Recuperation

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

> Very high ozone destruct efficiency

> Low power consumption

> Long service life

> Virtually maintenance-free

> Easy integration

> Compact dimensions

> High product integrity

© 2011 Degrémont Technologies Ltd. • Subject to change without notice. • www.ozonia.com

TECHNICAL DATARBTM MODEL

Mass Flow(kg/h) Ozone Level Operating

Pressure (barg)

Electrical Rating (kW)

DimensionsLxHxW (mm)

Weight (kg)

Air Oxygen Inlet(wt%)

Oulet(ppm)

RB-10 100 110 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 6.7 4330 x 1740 x 800 720RB-13 125 140 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 7.7 4330 x 1740 x 800 730RB-16 160 175 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 9.2 4370 x 1840 x 900 1030RB-20 200 220 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 10.7 4370 x 1840 x 900 1050RB-25 250 275 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 12.7 4370 x 1840 x 900 1070RB-32 315 350 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 15.7 4970 x 1915 x 1000 1250RB-40 400 440 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 18.7 4970 x 1915 x 1000 1280RB-50 500 550 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 22.7 5050 x 1915 x 1000 1600RB-63 630 700 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 27.7 5050 x 1915 x 1000 1670RB-80 800 880 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 38.5 5540 x 2180 x 1100 1780RB-100 1000 1100 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 46.5 5540 x 2180 x 1100 1850RB-125 1250 1400 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 57.5 6090 x 2355 x 1200 2700RB-160 1600 1750 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 72.5 6090 x 2355 x 1200 2800RB-200 2000 2200 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 91.0 6380 x 2605 x 1300 3100RB-250 2500 2750 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 115.0 6380 x 2605 x 1300 3300RB-315 3150 3500 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 150.0 6580 x 2805 x 1300 4000RB-400 4000 4400 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 180.0 7180 x 2905 x 1400 4900RB-500 5500 5500 < 1.5 < 0.1 ±0.1 230.0 7280 x 3105 x 1500 5800

OZONE

TECHNICAL FEATURES• Design standards: EN, IEC, ISO, SN• Protection class: IP 42• Conformity: CE• Connection data: 3 x 400 V ±10%, 50 Hz

MATERIALS• VOD: Stainless steel• Skid: Galvanised mild steel• Fan: Galvanised mild steel• Insulation : Mineral wool• Cover sheet: Galvanised mild steel

REMOTE CONTROL AND ALARMS• Enable REMOTE• Unit running• Temperature lower than max. alarm value• Temperature higher than lower alarm value• Over protection switch tripped• All miniature circuit breakers are ON• Unit ON/OFF

Width

Hei

ght

Length

CONTACTS OZONIA Switzerland salesCH@ozonia.com +41 44 801 85 11

OZONIA France salesFR@ozonia.com +33 1 58 81 50 69

OZONIA Russia salesRU@ozonia.com +7 831 434 16 28

OZONIA North America sales@ozonia.com +1 201 676 2525

OZONIA China salesCN@ozonia.com +86 10 6597 3860

OZONIA Korea salesKR@ozonia.com +82 31 701 9036

OZONIA Japan salesJP@ozonia.com +81 3 5444 6361

Your local distributor: