BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

R08-9

(Rulemaking - Water)

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

(Service List Attached)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

that on the 20th day of October, 2008, I electronically filed

with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board the following documents on

behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago:

1.

UV Disinfection Cost Study (Stickney Water Reclamation Plant) Volume I

2.

UV Disinfection Cost Study (Stickney Water Reclamation Plant) Volume II

3.

UV Disinfection Cost Study (North Side Water Reclamation Plant) Volume I

(also discussing Calumet Water Reclamation Plant)

4.

UV Disinfection Cost Study (North Side Water Reclamation Plant) Volume II

(also discussing Calumet Water Reclamation Plant)

5.

Hydraulic Technical Memorandum - Appendix A for North Side Water

Reclamation Plan UV Disinfection Cost Study

6.

UV Technology Technical Memorandum - Appendix B for North Side Water

Reclamation Plan UV Disinfection Cost Study

7.

UV Equipment Technical Information - Appendix C for North Side Water

Reclamation Plan UV Disinfection Cost Study

8.

Pump Technical Information - Appendix D for North Side Water Reclamation

Plan UV Disinfection Cost Study

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

[This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202]

2

9.

Historic Soil Boring Information - Appendix E for North Side Water Reclamation

Plan UV Disinfection Cost Study

10.

Cost Estimate Breakdown Tables - Appendix F for North Side Water Reclamation

Plan UV Disinfection Cost Study

11.

Disinfection Cost Study Hydraulic Evaluation - Technical Memorandum

(Stickney Water Reclamation Plant)

Dated: October 20, 2008

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION

DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO

By:

/s/ David T. Ballard

One of Its Attorneys

Fredric P. Andes

David T. Ballard

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Suite 4400

One North Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 357-1313

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

[This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202]

3

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned, a non-attorney, certifies, under penalties of perjury pursuant to 735

ILCS 5/1-109, that I caused a copy of the forgoing, Notice of Filing, to be served via First Class

Mail, postage prepaid, from One North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, on the 20th day of

October, 2008, upon the attorneys of record on the attached Service List.

/s/ Barbara E. Szynalik

Barbara E. Szynalik

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

[This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202]

4

SERVICE LIST

R08-9 (Rulemaking - Water)

Richard J. Kissel

Roy M. Harsch

Drinker, Biddle, Gardner, Carton

Suite 3700

191 N. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606-1698

Claire A. Manning

Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP

700 First Mercantile Bank Building

205 South Fifth St., P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

Deborah J. Williams, Assistant Counsel

Stefanie N. Diers, Assistant Counsel

IEPA

Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Katherine D. Hodge

Monica T. Rios

Matthew C. Read

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150 Roland Avenue

P.O. Box 5776

Springfield, IL 62705-5776

Kevin G. Desharnais

Thomas W. Dimond

Thomas V. Skinner

Mayer, Brown LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606-4637

Charles W. Wesselhoft

James T. Harrington

McGuireWoods LLP

Suite 4100

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60601-1818

Robert VanGyseghem

City of Geneva

1800 South Street

Geneva, IL 60134-2203

Jerry Paulsen

Cindy Skrukrud

McHenry County Defenders

132 Cass Street

Woodstock, IL 60098

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief

Office of the Attorney General

Environmental Bureau North

Suite 1800

69 West Washington Street

Chicago, IL 60602

Kevin B. Hynes

O’Keefe Lyons & Hynes, LLC

Suite 4100

30 North LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Bernard Sawyer

Thomas Granto

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

6001 W. Pershing Road

Cicero, IL 60804

Lisa Frede

Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

Suite 239

2250 East Devon Avenue

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4509

James L. Daugherty, District Manager

Sharon Neal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

[This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202]

5

Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District

700 West End Avenue

Chicago Heights, IL 60411

Commonwealth Edison Company

125 South Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60603

Tracy Elzemeyer, General Counsel

American Water Company Central Region

727 Craig Road

St. Louis, MO 63141

Margaret P. Howard

Hedinger Law Office

2601 South Fifth Street

Springfield, IL 62703

Keith I. Harley

Elizabeth Schenkier

Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.

4

th

Floor

205 West Monroe Street

Chicago, IL 60606

Frederick D. Keady, P.E., President

Vermilion Coal Company

1979 Johns Drive

Glenview, IL 60025

Roy G. Wilcox

Attorney at Law

16 West Madison

P.O. Box 12

Danville, IL 61834

Georgia Vlahos

Naval Training Center

2601A Paul Jones Street

Great Lakes, IL 60088-2845

W.C. Blanton

Blackwell Sanders LLP

Suite 1000

4801 Main Street

Kansas City, MO 64112

Dennis L. Duffield

Director of Public Works & Utilities

City of Joliet, Department of Public

Works & Utilities

921 E. Washington Street

Joliet, IL 60431

Traci Barkley

Prarie Rivers Networks

Suite 6

1902 Fox Drive

Champaign, IL 61820

Ann Alexander, Sr. Attorney

Natural Resources Defense Council

Suite 609

101 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

James Huff, Vice President

Huff & Huff, Inc.

Suite 3300

915 Harger Road

Oak Brook, IL 60523

Beth Steinhorn

2021 Timberbrook

Springfield, IL 62702

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

[This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202]

6

Cathy Hudzik

City of Chicago - Mayor's Office of

Intergovernmental Affairs

City Hall - Room 406

121 N. LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL 60602

Dr. Thomas J. Murphy

DePaul University

2325 N. Clifton Street

Chicago, IL 60614

Irwin Polls

Ecological Monitoring and Assessment

3206 Maple Leaf Drive

Glenview, IL 60025

Susan M. Franzetti

Franzetti Law Firm P.C.

Suite 3600

10 S. LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL 60603

Marc Miller, Senior Policy Advisor

Jamie S. Caston, Policy Advisor

Office of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn

Room 414 State House

Springfield, IL 62706

Vicky McKinley

Evanston Environment Board

223 Grey Avenue

Evanston, IL 60202

Albert Ettinger, Senior Staff Attorney

Jessica Dexter

Environmental Law & Policy Center

Suite 1300

35 E. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

Kenneth W. Liss

Andrews Environmental Engineering

3300 Ginger Creek Drive

Springfield, IL 62711

Tom Muth

Fox Metro Water Reclamation District

682 State Route 31

Oswego, IL 60543

Bob Carter

Bloomington Normal Water

Reclamation District

P.O. Box 3307

Bloomington, IL 61702-3307

Jack Darin

Sierra Club

Illinois Chapter

Suite 1500

70 E. Lake Street

Chicago, IL 60601-7447

Kay Anderson

American Bottoms RWTF

One American Bottoms Road

Sauget, IL 62201

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

[This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202]

7

Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Kristy A. N. Bulleit

Brent Fewell

Hunton & Williams LLC

1900 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Stacy Meyers-Glen

Openlands

Suite 1650

25 East Washington

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Jeffrey C. Fort

Ariel J. Tesher

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

7800 Sears Tower

233 S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606-6404

Susan Hedman

Andrew Armstrong

Environmental Counsel Environmental Bureau

Suite 1800

69 West Washington Street

Chicago, IL 60602

Ronald M. Hill

Margaret T. Conway

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago

100 E. Erie Street, Room 301

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Alec M. Davis

General Counsel

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215 East Adams Street

Springfield, IL 62701

503739

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Cost Study Report

September 9, 2008

Prepared By

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601

MWRDGC Project No. 07-026-2P

CTE Project No. 60026610

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

i

Volume 1 – Report and Appendices

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

Objectives ...............................................................................................................................1

Proposed Facilities ..................................................................................................................1

Hydraulics ...............................................................................................................................2

Disinfection Technology...........................................................................................................2

Site Layout ..............................................................................................................................2

Preliminary Cost Opinion .........................................................................................................3

1.0

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5

1.1

Background ................................................................................................................5

1.2

Objective ....................................................................................................................5

1.3

General Design Standards..........................................................................................5

1.4

Organization of this Report .........................................................................................6

2.0

HYDRAULICS ................................................................................................................ 6

2.1

Hydraulic Analysis of the UV Disinfection Facilities .....................................................6

2.2.1

Objectives ..............................................................................................................6

2.2.2

Overview ................................................................................................................6

2.3

Assumptions...............................................................................................................7

2.4

Results .......................................................................................................................8

2.5

Conclusion .................................................................................................................8

3.0

SWRP DISINFECTION PROCESS ............................................................................... 10

3.1

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 10

3.2

UV Disinfection System ............................................................................................ 10

3.2.1

Background .......................................................................................................... 10

3.2.2

Basis of Design .................................................................................................... 11

3.2.3

Process Control .................................................................................................... 12

3.2.4

Safety................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.5

Proposed Design Criteria for UV Disinfection Equipment ...................................... 13

3.3

Low Lift Pump Station............................................................................................... 15

3.3.1

Basis of Design .................................................................................................... 15

3.3.2

Pump Type........................................................................................................... 15

3.3.3

Proposed Operational Description ........................................................................ 16

3.3.4

Proposed Layout .................................................................................................. 16

4.0

SWRP CIVIL................................................................................................................. 17

4.1

Basis of Design......................................................................................................... 18

4.1.1

Roadways and Other Site Improvements .............................................................. 18

4.1.2

Junction Chamber/Effluent Conduits ..................................................................... 18

4.1.3

Site Utilities .......................................................................................................... 19

4.1.5

Geotechnical Information...................................................................................... 19

5.0

SWRP STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL............................................................ 20

5.1

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 20

5.1.1

Codes and Specifications ..................................................................................... 20

5.1.2

Loads ................................................................................................................... 21

5.1.3

Design Stresses ................................................................................................... 22

5.1.4

General Design .................................................................................................... 23

5.1.5

Foundation Design ............................................................................................... 23

5.2

SWRP UV Facility..................................................................................................... 23

5.3

Low Lift Pump Station............................................................................................... 24

6.0

SWRP ELECTRICAL .................................................................................................... 24

6.1

Codes/Standards ...................................................................................................... 24

6.2

Electric Service......................................................................................................... 25

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

ii

6.3

System Grounding.................................................................................................... 25

6.4

Conduit..................................................................................................................... 25

6.5

Wire ......................................................................................................................... 25

6.6

Motors (Except Low Lift Pump Motors)...................................................................... 26

6.7

Emergency Systems................................................................................................. 26

6.8

Lightning Protection .................................................................................................. 26

6.9

Specific Electrical Equipment .................................................................................... 26

6.9.1

Medium Voltage Switchgear ................................................................................. 26

6.9.2

Secondary Unit Substation ................................................................................... 28

6.9.3

Motor Control Centers .......................................................................................... 28

7.0

SWRP INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM......................................................................... 29

7.1

Applicable Codes and Standards .............................................................................. 29

8.0

SWRP MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING ....................................................................... 30

8.1.

Mechanical Codes .................................................................................................... 30

8.2

Basis of Design......................................................................................................... 30

8.2.1

Ventilation Rates .................................................................................................. 30

8.2.2

Design Temperatures ........................................................................................... 30

8.2.3

Plumbing .............................................................................................................. 30

8.3

Proposed Mechanical and Plumbing System............................................................. 31

8.3.1

UV Disinfection Facility ......................................................................................... 31

8.3.2

Low Lift Pump Station........................................................................................... 31

9.0

SWRP AREAS REQUIRING FURTHER ANALYSIS...................................................... 32

10.0

SWRP PRELIMINARY COST OPINION........................................................................ 32

10.1

Basis of Opinion of Capital Cost................................................................................ 33

10.2

Basis of Operation and Maintenance Costs............................................................... 34

10.3

Basis of Net Present Value Calculation ..................................................................... 34

10.4

Discussion of Cost Estimate Line Items .................................................................... 35

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 – SWRP UV Disinfection Facilities Preliminary OPCC and M&O Costs......................3

Table 2.4-1 – Summary of Proposed WSE including UV Disinfection Facilities.............................8

Figure 2.4-2 - Hydraulic Profile for Disinfection Cost Study ..........................................................9

Table 3.2-1 – Design Parameters for UV Disinfection Unit at SWRP .......................................... 13

Table 3.3-1 – Low Lift Pump Station Basis of Design ................................................................. 15

Table 3.3-2 – Examples of Pump Operation............................................................................... 16

Figure 3.3-1 - Proposed UV Disinfection Flow Diagram.............................................................. 17

Table 6.9.1-1 – Medium Voltage Switchgear Criteria.................................................................. 26

Table 6.9.1-2 – Circuit Breaker Ratings and Features Criteria.................................................... 27

Table 6.9.1-3 – Circuit Breaker Battery Criteria.......................................................................... 27

Table 6.9.2-1 – Secondary Unit Substation................................................................................ 28

Table 6.9.3-1 – Motor Control Center Criteria ............................................................................ 28

Table 10.0-1 – SWRP UV Disinfection Facilities Preliminary OPCC and M&O Costs.................. 33

Table 10.2-1 – M&O Labor Requirements.................................................................................. 34

Table 10.4-1 – OPCC Selected Line Item Description................................................................ 35

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES 1- Proposed UV Facilities Flow Diagram .....................................................................3

Figure ES 2 - SWRP Proposed Site Plan.....................................................................................4

Figure 2.4-1 - Hydraulic Profile for Disinfection Cost Study ..........................................................9

Figure 3.3-1 - Proposed UV Disinfection Flow Diagram.............................................................. 17

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A

Hydraulic Technical Memorandum

Appendix B

North Side WRP UV Technology Technical Memorandum

Appendix C

UV Equipment Technical Information

Appendix D

Pump Technical Information

Appendix E

Draft Geotechnical Design Report for New Preliminary Treatment Facilities at

Stickney and Calumet WRPs

Appendix F

Cost Estimate Breakdown Tables

Appendix G

Electrical Evaluation Technical Memorandum

Volume 2 – Conceptual Design Drawings

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

1

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Introduction

The Technical Memorandum 1WQ Disinfection Evaluation (TM1-WQ) was completed in August

2005 for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC or District)

as part a Water Quality (WQ) Strategy for affected Chicago Area Waterways. TM1-WQ reviewed

the alternative disinfection technologies available for use at the District’s North Side (NSWRP),

Calumet (CWRP) and Stickney Water Reclamation Plants (SWRP) and provided an initial

estimate of construction cost for the facilities. On the basis of that report, the District requested

further investigation into UV disinfection. The findings of the Preliminary Cost Opinion for

Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection Facilities Study at the Stickney Water Reclamation Plant are

presented in this Report.

Objectives

This evaluation is based upon the TM1-WQ, the comments received from the USEPA as part of

the Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) evaluations, and new information obtained since the previous

work. The primary objectives of the evaluation presented in this report are:

x

To describe the conceptual facilities developed as part of this study including their basis of

design and the assumptions used for their development.

x

To develop a Level 3 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost per the Association

for the Advancement of Cost Engineering recommended practices for the proposed facilities

at the SWRP, which represents an expectation that actual cost will deviate from the

estimated cost by -15% to 30%.

x

To develop annual maintenance and operations (M&O) costs for the conceptual facilities.

Proposed Facilities

This study reviewed the proposed facilities for the UV Disinfection Alternative in TM-1WQ

including the four primary components: Site work, a low lift pump station, tertiary filters and UV

disinfection. Through that review, it was determined that the low lift pump station and the tertiary

filters required re-evaluation.

At the time TM-1WQ was developed, very little information was available regarding the water

quality of the plant effluent as it related to ultraviolet light transmissivity, and the that data which

was available indicated low transmissivity levels. In TM-1WQ, tertiary filters were included in the

initial proposed facilities in order to improve disinfection effectiveness by removing components

that would inhibit the disinfection process. Since that time, additional water quality data was

collected for the NSWRP by the District during the North Side UV Disinfection Cost Study Report.

A review of that data indicated that the UV transmissivity is within the minimum range necessary

for UV disinfection without filtration. As a result, tertiary filters were not included in the North Side

Cost Study and are not included in the proposed disinfection facilities presented in this report.

However, the exclusion of tertiary filters from this report should not suggest that tertiary filters

may not be required in the future to meet stricter suspended solids or total phosphorous limits, or

that tertiary filters would not improve the effectiveness of a UV disinfection process. As

concluded in the SWRP Master Plan, space would be reserved on the site for future tertiary filter

faciilties.

As tertiary filters would not be required as part of the implementation of UV disinfection, the need

for a low lift pump station was questioned. Additional pumping would be required only if the head

loss added by the new UV Disinfection Facilities and associated flow conduits and flow splitting

structures exceeds the available head at the plant. To determine the required head through the

UV Disinfection facilities, a hydraulics evaluation was performed.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

2

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Hydraulics

Hydraulic modeling was not included as part of the Master Plan for Stickney WRP and so a

hydraulic model was developed for this report based on existing plant water levels as

documented in previous design projects as well as projected water levels in the Ship and Sanitary

Canal for a 100-year flood event based on the USACE’s CUP Report. This model was modified

to include the additional effluent conduits, gate structures, and UV channels/reactors required for

the new facilities. The model was used to determine the required head following implementation

of the new UV Disinfection Facilities.

The results of this evaluation showed that the projected head required through the proposed UV

facilities exceeds the head available at the plant by over 8.7-ft and confirms the need for a Low

Lift Pump Station (LLPS) in order to convey the peak flow of 1,440 MGD through the UV facilities

at the 100-year flood elevation.

Disinfection Technology

The Trojan UV4000™Plus system, which utilizes medium pressure, high intensity type UV lamps,

was used to develop the basis of design for the UV disinfection system at the SWRP. This type of

UV system was selected due to the lower number of lamps required compared to other systems

and based upon the recommendations of a team of disinfection experts that evaluated the

available disinfection technologies during the Master Plan effort.

During the NSWRP UV Disinfection Cost Study, the details of the implementation of this UV

technology were updated by consultation with the manufacturer and incorporated into the basis of

design. In addition, a phone survey of other facilities of similar size and source water quality was

conducted. This survey revealed several important conclusions including the following:

x

When using ferric salt addition for improved settleability of solids or phosphorus removal

in the treatment process upstream of UV disinfection, an increase in the fouling rate was

experienced.

x

The level of maintenance and operations efforts was highly variable and site specific,

even with plants using the same technology and source water.

x

The most effective method of power control for the UV system is highly site specific and

has a great impact on the disinfection effectiveness and the energy effectiveness of the

system.

Due to the size of the proposed SWRP UV Disinfection Facilities, which would be among the

largest continually-operating UV disinfection systems in the world, CTE recommends the District

undertake an extensive program which includes review of system specific independent validation

studies, collimated beam testing, UV transmittance testing and a reasonably sized pilot facility.

This program would determine, among other factors, the following information in-situ:

x

Appropriate control sequences and optimization for the UV disinfection equipment,

including appropriate sensing equipment to allow advanced power management.

x

In-situ disinfection performance including fouling rates or the lamps with and without ferric

salt addition.

x

Actual M&O requirements in terms of labor and consumables as well as space

requirements to complete required maintenance activities.

Site Layout

As part of the study, a proposed layout of the disinfection facilities at the SWRP was developed

including the Low Lift Pump Station, UV Disinfection Facilities, related gate structures/effluent

conduits and space reserved for future tertiary filters.

Figure ES-2

and Volume 2 of this report

show the proposed site layout while

Figure ES-1

shows the proposed flow diagram for the new

UV Disinfection Facilities.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

3

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Figure ES 1 - Proposed UV Facilities Flow Diagram

Due to the limited space available upstream of the existing outfall, flow would be directed

approximately 1,800-ft to the new facilities located to the southwest of the site. As a result of the

location of the new facilities, it is recommended that a new plant outfall to the Ship and Sanitary

Canal be constructed directly south of the new facilities (and west of the existing outfall) in lieu of

installing an extensive return conduit back to the existing outfall. It should be noted that the new

outfall would require permitting through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and

others. The cost of this new outfall is included in the cost opinion.

Preliminary Cost Opinion

The preliminary opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) for SWRP UV Disinfection

Fac ilities is shown

Tab

in

le ES-1

below. As shown, the projected construction cost for the SWRP

UV Disinfection facilities is $542.9 million. The details of the basis of design for the proposed

facilities and the methods of developing the OPCC are presented in the body of this report.

Capital Cost Estimates

A. General Sitework

$61,890,000

B. Low Lift Pump Station

$86,220,000

C. Disinfection System

$112,420,000

Total Capital Cost

Maintenance & Operations Cost Estimates

A. General Sitework

$90,000/yr

B. Low Lift Pump Station

$2,540,000/yr

C. Disinfection System

$9,560,000/yr

Total Annual M&O Cost

$12,190,000/yr

Total Present Worth M&O Cost

$282,400,000

Total Present Worth

$542,930,000

All costs in 2007 dollars.

E x isting

Plant

LLPS

UV

Facilities

Future

Tertiary

Filters

New

Outfall

E x isting

Outfall

Q=1,440

MGD

(Winter Operation)

Junction

Chamber

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

N

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

5

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

This report has been developed to present the findings of the Preliminary Cost Opinion for

Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection Facilities Study at the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago’s (MWRDGC, or District) Stickney Water Reclamation Plant (SWRP) in

Stickney, Illinois. This report continues the work began in TM1-WQ, which was developed

previously as part of the comprehensive Infrastructure and Process Needs Feasibility Study

(Master Plan) for the SWRP and a Water Quality (WQ) Strategy for affected Chicago Area

Waterways.

The TM1-WQ documented the results of a CTE study of effluent disinfection alternatives for the

District’s North Side, Calumet and Stickney WRPs. In that study, a task force of national experts

(referred to as the Blue Ribbon Panel) reviewed available disinfection technologies and their

range of pathogen destruction efficiency, disinfection byproducts and impacts upon aquatic life

and human health. Their investigation also included an examination of the environmental and

human health impacts of the energy required for the operation of the facility and for the

processing and production of process chemicals. Based on economic and non-economic

evaluation of alternatives, ozone disinfection and UV disinfection were selected and preliminary

design and cost estimates were developed. Based on the results of that subsequent evaluation,

the District determined that UV disinfection is the most cost-effective alternative.

1.2

Objective

The District has requested further evaluation of the UV disinfection technology. This additional

evaluation is based on the TM-1WQ, the comments received from the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as part of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency’s (IEPA) Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) evaluations, and new information obtained

since the previous work. The primary objectives of the evaluation presented in this report are:

x

To describe the conceptual facilities developed as part of this study including their basis

of design and the assumptions used for their development

x

To develop a Level 3 (per the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering)

Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the proposed facilities at SWRP,

which represents a conceptual estimate with an expected deviation range from actual

cost of -15% to +30%.

x

To develop annual maintenance and operations (M&O) costs for the facilities

1.3

General Design Standards

Where applicable, the latest version of the codes and standards from the following

institutions/organizations would govern the design:

State of Illinois, Illinois Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, Title 35.C.II.370.

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

Environmental Managers, Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten States

Standards).

National Fire Protection Association Standard 820 – Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater

Treatment and Collection Facilities.

International Building Code, 2003.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Standard Specifications.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

6

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

1.4

Organization of this Report

The Cost Study Report is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 is the text and backup materials

presenting the findings of the additional evaluation of the cost of implementation of UV

disinfection at the SWRP. Volume 2 is the conceptual level drawings presenting the preliminary

layouts and some details of the proposed facilities from which the preliminary opinion of

construction cost was developed.

The basis of this evaluation is the proposed facilities necessary for UV Disinfection Facilities and

related ancillary improvements at the SWRP. The sections of Volume 1 are organized as follows:

Section 2 – Discussion of the hydraulic analysis that was performed that forms the basis of

decisions regarding the need for a low lift pump station and the general layout of the facilities.

Sections 3 through 8 – Discussion of the basis of design for the proposed facilities by design

discipline and the assumptions necessary for development of the conceptual design presented in

Volume 2.

Section 9 – Discussion of areas that require further analysis during the preliminary design of the

proposed facilities due either to their critical nature regarding design decisions or their large

impact on potential construction or operating costs.

Section 10 - Summary of the Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) and

annual operating costs as well as discussion of the assumptions used to develop those costs.

2.0

2.1

Hydraulic Analysis of the UV Disinfection Facilities

2.2.1 Objectives

Hydraulic analyses of the SWRP had not been performed as part of the SWRP Master Plan. For

this study, a preliminary hydraulic model was created to evaluate the existing plant hydraulics

which would be affected by the UV Disinfection Facilities. This model was then modified to

include the effluent conduits, gate structures, UV channels and reactors and Low Lift Pump

Station in order to provide a more comprehensive hydraulic evaluation of the UV disinfection

faciilties.

2.2.2 Overview

The hydraulic analysis was completed using a spreadsheet utilizing standard open channel and

closed conduit flow equations. The hydraulics evaluated were for the Year 2040 conditions,

including both infrastructure and permit-related improvements related to disinfection at a peak

flow of 1,440 MGD. Flow in excess of 1,440 MGD is assumed to be diverted to the TARP

system.

The flow path was modeled from the effluent aerator weir downstream of Battery B to the Sanitary

and Ship Canal outfall. Due to site constraints, the new UV disinfection facilities were located to

the southwest of the plant. Flow would be diverted via a new gate chamber downstream of the

Pump and Blower Building, located approximately 800 ft upstream of the existing plant outfall. At

this location, secondary effluent from all Aeration Batteries (A, B, C & D) could be diverted to the

new disinfection facilities. Additionally, a new plant outfall was assumed to be provided rather

than conveying the disinfected flow back to the original outfall.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

7

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

The existing plant hydraulics were evaluated using a water surface elevation (WSE) in the

Sanitary and Ship Canal of +3.5 CCD. This was based upon the hydraulic profile from the

Contract 78-102-EP, West-Southwest Treatment Works, February, 1985

1

; however this is

considered the typical annual high water level in the canal and not the 100-yr flood elevation.

For the conceptual design of the new UV facilities the water surface elevation of +9.0 CCD will be

utilized in order to ensure the new facilities can operate during the 100-year flood. The 100-year

flood elevation for the Sanitary and Ship Canal has been calculated using the USACE’s Chicago

Underflow Plan (CUP) Design Report. The CUP report used observed high water levels to model

the predicted high water levels throughout the Chicago Area Waterways at each of the

construction phases. Appendix A provides select pages from this report.

2.3

Assumptions

Due to the preliminary nature of the selected site plan, assumptions were made in the

development of the hydraulic model. These assumptions are as follows:

1.

SWRP drawings obtained from MWRDGC are on the Chicago City Datum (CCD) or

the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). All elevations were converted to CCD

using conversion CCD = NGVD – 579.48.

2.

The CCD has not changed since the plant was originally constructed in the 1920’s.

3.

UV Facilities should be operable at the 100 yr flood event. The estimated 100-yr flood

elevation is +9.00 CCD, as calculated in the Chicago Canal System Model, UNET.

Appendix A provides selected pages from the USACE’s Chicago Underflow Plan

(CUP) Design Report presenting these results. Pre-Stage 1 (Stage 1 of the McCook

Reservoir Construction) values are used since the USACE’s current estimate for

completion of Stage 1 construction in 2020 or later. It should be noted that higher

levels of +10.1 CCD have been predicted for storms greater than the 100-yr storm.

At water levels rise higher than +9.00 CCD (100-yr flood) then flow bypassing would

be necessary to avoid flooding the UV and other facilities.

4.

Post Aeration hydraulics and space planning are not included in this study.

5.

A new plant outfall will be provided to convey disinfected effluent to the Ship and

Sanitary Canal.

6.

Velocity in Disinfection Influent and Effluent Distribution Chambers is zero to allow

adequate flow distribution.

7.

Flow is divided equally between the Batteries A, B, C and D, with each receiving 360

MGD.

8.

Batteries A, B, C and D are all at the same elevation.

9.

The UV process requires approximately 6 ft of submergence, thus the disinfection

channel effluent weir is assumed to be 5.5 ft above invert to ensure a submerged

weir at low flow conditions.

10.

The following modeling equations were used:

a. Pressure Flow – Hazen Williams Equation

b. Open-Channel Flow – Manning’s Equation

c. Flow junctions – Pressure Momentum Analysis.

1

El +3.5 is listed as the maximum water level in the Sanitary and Ship Canal to which the plant would not

flood, based on a maximum design flow rate of 2,000 MGD. This profile appears to be the last official

hydraulic profile conducted for the SWRP.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

8

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

11.

Hydraulic coefficients used in developing this model include:

a. Hazen Williams – 110 (concrete)

b. Manning’s

i.

Regular channel – 0.013

ii.

Aerated channel – 0.035

2.4

Results

Table 2.4-1

presents the final water surface elevations (WSE’s) through the plant, including the

Low Lift Pump Station (LLPS) and UV Disinfection Building. The hydraulic profiles show the

estimated WSE’s at the maximum flow of 1,440 MGD. Flow that exceeds 1,440 MGD is diverted

into the TARP system.

Table 2.4-1 – Summary of Proposed WSE including UV Disinfection Facilities

Location

WSE

WSE in Effluent Aerator

10.37

WSE just d/s of Pump Discharge Chamber

5.50

WSE at New Gate Chamber

4.06

WSE in LLPS Influent Conduit

-0.75

WSE in LLPS Wet Well just u/s of curtain wall

-3.25

WSE just D/S of Low Lift PS

13.70

WSE just U/S of Influent gate

13.00

WSE just U/S UV Reactor

12.65

WSE just U/S of Weir Gate

11.89

WSE just D/S of Weir gate

11.42

WSE @ D/S Disinfection Effluent Chamber

9.73

WSE in Sanitary and Ship Canal, Approximate 100 yr flood elevation

9.00

Notes:

All WSE in CCD.

WSE – Water Surface Elevation

D/S – Downstream

U/S – Upstream

Figure 2.4-1

contains the hydraulic profile of the flow path from the new outfall in the Sanitary

and Ship Canal through the new UV disinfection facilities and the available freeboard at the

locations where water surface elevations (WSE’s) were calculated at the peak day flow starting at

the 100-year flood elevation.

2.5

Conclusion

Based on the preliminary hydraulic analysis performed as part of this study, the estimated total

head required to convey flow through the new UV Disinfection facilities and associated structures

is 8.7-ft. The available head downstream of the Pump and Blower Building is 1.95 ft. In order to

maintain flow at the 100-yr flood, a new Low Lift Pump Station is required to lift flow 16.95-ft to

convey flow via gravity through the new UV facilities to the new outfall in the Sanitary and Ship

Canal.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

N

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

3.0

SWRP DISINFECTION PROCESS

3.1

Introduction

The District has preliminarily selected the medium-pressure high-intensity (MP-HI) UV disinfection

technology for disinfection of final effluent at the SWRP. This section presents the results of

further evaluation of the MP-HI UV disinfection technology per the District’s requirement. In the

following discussion, the basis of design of the MP-HI UV system is presented and a preliminary

basis of design of the UV system to be used at the SWRP is provided. The low-lift pump station’s

basis of design, operation and layout are provided later in this section.

3.2

UV Disinfection System

3.2.1 Background

The Technical Memorandum on the UV Disinfection Technology performed as part of the North

Side Disinfection Cost Study, included in Appendix B, incorporates the following:

x

Information from literature including technical proceedings from the Water Environment

Federation (WEF), Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), proceedings from

the latest Disinfection conference series undertaken by WEF, American Water Works

Association (AWWA), and International Water Association (IWA). This information

provided the latest updates in the UV disinfection technology.

x

Updated recommendations on the UV system from four manufacturers – Trojan

Technologies, Aquionics, Calgon Carbon, and Severn Trent Services (STS)/Quay.

x

Reference information on experience of UV disinfection at five selected facilities – Racine

WWTP (Racine, WI), R.L. Sutton WRF (Cobb County, GA), Grand Rapids WWTP (Grand

Rapids, MI), Jacksonville WWTP (Buckman, FL), and Valley Creek WWTP (Valley Creek,

AL). A summary of the information collected through the phone survey is provided in

Appendix B, and important inferences from the phone survey are as follows.

1. Fouling due to iron in the effluent has been a problem at the Racine, Sutton, and

Grand Rapids facilities.

Fouling results in lower then expected disinfection

performance, higher operating costs, and higher M&O efforts. The iron in the effluent

at all three plants was primarily from the chemical phosphorus removal using Ferric

Chloride. At Grand Rapids WWTP, the chemical addition is upstream of the

secondary treatment process; staining of sleeves was found only when the chemical

addition was in the secondary clarifiers. At the Sutton WRF, fouling of lamps due to

iron is observed although chemical addition is upstream of secondary process and

sand filters are used upstream of the UV disinfection system. At the Racine WWTP,

fouling may be due to ferric chloride addition and/or due to the additional iron brought

by the ferric sludge from another water treatment plant, although operational controls

are used to prevent both sources from occurring simultaneously.

2. Calcium fouling due to hardness in the source water is not a significant problem

because of the automatic mechanical/chemical cleaning system that dissolves and

wipes away any scales. The lack of calcium hardness was observed in all five plants

including the Racine and Grand Rapids utilities which have Lake Michigan source

water and is attributed to the automatic cleaning system performance.

3. The frequency of cleaning and changing of the cleaning solution is specific to the

utility and would have to be determined only by experience.

4. Labor requirements varied amongst facilities, with some facilities requiring more labor

to handle the fouling caused by iron salt addition.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

11

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

5. As long as other processes in the plant are performing as desired, all five facilities

were satisfied with the UV disinfection system because it met their disinfection goals.

In conclusion, the phone survey had revealed that fouling of the quartz sleeves is a concern for

this application, particularly if iron salts are added for phosphorous removal in the future. In

addition, the phone survey results suggest that the manufacturer’s recommended labor

assumptions for routine maintenance including cleaning and inspection of the lamps is too low for

this application. As transmissivity is directly related to lamp fouling, additional lamps and/or more

frequent cleaning may be required in future if iron salts are to be utilized upstream of this

technology.

Using this information and the updated information available from manufacturers, a preliminary

basis of design of the MP-HI UV disinfection system has been developed for disinfection of the

final effluent at the SWRP.

3.2.2

Basis of Design

The MP-HI system involves sending the secondary or tertiary effluent through channels

containing banks of MP-HI UV lamps. Refer to the process drawings included in Volume 2 of this

report. The Trojan UV4000™Plus system is used here to develop the basis of design for the UV

disinfection system. The system consists of a power supply, an electrical system, a reactor, MP-

HI lamps, a mechanical and chemical cleaning system, and a control system. The MP-HI UV

lamps are enclosed in individual quartz sleeves for protection against dirt and breakage. Reactor

chambers (open channels) hold the lamps in a horizontal configuration. The effluent weirs and

level sensors are used to keep the lamps submerged under the effluent water.

This

submergence ensures that the lamps do not overheat, thereby preventing lamp life reduction or

burnout.

The UV system is assumed to operate from March to November each year. During the winter

months, the equipment would sit idle as the flow is bypassed around the LLPS and UV

Disinfection Building. However, due to the size of the facility including twelve reactors and over

4000 lamps, maintenance activities would be conducted every working day from March to

November and periodically during the winter months. It is reasonable to expect that the area

would continue to experience normal weather patterns for the Chicago area including extreme

weather during all four seasons. In order to protect the safety of the M&O staff, ensure

operational and maintenance-related productivity, and protect the UV equipment from adverse

weather common to the Chicago area including high winds, rain, lightning, snow, and extreme

temperatures, the UV system would be enclosed in a building.

3.2.2.1 Influent Characteristics

The water quality characteristics that affect UV transmittance include iron, hardness, suspended

solids, humic materials and organic dyes. These effluent constituents have a tendency to absorb

UV light and thus impact the disinfection process. The UV transmittance generally needs to be

above 65% for effective disinfection. The water quality testing done at the North Side WRP and

Calumet WRP as part of the UV disinfection technology trials conducted by the District during

2006-2007 showed an average transmittance above this minimum value. Although testing was

not done at Stickney WRP the characteristics are likely to be very similar. Refer to Appendix B

for more information regarding the influent characteristic testing. The total suspended solids limit

is projected to be 15 mg/L for the purposes of sizing the UV system.

3.2.2.2 Reactor Configuration and Hydraulics

An open channel is used as a reactor. Each channel has one reactor with two banks each. Each

bank includes stainless steel UV modules with the MP-HI lamps mounted on them and arranged

in a linear configuration to increase intensity along the linear axis by avoiding UV emission losses

due to self absorption, reflection or refraction that can occur if a UV lamp were twisted into loops

or spirals. The lamps are positioned horizontally and parallel to the flow.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

12

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

The optimum hydraulic scenario for this system involves turbulent flow with mixing while

minimizing head loss. Reactor design, including inlet and outlet flow distribution is done so that

the unit operates close to a plug flow. Inlet conditions are designed to distribute the flow and

equalize velocities. Sufficient length is provided in the channel upstream of the reactor to allow

equalization of the flow. A motorized weir gate is provided downstream of each reactor to control

the water level at a constant level with little fluctuation within the UV disinfection reactor.

3.2.2.3 Lamps and UV Intensity Control

The MP-HI lamps produce polychromatic radiation, which is concentrated at select peaks

throughout the germicidal wavelength region. The IEPA requires a minimum UV dose of 40 mW-

s/cm

2

which was considered during the design of the UV system. It may be possible to document

a lower required dose to the regulating body (IEPA) during design development, but lacking such

data, this study does not deviate from the required minimum dose.

Each lamp is enclosed in a quartz sleeve because quartz effectively protects the lamps while

minimizing any UV transmission losses. Electronic ballast for each lamp is used to control the

power to the lamp. If the UV dose is to be reduced, the variable output electronic ballast

regulates the power to the lamp from 100% to 30%. Entire banks can also be turned off if there is

no flow. This allows dose-pacing based on the secondary or tertiary effluent flow and quality,

which helps save power and lamp life and hence reduce costs.

3.2.2.4 Lamp Fouling and Cleaning

The MP-HI lamps operate at a temperature range of 600 to 900 degree C. These warm

temperatures promote fouling on the surface of the quartz sleeves when the lamps are placed

directly within the wastewater stream. Iron is the most abundant metal in these scales along with

other mineral salts and oil, grease, suspended solids deposits, and biofilms. If no tertiary

treatment is provided, physical debris may contribute to fouling as well.

Since lamp fouling significantly reduces the effectiveness of UV disinfection by blocking the UV

rays, calculation of the UV dose incorporates a term called the “fouling factor”, which allows the

designer to estimate the effects of fouling on performance of the disinfection process. To combat

fouling, a chemical and mechanical cleaning system is proposed for the MP-HI UV disinfection

system. The latest technology uses a system of mechanical wipers and sleeves containing

cleaning chemicals surrounding the lamp. The cleaning solution contains some acidic solution

that prevents fouling. This cleaning system can be programmed to clean at a set frequency

without the need for disrupting the disinfection process. The cleaning solution needs to be

replaced periodically depending on the type of solution used and characteristics of the effluent

water quality. Similar facilities using Lake Michigan as source water have found that changing

the cleaning solution on a monthly basis is required for adequate performance.

Due to the mechanical and chemical features of the Trojan automatic cleaning system, the IEPA

accepts the default value of 100% for the fouling factor in the UV

dis

software package (dosage

modeling software) for sizing the equipment. Based on the phone survey results that indicated a

higher potential for fouling in the event of Lake Michigan source water with ferric salt addition, the

District has elected to incorporate a safety factor of 10% by using a fouling factor of 90%.

3.2.3 Process Control

An automated process control must be provided to facilitate online pacing of the UV dose to

prevent overdosing that wastes electricity and to avoid under-dosing that would not meet the

disinfection regulatory requirements and goals. The process control should also allow the dose-

pacing to be interfaced with the plant’s overall supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)

system. The flow, lamp output, and water conditions are measured in pacing of the dose, and an

algorithm is developed based on long-term measurements to predict necessary system

adjustments, maintenance, and component replacements.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

13

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Programmable logic control (PLC) technology must be used for dose pacing in the MP-HI UV

disinfection system. The PLC interacts with the ballasts, sensors, and online monitoring

technology for each disinfection unit. The PLC then interacts with the plant’s overall control

system to allow remote monitoring and adjustment of the system. The PLC should be supplied

by the manufacturer of the unit.

3.2.4 Safety

The high voltage power supplies for the MP-HI UV disinfection system may pose an issue as the

lamps are submerged in the water most of the time and compliance with electrical safety codes is

required. In addition, UV light poses a risk to personnel and can cause damage to skin or eyes

upon exposure. Submerging a lamp in water, even if it is just a few inches below the surface,

greatly reduces the intensity. During operation the system should be covered by hatches and

should be designed to ensure constant water levels to minimize the risk of UV exposure.

3.2.5 Proposed Design Criteria for UV Disinfection Equipment

Based on a review of the information provided by the UV equipment manufacturers and the

experience of five other facilities (Appendix B), it is observed that Trojan Technologies provides a

widely-used low-maintenance solution for final effluent disinfection. The design of the MP-HI UV

disinfection system for the Stickney WRP is based on the Trojan UV4000™Plus equipment

provided by Trojan Technologies. The basis of design is given in

Table 3.2-1

.

Parameter

Design Value

Capacity and Water Quality

Design flow, MGD

1,440

Average flow, MGD

1,250

Maximum TSS

a

, mg/L

15

Pre-Disinfection Effluent Fecal Coliform Count

b

, cfu/100 mL,

maximum (Assumed)

25,000

Post-Disinfection Effluent Fecal Coliform Count Target

c

, cfu/100 mL

400

Effluent Hardness

d

, mg/L as CaCO

3

270

Dosage

UV transmittance, minimum, %

65

UV intensity

e

, W/lamp

4,000

Lamp Life, hours

5,000

Fouling factor, %

90

Lamp aging factor, %

89

UV dose, mW-s/cm

2

40

Physical Characteristics

Channel dimensions, WxD

106” x 172”

Number of channels

12 (11 plus 1 standby)

Number of reactors per channel

1

Number of banks per reactor

2

Number of modules per bank

7

Number of lamps per module

24

Total number of lamps

4,032

Total power requirement, kW

11,827

Average power requirement, kW

9,225

Hydraulics

Headloss, UV reactor only

9”

Velocity in each channel, V, ft/s

1.87

Liqui

a

b

d

AMonth

l

nn

ev

u

e

al

l

l

cont

y

avpereragmit

ro

e

l

li

in

mit

channel

12 mg/L

c

d

FuturMean e

valrequuire

ement (monthly geom

e

100et%

ric

intavenseragity

e)at

100

Mot

hours

ori

o

zed

f lam

W

p us

eir

e

Gate

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

14

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

The above design criteria are assumed based on available information and the current state of

ultraviolet disinfection technology. A more extensive technology evaluation should be conducted

prior to final design of the facility. Due to the extraordinary scale of this facility, CTE recommends

the District undertake the following design process for selection and design of the UV disinfection

equipment if final design is initiated:

1. Request and evaluate independent, full-scale validation data (also known as

biodosimetry data) from manufacturers of candidate disinfection systems for similarly

sized units or the largest size for which the manufacturer has data available. This

evaluation would provide an initial level-of-confidence that the candidate systems can

achieve the target disinfection levels. Data should be from systems using the same bulb,

ballast, and control technology as proposed for the full-scale system. Candidate systems

should include both medium pressure, high intensity as well as appropriate low pressure,

high intensity systems,

2. Conduct a collimated beam testing program. This program would use site specific

effluent and bacteria to determine the sensitivity of the site specific bacteria and

pathogens to UV disinfection. The data would be used to size the UV lamps and

reactors.

3. Increase frequency of UV transmittance testing at each plant to at least once per day for

a period of one year or more to collect data on seasonal variability, daily variability,

diurnal variability, and to capture the frequency of events that might reduce transmissivity

such as wet weather and infrequent industrial discharges.

4. Conduct a more detailed life cycle cost analysis of the candidate disinfection systems

based on the data collected during steps 1 through 3 above.

5. Construct a pilot testing facility (approximately 20 MGD, subject to change) designed to

match lamp spacing, velocity profile and other design parameters of the proposed full

scale units. The pilot testing facility would be used to determine:

a. Appropriate control sequences and optimization for the UV disinfection equipment,

including appropriate sensing equipment to allow advanced power management.

b. In-situ disinfection performance including fouling rates of the lamps with and without

ferric salt addition.

c. Design life of lamps and other UV system parts.

d. Actual M&O requirements in terms of labor and consumables as well as space

requirements to complete required maintenance activities.

e. Performance of alternate equipment manufacturers, if alternates are available at the

time of piloting.

f. Accuracy of life cycle cost analysis prior to final design of the full-scale system.

6. Conduct post-construction full-scale validation testing (biodosimetry testing) to confirm

performance and determine operating parameters.

Using a program as described above, it may be possible to demonstrate the effective UV

dosages to the regulators and optimize the equipment sizing criteria. For this study, reduction in

the Illinois requirements for UV system sizing is not assumed based on the lack of data similar to

that described above.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

15

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Budgetary costs for a 20 MGD pilot facility were included in the costs for implementation of the

UV Disinfection Facilities at North Side Water Reclamation Plant, and as such are not included in

this study.

3.3

Low Lift Pump Station

Based on the analysis of hydraulics of the proposed improvements described in Section 2 above,

it is estimated that the low lift pumps would be required to raise the water approximately 23.5 feet

(including static and friction losses) to the UV disinfection system influent, including estimated

head to allow flow through the UV system. The static head equates to the difference in the

estimated water surface elevation between the wet well and the discharge conduit plus an

additional 2-ft of head added as a conservative factor to accommodate additional losses that may

be identified during final design.

3.3.1

Basis of Design

Table 3.3-1

provides a summary of the basis of design for the Low Lift Pump Station.

Table 3.3-1 – Low Lift Pump Station Basis of Design

Peak Flow, MGD

1,440

Average Flow, MGD

1,250

Pumps

Type

A x ial Flow

Number

8 total (N+1+1)

Pumping Rates, gpm/pump

166,670

Static Head, ft

16.95

Dynamic Head, (inc. station losses), ft.

4.5

Total Dynamic Head, ft

(1)

23.5

Motor, hp

(2)

1,500

Submergence, minimum, ft

18.5

Peak Power Demand, kW

5,282

Average Power Demand, kW

4,455

Wet Well

Length, ft.

86

Width, ft.

114

(1) The static head equates to the difference in the estimated water surface elevation between the wet well and

the discharge conduit plus and additional 2-ft of head added as a conservative factor to accommodate

additional losses that may be identified during final design.

(2) A 1,350 hp motor could be provided, however this is a non-standard size and only standard motor sizes

were assumed for this conceptual study.

3.3.2 Pump Type

Initially, the Low Lift Pump Station would lift 1,440 MGD a total of 16.95 feet with a Total Dynamic

Head (TDH) of 23.5 feet. If tertiary filtration is constructed in the future, the TDH would most

likely increase but the flow would remain the same. Screw pumps will not easily accommodate

this change in head without significant structural modifications to the pump station. However

axial pumps can be modified for future head conditions. Structural modifications to the pump

station to accommodate these changes, if required, should be minimal. Therefore, axial flow,

propeller type pumps are recommended.

Vertical axial flow pump have been assumed here, but other configurations (including inclined or

horizontal) could be considered in the future. In addition, because the total dynamic head

required for the short and long term conditions is approaching the limit of axial flow pumps of this

size, mixed flow pumps (e.g. vertical turbine pumps) may also be considered though the general

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

16

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

space requirements and layouts would be similar to those assumed for this study. Final selection

of pump type would be completed during preliminary design.

3.3.3 Proposed Operational Description

The pump station would have a total of eight pumps, with six duty pumps, one standby and one

out of service (N+1+1). Five pumps would be driven by constant speed motors, three would be

variable speed driven. In order to provide operational flexibility, the pump station would be

divided into two wet wells, each containing four pumps. Normal wet well levels would be

approximately -3.25 feet Chicago City Datum (CCD). Design average flow (1,250 MGD) could be

handled by four constant speed and two variable speed pumps, leaving two pumps on standby.

Peak flow (1,440 MGD) could be handled by six pumps, leaving two on standby. Minimum flow

(365 MGD) would be handled by two variable speed pumps. Typically, at least one variable

speed pump would operate at all times, to handle fluctuations in flow.

Table 3.3-2

illustrates an

example of pump operation at minimum, design average flow, and peak flow:

Flow, MGD

Pump Drive

Pump

TDH, ft Pump Eff.

Power Demand,

kW

Variable speed

130,358

21.7

365 (5-year

84%

637

m in i mu m)

1

Variable speed

130,358

21.7

84%

637

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

Variable speed

100,694

20.6

84%

467

1,250 (Design

Average)

Variable speed

100,694

20.6

84%

467

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

Constant speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

1,440 (Peak)

Variable speed

166,667

23.5

88%

880

1

5-year minimum based on SWRP historical data.

In order to eliminate vortices, pumps require a minimum submergence as a function of pump

suction bell diameter. For this flow condition, a 120-inch suction bell is required, which requires a

minimum submergence of 16-feet. Submergence requirements should be verified by the pump

manufacturer during final design.

Level sensors in the wet well would relay a signal to turn pumps on and off. The level control

would be automatic under normal conditions, with manual override possible. Other control inputs

that need to be monitored include discharge pipe pressure, flap gate position, and motor alarms.

3.3.4 Proposed Layout

Figure 3.3-1

below, shows the proposed flow diagram for the new UV disinfection facilities.

During the disinfection period the flow would be diverted through the new facilities just upstream

of the existing outfall.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

17

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Figure 3.3-1 - Proposed UV Disinfection Flow Diagram

Refer to Sheet C-101 for a proposed site layout of the LLPS and UV Disinfection Building. The

space available for the construction of the new UV disinfection facilities is constrained by the lack

of space adjacent to the existing outfall. The LLPS would be located in the available space in the

southwest area of the site. A new gate structure would direct the flow by gravity approximately

1,800-ft from a junction south of the Pump Discharge Chamber to the new LLPS. Due to the

existing Northwest Interceptor, this new conduit will require an inverted siphon to pass

underneath the interceptor, as shown in .

Referencing Sheet P-301, flow would enter the pump station at the south end of the wet well,

where it would be directed perpendicularly to a wet well via six (6) 120-inch square slide gates.

Pumps are located at the north end of the pump station. An ideal pump intake approach per

Hydraulic Institute standards was not possible due to the prohibitively long approach length

required.

To accommodate the non-ideal pump intake approach, design features, which have been shown

to be effective in other installations, were incorporated in this design in order to meet HI

standards. For example, perforated plates, curtain walls and floor and back wall splitters have

been incorporated into the conceptual design. (See Volume 2 for a plan and section of the

proposed layout). Sizing and details of these types of features are normally determined by

physical scale modeling during detailed design. Furthermore, based on the total flow and flow

per pump, the Hydraulic Institute recommends physical scale modeling.

4.0

SWRP CIVIL

Due to constraints of the site related to the proposed location of the disinfection facilities, several

significant civil improvements would be required. Those improvements include the following:

1. Construction of new roadways to access the new facilities and future tertiary filters

2. Construction of a new gate structure and effluent conduits connecting the LLPS, UV

Disinfection Building as well as a new plant outfall.

3. Construction of associated utilities including stormwater collection, city water, plant water,

plant drain, electrical duct bank, and steam/condensate return.

E x isting

Plant

LLPS

UV

Facilities

Future

Tertiary

Filters

New

Outfall

E x isting

Outfall

Q=1,440

MGD

(Winter Operation)

Junction

Chamber

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

18

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

4.1

Basis of Design

Refer to the Drawings C-101, C102 and C103 in Volume 2 of this report for a layout of the

proposed facilities on the site. The basis of design of each of the civil related improvements is

presented below.

4.1.1 Roadways and Other Site Improvements

Proposed roadways associated with the UV Disinfection Facilities are intended to provide access

to the structures and site for normal operations as well as allow access to heavy construction

vehicles and delivery vehicles. The roadway would be constructed in accordance with District

guidelines. It would be designed for AASHTO H-20 loading with an assumed reinforced Portland

cement concrete thickness of 12-inches. Curb and gutter (standard 12-inch wide gutter with 6-

inch curb) would be provided to facilitate maintenance and stormwater collection.

4.1.2

Junction Chamber/Effluent Conduits

Final effluent conduits connecting the various facilities associated with the UV Disinfection

Facilities would be constructed along with the primary facilities. All conduits are rectangular and

are sized as follows:

x

17.5-ft x 15.75-ft for the influent to the LLPS,

x

16-ft x 20-ft for the influent conduit to the UV facilities

x

20-ft x 20-ft for the final effluent conduit.

The difference in conduit sizing reflects different hydraulic head loss requirements between

facilities. All effluent conduits would be cast-in-place concrete construction designed for closed

conduit flow. Due to the comparatively low weight of the conduits and water contained therein

compared to the soil excavated, no deep foundations are anticipated at this time. Where

possible, common wall construction with adjacent structures is assumed.

It should be noted that the LLPS Discharge Conduit would initially be designed for open channel

flow. However, in the future, this conduit would be under pressure when the LLPS pumps are

replaced to allow pumping to the tertiary filtration facility when it is constructed. As such, this

conduit would be designed for pressure of approximately 15-feet of head above the top slab.

Junction Chamber #1

Referencing Sheet S-101, Junction Chamber #1 connects the new LLPS influent conduit to the

existing plant outfall conduit. This structure would be designed to convey flow through the

disinfection facilities when required or bypass the facilities to the existing plant outfall when not

required. Motorized, fabricated stainless steel sluice gates on the upstream ends of the new

LLPS and existing outfall conduits would be provided. No aboveground structures would be

associated with the junction chamber, though its top would be 6-inches above grade. Guard rails

and/or concrete bollards would prevent traffic over the junction chamber to protect the motor

actuator.

During the disinfection period (March to November), the gate on the upstream of the existing

outfall conduit would be normally closed to force flow from the existing site through the open gate

on the LLPS influent conduit into the LLPS wet well. During the winter period (November to

April), the gate operation would be reversed to allow bypass of existing site flow around the

disinfection facilities. An access hatch would be provided to allow access to the structure.

Construction of Junction Chamber #1 would be cast-in-place concrete. The foundations for the

chamber will be cast in place on undisturbed soil with at least 3 ksf allowable bearing capacity.

The base of the structure would form the connection to the existing plant outfall conduit.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

19

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Underpinning of the existing and new conduits would be completed to prevent unexpected strain

on the structures. The gate structure base would be constructed around the existing conduit.

The final connection would be made “in the wet” by removing the top of the existing concrete and

inserting a pre-constructed bulkhead along one side of the conduit. A water tight seal around the

bulkhead is not likely to be possible and dewatering pumping is assumed necessary. It is

assumed that plant flow would be controlled to maintain a narrow range of flows during this

construction by diverting flows in excess of dry weather flow to TARP temporarily. The final

connection would be made by sawcutting the opening and repairing the exposed surfaces before

removal of the bulkhead.

Following the final completion of the connection, a second and third full pipe diameter bulkhead

would be constructed upstream and downstream of the proposed gate in the existing plant outfall

conduit to allow its installation. Plant flow would be diverted through the UV Disinfection Facilities

during this work. Underwater construction techniques would be required to make the insertion

and sealing of the bulkheads. Following installation of the gate, the bulkheads would be removed

and the gate structure would be completed to grade.

Costs for the gate structures and special connections have been included in the opinion of

probable construction cost included in Appendix F.

4.1.3

Site Utilities

Site utilities would be demolished, rerouted, and constructed to support the new facilities. The

following utilities would be demolished or rerouted as shown on Sheet C-102:

1. Abandoned Site Utility – Demolished

2. Abandoned Railroad and Rail Yard – Demolished

3. Temporarily reroute active railroad tracks for construction of effluent conduit and outfall

The following site utilities would be added to support various functions for the new LLPS and UV

Building:

1. City Potable Water – New potable water extended to the LLPS and UV Disinfection

Building along the south side of the Preliminary Settling Tanks from the existing service

adjacent to the south east corner of Preliminary Settling Tanks.

2. Non-Potable Water – Routed from the existing piping south of the Pump and Blower

House to the LLPS and UV Building for wash down use.

3. Plant Drain – New sanitary plant drain installed from the LLPS and UV Building to a new

connection at the existing Salt Creek Interceptor.

4. Stormwater Collection – New storm drains collect stormwater runoff from the new

buildings and roadway and routed to aforementioned new plant drain.

5. Steam and Condensate – Constructed from existing services east of the Sludge Disposal

Building to the LLPS and UV Disinfection Buildings.

4.1.5 Geotechnical Information

The project team has reviewed the Draft Geotechnical Design Report completed as part of the

New Preliminary Treatment Facilities for Stickney and Calumet WRPs. This report reviewed

boring logs and provided a preliminary opinion on suitable foundation type for the proposed

preliminary treatment facilities which were located just north of the proposed UV disinfection

facilities and LLPS. A copy of the report is provided in Appendix E.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

20

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

The proposed site is within the former Ash Lagoons and the report indicates that in general, fill

and topsoil are encountered near the ground surface. At Boring ST-13 in the area of the

proposed LLPS, a buried 2-ft layer of top soil was encountered at a depth of 4-ft which was

underlain by 14-ft layer of soft to stiff wet clay. Native soils encountered beneath the fill materials

and organic materials generally consisted of stiff to very hard silty clay soils. Lenses of silt and

clayey silt are encountered before reaching apparent bedrock at depths of 55-60 ft.

The proposed structures would be located 15 to 40-ft below the existing grade. The base of the

structures would be located in the stiff silty clay soils. As a conceptual design, a mat foundation

with rock anchors to resist the groundwater uplift force for the LLPS and the UV Building is

provided. Based on the analysis performed for the Draft Geotechnical Design Report, it is

anticipated that settlement would be approximately 1-inch.

A detailed subsurface investigation is recommended to characterize the stiff, silty clay layer and

underlying soil layers in the vicinity of the proposed structures. Both strength and consolidation

properties of these soils should be determined by field and laboratory testing. These data would

be necessary for the final selection and design of the foundation system.

5.0

SWRP STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL

5.1

Introduction

The objective of this Section is to document the design criteria for the structural, architectural

components of this project, including recommendations, allowable stresses, and loadings that

would be used in designing the new project structures and modifying existing structures. Refer to

the structural and architectural drawings in Volume 2 of this report.

5.1.1 Codes and Specifications

The following codes would be used in addition to the general design standards listed in Section

1.2:

x

The International Building Code 2003 (IBC) – Village of Skokie

x

The International Fire Code 2003 (IFC)

x

NPFA 101, Life Safety Code, 1997 Edition

x

OSHA, United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Latest Edition

x

Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, (ACI 318-02) and Commentary,

(ACI 318R-02).

x

Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures, ACI 350-01)

and Commentary (ACI 350R-01).

x

Seismic Design of Liquid Containing Concrete Structures, (ACI 350.3-01), and

Commentary, (ACI 350.3R-01).

x

ACI “Manual of Concrete Practice”, 2005, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI.

x

ACI Committee 315, “Details and Detailing of Concrete Reinforcement, ACI 315-99.

x

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings – Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design,

Ninth Edition, June 1, 1989

x

Manual of Steel Construction Allowable Stress Design, Ninth Edition, 1989

x

Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and Commentary, ACI 530-02,

ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 and Specification for Masonry Structures and Commentary, ACI

530.1-02/ASCE 6-02/TMS602-02.

x

American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures, ASCE 7-02.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

21

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

x

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Standard

Specifications for Highway Bridges, Seventeenth Edition, 2002

x

Soil Boring Logs in Contract 78-020-CP For Secondary Treatment Facilities at the North

Side Sewage Treatment Works.

x

The Illinois Accessibility Code 2004.

x

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) “Standard

Specifications”.

x

The MWRDGC Design and Construction Manual, “Engineering Standards”.

x

United States Naval Facilities Command (NAVFAC), September 1986, “Design Manual

7.02, Foundations and Earth Structures”.

x

CFR 29 Parts 1900-1910.999 and Part 1926, OSHA

x

American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standards.

x

American Welding Society, ANSI/AWS D1.1-98, “Structural Welding Code – Steel”

5.1.2 Loads

The following design loads would be used for the proposed structures:

Tanks, Channels and Structures below Grade:

x

Hydrostatic liquid pressure-operating water level/flood water level – 62.4 psf.

x

Lateral earth pressure for active, at-rest and passive conditions – Per Geotechnical

Report (lateral load due to surcharge loading of H-20 truck would be added).

x

Surcharge Load – 3 feet of soil.

x

Frost depth – Minimum 3’-6” below finished grade.

x

Design high ground water table elevations. All new structures would be checked for

buoyancy for the case of high ground water table at finished grade and dead load of the

structure only and is described in Part 6.1.4 below.

Roof Slab at or below Grade:

x

DL:

Weight of concrete slabs

x

SDL: Backfill and other superimposed dead loads including underhung ancillary

equipment and piping

x

LL:

The equivalent of 3 feet of soil or H-20 truck loading whichever governs

Buildings and Miscellaneous Structures:

x

Loadings for design of the building would be obtained from appropriate codes; however,

certain minimum loads would be used as shown in Part 6.1.2.3 below.

Minimum Uniform Live Loads:

x

Checkered Plate:

150 psf

x

Grating:

100 psf

x

Stairs and catwalks:

100 psf

x

Electrical control rooms:

250 psf - Estimate support area and equipment weights

and assume loads applied anywhere in area

x

Heavy Equipment rooms:

300 psf

x

Dismantling and storage

x

Storage areas:

150 psf - Determine reasonable stacking height and type

of stored material

x

Shop floors:

150 psf

x

Garage floors:

150 psi

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

22

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

x

Truck wheel loads per AASHTO and as appropriate

x

All other:

150 psf

x

Fastest mile wind speed (mph):

75 mph

x

Snow (minimum):

30 psf - Snow drift loads would be checked

where applicable in addition to all top supported and under hung ancillary equipment and

piping

x

Underhung piping and equipment where indicated, in addition to the required:

50 psf minimum roof live load

x

Equipment live load plus 50 psf on adjacent areas, or minimum uniform live load,

whichever is greater

Seismic Requirements – Cook County:

Buildings and Non-Liquid Containing Structures (IBC):

x

Seismic use group:

Group II

x

Seismic design category:

B

x

Seismic Importance Factor:

1.25

x

Spectral response acceleration for short period (SDS):

0.192

x

Spectral response acceleration for 1 second period (SD1):

0.10

o

Soil profile name:

Stiff soil profile

o

Site class:

D

Liquid Containing Structures (ACI 350.3-01):

x

Seismic zone factor:

0

5.1.3 Design Stresses

The following stresses would be used for design of the structures:

Concrete and Reinforcing Steel:

Liquid Containing Structures:

x

Use ACI 350-01, Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Structures

(ACI 350-01) and Commentary (ACI 350R-01) and Seismic Design of Liquid

Containing Concrete Structures (ACI 350.3-01) and Commentary (ACI 350.3R-

01).

x

Concrete compressive strength at 28 days :

fc’ = 5,000 psi

x

Reinforcing steel (A 615, Gr. 60) flexural stress: fy = 60,000 psi

Building and Non-Liquid Containing Structures:

x

Use Strength Design Method of Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02).

x

Concrete compressive strength at 28 days:

fc’ = 5,000 psi

x

Reinforcing steel (A 615, Gr. 60) flexural stress: fy = 60,000 psi

Structural Steel

x

Conform to the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings – Allowable Stress

Design and Plastic Design, Ninth Edition, 1989, and the Manual of Steel Construction,

Allowable Stress Design utilizing the following materials.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

23

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

x

ASTM A 992 for W shapes, unless otherwise specified

x

ASTM A 36 for angles plates and bars

x

ASTM A 325 high strength bolts

x

ASTM A 307 or A 36 bar stock for anchor bolts

5.1.4 General Design

The following reinforced concrete structures would contain continuous PVC waterstops at all

vertical and horizontal construction and expansion joints in walls and slabs:

1. All fluid containing structures.

2. All basements and below ground structures with one surface in contact with soil or water

and the opposite surface dry and exposed.

Fluid applied waterproofing would be applied to the exterior surfaces of all walls with one surface

in contact with soil and the opposite surface dry and exposed.

All structures below grade, including, but not limited to, basements, tanks, and other buried

structures, would be designed to resist buoyancy for a groundwater table at finished grade. Only

the dead weight of the concrete structure below ground and soil on the foundation footings

around the outside of buildings, tanks, and other buried structures would be relied on to resist

buoyancy. Pressure relief valves and/or perimeter drains and sump pits with pumps would not be

used to resist buoyancy.

All access hatches and handrails would be stainless steel.

5.1.5

Foundation Design

The foundation design for the various structures was based on existing available borings and

interpretations of these borings by an independent Geotechnical Engineer for use in estimating

foundation costs for this preliminary phase of work. Based on this information, it was determined

that a mat foundation can be used to support the UV Building and the LLPS, and for the purposes

of this study, it would be assumed that 114 kip allowable capacity rock anchors would be required

for the buoyancy support of the UV Building and the LLPS.

Prior to final design, a detailed subsurface investigation should be undertaken to characterize the

soils, including soil borings, interpretation of the borings and for the final selection of the type of

foundation that would be required.

5.2

SWRP UV Facility

The new UV Facility would be a one story reinforced concrete building with twelve (12) channels

for the twelve (12) UV Reactors, an electrical room, a storage room, a control room and an

effluent sampling room. The exterior wall construction would be a non-load bearing composite

cavity wall composed of concrete masonry units, airspace, insulation and an exterior face brick.

The exterior masonry materials and detailing would be similar to existing onsite masonry

structures.

The roof structure would be constructed using one-way, cast-in-place reinforced concrete slabs

spanning cast-in-place reinforced concrete beams. The beams would be supported by cast-in-

place reinforced concrete columns. The roofing would be composed of fully adhered cold applied

roofing membrane over tapered rigid insulation. The roof drainage would be directed to scupper

boxes at the perimeter of the building. The scupper boxes would connect to downspouts leading

drainage to grade. Aluminum skylights would be provided over each reactor to permit natural light

into work areas. An aluminum framed window would be provided in the control room for visual

access to the UV reactor room.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

24

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Personnel doors would be stainless steel frames and doors. The double doors in the electrical

room would have a removable transom to provide access for large equipment. The overhead

doors would be an insulated aluminum coiling door. Specialty floor hatches would be provided to

accommodate the UV equipment maintenance. The interior floor finish in the building would be

hardened concrete outside of the control room and effluent sampling room. The control room and

effluent sampling room would have suspended acoustic ceilings and resilient tile flooring. Interior

partitions and concrete structure would be painted.

The entire substructures, including channels and foundation grade beam/walls would be

constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete supported on undisturbed soil of minimum 3 ksf

allowable bearing capacity, with rock anchors to resist buoyancy. Gratings in the UV Reactor

Room would be stainless steel with stainless steel perimeter angles and supports.

5.3

Low Lift Pump Station

The new LLPS would be a 40’+ steel supported split level building with a pump room and an

electrical room. The exterior wall construction would be a non-load bearing composite cavity wall

composed of concrete masonry units, airspace, insulation and an exterior face brick. The exterior

masonry materials and detailing would be similar to existing onsite masonry structures.

The roof structure would be constructed using standard galvanized roof decking to span the steel

support beams. The beams would be supported by steel columns. The roofing would be

composed of fully adhered cold applied roofing membrane over tapered rigid insulation. The roof

drainage would be directed to scupper boxes at the perimeter of the building. The scupper boxes

would connect to downspouts leading drainage to grade. Removable, double hip-type, aluminum,

structural skylights would be provided over each pump to permit natural light into work areas and

removal of the pumps by crane in the future.

Personnel doors would be stainless steel frames and doors. The double doors in the electrical

room would have a removable transom to provide access for large equipment. The overhead

door would be an insulated aluminum coiling door. The interior floor finish in the building would be

hardened concrete. Interior walls and concrete structure would be painted.

The entire substructures, including channels and foundation grade beam/walls, would be

constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete supported on undisturbed soil with a minimum

allowable bearing capacity of minimum 5 ksf bearing capacity with rock anchors to resist

buoyancy.

6.0

SWRP ELECTRICAL

6.1

Codes/Standards

The following codes and standards are required for this project.

x

NFPA-70 National Electrical Code, 2008 or latest version.

x

ANSI/NFPA 780 - Lightning Protection Code.

x

NFPA-820 Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities, 2003.

x

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

x

MWRDGC GS, February 1997, or latest version.

x

MWRDGC GSE, March 1994, or latest version.

x

Underwriters Laboratories (UL).

x

National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA).

x

Insulated Power Cable Engineers (IPCEA).

x

Illuminating Engineering Society (IES).

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

25

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

6.2

Electric Service

The Stickney Water Reclamation Plant (SWRP) receives electric service from three main ComEd

transformers (T71, T72 & T73) located in ComEd Substation D799. Each transformer is rated 138

kV primary voltage, 13.8 kV secondary voltage and 30 MVA capacity giving the plant a total

transformer capacity of 90 MVA.

As reported by the plant Enterprise Energy Management System, the average aggregate peak

kW load for the Year 2006 was 33 MW. The anticipated connected load that will be added to the

plant for the UV disinfection and intermediate pump station is estimated to be 24 MVA. As

summarized in Table 1, it appears that the existing transformer capacity is sufficient for the

proposed facilities.

Item

Value

Existing SWRP Transformer Capacity

30 MVA

Total Capacity (Three Transformers)

90 MVA

Average Aggregate Peak kW Load (2006)

33 MW

Existing Available Capacity

57 MW

Estimated UV Disinfection and LLPS Load

24 MVA

Estimated Remaining SWRP Capacity

33 MW

Referencing Sheets E-201 and E-302, the main 13.8 kV switchgear for the plant is located at the

ComEd Substation. A redundant electric service to the UV Disinfection Facility and the Low Lift

Pump Station would be provided. Spare breakers on Bus B and Bus C in the main switchgear

would be utilized to feed the new UV Disinfection Facility. Medium voltage cable in underground

ductbank would be provided from the existing plant main switchgear to supply the UV Disinfection

Facility. A copy of the Electrical Evaluation Technical Memorandum is found in Appendix G.

6.3

System Grounding

Electrical systems shall be solidly grounded. Grounding shall be in accordance with the National

Electrical Code for equipment grounding and bonding conductors for grounding raceway and

equipment.

6.4

Conduit

Exposed conduit shall be PVC coated Rigid Galvanized Steel Conduit. Conduits in non-finished

areas shall be installed either exposed on the surface of the structure or concealed in concrete

floor slabs or below grade. Conduits below grade outside of the building shall be reinforced

fiberglass and shall be encased in reinforced concrete. Ductbanks shall have spare conduits for

future use.

Conduits shall conform to MWRDGC General Specifications: Electrical (GSE) Table 1 (Page

GSE-8).

Spacing of supports for exposed conduit shall conform to MWRDGC GSE Table 3 (Page GSE-

10).

6.5

Wire

600 volt insulated copper conductors in conduit shall be provided for all power, control, alarm,

instrumentation, signal, lighting and grounding installations, unless otherwise indicated. The

insulation shall meet ANSI/NFPA 70. The wire and cable shall conform to the MWRDGC GSE

Table 4 (Page GSE-10).

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

26

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Medium voltage cable shall be ethylene propylene rubber (EPR) insulated cable, U.L. listed and

labeled MV-105, 133% insulation level, single conductor copper, Class B strand.

6.6

Motors (Except Low Lift Pump Motors)

Motors 1/2 horsepower and larger shall operate on 480 volt, 3-phase, AC power supplies, and

motors smaller than 1/2 horsepower shall operate on 120 volts, single phase, AC power supplies.

6.7

Emergency Systems

Emergency lighting units would have unit batteries to provided final reserve source of current

supply.

Emergency lighting and exit signage would be provided as per code requirements to illuminate

the path of ingress/egress in emergency situations.

6.8

Lightning Protection

New structures shall be protected by a lightning protection system. The system shall be a

conductor system protecting the entire building and consisting of stainless steel spline ball

terminals on the building roof parapets; grounding electrodes; and copper interconnecting

conductors.

The system shall be designed in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 780 - Lightning Protection Code

and shall have a UL Master Label. The lightning protection system components shall conform to

ANSI/UL 96 - Lightning Protection Components.

6.9

Specific Electrical Equipment

The basis of specific design equipment is described below.

6.9.1 Medium Voltage Switchgear

Table 6.9.1-1

describes medium voltage switchgear.

Table 6.9.1-2

describes the criteria to be

used for circuit breakers.

Table 6.9.1-3

describes the criteria to be used for station batteries.

Table 6.9.1-1 – Medium Voltage Switchgear Criteria

Item

Cr iteria

Type

Medium Voltage Metal-clad Draw-out

Switchgear

Standards

ƒ

NEMA SG.5

ƒ

ANSI C37.20.2

Rated Voltage:

‘MVSG-1’ (UV BLDG.)

‘MVSG-2‘(LLPS BLDG.)

13,200 Volts

13,200 Volts

Number of phases

3

Bus Material

Tin plated copper

Rated BIL

95,000 Volts, to be coordinated with surge

arrester rating

Minimum Main Bus Rated Ampacity:

‘MVSG-1’ (UV BLDG.)

“MVSG-2’ (LLPS BLDG.)

3,000 Amperes

2,000 Amperes

Minimum interrupting capacity

500 MVA

Arc Flash Protection

Arc resistant style switchgear with reinforced

doors and venting. The need for arc

extinguishing or arc terminating equipment

will be evaluated during detailed design.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

27

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Item

Cr iteria

Mounting

Equipment shall be mounted on 4-inch

structural steel embedded in the floor

Manufacturer

ƒ

Eaton Cutler Hammer.

ƒ

ABB - ASEA Brown Boveri.

ƒ

Siemens Energy and Automation.

ƒ

Approved equal.

Metering Type

Solid State Multifunction

Metering Location

Main circuit breaker and other critical feeder

circuit breakers

Relaying Type

Solid state multifunction

Relaying Manufacturer

Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, SEL

Areva NP Co.

Approved equal

Enclosure Rating

NEMA 1

Item

Criteria

ƒ

Draw-out carriage type with racking

mechanism.

Type

ƒ

Circuit breakers shall be vacuum type.

Operator Voltage

Electric, 125 Vdc

Controls

Manually operated electric controls with

piston grip switches and indicator lights.

Location would be coordinated with Arc

Flash analysis.

Minimum circuit breaker frame current

rating.

1,200 Amperes

Manufacturer

Same as Switchgear manufacturer

Item

Criteria

ƒ

Lead-acid

ƒ

Circuit breaker batteries shall be wet cell type.

Type

ƒ

Charger shall be included.

System Voltage

125 Volts DC

Discharge Rate

8 Hours

End of Discharge Voltage

1.75 Volts

Cell charging voltage

2.3 Volts/Cell

Electrolyte full charge density

1215 kg/m3

Operating cell temperature

25 degrees Celsius

Nominal cell voltage

2.0 Volts/Cell

ƒ

Exide.Battery Corporation

ƒ

EnerSys Inc.

ƒ

Chloride

Manufacturer

ƒ

Approved equal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

28

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

6.9.2 Secondary Unit Substation

Table 6.9.2-1

summarizes the design criteria for secondary unit substation.

Item

Criteria

Type

Radial Secondary Unit Substation with

close coupled air terminal compartment

and close coupled Secondary Low

Voltage Switchgear

Standards

NEMA 210

IEEE 100

Transformer Type

Dry type

Transformer insulation system

Vacuum pressure impregnation with

polyester resin (VPI)

Primary equipment

Air terminal compartment

Primary Voltage

13,200 Volts

Primary Number of phases

3

Primary wiring configuration

Delta connection, 3-wire

Secondary Connection type

Bolt-on type bushing

Secondary Voltage

480/277 Volts

Secondary Number of phases

3

Secondary wiring configuration

4-wire, grounded

Efficiency

Peak efficiency point of transformers to

be at 50% of efficiency rating.

Capacity

500-3,000 kVA or as required

Primary BIL

95,000 Volts, to be coordinated with

surge protection rating

Secondary BIL

10,000 Volts, to be coordinated with

surge protection rating

Winding Material

Copper

Nominal Impedance

5.75 percent

Temperature Rise

80 Degrees C

Minimum K factor

K4

A c c essibility

Front and rear

Enclosure Rating

NEMA 1

Manufacturers

ƒ

Eaton Cutler-Hammer.

ƒ

ABB - ASEA Brown Boveri

ƒ

Square D

ƒ

Approved equal

6.9.3 Motor Control Centers

The design criteria for motor control centers are summarized in

Table 6.9.3-1

.

Item

Criteria

Rated Voltage

480 Volts

Number of phases

3

Main bus minimum current rating

600 Amperes

Bus Material

Tin-plated Copper

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

29

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Item

Criteria

Minimum short circuit rating

65,000 Amperes

A c c essibility

Front only

Wiring class

NEMA Class II-S, Type B.

Overload Protection type

Solid State Type.

Breakers

Ground Fault

Metering type

Digital Solid State multifunction meters.

Enclosure type

NEMA 1

ƒ

Eaton Cutler-Hammer (Freedom Flashguard)

ƒ

Allen Bradley.

ƒ

Square D Corp.

ƒ

Siemens Energy and Automation.

Manufacturer

ƒ

Approved equal

7.0

SWRP INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM

The control of the process equipment shall be integrated into the existing DCS System which is

provided by ABB.

The monitoring and control of the Low Lift Pump Station and the UV Disinfection Facility would be

provided via the plant DCS System. Manual local control of the equipment would be provided.

See Section 4.0 for a description of the control philosophy for the LLPS pumps and the UV

Disinfection System.

7.1

Applicable Codes and Standards

Where applicable, the latest version of the codes and standards from the following

institutions/organizations would govern the design:

x

National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) – with Village of Skokie local amendments.

x

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards:

x

NFPA 820 Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities

x

Underwriter's Laboratories (UL)

x

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)

x

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)

x

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

x

National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA)

x

MWRDGC Standard Details and Specifications

x

Variable Frequency Drives Reference Standards

x

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

x

ANSI/IEEE 519 – IEEE Guide for Harmonic Control and Reactive Compensation of Static

Power Converters.

x

ANSI/IEEE 597 – IEEE Practices and Requirements for General Purpose Thyristor DC

Drives.

x

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

x

NEMA ICS 3.1 - Safety Standards for Construction and Guide for Selection, Installation

and Operation of Adjustable-Speed Drive Systems.

x

NEMA ICS 7 - Industrial Control and Systems: Adjustable Speed Drives.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

30

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

8.0

SWRP MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING

8.1.

Mechanical Codes

Where applicable, the latest version of the codes and standards from the following

institutions/organizations would govern the design:

x

The International Mechanical Code 2003

x

The International Plumbing Code 2003

x

National Fire Protection Codes (NFPA), Section 820, 2007

x

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

x

American Society For Testing Materials (ASTM)

x

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

x

SMACNA – HVAC Duct Construction Standards

x

International Building Code 2003

8.2

Basis of Design

The UV Disinfection Building and the LLPS would follow the International Building Codes for fire

protection pending future direction by the District.

8.2.1 Ventilation Rates

The ventilation rates are selected based upon the need to conform to the recognized national

standards applying to wastewater treatment plants. Specifically, NFPA 820, “Standard for Fire

Protection in Waste Water Treatment and Collection Facilities” and the “International Fire Code”

are used for the design.

8.2.2 Design Temperatures

Design temperatures are based upon local climatic data found in the latest edition of ASHRAE

Handbook of Fundamentals

8.2.2.1 Heating

The design space temperature for all process areas would be 55ºF with an outdoor air

temperature of -10ºF. The design space temperature for occupied areas would be 70ºF.

8.2.2.2 Air Conditioning

The design space temperature and humidity conditions for areas requiring air conditioning would

be 78ºF DB, 50% RH with an outdoor air condition of 91ºF DB, 75ºF WB. Summer ventilation

only spaces would have a maximum design space temperature rise of 15ºF.

8.2.3

Plumbing

The plumbing systems for the UV Disinfection Building and LLPS would be designed to the

“International Plumbing Code”, 2003.

8.2.3.1 Potable Water

Potable water would be supplied to the wash sink in the UV Disinfection Building from plant

potable water distribution system.

8.2.3.2 Effluent Water (Plant Service Water)

Effluent water would be available from the plant effluent water distribution system. Effluent water

would be provided for equipment wash down in the UV Disinfection Building and the LLPS.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

31

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

8.2.3.3 Sanitary Drainage

General floor drainage would be provided in all rooms as required by codes. Drainage from the

wash sink and the effluent water sampling sink would be routed to the plant sanitary drain. Floor

traps and sink traps would be vented.

8.2.3.4 Fire Protection

The fire protection system would consist of portable fire extinguishers and fire hydrants, in

accordance with the requirements of NFPA 820 and local code requirements.

8.3

Proposed Mechanical and Plumbing System

The following section details the proposed equipment and operation.

8.3.1

UV Disinfection Facility

Air-conditioning with electric heating would be provided for the operator control room, storage

room and effluent sampling room. Heating for the electrical room would be provided by electric

unit heaters. Ventilation heating for the UV disinfection room will be provided by a steam heating

and ventilation unit. Envelope heating for the UV disinfection room will consist of steam unit and

space heaters.

Summer ventilation for the electrical room and would be designed for a maximum space

temperature increase of +10ºF over ambient. Temperature control would consist of cycling

exhaust fans that are interlocked with filtered makeup air handlers.

UV disinfection room ventilation will consist of 2 air changes for general, year-round ventilation.

Summer ventilation for the UV disinfection room will consist of 6 air changes. Exhaust fans for

general ventilation and summer ventilation will be interlocked with associated intake louver

dampers.

A steam pressure reducing station will be located in the UV disinfection room to reduce HPS

(high pressure steam) to LPS (low pressure steam) for space heating in the UV disinfection room.

This pressure reducing station will also provide LPS for space heating in the low lift pump station.

A condensate pump will be located in the UV disinfection room to pump low pressure condensate

back to the boiler house.

Effluent hydrants and hose reels would be provided for wash down of the UV system at the north

and west doors. Potable water would be provided to the wash sink at the west door. An inline

instant water heater would be provided for domestic hot water.

8.3.2

Low Lift Pump Station

Heating for the electrical room would be provided by electric unit heaters. Heating for the pump

room would be provided by steam unit heaters. LPS for the pump room will be provided by steam

pressure reducing station located in the UV disinfection facility. A condensate pump will be

located in the pump room to pump low pressure condensate back to the boiler house.

Summer ventilation rates for the electrical room would be designed for a maximum space

temperature of +10ºF over ambient. Temperature control would consist of cycling exhaust fan

that are interlocked with filtered makeup air handlers. Exhaust fans for the electrical room would

be designed for a 2/3 capacity.

Summer ventilation rates for the pump room would be designed for a maximum space

temperature increase of +15ºF over ambient. Temperature control would consist of cycling

exhaust fans that are interlocked with outside air intake dampers.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

32

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

9.0

SWRP AREAS REQUIRING FURTHER ANALYSIS

The following areas require further analysis as part of a preliminary design effort prior to final

design of the proposed facilities.

1. A detailed subsurface investigation is recommended to characterize the soft silty clay

layer and underlying soil layers. Both strength and consolidation properties of these soils

should be determined by field and laboratory testing. This data would be necessary for

the final selection and design of the foundation system by a qualified geotechnical

engineer.

2. A more detailed evaluation of potential pump types and arrangements for the LLPS.

Historically, horizontal arrangements, similar to the existing Wilmette Lock pumps, have

been used in flood control projects that might be applicable here.

3. A more detailed evaluation of the locations of the UV Disinfection Building and the LLPS

is recommended. This would allow the optimization of the available space for any future

faciilties.

4. A more detailed evaluation of large-scale M&O requirements for the selected UV

technology is recommended to ensure the appropriate equipment spacing, operations

rooms, and storage space is provided in the new facilities. Existing large-scale facilities

are either based on older technology or are operated intermittently as wet weather

facilities. A pilot facility is recommended to provide this information.

5. Physical scale modeling during preliminary design of the LLPS is strongly recommended

per Hydraulic Institute Standards for a pump station of this size and given the deviation

from the ideal inlet configuration.

6. Perform CFD modeling on UV Distribution Channel to ensure proper flow balancing to all

active reactors

10.0

SWRP PRELIMINARY COST OPINION

A preliminary opinion of probable construction (OPCC) of the North Side WRP UV Disinfection

Facilities is estimated at approximately $542.9 million including engineering and administrative

costs as shown in Table 10.0-1, which also presents annual operating costs and a 20-year net

present worth value for the project. Annual operating costs are based on the facilities operating

from March to November each year. Appendix F provides detailed line item summary tables for

capital and M&O estimates. The Level 3 estimated construction cost is based on June 2007

dollars represented by an Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) of

7983.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

33

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Capital Cost Estimates

A. General Sitework

$61,890,000

B. Low Lift Pump Station

$86,220,000

C. Disinfection System

$112,420,000

Total Capital Cost

$260,530,000

Maintenance & Operations Cost Estimates

A. General Sitework

$90,000/yr

B. Low Lift Pump Station

$2,540,000/yr

C. Disinfection System

$9,560,000/yr

Total Annual M&O Cost

$12,190,000/yr

Total Present Worth M&O Cost

$282,400,000

Total Present Worth

$542,930,000

All costs in 2007 dollars.

Per District guidelines, this opinion is categorized as a Level 3 as defined by the Association for

the Advancement of Cost Engineering Recommended Practice No. 18R-97 and represents an

expectation that actual cost will deviate from the estimated cost by -15% to 30% assuming no

substantial change in scope or extraordinary events and not including escalation from the date of

this report to the start of construction.

10.1

Basis of Opinion of Capital Cost

The assumptions made used to develop the capital costs for the proposed facilities are

summarized below and/or described in the previous sections:

x

Design Flow: Maximum design flow was used (SWRP = 1,440 MGD).

x

Proposed Effective Disinfection Limit (Fecal Coliform, cfu/100 ml): 400 monthly geo-

mean for Stickney.

x

UV Disinfection:

o

UV Transmission: 65% minimum per IEPA standard

o

UV Dosage: 40 mJ/cm

2

per UV

dis

sizing software

x

Each plant would disinfect effluent from March 1 through November 15. During the

remaining months, the disinfection facilities, including LLPS, would be bypassed.

x

Cost opinions were divided into the following categories:

o

Site Work

o

Low Lift Pump Station

o

UV Disinfection Building

Costs for major equipment were obtained from the following vendors:

Technology/Process

Vendor

UV Reactors

Trojan Technologies, Inc.

Axial Flow Pumps

Morrison Pump

Flap Gates

Rodney Hunt

Slide Gates (various sizes)

Rodney Hunt

x

UV channels were enclosed in a UV building.

x

Redundancy

o

UV – multiple channels were used to meet the effluent limit at peak flow with one

channel out of service.

o

Pumps were provided with N+1+1 redundancy per the District’s standard

guidelines.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

34

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

10.2

Basis of Operation and Maintenance Costs

The assumptions used to develop the maintenance and operating costs are presented below:

x

A power cost of $0.0684/kW-hr was used as a composite rate based on the District’s

2007 power supply contract.

x

Labor rates were developed based on the results of the phone survey of similar facilities,

discussions with the manufacturer, and recommendations by the District.

x

UV Disinfection Building and the LLPS would operate from March 1 to November 30 each

year.

x

Annual UV lamp replacement and disposal costs were based on the following

replacement schedule:

o

Lamps replaced each year (100% per year)

o

Ballasts replaced every five years (20% per year)

o

Quartz sleeves replaced every 10 years (10% per year)

o

Wipers replaced every 3 years (33% per year)

o

Lamp disposal costs are included in the costs of the new lamps

x

Miscellaneous parts and supplies assumed to be 5% of equipment costs including

pumps, valves, piping, HVAC equipment, electrical equipment, etc. UV equipment not

included.

x

Labor rates were developed based on the data received from the District.

x

The labor requirements presented in

Table 10.2-1

were assumed for the three

components of the facilities.

Activity

Labor Type

Number

per Worker

Site Work

Routine Maintenance (Gates,

Roads, Conduit, Utilities,

Landscaping)

Laborer

1

10

Low Lift Pump Station

Routine Maintenance (Pumps,

Laborer

2

20

Valves, Electrical Equipment)

E lec tr ician

1

10

Operations

Operator

2

40

UV Disinfection Building

Routine Maintenance

E lec tr ician

1

2

Lamp Replacement

E lec tr ician

2

20

Lamp Inspection/Cleaning

E lec tr ician

4

40

Operations

Operator

2

40

10.3

Basis of Net Present Value Calculation

In order to develop a net present worth valve for comparison to other alternatives with differing

M&O costs, a present worth factor of 23.17 was used for all present worth calculations, based on

a nominal 4.875% interest rate for 20 years with a 3.0% inflation factor.

The interest rate is the 2007 nominal discount rate published by authority of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1974. The use of this discount rate mirrors the United States Army Corps of

Engineers policy related to calculation of life cycle costs for comparative analysis. The current

annual rate can be obtained from the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service (http://www.economics.nrcs. usda.gov/cost/priceindexes/rates.html).

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

35

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

The inflation rate was developed by comparison of three common inflation indicators. Those

indicators are:

1.

Gross Domestic Product Deflator

2.

Consumer Price Index (CPI)

3.

Producer’s Price Index (PPI)

As of the end of August 2007 (most recent available data), the three indicators have a 10-year

rolling average inflation of 2.6%, 2.9%, and 2.6% respectively. Data for the GDP Deflator is

available from the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.9

(http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp

). Data for the CPI and PPI is available

from the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (

http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

).

Therefore, a value of 3.0% was selected to provide a reasonable, yet conservative, estimate of

inflation.

10.4

Discussion of Cost Estimate Line Items

The preliminary opinion of probable construction cost was developed based on the drawings

developed as part of this study (see Volume 2), CTE’s knowledge of local construction market,

CTE’s experience with similar projects, specific budgetary quotes from equipment suppliers, and

industry standard practices. The quantities for each item included in the cost estimate were

measured from the drawings or estimated based on CTE’s understanding of probable means and

methods of construction.

In general, unit costs for each line are considered assembly costs including labor and materials

for that item plus ancillary items normally associated with that item unless included elsewhere.

For example, concrete costs are given including formwork, rebar, and concrete, but not including

excavation and backfilling, which are included as separate line items. While an explanation of all

line items included in the estimate is not provided, specific line items that warrant additional

information are described below in

Table 10.4-1

.

Table 10.4-1 – OPCC Selected Line Item Description

Line Item

Description/Additional Information

General Requirements

General requirements include project specific insurance (such as

payment and performance bonds) and other project specific overhead

costs (i.e. field personnel labor, field trailers, field office supplies,

general quality control testing, shop drawing preparation, O&M

manual preparation, and permit fees). It is assumed to be 15% of the

total project direct costs.

Bulkheading and Removal

at Gate Structure #1

This line item is a lump sum estimate of the cost to make the

connection to the existing final effluent conduit at Gate Structure #1

including demolition, dewatering, bulkheading, restoration, and

backfilling.

Utility Items (Site Work)

Assembly costs for utility line items include trenching, shoring,

materials, installation, backfilling and placement of topsoil per linear

foot of the utility .

Conduits (Site Work)

Assembly costs for conduit line items include excavation, shoring,

formwork, rebar, concrete, backfilling and placement of topsoil per

linear foot of the conduit.

Concrete (Base Slabs,

Walls, and Elevated Slabs)

Assembly costs for concrete installation including rebar, formwork,

and concrete. Does not include excavation or backfill.

Interior walls (masonry)

Assembly costs for construction of masonry interior wall including

block, mortar, installation and ancillary costs. Does not include

coatings.

Exterior walls (masonry)

Assembly costs for construction of masonry exterior wall including

block, insulation, brick, mortar, installation and ancillary costs. Does

not nci udl e coangti s.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

36

\\Uschg1fp207\p60040695\P60040695\500_Submittals\503_Cost

Study Report\503.1_Draft Report\Final_Cost_Study_Report_091008.doc

Line Item

Description/Additional Information

Pumps

Budgetary equipment costs from suppliers plus 25% for installation.

Includes delivery, startup, and training services.

UV Reactors

Budgetary equipment costs from supplier plus 15% for installation.

Includes delivery and installation certification services. Startup and

M&O training included separately.

Escalation

Escalation is assumed to be 5% per year. Construction period is

assumed to be 48 months. Therefore, escalation to the mid-point of

construction is 10.0%.

Contractor’s Markup on

Subcontractors

Contractor’s markup on subcontractors is assumed to be 5%. This

markup is applied to all direct project costs except the general

conditions line item.

Contractor’s Overhead and

Profit

Contractor’s overhead of 5% includes general contractor overhead

including front office costs and project manager’s time. Profit is

assumed to be 10%.

Contngi ency

Consistent with AACE guidelines for Level 3 estimates, and District

policy, a contingency factor of 30% has been added to the OPCC to

cover unknown costs associated with the project. Contingency does

not include escalation from the point of time of estimate to beginning

of construction, extraordinary events, or changes to the scope of the

project.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

HYDRAULIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

HYDRAULIC?EVALUATION

June?2,?2008

Prepared?By

CTE?Project?No.?60040695

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

i

TABLE?OF?CONTENTS

1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

1.1

Objective..........................................................................................................1

2

PROPOSED?FACILITIES .................................................................................... 2

2.1

Key?Considerations?for?Design?Development ...................................................2

2.1.1?Site?Constraints ...............................................................................................2

2.1.2?Hydraulic?Constraints/Need?for?Additional?Pumping ........................................5

3

HYDRAULIC?ANALYSIS?OF?THE?UV?DISINFECTION?FACILITIES .................... 6

3.1

Objectives........................................................................................................6

3.2

Overview..........................................................................................................6

3.3

Assumptions ....................................................................................................6

3.4

Results.............................................................................................................7

4

UV?DISINFECTION?FACILITIES........................................................................ 10

4.1

Background ...................................................................................................10

4.2

Basis?of?Design..............................................................................................11

4.2.1

Proposed?Design?Criteria?for?UV?Disinfection?Equipment ...........................11

4.2.2

Proposed?Layout........................................................................................12

4.2.3

Proposed?Basis?of?Design?Criteria..............................................................12

5

LOW?LIFT?PUMP?STATION ..............................................................................14

5.1

Pump?Type ....................................................................................................14

5.2

Basis?of?Design..............................................................................................14

5.3

Proposed?Operational?Description .................................................................15

5.4

Proposed?Layout............................................................................................15

6

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 16

LIST?OF?TABLES

Table?1?-?Theoretical?Water?Surface?Elevation?Assuming?All?Gravity?Flow,?Existing

Conditions .......................................................................................................................5

Table?2?-?Summary?of?Proposed?WSE?including?UV?Disinfection?Facilities ......................8

Table?3?–?Design?Parameters?for?UV?Disinfection?Unit?at?NSWRP ................................12

Table?4?-?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?Basis?of?Design ...........................................................14

Table?5?-?Summary?of?Pump?Operation .........................................................................15

LIST?OF?FIGURES

Figure?1?–?Proposed?Site?Plan?........................................................................................4

Figure?2?–?Hydraulic?Profile?through?UV?Disinfection?Facilities.........................................9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

ii

LIST?OF?APPENDICES

Appendix?A?

Site?Plan?from?SWRP?Master?Plan

Appendix?B?

Selected?Pages?from?Chicago?Underflow?Plan?Detailed?Design?Report

(USACE,?1999)

Appendix?C?

Proposed?Layout?of?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

1

1

INTRODUCTION

This? technical? memorandum? has? been? developed? as? part?of? the? Preliminary? Cost? Opinion

for? Ultraviolet? (UV)? Disinfection? Facilities? Study? at? the? Metropolitan? Water? Reclamation

District? of? Greater? Chicago’s? (MWRDGC,?or? District)? Stickney?Water? Reclamation?Plant

(SWRP)? in? Illinois.? This? memorandum? continues? the? work? that? began? in? TM1-WQ? which

was? developed? previously? as? part? of? a? Water? Quality? (WQ)? Strategy? for? affected? Chicago

Area?Waterways.

The? TM1-WQ? documented? the? results? of? a? Consoer? Townsend? Envirodyne? Engineers

(CTE)? study? of? effluent? disinfection? alternatives? for? the? District’s? North? Side,? Calumet? and

Stickney?WRPs.? Based? on? economic? and? non-economic? evaluation? of? alternatives,? ozone

disinfection? and? UV? disinfection? were? selected? and? study-level? basis? of? design? and? cost

estimates?were? developed.?Both?alternatives?were? developed? including? three? components:

a? low? lift? pump? station,? a? tertiary?filter? facility,? and? a? UV? or? ozone? disinfection? facility.? ? The

need? for? tertiary? filtration? to? support? disinfection? was? based? on? limited? sampling? that

showed?transmittance?values?less?than?the?IEPA?minimum?of?65%?and?energy?savings?with

a? less?turbid?flow?stream.? ? Because?of? the? limited?available?information,?the? estimates?that

were? developed? were? broken? into? two? alternatives? for? each? disinfection? technology:? one

with?tertiary?filters?and?one?without?tertiary?filters.??In?both?cases,?a?low?lift?pump?station?was

included? based? on? conceptual? level? evaluations?of? the? available?hydraulic? driving? head? for

the?existing?and?proposed?conditions.

Subsequent? to? the? TM1-WQ? evaluation,? additional? transmittance? data? was? obtained? and

the? District? requested? that? the? costs? be? further? developed? without? including? tertiary

filtration.? ? This? additional? evaluation? is? also? based? on? the? comments? received? from? the

United? Stated? Environmental? Protection? Agency? (USEPA)? as? part? of? the? Use? Attainability

Analysis?(UAA)?evaluations,?and?new?information?obtained?since?the?previous?work.

1.1?? Objective

The?primary?objectives?of?the?evaluation?presented?in?this?technical?memorandum?are:

•

?

To?update?the?hydraulic?evaluation?conducted?during?the?preparation?of?TM-1WQ

•

?

To?develop?the? hydraulic?basis?of?design?for?further? evaluation? and?development?of

the?conceptual?design?of?UV?disinfection?facilities

•

?

To? determine? the? need? for? a? low? lift?pump? station? with? the?addition? UV? disinfection

facilities?both?prior?to?and?after?the?potential?addition?of?tertiary?filters

For? the?purposes?of? the? Disinfection? Cost?Study,?sound?engineering? judgment?will? be?used

to? make? assumptions? regarding? the? most? likely? arrangement? of? the? proposed? facilities

based?on?the?current?status?of?the?future?planned?improvements?to?the?SWRP.

In?the?following?discussion,?the?results?of?this?evaluation?are?given.?The?sections?that?follow

summarize?the?determination?of?the?process?flow?through?the?UV?Disinfection?Facilities,?the

hydraulic?profile? through? the? proposed? UV? Disinfection? System,?and?the? details? of?the? Low

Lift?Pump?Station.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

2

2

PROPOSED?FACILITIES

The?proposed?facilities?considered?in?this?study?revolve?around?adding?disinfection?process

facilities?to?the?existing?process?train?and?all?associated?improvements?required?due?to?that

addition.??As?such,?the?improvements?would?include?a?disinfection?facility/building?based?on

ultraviolet?disinfection? technology,?additional?effluent?flow? conduits?and? a?new?plant?outfall,

gate? structures? to? redirect? flow? to? the? new? facilities,? and? a? low? lift? pump? station.? ? Tertiary

filters? would? not? be? included,? although? the? proposed? disinfection? facilities? would? be

designed? to? allow? the? future? addition? of? tertiary? filters.? ? The? decision? to? proceed? with? UV

technology? for? disinfection? was? made? by? the? District? based? on? several? factors? including

track-record? of? the? technology,? the? need? to? avoid? release? of? additional? chemicals? to? the

environment? such? as? chlorination? byproducts,? security? concerns? related? to? chlorine? use

and? storage? and? the? cost? comparison? between? the? short-listed? disinfection? technology

alternatives? (ultraviolet? treatment? and? ozonation)? performed? as? part? of? TM-1WQ.? ? UV

technology? was? shown? to? be? less? costly? than? ozonation? with? substantially? less? concern

regarding?byproducts?and?security?compared?to?chlorination/dechlorination.

2.1?

Key?Considerations?for?Design?Development

In? order? to?further? develop? the? design?for? the? UV?Disinfection? Facilities,?CTE? has?reviewed

the? basis? for? the? decisions? that? were? incorporated? into? TM-1WQ? in? order? to? confirm? the

validity? of? those? decisions.? ? This? review? has? identified? several? issues? that? must? be

addressed?during?the?conceptual?design?of?the?facilities.

2.1.1?Site?Constraints

Proposed?Treatment?Train

Disinfection? facilities? are? usually? located? at? the? farthest? possible? downstream? point? in? the

process? treatment? train? for? the? reason? that? the? more? treatment? the? effluent? receives? to

remove? both? dissolved? and? suspended? contaminants,? the? more? effective? the? disinfection

process.

One? major? change? from? TM-1WQ? is? the? relaxation? of? the? assumed? need? for? tertiary

filtration? as? part? of? the? disinfection? facilities.? ? TM-1W Q? presented? scenarios? with? and

without? filtration? based? on? the? lack? of? information? to? demonstrate? that? filtration? was? not

required?for?effective?disinfection.??For?the?purposes?of?this?study,?it?is?assumed?that?tertiary

filtration? would? not? be? required? in? the? near? term.? ? However,? if? tertiary? filtration? is

implemented?in?the?future,?it?would?be?beneficial?for?filtration?to?occur?prior?to?disinfection?to

leverage?the?benefits?of?lower?suspended?solids?and?BOD?concentrations?that?would?make

disinfection?both?more?efficient?and?potentially?allow?the?UV?facilities?to?be?downsized.

Space

Appendix? A? shows? the?proposed?future? site? plan?from? the?SWRP? Master? Plan? as?included

in? TM1-W Q.? ? The? TM1-WQ? allocated? space? in? the? southwest? area? of? the? existing? site? for

disinfection? and? tertiary? filtration? due? to? the? amount? of? available? open? space? and? the

relative? proximity? to? the? Ship? and? Sanitary? Canal? (SSC).? However,? this? would? require? an

extensive? effluent? conduit? to? convey? flow? from? near? the? Pump? and? Blower? Building? nearly

1,500? LF? to? this? location? and? a? new?effluent? outfall? into? the? SSC.? Also,? the? majority?of? the

space? needs? in? this? location? are? allocated? to? future? tertiary? filtration.? The? filter? space

allocated? is? based? on? denitrification? media?filtration? at? 1.5? gpm/sf.?Although? other? filtration

technologies? are? available? with? smaller? space? requirements,? it? is? prudent? at? this? time? to

assume?denitrification?filtration?for?planning?purposes.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

3

In? consideration? of? these? points,? the? location? provided? in? TM-1WQ? is? recommended? as? it

provides?sufficient? open? space?for? the?new?facilities?as?well? as?provides?flexibility?for?future

implementation?of?tertiary?filters?is?so?required.?The?arrangement?of?the?new?facilities?in?the

south-west?area?of?the?plant?has?been?altered?from?TM-1WQ?to?provide?for?better?usage?of

the?site,?as?shown?in

Figure?1

.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

N

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

5

2.1.2?Hydraulic?Constraints/Need?for?Additional?Pumping

The?final?key? consideration?for?development?of?the? potential?disinfection?facilities? at? SWRP

is? the?hydraulic?constraints? that? may? limit? the?ability?to? convey?flow?through? the?facilities?by

gravity.? ? CTE? has? completed? hydraulic? evaluations? to? estimate? the? headloss? through? the

UV? Disinfection? Facilities? including? the? required? conduits? to? evaluate? the? ability? to? flow

through?the?proposed?facilities?by?gravity.

The?flow?through? the?SWRP? is? currently? via?gravity?from? Aeration?Batteries?A,? B,? C?and? D,

underneath?the?Pump?and?Blower?Building?to?the?plant?outfall?discharging?into?the?Ship?and

Sanitary? Canal? (SSC).? The? existing? hydraulic? condition? was? analyzed? from? the? existing

effluent?aerator?downstream?of?Battery?B,?as?this?represents?a?hydraulic?break?point,?to?the

outfall? in? order? to? determine? the? head? available? for? the? disinfection? facilities.? CTE

conducted?this?hydraulic?evaluation?based?on?three?assumptions:

1.? A? water? surface? elevation? (WSE)? of? 3.5?ft? CCD? in? the? SSC? based? on? the? hydraulic

profile? from? the? Contract?78-102-EP,? West-Southwest? Treatment? Works,? February,

1985

1

?was?used?as?the?historical?hydraulic?basis?of?design?for?the?existing?facilities.

This?does?not?meet?the?100-year?flood?requirements.

2.? Secondary? effluent? to? the? new? disinfection? facilities? would? be? diverted? through? a

new? junction? chamber? located? just? downstream? of? the? Pump? and? Blower? Building,

at? a? point? approximately? 800-ft? upstream? of? the? outfall.? At? this? location,? secondary

effluent? from? all? Aeration? Batteries? (A,? B,? C? &? D)? could? be? diverted? to? the? new

facilities.

3.? Peak?flow?of?1,440?MGD?was?used?to?size?the?hydraulic?conduits.

The? difference? between? the? water? surface? elevation? at? the? Pump? and? Blower? house? and

the? historical? water? surface? elevation? in? the? SSC? is? the? head? available? to? convey? flow

through? the? new? disinfection? facilities? by? gravi

Tab

ty.

le? 1

? presents? the? results? of? that

evaluation.

Conditions

Location

WSE

WSE?just?downstream?of?Pump?and?Blower?House

5.45

WSE?in?SSC,?taken?from?1985?Hydraulic?Profiles?max?water?elevation

3.50

Available?head,?ft.

1.95

Note:??All?WSE?in?Chicago?City?Datum?(CCD).

Per? Table? 1,? only? 1.95? ft? of? head? is? available? to? convey? flow? through? the? proposed

disinfection? facilities? by? gravity? under? previous? hydraulic? analysis? conditions.? ? Without

tertiary?filters,?the? headloss?through? the? UV?disinfection?facilities,?including? associated?flow

splitting? and? control? systems,? is? estimated? to? be? 7.64 feet.? Thus? the? available? head? is

insufficient?to?direct?flow?through?the?potential?disinfection?facility?by?gravity?alone.

1

El?3.5?ft?CCD?is?listed?as?the?water?level?in?the?Sanitary?and?Ship?Canal?for?which?the?hydraulics

were?evaluated,?based?on?a?maximum?design?flow?rate?of?2,000?MGD.?This?profile?appears?to?be?the

last?official?hydraulic?profile?conducted?for?the?SWRP.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

6

As? a? result,? additional? pumping? would? be? required? after? the? implementation? of? the? UV

disinfection?facilities?to?meet?the?required?peak?flow?rate?of?1,440?MGD.

Considering? that? this? is? a? conceptual? level? evaluation,?additional? headloss? is? possible? and

likely? to? be? identified? during? final? design? as? the? details? of? flow? splitting? arrangements? and

other?site?constraints?create?less?than?ideal?flow?conditions.

3

HYDRAULIC?ANALYSIS?OF?THE?UV?DISINFECTION?FACILITIES

3.1?

Objectives

Hydraulic?analyses?of?the? SWRP? had? not?been? performed? as? part?of? the? Master?Plan,?thus

the? objective? is? to? identify? any? possible? hydraulic? bottlenecks? in? the? proposed? disinfection

facilities?for?the?recommended? site? plan? indicating? where? detailed? analysis?will? be? required

during? the? design? phase.? ? For? this? study? a? preliminary? model? was? created? to?evaluate? the

hydraulics? following? the? addition? of? the? UV? Disinfection? Facilities? inclusive? of? the? required

addition? effluent? conduits,? gate? structures,? UV? channels? and? reactors? and? the? Low? Lift

Pump?Station?(LLPS).

3.2?

Overview

The? hydraulic? analysis? was? completed? using? a? spreadsheet? utilizing? standard? open

channel? and? closed? conduit? flow? equations? to? represent? the? SWRP? from? the? effluent

conduit? at? the? Pump?and?Blower? house? through?a?new?junction? chamber? to? the? new?LLPS,

through? the? new? UV? facility?and? discharged? to? the? outfall.? ? The? hydraulics? evaluated? were

for? the? year? 2040? conditions,? utilizing? a? peak? flow? of? 1,440? MGD,? which? includes? both

infrastructure? and? permit-related? improvementsThe?

.

hydraulic? analysis? considered? the

existing? plant? hydraulics? starting? from? the? hydraulic? break? created? by? the? effluent? aerator,

downstream?of?Battery?B.

Although? a? WSE? Elevation? in? the? SSC? of? 3.5? ft? CCD? was? utilized? to? determine? if? effluent

pumping? is? required? based? on? the? historical? hydraulic? basis? of? design,? the? 100-year? flood

elevation?for?the?Sanitary?and?Ship?Canal?has?been?calculated?using?the?USACE’s?Chicago

Underflow?Plan?(CUP)?Design?Report.??The?CUP?report?used?observed?high?water?levels?to

model?the? predicted?high? water? levels? throughout?the? Chicago? Area?Waterways?at?each? of

the? construction? phases.? ? The? observed? high? water? level? at? the? SWRP? outfall? is

approximately? 4.1? ft? CCD? (since? 1965)? and? the? peak? modeled? level? for? the? 1957? event

(estimated?at?greater?than?the? 100-year?flood)? is?10.1?ft?CCD.? ? Appendix? B? provides? select

pages?from?this?report.

From?the?CUP?report,?a?water?surface?elevation?of?9.0?ft?CCD?was?estimated?at?the?SWRP

outfall? for? the? 100-year? flood.? For? the? conceptual? design? of? the? new? UV? facilities? in? this

study,? the? water? surface? elevation? of? 9.0?ft? CCD? will? be? utilized? as? a? worst? case? hydraulic

constraint?in?order?to?ensure?the?new?facilities?can?operate?during?the?100-year?flood.

3.3?

Assumptions

Due? to? the? preliminary? nature? of? the? selected? site? plan,? assumptions? were? made? in? the

development?of?the?hydraulic?model.??These?assumptions?are?as?follows:

1.

Peak? flow? of? 1,440? MGD.? ? Flows? above? 1,440? MGD? are? diverted? to? the? TARP

system.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

7

2.

SWRP? drawings? obtained? from? MWRDGC? are? on? the? Chicago? City? Datum

(CCD)? or? the? National? Geodetic? Vertical? Datum? (NGVD).? ? All? elevations? were

converted?to?CCD?using?conversion?CCD?=?NGVD?–?579.48.

3.

The? CCD? has? not? changed? since? the? plant? was? originally? constructed? in? the

1920’s.

4.

The? estimated? 100-yr? flood? elevation? is? +9.00? CCD,? as? calculated? in? the

Chicago? Canal? System? Model,? UNET.? ? Appendix? B? provides? selected? pages

from? the? USACE’s? Chicago? Underflow? Plan? (CUP)? Design? Report? presenting

these? results.? ? Pre-Stage? 1? (Stage? 1? of? the? McCook? Reservoir? Construction)

values?are? used? since?the? USACE’s?current?estimate?for?completion? of?Stage?1

construction?in?2020?or?later.

5.

Post?Aeration?is?not?included?in?this?study.??Additional?headloss?and?costs?would

be?associated?with?the?inclusion?of?post-aeration.

6.

Velocity? in? Disinfection? Influent? and? Effluent? Distribution? Chambers? is? zero? to

allow?adequate?flow?distribution.

7.

Batteries?A,?B,?C?and?D?are?all?at?the?same?elevation?and?flow?is?equally?divided

between?the?Batteries?A,?B,?C?and?D,?with?each?receiving?360?MGD.

8.

The? UV? process? requires? approximately? 6? ft? of? submergence,? thus? the

disinfection?channel?effluent?weir?is?assumed?to?be?5.5?ft?above?invert?to?ensure

a?submerged?weir?at?low?flow?conditions.

9.

The?following?modeling?equations?were?used:

a.? Pressure?Flow?–?Hazen?Williams?Equation

b.? Open-Channel?Flow?–?Manning’s?Equation

c.? Flow?junctions?–?Pressure?Momentum?Analysis

10.?

Hydraulic?coefficients?used?in?developing?this?model?include:

a.? Hazen?W illiams?–?110?(concrete)

b.? Manning’s

i.?

Regular?channel?–?0.013

ii.?

Aerated?channel?–?0.035

3.4?

Results

The?results?of?the?hydraulic?analysis?are?presented?in

Table?2

.??Table?2?presents?the

estimated?water?surface?elevations?through?the?plant?from?the?existing?Effluent?Aerator

through?the?new?LLPS?and?UV?Disinfection?Building?and?to?the?new?outfall.

The?flow?path?starts?with?a?new?effluent?conduit?that?would?direct?secondary?effluent?by

gravity?approximately?1,500?ft?west?from?the?new?junction?chamber?near?the?Pump?and

Blower?Building?to?the?new?LLPS.??Flow?would?then?be?lifted?15.8?ft?to?the?new?UV?influent

conduit.?Flow?would?travel?by?gravity?through?the?UV?facilities,?which?would?be?split?into?two

banks?of?six?UV?reactors,?into?an?effluent?conduit?and?to?a?new?outfall?discharging?into?the

SSC.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

8

Table?2?-?Summary?of?Proposed?WSE?including?UV?Disinfection?Facilities

Location

WSE

Effluent?Aerator?Discharge?Weir?Elevation

10.96

WSE?in?Effluent?Aerator

10.32

WSE?just?downstream?of?Pump?and?Blower?House

5.45

WSE?at?New?Junction?Chamber

4.00

WSE?in?LLPS?Influent?Conduit

1.22

WSE?in?LLPS?Wet?Well?just?u/s?of?curtain?wall

-1.25

WSE?just?downstream?of?Low?Lift?PS

14.59

WSE?just?upstream?of?Influent?gate

14.01

WSE?just?upstream?of?Effluent?Weir?gate

11.89

WSE?at?downstream?of?Disinfection?Effluent?Chamber

9.73

WSE?in?Sanitary?and?Ship?Canal,?Approximate?100?yr?flood?elevation

9.00

The?estimated?water?service?elevation?at?the?existing?effluent?aerator?remains?below?the

existing?aerator?weir?elevation,?thus?maintaining?the?existing?hydraulic?bre

Figure?2

ak.

contains?the?hydraulic?profile?of?the?flow?path?through?the?proposed?UV?disinfection

facilities?and?the?available?freeboard?at?the?locations?where?water?surface?elevations

(WSE’s)?were?calculated?at?the?maximum?day?flow.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

4

UV?DISINFECTION?FACILITIES

The?District?has?preliminarily?selected?the?medium-pressure?high-intensity?(MP-HI)?UV

disinfection?technology?for?potential?disinfection?of?final?effluent?at?its?water?reclamation

plants.??This?section?presents?the?preliminary?basis?of?design?of?the?UV?system?to?be?used

at?the?SWRP.

4.1?

Background

A?Technical?Memorandum?on?the?UV?Disinfection?Technology?was?completed?for?the?North

Side?WRP?UV?Disinfection?Cost?Study.?The?memorandum?incorporated?the?following

information?which?is?relevant?to?the?Stickney?WRP:

•

?

Information? from? literature? including? technical? proceedings? from? the? Water

Environment? Federation? (WEF),? Water? Environment? Research? Foundation

(WERF),?proceedings?from? the? latest?Disinfection?conference?series?undertaken? by

WEF,? American? Water? Works? Association? (AWWA),? and? International? Water

Association? (IWA).? ? This? information? provided? the? latest? updates? in? the? UV

disinfection?technology.

•

?

Updated? recommendations? on? the? UV? system? from? four? manufacturers? –? Trojan

Technologies,?Aquionics,?Calgon?Carbon,?and?Severn?Trent?Services?(STS)/Quay.

•

?

Reference? information? on? experience? of? UV? disinfection? at?five? selected? facilities? –

Racine?WWTP? (Racine,?W I),? R.L.? Sutton? WRF? (Cobb? County,? GA),? Grand? Rapids

WWTP? (Grand? Rapids,?MI),?Jacksonville?WWTP? (Buckman,?FL),?and?Valley?Creek

WWTP? (Valley? Creek,? AL).? ? A? summary? of? important? inferences? from? the? phone

survey?are?as?follows.

1.? Fouling? due? to? iron? in? the? effluent? has? been? a? problem? at? the? Racine,? Sutton,

and?Grand?Rapids?facilities.??Fouling?results?in?lower?then?expected?disinfection

performance,? higher? operating? costs,? and? higher? M&O? efforts.? ? The? iron? in? the

effluent?at?all? three?plants?was?primarily?from? the?chemical?phosphorus?removal

using? Ferric? Chloride.? ? At? Grand? Rapids? WWTP,? the? chemical? addition? is

upstream? of? the? secondary? treatment? process;? staining? of? sleeves? was? found

only? when? the? chemical? addition? was? in? the? secondary? clarifiers.? ? At?the? Sutton

WRF,? fouling? of? lamps? due? to? iron? is? observed? although? chemical? addition? is

upstream? of? secondary? process? and? sand? filters? are? used? upstream? of? the? UV

disinfection?system.??At?the?Racine?WWTP,?fouling?may?be?due?to?ferric?chloride

addition? and/or? due? to? the? additional? iron? brought? by? the? ferric? sludge? from

another? water? treatment? plant,? although? operational? controls? are? used? to

prevent?both?sources?from?occurring?simultaneously.

2.? Calcium?fouling?due?to?hardness?in?the?source?water?is?not?a?significant?problem

because? of? the? automatic? mechanical/chemical? cleaning? system? that? dissolves

and? wipes?away?any?scales.? ? The? lack?of? calcium?hardness? was? observed? in?all

five? plants? including? the? Racine? and? Grand? Rapids? utilities? which? have? Lake

Michigan? source? water? and? is? attributed? to? the? automatic? cleaning? system

performance.

3.? The? frequency? of? cleaning? and? changing? of? the? cleaning? solution? is? specific? to

the? utility? and? would? have? to? be? determined? only? by? experience;? however? it? is

likely?to?be?more?than?the?typical?case?stated?in?the?literature.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

11

4.? Labor?requirements?varied?amongst?facilities,?with?some?facilities?requiring?more

labor?to?handle?the?fouling?caused?by?iron?salt?addition.

5.? As? long? as? other? processes? in? the? plant? are? performing? as? desired,? all? five

facilities? were? satisfied? with? the? UV? disinfection? system? because? it? met? their

disinfection?goals.

In?conclusion,?the?phone?survey?had?revealed?that?fouling?of?the?quartz?sleeves?is?a

concern?for?this?application,?particularly?if?iron?salts?are?added?for?phosphorous?removal?in

the?future.??In?addition,?the?phone?survey?results?suggest?that?the?manufacturer’s

recommended?labor?assumptions?for?routine?maintenance?including?cleaning?and

inspection?of?the?lamps?is?too?low?for?this?application.??As?transmissivity?is?directly?related

to?lamp?fouling,?additional?lamps?and/or?more?frequent?cleaning?may?be?required?in?the

future?if?iron?salts?are?to?be?utilized?in?processes?upstream?of?this?technology.

Using?this?information?and?the?updated?information?available?from?manufacturers,?a

preliminary?basis?of?design?of?the?MP-HI?UV?disinfection?system?has?been?developed?for

disinfection?of?the?final?effluent?at?the?SWRP.

4.2?

Basis?of?Design

The?MP-HI?system?involves?sending?the?secondary?or?tertiary?effluent?through?channels

containing?banks?of?MP-HI?UV?lamps.???The?Trojan?UV4000™ Plus?system?is?used?here?to

develop?the?basis?of?design?for?the?UV?disinfection?system.??The?system?consists?of?a

power?supply,?an?electrical?system,?a?reactor,?MP-HI?lamps,?a?mechanical?and?chemical

cleaning?system,?and?a?control?system.??The?MP-HI?UV?lamps?are?enclosed?in?individual

quartz?sleeves?for?protection?against?dirt?and?breakage.??Reactor?chambers?(open

channels)?hold?the?lamps?in?a?horizontal?configuration.??The?effluent?weirs?and?level

sensors?are?used?to?keep?the?lamps?submerged?under?the?effluent?water.??This

submergence?ensures?that?the?lamps?do?not?overheat,?thereby?preventing?lamp?life

reduction?or?burnout.

The?UV?system?is?assumed?to?operate?from?March?to?November?each?year.??During?the

winter?months,?the?equipment?would?sit?idle?as?the?flow?is?bypassed?around?the?LLPS?and

UV?Disinfection?Building.??However,?due?to?the?size?of?the?facility?including?twelve?reactors

and?over?4000?lamps,?maintenance?activities?would?be?conducted?every?working?day?from

March?to?November?and?periodically?during?the?winter?months.??It?is?reasonable?to?expect

that?the?area?would?continue?to?experience?normal?weather?patterns?for?the?Chicago?area

including?extreme?weather?during?all?four?seasons.??In?order?to?protect?the?safety?of?the

M&O?staff,?ensure?operational?and?maintenance-related?productivity,?and?protect?the?UV

equipment?from?adverse?weather?common?to?the?Chicago?area?including?high?winds,?rain,

lightning,?snow,?and?extreme?temperatures,?the?UV?system?would?be?enclosed?in?a

building.

4.2.1? Proposed?Design?Criteria?for?UV?Disinfection?Equipment

Based?on?a?review?of?the?information?provided?by?the?UV?equipment?manufacturers?and

the?experience?of?five?other?facilities,?it?is?observed?that?Trojan?Technologies?provides?a

widely-used?low-maintenance?solution?for?final?effluent?disinfection.??The?design?of?the?MP-

HI?UV?disinfection?system?for?the?SWRP?is?based?on?the?Trojan?UV4000™ Plus?equipment

provided?by?Trojan?Technologies.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

12

4.2.2? Proposed?Layout

Flow?would?enter?the?UV?disinfection?facilities?at?the?north?end?of?the?influent?chamber,

where?it?would?be?directed?east?and?west?through?72-inch?gates?through?two?(2)?banks?of

six?(6)?UV?channels?arranged?on?either?side?of?the?influent?chamber.??The?effluent?channels

combine?the?flow?to?the?south?of?the?UV?building?and?direct?it?to?a?new?outfall.??This?layout

provides?for?a?compact?site?footprint?and?the?enables?the?building?size?to?be?minimized.

The?conceptual?layout?provides?for?a?new?effluent?outfall?to?the?SSC,?rather?than?directing

the?disinfected?effluent?back?to?the?existing?outfall.??However,?it?is?likely?that?the

construction?of?a?new?outfall?would?require?permitting?and?an?environmental?impact

assessment?which?may?eliminate?this?option?and?necessitate?the?existing?outfall?being

used?during?final?design.

4.2.3? Proposed?Basis?of?Design?Criteria

The?basis?of?design?is?given?i

Tab

n

le?3

.

Parameter

Design?Value

Capacity?and?Water?Quality

Design?flow,?mgd

1,440

Average?flow,?mgd

1,250

Maximum?TSS

a

,?mg/L

15

Pre-Disinfection?Effluent?E.Coli?Count

b

,?cfu/100?mL,?maximum

(Assumed)

200,000

Post-Disinfection?Effluent?E.Coli?Count?Target

c

,?cfu/100?mL

400

Effluent?Hardness

d

,?mg/L?as?CaCO

3

270

Dosage

UV?transmittance,?minimum,?%

65

UV?intensity

e

,?W/lamp

4,000

Lamp?Life,?hours

5,000

Fouling?factor,?%

90

Lamp?aging?factor,?%

89

UV?dose,?mW-s/cm

2

40

Physical?Characteristics

Channel?dimensions,?WxD

106”

?x?172”

Number?of?channels

12?(11?plus?1?standby)

Number?of?reactors?per?channel

1

Number?of?banks?per?reactor

2

Number?of?modules?per?bank

7

Number?of?lamps?per?module

24

Total?number?of?lamps

4,032

Total?power?requirement,?kW

11,827

Average?power?requirement,?kW

9,225

Hydraulics

Headloss,?UV?reactor?only

9”

Velocity?in?each?channel,?V,?ft/s

1.87

Li

bca

?A?Futur?M

qui

nnonthu

d?l

al?e?rly?p

e

aveq

v

erer

e

uir

l

ag

?

mit

cont

eme?lienm

ro

it?t?(12?

l

m

?in?channel

onmthlg/Ly?geometric?average)

ed

?

100Mean?%?ivntalensue ity?at?100?

Mot

hours

orized

?of?lam

?W

p?

e

us

ir?G

e

ate

The?above?design?criteria?are?assumed?based?on?available?information?and?the?current

state?of?ultraviolet?disinfection?technology.??A?more?extensive?technology?evaluation

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

13

should?be?conducted?prior?to?final?design?of?the?facility.??Due?to?the?extraordinary?scale?of

this?facility,?CTE?recommends?the?District?undertake?the?following?design?process?for

selection?and?design?of?the?UV?disinfection?equipment?if?final?design?is?initiated:

1.? Request? and? evaluate? independent,? full-scale? validation? data? (also? known? as

biodosimetry? data)? from? manufacturers? of? candidate? disinfection? systems? for

similarly? sized? units? or? the? largest? size? for? which? the? manufacturer? has? data

available.? ? This? evaluation? would? provide? an? initial? level-of-confidence? that? the

candidate? systems? can? achieve? the? target? disinfection? levels.? ? Data? should? be

from? systems? using? the? same? bulb,? ballast,? and? control? technology? as? proposed

for?the?full-scale?system.

2.? Conduct? a? collimated? beam? testing? program.? ? This? program? would? use? site

specific? effluent? and? bacteria? to? determine? the? sensitivity? of? the? site? specific

bacteria? and? pathogens? to? UV? disinfection.? ? The?data? would? be? used? to? size? the

UV?lamps?and?reactors.

3.? Increase?frequency?of?UV?transmittance?testing?at?each?plant?to?at?least?once?per

day?for?a? period? of? one? year? or? more? to?collect?data?on? seasonal?variability,?daily

variability,? diurnal? variability,? and? to? capture? the? frequency? of? events? that? might

reduce?transmissivity?such?as?wet?weather?and?infrequent?industrial?discharges.

4.? Conduct? a? more? detailed? life? cycle? cost? analysis? of? the? candidate? disinfection

systems?based?on?the?data?collected?during?steps?1?through?3?above.

5.? Construct? a? pilot? testing? facility? designed? to? match? lamp? spacing,? velocity? profile

and? other? design? parameters? of? the? proposed? full? scale? units.? ? The? pilot? testing

facility?would?be?used?to?determine:

a.? Appropriate? control? sequences? and? optimization? for? the? UV? disinfection

equipment,? including? appropriate? sensing? equipment? to? allow? advanced

power?management.

b.? In-situ? disinfection? performance? including? fouling? rates? of? the? lamps? with? and

without?ferric?salt?addition.

c.? Design?life?of?lamps?and?other?UV?system?parts.

d.? Actual? M&O? requirements? in? terms? of? labor? and? consumables? as? well? as

space?requirements?to?complete?required?maintenance?activities.

e.? Performance?of?alternate?equipment?manufacturers,?if?alternates?are?available

at?the?time?of?piloting.

f.? Accuracy? of? life? cycle? cost? analysis? prior? to? final? design? of? the? full-scale

system.

6.? Conduct? post-construction? full-scale? validation? testing? (biodosimetry? testing)? to

confirm?performance?and?determine?operating?parameters.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

14

Using?a?program?as?described?above,?it?may?be?possible?to?demonstrate?the?effective?UV

dosages?to?the?regulators?and?optimize?the?equipment?sizing?criteria.??For?this?study,

reduction?in?the?Illinois?requirements?for?UV?system?sizing?is?not?assumed?based?on?the

lack?of?data?similar?to?that?described?above.

5

LOW?LIFT?PUMP?STATION

This? section? will? present? the? proposed? arrangement? and? key? characteristics? of? the

proposed?Low?Lift?Pump?Station.

5.1?

Pump?Type

Several? pump? types? were? considered? for? this? application.? ? Pump? types? considered

included?screw?pumps,?vertical?turbine?pumps,?centrifugal?pumps,?and?axial?flow?pumps.

Screw? pumps? and? axial? flow? pumps? appear? to? have? the? best? operating? performance?for

this?condition.

It? is? estimated? that? the? low? lift? pumps? would? lift? 1,440? MGD? of? secondary? effluent

approximately?22.3?feet?(TDH)?to?the?UV?disinfection?system?influent,?including?estimated

head? to? allow?flow? through? the? UV? system.? ? The?static?head? equates?to?the?difference? in

the? estimated? water? surface? elevation? between? the? wet? well? and? the? discharge? conduit

plus?an?additional?2-ft?of?head?added?as?a?conservative?factor?to?accommodate?additional

losses?that?may?be?identified?during?final?design.

If?tertiary?filtration?is?constructed?in?the?future,?the?TDH?would?most?likely?increase?but?the

flow?would? remain?the? same.? ? Screw?pumps?will? not?easily? accommodate?this?change? in

head,? without? significant? structural? modifications? to? the? pump? station.? ? However,? axial

pumps? can? be? modified?for?future? head? conditions.? ? Structural?modifications? to? the?pump

station? to? accommodate?these? changes,? if? required,? should?be? minimal.? Therefore,?axial

flow,?propeller?type?pumps?are?recommended.

Vertical? axial? flow? pumps? have? been? assumed? here,? but? other? configurations? (including

inclined?or?horizontal)?could?be?considered?in?the?future.

5.2?

Basis?of?Design

Table?4

provides?a?summary?of?the?basis?of?design?for?the?Low?Lift?Pump?Station.

Table?4?-?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?Basis?of?Design

Flow,?MGD

1,440

Pumps

Type

A x ial?Flow

Number

8?total?(N+1+1)

Pumping?Rates,?gpm/pump

166,670

Static?Head,?ft

15.8

Dynamic?Head?(inc.?station?losses),?ft.

4.5

Total?Dynamic?Head,?ft.

(1)

22.3

Motor,?hp

(2)

1,500

Suction?Head,?ft

18.5

Wet?Well

Length,?ft.

86

Width,?ft.

114

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

15

(1)???The?static?head?equates?to?the?difference?in?the?estimated?water?surface?elevation?between?the?wet?well

and???the?discharge?conduit?plus?an?additional?2-ft?of?head?added?as?a?conservative?factor?to?accommodate

additional?losses?that?may?be?identified?during?final?design.

(2)????A?1,350?hp?motor?could?be?provided,?however?this?is?a?non-standard?motor?size?and?only?standard?motor

sizes?were?assumed?f or?this?c onc eptual?study.

5.3?

Proposed?Operational?Description

The?pump? station? would? have?a? total?of? eight?pumps,? with? six?duty?pumps,?one? standby

and?one?out?of?service?(N+1+1).??Five?pumps?would?be?driven?by?constant?speed?motors,

three? would? be? variable? speed? driven.? ? In? order? to? provide? operational? flexibility,? the

pump? station? would? be? divided? into? two? wet? wells,? each? containing? four? pumps.? ? Design

average? flow? (1,250? MGD)? would? be? handled? by? four? constant? speed? and? two? variable

speed? pumps? operating? at? reduced? speed,? leaving? two? pumps? on? standby.? ? Peak? flow

(1,440? MGD)? would? be? handled? by? six? pumps? operating? at? full? speed,? leaving? two? on

standby.

The?pumps?would?operate? 24?hours?a?day,?seven? days?per? week.?Typically,?at? least?one

variable? speed? pump? would?operate?at?all? times,? to? handle?fluctuations? in?

T

flow

a

.

b l e ?5

illustrates?an?example?of?pump?operation?at?design?average?flow?and?peak?flow:

Flow,?MGD

Pump?Drive?Type

Pump?Flow,?gpm

700

Constant?speed

166,667

Constant?speed

166,667

Variable?speed

152,777

1250?(Design?Average)?

Constant?speed

166,667

Constant?speed

166,667

Constant?speed

166,667

Constant?speed

166,667

Variable?speed

100,694

Variable?speed

100,694

1440?(Peak)

Constant?speed

166,667

Constant?speed

166,667

Constant?speed

166,667

Constant?speed

166,667

Constant?speed

166,667

Variable?speed

166,667

In? order? to? eliminate? vortices,? pumps? require? a? minimum? submergence? as? a? function? of

pump? suction? bell? diameter.? ? For? this?flow? condition,? a? 120-inch? suction? bell? is? required,

which?requires?a? minimum? submergence? of?16?feet.?? Submergence? requirements?should

be?verified?by?the?pump?manufacturer?during?final?design.

Level? sensors? in? the? wet? well? would? relay? signals? to? turn? pumps? on? and? off.? The? level

control? would? be? automatic? under? normal? conditions,? with? manual? override? possible.

Other?control?inputs?that?need?to?be?monitored?include?discharge?pipe?pressure,?flap?gate

position,?and?motor?alarms.

5.4?

Proposed?Layout

Flow? would? enter? the? pump? station? at? the? south? end? of? the? wet? well,? where? it? would? be

directed? perpendicularly? to? the? north? through? eight? 96-inch? slide? gates.? ? Pumps? are

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

16

located? at? the? north? end? of? the? pump? station.? ? Site? constraints? and? pump? station? size

appear? to? make?this?flow? pattern? necessary.? ? Due? to? the? excessively? large? area? needed

to?meet?Hydraulic?Institute?(HI)?Standards,?there?is?insufficient?area?available?to?meet?the

suggested?dimensions?directly.

A? rectangular? wet? well? is? shown? in? the? plan? and? section.? ? Design? features,? which? have

been? shown? to? be? effective? in? other? installations,? were? incorporated? in? this? design? in

order?to?meet?HI?standards.??For?example,?perforated?plates,?curtain?walls,?and?floor?and

back?wall?splitters?have?been?incorporated?into?the?conceptual?design.??(See?Appendix?C

for? a? plan? and? section? of? the? proposed? layout).? ? Sizing? and? details? of? these? types? of

features?are?normally?determined?by?physical?scale?modeling?during?detailed?design.

6

SUMMARY

A? review? of? TM-1WQ? confirms? that? the? disinfection? facilities? would? consist? of? UV

technology?without?requiring?tertiary?filters,?although?filtration?could?potentially?reduce?the

size? of? the? UV? facility? via? reductions? in? TSS? and? BOD.? Additionally,? the? disinfection

facilities? are? recommended? to? be? located? in? the? southwest? corner? of? the? existing? site,

adjacent?to?the?space?reserved?for?the?future?tertiary?filters.??In?order?to?direct?flow?to?the

proposed? location,? a? new? junction? chamber? would? be? constructed? just? upstream? of? the

existing? outfall? to? divert? flow? to? the? new? disinfection? facility.? ? It? would? also? permit

bypassing? of? the? disinfection? facility? during? winter? months? when? disinfection? is? not

required.

A? hydraulic? basis? of? design? was? developed? for? a? peak? plant? flow? of? 1,440? MGD.? This

preliminary? evaluation? indicated? that? additional? pumping? would? be? required? to? lift

secondary? effluent? up? approximately? 16-ft? in? order? to? flow? through? the? proposed? UV

system.? ? Axial? flow? pumps? are? recommended? for? the? LLPS? due? to? the? low? head

conditions? and? the? need? to? modify? the? discharge? head? when? tertiary?filters? are? added? in

the?future.

Hydraulics? were? estimated? starting? from? the? existing? effluent? aerator,? through? the? LLPS

and?UV?facilities,?and?ending?at?a?new?outfall?to?the?SSC.

The?proposed?conceptual?layout?of?the?new?UV?facilities?consists?of?the?following:

a.

Junction? chamber? with? isolation? gates? within? the? existing? plant? effluent

conduit?and?an?conduit?to?the?LLPS,

b.

LLPS:

i.? Building?housing?a?wet?well?and?eight?(8)?axial?flow?pumps.

ii.? Influent?and?effluent?conduits?with?isolation?gates.

iii.? Support?facilities?such?as?an?operator?and?storage?rooms.

c.

UV?Facility

i.? Building?housing?twelve?(12)?UV?reactor?channels.

ii.? Influent? and? effluent? channels? with? isolation? and? level? control

gates.

iii.? Support?facilities?such?as? an?operator? room,? storage? room? and

an?electrical?room?housing?the?switchgear?and?transformers?for

both?the?LLPS?and?the?UV?facilities.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

17

d.

A?new?effluent?outfall?to?the?Ship?and?Sanitary?Canal.

The?location?and?arrangement?of?these?facilities?was?determined?to?accommodate?future

facilities?as? well?as?have?functionality?up? to? the? 100-year?flood? elevation.? ? A? new?effluent

outfall? is? proposed,? however? permitting? requirements? may? require? this? options? to? be

reevaluated?during?final?design

In?conclusion,?this?review?has?confirmed?the?primary?assumptions?of?the?TM-1WQ?in

regards?to?the?need?for?a?low?lift?pump?station,?location?of?the?facilities?and?arrangement

of?the?facilities?to?accommodate?future?facilities.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Site?Plan?from?the?SWRP?Master?Plan

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Selected?Pages?from?USACE?CUP?DDR

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

APPENDIX?C

LLPS?Proposed?Layout

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

N

A

P-303

A

P-303

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

N

A

P-303

A

P-303

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

O:\P60040695\Constructs\07-026-2P\PROCESS\P-303.dwg,?P-303,?5/28/2008?3:29:50?PM,?kostamol

N

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

DISINFECTION?COST?STUDY

EVALUATION

OCTOBER?23,?2007

Prepared?By

303?EAST?WACKER?DRIVE,?SUITE?600

CHICAGO,?ILLINOIS?60601

MWRDGC?Project?No.?07-026-2P

CTE?Project?No.?60026610

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

i

TABLE?OF?CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1

Background .................................................................................................................... 1

Objective ........................................................................................................................ 1

AVAILABLE?UV?DISINFECTION?TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................... 2

Low?Pressure?–?Low?Intensity?(LP-LI) ............................................................................. 2

Low?Pressure?–?High?Intensity?(LP-HI) ............................................................................ 3

Medium?Pressure?–?High?Intensity?(MP-HI) ..................................................................... 3

LITERATURE?REVIEW?OF?SELECTED?MP-HI?UV?TECHNOLOGY.......................................... 4

Typical?MP-HI?System?Configuration .............................................................................. 4

Influent?Characteristics ................................................................................................... 4

Reactor?Configuration?and?Hydraulics............................................................................. 5

Lamps?and?UV?Intensity?Control ..................................................................................... 5

Lamp?Fouling?and?Cleaning ............................................................................................ 5

Process?Control .............................................................................................................. 6

Safety ............................................................................................................................. 6

REVIEW?OF?TECHNOLOGIES?FROM?MANUFACTURERS...................................................... 7

Trojan?Technologies?–?Trojan?UV4000™ Plus ................................................................. 7

Aquionics?–?InLine50,000+.............................................................................................. 7

Calgon?Carbon?–?C

3

500™ .............................................................................................. 8

Severn?Trent?Services?(STS)/Quay?–?MicroDynamics™ ................................................. 8

REFERENCE?INFORMATION?FROM?OTHER?OPERATING?FACILITIES ............................... 10

Case?Study:??Clayton?Water?Reclamation?Center?(WRC),?Atlanta,?GA.......................... 10

Telephone?Survey?of?Experience?at?Other?Facilities...................................................... 11

DISTRICT?UV?EQUIPMENT?TRIALS?PROJECT?AND?SUPPORTING?WATER?QUALITY

INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 14

Need?for?Pilot?Testing ................................................................................................... 14

BASIS?OF?DESIGN?OF?UV?SYSTEM?FOR?NORTH?SIDE?WRP .............................................. 16

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 17

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

ii

LIST?OF?TABLES

1

Typical?UV?Technology?Categories?(Bazzazieh,?2005).................................................... 3

2

Summary?of?Manufacturer-recommended?UV?Technologies?for?NSWRP........................ 9

3

Basis?of?Design?–?Clayton?WRC ................................................................................... 10

4

Operational?Data?–?Clayton?WRC?(April?to?September,?2001) ....................................... 10

5

Summary? of? Telephone? Interviews? of? Utilities? Using? MP-HI? UV? Disinfection

Systems........................................................................................................................ 13

6

Summary?of?2006/2007?Water?Quality?Testing.............................................................. 14

7

Design?Parameters?for?UV?Disinfection?Unit?at?NSWRP................................................ 16

LIST?OF?FIGURES

1

Categories?of?Currently?Available?UV?Disinfection?Systems?(Hunter,?et?al.,?2006b)......... 2

2

UV4000+?System?(Courtesy?of?Trojan?Technologies) ..................................................... 7

3

InLine50,000+?System?(Courtesy?of?Aquionics) .............................................................. 8

4

TAK25?System?(Courtesy?of?ITT/Wedeco) ...................................................................... 8

5

MicroDynamics?System?(Courtesy?of?STS/Quay)............................................................ 9

Appendix

Content

A

2006?UV?TRIAL?WATER?QUALITY?DATA?NSWRP,?CWRP,?AND

HPWRP

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

1

Background

This? technical? memorandum? has? been? developed? as? part? of? the? Preliminary? Cost

Opinion? for? Ultraviolet? (UV)? Disinfection? Facilities? Study? at? the? Metropolitan? Water

Reclamation? District? of? Greater? Chicago’s? (MWRDGC,? or? District)? North? Side? Water

Reclamation? Plant? (NSWRP)? in? Skokie,? Illinois.? This? memorandum? continues? the? work

began? in? TM1-WQ,? which? was? developed? previously? as? part? of? the? comprehensive

Infrastructure? and? Process? Needs? Feasibility? Study? (Feasibility? Study)? for? the? NSWRP

and?a?Water?Quality?(WQ)?Strategy?for?affected?Chicago?Area?Waterways.

The?TM1-WQ?documented?the?results?of?a?CTE?study?of?effluent?disinfection?alternatives

for?the? District’s? North? Side,? Calumet?and? Stickney?WRPs.? In? that? study,? a? task?force? of

national? experts? (referred? to? as? the? Blue? Ribbon? Panel)? reviewed? different? disinfection

technologies? and? their? range? of? pathogen? destruction? efficiency,? disinfection? byproducts

and? impacts? upon? aquatic? life? and? human? health.? ? Their? investigation? also? included? an

examination? of? the? environmental? and? human? health? impacts? of? the? energy? required? for

the?operation?of? the?facility?and?for? the?processing? and? production? of?process? chemicals.

Based?on?economic?and?non-economic?evaluation?of?alternatives,?ozone?disinfection?and

UV? disinfection? were? selected? and? preliminary? basis? of? design? and? cost? estimates? were

developed.? The? UV? disinfection? system? using? medium? pressure? high? intensity? lamps

provided?by?Trojan?Technologies,?Inc.?was?used?as?a?basis?of?design?and?cost?estimates

for?the?UV?system.

Objective

Per?the?District’s?request,?further?evaluation?of?the?UV?disinfection?technology?is?required.

This? additional? evaluation? is? based? on? the? TM-1WQ,? the? comments? received? from? the

EPA? as? part? of? the? UAA? evaluations,? and? new? information? obtained? since? the? previous

work.?The?primary?objectives?of? the? evaluation? presented? in?this?technical?memorandum

are:

•

?

To? describe? the? current? UV? technologies? being? used? to? disinfect? wastewater

treatment?plant? effluent?and? to?find? if? changes? have? occurred? in? the? selected? UV

technology

•

?

To? get? updated? recommendations? and? costs? from? different? vendors? for? the

selected?technology

•

?

To?incorporate?information?available?from?literature

•

?

To?provide?references?of?experience?in?UV?disinfection?at?other?facilities

In? the? following? discussion,? the? results? of? this? evaluation? are? given.? The? sections? that

follow? summarize? the? currently? available? UV? technologies? for? disinfection? and? the

experience? of? using? such? systems? in? WWTPs,? and? provide? an? updated? basis? of? design

for?the?selected?UV?disinfection?system?at?the?NSWRP.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

2

AVAILABLE?UV?DISINFECTION?TECHNOLOGIES

In? the? past? 20? years,? UV? disinfection? has? gained? popularity? as? it? is? becoming? more

feasible? to? implement? due? its? advantages? over? alternate? disinfection? methods? (i.e.

chlorination/dechlorination,? ozonation,? etc)? as? noted? in? TM-1WQ.? The? UV? disinfection

systems? have? also? become? more? sophisticated,? reliable,? and? cost-effective.? The

currently? available?technologies?of?UV?disinfection? used? are? shown? in? Figure?1? (common

configurations?for?municipal?wastewater?applications?are?shown?bold).

al.,?2006b)

To? maximize? the? efficiency? of? the? system,? the? light? source? must? emit? at? the? wavelength

range? where? DNA? and? RNA? molecules? in? the? microorganisms? exhibit? a? maximum

absorbance? of? UV? light? (254? nM).? Hence,? the? most? important?element? of? UV? systems? is

the? light? source? or? lamp.? Based? on? the? source? of? UV,? these? disinfection? systems? are

categorized? into? three? categories.? The? important? characteristics? of? these? categories? are

given? in? Table? 1.? Here,? “Pressure”? refers? to? the? pressure? of? gasses? inside? the? lamp.

“Intensity”?refers?to?the?energy?output.

Low?Pressure?–?Low?Intensity?(LP-LI)

Available? for? more? than? 20? years,? low-pressure? lamps? are? arranged? in? horizontal? or

vertical? configurations? submerged? in? relatively? shallow? flow? channels.? Enclosed? and

Teflon-tube?systems?are?also?available.?Lamp?control?is?limited?to?"on"?and?"off."?These

Current?UV?Disinfection?Systems

Low?Pressure?Lamps

Medium?Pressure?Lamps

Pulsed?Power

Xenon?

Excimer

Open?Channel

perpendicular?to

flow

Closed

Chamber

Low?Intensity

Conventional

High?Intensity

Open

Channel

Closed

Chamber

Teflon

Tubes

Horizontal

Vertical

U-shaped

Quadritubes

Fatl

Lamps

Highout

Ballast

Horizontal Vertical

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

3

lamps?are?the?most?energy?efficient?lamps?used?for?UV?disinfection?because?85%?of?their

UV?System

Low?Pressure,

Medium?Pressure,

High?Intensity

Lamp?mercury

pressure,?torr

10

-3

?to?10

-2

10

-3

?to?10

-2

10

2

?to?10

3

Lamp?operating

temperature,

degrees?C

40

90?to?250

600-900

Typical?power?use

per?lamp,?watts

70?to?85

170?to?1,600

2,000?to?5,000

Cleaning

Manual

Automatic?wipers?? Automatic?wipers

total? emissions? are? near? the? peak? for? germicidal? effectiveness? (NYSERDA,? 2004).? The

estimated? lifetime? of? the? lamp? is? approximately?13,000? hours.?They?are? typically?used? at

facilities?where?the?design?flow?is?less?than?5?MGD?(Hunter,?et?al.,?2006b).?Because?more

lamps? are? needed? as? flow? increases,? the? related? maintenance? costs? at? large? facilities

may?be?higher?than?those?for?other?UV?systems.

Low?Pressure?–?High?Intensity?(LP-HI)

Introduced?within?the?last?several?years,?early?installations?of?low-pressure,?high-intensity

lamp? systems? were? deliberately? overdesigned,? involving? multiple? banks? of? lamps? and

cumbersome? hydraulic? diversion? controls? designed? to? turn? lamp? banks? on? and? off? as

operating? conditions? dictated.? When? these? systems? were? on,? all? lamps? in? the? bank? or

channel? operated? at?full? intensity.? Newer? improvements?allow?the? lamp's? wattage? output

to? be? varied? to? optimize? dose? delivery.? These? systems? also? include? an? automatic

cleaning? system.? These? lamps? have? an? average? lifetime? of? about? 8,000? hours,? with

gradually?falling? lamp? intensities? (NYSERDA,?2004).?These? systems?use? about?one-third

the? lamps? of? low-pressure? systems? but? also? about? three? times? more? than? medium-

pressure?systems?(Hunter,?et?al.,?2006b).

Medium?Pressure?–?High?Intensity?(MP-HI)

Medium-pressure? lamps? became? available? in? open-channel? and? closed-pipe

configurations? during? the? last? decade.? They? use? more? power? and? generate? higher? head

losses?than?the?low-pressure?systems?(Bazzazieh,?2005).??An?automatic?cleaning?system

that? periodically? removes? the? solids? that? coat? the? quartz? sleeves? is? also? required.? ? The

lamps? have? an? average? lifetime? of? about? 8,000? hours? with? intensity? gradually? declining

over? time? (NYSERDA,? 2004).? Because? they? have? higher? UV? output,? medium-pressure

systems? use? about? one-tenth? the? number? of? lamps? that?a? low-pressure? system? requires

(Hunter,? et? al.,? 2006b).? Medium? pressure? UV? lamps? are? mostly? recommended? for? larger

wastewater? treatment? plants? where? the? provisions? for? head? requirements? could? be

incorporated? in? the? design,? and? where? a? smaller? footprint? and? lower? maintenance? is

needed.

Thus,? the? technologies? are? distinguished? by? the? germicidal? intensity? given? off? by? each

lamp? type,?which? correlates?to? the? number? of? lamps?required?and? the? overall? UV? system

size?in?order?to?provide?a?specified?dose?of?energy?to?the?target?media?(pathogens?within

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

4

the?plant?effluent).??The?lamp?type?selected?is?determined?on?a?site-specific?basis.?For?the

NSWRP,? the? District? has? selected? the? MP-HI? system? of? UV? disinfection? based? on? their

interest? in? minimizing? the? total? number? of? lamps? required? and? the? recommendations? of

the? Blue? Ribbon? Panel? during? the? NSWRP? Master? Plan.? ? Further? investigation? of? this

technology?is?discussed?in?the?following?sections.

LITERATURE?REVIEW?OF?SELECTED?MP-HI?UV?TECHNOLOGY

Information? on? the? latest? developments? and? experience? in? using? the? MP-HI? UV

disinfection? system? was? researched? in? literature? including? technical? proceedings? from

Water? Environment? Federation? (WEF),? Water? Environment? Research? Foundation

(WERF),?proceedings?from?the?latest?Disinfection?conference?series?undertaken?by?WEF,

American? Water? Works? Association? (AWWA),? and? International? Water? Association

(IW A).? In? the? following? discussion,? a? description? of? the? latest? MP-HI? technology? is

provided.? This? section? also? summarizes? the? experiences? of? some? of? the? wastewater

treatment?facilities?that?have?successfully?implemented?UV?disinfection.

Typical?MP-HI?System?Configuration

The?MP-HI?system?involves?sending?the?secondary?or?tertiary?effluent?through?a?confined

space? containing? banks? of? MP-HI? UV? lamps.? A? typical? MP-HI? UV? system? currently

consists?of? a? power? supply,? an? electrical? system,?a? reactor,? MP-HI? lamps,? a? mechanical

and/or? chemical? cleaning? system,? and? a? control? system.? The? MP-HI? UV? lamps? are

enclosed? in? individual? quartz? sleeves? for? protection? against? dirt? and? breakage.? Reactor

chambers? (open? or? enclosed? channels)? hold? the? lamps? in? either? a? horizontal? or? vertical

configuration.? In? an? open? channel? system,? effluent? weirs? or? automatic? level? control

devices? are? used? to? keep? the? lamps? submerged? under? the? effluent? water? to?ensure? that

the? lamps? to? not? overheat,? which? can? reduce? lamp? life? or? result? in? lamp? burnout.? The

whole? UV? system? is? also? sometimes?enclosed? in? a? building? to? protect? it? from? the? natural

elements.

The? MP-HI? UV? systems? can? be? divided? into? several? key? components? for? design? and

troubleshooting? purposes? including? the? quality? of? the? influent? to? the? UV? system,

hydraulics? and? headloss,? the? level? of? disinfection? that? must? be? attained? for? compliance

with? the? regulatory? requirements,? the? reactor? configuration,? the? quartz? sleeves,? frames,

the? cleaning? mechanisms,?the? lamps,? ballasts? or?transformers,? wiring,? and? the?electrical

control?system.?Brief?descriptions?of?the?important?process,?mechanical,?and?some?of?the

electrical?components?are?discussed?in?this?section.

Influent?Characteristics

The? water? quality? characteristics? that? affect? UV? transmittance? include? iron,? hardness,

suspended? solids,?humic? materials?and? organic? dyes? (NYSERDA,?2004).? Dissolved? iron

can?absorb?UV?light?and?precipitate?on?the?UV?system?quartz?tubes.?Hardness?affects?the

solubility?of? metals?that?absorb? UV? light?and?can?precipitate? carbonates?on? quartz?tubes.

Organic? humic? acids? and? dyes? also? absorb? UV? light.? Depending? on? the? disinfection

system? used,? the? UV? transmittance? needs? to? be? above? a? certain? level.? ? The? generally

accepted?minimum?transmittance?is?65%.??However,?some?commercially?available?MP-HI

systems?claim?to?disinfect?wastewater?with?UV?transmittance?as?low?as?15-percent.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

5

Reactor?Configuration?and?Hydraulics

An? open? channel?or? closed? conduit? is? used? as?a? reactor.? One? or? more? than? one? reactor

may? be? necessary? to? disinfect? the? total? amount? of? effluent.? UV? disinfection? systems

employ? a? variety? of? physical? configurations? but? the? most? common? ones? have? lamps

arranged?in?linear?configuration?to?increase?intensity?along?the?linear?axis?by?avoiding?UV

emission? losses? due? to? self? absorption,? reflection? or? refraction? that? can? occur? if? a? UV

lamp?were?twisted?into?loops?or?spirals.

The? hydraulic? characteristics? of? a? reactor? can? strongly? influence? disinfection

effectiveness.?The?optimum?hydraulic?scenario?for?UV?disinfection?involves?turbulent?flow

with? mixing? while? minimizing? head? loss.? To? maximize? effectiveness,? UV? reactors? are

preferred? to? operate? at? a? Reynolds? Number? of? greater? than? 5,000? (NYSERDA,? 2004).

Reactor?design,?including?inlet?and?outlet?flow?distribution,?determines?how?close?the?unit

operates?to?a? plug?flow.?Inlet? conditions?are?designed? to?distribute? the? flow?and? equalize

velocities.? UV? system? outlets? are? designed? to? control? the? water? level? at? a? constant? level

with?little?fluctuation?within?the?UV?disinfection?reactor.

Lamps?and?UV?Intensity?Control

The? MP-HI? lamps? contain? mercury? vapor? and? argon? gas? that? produce? polychromatic

radiation,? which? is? concentrated? at? select? peaks? throughout? the? germicidal? wavelength

region.?Most?commercially?available? MP-HI? lamps?look? similar? to?a?fluorescent?tube? light

bulb,? but? they? are? made? of? quartz? glass? because? quartz? has? the? ability? to? transmit? UV

light.

The? intensity? of? the? lamp? is? unstable?for? the? first? 100? hours? of? operation? and? decreases

more? rapidly? during? that? period.? Hence? the? 100%? intensity? of? the? lamp? is? usually

measured? after? this? 100-hour? time? period.? These? lamps? have? a? germicidal? output? of

about? 16? W/cm,? which? is? about? 80? times? higher? than? LP-LI? lamps? (NYSERDA,? 2004).

Electronic? ballasts? for? each? lamp? are? used? to? control? the? power? to? the? lamp.? If? the? UV

dose? is? to? be? reduced,? variable? output? electronic? ballast? can? regulate? the? power? to? the

lamp? from? 100%? to? 30%.? Entire? banks? can? also? be? turned? off? if? there? is? no? flow.? This

allows? dose-pacing? based? on? the? secondary? or? tertiary? effluent? flow? and? quality,? which

helps?save?power?and?lamp?life.

Lamp?Fouling?and?Cleaning

The? MP-HI? lamps? operate? at? a? temperature? range? of? 600? to? 900? degree? C.? The? warm

temperatures? produced? by? UV? lamps? promote? the? precipitation? of? an? inorganic,

amorphous?film? (scale)? on? the? surface?of? the?quartz?sleeves?when? the? lamps?are? placed

directly? within? the? wastewater? stream.? Iron? is? the? most? abundant? metal? in? these? scales

along? with? other? mineral? salts? and? oil,? grease,? suspended? solids? deposits,? and? biofilms

(NYSERDA,?2004).?If?no?tertiary?treatment?is?provided,?physical?debris?may?contribute?to

fouling?as?well.

Lamp? fouling? significantly? reduces? the? effectiveness? of? UV? disinfection? by? blocking? the

UV? rays.? The? MP-HI? UV? disinfection? systems? must? be? cleaned? on? a? regular? basis.

Researchers? have? found? that? the? lamp? fouling? increases? linearly? with? the? time? elapsed

after? last? cleaning,? but? the? dependency? of? the? cleaning? frequency? on? the? quality? of

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

6

effluent? is? not? well? predicted? (NYSERDA,? 2004).? So,? pilot? testing? is? usually? done? to

determine?cleaning?frequency.?Most?of?the?commercially?available?MP-HI?UV?disinfection

systems?require? mechanical?as?well?as?chemical?cleaning.?The?latest?technology?uses?a

system?of?mechanical?wipers?and?sleeves?containing?cleaning?chemicals?surrounding?the

lamp.? The? cleaning? solution? usually? contains? some? acidic? solution? that? prevents? fouling

(Darby? et? al.,? 1995).? This? cleaning? system? can? be? programmed? to? clean? at? a? set

frequency? without?the? need?for? disrupting? the?disinfection? process.?The? cleaning? solution

needs? to? be? replaced? periodically? depending? on? the? type? of? solution? used? and

characteristics?of?the?site?specific?effluent?water?quality.

Process?Control

The? need? to? pace? the? dose? in? the? MP-HI? UV? disinfection? system? is? important? because

too? much? dosing? wastes? electricity? and? too? little? dosing? would? not? meet? the? disinfection

regulatory? requirements? and? goals.? Several? process? control? options? are? available? to

control? the? dosing.? Although? manual? control? of? the? dosing? is? possible,? an? automated

process? control? facilitates? online? pacing? of? the? dose? and? also? allows? it? to? be? interfaced

with? the? plant’s? overall? supervisory? control? and? data? acquisition? (SCADA)? system.? The

flow,? lamp? output,? and? water? conditions? are? measured? in? pacing? of? the? dose,? and? an

algorithm? is? developed? based? on? long-term? measurements? to? predict? necessary? system

adjustments,?maintenance,?and?component?replacements.

Programmable? logic? control? (PLC)? technology? is? the? latest? available? process? control

technology? for? dose? pacing? in? the? MP-HI? UV? disinfection? system? (Hunter? et? al,? 2006b).

The?PLC?interacts? with?the? ballasts,?sensors,?and? online? monitoring? technology?for? each

disinfection? unit.? The? PLC? then? interacts? with? the? plant’s? overall? control? system? to? allow

remote? monitoring? and? adjustment? of? the? system.? The? PLC? is? usually? supplied? by? the

manufacturer?of?the?unit.

Safety

The?UV?disinfection?systems?are?one?of?the?safest?technologies?available?for?disinfection.

The? high? voltage? power? supplies?for? the? MP-HI? UV? disinfection? system? may? pose? some

issue? as? the? lamps? are? submerged? in? the? water? most? of? the? time,? but? compliance? with

normal? electrical? safety? codes? should? mitigate? the? hazardous? conditions.? Submerging? a

lamp? in? water,? even? if? it? is? just? a? few? inches? below? the? surface,? will? greatly? reduce? the

intensity?(NYSERDA,?2004).?Thus,?the?MP-HI?UV?reactors?should?be?designed?to?ensure

constant?water?levels?to?minimize?the?risk?of?UV?exposure.

Sudden? or? prolonged? exposure? to? ultraviolet? (UV)? light? can? result? in? eye? injury,? skin

burns,? premature? skin? aging,? or? skin? cancer.? Individuals? who? work? with? UV? disinfection

systems? –? or? in? any? area? where? UV? light? is? used? -? are? at? risk? of? UV? exposure? if? the

appropriate?protective? equipment? is? not? used.? The? UV? radiation? should? be? confined? to? a

restricted?area,?and?an?interlocked?access?system?should?be?in?place?so?that?the?UV?light

is? shut? off? when? the? protective? enclosure? is? opened? (Prentiss,? 2004).? A? UV? safety

program? for? operators? is? usually? undertaken? to? make? them? aware? of? the? effects? of? UV

exposure.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

7

REVIEW?OF?AVAILABLE?TECHNOLOGIES?FROM?MANUFACTURERS

As? discussed? previously,? the? Blue? Ribbon? Panel? recommended? medium? pressure,? high

intensity?technology?based?on?the?size?of?the?proposed?facilities?and?the?District’s?interest

in? minimizing? the? total? number? of? bulbs.? ? Two? commercially? available? medium? pressure,

high? intensity? systems? are? available? for? the? municipal? wastewater? market.? ? For

comparison,? low? pressure,? high? intensity? system? manufacturers? were? also? contacted.? ? A

review? of? the? information? available? from? the? UV? technology? manufacturers? has? been

summarized?in?Table?2?and?discussed?below.

Trojan?Technologies?–?Trojan?UV4000™Plus

Trojan? Technologies? recommends? their? Trojan? UV4000™ Plus? model? for? disinfection? of

the? effluent? at? the? North? Side? WRP.? The? system? is? especially? designed? for? large? scale

applications?of?10? MGD? or? more,?and?uses?MP-HI? lamps?horizontal?and? parallel?with?the

flow? incorporating? an? automatic? chemical/mechanical? cleaning? system.? Trojan? claims

that?this?system?is?capable?of?treating?wastewater?effluents?with?UV?transmittance?as?low

as? 15-percent? when? appropriately? sized.? It? has? a? PLC-based? system? to? monitor? and

control?all?UV?functions,?and?has?automated?dose?delivery?based?on?lamp?age,?and?other

water? parameters? such? as? flow? rate,? UV? transmittance,? and? turbidity.? The? system? has

high?efficiency?ballasts?that?can?vary?output?from?30%?to?100%?per?bank?to?match?the?UV

dose? with? effluent? quality? and? flow? rate.? Trojan? claims? to? have? over? 375? installations? of

this?system?worldwide.

Figure?2?–?UV4000+?System

Aquionics?–?InLine50,000+

Aquionics? has? recommended? their? InLine50,000+? system? for? disinfection? of? the? effluent

at?the?North?Side?W RP.?The?system?uses?horizontal?high?output?medium?pressure?lamps

aligned?perpendicular?to?the?flow?in?a?closed?conduit?reactor,?which?enables?treatment?of

high?flows? without?bypass.?The? manufacturer? claims?the?compact?design?achieves?a? low

pressure?drop?even?for?gravity?fed?flows,?although?reported?headloss?is?approximately?5-

6?times?that?of?an?open?channel?system.?It?comes?with?advanced?“fail-safe”?UV?monitors

with?all?functions?controlled?by?microprocessors.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

8

3

500™

The?C

3

500™ ? wastewater? disinfection? system? recommended?by?Calgon? Carbon?employs

low? pressure,? high? intensity? UV? lamp? technology? with? electronic? ballasts? to? effectively

disinfect? wastewater? plant? effluent.? The? modular? design? can? be? quickly? installed? in? an

open? channel?parallel? to? the? flow? of? wastewater.? The?

3

SerCies™ ? is? designed? for? simple

operation?and?trouble-free? maintenance.? It?has?a?control?system? that?allows?dose?or?flow

pacing.? The? system? has? only? automatic? mechanical? cleaning? and? does? not? utilize? any

automatic? chemical? cleaning.? Other? manufacturers? that? supply? this? type? of? system

include?ITT/Wedeco,?and?Infilco-Degremont/Ozonia.

Severn?Trent?Services?(STS)/Quay?–?MicroDynamics™

STS/Quay? has? recommended? their? MicroDynamics™ ? system? for? disinfection? of? the? final

effluent?at?the?North?Side?WRP.?Their?microwave?ballast?technology?uses?microwaves?to

energize? low-pressure,? high-output? bulbs? for? wastewater? disinfection.? The? bulbs? light

instantly? and? lamps? can? be? switched? on? and? off? to? match? the? flow.? According? to? the

manufacturer,? the? main?advantage? of?the? system? is? better? control?of?power? to? the? lamps,

which? significantly? increases? the? lamp? life.? The? system? is? based? on? a? relatively? new

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

9

concept? and? no? information? is? available? on? its? application? and? experience? at? large

wastewater?treatment?facilities.

Aquionics

Calgon?Carbon?

STS/Quay

Recommended

model

UV4000™Plus

InLine50000+

C

3

500™

MicroDynamics™

Lamp?type

MP-HI

MP-HI

LP-Ham

?I algam

LP-HI?energized

by?microwaves

Channel?dimensions

LxWxD

40’6”

?x?8’10”?x

14’4”

N/A

38’6”

?x?7’2.25”?x

6’4”

N/A

Channels

5?(4?+?1?for

redundancy)

18

15

N/A

Reactors/channel

1

1

1

N/A

Banks/reactor

2

1

2

N/A

Modules/bank

7

1

15?racks/bank

N/A

Lamps/module

24

32

8?lamps/rack

N/A

Total?lamps

1680

576

3600

N/A

Lamp?life,?hours

5,000

8,000

12,000

27,000

Lamp?configuration?

Horizontal,

parallel?to?flow

Horizontal,

perpendicular

to?flow

Horizontal,

parallel?to?flow

N/A

Headloss?through

Reactor

9”

56”

N/A

N/A

Cleaning?system

Automatic

mechanical?and

chemical

Automatic

mechanical

and?chemical

Automatic

mechanical,?non-

chemical

N/A

Price

(excluding?taxes)

$?7,986,000

$?5,221,000?

$?7,455,000

N/A

N/A ? –? N ot?available

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

REFERENCE?INFORMATION?FROM?OTHER?OPERATING?FACILITIES

Case?Study:??Clayton?Water?Reclamation?Center?(WRC),?Atlanta,?GA

Source:?Goodman?and?Mills,?2002

The? Clayton? WRC? is? a? biological? nutrient? removal? plant? serving? portions? of? Fulton,

DeKalb,? and? Gwinnett? counties? and? much? of? the? City? of? Atlanta,? Georgia.? The? plant

discharges? into? the? Chattahoochee? River.? It? has?a? maximum? monthly?flow? of? 122? MGD,

with?a?permit?limit?of?30?mg/L?of?monthly?average?TSS?in?the?final?effluent.?The?maximum

allowable? Fecal? Coliform? in? the? final? effluent? is? 200? counts/100? mL? monthly? maximum

average?and?400?counts/100?mL?weekly?maximum?average.

The?plant?uses?an?open?channel,?gravity-flow?MP-HI?UV?disinfection?system?consisting?of

medium-pressure?vapor?UV?lamps,?oriented?horizontally?and?parallel?to?flow,?arranged?in

modules,?and?installed?inside?enclosed?reactors?in?open?channels.?The?basis?of?design?of

the? UV? system? is? given? in? Table? 3.? At? this? facility,? flow? from? the? filters? initially? enters? the

influent? channel? of? the? disinfection? structure,? then? flows? over? a? weir? into? a? common

influent? channel,? and? finally? flows? through? four? individual? channels.? Each? of? these

channels? is? equipped? with?a? UV? lamp? system.? In? order? for? the? UV? lamp? system? to? work

properly,?a? specified? level?of?liquid? must? be? maintained? in? the? channel?to? ensure? that?the

lamps? are? always? submerged? when? in? operation.? To? maintain? the? desired? liquid? level? in

each? channel,? downstream? weirs? are? used? prior? to? the? flow?entering? the? clearwell.? Plant

reuse?pumps?are?located?downstream?of?the?UV?system.

Table?3.?Basis?of?Design?–?Clayton?WRC

Number?of?channels

4?operational/1?future

Number?of?banks/channel

2

Number?of?modules/bank

9

Number?of?lamps/module

10

Total?number?of?lamps

720

UV?dose,?mJ/cm

2

24

Before?the?design,?installation?and?operation?of?the?UV?system,?a?collimated-beam?dose-

response? testing? was? done? to?estimate? the? sensitivity? of? the? in-fecsial?tucoliform? to? UV.

Once?the?dose?was?determined?using?the?pilot?tests,?the?system?was?installed?and?came

into?operation.?The?initial?operational?data?is?given?in?Table?4.

Table?4.?Operational?Data?–?Clayton?WRC?(April?to?September,?2001)

Normal?Daily?Dose?Range

24?to?49?mW-sec/cm

2

Overall?Dose?Range

18?to?100?mW -sec/cm

2

Normal?Daily?Transmittance?Range

74%?to?78%

Overall?Transmittance?Range

65%?to?83%

Days?of?Coliform?Data

182

Days?Count?was?Below?400?per?100?mL

174

Days?Where?Fecal?Count?was?Below?200?per?100?mL

170

Days?Where?Fecal?Count?was?Below?23?per?100?mL

141

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

11

During? the? initial? phase,? the? facility? operated? on? a? UV? dose? exceeding? the? one

established? during? the? dose-response? testing.? In? the? first? couple? of? months? of? operation

after? the? startup? of? the? UV? system,? the? Clayton? operational? staff? fed? a? small? dose? of

sodium? hypochlorite? downstream? of? the? UV? system,? until? they?became? comfortable? with

the? system? and? its? reliability.? During? initial? operation,? it? was? found? that? the? normal

transmittance?range?was?74%?to?78%,?which?exceeded?the?conservative?average?design

value? of? 68%? established? using? unfiltered? samples.? The? UV? system? was? found? to? meet

the?Georgia?state?standards?for?reuse?77%?of?the?time,?and?monthly?averages?95%?of?the

time.

Telephone?Survey?of?Experience?at?Other?Facilities

A? telephone? survey? was? done? by? calling? relevant? personnel? at? facilities? that? have? been

using? UV? technology? to? disinfect? their? secondary? or? tertiary? effluent.? Priority? was? given

based?on?the?following?criteria?for?selection?of?the?facility?for?the?telephone?survey.

•

?

Facility? should? preferably? be? in? the? Midwest? or? other? areas? that? treat? hard? water

and?may?be?prone?to?calcium?fouling

•

?

Facility?should?have?a?high?treatment?capacity,?possibly?greater?than?100?MGD

•

?

Facility?should?be?using?a?MP-HI?UV?disinfection?system

Five? facilities? were? contacted? and? the? personnel? responsible? for? the? operation? and

maintenance? of? the? UV? equipment? were? interviewed.? A? summary? of? the? results? of? this

telephone? survey? is? given? in? Table? 5.? The? facilities? contacted? were? Racine? WWTP? in

Racine? (WI),? R.L.? Sutton? WRF? in? Cobb? County? (GA),? Grand? Rapids? WWTP? in? Grand

Rapids? (MI),? Jacksonville? WWTP? in? Buckman? (FL),? and? Valley? Creek? WWTP? in? Valley

Creek?(AL).?All?these?facilities?have?peak?influent?flows?close?to?or?above?100?MGD.

Following? observations? are? made? based? on? the? telephone? interview? of? facilities? using? a

MP-HI?UV?system?for?disinfection?of?their?secondary?or?tertiary?effluent.

•

?

Four?out?of?the?five?facilities?use?a?system?provided?by?Trojan?Technologies,?Inc.

•

?

The? Jacksonville? WWTP? has? low? UV? transmittance,? sometimes? as? low? as? 8%

during? high? industrial? discharge? to? the? plant.? They? have? had? a? few? permit

violations,? but? otherwise? their? disinfection? system? helps? them? meet? the? permit

limits.

•

?

Calcium? fouling? due? to? hardness? in? the? source? water? is? not? a? significant? problem

because? of? the? automatic? mechanical/chemical? cleaning? system? that? dissolves

and? wipes? away? any? scales.? This? was? observed? in? all? five? plants? including? the

Racine?and?Grand?Rapids?utilities?which?have?Lake?Michigan?source?water.

•

?

Fouling?due?to?iron?in?the?effluent?has?been?a?problem?at?the?Racine,?Sutton,?and

Grand? Rapids? facilities.? The? iron? in? the? effluent? at? all? three? plants? was? primarily

from? the? chemical? phosphorus? removal? using? Ferric? Chloride.? At? Grand? Rapids

WWTP,? the? chemical? addition? is? upstream? of? the? secondary? treatment? process;

staining? of? sleeves? was? found? only? when? the? chemical? addition? was? in? the

secondary?clarifiers.?At?the? Sutton?WRF,?fouling?of?lamps? due? to? iron? is?observed

although?chemical?addition?is?upstream?of?secondary?process?and?sand?filters?are

used?upstream?of?the?UV?disinfection?system.?At?the?Racine?WWTP,?fouling?may

be? due? to?ferric? chloride?addition? and/or? due? to?the? additional?iron? brought?by?the

ferric? sludge? from? another? water? treatment? plant,? although? operational? controls

are?used?to?prevent?both?sources?from?occurring?simultaneously.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

12

•

?

The? Trojan? ActiClean? gel? was? found? to? be? ineffective? at? the? Racine? and? Grand

Rapids? plants? experiencing? fouling? due? to? iron.? These? utilities? and? Sutton? WRF

used?alternate?chemicals?to?clean?the?lamp?sleeves.

•

?

The?frequency?of?cleaning?and?changing?of?the?cleaning?solution?is?specific?to?the

utility?and?would?have?to?be?determined?only?by?experience.

•

?

The?facilities?typically?replace?lamps?after? the? lamps’

? rated? service?life?of? 5000? to

6000? hours,? but? many? times? the? operators? used? the? lamps? until? they? failed

(shorter?lamp?life)?or?burn?out?(lamp?life?up?to?9000?hours).

•

?

Labor? requirements? varied? amongst? facilities,? with? some? facilities? requiring? more

manhours?to?handle? the? fouling.? The? Jacksonville? WWTP? required? more? labor? to

mitigate?the?algal?growth?caused?by?high?temperatures.

•

?

Storage? requirements? were? not? significant? at? all? the? facilities.? Only? a? few? gallons

of? the? cleaning? solution? were? stored? at?a? time.?Lamps? were? also? not? stored? on? a

large?scale.

•

?

None? of? the? facilities? had? done? an? on-site? pilot? testing.? Only? collimated? beam

testing? (by? the? manufacturer,? at? Grand? Rapids? and? Jacksonville? WWTPs)? was

done? to? analyze? the? UV? dose-response.? At? Valley? Creek? WWTP,? one? of? the

smaller? facilities? had? a? functioning? UV? system? by? Trojan? Technologies,? and? that

prompted?them?to?install?the?system?at?their?larger?plant?without?any?pilot?testing.

As?long?as?other? processes?in?the? plant? are?performing?as? desired,?all?five?facilities?were

satisfied?with?the?UV?disinfection?system?because?it?met?their?disinfection?goals.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

13

Facility

Racine?WWTP

R.L.Sutton?WRF

Grand?Rapids

Jacksonville?WWTP? Valley?Creek?WWTP

Location

Racine,?WI

Cobb?County,?GA

Grand?Rapids,?MI

Buckman,?FL

Valley?Creek,?AL

UV?disinfection

system

Trojan?UV4000+

Aquionics

Trojan?UV4000+

Trojan?UV4000?with

custom?modifications

Trojan?UV4000+

Startup?date

2005

Dec?2005

Feb?2005

2001

Jul?5,?2005

Disinfection?goals?met

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Plant?maximum?flow

108?mgd

120?mgd?design

90?mgd

105?mgd

240?mgd

UV?transmittance,?%

60%-85%

N/A

60?to?65%

48%?to?55%

80%?to?85%

Coliforms,?current

(monthly?permit)

N/A?(400)?E.?Coli

count/100?mL

1?(200)?F.?Coli

count/100?mL

80?to?140?(200)?F.?Coli

count/100?mL

200?(800)?F.?Coli

count/100?mL

15?(1000)?F.?Coli

count/100?mL

Target?UV?dose

~29?mJ/cm

2

50?mJ/cm

2

30?to?40?mJ/cm

2

N/A

32?mJ/cm

2

Tertiary?filtration

No

Yes,?sand?filters.

No

No

Yes,?sand?filters

Chemical?Phosphorus

r emoval?-?F er ric

Chloride?addition

Yes,?additional?ferric

sludge?from?water

treatment?plant.

Yes,?addition?before

secondary?treatment.

Yes,?addition?before

secondary?treatment.

No

No

Fouling?–?iron

(staining?of?sleeves)

Yes

Yes,?seevl

es?repalced

1.5?to?2?yr

When?chemicals?added

to?secondary?clarifiers

N/A

N/A

Water?hardness

Lake?Michigan?source

Not?significant

Lake?Michigan?source

Well?water

Rvier?water

Fouling?–?hardness

Yes,?but?insignificant

Negligible

Yes

Yes

Negligible

Cleaning?Chemical

Used

Lmi e-Away

Phosphoric?acid

Lmi e-Away?plus?10%

phosphoric?acid

Trojan?ActiClean?gel

Trojan?ActiClean?gel

Additional?cleaning

other?than?automatic

cleaning?and?its

frequency

Manual?once/?week?only

if?necessary.

Change?cleaning

solution?per?6-8?weeks

Once?after?shutting

down?a?channel?and

once?before?startup.

Check?for?foulngi ?every

2?weeks?and?replace?the

ceal nnig?solutoin?once?a

month.

Check?and?replace

ceal nnig?solutoin?every

2?months.

Manual,?if?necessary

Storage?of?cleaning

solution

7-8?cases?with?1-gal

container/case

Buy?5-gal?acd?i crystals

Make?phosphoric?acid?in

a?storage?tank.

1-gal?container?at?North

sdie?and?1?galoln?at

South?side.

2?to?3?cases?with?4

gal/case.

4?cases,?16

bottles/case.

Lamp?replacement

frequency

~?6000?hrs,?or?after

burnoff?at?~9000?hrs.

~?5000?to?6000?hrs.

About?1?lamp/week.

~?5000?to?6000?hrs,?or

after?failure.

~?5000?hrs,?or?after

faurli e.

~?6200?hrs,?or?after

failure?or?burnoff.

Lamp?storage

N/A

Very?few.

Very?few?(Trojan?ships

new?lamps?on?time)

~100?lamps?at?a?time.

Few?new?aml ps.

Partialyl?used?aml ps

stored?for?reuse.

Pilot?testing?on?site

None

None

None

None

None

Other?testing

Comillated?beam

N/A

Comillated?beam?by

Trojan

Comillated?beam?by

Trojan

None

Labor?requirement

8?hrs/?week

7-8?hrs/?week

8?hrs/week

18?to?20?hrs/week

12?hrs/bank?to?replace

ceal nnig?gel?twice/yr.

25?hrs/bank?to?replace

bulbs.

N/A?–?Not?Available

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

14

DISTRICT? UV? EQUIPMENT? TRIALS? PROJECT? AND? SUPPORTING? WATER

QUALITY?INFORMATION

Currently,?the?District?is?planning?an?ultraviolet?disinfection?technology?disinfection?trial?at

the? Hanover? Park? WRP.? ? The? trial? is? intended? to? provide? real? world? operating? and

performance? data? on? several? available? UV? systems.? ? The? trials? will? allow? District? staff? to

become? familiar? with? design,? implementation,? operation,? and? monitoring? of? a? UV

disinfection?system?through?a?small?scale?application.

Due? to? the? site?and? time? limitations,? the? UV? technologies? to?be? tested? are? limited? to? low

pressure,? high? intensity? technology? to? match? the? low? flows? available? for? testing.

Currently,? the? District? has? invited? Trojan? Technologies,? ITT/Wedeco,? Severn? Trent

Services/Quay,?and? Infilco-Degremont/Ozonia?to? set?up? small-scale?pilot?installations?for

startup?and?operation?during?the?winter?of?2007-2008.

In?preparation?for?this?testing?and?to?support?the?District’s?ongoing?investigations?into?the

potential? need? for? UV? disinfection? implementation,? additional? water? quality? data? testing

related? specifically?to? UV? disinfection?has?been?completed? at?Hanover? Park?WRP,?North

Side? WRP,? and? Calumet? WRP? in? 2006-2007.? ? Water? quality? data? was? collected? once

every? two? weeks? on? plant? effluent? grab? samples? for? Fecal? Coliform? counts,? Escherichia

Coliform? counts,? Total? Coliform? counts,? COD,? and? UV? transmittance.? ? This? data? was

tested? pre-filtered,? post-laboratory? filtered,? and? post-full? scale? filtered? (Hanover? Park

WRP? samples? only).? ? In? addition,? the? District? collected? hourly? grab? sample? UV

transmittance? data?at? Hanover? Park?for? two? days?in?June? of? 2007.? ? Appendix? A? includes

the?complete?data?collected?to?date.

Table? 6? below? presents? a? summary? of? the? unfiltered? data? at? the? NSWRP? and? CWRP

sites.

1

E.Coli

Total

Coliform

COD

Site

Transmittance

CFU/100?ml? CFU/100?ml? CFU/100?ml?

mg/L

%

NSWRP

Average

13,254

11,825

147,140

26

76.7

Std?Dev

8,213

5,818

59,619

12

3.54

CWRP

Average

10,804

9,878

120,321

27

71.3

Std?Dev

7,292

5,270

55,471

1

?Prior?to?2006,?WRP?outfall?sampling?indicated?maximum?fecal?coliform?counts?of?200,000.

9

2.22

While? additional? data? is? suggested? to? increase? the? level? of? confidence? in? the? maximum

day? data? (98%? confidence? level),? this? information? does? provide? a? good? indication? of? the

UV? transmittance? data?and?normal?range?of?the?bacteria? levels.?? This?information? can? be

used?to?develop?appropriate?assumptions?for?the?UV?disinfection?sizing?criteria.

Need?for?Pilot?Testing

Although? many?manufacturers?suggest?that?collimated? beam? testing? of? water? samples? is

sufficient? for? design,? full-scale? pilot? testing? is? useful?for? demonstrating?the? effectiveness

and? performance? of? the? UV? systems? as? well? as? establishing? critical? design? parameters.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

15

In? this? case,? the? proposed? UV? disinfection? systems? will? be? among? the? largest? ever

constructed? in? North? America? and? none? of? the? UV? systems? have? been? applied? at? this

scale? in? their? current? configuration.? ? In? particular,? the? following? three? issues? could? be

addressed?during?full-scale?piloting:

1.? In-situ? determination? of? fouling? factors? and? lamp? aging? factors? based? on? actual

site? specific? conditions.? ? This? data? is? critical? to? optimize? the? lamp? dose

calculations?and?system?sizing.

2.? In-situ? determination? of? fouling? potential? with? and? without? iron? salt? addition.? ? The

phone? survey?has?indicated?that?Lake? Michigan?source?water? combined? with?iron

salt?addition?creates?more?rapid?fouling?than?other?applications.

3.? Actual? development? of? maintenance? and? operating? frequencies? required? for? the

specific? system? to? be? implemented? including? preventative? maintenance,? bulb

replacement,? sensor? maintenance,? operating? modes,? power? optimization,? etc.

This?data? may? influence? system? sizing? if?individual?lamps?are?not? replaced? if? they

burn?out?early.

Additional?site-specific? data?such?as?UV? transmittance,?optimum? UV? dose? requirements,

and? effluent?quality?information? could?be? obtained? from? a? carefully?designed? pilot?testing

program.??This?data?might?permit?the?District?to?collect?a?body?of?data?by?which?to?present

the?case?for?a?lower?UV?dose?to?more?closely?match?the?required?log?removal?of?bacteria.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

16

BASIS?OF?DESIGN?OF?UV?SYSTEM?FOR?NORTH?SIDE?WRP

Per?the?District’s?recommendation,?the?MP-HI?UV? disinfection?system?has?been?selected

for? disinfection? of? the? final? effluent? at? the? North? Side? WRP.? Based? on? a? review? of? the

information? provided? by? the? UV? equipment? manufacturers? and? the? experience? of? five

other? facilities,? it? is? observed? that? Trojan? Technologies? provides? a? widely-used? low-

maintenance? solution? for? final? effluent? disinfection.? The? design? of? the? MP-HI? UV

disinfection? system? for? the? North? Side? WRP? is? based? on? the? Trojan? UV4000™ Plus

equipment?provided?by?Trojan?Technologies.?The?basis?of?design?is?given?in?Table?7.

Parameter

Design?Value

Design?flow,?mgd

450

Average?flow,?mgd

333

Maximum?TSS

a

,?mg/L

15

Pre-Disinfection?Effluent?E.Coli?Count)

?b

,

cfu/100?mL,?maximum?(Assumed)

200,000

Post-Disinfection?Effluent?E.Coli?Count

Target

c

,?cfu/100?mL

1030

Effluent?hardness

?d

,?mg/L?as?CaCO

3

270

UV?transmittance,?minimum,?%

65

UV?dosing

UV?intensity

e

,?W/lamp

4,000

Fouling?Factor,?%

90

Lamp?Aging?Factor,?%

89

Lamp?Age,?hours

5,000

UV?dose

f

,?mW-s/cm

2

40

Hydraulics

Channel?dimensions,?WxD

106”?x?172”

Number?of?channels

5?(4?plus?1?standby)

Number?of?reactors?per?channel

1

Number?of?banks?per?reactor

2

Number?of?modules?per?bank

7

Number?of?lamps?per?module

24

Total?number?of?lamps

1680

Liquid?level?control?in?channel

Motorized?Weir?Gate

Headloss,?UV?reactor?only

9”

Velocity?in?each?channel,?V,?ft/s

1.74

Total?power?requirement,?kW

5376

Average?power?requirement,?kW

2903

a

?Monthly?TSS?permit?limit,?12?mg/L

b

?Annual?average

c

?Future?requirement?(monthly?geometric?average)

de

?M100%ean?val?intensiue

ty?at?100?hours?of?lamp?use

f

?IEPA?requirement

The? lamp? aging? and? fouling? factors? are? based? on? recommendations? of? manufacturers.

Trojan? Technologies? generally? recommends? a? fouling? factor? of? 95%,? which? was

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

17

determined? using? Bioassay? validation? required? by? the? State? of? California.?? USEPA’s

UVdis?program?(UV?Dosing?Modeling?Software)?recommends?a?fouling?factor?of?100%?for

a? system? that? incorporates? automatic? mechanical? and? chemical? cleaning,? such? as

Trojan’s?UV4000™ Plus.?? The? IEPA?accepts? the? results?of?the? UVdis? program?to?size? the

system? to? meet? the? IEPA’s? 40? mJ/cm2? dose? requirement.? ? Other? UV? disinfection

systems’

? fouling? factors? range? from? approximately? 80? to?85%,? though? these? systems?do

not?incorporate?chemical?cleaning?systems?into?their?design.

These?values?were?taken?into?consideration?when?choosing?a?fouling?factor?for?NSWRP’s

design.??A?value?of?90%?was?settled?upon?to?incorporate?both?Trojan’s?recommendations

and?good?engineering?judgement.

REFERENCES

Bazzazieh,? N.,? Retrofitting? existing? wastewater? treatment? plants? to? replace? gas

chlorination? with? U.V.? disinfection? –? design? considerations,? WEF? 2005? Conference

Series?-?Disinfection?2005,?Feb?6-9,?2005.

Darby? J.,? Heath,? M.,? Jacangelo,? J.,? Loge,? F.,? Swaim,? P.,? and? Tchobanoglous,? G.,

Comparison? of? UV? irradiation? to? chlorination:? Guidance? for? achieving? optimal? UV

performance,?WERF,?Project?91-WWD-1,?1995.

Gary? Hunter? and? Jorj? Long,? Ultraviolet? blues?–? what?do? you? do? when? the? lights?go? out?,

WE&T,?Nov?2006a.

Gary? Hunter,? Paul? Wood,? and? Ed? Kobylinski,? Light? management? –? choosing? the? best

controls?for?a?UV?disinfection?system,?WE&T,?Feb?2006b.

Goodman,? G.V.,? and? Mills,? J.A.,? Compare? ultraviolet? disinfection? system? design? at? two

Georgia?facilities,?Water?Environ?Technol,??Vol?14?no1,?January,?2002.

NYSERDA,? Evaluation? of? ultraviolet? (UV)? radiation? disinfection? technologies? for

wastewater?treatment?plant?effluent?–?Final?report,?New?York?State?Energy?Research?and

Development?Authority?(NYSERDA),?Albany,?NY,?Report?04-07,?April,?2004.

Prentiss,? D.,? Preventing? ultraviolet? radiation? hazards,? Water? Environ? Technol? 16? no4

April,?2004.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

NSWRP,?CWRP,?AND?HPWRP

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

UV EQUIPMENT TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

TROJAN UV

WATER CONFIDENCE

UV4000TM PLUS PROPOSAL

March 27, 2008

PETERSON & MATZ, INC.

2250 Point Boulevard

Suite 300

Elgin, IL 60123

USA

Attention:

Chuck Hansen

Reference:

MWRDGC Stickney, IL

Quote No:

EAG1533C

In response to your request we are pleased to provide the following Trojan System UV4000TMPIu5 proposal

for the MWRDGC Stickney project. Since Trojan introduced the open channel approach to disinfection in 1982,

many municipalities have selected ultraviolet as the preferred method for pathogen destruction at their facilities.

The Trojan System UV4000TMPIu5 utilizes medium pressure lamp design, which requires a significantly lower

number of lamps as well as reduced total space for installation. All of Trojan’s UV systems are modular in

design, with each design system customized in response to the effluent criteria. The lamps are oriented in a

horizontal configuration parallel to the flow and incorporate a fully automated mechanical/chemical cleaning

system that eliminates the need for manual sleeve cleaning. In addition, the Trojan System UV4000TMPIu5

utilizes a variable output power supply so that power draw is optimized based on continuous effluent monitoring.

Please review carefully our design criteria for peak flow rate, total suspended solids, disinfection limit, and UV

transmittance to ensure that the criteria used match actual project parameters. When detailed project design

commences, please contact our office for a review of all design parameters, including dimensions and

equipment requirements. In addition, Trojan is able to provide analytical services to quantify effluent quality and

confirm design criteria.

Trojan’s price for the attached design is $21,900,000 (in US$). This quoted price includes the equipment as

described, freight to site and start-up by qualified personnel. This quote excludes any taxes that may be

applicable. The above information is to be used for budget estimates only and is valid for 90 days from this

date.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or would like additional information. Thank you for

the opportunity to quote the Trojan System IJV4000TMPIuS on this project.

With best regards,

Trojan Technologies

Stephen Payler

Municipal Applications

End.

3020 Gore Road, London, Ontario canada N5V 417 • Tel: (519) 457-3400 • Fax: (519) 457-3030 • www.trojanuv.com

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

MWRDGC Stickney, IL

UV4000TMPIu5 Proposal

EAGI533C

DESIGN CRITERIA

Page 2

312612008

Current Peak Design Flow:

Future Peak Design Flow:

UV Transmission:

Total Suspended Solids:

Max Average Particle Size:

Disinfection Limit:

Design Dose:

DESIGN SUMMARY

1440 US_MGD

1440 US_MGD

65%, minimum

15 mgIl (Maximum; grab samples)

30 microns

400 fecal coliform per 100 ml, based on a 1 day Maximum of consecutive

daily grab samples

40,000 pWs/cm2 EPA Dose

Based on the above design criteria, the Trojan

Number of Channels:

Number of Reactors per Channel:

Number of Banks per Reactor:

Number of Modules per Bank:

Total Number of UV Lamps:

Number of Power Distribution Centers:

Number of System Control Centers:

Type of Level Controller:

Automatic Mechanical/Chemical Cleaning:

UV Module Lifting Device:

System UV4000TMPIu5 proposed consists of:

12

I

2

7

4032

24

I

Fixed Weir Plate

Included

Included

EFFLUENT CHANNEL DIMENSIONS

L =

Minimum length required for flow equalization:

40.5 ft

W =

Channel width based on number of UV modules: 106 in

D =

Maximum depth required for UV Module access: 172 in

Dimensions are given for reference only. Consult Trojan Technologies for overall system detailed dimensions.

ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS

1.

The UV System Control Center requires an electrical service of one (1) 120 Volt, 1 phase, 2 wire (plus

ground), 16.7 Amps.

2.

Each Power Distribution Center requires an electrical service of one (1) 277/480 Volt, 3 phase, 4 wire

(plus ground), 568.89 WA.

3.

Each UV Reactor has one (1) Hydraulic Systems Center and requires an electrical services of one (1) 120

Volt, 2 phase, 1 wire (plus ground), 50 Amps.

NOTES

1.

2.

UV Disinfection Equipment specification is available upon request.

If there are site-specific hydraulic constraints that must be applied, please consult the manufacturer’s

representative to ensure compatibility with the proposed system.

3.

Standard spare parts and safety equipment are included with this proposal.

4.

Electrical disconnects required as per local state code are not included in this proposal.

5.

Trojan Technologies warrants all components of the system (excluding UV lamps) against faulty

workmanship and materials for a period of 12 months from date of start-up or 18 months after shipment,

which ever occurs first.

6.

Payment Terms: 10% after approved submittal, 80% upon delivery of equipment to site, 10% after

equipment acceptance.

Copyright @ 2003 by Trojan Technologies, London, Ontario, Canada. All fights reserved. No part of this quotation may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission of Trojan Technologies.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

MWRDGC Stickney, IL

UV4000TMPIu5 Proposal

Page 3

EAGI 533C

312612008

OPERATING COSTS FOR TROJAN SYSTEM UV4000TMPIus

Design Criteria

Average Flow:

1250 US_MGD

Yearly Usage:

6240 hours

UV Transmission:

65%

Power Requirements

Total Power Draw:

11827.2 kW

Average Power Draw:

9225.2 kW

Annual Operating Hours:

6240 hours

Cost per kW Hour:

$0.05

Annual Power Cost

$2,878,262.4

Replacement Lamp Costs

Number of lamps replaced per year:

2676

Price per lamp:

$215

Annual Lamp Replacement Cost

$575,340

Total Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs are: $3,453,602.2

NOTES

1. O&M costs are based on system flow-pacing using a 4-20 mA signal from a flow meter (supplied by others).

2.

08CM costs are based on the system operating at the average flow conditions.

Copyright @ 2003 by Trojan Technologies. London, Ontario, Canada. All rights teseived. No part of this quotation may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission of Trojan Technologies.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

World Leader in UV Disinfection Systems

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

More than 2,400 Trojan Technologies

ultraviolet (UV) light wastewater

disinfection systems operate in

municipalities around the world.

Commercially pioneered by Trojan in

1982, UV disinfection offers a chemical-

free, cost-effective, and environmentally

safe alternative to chlorine-based systems

for treating effluents, reclaimed water,

combined sewer overflows and

storm water.

Technological advances in the

Trojan System UV4000™

System UV4000™ builds on the features

and advantages of earlier generation

Trojan UV systems. Installed in an open

channel, System UV4000™ UV lamps are

mounted horizontally and parallel to the

flow. This design optimizes hydraulics,

inducing turbulence and dispersion, and

ensures that wastewater is properly

exposed to the UV output for the required

duration. Gravity flow carries wastewater

through the system, eliminating the need

for pressurized vessels, piping, and pumps.

Multiple banks of UV lamps can be

placed in series in each UV channel.

Typical installations use two banks in

series for most standard applications and

multiple banks in series for wastewater

reclamation projects.

Medium-pressure,

high-intensity UV lamps

The incorporation of medium-pressure,

high-intensity UV lamps reduces the

number of lamps required by 90

per cent, lessening space requirements

and decreasing installation and

maintenance costs.

The UV lamp array is positioned

within the UV reactor providing a

controlled water layer geometry at all

flows. The unique design of the UV

reactor eliminates the potential for short-

circuiting of flow that could result in

performance failure. High-intensity

lamps also extend the applicability of

UV disinfection to poorer quality effluents.

Trojan System UV4000

TM

The first choice for cost-effective UV wastewater disinfection – featuring Trojan’s unique

compact design and automated chemical and mechanical self-cleaning technology

Fouled quartz sleeves come clean.

The unique self-cleaning process of

System UV4000

TM

reduces maintenance costs.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Variable lamp output improves

disinfection control

The output of System UV4000™ high-

intensity lamps can be varied as effluent

quality and flow rates change. Matching

lamp output to actual wastewater

conditions conserves energy, prolongs

lamp life, reduces operating costs,

and ensures that an adequate dose

is delivered regardless of the effluent

quality and flow rate.

This process is fully automated

using Trojan’s On-line UV Transmission

Monitor, which tracks changes in effluent

quality. In conjunction with a flow

signal, the effluent quality data is used

to automatically adjust lamp output

to maintain disinfection standards.

Lamp life is extended and operating

costs are reduced.

Two significant advances distinguish the System UV4000™

from conventional UV wastewater disinfection systems:

medium-pressure, variable output high-intensity lamps and

fully automated chemical and mechanical

self-cleaning technology.

The Trojan Difference

•

Fully automated chemical and

mechanical self-cleaning technology

cuts labor costs

•

High-intensity lamps reduce total

lamp requirements by 90 per cent;

reduces operational costs

•

Variable output ballasts allow UV

output to be tailored to meet

wastewater and flow conditions

•

Open-channel, gravity flow

configuration eliminates need

for pressurized vessels, piping,

and pumps

•

Environmentally safe – no chlorine

required; and no disinfection

by-products created

•

Dedicated regional field service

staff ready to meet your needs

•

In-house call center technicians

available through 1-800 line

•

Significant annual commitment

to Research and Development for

innovations such as: on-line

chemical and mechanical cleaning;

lamp and ballast testing laboratory;

microbiology services; and reactor

design and optimization

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Automated chemical and

mechanical self-cleaning

technology

Effluents will eventually coat the

quartz sleeves that house the UV

lamps, reducing their effectiveness

and increasing their energy

consumption. To offer an alternative

to costly and time-consuming manual

cleaning, Trojan’s scientists and

engineers developed an automatic,

self-cleaning system. With the

System UV4000™

, the modules –

while remaining in operation –

are thoroughly cleaned by a

combined chemical and mechanical

self-cleaning system. Chemical

cleaning has become the industry

standard way to remove scaled

deposits that accumulate on the

quartz sleeve over time. In fact,

the US EPA Design Manual on

Municipal Wastewater Disinfection,

when discussing design considerations

for effective maintenance, explains

that “periodic chemical and/or

detergent cleaning will be required

to maintain the outer quartz.”

(EPA/625/1-86/02, p. 237)

Trojan’s sealed cleaning mechanism

uses a small amount of solution to

remove deposits on the quartz sleeves

more effectively than mechanical

cleaning alone can do. Cleaning

cycles are activated by a timer

and are programmed to clean

modules sequentially within

each operating bank.

The fully automated cleaning

cycle is programmed for each

installation and is set to operate as

frequently as once an hour, depending

on the rate of fouling. Plants that

previously could not use conventional

UV reactors because poor effluent

quality led to rapid lamp fouling

(e.g., primary effluent, CSOs) can

now take full advantage of the

economic, environmental, and

safe benefits of ultraviolet light

with System UV4000™

.

Ease of Maintenance

The self-cleaning technology of

System UV4000™ allows the UV

lamp modules to remain submerged

in the channel until the lamps need

replacing. When lamps need to be

replaced, modules are lifted out of

the channel by the Module Removal

Mechanism (MRM). Using a reversible

electric winch, the MRM raises lamp

modules from the channel to a

convenient working height. One

person can replace single or multiple

lamps in minutes.

General layout requirements

As with every Trojan UV System,

the sizing of System UV4000™ in a

particular application will depend on

the effluent quality and flow rates,

level of disinfection required, and the

degree of equipment redundancy

needed (for wastewater reclamation

applications). Please contact Trojan’s

local representative for more

information regarding the System

UV4000™ or any of Trojan’s

products or services.

Trojan System UV4000

TM

Channel Layout

A

Level control weir

B

Access hatch

C

Module removal mechanism (MRM)

D

UV module shown in raised position

E

Reaction chamber insert after

installation. Void areas of the insert

are filled with concrete

F

UV module maximum swing

AB

CD

B

E

F

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Ultraviolet light disinfects wastewater by

altering the genetic (DNA) material in

cells so that bacteria, viruses, and other

microorganisms can no longer reproduce.

The UV light is produced by germicidal

lamps submerged in an open channel.

As wastewater flows past the UV lamps,

microorganisms are exposed to a lethal

dose of UV energy. The UV dose is a

product of UV light intensity and

exposure time.

How does UV disinfection work?

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

WITH UV DISINFECTION

Until recently, chlorine has been

the disinfection treatment of

choice. Today, however, an

increasing number of

governments have restricted

the amount of chlorine residual

that may be discharged into the

environment. These restrictions

have led to the adding of

dechlorinating agents such

as sulfur dioxide or sodium

bisulfate. But this practice does

not adequately protect the marine

environment because chlorine

combines with organic

compounds in the wastewater

to form known carcinogens that

are not neutralized during the

dechlorination process. UV

disinfects without the formation

of by-products, making UV a safe

and cost-effective alternative to

chemical-based disinfection.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

For more than 20 years, Trojan

Technologies has led the global

improvement of water quality by

continually refining its ultraviolet

(UV) disinfection systems. Trojan

innovations have set industry

standards for treating both

wastewater and drinking water.

With the largest number of UV

installations worldwide and an

industry-leading research and

development team, Trojan offers

municipal water utility operators

and engineers unmatched technical

insight and experience.

Trojan constantly reengineers

its systems to incorporate state-of-

the-art technology and offer

customers new and improved

features, benefits, and

conveniences.

Quality products,

quality people

Trojan’s systems are ISO 9001

certified, an internationally

recognized designation that reflects

the high quality of Trojan’s design,

development, production,

installation, and service.

Behind the company’s products

are the most experienced and

knowledgeable professionals in the

industry. Comprising internationally

recognized experts in microbiology,

chemistry, physics, and engineering,

Trojan’s research and development

team creates many of today’s most

successful UV technology

innovations.

Trust ... integrity ...

teamwork ... respect for employees

and customers ... and a strong

sense of purpose – these are the

underpinnings of Trojan’s

corporate culture.

By creating a positive work

environment that both challenges

and rewards employees, Trojan is

able to meet its commitments of

providing lasting solutions to

environmental problems.

Support from the industry

leader keeps your system up

and running

Trojan’s global presence mirrors a

strong commitment to its customers

and to its future. With offices

in Canada, the US, Europe and

the UK, Trojan is able to serve

customers no matter where they

are located. An extensive network

of professional manufacturer’s

representatives expands the

company’s reach into South

America, Europe, the Middle East,

and the Pacific Rim, giving Trojan

comprehensive global coverage.

Trojan is recognized for its

exceptional customer service.

The company’s highly trained

technicians are strategically located

at Trojan support centers around

the world. This extensive support

network allows Trojan to respond

quickly to customer calls –

no matter what the time zone or

location. And the company’s state-

of-the-art technical support center

permits technicians to dial up and

diagnose problems on-line, quickly

and effectively.

Head Office (Canada)

3020 Gore Road

London, Ontario

Canada N5V 4T7

Telephone: (519) 457-3400

Fax: (519) 457-3030

United Kingdom

Sunwater Limited, 5 De Salis Court

Hampton Lovett, Droitwich

WR9 0QE England

Telephone: 011-44-1-905-771117

Fax: 011-44-1-905-772270

Europe

Laan van Vredestein 160

2552 DZ The Hague

Netherlands

Telephone: 31-70-391-3020

Fax: 31-70-391-3330

United States

2050 Peabody Road

Suite 200, Vacaville, CA

USA 95867

Telephone: (707) 469-2680

Fax: (707) 469-2688

World Leader in UV Disinfection Systems

Trojan Technologies: a pioneer

and global innovator

www.trojanuv.com

Products in this brochure may be covered by one or more of the following patents:

Can. 1,163,086Can. 2,117,040Can. 2,239,925Can. 1,327,877

U.S. 4,482,809

U.S. 5,418,370

U.S. 5,590,390

U.S. 4,872,980

U.S. 5,006,244

Other patents pending.

Printed in Canada.

Copyright ©2000 Trojan Technologies Inc., 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 Inc.

06/00 / 3825 / a

Trojan Technologies is a publicly traded company on the

Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol TUV.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

WASTEWATER DISINFECTION

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

1

Trojan Technologies Inc. is an

ISO 9001: 2000 registered company

that has set the standard for proven UV

technology and ongoing innovation for

more than 25 years. With unmatched

scientific and technical expertise, and a

global network of water treatment

specialists, representatives and technicians,

Trojan is trusted more than any other firm

as the best choice for municipal UV

solutions. Trojan has the largest UV

installation base – over 4,000 municipal

installations worldwide. InNorthAmerica

alone, almost one in five wastewater

treatment plants rely on our proven,

chemical-free disinfection solutions.

The TrojanUV4000Plus™ is one of the

reasons why. This robust, high capacity

system introduced the benefits of high

intensity, medium-pressure lamp

technology to wastewater treatment. It also

redefined sleeve cleaning technology with

Trojan’s patented, dual-action, chemical/

mechanical ActiClean™ system. With over

375 installations – including some of the

largest wastewater treatment plants in the

world – the TrojanUV4000Plus™ is

allowing engineers and operators to

incorporate chemical-free, UVdisinfection

for large flows of 10 MGD (1,578 m

3

/hr)

and greater in a minimal amount of space

– with a fraction of the number of lamps

required by low-pressure systems. The

extremely compact system can be used for

low UV transmittance applications

previously unattainable with ultraviolet

technology. It also offers the flexibility to

treat a wide range of wastewater; from

primary, secondary and blended effluents

to combined and sanitary sewer overflows

to water for reuse applications.

Proven UV Solutions for Low Quality Effluent & Large Flows

Selected for some of the world's largest & most challenging treatment applications

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Submerged Effluent Reactor

Providing high volume treatment effectively and reliably

2

System Control Center (SCC)

Electronic Ballast

UV Modules

Water Level Control

3

Power Distribution Center (PDC)

UV Intensity Sensor

Module Removal Mechanism (MRM)

ActiClean™ Cleaning System

Continuously monitors and controls

all UV functions and dose pacing.

It incorporates a PLC and menu-

driven, touch-screen interface for

at-a-glance confirmation of system

parameters, performance, and simple

control of all system functions. The

dose pacing program conserves

power and extends lamp life by

varying lamp intensity and controlling

bank on/off status according to flow

and water quality parameters. The

SCC features discrete outputs

and/or serial communication links

to the plant SCADA system for full

remote monitoring.

All effluent in the channel flows by gravity

through the fully submerged, open-ended

reactor, where the effluent is exposed to high

intensity UV light. The innovative, submerged

design and contoured reactor interior ensures

stringent control of the water layer around the

lamps for consistent disinfection regardless

of flow rate. Modules with UV lamps pivot into

the reactor opening at both ends.

The MRM lifts modules out of the channel to

an optimal working height for maintenance. The

device uses a reversible electric winch housed

in a weather-proof, stainless steel case. The

integrated safety hook allows multiple hook-up

points for holding modules at different positions

for maximum service convenience.

The PDC provides power to each bank of

modules and monitors data from the module

(including UV intensity signals), cleaning system

control and status, hydraulic systems, and

effluent level signals. PDCs are housed in TYPE

4X rated, stainless steel enclosures mounted

directly on the system above the channel.

High-efficiency, variable-output (30% - 100%

power) electronic ballasts regulate the power

to the UV lamps. The variable-output design

permits the plant to dose pace based on

flow rate and water quality. Ballasts (one per

lamp) are inside the modules, and housed in

weather-resistant, TYPE 6P rated enclosures.

An integrated cooling system is contained

within the ballast enclosure, eliminating the

requirement for air conditioning and allows for

the entire system to be installed outdoors.

UV lamps are mounted on stainless steel

modules that are submerged in the effluent

channel. The lamps are enclosed in quartz

sleeves, positioned horizontally and parallel to

the water flow. Modules consist of multiple lamps

and are mounted in parallel to form a bank.

Ballasts are mounted inside the modules, and all

ballast and lamp wiring runs inside the stainless

steel module frame to protect it from exposure to

UV light and effluent.

Water level in the UV channel can be controlled

using either a motorized weir gate or a fixed

weir located downstream of the reactor. Trojan’s

engineering staff will assist to design and select

the most appropriate device based on hydraulic

and site-specific considerations.

Each bank of UV modules incorporates a UV

intensity sensor that continually monitors UV

lamp output.

A chemical/mechanical cleaning system prevents

fouling of the UV lamp sleeves. Hydraulically driven

wiper collars filled with ActiClean™ gel surround

the quartz sleeves. The gel is comprised of a non-

corrosive, operator-friendly cleaning chemical that

contacts the sleeves between the collar's two

rubber wiper seals. Cleaning can be programmed

to occur at preset intervals, and takes place online

while the lamps are submerged and operating.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

4

Key Benefits

TrojanUV4000Plus™

Increased operator, community and environmental safety.

Uses

environmentally-friendly ultraviolet light – the safest alternative for wastewater disinfection. No

disinfection by-products are created, and no chlorine compounds must be transported, stored

or handled.

Ideal for challenging wastewater applications.

Treats a wide range of

wastewater flows, including effluents with UV transmittance as low as 15%, combined &

sanitary sewer overflows, and water for reuse applications.

Proven, regulatory-endorsed disinfection

based on actual dose delivery testing

(bioassay validation), and over 375 installations worldwide. Verified field performance data

eliminates the sizing assumptions of theoretical dose calculations.

Reduced installation costs.

Easily retrofitted into existing chlorine contact chambers,

leaving the majority of the chamber available for storage, by-pass or emergency back-up

– eliminating the expense and footprint associated with the construction of new structures.

Operator-friendly maintenance.

Features significantly fewer lamps, modules that are

electrically separate, and an integrated power winch to remove modules from the channel to a

convenient working height.

Dual-action sleeve cleaning system improves performance and reduces

labor costs.

Unsurpassed chemical/mechanical cleaning system maintains maximum

sleeve transmittance, and works online while disinfecting.

Optimized for efficient operation.

Uses a fraction of the number of lamps required

by conventional low-pressure systems, and features high efficiency, variable-output electronic

ballasts and dose pacing to minimize power consumption.

Guaranteed performance and comprehensive warranty.

Trojan systems

include a Lifetime Disinfection Performance Guarantee. Ask for details.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Benefits:

•

Use of high intensity lamps and

chemical/mechanical sleeve

cleaning overcomes operational

limitations of low-pressure systems

for low quality wastewater and

large scale applications

• Capable

of

treating wastewater

effluents with UV transmittance

levels as low as 15% –

eliminating the drawbacks and

dangers of chemical disinfection

• Compact

system

designed for

treatment of large wastewater

flows of 10 MGD and greater

• Requires

only 2.5 lamps per

1 MGD of secondary effluent

• Configurable

in

multiple channels,

with single or multiple banks per

channel, for optimal sizing based

on upstream treatment processes

& effluent quality

Designed for Challenging & Large Scale Applications

System provides effective treatment of very low UVT effluent and large flows

The TrojanUV4000Plus™ has been optimized for disinfection of low quality wastewater using high intensity lamps, and vortex mixers (left) to increase

flow turbulence around the lamps. Trojan’s UV technology allowed the City of Honolulu, Hawaii to disinfect primary effluent at their Sand Island

treatment facility (right), and thereby save hundreds of millions of dollars that would have been required to build secondary treatment facilities.

5

System Specifications

TrojanUV4000Plus™ Treatment Capabilities

Disinfection Application

Capability

Primary Wastewater Effluent

Yes

Blended Wastewater Effluent

Yes

Secondary Wastewater Effluent

Yes

Fixed Film Processes

Yes

Tertiary Wastewater Effluent

Yes

Water Reuse Applications

Yes

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)

Yes

Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO)

Yes

Storm Sewer Overflows

Yes

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Benefits:

•

High intensity, medium-pressure

lamps produce significantly more

UV energy than low-pressure lamps

•

Reduced

number of lamps – the

TrojanUV4000Plus™ uses a

fraction of the lamps required

by conventional low-pressure

UV systems

•

Medium-pressure

lamps are

polychromatic, and produce a

broad range of wavelengths – the

majority of which are effective

against microorganisms

(see below)

•

Fewer

lamps allow the system to

be located in compact spaces,

reducing installation costs

• Minimize

number of related

components (sleeves, seals,

wipers, ballasts, etc.), reducing

O&M costs

High Intensity UV Lamps

Medium-pressure lamp technology reduces number of lamps significantly

6

The intensity and breadth of UV wavelengths delivered by medium-pressure lamps are significantly greater than low-pressure lamps. A larger portion of

the ultraviolet light that medium-pressure lamps emit is absorbed by the DNA of microorganisms, which results in effective disinfection with fewer lamps.

220

240

260

280

UV Output

Effective

Wavelengths

220

Wavelength (nm)

240

260

280

Microorganism

DNA Absorption

Curve

Microorganism

DNA Absorption

Curve

UV Output

Wavelength (nm)

Effective

Wavelength

Monochromatic UV Output

Polychromatic UV Output

Low Pressure Lamp

Medium Pressure Lamp

Comparison of Low-Pressure and Medium-Pressure Lamp Technologies

Trojan pioneered the use of high intensity, medium-pressure ultraviolet lamps for wastewater

disinfection. The technology minimizes the system footprint, and offers the capability of

treating high flow rates, and low quality effluents with UVT levels as low as 15%.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Benefits:

•

PLC-based system monitors and

controls all UV functions via an

operator-friendly, touch-screen

display on the System Control

Center (SCC)

•

Menu-driven

interface simplifies

access to all system functions,

set points, and alarm reporting

for fast accurate diagnostics of

process or maintenance issues

•

Automated

dose delivery is

based on lamp age, and other

water parameters from optional

sensors, including flow rate, UV

transmittance, turbidity, etc.

•

Discrete

outputs and/or serial

communication links to the

plant SCADA system enable full

remote monitoring

User-Friendly Controls & Operation

Intuitive, touch-screen controller allows at-a-glance system monitoring and control

7

The PLC-based controller combines sophisticated system operation and reporting with an

operator-friendly, touch-screen display.

Dose Pacing Reduces O&M Costs

System accurately matches UV output to disinfection requirements

Benefits:

• High efficiency ballasts vary

output from 30 – 100% per

bank in order to match UV dose

with effluent quality and flow rate

•

UV

lamps are “dimmed” to

optimize UV dose, and banks can

be turned off during periods of

no or low flow

•

Multiple

sensor inputs allow

maximum efficiency so

disinfection requirements are

fully met using the minimum

amount of power

•

Dose

pacing increases the

operating life of UV lamps,

thereby reducing the frequency,

expense and labor required for

lamp replacement

The dose pacing system of the TrojanUV4000Plus™ uses a PLC-based controller that monitors

lamp age and water quality (e.g. flow rate, UVT, turbidity) and adjusts lamp output to ensure full

disinfection is achieved using minimal power.

Ballast

PDC

Ballast

Bank 1

Off/On – 30 to 100% Output

Bank 2

Off/On – 30 to 100% Output

PLC

Sensors

(Water Quality,

Flow Rate, etc.)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Benefits:

•

Unsurpassed chemical/

mechanical cleaning system

ensures optimal sleeve

transmittance so maximum UV

energy is delivered to the effluent

•

Cleans

automatically at preset

intervals without disrupting

disinfection, thereby reducing

downtime and O&M costs of

manual cleaning

Benefits:

• High intensity, medium-pressure

lamps and unparalleled sleeve

cleaning allow maximum

disinfection in minimal space –

over 100 MGD (15,780 m

3

/hr) in

a single effluent channel

• Requires

only 1/8th to 1/15th

the amount of space of

chlorine disinfection, reducing

construction and capital

costs substantially

•

System

is designed for simplified

retrofit into existing chlorine

contact tank infrastructure,

minimizing construction costs

– and leaving the majority of

the contact tank available for

storage, by-pass or emergency

back-up

•

Electronic

ballasts are inside the

modules, eliminating the need

for large ballast panels mounted

beside the UV channel

•

All

system components can be

installed outdoors

Design Flexibility Reduces Installation Costs

Compact system minimizes footprint and allows easy retrofit into existing facilities

8

In this retrofit installation, each reactor was installed in one pass of the existing chlorine contact

basin with only minor modifications to the channels. This allows the majority of the basin to be used

for storage, by-pass or emergency back-up.

Unsurpassed Chemical/Mechanical Sleeve Cleaning

ActiClean™ dual-action cleaning system eliminates fouling and reduces maintenance costs

ActiClean™

Gel Reservoir

Teflon Bearings

Rubber Wiper Seal

The eight TrojanUV4000Plus™ reactors used to disinfect 600 MGD (94,680 m

3

/hr) at this large

wastewater treatment facility require a footprint measuring only 80’ x 120’ (24 x 36 m) – a fraction of

the space needed for chlorine disinfection.

ActiClean™ Collars –

Cross-Sectional View

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Printed in Canada. Copyright 2006. Trojan Technologies Inc., 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 Inc.

MWW-004 (1006) TROW-1035

Products in this brochure may be covered by one or more of the following patents:

U.S. 5,418,370; RE 36,896; 6,342,188; 6,635,613; 6,663,318; 6,719,491; 6,984,834; 7,018,975

Can. 2,117,040; 2,239,925; 2,286,309

Other patents pending.

Operator Comments About the TrojanUV4000Plus™

“It does the job and it’s simple to operate.”

“It’s user-friendly and low maintenance.”

“We’re getting a better kill than we expected. We’ve always dealt with chlorine and sulphur dioxide, but this does

every bit as well. It doesn’t seem to need as much maintenance – there’s no dangerous chemicals, and it’s cleaner.”

System Specifications

System Characteristics

TrojanUV4000Plus™

Typical Applications

10 MGD and greater; primary, secondary, blended, and tertiary wastewater, CSO, SSO, and water reuse applications

Lamp Type

Medium-pressure, polychromatic UV output

Ballast Type

Electronic; variable-output (30 – 100%)

Input Power Per Lamp

3,200 Watts

Lamp Configuration

Horizontal, parallel to flow

Lamps Per Module

6 to 24

Modules Per Bank

2 to 7

Level Control Device Options

Fixed weir or motorized weir gate

Enclosure Ratings

Module Ballast Enclosure

TYPE 6P (IP67)

All Other Enclosures

TYPE 4, 4X or 3R (IP56, IP65 or IP14)

Ballast Cooling Method

Closed loop system; no air conditioning or forced air required

Structural Materials

Wetted parts: 316 SST; Non-wetted parts: 304 SST

Maximum Ambient Temperature

122˚ F (50˚C)

Sleeve Cleaning System

ActiClean™ Cleaning System

Dual-action; chemical/mechanical; programmable for automated cleaning at defined intervals; manual override

ActiClean™ Cleaning Gel

Non-corrosive, operator-friendly

System Control Center

Controller

Various PLC options; Ask your Trojan Representative for details

UV Intensity Monitoring

1 sensor per bank

Inputs Required / Optional

4-20 mA flow signal / 4-20 mA UVT signal

Typical Outputs Provided

Bank status, common alarms and SCADA communication

Maximum Distance from UV Channel

500 ft. (152 m)

Electrical Requirements

Power Distribution Centers

50/60 Hz, 277/480V, 3 phase, 4 wire + ground or 50/60 Hz, 230/400V, 3 phase, 4 wire + ground

Hydraulic System Center

50/60 Hz, 120V, single phase, 2 wire + ground or 50/60 Hz, 230V, single phase, 2 wire + ground

System Control Center

50/60 Hz, 120V, single phase, 2 wire + ground or 50/60 Hz, 230V, single phase, 2 wire + ground

Find out how your wastewater treatment plant can benefit from the TrojanUV4000Plus™ – call us today.

Trojan UV Technologies UK Limited (UK): +44 1905 77 11 17

Trojan Technologies Inc (The Netherlands): +31 70 391 3020

Trojan Technologies Inc (France): +33 1 6081 0516

Trojan Technologies Espana (Spain): +34 91 564 5757

Trojan Technologies Deutschland GmbH (Germany): +49 6024 634 75 80

Hach/Trojan Technologies Inc. (China): 86-10-65150290

Head Office (Canada)

3020 Gore Road

London, Ontario

Canada N5V 4T7

Telephone: (519) 457-3400

Fax: (519) 457-3030

www.trojanuv.com

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

PUMP TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

155,000

165,000

175,000

185,000

195,000

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pump Performance

Axial Flow Impeller, Single Stage, High-Efficiency

Project No.:

28112-C1

Project Name:

CTE – MWRDGC Stickney Reclaim Pumps

Date:

25-July-2008

© 2008 All rights reserved. Morrison Pump Company, Inc.

The curve provided is proprietary and for general reference

use only. Please consult factory for specific pump operating

characteristics and certified

performance curves.

Pump Bowl Model No.:

MP-71-04-MH

Impeller Diameter:

70.25 in

Shaft Speed:

255 RPM

Capacity [GPM]

--

Total Dynamic Head [Ft.]

--

Bowl Efficiency [%]

Phase 1 : Design Point = 167,000 @ 23.5 Ft. TDH

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

155,000

165,000

175,000

185,000

195,000

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Pump Performance

Axial Flow Impeller, Single Stage, High-Efficiency

Project No.:

28112-C1

Project Name:

CTE – MWRDGC Stickney Reclaim Pumps

Date:

25-July-2008

© 2008 All rights reserved. Morrison Pump Company, Inc.

The curve provided is proprietary and for general reference

use only. Please consult factory for specific pump operating

characteristics and certified

performance curves.

Pump Bowl Model No.:

MP-71-04-MH

Impeller Diameter:

70.25 in

Shaft Speed:

255 RPM

Capacity [GPM]

--

Total Dynamic Head [Ft.]

--

Power [HP]

Phase 1 : Design Point = 167,000 @ 23.5 Ft. TDH

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

155,000

165,000

175,000

185,000

195,000

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pump Performance

Axial Flow Impeller, Single Stage, High-Efficiency

Project No.:

28112-C1

Project Name:

CTE – MWRDGC Stickney Reclaim Pumps

Date:

25-July-2008

© 2008 All rights reserved. Morrison Pump Company, Inc.

The curve provided is proprietary and for general reference

use only. Please consult factory for specific pump operating

characteristics and certified

performance curves.

Pump Bowl Model No.:

MP-71-04-MH

Impeller Diameter:

70.25 in

Shaft Speed:

255 RPM

Capacity [GPM]

--

Total Dynamic Head [Ft.]

--

NPSHR [Ft.]

Phase 1 : Design Point = 167,000 @ 23.5 Ft. TDH

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

155,000

165,000

175,000

185,000

195,000

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pump Performance

Mixed Flow Impeller, Single Stage, High-Efficiency

Project No.:

28112-C2

Project Name:

CTE – MWRDGC Stickney Reclaim Pumps

Date:

25-July-2008

© 2008 All rights reserved. Morrison Pump Company, Inc.

The curve provided is proprietary and for general reference

use only. Please consult factory for specific pump operating

characteristics and certified

performance curves.

Pump Bowl Model No.:

MP-71-MB

Impeller Diameter:

70.5 in

Shaft Speed:

255 RPM

Capacity [GPM]

--

Total Dynamic Head [Ft.]

--

Bowl Efficiency [%]

Phase 2 : Design Point = 167,000 @ 32.0 Ft. TDH

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

155,000

165,000

175,000

185,000

195,000

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Pump Performance

Mixed Flow Impeller, Single Stage, High-Efficiency

Project No.:

28112-C2

Project Name:

CTE – MWRDGC Stickney Reclaim Pumps

Date:

25-July-2008

© 2008 All rights reserved. Morrison Pump Company, Inc.

The curve provided is proprietary and for general reference

use only. Please consult factory for specific pump operating

characteristics and certified

performance curves.

Pump Bowl Model No.:

MP-71-MB

Impeller Diameter:

70.5 in

Shaft Speed:

255 RPM

Capacity [GPM]

--

Total Dynamic Head [Ft.]

--

Power [HP]

Phase 2 : Design Point = 167,000 @ 32.0 Ft. TDH

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

155,000

165,000

175,000

185,000

195,000

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pump Performance

Mixed Flow Impeller, Single Stage, High-Efficiency

Project No.:

28112-C2

Project Name:

CTE – MWRDGC Stickney Reclaim Pumps

Date:

25-July-2008

© 2008 All rights reserved. Morrison Pump Company, Inc.

The curve provided is proprietary and for general reference

use only. Please consult factory for specific pump operating

characteristics and certified

performance curves.

Pump Bowl Model No.:

MP-71-MB

Impeller Diameter:

70.5 in

Shaft Speed:

255 RPM

Capacity [GPM]

--

Total Dynamic Head [Ft.]

--

NPSHR [Ft.]

Phase 2 : Design Point = 167,000 @ 32.0 Ft. TDH

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 20, 2008

---