HYDRAULIC?TECHNICAL?MEMORANDUM

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

---

HYDRAULIC?EVALUATION

OCTOBER?23,?2007

Prepared?By

CTE?Project?No.?60026610

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 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??Incorporation?into?Master?Plan........................................................................2

Proposed?Treatment?Train ....................................................................................3

Space ...................................................................................................................3

2.1.2??Timing?of?Implementation ...............................................................................5

2.1.3??Hydraulic?Constraints/Need?for?Additional?Pumping .......................................5

2.2

Alternatives ......................................................................................................6

2.2.1??Alternative?1?–?Gravity?Influent?to?Battery?E?with?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

(LLPS)?Upstream?of?Disinfection?for?450?MGD ......................................................... 7

2.2.2??Alternative?2?–?Intermediate?Pump?Station?to?Battery?E?with?Low?Lift?Pump

Station?Upstream?of?Disinfection?for?345?MGD ......................................................... 7

2.2.3??Alternative?3?–?Intermediate?Pump?Station?to?Battery?E?with?Intermittent

Low?Lift?Pump?Station?Downstream?of?Disinfection?for?450?MGD ............................. 8

2.2.4??Recommended?Alternative?for?Disinfection?Cost?Study...................................9

3

HYDRAULIC?ANALYSIS?OF?THE?UV?DISINFECTION?FACILITIES .................... 9

3.1

Objectives........................................................................................................9

3.2

Overview..........................................................................................................9

3.3

Assumptions ....................................................................................................9

3.4

Results...........................................................................................................10

4

LOW?LIFT?PUMP?STATION ..............................................................................14

4.1

Basis?of?Design..............................................................................................14

4.2

Pump?Type ....................................................................................................14

4.3

Proposed?Operational?Description .................................................................15

4.4

Proposed?Layout............................................................................................15

5

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 16

LIST?OF?TABLES

Table?1?–?Theoretical?WSE?for?All?Gravity?Flow ...............................................................6

Table?2?–?Summary?of?Headloss?through?NSWRP?(Proposed) ......................................11

Table?3?–?Summary?of?Proposed?WSE?including?UV?Disinfection?Facilities ...................11

Table?4?–?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?Basis?of?Design ..........................................................14

Table?5?–?Summary?of?Pump?Operation ........................................................................15

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

---

ii

LIST?OF?FIGURES

Figure?1?–?Proposed?Site?Plan?from?Master?Plan.............................................................4

Figure?2?–?Alternative?1 ...................................................................................................7

Figure?3?–?Alternative?2 ...................................................................................................8

Figure?4?–?Alternative?3 ...................................................................................................8

Figures?5a?and?5b?–?Revised?Hydraulic?Profile?for?Disinfection?Cost?Study ..............12/14

LIST?OF?APPENDICES

Appendix?A?

Selected?Pages?from?Chicago?Underflow?Plan?Detailed?Design?Report

(USACE,?1999)

Appendix?B?

Proposed?Layout?of?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 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)? North? Side? Water

Reclamation? Plant? (NSWRP)? in? Skokie,? Illinois.? This? memorandum? continues? the

preliminary? hydraulic? analysis? that? began? in? TM1-WQ? and? the? NSWRP? Master? Plan,

which? were? 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? 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? preliminary? 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

with? subsequent? work? during? the? Master? Plan? that? identified? the? proposed? future

expansion?of?the?existing?NSWRP

•

?

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?NSWRP,

including? the? proposed? Battery? E? north? of? the? existing? Chicago? Transit? Authority? (CTA)

rail.

In? the? following? discussion,? the? results? of? this? evaluation? are? given.? The? sections? that

follow? summarize? the? determination? of? the? process? flow? through? the? proposed

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

---

2

improvements?including?Battery?E?and?the?UV?Disinfection?Facilities,?the?hydraulic?profile

through? the? proposed? UV? Disinfection? System,? and? the? details? of? the? Low? Lift? Pump

Station.

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? will? include? a? disinfection

facility/building? based? on? ultraviolet? disinfection? technology,? additional? effluent? flow

conduits,?gate?structures?to? redirect?flow? to?the? new?facilities,?and? if? necessary,?a? low? lift

pump? station.? ? Tertiary? filters? will? not? be? included,? although? the? proposed? disinfection

facilities? will? 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,? 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? three? short-listed

disinfection? technology? alternatives? (chlorination/dechlorination,? ultraviolet? treatment,

and? ozonzation)? 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.?? These?issues?include:

incorporation? of? the? disinfection? facilities? into? the? NSWRP? Master? Plan? for? future

improvements,? the? timing? of? the? implementation? of? the? Master? Plan? in? relation? to? other

proposed? improvements?that?might?influence? the?design? of?the? disinfection?facilities,?and

existing?hydraulic?constraints?given?the?proposed?future?improvements.

2.1.1?Incorporation?into?Master?Plan

The?Master? Plan?evaluated? numerous?site?alternatives?for? placement? of?needed?facilities

for? current? and? future? permit? requirements.? ? This? evaluation? also? considered? the

allocation?of?space?for?future?low?lift?pumping,?disinfection,?and?filtration?facilities.

The?proposed? disinfection?facilities?must?fit? with?other? proposed? improvements?identified

as? part? of? the? NSWRP? Master? Plan.? ? In? addition? to? a? broad? range? of? proposed

improvements? to? the? NSWRP,? the? Master? Plan? includes? planned? improvements? as

follows?that?may?influence?design?of?the?disinfection?facilities:

1.? Addition? of? Battery? E? to? expand? the? existing? activated? sludge? secondary

treatment?system?to?be?located?north?of?the?Chicago?Transit?Authority?(CTA)?rail.

2.? Modifications?to?the?existing?Batteries?A?through?D?and?the?proposed?Battery?E?to

accommodate? future? nutrient? removal? treatment? to? address? future? effluent? limits

for?nitrogen?and?phosphorous.

3.? Addition?of?tertiary?filters?to?address?future?effluent?limit?reductions?for?suspended

solids?and?biological?oxygen?demand?as?well?as?improving?phosphorous?removal.

4.? Expansion,? modification,? and? other? improvements? to? the? existing? NSW RP

facilities? to? accommodate? future? loading? and? tighter? effluent? limits? that? will

increase?the?load?on?the?existing?electrical?power?distribution?system.

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

---

3

These? improvements? create? constraints? on? the? design? of? the? disinfection? facility? due? to

the? need? to? plan? for? the? allocation? of? available? resources? including? space? on? the? site,

available?hydraulic?head? to?transport? flow? through? the? facilities,?and? the? logical? inclusion

of? the? disinfection? process? into? the? existing? and? future? process? train? to? provide? the? most

effective?treatment.

Proposed?Treatment?Train

Disinfection?facilities?are? always? located?at?the?farthest?downstream? point? in?the? process

treatment? train? for? the? obvious? reason? that? the? more? treatment? the? effluent? has? received

to? remove? both? dissolved? and? suspended? contaminants,? the? more? effective? the

disinfection? process.? ? This?is? true?for? all? disinfection? technologies.? ? It?is? also? important?to

note? that? the? Master? Plan? proposes? to? continue? the? current? practice? of? operating? the

activated?sludge?batteries?in?parallel?before?recombining?the?flow?prior?to?discharge.??This

plan? will? allow? a? more? efficient? approach? to? tertiary? treatment? processes,? including

filtration? and? disinfection,? compared? to? separate? facilities? for? the? each? Battery? or? two

facilities,?one?for?the?existing?site?and?one?for?the?proposed?Battery?E?site.

One? major? change? from? TM-1W Q? 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?is?not?required.??However,?if?tertiary?filtration?is?implemented?in?the?future,

it? would? be? beneficial? for? filtration? to? occur? prior? to? disinfection? to? leverage? the? benefits

lower?suspended?solids?and?BOD?concentrations?that?would?make?disinfection?both?more

effective?and?efficient.

The? importance? of? this? process? flow? diagram? is? highlighted? when? it? is? considered? in

conjunction?with?the?space?constraints?on?the?site.

Space

Figure?1

? shows? the? proposed? future? site? plan? from? the? Master? Plan.? ? The? Master? Plan

allocated? space? in? the? northeast? area? of? the? existing? site? for? disinfection? and? tertiary

filtration? because?of? the? close? proximity? to?the? effluent? conduit? and? outfall.? ? The? majority

of? the? space? needs? are? related? to? future? tertiary?filtration.? ? The? space? allocated? is? based

on? conventional? dual? media? filtration? at? 5? gpm/sf.? ? Although? other? filtration? technologies

are? available? with? smaller? space? requirements,? it? is? prudent? at? this? time? to? assume

conventional? filtration? for? planning? purposes.? ? As? indicated? in? Figure? 1,? space? is? not

available?at?other?locations?for?filtration.??Other?possible?locations?for?disinfection?facilities

include?the?following:

•

?

Between?existing?primary?settling?tanks?and?proposed?future?Battery?F

•

?

At?the?north?site?adjacent?to?Battery?E

Neither? of? these? locations? offers?any?potential? cost? savings? because? the? proximity? away

from?the?outfall?would?require?more?extensive?outside?piping.

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

---

NEW?BATTERY??E

NEW?PRIMARY?TANKS

100'?DIA.?EA

NEW?FINAL

CLARIFIERS

110'?DIA.?EA

(FST-F)

NEW ? FINAL ? CLARIFIERS

@?130'?DIA.?EA

BATTERY??D

EXISTING?FINAL

CLARIFIERS?TO

REMAIN?(FST-D)

EXISTING?PRIMARY

TANKS?TO?REMAIN

BATTERY??C

FST-C

FST- B

FST- A

DISINFECTION

PROPOSED?NEW?FINAL

CLARIFIERS?@?110?D' IA.?EA

NEW?FERRIC

CHLORIDE ? BUILDING

EXIST.?PUMP?&

BLOWER?HOUSE

BATTERY??B

BATTERY??A

NEW?BATTERY??F

GRIT

DEWATERING

NEW?DEGRITTED

PRIMARY?INFLUENT

PUMP?STATION

NEW?PRIMARY?TANKS

@?130'?DIA.?EA

NEW?ROAD?(TYP.)

PUMP?STATION

&?WET?WELL

NEW?INTERNAL

RECY CL E ? P U M P

STATION

NEW?TERTIARY

FILTERS

NEW?INTERNAL

RECY CL E ? P U M P

STATION?(TYP.)

NEW?FERRIC

CHLORIDE ? BUILDING

SLUDGE

CONCENTRATION

TANKS

SODIUM

HYPOCHLORITE?FEED

POINT?MODIFICATIONS

COARSE?SCREEN

REPLACEMENT

NEW?SLUDGE

PIPELINE

BATTERY?E?EFFLUENT

JUNCTION?CHAMBER

CTE

303?East?Wacker?Drive,?Suite?600,?Chicago,?Illinois?60601-5276

T?312.938.0300?F?312.938.1109?www.cte.aecom.com

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

---

5

Based? on? this? review,? it? is? clear? that? the? basis? for? location? and? arrangement? of? the

proposed? facility? is? sound.? ? However,? it? is? also? clear? that? the? proposed? disinfection

facilities? must? accommodate? the? future? addition? of? tertiary? filters,? which? requires? a

significant?amount?of?space.

2.1.2?Timing?of?Implementation

The? second? key? consideration? for? the? design? of? the? disinfection? facilities? is? the? timing?of

implementation? in? relation? to? other? proposed? improvements.? ? Proposed? improvements

that? must? be? considered? include? the? addition? of? Battery? E? and? the? addition? of? tertiary

filters.??Based?on?the?current?proposed?timeline,?Battery?E?will?begin?design?in?the?next?3

to?6?months?and?be?online?by?2014?to?2016?(40?months?for?design?and?three?to?four?years

for?construction?and?startup).

The?disinfection?facilities?are?not?currently?assumed?to?be?necessary,?but?if?implemented,

it? is? unlikely? that?the? facilities? would? be? online? sooner? than? 5? years?from? the? date?of? this

memorandum? (1? year? for? planning,? 1-2? years? for? design,? and? 2? years? for? construction

and?startup).??It?is?also?possible?that?the?planning?period?could?be?extended?to?allow?for?a

pilot? facility? or? extended? water? quality? sampling.? ? In? either? case,? the? UV? Disinfection

Facilities?would?not?be?online?prior?to?2013.

Currently,?there?is?no?projected?date?for?potential?implementation?of?tertiary?filters,?if?ever

required.? ? A? reasonable? assumption? would? be? that? nutrient? removal? is? likely? to? be

required? in? advance? of? tertiary? filtration,? which? also? has? no? actual? implementation

schedule.? ? It? is? therefore? conservative? to? assume? that? filter? implementation? would? occur

after?2020.

Therefore,? this? study? will? assume? that? the? proposed? disinfection? facilities? will? be

implemented? in? parallel?to?or? after? the? construction? of?Battery?E.? ? It?will? also? be?assumed

that? tertiary? filters? will? be? constructed? a? minimum? of? five? years? after? the? disinfection

facilities,? potentially? longer.? ? However,? the? proposed? disinfection? facilities? must? be

designed?so?that?the?tertiary?filters?can?be?added?in?the?future.

2.1.3?Hydraulic?Constraints/Need?for?Additional?Pumping

The? final? key? consideration? for? development? of? the? potential? disinfection? facilities? at

NSWRP? is? the? hydraulic? constraints? that? may? limit? the? ability? to? convey?flow? through? the

facilities? by? gravity.? ? Currently,? flow? through? the? NSWRP? is? pumped? into? the? treatment

train?at?the?Pump?and?Blower?House?at? the?upstream?end?of? the?process? treatment?train

and?flows?by?gravity?through?the?plant?and?is?discharged?through?the?effluent?conduit?and

outfall? to? the? North? Shore? Channel? (NSC).? ? It? is? most? desirable? to? maintain? gravity? flow

through? the? plant? to? reduce? capital,? energy,? operations,? and? maintenance? costs? by

avoiding?additional?pumping.

Based? on? the? hydraulic? analyses? completed? as? part? of? the? Master? Plan,? CTE? has

completed? additional? hydraulic? evaluations? to? estimate? the? headloss? through? the? UV

Disinfection? Facilities? including? required? connecting? conduits? to? evaluate? the? ability? to

flow?through?the?proposed?Battery?E?improvements?and?potential?disinfection?facilities?by

gravity.? ? Table? 1? presents? the? results? of? that? evaluation.? The? basis? of? this? evaluation? is

discussed?in?more?detail?later?in?this?memorandum?with?the?following?exceptions:

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

---

6

1.? All?flow?is?assumed?to?be?by?gravity?flow?following?the?Pump?and?Blower?House.

2.? The? evaluation? includes? the? implementation? of? Battery? F? on? the? existing? site.

Although? Battery? F? is? not? scheduled? until? a? later? phase,? for? this? evaluation? this

assumption?reduces?the?total?headloss?through?existing?site?facilities.

3.? The? unequal? water? surface? elevation? (WSE)? between? the? two? sites? when? the

flows? are? recombined? is? ignored? for? the? purposes? of? comparison? only.? ? If? the

system? behaved? in?this?manner,?the?flow? through?Battery?E? would? be? reduced? or

additional?head?loss?would?need?to?be?created?through?the?existing?site.

4.? The? Master? Plan? recommended? that? Battery? E? be? operated? as? a? base? loaded

plant? with? a? constant? flow? of? 105? MGD.? ? Although? the? design? of? Battery? E? will

include? provisions? to? convey? flows? greater? than? 105? MGD,? this? hydraulic

evaluation?will?be?based?on?the?105?MGD?flow?rate.

Battery?E

Grit?Building?Effluent?Chamber

25.51

25.51

Battery?A?Effluent?Channel?U/S?of?Disinfection

Facility

16.67

--

Battery?E?Effluent?Channel?U/S?of?Disinfection

Facility

--

16.78

Effluent?Conduit?Surge?Chamber

12.75

12.86

100-year?Flood?WSE?in?Surge?Chamber

13.00

13.00

Note:??All?WSE?in?Chicago?City?Datum.

Without? tertiary? filters,? the? additional? headloss? through? the? UV? disinfection? facilities

including? associated? flow? splitting? and? control? systems? is? approximately? 3.36? feet.? As

shown? by? this? table,? gravity? flow? through? the? system? would? result? in? a? WSE? below? the

100-year?flood?elevation.??Additional?pumping?would?be?required?for?either?flow?path?after

the?implementation?of?the?UV?disinfection?facilities?to?meet?the?required?peak?flow?rate?of

450? MGD.? ? Considering? that? this? is? a? conceptual? level? evaluation,?additional?headlosses

are? 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.? ? At? this

level,? sound? engineering? judgment? dictates? that? the? assumption? be? that? additional

headloss? will? be? expected? and? should? be? included? in? the? analysis.? Thus,? it? is? concluded

that? additional? pumping? somewhere? in? the? process? train? will? be? required? for? both? flow

paths.

In?addition,?it?should?be?noted?that?pumping?at?static?heads?of?less?than?3?feet?is?a?difficult

application?for?pump?selection?and?design.??See?Section?4.2?for?a?discussion?of?the?pump

selection? criteria.? ? In? order? to? ensure? proper? operation? of? the? pumps,? additional? static

head? will? be? added? to? the? system? to? provide? a? safety? factor? to? the? evaluation? and? to

ensure?proper?operation?of?the?mechanical?equipment.

2.2?

Alternatives

With?the?above? conclusion?that?pumping? is? required,?various?alternatives?for? locating? the

additional? pumping? for? the? disinfection? facilities? were? considered? and? are? described

below.

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

---

7

2.2.1?Alternative?1?–?Gravity?Influent?to?Battery?E?with?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

(LLPS)?Upstream?of?Disinfection?for?450?MGD

Alternative? 1? is? shown? i

Figure?

n

2

.? ? In? this?alternative,? 105? MGD? will? flow?by?gravity

through? Battery? E,? combining? with? existing? plant? maximum? day? flow? (345? MGD)

upstream?of?a?low?lift?pump?station.??The?450?MGD?LLPS?is?to?be?located?upstream?of?the

disinfection?facilities.??The?benefits?of?this?alternative?are?the?inclusion?of?pumping?at?only

two? locations? (Pump? and? Blower? House? and? Low? Lift? Pump? Station)? and? the? ability? to

easily? reroute? the? pump? discharge? to? the? future? tertiary?filters? in? the? future.? ? The? largest

disadvantage? is? the? lost? available? head? through? the? existing? site? batteries? when? it? must

be? combined? with? the? Battery? E? flow? (see? Table? 1)? upstream? of? the? proposed? low? lift

pump?station.

2.2.2?Alternative?2?–?Intermediate?Pump?Station?to?Battery?E?with?Low?Lift?Pump

Station?Upstream?of?Disinfection?for?345?MGD

Alternative? 2? is? shown?

Figure?

in

3

.? ? In? this? alternative,? 105? MGD? through? Battery? E? is

pumped? by?an? intermediate? pump? station? located? adjacent? to? the? grit? removal? facility?on

the? existing? site.? ? Existing? plant? flow? (345? MGD)? flows? by? gravity? through? the? existing

plant.? ? The? existing? plant? flow? enters? the? LLPS,? located? upstream? of? the? disinfection

facilities.? ? Existing? plant? flow? (345? MGD)? and? Battery? E? flow? (105? MGD)? enter? the

disinfection? facilities? through? separate? conduits.? ? This? alternative? requires? pumping? at

three? locations? in? the? plant? (Pump? and? Blower? House,? Battery? E? Influent? Pump? Station,

and?Low?Lift?Pump?Station).??Furthermore,?to?add?tertiary?filters?in?the?future,?the?Battery

E? Influent?Pump? Station? would? have? to?be?sized?with?additional?head? initially,?or? the? Low

Lift? Pump? Station? would? need? to? be? designed? to? accommodate? future? expansion? to

handle?all?the?plant?flow.

Q

ABCDF

345?MGD

Q

E

105?MGD

450?MGD

LLPS

UV

Disinfection

NSC

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

---

8

2.2.3?Alternative?3?–?Intermediate?Pump?Station?to?Battery?E?with?Intermittent?Low

Lift?Pump?Station?Downstream?of?Disinfection?for?450?MGD

Alternative? 3? is? shown?

Figure?

in

4

.? ? In? this? alternative,? 105? MGD? through? Battery? E? is

pumped? by?the? intermediate? pump? station? located? adjacent?to? the? grit? removal?facility?on

the?existing?site.??345?MGD?flows?by?gravity?through?the?disinfection?facilities.??Total?plant

flow? (450? MGD)? is? pumped? by? the? LLPS? into? the? North? Shore? Channel.? ? The? LLPS? is

located?downstream?of?the?disinfection?facilities.??The?advantage?of?this?alternative?is?the

ability? to? use? the? LLPS? only? when? required? by? high? water? levels? in? the? NSC.? ? The

disadvantage? is? the? need? to? replace? the? LLPS? or? UV? Disinfection? Facility? when? tertiary

filters?are?added?in?the?future.

Q

ABCDF

345?MGD

Q

E

105?MGD

345?MGD

LLPS

UV

Battery?E

Battery?E

P.S.

NSC

Q

ABCDF

345?MGD

Q

E?105?MGD

450?MGD

LLPS

UV

Disinfection

Battery?E

P.S.

Q

E

Battery?E

NSC

Disinfection

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

---

9

2.2.4?Recommended?Alternative?for?Disinfection?Cost?Study

After? considering? the? various? alternatives,? CTE? recommends? Alternative? 1? for? the

Disinfection? Cost? Study.? ? This? alternative? minimizes? the? number? of? pumping? facilities

required? and? is? the? most? easily? modified? to? accommodate? the? future? addition? of? tertiary

filters.??One?of?the?other?alternatives?may?result?in?a?lower?initial?capital?or?operating?cost,

but?is?likely?to?be?more?costly?over?the?full?service?life?of?the?facility.??For?the?purposes?of

this?study,?Alternative?1?will?be?used.??Future?review?and?more?detailed?analysis?of?these

alternatives? and? the? Master? Plan? may? result? in? modifications? to? this? recommendation

based?on?other?factors?not?considered?here.

3

HYDRAULIC?ANALYSIS?OF?THE?UV?DISINFECTION?FACILITIES

3.1?

Objectives

A? preliminary? hydraulic? analysis? was? performed? during? the? Master? Plan? to? ensure? its

hydraulic? feasibility.? ? The? objective? is? to? identify? any? possible? hydraulic? bottlenecks? for

the?recommended?site?plan?indicating?where?detailed?analysis?will?be?required?during?the

design? phase.? ? A? hydraulic? analysis? was? performed? on? the? existing? NSWRP? in? the

Current? Capacity? and? Future? Treatment? Evaluation? Technical? Memorandum,? TM-5.? ? For

this? study,? modifications? were? made? to? this? model? in?order? to? account? for? the? addition? of

the? UV? Disinfection? Facilities? inclusive? of? the? required? additional? effluent? conduits,? gate

structures,?UV?channels?and?reactors,?and?Low?Lift?Pump?Station.

3.2?

Overview

The? hydraulic? analysis? was? completed? using? a? spreadsheet? utilizing? standard? open

channel? and? closed? conduit? flow? equations? to? represent? the? NSWRP.? ? The? hydraulics

evaluated? were? for? the? year? 2040? conditions,? which? include? both? infrastructure? and

permit-related?improvements.A?peak?flow?of?450?mgd?was?used.??Flow?in?excess?of?450

mgd? is? diverted? to? the? TARP? system.? ? Return? activated? sludge? flows? were? added? to? the

influent? where? appropriate.? ? In? order? to? reflect? the? nutrient? removal? processes,? internal

mixed? liquor? recycled? flows? were? used? in? the? hydraulic? analysis? of? the? activated? sludge

aeration?tanks.

Similar? to? the? analysis? performed? in? TM-5,? critical? flow? paths? were? identified? as? those

which? would? result? in? the? greatest? headloss.? ? These? critical? flow? paths? were? modeled

from?the?North?Shore?Channel?Outfall?to?immediately?upstream?of?the?coarse?bar?screens

in? the? Pump? and? Blower? House.? ? The? two? flow? paths? identified? as? critical? flow? paths? for

this?study?are?as?follows:

1.? Critical?flow?path?through?Battery?A

2.? Critical?flow?path?through?Battery?E

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.

All? NSWRP? drawings? obtained? from? MW RDGC? are? on? the? same? datum,

known?as?the?Chicago?City?Datum?(CCD).

2.

The? CCD? has? not? changed? since? the? plant? was? originally? constructed? in? the

1920’s.

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

---

10

3.

Flow?through? Battery?E? is? 105? MGD? and? it? is? treated? as?a? base?loaded? plant.

Flow? through? Batteries? A,? B,? C,? D,? and? F? is? the? remainder? and? will? be? 345

MGD?at?peak?flow.??Flow?over?450?MGD?is?diverted?to?TARP.

4.

Return?flow?from?the?Grit?Dewatering?System?and?Scum?Concentration?Tanks

as?well?as?supernatant?from?the?Sludge?Concentration?Tanks?are?negligible.

5.

Flow?reduction?as?a?result?of?primary?sludge?removal?is?negligible.

6.

The? 100-year? flood? elevation? is? 12.30? 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? McCook?Reservoir? Construction)? values?are

used? since? the? USACE’s? current? estimate? for? completion? of? Stage? 1

construction?is?2020?or?later.

7.

Hydraulics? through? the? existing? Meter? Building? will? control? flow? splits? among

Battery?A,?B,?C,?D,?and?F?proportional?to?the?battery?volumes.

8.

Flow?splits?evenly?based?on?aeration?tank?volume?within?each?battery.

9.

Flow? splits? evenly? among? the? aerated? grit? channels? located? in? the? Grit

Building.

10.?

Return? Activated? Sludge? (RAS)? flows? were? calculated? to? be? 55%? of? total

influent?flow.

11.?

Internal? recycle? flow? for? total? nitrogen? removal? was? calculated? to?be? 150%? of

total?influent?flow?per?battery.

12.?

Baffle? walls? (for? TN? removal)? were? assumed? to? be? mounted? where? mixed

liquor?flows?from?underneath?one?baffle? wall?to? the? top? of?the?next? baffle? wall,

creating?a?“up?and?down”?flow?pattern.

13.?

The?longest?flow?path?through?each?treatment?process?was?used.

14.?

Tank? geometry? downstream? of? the? aeration? tank? effluent? weirs? (Operating

Gallery? and? Final? Settling? Tanks)? in? Battery? A? was? assumed? to? be? similar? to

that?of?existing?Battery?D.

15.?

Geometry?of?Batteries?E? and? F?were?assumed? to?be?similar? to? that? of?existing

Battery?D.

16.?

Proposed?primary?settling?tank?geometry?was?assumed?to?be?similar?to?that?of

the?existing?circular?primary?settling?tanks.

17.?

Velocity?in?Disinfection?Influent?and?Effluent?Distribution?Chamber?is?zero

18.?

Battery? E? is? to? be? pumped? via? the? proposed? low-lift? pump? station? on? the

existing?(southern)?NSWRP?site.

19.?

Battery?E?is?gravity?Fed?from?downstream?of?the?Grit?Building.

20.?

Disinfection? channel? effluent? weir? gate? is? assumed? to? be? downstream? WSE

(WSE?4)?+?0.5'

21.?

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

22.?

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

Results? are? presented? below.? ? Tertiary? filters? are? excluded? from? the? hydraulic? profile.

The?hydraulic?profiles?show?the?estimated?WSEs?at?the?maximum?flow?of?450?mgd.??Flow

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

---

11

that? exceeds? 450? mgd? is? diverted? into? the? TARP? system

Tabl

.

e? 2

? presents? the

headlosses? through? various? portions? of? the? plant? for? Battery? A? and? Battery? E? for

comparison.

Table?2?–?Summary?of?Headloss?through?NSWRP?(Proposed)

Process/Flow?Area

Battery?E

Pump?and?Blower?House?Discharge?to?Aerated

Grit?Discharge?Chamber

2.03

2.03

Aerated?Grit?Discharge?Chamber?to?PSTs

1.03

2.39

Primary?Settling?Tanks

1.83

2.44

Aeration?Basins?and?Final?Settling?Tanks

5.98

2.72

Effluent?Conduit?to?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?Wet

Well

0.67

1.96

LLPS?Discharge?to?UV?Disinfection?Effluent

Chamber

3.36

3.36

UV?Disinfection?Effluent?Chamber?to?Outfall

.66

.66

Total

15.56

15.56

Notes:??

Values?i n ? f e e t ?of?he a dloss .

Does?not?include?head?dissipated?due?to?minimum?pump?head?requirements.

Table?3

?presents?the?final?water?surface?elevations?through?the?plant?including?the?Low

Lift?Pump?Station?and?UV?Disinfection?Building.

Table?3?–?Summary?of?Proposed?WSE?including?UV?Disinfection?Facilities

Location

Combined

Battery?A

Battery?E

North?Shore?Channel?100-yr?Flood

Elevation

12.30

--

--

D/S?WSE?@??New?Surge?Chamber

12.96

--

--

U/S?WSE?@?New?Surge?Chamber

15.96

--

--

WSE?@?Disinfection?Effl?Channel

16.52

--

--

WSE?just?U/S?of?Weir?Gate

18.03

--

--

WSE?just?D/S?UV?Reactor

18.08

--

--

WSE?just?U/S?UV?Reactor

18.83

--

--

WSE?just?D/S?of?influent?gate

18.87

--

--

WSE?in?LLPS?Discharge?Channel

19.88

--

--

LLPS?Wet?Well

16.00

--

--

Final?Settling?Tank?Effluent?Chambers

--

16.67

17.96

Aeration?Tank?Effluent?Chambers

--

20.39

18.88

Aeration?Tanks

--

20.69

19.62

Primary?Tank?Effluent?Chambers

--

22.65

20.68

Grit?Building?Effluent?Chamber

25.51

--

--

U/S?of?Fine?Screens

25.76

--

--

Aerated?Grit?Tank?Influent?Chamber

26.51

--

--

Siphon?Room

27.54

--

--

Figure?5a?and?5b

?contain?hydraulic?profiles?of?the?two?critical?flow?paths?with?the?UV

disinfection?facilities?and?the?available?freeboard?at?the?locations?where?water?surface

elevations?(WSEs)?were?calculated?at?the?maximum?day?flow.

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

---

CTE

303?East?Wacker?Drive,?Suite?600,?Chicago,?Illinois?60601-5276

T?312.938.0300?F?312.938.1109?www.cte.aecom.com

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

---

CTE

303?East?Wacker?Drive,?Suite?600,?Chicago,?Illinois?60601-5276

T?312.938.0300?F?312.938.1109?www.cte.aecom.com

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

---

14

4

LOW?LIFT?PUMP?STATION

This? section? will? present? the? proposed? arrangement? and? key? characteristics? of? the

proposed?Low?Lift?Pump?Station.

Based? on? the? above? analysis? of? hydraulics,? it? is? estimated? that? the? low? lift? pumps? will

raise? the? water? approximately? 7? feet? (including? static? and? friction? losses)? to? the? UV

disinfection? system? influent,? including? estimated? head? to? allow? flow? through? the? UV

system.? ? Should? tertiary? filtration? become? necessary? in? the? future,? these? pumps? can? be

modified?to?enable?an?increased?head?of?approximately?11?feet.

Pumps?will? be? axial?flow,?propeller? type.? ? The?pumps?will? operate?24?hours?a? day,?seven

days?per?week.??The?level?control?will?be?automatic?under?normal?conditions,?with?manual

override?possible.

4.1?

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

450

Pumps

Type

A x ial?Flow

Number

6?total?(N+1+1)

Pumping?Rates,?gpm/pump

78,125

Total?Dynamic?Head,?ft.

7

Motor,?hp

250

Submergence,?ft

16

Wet?Well

Length,?ft.

86

Width,?ft.

101

4.2?

Pump?Type

Several? pump? types? were? considered? for? this? high? flow? (78,125? gpm)? low? head? (7? feet

TDH)? application.? ? Pump? types? considered? included? screw? pumps,? vertical? turbine

pumps,? centrifugal? pumps,? and? axial? flow? pumps.? ? Many? pump? manufacturers? found? it

difficult? to? recommend? a? pump? that? would? operate? efficiently? for? this? application? due

primarily? to? the? low? head.? ? Screw?pumps? and? axial?flow? pumps?appear? to?have? the? best

operating?performance?for?this?condition.

Initially?the?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?will?lift?450?MGD?a?total?of?4?feet?with?a?Total?Dynamic

Head? (including? station? losses)? of? approximately? 7? feet.? ? However,? if? tertiary? filtration? is

constructed?in?the?future,?the?TDH?will?increase?to?approximately?11?feet?(flow?will?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.

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

---

15

4.3?

Proposed?Operational?Description

The?pump?station? will? have?a? total? of?six?pumps,?with?four? duty?pumps,?one? standby?and

one? out? of? service? (N+1+1).? ? Four? pumps? will? be? driven? by? constant? speed? motors,? two

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

will? be? divided? into? two? wet? wells,? each? containing? three? pumps.? ? Design? average? flow

(333? MGD)? can? be? handled? by? two? constant? speed? and? one? variable? speed? pumps,

leaving? three? pumps?on? standby.??Peak?flow?(450?MGD)? can?be?handled?by?four?pumps,

leaving? two? on? standby.? ? Typically,? at? least? one? variable? speed? pump? will? operate? at? all

times,?to?handle?fluctuations?in?flow

Tab

.

le?5

?illustrates?an?example?of?pump?operation?at

design?average?flow?and?peak?flow:

Flow,?MGD

Pump?Drive?Type

Pump?Flow,?gpm

250

Constant?speed

78,125

Constant?speed

78,125

Variable?speed

46,875

333?(Design

Average)

Constant?speed

78,125

Constant?speed

78,125

Variable?speed

75,000

450?(Peak)

Constant?speed

78,125

Constant?speed

78,125

Constant?speed

78,125

Variable?speed

78,125

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

pump? suction? bell? diameter.? ? For? this? flow? condition,? a? 96-inch? suction? bell? is? required,

which? requires? a? minimum? submergence? of? 168? inches,? or? 14? feet.? ? Submergence

requirements?should?be?verified?by?the?pump?manufacturer?during?final?design.

Level?sensors?in?the? wet? well? will? relay? a? signal?to? turn? pumps?on? and? off.?? Other? control

inputs?that?need?to?be?monitored?include?discharge?pipe?pressure,?flap?gate?position,?and

motor?alarms.

4.4?

Proposed?Layout

Flow?will?enter?the?pump?station?at?the?north?end?of?the?wet?well,?where?it?will?be?directed

perpendicularly? to?the? south? through?four? 96-inch?slide?gates.? ? Pumps?are? located?at?the

south? end? of? the? pump? station.? ? Site? constraints? and? pump? station? size? appear? to? make

this?flow?pattern?necessary.

Available? area? on? the? site? is? insufficient? for? meeting? Hydraulic? Institute? (HI)? Standards

directly.? ? A? trench? type? wet? well? was? considered? in? order? to? meet? HI? standards,? but? its

depth,?in?excess?of?fifty?feet,?precluded?further?study.

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?B

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.

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

---

16

Furthermore,? based? on? the? total? flow? and? flow? per? pump,? the? Hydraulic? Institute

recommends?physical?scale?modeling.

5

SUMMARY

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.? ? The? study? is? advancing? the? previous

work? outlined? in? the? NSWRP? Master? Plan? and? TM1-W Q? 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.

CTE’s? efforts? to? date? have? identified? several? issues? that? must? be? addressed? during? the

conceptual? design? of? the? disinfection? facilities.? ? These? issues? include:? ? incorporation? of

the? disinfection? facilities? into? the? NSWRP? Master? Plan? for? future? improvements,? the

timing? of? the? implementation? of? proposed? improvements? that? might? influence? the? design

of? the? disinfection? facilities,? and? existing? hydraulic? constraints? given? the? needs? of? the

proposed?future?improvements.

Through? the? work? completed? during? the? Master? Plan,? it? has? been? determined? that? the

disinfection?facilities? will? be? located? in? the?northeast?corner?of?the?existing? site? due? to? the

proximity? to? the? existing? outfall? and? effluent? conduit? as? well? as? space? needs? for

construction?of?other? required?future?facilities?(i.e.?Battery?E)?at?other?available? locations.

The? proposed? disinfection? facilities? are? assumed? to? be? constructed? after? Battery? E? is

online,?but?before?the?addition?of?tertiary?filtration.??The?anticipated?time?frame?for?startup

of? the? disinfection? facilities? is? 2014? to? 2016? for? the? purposes? of? the? Disinfection? Cost

Study.? ? This? schedule? should? be? considered? conservative? in? the? sense? that? the

implementation? schedule? may? be? longer? than? assumed? here? due? the? complexity? of? the

required? planning? and?design? efforts?for? facilities?of? this? magnitude? and? the? potential? for

delay?due?to?the?uncertainty?inherent?to?the?regulatory?process.

Using?the?hydraulic?analysis?work?completed?for? the? NSWRP? Master? Plan,?a? preliminary

evaluation? of? the? hydraulic? profile? for? the? proposed? facilities? was? completed? assuming

that? all? flow? continued? to? be? by? gravity? downstream? of? the? influent? Pump? and? Blower

House.? ? This? evaluation? shows? that? water? surface? elevation? at? peak? flow? at? the? surge

chamber? is? below? the? 100-year? flood? elevation? and? therefore,? the? plant? would? not? be

capable? of? treating? the? peak? design? flow.? ? Considering? that? this? is? a? conceptual? level

study? and? additional? losses? are? likely?to?be? identified? during? final? design,? it? is? concluded

that? additional? pumping? for? all? flows? from? the? existing? site? (Batteries? A,? B,? C,? D,? and? F)

and?from?Battery?E?is?required?in?order?to?convey?and?treat?peak?flows.

Several? alternatives? were? considered? regarding? the? layout? and? location? of? the? pumping

on? the? site.? ? The? recommended? alternative? is? to? provide? a? single? low? lift? pump? station

downstream? of? the? final? clarifiers? for? all? secondary? treatment? batteries? but? upstream? of

the?disinfection?facility.??This?arrangement?minimizes?the?number?of?times?that?the?flow?is

pumped?and?the?number?of?locations?of?the?major?pumping?equipment.??It?will?also?permit

bypassing?of?the?LLPS?and?disinfection?facility?during?winter? months? when? disinfection? is

not?required.??In?addition,?this?alternative?more?easily?allows?diversion?of?the?effluent?to?a

tertiary?filter?facility?in?the?future.

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

---

17

The? hydraulic? analysis? was? refined? based? on? the? proposed? layout? of? the? facilities? to

determine? the? specific? needs? for? the? LLPS.? ? A? proposed? layout? of? the? LLPS? has? been

developed? based? on? axial?flow? pumps.? ? Axial?flow? pumps? are? recommended? due? to? the

low? head? conditions?and? the? need? to? modify?the? discharge? head? when? tertiary?filters?are

added?in?the?future.??The?primary?alternative?to?axial?flow?pumps?is?screw?pumps,?but?this

pump?type?is?not?easily?modified?after?installation?to?provide?additional?head.

The? wet? well? layout,? shown? in? Appendix? B,? is? constrained? by? the? available? space? and

does? not? meet? ideal? Hydraulic? Institute? pump? intake? standards.? ? However,? pump? intake

flow?improving?features?were? incorporated? into?the? layout?of?the? wet? well?similar? to?other

pump? stations? of? similar? size? and? application.? ? Physical? scale? modeling? during? detailed

design? is? strongly? recommended?due? to?the? size?of?the?pumps?and?to? verify?and?size?the

hydraulic?improvements.

In?conclusion,?this?review?has?confirmed?the?primary?assumptions?of?the?NSWRP?Master

Plan? in? regards? to? the? need? for? a? low? lift? pump? station,? location? of? the? facilities,? and

arrangement? of? the? facilities? to? accommodate? future? facilities.? ? The? Disinfection? Cost

Study? will? proceed? based? on? the? assumption? and? the? additional? details? provided? in? this

report.

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

---

Selected?Pages?from?USACE?CUP?DDR

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

APPENDIX?B

LLPS?Proposed?Layout

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

---

\\Uschg1fp207\p60026610\P60026610\Contracts\SHEETS\P-301.dwg,?9/26/2007?10:40:18?AM,?DWF6?ePlot.pc3

N

A

S-302

A

S-302

PRELIMINARY

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

---

\\Uschg1fp207\p60026610\P60026610\Contracts\SHEETS\P-302.dwg,?9/26/2007?10:40:23?AM,?DWF6?ePlot.pc3

N

A

S-302

A

S-302

PRELIMINARY

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

---

\\Uschg1fp207\p60026610\P60026610\Contracts\SHEETS\P-303.dwg,?9/26/2007?10:40:27?AM,?DWF6?ePlot.pc3

N

PRELIMINARY

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

---

UV?TECHNOLOGY?TECHNICAL?MEMORANDUM

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

---

NSWRP,?CWRP,?AND?HPWRP

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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