Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 40

April 19, 2019

Dr. Ulmo
Brutus Power Plant Manager
Buckeye Borough, Ohio

Dear Dr. Ulmo,

Team Alpha is set out to provide you with a design proposal at Brutus Power Plant
that is in compliance with the updated Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent
Guidelines. This design report details an efficient treatment train that removes the
necessary contaminants and is cost effective in terms of time and money. All
relevant figures, calculations, and discussions are included within this report.

We look forward to hearing your feedback and appreciate the support throughout
the project.

Sincerely,

Team Alpha:

Andrew Elderbrock
Ahmad Fauzi
John Schlichting
Brian Zaborszki
Preliminary and Advanced Processes for Physical-Chemical
Wastewater Treatment at Buckeye Power Plant

04/19/2019

Environmental Engineering 3210 Unit Operations

Prepared for Dr. Ulmo

Team Alpha:

Andrew Elderbrock

Ahmad Fauzi

John Schlichting

Brian Zaborszki

Page [1]
Executive Summary
This report presents the Wastewater Treatment System designed by Team Alpha to address the
EPA’s effluent limitation guidelines and implement safe, environmentally focussed, and
effective treatment systems. This report will discuss the implementation of a Preliminary
treatment system and an Advanced treatment system. Specifically proposing, an equalization
tank, sedimentation tanks, rapid mixing tanks, flocculation basin, pressurized sand filter, sludge
tank, dewatering process, and an advanced treatment system to remove specific metals. In recent
years, changes to environmental quality standards have forced existing power plants to rethink
the sustainability and layout of their chemical and physical processes. Brutus Power Plant (BPP)
is affected by these regulations so they were required to capture more air pollutants instead of
releasing them into the atmosphere. The large majority of these contaminants end up in
wastewater streams. This design report proposes a wastewater treatment system (WWTS) for
BPP located near Buckeye Borough, OH in Hitchcock County. Currently, flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) wastewater produced in the facility discharges directly into the Day River.
This is unacceptable; as the high concentrations of constituents pose adverse risks to societal and
environmental health.

This design was created under the direction of Dr. Ulmo from BPP and utilized many settling
tests provided by the workers at the plant. Team Alpha used prior knowledge and research
articles to decide on an adequate process train to ensure BPP is in compliance with the necessary
ELG’s.

The team concluded that an upfront capital cost of $20, 538, 331.06 is required from BPP in
order to meet all aspects of the described design train. This process removes large levels of
suspended solids and heavy metal precipitates using sedimentation basins and clarifiers. The
design implements all pillars of sustainability by making note of the importance of community
involvement, environmental management, and economic gain. The design also includes
suggestions and recommendations for BPP to help ensure a safe, healthy, and efficient power
plant.

Page [2]
Table of Contents
Introduction
Background Information of Facility 4
Regulatory Issues 4
Reasons for Report 5
Overview of Design
Process Flow Diagram 6
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Equalization Tank 7
Flow Measurement via Weirs 7
Sedimentation Tank 1 7
Sedimentation Tank 2 9
Rapid Reaction Tank 1 10
Rapid Reaction Tank 2 11
Flocculation Basin 13
Sedimentation Tank 3 14
Sand Filter 16
Sludge Tank 16
Dewatering Centrifuge 16
Advanced Treatment
Frontier SeHAWK System 17
Cost Analysis 19
Public Involvement 19
Safety and Health 19
Final Recommendation 20
Acknowledgements 20
Appendix
List of Nomenclature 20
List of Tables 21
List of Figures 21

Page [3]
Introduction

Background Information of Facility


This report proposes a wastewater treatment system (WWTS) for the Brutus Power Plant (BPP)
located near Buckeye Borough, OH in Hitchcock County. Currently, wastewater produced in the
facility discharges at River Mile 141 into the Day River. The EPA classifies the river’s use as
warmwater habitat, agriculture water supply, industrial water supply, and primary contact
recreation. The BPP is a pulverized coal-fired power plant burning eastern bituminous coal to
provide 2,000 megawatts of electric power. The facility generates wastewater through cooling
systems, boiler blowdown, sanitary wastewater, cleaning metal waste, cooling tower blowdown,
ash pond, coal pile runoff, and flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. This WWTS addresses
the scrubber chloride purge stream associated with the FGD system; the purge stream is required
to control chloride concentrations and solid build-up in the scrubber. A FGD system contains
pollutants from coal, limestone, and additional water; the wastewater is acidic and contains high
concentrations of dissolved (TDS) and suspended solids (TSS) in addition to gypsum, chloride,
magnesium, dissolved organic compounds, and other heavy metals.

Regulatory Issues
Steam electric power plants use water throughout their chemical and physical processes as a way
to create steam, cool down products, and dilute solutions. The typical power plant waste contains
large concentrations of dissolved solids, organic nutrients, and trace metals [15]. The typical
trace metals in the waste streams include arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium, chromium, and
cadmium [15]. All of these pose health risks if consumed at elevated levels, and they can last in
the environment for years through bioaccumulation or a resistance to chemical degradation [14].

The Environmental Protection Agency began setting guidelines for the power plant waste
streams in 1974. The original standards focused on reducing the suspended solids concentration
in the effluent, but there were no regulations concerning dissolved trace metals that
bioaccumulate in the receiving ecosystems [15]. After 1974, the Clean Air Act made great strides
in reducing the concentration of air pollutants being discharged out of coal and nuclear power
plants. However, many of those airborne contaminants made their way to the wastewater streams
instead [14]. Five amendments have been made to the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent
Guidelines (ELG’s) since 1974 with the most recent being the 2015 Final Rule [10]. This new
regulation was a reflection of the advancements in technology and contaminant tracking and new
characteristics of wastewaters [12]. The 2015 Rule was the first regulation to set limits on toxic
metal concentrations in power plant effluents [10]. The industry standards change as cleaner and
more efficient processes are constantly improved and implemented around the country. Some
affected equipment and processes include flue gas desulfurization, fly ash management, bottom
ash, flue gas mercury control, and gasification of fuels such as coal and petroleum coke [10,12].

Page [4]
The 2015 Final Rule is still being argued in courts, as petitions have emerged asking for a review
of some of the regulations [10]. However, the permitting agencies are still proceeding to work
with the power plants to reduce contaminants in their wastewater streams.

The regulations are numerical limits specific to each plant based on their existing National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit [11]. The main way most plants can
meet compliance is by updating their plants to more efficient equipment. Some examples include
settling ponds, onsite biological treatment, and chemical precipitation systems [16]. The costs
can be offset by implementing creative recycling and reuse strategies or even reducing the
amount of water in the plant by converting to dry processes. However, each power plant will
have a different plan of action based on their existing processes.

Reason for Report


The updates to the ELG greatly affect the way that power plants, including Brutus Power Plants,
think about how they handle their fluid wastes. BPP currently discharges its FGD wastewater
stream into the onsite ash pond. The waste sits here for a designated time before getting released
into the Day River. The ELG limitations on BPP’s effluent require that some sort of more
involved treatment process be implemented to be in compliance with the ELG’s. Team Alpha is
set out to provide a preliminary design for a physical-chemical process train with the necessary
design parameters including sizing, costs, and a discussion of overall feasibility. The proper flow
diagrams, calculations, and assumptions will be provided in full to the plant manager of BPP. A
discussion on a proceeding advanced treatment process will also be provided. The goal of this
report is to detail the specific design of the process train and provide a thorough discussion of
why Team Alpha made each decision.

Page [5]
Overview of Design
Team Alpha’s proposed design is split into two connected sections. The first being a
physical-chemical treatment and the second portion an advanced treatment process. The process
flow diagram is detailed below in Figure #1.

Figure 1: Overall Process Flow Diagram

Page [6]
The location of the wastewater treatment system was given to Team Alpha by Dr. Ulmo of BPP.
The proposed location of each basin and the general process flow is shown in Figure #2. These
two unit operations are detailed below by each basin or tank. All relevant calculations,
assumptions, and case studies are included in each subsection. Two assumptions that pertain to
the process as a whole include:
1. The gypsum effluent from the FGD process is not in the wastewater stream so there is no
need for a desaturation tank
2. The bar screen does not create an increase in upstream volume.

Physical/Chemical Treatment:
Equalization Tank
The first step of the WWTS is an equalization tank (EQ). The purpose of this step is to
adjust the varied incoming flow to the chemical feed tanks and clarifiers. The EQ tank minimizes
this variability and enhances the efficiency of the following unit operations [3]. This holding cell
allows more storage and flexibility during operation while outputting a more uniform chemistry
makeup.
Given the maximum and average flow for 2019 and the formula; assume S.F. = 25%
( )
V = QM ax − QAvg * Δtime = (0.8845M GD − 0.7398M GD) * (1 Day) + S F ​(1)
264.5 m3
V = 0.1447M G * 1 MG
= 547.75 m3 + (136.9375 m3 ) = 684.69 m3

Flow Measurement
A flow measurement device allows operators and managers to gather data about the fluctuations
in their daily FGD wastewater stream. The data that was used for the basis of this plant design
comes from a flow measurement took already at BPP. A flow measuring device is unacceptable
if it cannot measure the flow accurately within 10% of the actual flow [7]. Weirs will be used
throughout the process train to control flow and reduce the amount of turbulence. A typical weir
loading rate (q) of 15,000 gpd/ft will be used [8].

Length of W eir = Q / q = 0.7398 M GD / 15, 000 gpd/f t * 1000000 gal = 49.32 f eet

Sedimentation Tank 1
The first sedimentation basin is used to remove a large portion of the influent solids. The primary
clarification is not designed to remove all total suspended solids (TSS) from the wastewater,
rather its goal is to reduce the concentration to around 1000 mg/L [2]. This helps to improve the
efficiency of the proceeded unit operations and help reduce any clogging downstream. Solids
from the sludge effluent are recycled back to the front of the process because the larger particles
will help form denser sludge in the first sedimentation tank. The smaller particles will be more
likely to form with the recirculated larger particles instead of forming their own floc. A primary

Page [7]
clarifier is proposed because it is estimated that the total suspended solids are greater than 2%
[9].
A settling column test of the FGD wastewater was used to determine the total solids removal in
the proposed sedimentation tanks. A chart was created plotting the settling velocities at each
collected time point and the mass fraction remaining of TSS. The area under the curve gave us a
total solids removal by percentage. The result for tank 1 was 94.89% removal. The graph and
calculation is shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Sedimentation Tank 1 Total Solids Removal Calculation

The chosen settling velocity of 0.09 m/min can be used to determine the surface area of the
sedimentation tank. These calculations assume the Stoke’s Law assumptions apply to the
particles involved in the sedimentation basin. A peak overflow rate of 0.5 gal/min/sq ft^2 was
also assumed to apply to both sedimentation basins [2].

Area = Q / V s = 0.7398 M GD/0.09m/min / 60 min / 24 hrs * 1000000 gal / 264 gal = 21.5 m2 ​(2)

The proper length/width ratio for sedimentation basins is proposed to be about 4.0-5.0 (King
County…, 2016). Using the above area results in a length of 8 meters and a width of 2.7 meters.
This 1st basin is very small so a short detention time is expected and the small size will make it

Page [8]
easier to format the layout of the wastewater plant. A tank depth of 3.5 meters is assumed and
combining this with the calculate area will result in a detention time.

tr = volume / Q = 21.5 m2 * 3.5 m / 0.7398 M GD * 264 gal / 1000000 gal * 24 hr = 0.65 hours (3)

This is a relatively short detention time, however, it still allows for an efficient removal of total
suspended solids.

Sedimentation Tank 2
A second sedimentation tank is necessary to further reduce the TSS in the influent. The water
quality data for the FGD stream displays that it has the potential to reach a concentration of
170,000 mg/L. The same method was done for tank 2 but utilizing a smaller settling velocity
since there will be less solids in the influent. A settling velocity of 0.11 m/min resulted in a total
solids removal of 91.45%.

Figure 3: Sedimentation Tank 2 Total Solids Removal Calculation

The potential solids concentration leaving the 2nd sedimentation tank for the worst case scenario
of 170,000 mg/L is shown below, assuming the first tank maintains a removal efficiency of
94.89%. We want this value to be close to 1000 mg/L so there is still ample surface area for the
precipitates to adhere to in the following tanks.

Page [9]
T SS leaving T ank 2 (mg/L) = 170, 000 mg/L * (1 − 0.9145) * (1 − 0.9489) = 742.7 mg/L ​(32)

This means that there the two sedimentation tanks are doing an adequate job removing total
suspended solids at the beginning of the treatment train. The second sedimentation basin will be
slightly smaller than the first. The calculation for area is shown below.

Area = Q / V s = 0.7398 M GD / 0.11m/min / 60 min / 24 hrs * 1000000 gal / 264 gal = 17.7 m2 ​(4)

Using the above area results in a length of 8 meters and a width of 2.2 meters. A tank depth of
3.5 meters is assumed again and combining this with the calculated area will result in a detention
time.

tr = v olume / Q = 17.7 * 3.5 m / 0.7398 M GD * 264 gal / 1000000 gal * 24 hr = 0.15 hours ​(5)

The detention time of the second basin is shorter than the first but this make sense because of the
difference in chosen settling velocities. It is worth noting that standard design detention times
usually range between 1.2-2.5 hours [8]. Our proposed detention times are much shorter than this
but that is due to the high efficiency of the basins and the fact that we are spreading the
sedimentation out over two separate tanks. These basins take up a relatively small footprint in the
grand scheme of the treatment plant square footage.

Rapid Reaction Tank 1


Organosulfides are excellent at removing many heavy metals from solution and have the added
benefit of less maintenance than precipitation by production of metal hydroxides, which requires
much more careful pH management, among other factors. A proprietary compound of Evonik
called TMT 15 was chosen for this purpose. It can achieve up to 98% reduction of Hg in solution
and is environmentally safe in diluted quantities. The resulting compounds can then be easily
removed through standard precipitation and flocculation. A combined chemical injection feed
and rapid mixing tank provide the influent TMT 15 treatment stream and a rapid mixing tank
with a velocity gradient of G = 900 sec​-1​ was chosen in order to provide sufficient mixing. The
flow entering the rapid mixing tank is:

​(6)
Next, consulting Table 2, a minimum detention time of 15 minutes was designated and the
volume of the tank calculated as follows:

​(7)

Page [10]
Next, the power required to impart a velocity gradient of G = 900 sec​-1​ into a tank of this size
was calculated.

(​ 8)
However, assuming that the efficiency of the power transmission to mechanically mix the water
is only 70%, the true power requirement becomes 24,246.51 ft*lb/sec, which correlates to about
44.08 hp. Consulting the chemical data sheet for TMT 15 as provided by Evonik, the solution
which is provided is about 15% TMT 15 by weight. So,
(​ 9)
The density of TMT 15​ was
​ given to be 1.12 g/mL, and that of water is 0.997 g/mL. According
the Evonik, it takes about 5.9 L of TMT 15 to remove 1 kg of Mercury from solution [17]. Thus,

​(10)

​(11)

​(12)

(13)
Evonik’s TMT 15 will be stored in a dry place near the flocculation basins at BPP. It will be
protected from the elements and will not experience any large temperature fluctuations. The
proper safety measures will need to be followed when transporting and interacting with the
chemical.

Rapid Reaction Tank 2


Ferric chloride was chosen as the primary coagulant for the removal of any remaining suspended
solids and the heavy metal precipitates from the organosulfide treatment. A second combined
chemical feed basin and rapid mixing tank was chosen rather than combine with organosulfide
addition in order to preclude any interference reactions and to allow optimal detention times.
Rapid mixing tanks require a velocity gradient of at least G = 750 sec-1 in order to operate
effectively, so a gradient of G = 900 sec-1 was chosen in order to provide more than adequate
mixing. The flow entering the rapid mixing tank is:

​(14)

Page [11]
Next, consulting Table 2, a minimum detention time of 10 minutes was designated and the
volume of the tank calculated as follows:

(​ 15)
Next, the power required to impart a velocity gradient of G = 900 sec-1 into a tank of this size
was calculated.

(​ 16)
However, assuming that the efficiency of the power transmission to mechanically mix the water
is only 70%, the true power requirement becomes 16,164.34 ft*lb/sec, which correlates to about
29.39 hp. Next, the required chemical dosage of ferric chloride addition in terms of pounds per
day was calculated. It is stated that the ferric chloride solution is only 15% FeCl3 by weight, so:
​ (17)
The density of FeCl3 was found to be 2.90 g/mL, and that of water is 0.997 g/mL. The jar test
data taken from Figure 6 showed an optimum dosage of FeCl3 at 2 mL per 100 mL of
wastewater.

​(18)

​(19)

​(20)

​(21)
So, the required dosage of FeCl3 is calculated to be to 136,549 lb/day of FeCl3 solution.
Following this addition, polymer is added to the feed water to boost coagulation in the
flocculation basin by aiding in bridging. All ferric chloride will be stored under a roof near the
flocculation basin. It will not be exposed to drastic temperature changes and all safety measures
will be taken when transporting or interacting with ferric chloride. The standard dosage of
polymer addition for clarification and filtration process is usually around 0.5-3.0 mg/L, so
assuming a dosage of 2 mg/L:

​(32)

Page [12]
Flocculation Basin
The flocculation basin provides a space for the particles to combine, or floc, together before they
are removed in the clarifier. Slow moving paddles create slight turbulence in the water that cause
the particles to contact each other and stick together to form a dense floc. The flocculation basin
was broken up into three compartments that are designed to have differing velocity gradients in
order to promote adequate mixing and agglomeration of the particles without allowing for
settling or break-up of the flocs. The following gradient velocity values were chosen for each
compartment: G​1​ = 70 fps/ft, G​2​ = 50 fps/ft, G​3​ = 20 fps/ft. These values are acceptable because
the G​t​ value was between 2E​4​ and 1E​5​. The G​t​ value was calculated as follows:

​(22)
The mass flow rate into the basin was calculated as shown below:

(23)
A detention time of 30 min was assumed in order to meet the minimum detention time, so the
total flocculation basin volume is

(​ 24)
A basin depth of 6 feet was assumed and a square area for each compartment was used, yielding
dimensions of 10.699 feet per side:

(​ 25)
Multiplying by 3 (the number of compartments), this gives a total basin length of 32.096 feet.
Then dividing by the retention time, the flow through velocity can be computed:

(​ 26)
This falls within the acceptable range of 0.5-1.5 fpm. To calculate the power necessary to create
the required velocity gradients, the following equation was manipulated:

​(27)
The above calculation was done as an example for the first mixing compartment. However,
assuming only 70% efficiency in transferring power to the water, the corrected value becomes
97.784 ft*lb/sec. Dividing by 550, this results in about 0.178 hp. By the same methodology, the
power for the second compartment was calculated to be 49.890 ft*lb/sec (0.091 hp), and the
power for the third compartment was 7.982 ft*lb/sec (0.015 hp). To transfer this energy, paddle
wheels were decided upon and the following assumptions were made in order to calculate the
necessary RPM of the paddle wheels: 1 paddle wheel per compartment, 4 arms per wheel and 2
paddles per arm, paddles with the dimensions of 100 inches in length and 5 inches in width, a

Page [13]
drag coefficient (C​d​) of 1.5 as the ratio of the paddle length to width is 20:1, a water density of
1.9346 slug, the velocity of the water is 30% that of the paddle, and there will be a paddle
located along each arm at one foot and two foot from the centerline shaft.

​(28)
Once again, the above calculation was for the first compartment. Using the same apparatus
dimensions and assumptions as before, the required revolutions per minute of the paddle wheels
in the second and third mixing compartments of the flocculation basin come out to be 7.042 rpm
and 3.823 rpm, respectively.

Sedimentation Tank 3
The sedimentation basin following the chemical feed tanks and flocculation is designed to settle
out the remaining solids in the wastewater stream. There will be a large inflow of settleable
solids into this tank following all the precipitation steps during the middle portion of the
​ econdary clarifiers should have limit overflow rate of 0.33 gpm/ft^2 [2] so this
treatment train.​ S
will be used as one of the main design parameters. Sedimentation tank 3 involves type II settling
because it follows a flocculation basin and will experience an increased settling velocity
compared to sedimentation tanks 1 & 2.

Team Alpha was provided with the results of a column test of flocculated FGD wastewater.
These results can be seen in Table 4 in Appendix A. The provided data was used to formulate a
percent removal chart over different retention times and depth in a settling tank for the
wastewater. This chart can be seen below in Figure 4.

Page [14]
Figure 4: Percent Removal of Flocculated Waste Stream Column Test

The red line at 70 minutes indicates Team Alpha’s proposed detention time for sedimentation
basin 3. This time was chosen based on the optimal removal efficiency without requiring too
large of a basin and typical detention times for post flocculation basins [8]. The following
calculation includes determining the efficiency at an intersection point of the 70 minute red line
and a percent removal line.

At 90% removal : n = 38/180 * 95% = 20.05% ​(29)

The same method was done for the intersections at the 80%, 70%, and 60% lines. The total
removal efficiency sums up to n = 95.71% . This is very high removal so this will certainly
ensure that BPP meets the TSS limits as part of the ELG regulations. The volume of
sedimentation basin 3 can be calculated using the 70 minute detention time and the 0.7398 MGD
flow through the process train.

v olume = Q * tr = 0.7398 M GD * 1000000 gal * 70 min / 24 hr / 60 min * 0.133 f t3 = 4807 f t3 ​(30)

Using the design overflow rate of 0.33 gpm/ft^2, the area can be calculated:

Page [15]
A = Q / vo = 0.7298 M GD * 1000000 gal / 0.33 gpm/f t2 / 60 min / 24 hr = 1557 f t2 ​(31)

This means that the depth of the third sedimentation tank is about 3 feet.

Sand Filter
The pressurized sand filtration system, following the previous sedimentation step, is designed to
decompose and filter wastewater constituents by placing the treatment flow in close contact with
filter media. This media may be biological or physical with materials ranging from crushed glass
to coal. When using a sand filter, to assure appropriate filtration, a minimum of 18 doses of
filtrate per day must be passed through the filter media. A small dose volume or high dosing
frequency is required to promote unsaturated film-like flow. Assuming a filtration rate of
3
ft
105.9 2
(f t day)
, an effective particle size of 0.014 in, and a uniformity coefficient of 2; it is
estimated that the size of the sand filter bed is 21527.82 f t2 with 11.81 inches of gravel,
followed by 24.3 inches of sand media, and 9.23 inches of earthen material. See table 8 for
estimates.

Sludge Tank
The sludge tank is essentially a collection cell for the sludge wastes from the sedimentation
tanks. The size of the tank will be based on the average flow through the process train. Team
Alpha used a design flow of 0.7398 MGD for the sizing of all basins. The sludge tank is not
going to receive this much flow because it is just receiving the solid residuals. If it is assumed
that 80% of the total suspended solids entering the process end up in the sludge tank then a
relative amount of solids can be calculated. It is also assumed that the worst case scenario of
170,000 mg/L of TSS is used.

solids = 0.7398 M GD * 10e6gal * 0.80 * 170000 mg/L * 3.78L/gal / 10e6 mg/kg = 380316 kg/day

Dewatering Centrifuge
Sludge that does not make it into the recycle line ends up in a dewatering centrifuge. Most
effluent from this centrifuge is either sent to a landfill or incinerated [8]. A more sustainable
option for BPP is to put their waste to use for someone else. This waste can be applied on
agricultural fields as fertilizer or used in composting businesses for its nutrients. The properties
of the dewatered sludge vary by the amount of precipitation and sedimentation, but most
densities range from 15% to 40% [8].

Page [16]
Advanced treatment
Team Alpha proposes the use of an advanced treatment system following the
physical-chemical treatment train. The proposed system is a biological metals treatment
trademarked by Frontier Water Systems. The main goal of the treatment is to lower selenium and
metal concentrations to ensure Brutus Power Plant’s compliance with the ELG’s that apply to
their discharge [4]. Compared to other forms of advanced treatment, Frontier’s SeHAWK system
is more cost effective, performs well in all seasons, and has a small footprint [4]. The main
reason for picking this system over a wetlands treatment design is the fact that BPP wants to fit
its entire FGD wastewater treatment in one small area, they do not have the space for a large
constructed wetland. The biological treatment takes advantage of natural processes but confines
them to a small concentrated bioreactor that utilizes ultrafiltration and improves the efficiency of
the selenium and metal removal [5]. The oxidants and other potential issues with biological
treatment are removed or molded into an acceptable form during the physical-chemical treatment
process. Soluble selenate and selenite are precipitated in the SeHAWK bioreactor using a
developed biofilm that works efficiently at a large range of temperatures [1]. SeHAWK uses a
fluidized first-stage reactor that releases nitrogen gas during the wastewater treatment process
[5]. The automated process and wireless data collection will allow for little maintenance and
staffing required from BPP employees. The system was designed specifically to be implemented
at the end of physical-chemical treatment trains in order to help power plants meet ELG
discharge limits, this placement can be seen below in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Example of Implementation of Frontier’s SeHAWK System in FGD Treatment Train

Page [17]
The TSS values after the SeHAWK systems are typical less than 1 mg/L and mercury
removal is enhanced ever further after the precipitation process using organosulfides in the
physical-chemical treatment train [5]. Pilots studies and large-scale applications have shown the
SeHAWK system removing over 98% of mercury, nitrate, selenium, and arsenic from FGD
wastewater streams [1]. For calculations it can be assumed the 98% is an exaggeration and a
more realistic removal rate of 95% will occur on a daily basis. The worst case scenarios for the
influent concentrations of contaminants will also be used for emphasis. The expected effluent
concentrations can be seen below in Table 1.
Table 1: Advanced Treatment Effluent Concentrations
Constituent Assumed Removal Calculation Proposed ELG 30 day Average
Influent Effluent (ug/L) Limit (ug/L)
(ug/L)

Mercury 103 103 * (1-0.95) 5.15 0.356

Selenium 930 930 * (1-0.95) 46.5 12

Arsenic 135 135 * (1-0.95) 6.75 8


The above table indicates that two of the three constituents would not meet the limits of
the ELG’s. This is because the absolute worst case scenario for the FGD effluent was used. In
reality, this concentration will be much lower by the time it reaches the advanced treatment,
however, it is important to show just how effective the SeHAWK is at reducing the constituents
of concern. Even in the worst case assumptions, the arsenic levels are removed to well below the
30 day maximum average.

Frontier has implemented their SeHAWK technology in many treatment scenarios all
over the United States. In the Southeastern USA they have several studies and integrated systems
at FGD wastewater treatment plants similar to BPP [1]. The specifications for the prefabricated
SeHAWK module list the container having an area of 400 square feet and a hydraulic capacity of
250 gallons per minute. The average daily flow for BPP’s FGD stream is 514 gallons per minute
so it is proposed that one SeHAWK system with a maximum capacity of 650 gallons per minute
be installed with an area of 6,032 square feet[1]. The advanced treatment train is an important
part of BPP’s plan for being in compliance with the ELG’s so the upfront capital is worth the
investment. The condensed format of the SeHAWK takes up less space at BPP and reduces costs
as compared to other best available technology (BAT) systems on the market [5]. This condenses
system’s profile can be seen below in Figure 15.

Page [18]
Some downfalls of the biological advanced treatment could be its sensitivity to changes in the
FGD stream concentrations and flow variations. Start-up and shut-down is also a complicated
process in any biological treatment train.

Cost Analysis
The proposed treatment system is found to obtain a fixed capital cost associated with its
operating and maintenance cost accordingly to our designed flow rate of 0.7398 MGD. The
estimation was made based on the historical data from the same scope of desired demand and
applying appropriate ratio towards the design. The summary for both of the estimation is entailed
with its breakdown in Table 8. Our design has the capital cost of $20,538,331.06 to fulfill the
construction basis and contingencies. The treatment system will required a total of $1,274,546.62
per year for the operation and maintenance cost in ensuring the functionality of the system to be
in optimal condition. From the overall capital cost with its operating and maintenance cost, our
team estimated the overhead cost and administrative cost for this treatment system to be
$637,273.31 per year and $382,363.99 per year. That being said, the total annual cost for the
system is estimated to be $2,294,183.92 per year.

Regarding the future value of the system, the future worth of the system is expected to be
$67,020,190.68 (37) based on its calculated present worth of $37,423,724.42 (36) within the next
10 years with interest rate of 6% compounded yearly and the annual worth is calculated to be
$5,084,685.03 every year.

Public Involvement
The Brutus Power Plant plays an important role in the surrounding communities in terms of
providing power and jobs. This means that the residents of Buckeye Borough are entitled to
know what is going on at BPP, including all renovations. There are several ways that the plant
manager can interact with the public. One way is worked directly into the design of our proposed
treatment train. Near the beginning of the process there is a concrete viewing room where
visitors to the plant can observe how seriously BPP takes its emissions to the environment. This
opens up endless chances for learning opportunities at the plant and teaching the community
about where their power comes from. The large cost of this project could also be discussed with
the public in a public meeting format. Representatives from BPP and form Team Alpha could sit
down with community members to hear feedback and concerns. This is another opportunity for
educational outreach.

Safety and Health


The workers and visitors to Brutus Power Plant need to take safety and health seriously because
of the processes occurring at BPP. The proper safety attire is required, whether that be gloves,
gas masks, steel-toed boots, or safety glasses. All workers interacting with chemicals need to be

Page [19]
extra careful and the proper safety training will be required for each worker. These safety rules
should be reiterated in regular meetings and all visitors should be briefed on the importance of
safety at Brutus Power Plant.

Final Recommendation
Team Alpha performed a comprehensive study of a FGD wastewater treatment system at Brutus
Power Plant. This analysis resulted in a physical-chemical process combined with an advanced
treatment process to remove the necessary constituents regulated by the EPA’s effluent limitation
guidelines. The team found that the necessary chemical additions and sedimentation time is
required to remove the high concentrations of incoming solids. Flocculation basins and more
clarifiers help to precipitate out heavy metals and other harmful constituents. The advanced
treatment systems polishes off the removal of several hidden constituents like selenium and
arsenic. Team Alpha recommends to Dr. Ulmo and Brutus Power Plant that they consider their
design and spend an upfront capital cost of $20,538,331.06 to ensure its compliance with the
ELG’s. It is also recommended that BPP implement some of the mentioned forms of
sustainability in terms of recycle streams, public involvement, and a serious stance on safety and
health of workers and visitors.

Acknowledgements
Team Alpha would like to thank Dr. Ulmo for the opportunity to work together and provide
potentials solutions for Brutus Power Plant’s FGD wastewater stream. We sincerely thank Dr.
Ulmo and the entire staff at BPP for providing us with all requested tests and answering all our
questions.

Table of Nomenclature

BPP Brutus Power Plant


ELG Effluent Limitation Guideline
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization
gpd Gallons per Day
MGD Million Gallons per Day
PFD Process Flow Diagram
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
tr Detention Time
TSS Total Suspended Solids
Vo Critical Settling Velocity & Overflow Rate
Vs Settling Velocity
WWTS Wastewater Treatment System
Q Flow Rate
q Weir loading rate

Page [20]
Appendix A: Tables and Figures

Table 2: Typical Loading Rates for FGD Treatment (Higgens, 2009)

Page [21]
Table 3 - BAT Limitations on ELGs - EPA

Pollutant Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

Maximum Daily 30 Day Average Shall Not


Exceed

Arsenic (μg/L) 11 8

Mercury (ug/L) 0.788 0.356

Selenium (μg/L) 23 12

Nitrate/Nitrite as N (mg/L) 17 4.4

Table 4 - Settling Column Test for Chloride Discharge - BPP

Time (min) TSS (mg/L)

0 115823

2 98785

5 77488

10 49375

15 32337

30 6780

60 391

120 220

180 177

Page [22]
Table 5: Existing FGD Wastewater Flow Rates

Year Maximum Flow (MGD)

2012 0.74

2013 0.81

2014 0.86

2015 0.89

2016 0.91

2017 0.92

2018 0.91

Table 6: FGD Wastewater Quality

Parameter Value

pH 5.9-7.3

TSS (mg/L) 87,600-170,000

Chloride (mg/L) 7,384-12,800

Calcium (mg/L) 3,220-6,690

Magnesium (mg/L) 2,321-3,830

Sodium (mg/L) 804-1,530

Mercury (ug/L) 50-103

Selenium (ug/L) 340-930

Boron (ug/L) 15,100-24,000

Arsenic (ug/L) 66-135

Page [23]
Table 7 - Settling Column Test for Flocculated Chloride Discharge - BPP

Time (min) Turbidity (NTU)

Point A Point B Point C

0 214.7 214.7 214.7

5.0 141.1 182.8 195.5

10.0 87.0 137.8 173.3

30.0 52.1 106.1 141.6

60.0 31.0 69.5 91.7

120.0 8.4 48.5 50.7

180.0 1.2 22.6 27.4

Table 8 - Sand Filter Estimations - BPP

Characteristic Sand Filtration

Filtration rate 2-5 m^3/m^2*d

Size of bed ~2000 m^2

Depth of bed 300 mm gravel, 1 m sand

Effective size of sand 0.35 mm

Uniformity Coefficient 2-2.5

Head loss Up to 1m

Length of run 20-90 days

Method of cleaning Scrape off top layer and wash (with new sand)

Washwater consumed 0.2-0.6% of filtrate

Page [24]
Figure 6 - Jar Test Data for selected constituents - BPP

Page [25]
Figure 7: Turbidity Removal

Page [26]
Figure 8: Proposed Process Flow Diagram

Page [27]
Figure 9: Equalization Tank Diagram

Figure 10: Sedimentation Tank Diagram

Page [28]
Figure 11: Rapid Mixing Tank Diagram

Figure 12: Flocculation Tank Overview Diagram

Page [29]
Figure 13: Flocculation Tank Side View Diagram

Figure 14: Flocculation Tank Dimensions Diagram

Page [30]
Figure 15: Frontier’s SeHAWK System Profile

Page [31]
Figure 16: Sand Filtration Diagram

Page [32]
Table 8: Cost Breakdown

Table 9: Cost Breakdown

Page [33]
Appendix B: Calculations

(1) ( )
V = QM ax − QAvg * Δtime = (0.8845M GD − 0.7398M GD) * (1 Day) + S F
m3
V = 0.1447M G * 264.5
1 MG
= 547.75 m3 + (136.9375 m3 ) = 684.69 m3
(2) Area = Q / V s = 0.7398 M GD / 0.09m/min / 60 min / 24 hrs * 1000000 gal / 264 gal = 21.5 m2

(3) tr = volume / Q = 21.5 * 3.5 m / 0.7398 M GD * 264 gal / 1000000 gal * 24 hr = 0.65 hours

(4) Area = Q / V s = 0.7398 M GD / 0.11m/min / 60 min / 24 hrs * 1000000 gal / 264 gal = 17.7 m2

(5) tr = volume / Q = 17.7 m2 * 3.5 m / 0.7398 M GD * 264 gal / 1000000 gal * 24 hr = 0.15 hours

(6)​

(7)

(8)​

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

Page [34]
(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

Page [35]
(28)

(29) At 90% removal : n = 38/180 * 95% = 20.05%

(30)
v olume = Q * tr = 0.7398 M GD * 1000000 gal * 70 min / 24 hr / 60 min * 0.133 f t3 = 4807 f t3

2 2
(31)​ A = Q / vo = 0.7298 M GD * 1000000 gal / 0.33 gpm/f t / 60 min / 24 hr = 1557 f t

(32)​

(33)

(34)

Page [36]
(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

Page [37]
References

[1] Frontier Water Systems, 2019. “SeHAWK Series Modular Bioreactor”


http://frontierwater.com/how-it-works/

[2] Higgins, T. E., Sandy, A. T., & Givens, S. W. March 01 2009. “Flue Gas Desulfurization
Wastewater Treatment Primer.”
https://www.powermag.com/flue-gas-desulfurization-wastewater-treatment-primer/?pagenum=4

[3] King County Wastewater Treatment Division. November 10, 2016. “Minimum Standards for
Sedimentation Tank Design.”
https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/industrial-waste/business/constru
ction/sedimentation-tanks.aspx

[3] Manderso, T. M. (2018). “Determination of the Volume of Flow Equalization Basin in


Wastewater Treatment System.” Civil and Environmental Research, Vol. 10, No. 4. ISSN
2224-5790 (Paper).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1a45/0be0de709f5120420c77374e7b6ef7708b46.pdf

[4] Martini, D. R., & Vadbunker, S. K. December 22, 2016. “FGD Wastewater: A Few Options.”
Power Engineering.
https://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-120/issue-12/departments/energy-matters/biol
ogical-treatment-for-fgd-wastewater-a-few-options.html

[5] Peterson, James. November 01, 2016. “Next-Generation FGD Wastewater Bioreactor
Technology Introduced for ELG Compliance.” Power Engineering.
https://www.powermag.com/next-generation-fgd-wastewater-bioreactor-technology-introduced-e
lg-compliance/?pagenum=2

[6] Riffe, M., Heimbigner, B, et al. “Wastewater Treatment for FGD Purge Streams.” MEGA
Symposium 2008.
https://www.evoqua.com/en/markets/MarketInformationLibrary/mega_2008fgd_ww_33_%2007
182008.pdf

[7] Salguero, Louis. Wastewater Flow Measurement - Operating Procedure. US EPA, 2015,
Wastewater Flow Measurement - Operating Procedure.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/wastewater_flow_measurement1
09_af.r4.pdf

Page [38]
[8] Viessman, W., Hammer, M., Perez, E., & Chadik, P. 2009. “Water Supply & Pollution
Control.” Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 0-13-233717-7.

[9] Wylie, R. et al. October 2008. “Duke Energy Carolina LLC’s Strategy and Initial Experience
of FGD Waste Water Treatment Systems.” International Water Conference, October 2008, San
Antonio, Texas.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.621.5654&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[10] “Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines- 2015 Final Rule.” EPA,
Environmental Protection Agency. 30 November 2018, ​https://www.epa.gov/eg

[11] “Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines.” EPA, Environmental Protection
Agency. 23 March, 2018. ​https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam

[12] “Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines.” AECOM.


https://www.aecomprocesstechnologies.com

[13] “Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power
Generating Industry.” Geosyntec. ​https://geosyntec.com/images/pdf

[14] “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category.” Federal Register, The Daily Journal of the United States Government.
03 November 2015. ​https://www.federalregister.gov

[15] “What are the New Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines and What Do
They Mean for Your Plant?” Samco. 09 June 2016. ​https://www.samcotech.com

[16] “Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

[17]“TMT 15 - Precipitating Mercury from Wastewater.” Evonik: Power to Create, 2007,


finechemicals.panpage.de/DIN4/En/IC_Wolfgang/SK_Grimmer/TMT_Case_study/ID_4468.pdf.

Page [39]