Rrrrliat. P/I,s. Chetn. Vol. 45, No. 2. pp. 299-308.

1995
Copyright ‘C 1994 El&er Saence Ltd
Pergamon 0969-806X(94)00075-1 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0969406X:95 $7.00 + 0.00

THE MIAMI ELECTRON BEAM RESEARCH FACILITY: A

LARGE SCALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
APPLICATION

CHARLES N. KURUCZ,’ THOMAS D. WAITE’ and WILLIAM J. COOPERS

‘Departments of Management Science and Industrial Engineering, ‘Department
of Civil and Architectural
Engineering, University of Miami. P.O. Box 248237, Coral Gables, FL 33124 and ‘Drinking Water
Research Center. Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, U.S.A.

(Rrwirrd 2 July, 1992; crcceptctl 28 December 1992; receiord fir publication 16 May 1994)

Abstract- The Electron Beam Research Facility (EBRF) located in Miami, Florida houses a 1.5 MV,
50 mA electron accelerator. Extensive large scale (460 I min-‘) research on the use of electron beams for
the treatment of water and wastewater has been conducted at this facility over the last several years. Initial
research focused on determining the disinfection kinetics of bacteria in different wastewater streams at
large scale. Our most recent experiments have focused on evaluating the effectiveness of electron beam
irradiation in treating industrial wastes and contaminated groundwaters. The latter has been accomplished
by dissolving toxic organic compounds of interest in large quantities of potable water (groundwater). The
contaminated groundwater simulant is then treated with the electron beam. This paper provides a detailed
description of the EBRF, including equipment and layout, experimental protocols used for the research,
reliability and maintenance performance estimates based on our operational experience, and treatment
cost estimates

INTRODUCTION scale research has been conducted in the irradiation

of water and wastewater, the EBRF is to our knowl-
The Electron Beam Research Facility (EBRF) is edge the only large scale electron beam wastewater
located at the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Auth- treatment facility in the world. Excellent summaries
ority’s Virginia Key (Central District) Wastewater of each bench and pilot scale work are available (e.g.
Treatment Plant in Miami, Florida. Extensive large Levaillant and Gallien, 1979; Pikaev and Shubin,
scale research on the use of electron beams for the 1984; Singh et al., 1985) while more recent work is
treatment of water and wastewater has been con- referenced in many papers presented and published
ducted at this facility over the last several years. The on work conducted at the EBRF (e.g. Kurucz et al.,
EBRF has its origins in a major study investigating 1991; Cooper et a[., 1992; Nickelsen et a[., 1992).
high energy electron disinfection of wastewater re- Initial research at the EBRF focused on bacterial
siduals undertaken by MIT and the High Voltage disinfection at large scale (Waite et al.. 1989, 1991;
Engineering (HVE) Corporation in the early 1970s Farooq et al., 1992), as well as the effects of electron
and funded by the National Science Foundation beam irradiation on wastewater characteristics such
(Bryan, 1990). The positive disinfection data obtained as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical
(Trump, 1980) led to the establishment of a large oxygen demand (COD), and various nitrogen species.
scale facility at the Deer Island Treatment Plant in For the past 24 years, we have investigated the
Boston, Massachusetts. This facility became oper- destruction of selected toxic organic compounds,
ational in 1976 and provided the basis for the Miami- such as those found in industrial wastewater and
Dade Water and Sewer Authority, selecting an contaminated surface and groundwater. Early exper-
electron beam wastewater sludge irradiation unit as a iments with toxic organics were intended to determine
substitute technology for a heat treatment process reliable dose/destruction relationships for different
(Cleland, 1984). The facility was constructed at a classes of organics, when present as single com-
total cost of approximately $1,750,000 and became pounds in solution or as mixtures.
operational in September, 1984. However, because of Our most recent experiments have focused on
changing sludge disposal regulations the system was evaluating the effectiveness of electron beam ir-
no longer needed in the treatment train. The system radiation in treating contaminated groundwaters
was operated intermittently until December, 1985 (Kurucz et al., 1991). This is accomplished by dissolv-
after which it remained idle until reactivated as a ing toxic organic compounds of interest in large
research facility in 1988. quantities of potable water (treated groundwater).
Although considerable prior bench scale and pilot The contaminated groundwater simulants are

299
300 CHAKLt.5 N. KUKW~ L’/ (I/.

then treated with the electron beam. As shown in scale electron beam system can be operated reliably
Table I, removal efficiencies have been determined and maintained with reasonable cost for treating
for various halogenated methanes. ethanes, cthenes either water or wastewater. We have shown that
and propanes. phenols, and polynuclear aromatic electron beam irradiation is efficient and effective for
compounds. Bench scale studies have also shown that destroying toxic organics in aqueous streams of
irradiation may be effective at removing various widely varying quality, and can be a viable treatment
explosives and chemical warfare agents such as TNT. alternative for disinfection of raw sewage (Kurucz
GB and VX. ct trl.. I99 I ). The purpose of this paper is to provide
Disinfection and removal of organic compounds in a detailed description of the EBRF. including equip-
the irradiated waters is primarily due to the for- ment and layout, experimental protocols used for the
mation of electronically excited states, ions and/or research. reliability and maintenance performance
free radicals along the path of incident high energy estimates based on our operational experience. and
electrons. IO ’ s after an electron has passed through treatment cost cstimatcs.
a solution of pure water, the products that are present
arc: F-\C‘II.ITY DESCRIPTION

Figure I shows a layout of the EBRF. The facility

Of the products formed, the most reactive are the consists of four basic areas: the 5.8 m x 7.0 m
oxidizing hydroxyl radical (OH’), and the reducing (19’ x 23’) control room, 6.0 m x 7.0 m (20’ x 23’)
aqueous electron (e,) and hydrogen radical (H’). In pipe gallery. 5.8 m x 10.0 m (19’ x 33’) electron accel-
natural waters, these products are then available to erator area, and 6.4 m x 9.5 m (21’ x 31’) vault. The
react with any organic chemicals and/or cell constitu- 1.5 MV accelerator built by HVE is driven by an
ents which may be present. The extrapolation of pure insulated core transformer (ICT) power supply which
water data to natural waters is complicated, however. is housed in a tank containing sulfur hexatluoride
by the presence of inorganic and organic matter (SF,) insulating gas at 620 kPa (9Opsi). The beam
(primarily humic substancesj found in natural waters current is continuously variable between 0 and
because these compounds may interact with the 50 mA. The electron beam is horizontally and verti-
reactive species formed during irradiation and lead to cally scanned to give uniform coverage of an area
side reactions not observed in pure water. Detailed approximately 122 cm (45”) wide and 7.6 cm (3”)
discussions of the chemistry of removal and by- high. The EBRF was intended to operate continu-
product formation are given elsewhere (e.g. Cooper ously, 24 h/day (X760 h/year) with an availability of
ef al., 1992; Nickelsen it ~1.. 1992). 90%. The only major component of the system not
Work performed to date has shown that a large shown in Fig. I is the SF, gas handling system which
allows for temporary storage of gas from the ICT
tank when the accelerator tube or power supply
Table I. Summary of overall removal effic~encxs for \arv~us organic
compounds tested at the EBRF
require maintenance or repair.
The electron beam treatment system was designed
% Required
Compound Relll0Wil dose (krad) to disinfect approximately 645,000 I/day (I 70,000 gal/
Chloroform x3 YY 5X6- 650
day) of 228% digested sludge with a minimum dose
Bromodichloromcthal~~ >Y9 x0 of 400 krads. Treatment objectives required that at
Dibromochloromethanc >99 80
least 90% of hourly irradiated samples show less than
Br0moforIll >YY X0
Carbon tetrachloride >YY x0 one Salmonella;500 g. and less than IO total Coli-
Trichloroethylenc (TCE) >99 57 ~500 forms!100 g. and the remaining samples (10% or less)
Tetrachlorethylene (PCE) >YY 241 SW
tranc-1.2.dlchloroethane x00
no more than twice thcsc limits. The system did
93
I .I -dichloroethene >9Y 800 successfully meet these objectives during 198485 test
l,2-dichloroethene 60 X00 operations (Fcrgen and Cowgill. 1985). At present,
Hexachloroethane >YY x00
I.l,l-trichloroethane XY 650
potable water and secondary wastewater effluent are
1.1.2.2.tetrachloroethane XX 650 also connected to the plant. The secondary waste-
Methylene chloride 71 800
water treatment is extended (pure oxygen) aeration
BCllZenC >YY 40 fi50
Toluene 97 45 -650 and the effluent IS chlorinated prior to the electron
Chlorobenrene 91 650 beam.
Ethylbenzene Y? 650
I .2-Dlchlorobenzene XX hS0
A selected influent stream is presented to the
I ,3-Dtchlorobenzene X6 650 scanned beam in a falling sheet approximately I22 cm
I ,4-Dlchlorobenzene x4 650 (46”) wide. using a weir system shown in cross section
Im-Xylene 91 650
o-Xylene 92 650
in Fig. 2. lnfluent water enters from the bottom and
Dieldrin 299 800 is debubbled as it rises to spill over the weir. At the
Total phenol 88 37-800
design flow of 460 l:min (120 galmin). the water is
TNT’“’ 40 X00-1700
DEMP’“’ YO 150-7x0 approximately 0.38 cm (0.15”) thick. Experiments
DMMP’“’ 90 220 950 have been conducted using Rows of up to 610 I/min
“Bench scale studies using ‘“Co. (I 60 galhmin). Beyond this flow the water splashes
 The Miami EBRF wastewater treatment application

lllfkmll \ CONTROL ROOM

scanner and
Spreader B Weir
I fABOW\TOAY

Radiation Mewing
Water Window

Fig. I. Floor plan of the Electron Beam Research Facihty. Miami. Florida

onto the scanner face which is protected by a sec-
ondary titanium window. The minimum flow is ap-
proximately 230 I/min (60 gal/min). Below this flow
the falling sheet of water tends to become irregular
and ultimately breaks up. In addition to the three
flow streams described above, we have the capacity to
conduct large-scale batch experiments with ground-
water simulants and any other source of contami-
nated water for which treatability studies are desired
by connecting 23,000 I (6000 gal) tank trucks to the
influent pumps. Batch experiments are run at
383 I/min (100 gal;min) because of pumping limi-
tations. During experiments to determine the removal
efficiency of parent compounds and reaction by-prod-
ucts. samples are taken in the control room from
continuously running sample streams prior to and
after irradiation.
PROCESS MONITORING AND ABSORBED
MEASUREMENT
Since the maximum penetration in water is ap-
proximately 0.74 cm (0.29”) for I.5 MeV electrons
(see Fig. 3). some electrons pass through the stream
and not all of the beam energy is transferred to the
water. With the addition of over-scanning the waste
stream to insure that the edges of the stream are
irradiated, more energy is lost with the result that the
efficiency of energy transfer is approximately 65%.
Thus when the electron beam is operating at 50 mA
(75 kW) the waste stream is receiving an average dose
of approximately 650 krad. At the designed flowrate
the water spends at most 0.1 s in front of the beam
thus generating a dose rate of at lcast 6.5 Mrad/s.
Total power consumption, including pumps, chillers
and other auxiliary equipment is about 125 kW. The
EBRF has been instrumented to continuously moni-
tor and record various operating parameters (voltage,
current, flow) and estimated absorbed dose. The total
absorbed dose is estimated using five high precision
resistance temperature devices (RTDs) made by Tem-
perature Specialists Inc. The five RTDs are mounted
in the influent (2 sensors) and effluent (3 sensors)
streams immediately before and after the beam. They
are connected via a Strawberry Tree interface to a
Compaq portable computer which continuously
reads and records temperatures. The temperature
difference between influcnt and effluent streams is
related to absorbed dose by the fact that a change of
I C is equivalent to I cal gal -’ of absorbed energy in
pure water. and this energy is equivalent to a dose of
approximately 418 krads. Although this relationship
can be altered by the presence of other material in the
DOSE
waste stream. heat losses, and heat defect due to
chemical reactions, observed values have been within
approximately 4% of calculated dose values.
Plots of the various operating parameters and
estimated dose for a typical experimental run are
presented in Fig. 4. lnfluent and effluent temperature
are shown in part (a). When zero beam current is
present the influent and effluent temperatures are
virtually identical cvcn though the overall tempera-
ture of both the influent and effluent increase or
decrease over time. As beam current is changed the
effluent temperature increases in proportion to the
dose absorbed by the water. Beam current and the
associated dose estimates obtained from the influ-
ent:effluent temperature differences arc shown in part
302 CHARLES N. KIJRUCZ et nl

(b). Since fluctuations in the accelerating voltage and The major activities that took place during the start-
the flow rate of the water affect absorbed dose, these up phase involved the inspection, refurbishment,
parameters are also monitored to explain anomalies testing and conditioning of the electron beam
in estimated dose values. Part (c) shows the drop facility. The following summary of these efforts is
in flowrate from 120 to 100 gal/min as the influent intended to be indicative of the problems which
stream was switched from piped to chlorinated can be encountered in a real application of
secondary wastewater to raw wastewater in a tank electron beam technology to wastewater treatment
truck. The large variation in flowrate after 35 min and to provide the basis for estimated maintenance
was due to air voids as the tank became almost costs.
empty. A facility inspection was conducted by HVE in
February, 1988. The purpose of this effort was to
MAINTENANCE. REPAIRS AND REI.IABII.ITY
“confirm the status of the machine, to identify as
many machine problems as necessary, and to rec-
During the initial phases of our research, a large ommend a course of action, timetable and cost for
effort was required to reactivate the EBRF. Because putting the equipment back into operation.” This was
the system had been left unattended for over two a necessary step given that the equipment had been
years, major repaits were required and approximately sitting idle in the corrosive environment of a sewage
one year passed before experimentation could begin. treatment plant for nearly three years without any

t, = .63” Measured (est. at Q = 120 gpm)

v0 = 1.2 fps horiz.

ii.iw
v=2.6 fps l’

k22” I\‘.1 .a..

v=3.5 fps -1.
II j\V .._ . .
1.
k?8~~4.5mrnJ I)
v=4.2 fps \I)
h=4”-.
k.16” _!!!_._._._._._._
v=4.8 fps -.
h=5”--. \I,
k.146”
v=5.3 fps ‘I’l
h&“-.
t=.l33”
;‘I; .,,,H*~-
v=5.8 fps STANDARD
h=7”-. ,
/ 48” SCANNER
k.125” /.. 1
v=6.2 fps
h=8”_-. j,
t=.1iw I
v=6.6 fps 11’1
-. \,
1’1
h=l OIL.
t=.102”
v=7.4 fps
-.

Fig. 2. (Iross sectional view of an aqueous waste stream falling over the weir delivery system at 460 l/min
(120 galimin).
 The Miami EBRF wastewater treatment application 303

5
al 2.0
Z
6 2.5
._
f 2.0
ZZ 1.5

Fig. 3. Energy deposition in pure water at various electron energies.

maintenance. As a result of the inspection the accel-
erator tube was shipped to HVE for rebuilding and
the reactivation effort scheduled for summer 1988. In
addition to making the facility fully operational,
major objective of the reactivation effort was the
training of project personnel in the maintenance and
operation.
a The major activities which took place during this
phase included installing the rebuilt accelerator tube,
replacing the vacuum ion pump, installing new pri-
mary and secondary windows, replacing the ICT tank
cover gasket, replacing the voltage stabilizer relay,
removing oil from the SF, gas transfer pipes, in-
stalling an additional gas line filter, overhauling the

g=y--+Jr-J
SF, gas compressor and compressor motor, fixing
major leaks in the gas handling system, adding 20
f bottles of SF, gas, replacing the ion pump PC
board and high voltage meter, repairing the voltage
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
and current ramp and stabilizer boards, restoring
Time (mins)
operation of the 22,000 kg (10,000 lb) steel door to
(b)
200
the ICT tank room, repairing the vault security
180 system lights, switches and interlocks, repairing the
z 700 - Dose - _
%
L
600 -
500 -
I E
120
control room air conditioner,
chiller, voltage regulator
air compressor,
cooling fans and vault
water

exhaust fan, and repairing wastewater influent pump

no. I.
As a result of these activities the beam was first
turned on for voltage conditioning on 26 August
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4045
1988. During the next two months, voltage condition-
Time (mins)
ing, beam conditioning, operator training, ramp
(c) board repairs, re-layout of the control room, influent
flowrate calibration, preliminary oxidant experimen-
tation and complete leak testing of the SF, gas system
Tanker nearly empty plumbing were completed. Although this ended the
reactivation phase and the system was fully oper-
ational, several continuing problems were identified:
water flow interlocks intermittently stuck, a micro
switch in the ICT power supply intermittently stuck
5 1015202530354045 preventing proper beam control, power failures
Time (mins) periodically shut down the vacuum ion pump and
operation of the ICT door deteriorated. A total of
Fig. 4. Selected operating parameters monitored during 1,359 man-hours and $82,164 were expended during
experiments. (a) Water temperature before and after waste
stream passes in front of beam. (b) Beam current setting and the reactivation effort, not including the efforts of
resulting estimated absorbed dose. (c) Rate of flow over weir Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority (WASA)
during a typical tank truck experiment. personnel who provided and installed plumbing to
 represent time spent by relatively inexperienced
personnel and should be considered to contain a
considerable amount of “training” time.
Table 3 provides a list of system failures which
were serious enough to interrupt operation of the
treatment system. They are classified as major or
I Y 2Y5 1Y.i10 3x315
minor depending on the amount of effort required
I X.436 I X.436 to correct the problem. It should be noted that
YO6i 9065
the vacuum leaks in the early period of use and the
715 i5ss 63 IO high voltage power supply diode failure are the only
I3.YSX I i.Y5X significant failures of the electron beam system.
411) hhi(l 71166
2175 404 I 6216
Many of the clcctronic failures were caused by
X2. I64 ‘~0.012I77206 unreliable line power provided periodically by the
treatment plant diesel generators and the ambient
cnvironmcnt which consists of high humidity
and high concentrations of corrosive hydrogen
connect tanker trucks to in-plant intlucnt lines. sup-
sulfide. It is also possible that the power supply
plied tools and minor supplies, provided heavy mov-
diode failed over a period of time and that some
ing equipment to remove and install the gas
of the voltage and current phase imbalances
compressor and drive motor, accepted delivery and
which prevented reliable operation were due to this
provided in-plant transportation for various project
condition.
supplies and equipment. and monitored the status of
Because the system is run primarily for experimen-
the vacuum system when project personnel were
tation, the number of accumulated operating hours is
absent.
quite small. This results in very low mean time
Tables 2 and 3 present a summary of repair,
between major and minor failures as indicated in
maintenance costs and equipment reliability data
Table 3. If it is assumed, however, that this intermit-
until 31 December, 1991. A breakdown of cxpcndi-
tent use in a harsh environment represents a worst
tures by category for the reactivation period and
USC condition in terms of the number of failures and
subsequent experimentation is given in Table 2. The
that this number would not increase if the system
average yearly man-hours and expenditures after the
were run continuously for 8000 h each year. the
reactivation phase were 594 and $28,434. rcspectivcly.
MTBF increases to a very acceptable 3800 h. Since
It should be noted that many of these man-hours
many of the failures might have been eliminated by
providing conditioned line power and/or protecting
sensitive electronics from the corrosive environment,
thcsc assumptions seem reasonable as a basis for
estimating future system reliability. An MTBF in this
range is also very much in line with manufacturers
claims of 90P95% availability for equipment of this
6’X‘l
12:X5
type.
2’8’)
4:x9
6,X9 EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOLS

x,x’)
Extensive large scale research has been conducted
9,X9
at the EBRF. A total of 69 full days of experimen-
IO 89
11,x9 tation. not counting preparation and set-up, have
been performed. As mentioned previously, the initial
12’8’)
2 ‘90
research focused on disinfection of different waste-
5,‘90 water streams and the effects of electron beam ir-
IO,‘90 radiation on wastewater characteristics. These
I2 90 experiments typically involved filling tank trucks with
I YI cithcr raw or unchlorinated secondary wastewater
drawn from appropriate points in the treatment
?,91
3 Yl plant. and pumping the wastewaters through the
6,Yl electron beam. Subsequent research focused on the
X/91
IO’91
destruction of toxic organics when present as single
compounds in solution or present as mixtures. Water
Mean tlmc be~wecn Fdure\ (MTBF) quality effects were evaluated by injecting toxic or-
MTBF (Major) = 546’10 =X4 6 hour\
MTBF (All) :X46 23 = 36 X hour\ ganics into domestic raw sewage, secondary effluent
MTBF (Maxm~um”) = 3XOOO~10 = 3X00 hours and potable drinking water as they flowed through
,‘4.75 years of operation at X000 hour\ year the influent line. The chemical solutions of known
 The Miami EBRF wastewater treatment application 305

concentration were injected under pressure using a The 3% clay concentration level was chosen pri-
Cole-Parmer Master Flex positive displacement in- marily on the basis of cost and the considerable effort
jection pump. Since the secondary effluent and required to obtain higher levels. For example, a
potable water are hard plumbed to the system, these concentration of 3% requires that approximately
experiments were usually carried out at the design 345 kg (760 lb) of clay be added to 11,500 I (3000 gal)
flowrate of 460 l/min (120 gal/min). Injection rates of water. This was accomplished by measuring the
were varied as necessary to obtain desired concen- amount of water after filling a tank truck and adding
trations. the appropriate amount of clay using a fork lift truck.
Our most recent experiments have focused on The clay was kept in suspension by mixing with a
evaluating the effectiveness of electron beam ir- 767 l/min (200 gal/min) gasoline pump.
radiation in treating contaminated groundwaters. The maximum target concentration of 5500 pg I-’
This has been accomplished by dissolving toxic or- was chosen on the basis of preliminary tests to
ganic compounds of interest in large quantities determine the maximum concentration of TCE which
11,50&23,000 I (300&6000 gal) of potable ground- could be produced in a tank truck by adding TCE
water in tank trucks. Thorough mixing is obtained by and mixing overnight (approximately 24 h). The var-
using a combination of three submersible electric ious target concentrations were actually obtained by
pumps and a 767 I/min (200 gal/min) gasoline pump adding TCE at higher concentrations to compensate
to continuously circulate the contents of the tanker. for losses due to volatilization. Calculated concen-
Depending on the solubility of the compounds it is trations of 130, 1300 and 10,000 pg I-’ were used to
sometimes necessary to add chemicals the previous obtain the target levels. Since mixing of clay with the
day. The contaminated groundwater simulant is then 767 l/min (200 gal/min) gasoline pump caused ad-
pumped through 4-6” lines to the electron beam. ditional losses, the pump was run along with the three
recirculating pumps even during 0% clay runs to
ExperimentaI designs generate more consistent concentrations.
The major thrust of our research effort is to Since the pH of our potable water varies in the
estimate the relationships between electron beam range of 8.5-9, the nominal high target value was
dose and the destruction of undesirable compounds selected to be 9. Adding 3% clay to the potable water
(or amount of disinfection) in various waters and lowered the pH to the 6.8-7.5 range, so a middle
wastewaters at large scale. Such information is target value of 7 was used. A pH adjustment using
necessary to determine the minimum dose required to acid was made after the clay was added, if necessary,
obtain a given amount of destruction of selected to bring the value down to 7. If the value was slightly
chemical pollutants. The minimum dose is in turn below 7 no adjustment was made.
required to evaluate the economics of the process in Because of time limitations, especially when pump-
particular treatment applications. ing from tankers. changes in concentration for only
The measured response variable in almost all of 3 electron dose levels and a control of 0 are observed
our experiments is the change in concentration be- for each experimental condition described above. The
tween the flow into and the flow out of the electron order in which the 4 dose levels are set is randomized
beam process, expressed either in absolute units or in order to average out any systematic variation
percent reduction, as required for various analyses. which might be present from variables not being
Since the relationship between change in concen- specifically controlled. The 3 nonzero dose levels are
tration and electron dose for a given compound can obtained by setting beam current at appropriate
be affected by water quality, initial concentration of values. The IS treatment combinations in the TCE
chemical, and the presence or absence of other com- example were run in random order to average out the
pounds or substances (e.g. various solids such as effects of uncontrolled for Factors which might vary
clay), these are usually considered as independent from day to day. Whenever resources allow. most of
variables in experiments and the existence of their our experiments arc replicated at least once in their
effect determined. entirety. In this example, 2 replicates would require
As an example, consider a recent experiment on that 2 x IX = 36 individual experiments bc made for
TCE destruction designed to examine the effects of a particular compound.
pH, the presence of clay and initial concentration of The data collection and analysis effort is generally
TCE. This experiment was conducted at three target quite extensive. For the present example. a total of I8
concentrations (100. 1000 and 5500 pg I ’ ), three pH (experimental conditions) x 2 (replications) x 4
values (5, 7 and 9) and two clay concentrations (0 and (doses) x 2 (influcnt and effluent samples) = 288
3% by weight). These values were chosen on the basis samples would be processed. Since 4 determinations
of objectives of the experiment, the practical limi- are usually made on each sample. a total of
tations imposed by full scale experimentation and the 4 x 288 = II52 analyses would be performed.
characteristics of available groundwater (drinking Samples have been analyzed at the Florida Inter-
water). There are a total of 3 (initial concen- national University Drinking Water Research Center
trations) x 3 (pH values) x 2 (clay present or and the University of Miami Laboratories for
not) = 18 experimental conditions. Pollution Control Technologies.
306 CHARLES N.
The effects of factors such as electron dose, water
quality and concentration, are analyzed using analy-
sis of variance. Nonlinear regression analysis is used
to fit curves relating change in concentrations to
electron dose for each treatment combination found
to differ in the analysis of variance. The formal
experimental designs generally fall into the random-
ized block or split plot design categories. Similar
analyses are sometimes performed for reaction by-
products if measured as part of a particular exper-
imental effort. In addition, analyses of variance are
sometimes run on the inflow concentrations of natu-
rally occurring independent variables to determine
how the input streams vary in quality.
Data collection
The large scale experiments performed at the
EBRF are a team effort requiring at least five people
to accomplish. Two people collect influent and efflu-
ent samples, one person operates the electron beam,
one person operates the computer and one person
performs measurements of various water quality par-
ameters such as pH and dissolved oxygen. In many
experiments additional people are utilized to fill
tankers, add chemicals and switch hoses and lines
between feed streams. Typically, five to eight people
will be present at the facility when experiments are
being run.
During an experiment the beam operator is respon-
sible for ensuring proper performance of the beam
and for changing beam current as necessary to obtain
the planned doses. The computer operator monitors
the system operating parameters and verbally indi-
cates when influent and effluent samples arc to be
drawn and when beam current is to be changed. Dye
studies have been performed to estimate the transit
time of water between the influent sample point, the
point at which the water flows over the weir and the
effluent sample points. At a flow of 383 I/min
(100 gal/min), the effluent samples arc drawn ap-
proximately 60 s after the influent samples to obtain
a “matched” set of unirradiatcd and irradiated
samples. It is necessary to take repeated influent
samples because of variation in concentrations that
occur when working with the large scale, high flow
system. Both the influent and effluent sampling points
are in the control room as indicated in Fig. I.
Before each run an experiment sheet is filled out by
the computer operator. Along with filling in descrip-
tive information, the order of doses is randomized
using a random number generator and recorded on
the form. Once the experiment begins, the times at
which samples are drawn and the times at which
selected beam currents are reached are recorded.
Influent samples are taken no sooner than 2 min after
a desired beam current is obtained in order to let the
system approach equilibrium before taking the corre-
sponding effluent sample. The timing becomes critical
in tanker experiments where the available pumping
Ku~ucz et ul.
time before erratic flow occurs is usually about
25 min.
After the runs for the day are completed, operating
parameters and time data, which have been logged
into a computer file during the experiments, is pro-
cessed along with the information on the experiment
sheet. The data file is edited and plots of pertinent
operating parameters (e.g. Fig. 4) are prepared and
examined for anomalies which may affect the results
or which may reveal problems with the treatment
system. Finally, the times on the experiment sheet are
used to estimate when each effluent sample water
passed through the beam. The data file is then
searched to determine the doses that were actually
being delivered at those times. The results are
recorded for subsequent matching to the destruction
or disinfection data determined from analysis of each
influent/effluent sample pair.
Experimental rrsults
Again, the removal percentages for most organic
compounds that we have investigated to date are
summarized in Table 1. Although experiments were
run with varying water qualities and initial conccn-
trations, doses of 5OG800 krads effectively removed
most of the compounds studied. To date we have not
identified significant quantities of reaction by-prod-
ucts (e.g. sub-PM concentrations of aldehydes) when
destruction of the parent compound is near complete.
When complete destruction does occur the com-
pounds are reduced to CO,, Hz0 and salts. By-
product studies have been undertaken, howcvcr, by
intentionally utilizing lower doses (Nickclsen, 1992).
TREATMENT COSTS
The cost of treatment using electron beam technol-
ogy depends on many factors such as the dose
required to obtain the desired destruction. the volume
of waste to be treated. the size of the treatment
facility, the time utilization of the facility and the
manner in which capital recovery is handled. Fat
example, the estimated current cost of the EBRF. a
permanent full scale I.5 MeV treatment facility. is
$2,350 M which results from an approximate 5%
annual inflation of the total price actually paid for the
Miami facility (Kurucz ct c/l.. 1990). Note that this
estimate includes the building(s) necessary to house
the treatment system. Operating and maintenance
costs are estimated to bc $41/h. Howcvcr. no indirect
costs such as supervision. overhead. etc. arc included.
The estimated maintenance costs arc consistent with
our experience described earlier.
Amortization period and intcrcst rate assumptions
can significantly affect hourly capital charges. as can
the number of operating hours per year. flow rate and
required operator time. The current ucir delivery
system can be operated over a range of flow rates
from 230-610 Ihmin (6G160 ga/min). Since the maxi-
mum absorbed dose delivcrcd by the clcctron beam
 The Miami EBRF wastewater treatment application 307

80 ment cost using the permanent large scale EBRF

hine 1.5 MeV/SO ma 20YRt2KHR
Z 70 rest rate 15% 20YR16KHR is estimated to be approximately 040.5 cents/l
(1.552.0cents/gal), assuming that one pass through
g 60
=
the beam at a dose of 800 krads will treat to the
x 50 desired level.
8 40 Additional studies are planned and in progress to
0 extend the range of compounds tested (e.g. mu-
7 30
& nitions, chemical weapons simulants), examine the
a. 20 effects of water quality characteristics, identify reac-
Z
0 10 tion by-products, and develop models for equipment
0 selection and treatment cost estimation. These results
0
60 80 100 120 140 160 will provide better methods of estimating treatment
efficiencies and developing system designs likely to be
Flow (gpm)
required in full scale application of the technology.
Fig. 5. Estimated capital, operating and maintenance costs
per IOOOgal for treatment at the EBRF under various
amortization period and annual operating hour assump- Acknowledgements-This research was supported by the
tions. National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant Nos
87-14640 and 91-08033, and by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-8 168 15-
01-0 and Grant No. R-816932-01-0. The work described in
depends on flow rate, an application requiring a
this paper has not been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
dose of 1290 krads would limit flow to 230l/min Protection Agency; therefore its contents do not necessarily
(60 gal/min), while a dose requirement of approxi- reflect the views of the agency and no official endorsement
mately would allow treatment at approxi-
500 krads should be inferred. The cooperation and support of the
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority is also gratefully
mately 610 I/min (160gal/min). Costs per 3830 I
acknowledged.
(1000 gal) using the above capital requirements are
presented in Fig. 5 for various flow rates, amortiza-
tion assumptions and annual usages. Modifications
to the current waste stream delivery system could
REFERENCES
allow operation at much higher flow rates. Also
changes to the beam operating system would allow Bryan E. H. (1990) The National Science Foundation’s
treatment to take place without the presence of a full Support of research on uses of ionizing radiation in
time operator. At the extreme, a modified system used treatment of water and wastes. ASCE A. Conf. on Envi-
ron. Eng., Washington, D.C.
to treat at a dose of 50 krads could handle 8043 I/min
Cleland M. R., Fernald R. A. and Maloof S. R. (1984)
(2100 gal/mm) at an estimated cost of $0.20/m’ Electron beam process for the treatment of wastes and
($0.76/1000 gal), assuming 8000 h of operation each economic feasibility of the process. Radiaf. /‘hp. Chem.
year and amortization at 20 years and 15%. 24, 179.
Cooper W. J., Nickelsen M. G., Waite T. D. and Kurucz
If only operating costs are considered, a 610 I/min
C. N. (1992) High energy electron beam irradiation:
(160 gal/min) flow using a modified system results in an innovative treatment process for the treatment of
costs of approximately $0.65/m’ ($2.5/1000 gal). The aqueous based hazardous wastes. J. Enoiron. Sci. Health
8043 l/min (2100gal/min) flow results in costs of A27, 219.
approximately !§0.07/m3 ($0.25/1000 gal). In either Cooper W. J., Nickelsen M. G., Meacham D. E., Waite
T. D. and Kurucz C. N. (1992) High energy electron beam
case, the costs compare favorably to a reported
irradiation: an advance reduction/oxidation process for
operating cost of $0.68/m3 ($2.59/1000 gal) to the treatment of aqueous based organic hazardous wastes.
$52.21/m3 ($200/1000 gal) for competing processes Wut. Pollur. Res. J. Can. 27, 69.
(Kurucz et al., 1990). Research is currently underway Farooq S., Kurucz C. N., Waite T. D., Cooper W. J.. Mane
to provide the basis for cost estimates for transport- S. and Greenfield J. H. (1992) Treatment of wastewater
with high energy electron beam irrddiatiOn. Water Sci.
able electron beam systems and permanent systems of Technol. 26, 1265.
different accelerating voltages and power. Total costs Fergen R. E. and Cowgill P. E. (1985) Engineering report
for mobile electron beam treatment systems are on the electron beam irradiation project for wastewater
anticipated to be in the area of $50.00/m3 sludge at the Central District Plant. Miami-Dade Water
and Sewer Authority. Miami, FL.
($200/1000 gal) due to lower flowrates, higher trans-
Kurucz C. N., Waite T. D., Cooper W. J. and Nickelsen
portation costs, increased maintenance requirements M. G. (1990) Full scale electron beam treatment of
and shorter useful lives. hazardous wastes-effectiveness and costs. In Proc,. 45rh
Annu. Purdue Ind. Wusre Con/., p. 539. West Lafayette.
IN.
CONCLUSIONS Kurucz C. N., Waite T. D.. Cooper W. J. and Nickelsen
M. G. (1991) High energy electron beam irradiation
Research to date at the EBRF has shown that high of water. wastewater and sludge. Adr. Nucl. Sci. Technol.
22, I.
energy electron beam irradiation is effective both in Kurucz C. N., Waite T. D., Cooper W. J., Nickelsen M. G.
removing organic chemicals from aqueous streams and Lin K. (1991) Treatment of hazardous industrial
and in disinfecting municipal wastewater. Total treat- wastewater and contaminated groundwater using electron
308 CHARLES N. KURU('Z el a[.
beam irradiation. Chem. Prof. L)n'iron. Pro~. VIII hit.
Conj. Lublin, Poland.
Levaillant C. and Gallien C. L. (1979) Sanitation methods
using high energy electron beams. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 14,
309.
Nickelsen M. G., Cooper W. J., Kurucz ('. N. and Waitc
T. D. (1992) Remowd of benzene and selected alkyl
substituted benzcnes from aqueou,, solutions utilizing
continuous high energy cleclron irradiation. J. ISttth'on.
Sei. Teehnol. 26, I44.
Pikaev A. K. and Shubin V. N. (19841 Radiation treatment
of liquid wastes. Radial. Ph3.~. ('hem. 24, 77.
Singh A., Sagert N. H., Borsa J.. Singh H. and Beianett G. S.
(1985) The use of high-energy radiation for lhe treatment
of wastewater: a revicv.. Pr¢~. 8th 5[vnlp. ]|'lisle'Writer
Treatment, p. 191. Montreal.
Trump J. O. 11980) High energy electron radiation of
wastewater liquid residuals. Final report to U.S. National
Science Foundation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Waile T. D., Kurucz C. N., Cooper W. J., Narbaitz
R. N. and Greenfield J, H. (19891 Disinfection of
wastewater ellluents with electron radiation. In t'r~,c. ,tin.
Soc. Cir. En,g. ,Vat. ('~m/: Eratroll. k.)l,l~., p. 619
Austin, TX
Waite T. D., Cooper W. J., Kurucz C. N., Narbailz R. and
Greenlleld J. (1991} Full scale lreaDllenl of ,aastewater
clttuent with high energy elcctrtms. ('hem. Prt,t. ti)triron.
24, 563.