Project Proposal and Feasibility Study

Team: Pure Pastaza (8)

Team Members: James Dykstra
Rachel Koopman
Ben Vander Plas
Sungmin Youn
Date: December 6, 2010
Institution: Calvin College
Class: ENGR 339/340 Senior Design Project
© 2010, Calvin College and James Dykstra, Rachel Koopman, Benjamin Vander Plas, Sungmin Youn
Executive Summary
Shell Mera is a town located in the Eastern foothills of the Ecuadorian Andes approximately 94 miles
Southeast of Quito. Hospital Vozandes del Oriente (HVO) is a hospital located in Shell that is maintained
by Hoy Cristo Jesús Bendice (HCJB) Global. HCJB is a non-profit mission organization committed to
Biblical values and community development principles.

Pure Pastaza, a senior design team from Calvin College, in conjunction with HCJB is developing a design
for a wastewater treatment system for HVO.

Currently, the wastewater treatment system for the hospital and other buildings on the property includes a
pipe network and collection system leading to an overloaded septic tank with no leaching field.
Therefore, effluent from the septic tank passes directly into the Motolo River south of the hospital without
receiving further treatment. The condition of the tank is currently unknown and it may not be sealed
properly and therefore leaking contaminants into the ground. There is also no appropriate method or
suitable location established for septage disposal, which has consequently been discharged directly into
the river.

The hospital is in need of an alternative method for treating its wastewater and disposal of the sludge
produced.

Various treatment alternatives have been analyzed and compared from a standpoint of stewardship and
cultural appropriateness. Pure Pastaza is recommending a design that utilizes a bar screen for preliminary
treatment followed by a series of facultative ponds. This design has been chosen due to its simplicity,
cost effectiveness and relatively low maintenance, effectively solving the issue of sludge disposal.

The total project cost has been estimated to be $113,833. This includes engineering design, construction
and a 15% contingency.
 Table of Contents
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Team ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Team Bios ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Context ................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 HCJB Background .............................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 3
1.6 Project Background............................................................................................................. 4
1.7 Design Norms ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.7.1 Stewardship............................................................................................................ 5
1.7.2 Cultural Appropriateness ....................................................................................... 5
1.7.3 Transparency.......................................................................................................... 6
1.8 Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 6
2. Design Alternatives.......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Preliminary Treatment Alternatives.................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Bar Screen .............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 Grit Chamber ......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Primary Treatment Alternatives .......................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Waste Stabilization Ponds ..................................................................................... 9
2.3 Secondary Treatment Alternatives .................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 Maturation Ponds ................................................................................................. 10
2.3.2 Constructed Wetlands .......................................................................................... 11
2.4 Sludge Handling Alternatives ........................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Sludge in Current Septic Tank ............................................................................. 11
2.4.3 Sludge Produced by Treatment System ............................................................... 12
2.5 Alternative Selection......................................................................................................... 12
2.5.1 Design of Facultative Ponds ................................................................................ 12
3. Additional Considerations ............................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Biogas Feasibility Study ................................................................................................... 14

i
 3.2 High Chlorine Concentrations .......................................................................................... 14
4. Budget ............................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1 Project Cost ....................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Prototype Budget .............................................................................................................. 16
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix A: Gantt Chart ............................................................................................................... 21
Appendix B: Wastewater System Loads........................................................................................ 24
Appendix C: Facultative Pond and Wetland Area Calculations .................................................... 28
Appendix D: Bar Screen Calculations ........................................................................................... 33
Appendix E: Soil Percolation Calculations.................................................................................... 34

ii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Ecuador ............................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2: Bar Screen ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Grit Chamber Design..................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4: Anaerobic Pond Cross Section ...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Facultative Pond Process Components ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 6: Facultative Pond Biological Process ........................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Constructed Wetland Cross Section ............................................................................................ 11
Figure 8: Biogas Collection Diagram ......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Process Schematic ....................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Preliminary Pond Location on Site............................................................................................ 17

iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Construction Cost of Facultative Ponds........................................................................................ 15
Table 2: Design and Engineering Costs ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 3: Total Project Cost ......................................................................................................................... 15
Table 4: Prototype Budget .......................................................................................................................... 16
Table 5: Equivalent Persons Calculations for Non-patients ....................................................................... 25
Table 6: Equivalent Persons Calculations for Hospital Patients ................................................................. 26
Table 7: Calculation of Daily Hospital Waste Stream and BOD Flow Rates ............................................. 27
Table 8: Average and Peak Daily Flow Calculations ................................................................................. 27

iv
1. Introduction
1.1 The Team
Pure Pastaza is comprised of four senior students at Calvin College, each of whom will graduate in the
spring of 2011 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering. The team is
committed to utilizing engineering within a Biblical framework to promote social justice and
environmental sustainability both locally and abroad. This commitment is manifested in a project to
design a wastewater treatment system for a hospital in Shell Mera, Ecuador.

Ben Vander Plas Rachel Koopman Sungmin Youn James Dykstra

1.2 Team Bios

Ben Vander Plas
Ben’s hometown is in Richland, Michigan and he currently resides in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has
gained valuable home construction experience working with Habitat for Humanity in Battle Creek, MI for
the past two summers. Using engineering to provide for the needs of others is the purpose of his
education. Plans following graduation include engineering employment or mission work, depending on
God’s leading in the future.

Rachel Koopman
Rachel is most recently from Rochester, MI but spent most of her life in Shanghai, China. Last summer
Rachel worked for NTH Consultants in their Environmental Compliance group where she learned that
environmental consulting is her true passion. After graduation she is getting married and hopes to pursue
a career in environmental engineering.

1
Sungmin Youn
Sungmin grew up in Seoul, South Korea and currently resides in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He enjoys
working on this project because he sees the possibility of significant improvements to the quality of
human life and the surrounding environment in the future. Through this design project, he became more
certain about pursuing in-depth studies of biological and physical treatment processes at the graduate
level. He would like to pursue a graduate degree in environmental engineering to become better prepared
for a lifetime of engineering service that addresses interesting, dynamic, and life-changing problems.

James Dykstra
James is originally from Kalamazoo, Michigan and currently resides in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has
three summers of experience working in the environmental engineering field with Kieser & Associates in
Kalamazoo, Michigan. There he was involved with stormwater treatment, watershed management, and
low impact development projects. He also performed groundwater and surface water quality monitoring.
After graduation, he is open to pursuing further career opportunities at Kieser and eventually working in
Spanish-speaking countries doing development work. He is passionate about environmental issues, social
justice and third-world development.

1.3 Project Context

Pure Pastaza has partnered with Hoy Cristo Jesús Bendice (HCJB), a non-profit mission organization
committed to Biblical values and community development principles, to design a wastewater treatment
system for a hospital in Shell, Ecuador. This project is part of Engineering Senior Design (ENGR
339/340) at Calvin College. Engineering 339 is the first course in the senior design project sequence.
Emphasis is placed on design team formation, project identification, and production of a feasibility study.
Students focus on the development of task specifications in light of the norms for design and preliminary
validation of the design by means of basic analysis and appropriate prototyping. Lectures focus on
integration of the design process with a Christian worldview, team building, and state-of-the-art technical
aspects of design. Engineering 340 is the second course in the senior design project sequence. Emphasis
is placed on the completion of the design project initiated in Engineering 339. A final presentation is
given at the May senior design project program.

1.4 HCJB Background

HCJB's water engineers and health professionals are dedicated to improving the health of rural
communities through clean water and preventive health care. In each project, they depend on voluntary
support to carry out their work and the benefiting communities bear significant responsibility for the
resources to obtain clean water. The mission of HCJB is, “…to enable communities to help themselves
through the facilitation of Christ centered sustainable community development. Through the provision of
water, sanitation and hygiene education projects we seek to realize permanent health improvements in the
communities with whom we work at both a physical and spiritual level.” They work with communities,
international, national and local organizations to set up projects that are sustainable, low cost, use
appropriate technology and are easily operated and maintained by the community without outside
dependency.

2
1.5 Problem Statement
Hospital Vozandes del Oriente (HVO) is a hospital located in Shell, Ecuador built and maintained by
HCJB Global. Currently, the wastewater treatment system for the hospital and other buildings on the
property includes a pipe network and collection system leading to a septic tank. The existing septic tank
is overloaded and therefore does not have an acceptable residence time. Furthermore, there is no leaching
field, which means that effluent from the septic tank passes directly into the Motolo River south of the
hospital without receiving further treatment. The condition of the tank is currently unknown and it may
not be sealed properly and therefore leaking contaminants into the ground. HCJB has researched
expanding the septic tank capacity and concluded that in order to handle the current flow, the tank should
be four times its current size. This option has been deemed infeasible due to cost and site requirements.

There is also no appropriate method or suitable location established for the disposal of produced sludge.
The hospital has experienced issues with the local municipality regarding sludge disposal which led to the
sludge being deposited directly into the river.

The hospital is therefore in need of an alternative method for treating the wastewater and disposing of the
sludge produced.

3
1.6 Project Background 1
Shell Mera is a town
located in the Eastern
foothills of the Ecuadorian
Andes approximately 94
miles Southeast of Quito
(Figure 1). Today, Shell is
a large town of 5,000
people, with a church,
hospital, schools, hotels,
and a missionary guest
house making it a
worthwhile destination.
The economy is mostly
composed of small
businesses and agriculture,
but the town’s beauty is in
its large variety of plants,
insects, and landforms. The
town is located at an
elevation of 3,500 feet
(1000 m) and has a
moderate climate of rainy
and 60°F, averaging around
48 inches of rainfall per
year.

HCJB global built the 28

bed mission hospital in May
of 1958 and has since
Figure 1: Map of Ecuador1
upgraded the facility. Most
of the physicians at HVO are board-certified Americans, but host a family medicine residency for
Ecuadorian nationals. A full range of family medicine services including obstetrics, general surgery, and
orthopedics are offered to the people of Shell and the surrounding area at HVO. Classical “tropical
diseases” are frequently diagnosed and treated including tuberculosis, malaria, dengue, intestinal
parasites, and bacterial dysentery. The hospital also promotes a health program that teaches the
surrounding villages in the jungle how to care for their villages. More specifically the health program
teaches these communities how to find, prevent and treat falciparum malaria.

1
http://fcbs.org/images/Ecuador/maps/Ecuador_rel91.jpgfsdfd

4
1.7 Design Norms

1.7.1 Stewardship

With God’s gift of creation to humanity comes the responsibility of caring for the earth and its resources.
This responsibility involves a respect for the health and well being of others today as well as of future
generations. The HVO wastewater treatment system is designed to protect the surrounding environment
and health of residents while conserving the available natural and economic resources.

HVO is devoted to protecting the health of residents in Shell through medical care. Developing a solution
to the problem of environmental contamination in the area is a step toward improving the health of the
patients along with the rest of the population. The design assists the mission of the hospital by promoting
preventative healthcare, a healthy environment and setting an example for others to follow.

It is essential to understand the needs of the hospital to avoid overdesign of the system and the resulting
unnecessary costs. HVO must carefully allocate appropriate funds to each area of its ministry, and a
wastewater treatment system is no exception. By selecting the most cost effective solution to the
problem, the economic resources of the hospital are conserved.

Natural resources available to the hospital must also be used wisely. The design is meant to efficiently
use the property owned by HVO without damaging the quality of the land. The selection of alternatives
involves consideration of the smallest footprint possible. The location of system components seeks to
keep the most useful land unaltered. Water conservation is also an important aspect being considered.
By eliminating wasteful practices of water usage, the hospital and surrounding residences promote better
stewardship of resources.

1.7.2 Cultural Appropriateness

When considering a design it is very important to have knowledge of the culture in which it is being
implemented. It is easy for engineers to think in terms of what is acceptable and functional in their
particular location or cultural background. However practices need to be modified to develop an effective
and successful design for use in a different cultural setting. This idea heavily influences the design of the
HVO wastewater treatment system.

In general wastewater treatment in Ecuador is not a high priority. For example, the city of Shell
discharges raw sewage into open water. This is an important consideration since public perception of the
design has a great impact on its sustainability. Part of the goal of the design is to educate and promote
awareness of the importance of wastewater treatment. Municipal officials have been considering
developing a treatment process for the city’s wastewater. If residents of the city see that this can be done
simply, effectively, and with clear benefits at HVO, there may be an increase in the priority level of
treating sewage.

Although the city of Shell is relatively urban and developed, much of the water treatment technology used
in developed countries is inappropriate in this setting. The technical background and skilled labor
necessary to operate certain types of advanced water treatment processes is not available locally. The
hospital also does not have the economic means to construct and operate large scale and sophisticated

5
machinery. There have been many cases in which systems requiring complex maintenance have been
implemented in developing countries only to be neglected and put out of commission (Mara 2004). In
order for the design to have adequate sustainability, the problem of difficult maintenance must be
avoided. Although more advanced technologies may have higher treatment capabilities, the system for
HVO will require simple construction and very little maintenance therefore ensuring continued successful
operation for the life of the design.

1.7.3 Transparency

A comprehensive understanding of a design is important for the designers as well as the users and other
affected parties. The ability of users to maintain and operate the design depends on their knowledge of
the technology involved. Pertinent information must be communicated to those affected by using a
transparent design. An effort must be made to educate users and local residents about the process to
ensure the HVO treatment system is sustainable.

As wastewater treatment is very uncommon in Ecuador there is likely limited knowledge regarding its
purpose and available methods. The goal of the system must be clear to those using the hospital and
surrounding residences. It is also important for operators at HVO to understand the treatment process
well enough to know essential maintenance practices and how to monitor the system performance
regularly. This will avoid problems of overloading or discontinued use of the treatment system.

Educating hospital patients about the design will help spread knowledge of wastewater treatment in the
surrounding area. This can be done with public displays within the hospital describing the purpose and
technology of the process. The result is an aid in the transformation of the cultural attitude toward
wastewater treatment.

1.8 Objectives
The main objective of this design project is to present a preliminary design for a wastewater treatment
system for the hospital and surrounding area. In addition, a suitable method for sludge handling is studied
and recommended.

The following criteria have been established as the constraints for the design:

• Low capital, operation, and maintenance costs

• Minimum use of mechanical and electrical parts to ensure ease of operation and maintenance

• All parts and materials should be available locally

• Due to the lack of a reliable power source, design must be capable of operating without electricity

• Design must not require the use of any chemicals or materials that might damage the downstream
environment

• As there is limited space available on the hospital property, design footprint should be minimized

6
 • The effluent of the system must satisfy reasonable water quality standards

• Sludge production should be minimized

• Design must be culturally acceptable to the local population

• Design should not pose any risk of harm to the system operators or users

The quality of the effluent stream is constrained to a BOD concentration of 2 mg/L when mixed in the
receiving water. Assuming an effluent dilution of eight volumes of river water, the maximum allowable
effluent BOD concentration of the treatment system is 20 mg/L (UK Royal Commission Standards).
Stabilization ponds are assumed to have a suspended solids removal similar to that of BOD removal (80-
90%). As the Motolo River is likely to have a high natural concentration of suspended solids, it is
unnecessary to set TSS standards for the effluent in this case.

Along with a wastewater treatment system, an appropriate sludge handling method must be developed
that meets the same design constraints listed above. In addition, the expected sludge accumulation in a
new wastewater treatment system also needs to be handled appropriately to meet the design constraints.
The feasibility of sludge reuse is studied in this design project. The possibility of using the existing
sludge as microbial seeds in the waste stabilization ponds is also considered.

In the near future, HVO will expand the size of the hospital, which in turn to increase the number of
patients. Therefore, the designed wastewater treatment system and sludge handling method must be able
to treat the projected flows and loads. From data of the increased number of patients for the last twenty
years, the growth rate for is predicted to be about one percent per year. To be conservative, all
calculations are based on 20 percent growth rate over a 20 year project life.

2. Design Alternatives
2.1 Preliminary Treatment Alternatives

2.1.1 Bar Screen

Preliminary treatment of the wastewater begins with removal of coarse solids with bar screens. A basic
schematic of a bar screen is shown in Figure 2. The purpose of screening is to prevent blockages and
damage to downstream components. Although mechanically raked bar screens are available, the design
for the HVO system uses a manually raked system. This adheres to the design criteria of little to no
power usage. However there is required maintenance involving the cleaning of the bar screen and
disposal of the resulting solid waste (Mara 2004).

In addition to the flow path through the bar screen a bypass allows wastewater to continue flowing in the
event of blockages or rises in upstream water levels. Regular cleaning of the bar screen helps prevent
overflow problems in this component of the system. Based on calculations shown in Appendix D most
commercial bar screen designs will be acceptable for the design due to the relatively low flow rates in the
system. The HVO treatment system will use a manually raked bar screen in a position upstream of the
primary treatment of the waste stream.

7
Fine screening is also commonly used in the preliminary treatment of wastewater. This requires complex
mechanical screens and is not a necessary component of treatment. Therefore fine screening has been
determined to be infeasible for the HVO treatment system.

Figure 2: Bar Screen 2

2.1.2 Grit Chamber

The second component of preliminary treatment is grit removal. The objective is to prevent grit and other
inorganic solids from entering downstream processes and causing abrasion damage. A grit chamber is
used to slow the flow and allow larger particles to settle out (Mara 2004).. A basic design of this
apparatus is shown in Figure 3. There is a centrifugal push toward the wall (A) followed by gravity pull
(B) and sweep toward the center (C). Heavy particles fall to the bottom (D) while light material stays in
suspension (E). The removed grit particles can be buried without the risk of contamination due to the
lack of organic material. The HVO system would likely use a gravity fed vortex design. However if
more information is obtained characterizing the actual content of grit material in the HVO waste stream,
this component may be eliminated to reduce unnecessary system costs

Figure 3: Grit Chamber Design 3

2
Mara 2004
3
www.aerresearch.com/html/GritSystemDesignGuide.pdf

8
2.2 Primary Treatment Alternatives

2.2.1 Waste Stabilization Ponds

2.2.1.1 Background
Following the removal of coarse solids and inorganic material in the preliminary treatment, the
wastewater stream enters the waste stabilization ponds. These are large shallow basins which treat
wastewater by natural processes involving bacteria and algae. There are three main types of stabilization
ponds which use different processes for treatment. These types can be used in series or separately (Mara
2004).

2.2.1.2 Anaerobic Ponds

An anaerobic pond is generally the first of a series of ponds and is relatively deep (2-5m). The primary
purpose of anaerobic ponds is BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) removal. Due to the high organic
loading there is no dissolved oxygen or algae in the pond. Retention times are generally short (~1 day)
depending on the initial BOD loading of the influent wastewater and the surrounding temperature (Mara
2004). Issues of odor are understood to be a significant problem, especially if careful maintenance is not
observed. Safety is also a concern with the inherent drowning hazard of a deep body of water. Figure 4
shows a cross section of a typical anaerobic pond.

Figure 4: Anaerobic Pond Cross Section 4

2.2.1.3 Facultative Ponds

Facultative ponds can be used as primary or secondary treatment. Like anaerobic ponds they are designed
for BOD removal. Unlike anaerobic ponds they are relatively shallow (1.0-1.8m) to allow for the growth
of algae near the surface (top ~300 mm). The algal photosynthetic activities generate oxygen for the
BOD removal. This process is dependent on temperature, mixing, and pond inlet design. Wind provides
a portion of necessary mixing to allow algae to move into the zone of effective light penetration. Any
fence surrounding the pond must allow air to move through freely (Mara 2004). The process components
of a facultative pond are shown in Figure 5. The biological process involved is shown in Figure 6. This
design alternative was selected for the HVO treatment system due to economic advantages as well as a
lack of maintenance required.

4
www.thewatertreatments.com

9
 Figure 5: Facultative Pond Process Components 5

Figure 6: Facultative Pond Biological Process

2.3 Secondary Treatment Alternatives

2.3.1 Maturation Ponds

The objective of maturation ponds is to remove fecal bacteria and viruses. The process is mostly aerobic
although some algal growth takes place. This can provide a level of quality suitable for water re-use in
agriculture or aquaculture (Mara 2004). Since HVO has no plans of reusing water, effluent wastewater
will be discharged into the Motolo River. Therefore a maturation pond provides an unnecessary level of
treatment and is not included in the system design.

5
www.thewatertreatments.com

10
2.3.2 Constructed Wetlands

The processes of natural wetlands are applied to constructed wetlands for the treatment of wastewater.
Rooted aquatic plants called ‘macrophytes’ are grown in gravel beds and usually receive wastewater after
some form of primary treatment. A cross section of a constructed wetland design can be seen in Figure 7.
The advantage of this secondary treatment is the removal of suspended solids and nutrients. Wetlands are
also occasionally preferred based on aesthetic reasons. This alternative is not implemented on the basis of
unnecessary treatment for this specific case as well as the high cost and land use.

Figure 7: Constructed Wetland Cross Section 6

2.4 Sludge Handling Alternatives

2.4.1 Background

There are two situations where sludge handling must be addressed, one includes the sludge build up in the
current septic tank, and the other includes the future sludge build up in the facultative pond. The current
septic tank contains approximately 6 m3 of sludge (20% of the septic tanks volume) which has an
environmental quality that is unknown. In the past HVO has experienced some resistance from the local
municipality when attempting to landfill the sludge, this resistance led to the dumping of the sludge
directly into the Motolo River which defeated the purpose of the septic tank.

2.4.2 Sludge in Current Septic Tank

2.4.2.1 Land Application

One potential use of the sludge currently in the septic tank includes land application. Due to the lack of
knowledge regarding the quality of the waste and the fact that HVO does not have agricultural land there
is not much need or use for land application other than potentially selling the sludge for land application
elsewhere.

6
www.netl.doe.gov

11
2.4.2.2 Microbial Seed
Another potential usage of the sludge currently in the septic tank includes using it to seed the facultative
pond. These ponds need to be seeded with old waste in order to develop the necessary microbial
population to begin the decomposition of the waste. This option is the most feasible given the lack of
agricultural land and resistance from the local municipality to landfill.

2.4.3 Sludge Produced by Treatment System

2.4.3.1 Background
During the first few years the facultative pond is in use, sludge will accumulate linearly in the pond but
once the pond reaches equilibrium, the sludge will decompose at approximately the same rate as it enters
the system. This equilibrium depends of maintenance of the surface water and pond embankments.
Removal of floating scum and macrophytes from the surface water maximizes the photosynthesis
necessary for treatment and prevents fly and mosquito breeding. The vegetation on the embankments
must be cut and pruned as needed to prevent the generation of mosquito breeding habitats. The use of
slow growing grass or vegetation will minimize the frequency of this task. The sludge depth should be
measured once a year to ensure that it is no more than one third the design depth of the pond, if it is
greater than one third of the depth it may interfere with the natural decomposition and treatment processes
of the pond. In this case the pond should be partially dredged.

2.4.3.2 Alternatives
Typical facultative ponds need to be cleaned out every 8-20 years. In order to clean out a facultative pond
the first cell must be closed off by closing two gates and allowing the sewage to drain directly into the
next cell. All the water in the first cell is then drained completely and the sludge is dried by the heat of the
sun. The length of time for drying varies depending on the weather and climate, for Shell, Ecuador it
would depend on the time of year and amount of rainfall at the time. After the sludge is dried it must be
removed by a vac truck or shovels and either land applied or land filled. In this case the sludge will be
stabilized and no longer harmful to the residence in the surrounding area or the environment and therefore
there should be no issues with the local municipalities in terms of land filling. If resistance is met then
selling the sludge for land application elsewhere is the next best option. This process of drying out the
cells must then be repeated for the rest of the cells in the pond until the entire pond has been dredged.

2.5 Alternative Selection

2.5.1 Design of Facultative Ponds

The design for the HVO treatment system uses a series of facultative ponds as the primary treatment.
Facultative ponds have the advantage of simplicity of construction and maintenance. Mostly unskilled
labor can be used for the pond maintenance. This includes removal of scum and vegetation from the pond
surface and banks, keeping inlets and outlets clear, and repairing any damage to the embankments. There
are minimal problems with mosquito breeding and odor as long as the system is properly maintained.
Maintenance includes alternating flow paths to avoid stagnant regions, restoring embankments, and
drying and excavating of accumulated sludge after a given time period. The minimum land area required

12
depends on the BOD of the wastewater entering initially (BOD i ), the peak flow rate (Q), and the surface
BOD loading (λ s ).

𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖 𝑄𝑄
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 =
λ𝑠𝑠

The surface loading is designed as a maximum mass rate per area that can be applied before the pond
becomes anaerobic, which constitutes failure. A design value including a factor of safety is determined
using the mean air temperature (T) of the coldest month in Shell, Ecuador.

λ𝑣𝑣 = 350(1.107 − 0.002𝑇𝑇)𝑇𝑇−25

The retention time is determined from the resulting area, depth of the pond (~1.5m), and the mean flow
(Q m ) adjusted for rate of evaporation.

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷ℎ
𝜃𝜃 =
𝑄𝑄𝑚𝑚

The depth of the pond liquid must lie in the range of 1-1.8m. The lower depth limit prevents the
emergence of vegetation leading to ideal conditions for mosquito breeding. The upper limit keeps the
pond from becoming predominantly anaerobic, which would nullify the design safety factor for a
fluctuating load.

The influent BOD concentration is estimated at 151 mg/L. The quality of the effluent is constrained to a
BOD concentration of 20mg/L (UK Royal Commission Standards). Stabilization ponds are assumed to
have a suspended solids removal similar to that of BOD removal (80-90%). As the Motolo River is likely
to have a high natural concentration of suspended solids, it is unnecessary to set TSS standards for the
effluent in this case.

An area of 291m2 is required for the first receiving pond at a depth of 1.5m. More detailed calculations in
Mathcad are shown in Appendix A. A compartmentalized structure of multiple ponds in series is used to
successively treat the waste stream. Pipe networking and valves between each pond allow for control of
different flow paths. Individual ponds can be taken out of service to be desludged while continuing flow
through the remaining ponds. The piping system will allow water to drain from one pond while it is
bypassed to allow drying. After being emptied of liquid and allowed to dry, the sludge produced is
removed by manually excavating and transporting the material by wheelbarrow or other available hauling
equipment.

Soil percolation tests conducted by a previous engineering group at the hospital site give an estimated
coefficient of permeability for the planned location of the pond. The soil is permeable enough to
necessitate a liner for the pond bottom to prevent groundwater contamination. A 1-2ft liner of compacted
clay contains the wastewater while preventing growth of reeds and other plants in the pond which would
encourage mosquito breeding. The location of the pond is the furthest distance possible from residences
to avoid potential odor or aesthetic problems. The perimeter is surrounded by a protective fence for
safety of residents in the surrounding area. There is also space for vehicular access for regular
maintenance and monitoring.

13
3. Additional Considerations
3.1 Biogas Feasibility Study
Biogas is produced in every system where organic matter is decomposed. Many anaerobic wastewater
treatment systems contain or are capable of containing a biogas collection system which is linked to a
generator for energy production. In a facultative pond it is desirable to have an anaerobic pit over which
the biogas collection system is placed. The system would consist of a floating composite cover made of a
self-draining geomembrane material, inlet and outlet pipes and a combustion engine used as a generator to
convert the gas into energy. An example of this system is found below in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Biogas Collection Diagram 7

The total amount of BOD 5 removed from the current loadings on the system is 4207 g/day under the
assumption of 86.8% removal efficiency. Given that 0.0378 liters of biogas is produced per gram of
BOD 5 removed it is found that for this system, approximately 159 L of biogas is produced per day. It is
known that 0.006 kWh are produced per liter of biogas, using this conversion factor, approximately
0.04kW are produced per day under the current loading from HVO on the system. The small amount of
energy produced by the system is not enough to justify the added construction and maintenance costs.

3.2 High Chlorine Concentrations

HVO is currently using chlorine in large quantities for disinfection in the current septic tank. Members
of the HCJB staff have expressed concerns about the effects of high levels of chlorine on the wastewater
treatment process with respect to the oxidation of organic matter, as well as impacts on concrete material.
Chlorine is commonly used as an inexpensive form of disinfection in wastewater treatment systems and
will have no adverse effects on the oxidation of the organic matter. The presence of chlorine in the
wastewater before treatment by the facultative ponds will allow for disinfection before the oxidation
process occurs. The impact of chlorine on concrete should not be an issue; most pools throughout the

7
www.global-scientific-inc.com

14
world are made of concrete and contain high levels of chlorinated water. There is no known research to
support that there are any adverse effects on concrete due to high levels of chlorine.

4. Budget
Outlined below is the production cost in country and the team prototype budget.

4.1 Project Cost

The final construction cost for this system of facultative ponds in Ecuador is approximately $14,985. The
values used in this estimate are from different suppliers in the United States, the individual pricing for
each part would need to be checked in country to approximate a more accurate number. Table 1 shows
the cost of construction and materials for the facultative pond and Table 2 shows the design and
engineering costs. The total cost of the project including contingency is $113,833 shown in Table 3.

Table 1: Construction Cost of Facultative Ponds

Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost

PVC Piping 100 m $20 $2,000
Bentonite Clay 500 m2 $20 $10,000
Chain Link Fence 92 m $5 $460
Control Valves 8 - $50 $400
Labor 30 days $65 $1,950
Excavation 500 m3 $0.35 $175
Variable Costs - - $0 $0
TOTAL $14,985

Table 2: Design and Engineering Costs

Personnel Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost

Engineer 210 hr $100 $21,000
Engineer 210 hr $100 $21,000
Engineer 210 hr $100 $21,000
Engineer 210 hr $100 $21,000
TOTAL $84,000

Table 3: Total Project Cost

Budget Component Cost

Construction $14,985
Design and Engineering $84,000
Contingency of 15% $14,848
TOTAL $113,833

15
4.2 Prototype Budget
The final prototype budget includes all necessary materials to make a 1:50 scaled model of the proposed
design. The breakdown of the prototype budget is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 4: Prototype Budget

Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost

Tarp [5-m x 7-m] 1 - $3.60 $3.60
PVC Piping 2 m $3 $6
Valves 8 - $20 $160
Framing 10 m3 $7 $70
Gravel [20-lb bag] 1 - $20 $20
TOTAL $260

5. Conclusion
In summary Pure Pastaza is designing and modeling a wastewater treatment system for the Hospital
Vozandes del Oriente, a hospital sponsored and built by HCJB global. The current capacity of the septic
tank is inadequate and results in essentially untreated wastewater discharging into the Motolo River. Pure
Pastaza is proposing a facultative pond system connected directly to the current sewer line as the most
feasible treatment option. Due to the lack of agricultural land in the area there is little need for fertilizer
applied to surrounding land. This makes the facultative pond system advantageous since there is little to
no sludge removal necessary. The system process including waste characteristics and estimated removal
is described in Figure 9 below. The preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 10.

BOD = 151 mg/L BOD = 20 mg/L

Facultative Pond
Flow = 32 m3/day TSS 80-90% Removal

Sludge: Land Application

Figure 9: Process Schematic

16
 Figure 10: Preliminary Pond Location on Site

One of the greatest advantages of the design is the minimal cost and labor for maintenance necessary to
ensure the system operates properly. The total project cost has been estimated to be $113,833. This
includes engineering design, construction and a 15% contingency.

Establishing an effective wastewater treatment system will reduce the risk of water born diseases and
provide a cleaner environment in years to come. It is the hope of Pure Pastaza that this wastewater
treatment system will improve the quality of life and contribute to a healthier livelihood for the residents
of Shell, Ecuador.

17
 Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following people for their invaluable assistance during the preliminary design
process:

Professor David Wunder, Senior Design Advisor

Professor Wunder has guided and mentored us throughout the semester, drawing upon his
expertise in the environmental engineering field.

Stephanie Smithers, HCJB Global

Stephanie has been our contact in Ecuador and has provided us with data, information and helped
to answer many of our questions about the site.

Tom Newhof, Prein & Newhof

Tom is our team’s industrial consultant and has provided us with valuable information from his
first-hand experience with waste stabilization ponds in professional practice. He has also directed us to
valuable contacts.

18
 Bibliography
Cotruvo, Joseph A., Gunther F. Craun, and Nancy Hearne. Providing Safe Drinking Water in Small
Systems: Technology, Operations, and Economics. Boca Raton: Lewis, 1999. Print.

Mara, Duncan D. Sewage Treatment in Hot Climates. London: Wiley, 1976. Print.

Mara, Duncan D. Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries. London: Earthscan, 2004.
Print.

Mehtar, Shaheen. Hospital Infection Control: Setting up with Minimal Resources. Oxford: Oxford UP,
1992. Print.

Niewoehner, John, Ron Larson, Elfadil Azrag, Tsegaye Hailu, and Jim Horner, Peter VanArsdale.
"Opportunities for renewable energy technologies in water supply in Developing country villages."
NREL Technical Monitor (1997). Print.

Shilton, Andy. Pond Treatment Technology. London: IWA Pub., 2005. Print.

"Sludge Treatment Reuse and Disposal." United Nations Environmental Program. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/freshwater/sb_summary/10.asp>.

19
Appendices

20
Appendix A: Gantt Chart

21
 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Oct '10 Nov '10
26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14
1 First Semester 50 days Mon 10/4/10 Fri 12/10/10
2 PPFS Outline--Table of Contents (email to team Advisor) 2 days Mon 10/4/10 Tue 10/5/10
3 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (email to team Advisor) 5 days Mon 10/4/10 Fri 10/8/10
4 Innotec Grant Proposal 10 days Mon 10/4/10 Fri 10/15/10
5 Scheduled WBS (email to team Advisor) 0 days Mon 10/18/10 Mon 10/18/10 10/18
6 Research - High Concentration Chlorine 14 days Mon 10/18/10 Thu 11/4/10
7 Estimating waste load 14 days Mon 10/18/10 Thu 11/4/10
8 Elevator Presentation 3 days Mon 10/18/10 Wed 10/20/10
9 Research low cost low energy wastewater treatment options 26 days Mon 11/1/10 Mon 12/6/10
10 Project Brief to Industrial Consultant (with cc to team Advisor) 3 days Mon 10/18/10 Wed 10/20/10
11 Project web-site (posted) 4 days Wed 10/20/10 Mon 10/25/10
12 Preliminary Cost Estimate (email to team Advisor) 5 days Mon 11/8/10 Fri 11/12/10
13 Draft PPFS to Team Advisor 11 days Mon 11/1/10 Mon 11/15/10
14 Revised/updated project web-site (and new poster if major changes) 6 days Wed 11/17/10 Wed 11/24/10
15 PPFS submit to Team Advisor and post on Web Page as PDF 6 days Mon 11/22/10 Mon 11/29/10
16 Preliminary Design Memo submit to Team Advisor (as required) 5 days Mon 12/6/10 Fri 12/10/10
17 Interim 15 days Wed 1/5/11 Tue 1/25/11
18 Second Semester 74 days Mon 1/31/11 Wed 5/11/11
19 Pond Layout Design 6 days Mon 1/31/11 Mon 2/7/11
20 Hydraulic Analysis of Pipe and Pond System 5 days Mon 2/7/11 Fri 2/11/11
21 Hydraulic Design Based on the Analysis 5 days Mon 2/14/11 Fri 2/18/11
22 Bar Screen Calculations and Design 5 days Mon 2/14/11 Fri 2/18/11
23 Website Update 5 days Mon 2/14/11 Fri 2/18/11
24 Oral Presentations 8 days Wed 2/23/11 Fri 3/4/11
25 Model Build 35 days Mon 3/7/11 Fri 4/22/11
26 Updated Posters and Demos 6 days Wed 3/2/11 Wed 3/9/11
27 Meet with Industrial Consultant 10 days Mon 3/7/11 Fri 3/18/11
28 Individual Notebook Check 3 days Mon 3/14/11 Wed 3/16/11
29 Team Description for Banquet Program 3 days Wed 3/16/11 Fri 3/18/11
30 Website Update 5 days Mon 4/4/11 Fri 4/8/11
31 Draft Design Report for CEAC Review 6 days Mon 4/4/11 Mon 4/11/11
32 Scheduling Reviews (Individual Team) 5 days Mon 4/18/11 Fri 4/22/11
33 Draft Design Report for Faculty Review 6 days Wed 4/20/11 Wed 4/27/11
34 Project Night Poster 5 days Mon 4/25/11 Fri 4/29/11
35 Oral Presentations 10 days Mon 4/25/11 Fri 5/6/11
36 Senior Banquet and Projects Night 1 day Sat 5/7/11 Sat 5/7/11
37 Website Upgraded to Final, Notebooks Turned In, Course Evaluation 1 day Mon 5/9/11 Mon 5/9/11
38 Final Design Report Due 1 day Wed 5/11/11 Wed 5/11/11

Task Milestone External Tasks

Project: Gantt Chart.mpp
Split Summary External Milestone
Date: Sat 12/4/10
Progress Project Summary Deadline

Page 1
 Dec '10 Jan '11 Feb '11 Mar '11 Apr '11 May '11
21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15

Task Milestone External Tasks

Project: Gantt Chart.mpp
Split Summary External Milestone
Date: Sat 12/4/10
Progress Project Summary Deadline

Page 2
Appendix B: Wastewater System Loads

24
Table 5: Equivalent Persons Calculations for Non-patients
Adults Children
Non-patients 1 Person·days Notes / assumptions Nationality
Live & Work Work2 Live 3
Visit 4
School Age5
Below School Age6
2 2.0 European/other western
2 2 3.0 North American
2 2 3.0 North American
Current family homes are occupied by the Wolffs, Benedicks,
Missionary / Visitor Residences 2 2 3.0 North American
Kappens, Tachneys, Umbles, Bartons, Martins.
2 2 3.0 North American
1 1 3 1 3.7 North American
2 3 1 4.0 North American
2 2 3.3 North American
There are 4 duplexes and it has been assumed that they are
2 2 3.3 North American
Duplexes all half-full as sometimes they could all be occupied with 8
2 2 3.3 North American
people and sometimes with none.
2 2 3.3 North American
These are the accomodations for the visiting interns and
Visiting Staff Quarters 6 6.0 Ecuadorian - Mestizo
residents. There are 6 quarters and they are always full.
There are 8 casitas. Assume 2 are occupied with 2 people in
Casitas 4 4.0 Ecuadorian - Indigenous
each.
There are 5 missionaries who work in the hospital but live
Non-resident Missionaries 5 1.7 North American
outside of the hospital water system.
There are 63 staff who work a variety of hours. Over a
month all work 160 hours except 5 nurses who each work
Staff 63 21.0 Ecuadorian - Mestizo
120 hours/month. All staff get two weeks holiday a year as a
national entitlement.
Inpatients friends/family 10 1.3 Ecuadorian - Mestizo
Assume that each patient has one visitor who stays for 3
Outpatients friends/family 40 5.0 Ecuadorian - Mestizo
hours.
Emergency friends/family 23 2.9 Ecuadorian - Mestizo / Indigenous
Laundry No info Ecuadorian - Mestizo
Restaurant - hospital No info Ecuadorian - Mestizo
Restaurant - the bar No info Ecuadorian - Mestizo

KEY
1
Those who both live on the hospital property and work at the hospital, 24-hr contribution to hospital sewer system
2
Those who work in the hospital but live away from the hospital, 8-hr contribution to hospital sewer system
3
Those who live on the hospital property but don't work at the hospital, 16-hr contribution to hospital sewer system
4
Visitors to the hospital, 3-hr contribution to hospital sewer system
5
School age children will be in school for 8 hours and may return home for lunch, 16-hr contribution with a 0.75 scaling factor
6
Assumed to be on hospital property all day, 24-hr contribution with a 0.5 scaling factor
Water used comes from the hospital system but discharges into the town sewer system

Summary
Total equivalent population = 72.8
Water Usage (m3 / person·day) = 0.045
Water Usage (m3 / day) = 3.3
Table 6: Equivalent Persons Calculations for Hospital Patients
Patients Visitors / day Person·days Notes Nationality
1
Outpatients 40 5 Assume 3 hours per patient. Ecuadorian - Mestizo / Indigenous
2
Emergency 23 23 Assume 24 hours per patient. Ecuadorian - Mestizo / Indigenous
Inpatients3 10 20 Assume 48 hours per patient. Ecuadorian - Mestizo

1
1200 outpatients per month (40/day)
2
700 emergency patients per month (23/day)
3
Based on an average value for the number of inpatients per day

Summary
Total equivalent population = 48.3
Water Usage (m3/person·day) = 0.5
Water Usage (m3/day) = 24.2
Table 7: Calculation of Daily Hospital Waste Stream and BOD Flow Rates
Water Usage BOD Production Equivalent Water Usage Hospital Waste Stream1 BOD
Type of Person 3 3 3
[m /person·day] [g/person·day] Population [m /day] [m /day] [g/day]
Hospital Patients 0.5 40 48.3 24.2 23.9 1933
Non-patients 0.045 40 72.8 3.3 3.2 2913
TOTAL 121.2 27.4 27.2 4847

Table 8: Average and Peak Daily Flow Calculations

Average Flow
Growth rate per Project life Peak Daily Flow
with expansion Peak Factor 3
year [years] 3 [m /day]
[m /day]
0.9% 20 32.1 6.29 202

1
Based on 99% of water used entering waste stream
Appendix C: Facultative Pond and Wetland Area Calculations

Pond and Constructed Wetland Preliminary Calculations

Design Parameters

Estimated average wastewater flow rate with expansion of 20%

3
m
Qavg := 32.1
day

Equivalent population served (population estimates spreadsheet)

P := 121.2

Peak factor (Mara 2004, eqn. 7.5)

−1
6
PF := 14⋅ P = 6.293

Maximum wastewater flow rate

3
m
Qmax := Qavg ⋅ PF = 202.015⋅
day

Mass of BOD per person per day

kg
BODmass := .040
day

Mass of BOD from population per year

kg
BODmass_tot := BODmass⋅ P = 4.848⋅
day

Influent BOD concentration (average)

BODmass_tot mg
BODi := = 151.028⋅
Qavg L

Temperature (average of coldest month, °C)

Ts := 14.4

28
Primary Alternative 1: Anaerobic Pond

Volumetric loading (Mara 2004, Table 10.1)

1
⋅ kg
( )
1000 kg
λ v := 10⋅ Ts + 100 ⋅ = 0.244⋅
3 3
m ⋅ day m ⋅ day

Designed pond depth (2 to 5m)

Da := 2m

BOD removal of anaerobic pond (Mara 2004, Table 10.1)

(2⋅ Ts + 20)
BODra := = 0.488
100

Area of pond (if retention time is greater than one day)

BODi⋅ Qavg 2
A a := = 9.934 m
λ v ⋅ Da

Retention time (Mara 2004, eqn. 10.2)

A a⋅ Da
θa :=
Qavg
θa = 0.619⋅ day

Minimum retention time

θa1 := 1day

Area of pond (if retention time is less than one day)

(Qavg⋅ θa1) 2
A a1 := = 16.05 m
Da

29
Primary Alternative 2: Facultative Ponds

First Facultative Pond in Series

BOD surface loading with safety factor (Mara 2004, eqn. 11.3)
T s − 25
(
λ sf := 350⋅ 1.107 − 0.002⋅ Ts ) ⋅
kg
2
10000m ⋅ day
kg
λ sf = 0.016⋅
2
m ⋅ day

Minimum required area of facultative pond 1

BODi⋅ Qavg 2
A f1 := = 307.686 m
λ sf

Designed depth of facultative pond (must be 1.0 to 1.8m)

Df := 1.5m

Net evaporation rate

mm
erate := 5
day

Effluent flow from facultative pond 1

Qe1 := Qavg − 0.001⋅ erate⋅ A f1

Mean flow (avg of influent and effluent)

(
Qm1 := 0.5⋅ Qavg + Qe1 )
Retention time of pond 1
(Af1⋅ Df )
θf1 := = 14.378⋅ day
Qm1

First-order rate constant for BOD removal (for 14.4°C)

−1 T s − 20 −1
kfp := 0.3day ⋅ 1.05 = 0.228⋅ day

Effluent BOD concentration of pond 1

BODi mg
BODefp1 := = 35.269⋅
1 + kfp ⋅ θf1 L

30
BOD removal of pond 1
BODefp1
BODrf1 := 1 − = 0.766
BODi

Second facultative pond in series

Minimum required area of facultative pond 2

BODefp1⋅ Qm1 2
A f2 := = 71.851 m
λ sf

Effluent flow from facultative pond 2

Qe2 := Qe1 − 0.001⋅ erate⋅ A f2

Mean flow (avg of influent and effluent)

(
Qm2 := 0.5⋅ Qe1 + Qe2 )
Retention time of pond 2
(Af2⋅ Df )
θf2 := = 3.358⋅ day
Qm2

Effluent BOD concentration of pond 2

BODefp1 mg
BODefp2 := = 19.966⋅
1 + kfp ⋅ θf2 L

BOD removal of pond 2

BODefp2
BODrf2 := 1 − = 0.434
BODefp1

Total BOD removal of two ponds in series

BODefp2
BODrftot := 1 − = 0.868
BODi

31
Secondary Alternative: Constructed Wetland

Porosity of gravel bed (estimate)

ε gravel := 0.4

Depth of constructed wetland (commonly used value)

Dcw := 0.6m

First-order rate constant

4.172 T s − 20 −1 −1
kcw := 68.6⋅ ε gravel ⋅ 1.06 ⋅ day = 1.082⋅ day

Retention time (arbitrarily chosen)

θcw := 0.5day

Area of constructed wetland

(θcw⋅ Qavg) 2
A cw := = 66.875 m
ε gravel ⋅ Dcw

Effluent BOD concentration

− kcw⋅ θ cw mg
BODecw := BODefp2⋅ e = 11.621⋅
L

BOD removal of constructed wetland

BODecw
BODrcw := 1 − = 0.418
BODefp2

Total BOD removal with facultative ponds and constructed wetland

BODecw
BODrtot2 := 1 − = 0.923
BODi

32
Appendix D: Bar Screen Calculations
Bar Screen Calculations

Projected peak daily wastewater flow

3
m
Qpeak := 202
day

Assumed velocity
m
Vopt := 0.610
s

Net area required

Qpeak −3 2
A req := = 3.833 × 10 m
Vopt

Net area ratio selected

Ra := 0.667

Total wetted area required for channel

A req −3 2
A tot := = 5.746 × 10 m
Ra

33
Appendix E: Soil Percolation Calculations

Soil Percolation Tests

Test 1

D1 := 4.75cm
t1 := 60min

Coefficient of permeability for test 1

D1 −5m
k1 := = 1.319 × 10
t1 s

Test 2

D2 := 13.5cm
t2 := 101min

Coefficient of permeability for test 2

D2 −5m
k2 := = 2.228 × 10
t2 s

Both tests result in a k coefficient greater than 10-6 m/s.

Therefore the soil is permeable enough to need a pond lining to prevent groundwater
contamination

34