wastewater treatment plant che 490 design project

7/28/2019 Wastewater Treatment Plant ChE 490 Design Project

1/82


2/82

L ~ I \ , E R S I T Y (IF T E : \ ~ E S S E E

College of Engineerin\. Llteri:1l:-- Science and Engineerin

-+ H Enginel'ring BuilJin!(noxvillc, TN )/l)l)622C((,1=)) Q7..l:;j")

FAX ((11)) ')74) 3-

WastewaterTreatment PlantChE 490 Design Project

StephenM. LaneGroup 8

Group 8 Members:Steve Ince

Jay JacksonKen Rickett

for Dr. J. Watson4-20-92

University of TennesseeKnoxville, TN 37916


3/82

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Design SummaryPlant Design FlowsheetPlant Design FlowratesProcess DescriptionMajor Equipment SizingMajor CostingCost TableExplanation ofCost TableReferences and Acknowledgements

Appendix 1: Manufacturer InformationAppendix 2: Equipment Sizing CalculationsAppendix 3: Equipment Costing CalculationsAppendix 4: Original Problem AssignmentAppendix 5: Viewgraph PresentationAppendix 6: Additional Information

3456811131415

163 )32:E4455

2


4/82

WASTEWATER PLANT DESIGN SUMMARYThe objective of this assignment was to design a wastewater

treatment plant that would remove contaminants from a water stream tosatisfy certain limits. The plant was designed for a maximum wastewaterflowrate of 300 gpm. Below is a table of the average pollutantconcentrations and their agreed discharge concentration limits.

PollutantHgtrichloroethylene (TCE)trichloroethane (TCA)total PCBstotal o r ~ n i c carbonMethod ofMercuryRemoval

A y ~ . Inlet Cone.5 (2) ppm20 (2) ppm15 (5) ppm20 (1) ppm150 (10) wm

Outlet Cone. Limit


5/82

=...

PLANT DESIGN FLOWSIlEET

N enCQ C.tI:

...

....

u::.:.C.

en....

=

........

oI0::U

N------+'110.

N

....c..

4


6/82


7/82

PROCESS DESCRIPTIONThis section gives a desciption of each process used in our design.

Each block used in the flowsheet is descibed below. The blocks are listed inthe same order the wastewater stream would flow through in the plant.HoldingBasin I (llB1)

After passing through a grit-removal screen, the wastewater streamenters a holding tank. This tank is for adjustment of the stream pH to 8 (byaddition of Hme), which is necessary for the mercury removal process. Thetank is designed for a 30 min residence time.C1ariCone Mercury Removal Clarifier (C-MR)

The ClariCone unit is designed to remove the mercury from thestream with sulfide precipitation. A unit that would handle our mercuryconcentrations was suggested by CBI Walker, Inc. See Appendix 1 for theactual information CBI Walker sent.Mercury-Removal Waste StorageTank (MST)

The slurry waste from the ClariCone is collected in a tank, whichwill be removed every month by Chemical Waste Management. The tank isdesigned to hold a blowdown of 250 gal of slurry every 6 hr.HoldingBasin2 am2)

The second holding tank is used to hold the wastewater stream whilea carbon bed is being changed. It is designed to hold 8 hr of flow.HoldingBasin 8 (HB3)

The third holding tank adjusts the stream pH to 5 (with HC!) for thecarbon beds. It is designed for a 30 min residence time, the same as HB1.Activated CarbonBed I (CBI)

The first carbon bed is used for PCB adsorption. It was designed byCalgon Corporation. Chemical Waste Management will remove the spentcarbon from this bed and Calgon will replace it with fresh carbon every sixmonths.

6


8/82

PROCESS DESCRIPTIONActivated Carbon Beds 2& 3 (CB2,3)

The second and third carbon beds are used for adsorption of TCE,TCA and organic carbon. They were designed by Calgon, and Calgon willreplace their carbon every two months.Holding Basin 4 (HB4)

The last holding tank collects 8 hr of clean water for adjustmentbefore release into the river. If necessary, the water is adjusted fortemperature, oxygen, and pH (6-7) in this tank.

7


9/82

MAJOR EQUIPMENT SIZINGThis section gives the sizes of the major equipment used. The calculationsused to find these sizes are given in Appendix 2.HoldingBasin 1 (BBl)

The first holding basin is designed to hold the maximum flowrate,300 gpm, for 30 min. It is a cubic tank with volume of 13500 gal and 12.25-itsides.CIariConeMercury Removal Clarifier (CMR)

The ClariCone was sized by CBI Walker to meet our mercuryremoval needs. The size they selected has a top diameter of 26' and a heightof 20'4". This size is called "Unit Size 3ft by CBI Walker. See Appendix 1 fora schematic of the ClariCone supplied by CBI Walker.Mercury-Removal Waste StorageTank (MSI')

From information by CBI Walker, the ClariCone win have a 250-galblowdown every 6 hr for our flowrate and mercury concentration. The MSTwas designed to hold 30 days of this waste. It s volume is 50000 gal.HoldingBasin 2 aIB2)When a carbon bed is being replaced, the waste stream is divertedinto HB2. It is sized to hold 300 gpm for 8 hr. With these specifications, a144000 gal cubic tank with 27 -it sides was chosen.Holding Basin 3 (HB3)

The third holding tank holds the waste stream before entering thecarbon beds and adjusts its pH to 5 before entering the carbon beds. It issized to have a retention time of 30 min for a flow rate of 300 gpm, and winthen be the same size as HB1, 13500 gal.

8


10/82

MAJOR EQUIPMENT SIZINGActivated CarbonBeds 1-3 (CHI-3)

The carbon beds that Calgon recommended to us are sized to handle350 gpm of wastewater with our pollutant concentrations. Their carbonbeds have a diameter of 10', a volume of 715 cu.ft, and a height of about 20'.See Appendix 1 for the sizing and other information provided by Calgon.Holding Basin 4 (HB4)

The final holding tank holds clean water for 8 hr before release intothe river. This tank is designed to be the same size as HB2; a 144000 galcubic tank.Pipe

The pipe diameter was suggested by Perry's to be 6" for a 300 gpmflow. Schedule 40 pipe was chosen.Pumps (p1IO)

The ten pumps used in the design are all sized to pump a maximumof 300 gpm through 6" i l l pipe with a head of 15-25 ft. The pump type thatsatisfies these requirements is a centrifugal, one-stage, 1750 rpm, VSC,stainless steel pump.

9


11/82

MAJOR EQUIPMENT SIZINGSummary ofEquipmentSizes

This is a summary of the equipment sizing. The unit name (as abbreviatedin this section and on the flowsheet) is given, along with the unit volumeand shape, and the method used to size the unit.Unit V01 m ~ . B h a : g ~ B ~ n . u : ~ ~ of Sizine:RBI 13500 gal cubic 300 gpm for 30 minRB2 144000 gal cubic 300 gpm for 8 hrHB3 13500 gal cubic 300 gpm for 30 minHB4 144000 gal cubic 300 gpm for 8 hrC-MR 3900 cu.it cone Specified by CBI WalkerMST 50000 gal recto 250 gall6 hr for 30 daysCBI-3 715 cu.it cylinder Specified by CalgonPI-10 1750 RPM, VSC 300 gpm, 6" ill pipe, 15-25 it head

10


12/82

MAJOR EQUIPMENT COSTINGThis section gives the costs and cost sources for the major equipment andsome supply costs. See Appendix 3 for the equipment costing calculationsand Appendix 1 for costs of manufacturer-supplied equipment supplies.HoldingBasins 1-4 alBl-4)

As listed in the previous section, there are 2 13500-gal and 2 144000-gal holding tanks in the plant design. All four tanks were selected to bemade out of concrete, the smaller two are shop-fabricated, and the largertwo are field-erected. The tanks were costed with Walas and converted to'92 dollars. The total cost ofthe four tanks is $87,000.C1ariConeMercury Removal Clarif ier (CMR)

The ClariCone Size 3 was costed directly from CBI Walker at$140,000. See Appendix 1 for the price quote.Mercury-Removal Waste Storage Tank (MSr)

The MST was sized at 50000 gal. It is a stainless steel, field-erectedtank, and was priced with Walas and converted to '92 dollars. The MSTprice is $19,700.Activated Carbon Beds 1-3 (CBl3)

The carbon beds were priced directly by Calgon. The first bed (CB1)costs $70,000, and the other two (CB2-3) cost $100,000 each. The total cost is$270,000 for the 3 adsorbers.Pumps (pll0)

The 10 centrifugal, 1750 rpm, one-stage, VSC, stainless steel pumpswere costed with Walas and converted to '92 dollars. The total cost is$94,000 for the ten pumps.

1 1


13/82

MAJOR EQUIPMENT COSTINGCarbon BedRemovalandRefill

Calgon will remove the spent carbon from carbon beds 2 and 3,dispose of it, and provide fresh carbon for all three carbon beds. Their costfor providing these services is $230,000/yr.

The first carbon bed's spent carbon (which will be contaminated byPCB) will be removed by Chemical Waste Management. Their price fordoing this is $9760/yr.MercuryRemoval

The mercury waste from the MST will be removed every month byChemical Waste Management. Their cost for this comes to $66,540/yr.8nm m ary ofEquipment and Services CostsUnit D ~ s g i 1 2 : t i g n QgStinll: a g Y I ~ ~ QgstHB1 Holding Tank Walas $12,700HB2 Holding Tank Walas $30,BOOHB3 Holding Tank Walas $12,700HB4 Holding Tank Walas $3O,BOOC-MR ClariCone CBI Walker $140,000MST Hg Waste Storage Walas $19,700CBI-3 Carbon Beds Calgon $270,000 (total)PI-I0 Pumps Walas $94,000 (total)Carbon Bed Removal and Refill Calgon and CWM $239,760/yrMercury Waste Removal Chern Waste M. $66, 540/yr

12


14/82

COST ESTIMATE FORWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTCAPITAL COSTS(A) Holding Basins 1-4(B) Carbon Beds 1-3(C) Pumps 1-10(D) Mercury Removal TankTota l =(PE) Purchased Equipment (A-D)(E) In s t a l l a t i on (=40% PE)(F) Ins t rumentat ion (=15% PE)(G) Ins t a l l ed Piping (=25% PE)

$ 87,000270,00094,000140,000$591,000

(H) Ins t a l l ed E l e c t r i c a l (=10% PE)(I) Building (=10% PE)(J) Land (=4 x $75,000) Tota l =(DC) Direc t Cost (PE + E-J)(K) Engineer ing Supervis ion (=25% DC)(L) Cont rac to rs (=25% DC)(M) Contingency (=25% FCI) Total =(IDC)Indirect Cost (K-M)(FCI)Fixed Capi t a l Investment (DC + IDC)(WC) Working Capi t a l (=20% FCI)

I (TCI)Total Capi ta l Investment (FCI + WC)OPERATING COSTS(N) Operators (2 ops @ $30000/yr x 4)(0 ) Chemicals (HCI, CaO, S)(P) U t i l i t i e s (=10% FCI)(Q) Maintainance (=10% FCI)(R) Taxes (=3% FCI)(S) Depreciat ion(T) Act iva ted Carbon (CB-1)(U) Activated Carbon (CB-2,3)(V) Mercury Removal Waste DisposalTotal

I OC) Total Operating Cost (N-S)

$ 591,000236,40088,650147,75059,10059,100300,000$1,482,000

$1,482,000$ 370,500370,500732,000$1,473,000

$1,473,000Tota l $2,955,000738,750Tota l = $3,693,7501

$ 240,000/yr7,500/yr295,500/yr295,500/yr88,650/yr177,300/yr9,760/yr230,000/yr66,540/yr$1,410,750/yr

$1,410,750Iyr

13


15/82

EXPLANATION OF COST ESTIMATESIn this section, a brief explanation for our costs is given.PurchasedEquipment Costs

The equipment (HB 1-4, CB 1-3, P 1-10, CM-R) costed are shown onthe enclosed flowsheet. The equipment were sized, and then priced withthe Walas textbook, Chemical Process EQuipment Selection and Desilln,except for the carbon beds, which were priced directly from themanufacturer. These prices were then converted to 1992 dollars.

OtherFixed Capital Investment CostsThe fixed capital costs were estimated as a percentage (shown on thecost estimate sheet) of either the purchased equipment cost, the direct cost,or the total fixed capital investment. The percentages were obtained fromthe Peters and Timmerhaus textbook, Plant Desim and Economics forChemical Enlrineers, Table 26, p. 210. The land cost was based on fouracres at $75,000/acre. The total fixed capital investment was estimated at$3,693,750, which includes a working capital of $738,750.

OperatingCostsThe operating costs, unless otherwise explained, were calculated as

a percentage of the fixed capital investment. The percentages were alsoobtained from Peters and Timmerhaus. The chemicals were costed withthe journal Chemical Marketinll Reporter. The depreciation wascalculated as (FC! - 0.1 FCI)/(15 yr). The carbon costs were obtaineddirectly from the manufacturer. The total operating cost was estimated at$1,154,450/yr.

See Appendix 3 for costing calculations, and Appendix 1 for manufacturerinformation on costing.

14


16/82

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSBannice, Ryan, Eastman Chemical Company

Churn, Cal, Environmental Engineering, Eastman Chemical CompanyHavelka, Mike, Calgon Chemical CorporationMcCabe, W.L., Smith, J.C., and Harriott, P., Unit Operations of Chemical

En2'ineerini, 3rd ed., 1985Perry, R.H. and Chilton, C.H., Chemical En&lineer's Handbook, 5th ed.,

1973

Peters and Timmerhaus, Plant Desim & Economics for ChemicalEn&lineers, 4th ed., 1991

Piller, Todd, Product Manager, CBI Walker, Inc.Smith, Mart in, Chemical Waste Management

Walas, S.M., Chemical Process Eguipment Selection and Desim, 1990Watson, J. , University of Tennessee


17/82

APPENDIX 1MANUFACTURER INFORMATION

16


18/82

Jay JacksonRoute 2, Box 88Rutledge, TN 37861Re: CBI Walker ClariConeDear Jay:

CBI Walker, Inc.1245 Corporale BoulevardSuite 102

Aurora. Illinois 60504708 851 7500

FAX: 708 851 9392

Enclosed is the information which we discussed l a s t Friday.Included is a copy of our ClariCone brochure, Ins ta l la t ionListing and Video Tape. Use these as necessary on your designproject for Tennessee Eastman.To confirm our discussion, the following recommendations weremade based on the information l is ted below:Influent Parameters300 GPM Flow RateMercury Removal ApplicationMercury Influent Level - 5 PPM 2 PPMUsing a sul f ide precipi ta t ion process wI Sodium or ManganeseEffluent ParametersMercury Level - 30 PPBRecommendationsUse a 26' diameter, Size 3 ClariConeBasis300 GPM design flow, 0.57 GPM/FT2 surface hydraulic loading r a te ;96 Minutes Detention TimeBudget Pricing$ 140,000 to ta l . Excludes taxes and bonds and i s based onpresent day costs with open shop labor.


19/82

cel Walker, Inc.ScopeDesign, fabricat ion and erection of the following i s included byCBI Walker:* Vessel shel l , pedestal supported* All internals including concentrator* Bridge beam with carbon s tee l checker plate and 2 r a i lhandrail across 1/2 the diameter* 3/16" minimum carbon"steel material* All Nozzles per typ ica l drawing* Design per AWWA code, 100 MPH wind, zone 1 seismic* Ful l Burial , 360 degree accessible s i te* Shop prime painted* Process s tar t-up serviceSupplied by CBI Walker for ins ta l la t ion by others :* Anchorage, galvanized* Weir plates , s t ee l* cont rol panel for sludge blowdown and water j e t functions onlyExcluded:* All f ie ld paint ing* Foundation and grout ing* Piping, valves, bol t /gasket se ts beyond f i r s t flange* Access s ta i rs , ladders or platforms beyond ClariCone* Hydrostatic t es t ing* Erection power* Conduit and wiringI f you have any quest ions concerning any of the enclosedinformation please contact us.Sincerely,CBI Walker, Inc.

l ~ f ~ C ~ \Todd E. Pil ler , P.E.ClariCone Product Managercc: J .T. Guthrie - Brentwood, TNAttn: Roy Smith


20/82


21/82


22/82

APPLICATIONSPotable Water Treatment Softening Turbidity Removal Iron Removal Color Removal Radium Removal Algae RemovalWastewater Treatment Phosphorus Removal Filter BackwashReclamationIndustrial Process.& Waste Treatment Boiler Blowdown Cooling Water Make-Up Suspended SolidsRemoval Coal Pile Runoff Ash Handling Mining LiquorClarification Landfill Leachate Metals Precipitation

" ..... .. . S - ,; "=s . '.


23/82


24/82. :.. ;

CAPABILITIES Preliminary Engineering and Process Design Equipment Consultation and Recommendations Pilot Studies Fabrication Construction Construction Management Process Start-Up Services

It I


25/82

J(

STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGYThe ClariCone is an upflow solids contact processwhich combines mixing, tapered flocculation and clarification in a completely hydraulic-driven vessel.A rotating slurry blanket is maintained in suspensionby proper control of hydraulic energy. The raw watermust pass through this blanket prior to its dischargefrom the unit. The expanding helical flow patternaccelerates floc formation by providing intimate contactbetween previously flocculated particles in the blanketand the coagulated material in the raw water.The mixing zone is formed by a cylindrical section.The tangentially oriented inlet nozzles in combinationwith the cylindrical shape, direct the flow into thehelical pattern necessary to provide f f e c ~ i v e treatmentwithout short circuiting.Adjustable velocity control is provided by the tangential inlet nozzles. By proper control of the hydraulicflow vectors, the rotating blanket is maintained in suspension without allowing floc particles to escape intothe clarification zone.The solids contact zone in the conical area continuesthe helical flow pattern established beneath it. Theconical shape provides for a decrease in energy andvertical flow rate as flow progresses upward intothe cone.As a result, ideal tapered flocculation occurs withthorough mixing and gentle flocculation providing flocgrowth. The extremely long helical flow path, fromthe bottom through the blanket, has proven to behighly effective, and conventional retention timesare unnecessary.The slurry concentrator is the heart of the ClariConeprocess. The concentrator is centrally located to takeadvantage of the floc movement toward the quiescentcenter of the vessel. It is vertically adjustable to allowfor changing the blanket depth or solids contact tjme.to adjust the slurry removal point within the blanket

2. QV 'f1g :r'? Ja ,', 5iarruo. :"e :ange"t!a :.are' c 'o ... :(Jes the .::.1erg"10 'eSuSD e"G rorate ir.e :Jlanl'(e! ce'ore 'I t!OCl. : ' ' 9 ihe 'a. ..vater

1. The ad,ustab'e concentrator In the center 0( thl7 ClaflCone prOV idSurry concentration and removal. The ClaflCone shown above IS .operated Intermittently The blanket IS collapsed In to the I?wer cylindJust pflor to stan-up.

to maximize slurry concentration, and to permitvisual control.Solids are removed from the rotating blanket by oveflowing into the concentrator, and are thickened withthe conical shape by compaction. Solids blowdownis accomplished through the vertical downcomer bya timer controlled valve.The clarification zone produces settling dynamicssimilar to those found in an ideal settling basin. Duto the helical flow, the horizontal flow vector is largeand the vertical flow is small, simulating long horizontal flow basins. This provides an extended distance of several hundred feet in the ClanCone inwhich floc particles can settle. Short circuiting, founin vertical flow basins with flow distances of only teto fifteen feet from slurry level to the weir, is elimimatin the ClariCone.

3 .- oout 20 rrJl f' utes :alf:r :," e o,anl


26/82

cal Walker has supplied the complete water treatment system for numerous plants Including the HeadtanklTray Aerator. ClanCone. HellCarb Recarbonalton Vesse ls and Decelerating-Flo Ftlters,

In conjunction with the ClariCone process, CSIWalker also offers the Helicarb CO2 Recarbonationsystem and the Decelerating-Flo Gravity Fiher forthe most effective water treatment available today.Sales Representatives are located-throughout theUnited States and Canada. 'For specific recommendations. or for further information on this product or anyother, write or call your local Sales Representative or :

CSI Walker, Inc.1245 Corporate BoulevardSuite 102Aurora. Illinois 60504


27/82

.. ~ .. . .. . ,ACTIVATED

V l V J ' : " ' { ~ " ~ : - " . ~ , : " I ' ( ) l ' , t o " O . . :- M O D E L 0 . .' CARBON .. . _. . ." .. AD .SORP,TION SYSTEM ' ': PRODUCT

presenc. D e ~ i i n e d to minimize operating Jabor and avoid manualhandling of carbon. Designed (or complete removal of e:U1austod carbon tominimize problems with contaminated material remainingin vessel. Capable of bulk carbon filling and removal.

Series Operation Parallel Oper8tionContact ContactTime TimeGPM Mlnute$ GPM Minutes

350 30 700 15 r ~ n u l a r activated carbon fin and d i s c ~ r g e piping. NOTE: Sme'''r Celgon Catbon SeMce Systems are avaUa.bIefor smaller flow r a ~ $ ar


28/82

TO 96159742669 P.04

MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION AND AVAILABLE OPTIONS Vessel Lining: Vinyl Ester coating (nominal 40 miJ)suitable for potable wiler and most wastewaterapplications. Piping and Valves: Carbon steel piping and east iroGbutterfly va1\1CS (process) and stain-less steel ball valves (carbon trans-fer). Optiona) flaneed polypropylene lined piping withdlaphram valves tor prOC:e$s water. Uoderdtain Collection System: Polypropylene slottcclnoWes. Extl:rnal Coatin&: Epoxy Mastic Coalins Optional polyurethane coatinl system for more eorrosivcenvironments.

CAUTIONWet activated carbon preferentially removet o ~ p D fromthe air. In elosed or partially closed C'Oncaioers and vessell,oxygen depledoo may reach bazardou8 JeveJs. Ifworkers areto enter a vessel containina carbon, appropriatesampIJnc aDdwork proceduret for potentially Jow-oxygeft tpec:es aboWdbe followed. includinl all applkable Pedetal and Stacerequirements.F()J'i.1tfomw(()It "".rtlu., Iuunmt aM . ~ ~ . crill (412)"'I47()1) ond "''fWII 10 spf


29/82

\'1~ ~i!o('" ~ e . \ ~ ~ < ) V C';o'" V\e. 5 - 10ctO .... \ ~ < : h ~ ~ ~ ' s - .14 I b ' d ~ ~ '5 0 9'''''' ~ ~ u" ~ > . . , . " ' ~ ~

GO't\'!I4,.-'(0J:.4ve ~ " f ' " r(\,QC ~ e e t \ ' e o . " " , ( , \ c o . O \ Y \ ~ cov\d. 'Os a..:s ""'8'" o..s ~ .

. : . ....-r; /. ,.. / \' ,..I" ' ',_ c: . .-....1 ~ , C , : .;;, .s ~ r L.-. / : . . . . > ' ~ .,I-

- (cL; ~ f\ 11[0 A J ' ) C { r + ( ~ > t f t c ~\YIO&"\ Rcv\.Q)GAC v>(',4,(. p.,c; ('C'';>-r = 2.. '\ 0 I 0 C.C )( , "C; -- j f'>Ct Ct)OI./If Nv ! : ~ l v ( ' LvO ,Ato- f 7 t . ~ : 7 C w . . , .

ri- - - - - - - ~

\

Q 13 R,-t ,tA(JV ~


30/82

?C ~ Co..J bo V1 Ve, V't\O J


31/82

APPENDIX 2 EQUIPMENT SIZING CALCULATIONS

30


32/82

APPENDIX 2: EQUIPMENT SIZING CALCULATIONS Holding Basin 1 (lIB1)Tank will hold maximum flow, 300 gpm, for 30 min.v - (300 gal/min)(30 min) _ 1203 ft- (7.48 gal/cu.It) - cu.Use V = 1850 cu.ft for margin, (1850 cu.ft)1/3 = 12.25-ft sides forcubic tankv = (1850 cu.ftX7.48 gal/cu.n.) = 13500 galHolding Basin 2 aIB2)Tank will hold maximum flow, 300 gpm, for 8 hr.V = (300 gal/minX8 hr)( 60 minlhr) = 144000V = (144000 gal)l(7.48gal/cu.It) = 19250 cu.ItUse V=19250 cu.ft, (19250 cu.ft)1I3 =27-ft sides for cubic tankCalculation for HB3 same as for HB 1Calculation for HB4 same as for HB2

Mercury-Removal Waste Storage Tank (MST) Must hold 250 gal blowdown every 6 hr, for 30 days. V = (250 gallblowdownX4 blowdownslday)(30 days) = 30000 gal Use V = 50000 &al for margin of error.
http:///reader/full/gal/cu.Ithttp:///reader/full/cu.ftX7.48http:///reader/full/gal)l(7.48http:///reader/full/gal/cu.Ithttp:///reader/full/gal/cu.Ithttp:///reader/full/cu.ftX7.48http:///reader/full/gal)l(7.48http:///reader/full/gal/cu.It


33/82


34/82

APPENDIX 3: EQUIPMENT COST CALCULATIONS HoldingTanks (HB1-4)2 13500-gal tanks, concrete, shop-fabricatedFrom Walas,C = F m exp [2.631 + 1.3673 (In V) - 0.06309 (In V)2], V in galF = 0.55 (concrete) V = 13500 galC = (0.55) exp [2.631 + 1.3673 (In 13500) - 0.06309 (In 13500)2]C = $11,300Converting to 1992 dollars, factor is 1.122:C = (1.122X$11,300) = $12.7002 144000-gal tanks, concrete, field-erectedFrom Walas,C = Fm exp [11.662 - 0.6104 (InV) + 0.04536 an V)2], Yin galF = 0.55 (concrete) V = 144000 galC = (0.55) exp [11.662 - 0.6104 (In 144000)+ 0.04536 (In 144000)2],C = $27,300Converting to 1992 dollars, factor is 1.122:C = (1.122X$27,300) = $30,600Total Cost of 4 Holding Tanks: C = 2($12,700) + 2($30,600)=$87,000

33


35/82

------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX 3: EQUIPMENT COST CALCULATIONSMercury Storage Tank (MSr)150000-gal tank, stainless steel, field-erectedFrom Walas,C = F m exp [11.662 - 0.6104 (In V) + 0.04536 On V)2], V in galF = 0.55 (concrete) V= 50000 galC = (0.55) exp [11.662 - 0.6104 On 50000) + 0.04536 On 50000)2],C =$17,500Converting to 1992 dollars, factor is 1.122:C = (1.122X$17,500) = $19,700Pump Costing (PIIO)Centrifugal Pumps, 1750 rpm, VSC, one-stageStainless Steel, Q = 300 gpm, H = 25 ft headFrom Walas, C= FmFtCb.Fm = 2.00 (stainless steel)Ft = exp [5.1029 - 1.2217 OnQVII) + 0.0771 OnQ " H ~On Q "H) = On 300 "25) = 7.31Ft = exp [5.1029 - 1.2217 (7.31) + 0.0771 ( 7 . 3 1 ~ = 1.34Cb = 1.55 exp [8.833 - 0.6019 On Q ..JH) + 0.0519 On Q VII)2]Cb = 1.55 exp [8.833 - 0.6019 (7.31) + 0.0519 (7.31fJ = 2090C = (2.00X1.34X2090) = $5600

34


36/82

APPENDIX 3: EQUIPMENT COST CALCULATIONSConvert to 1992 dollars: C =(1.68X$5600) =$9400Price for 10 pumps =10($9400) =$94.000CarbonRemovaland Rep]aooment by CalgonCarbon used per year = 240,000 lb (120 tons) by CB2,CB3 and 40,000 lb (20tons) by CB1 (see Appendix 1)Fresh carbon will be supplied to all carbon beds, while removal will occurfor CB2,CB3 only,Fresh carbon cost =$156,000/yr+ $26,000/yr =$182,000/yr (see Appendix 1),Shipping cost =$1300/shipment =($1300X12 ships) =$15,600/yr Disposal cost =$245/ton =($245X120 tons) =$29,400/yr Tax =$ll31ton =($113X120 tons) =$13,560/yr Total Cost =$182,000 + $15,600 + $39,160 + $13,560 =$240,OOO/yr PCB Carbon Removal by Chemical waste Management Carbon used per year =40,000 lb (20 tons) by CB1 (see Appendix 1) CWM will remove spent PCB-contaminated carbon from CB1 twice a year. Carbon Disposal =$245/ton =($245)(20 tons) =$4900/yr Tax =$1131ton =($113X20 tons) =$2260/yr Shipping =$1300/shipment =($1300X2) =$2600/yr Total Cost =$4900 + $2260 + $2600 =$9760/yr

35


37/82

------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX 3: EQUIPMENT COST CALCULATIONSMercury Waste Removal by Chemical Waste ManagementMercury removed: 15 tons/month, 180 tonlyr (from CWM)Waste Disposal =$170/ton =($170)(180 tons) =$30,600/yrTax =$ll31ton =($113X180 tons) =$20,430/yrShipping =$1300/shipment=($1300X12) =$15,600/yrTotal Cost =$30,600 + $20,430 + $15,600 =$66,630/yrCostTable Calculations Note: all percentages were taken from Peters and Timmerhaus, Table 26, p.210. CAPITAL cosrs Purebased Equipment (FE) PE = Holding Basins + Carbon Beds + Pumps + Mercury Removal TankPE = $87000 + $270000 + $94000 + $140000 = $591,000OtherDirect CostsInstallation =40% PE =400/0(591000) =$236,000Instrumentation =15% PE =15%(591000) =$88,650Installed Piping =25% PE =25%(591000) =$147,750Installed Electrical =10% PE =10%(591000) =$59,100Building =10% PE =100/0(591000) =$59,100Land =4 x $75000 =$300,000Direct Cost (DC) =591000 + 236000 + 88650 + 147750 + 59100

+ 59100 + 300000 = $1,482,000

36


38/82

APPENDIX 3: EQUIPMENT COST CALCULATIONSCost Table Ca1.cu1ations cont.Indirect Costs:Engineering Supervision = 25%DC = 25%(1482000) = $370,500Contractors = 25%DC = 25%(1482000) = $370,500Contingency = 25%FCI = 25%(2955000) = $732,000Total Indirect Costs (IDC) = 370500 + 370500 + 732000=$1,473,000Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) =DC + IDC =1482000 + 1473000

= $2,955,000Working Capital (WC) = 20%FCI = 20%(2955000) = $738,750Total Capital Investment (TCI) = FCI +WC = 2955000 + 738750

= $3,393,750OPERATING COS'I'SOperators = (2 operators)($30,000/yr)(4 men/operator)

= $24O,000/yrChemicals =$7500/yrUtilities = 10%FCI = 100/0(2955000) = $295,500/yrMaintainance = 10%FCI = 10%(2955000) = $295,500/yrTaxes = 3%FCI = 3%(2955000) = $88,650/yrDepreciation =(FCI - 10%FCI)l(15 yr) =$177,300/yrActivated Carbon Removal and Replacement =$230,000 (Calgon)

+ $9760 (Chem Waste Management) = $239,760Mercury Removal Waste Disposal = $66,540/yrTotal Operating Cost = 240000 + 7500 + 295500 + 295500 + 88650

+ 177300 + 230000 + 239,760 + 66540 =$1,410,75QLyr

37


39/82

APPENDIX 4 ORIGNAL PROBLEM ASSIGNMENT

38


40/82

Jan. 27, 1992

To: Distribut ionFrom:C. E. Prof

New Treatment Plant for Drain and Run-off WaterThe company has recent ly been c i ted by the s ta te EPA fordischarging several pol lutants from the northwest port ion of ourmanufacturing complex in to the Goodtaste River . At the presentt ime, a l l f loor dra ins from Buildings A and B discharge in to adrainage di tch t ha t runs along the south of both Building A andBuilding B as shown in Figure 1. Since we or ig ina l ly did notexpect any s ign i f i can t pol lutants in the bui ld ings , th i s 'water iscarr ied in an open rock l ined t rench into the r ive r . This t renchpath also receives the near surface flow and surface (storm)water from th is area . The f loor dra ins are del ivered to thet rench by underground pipes , an d cur Environmental ServicesDepartment has been able to monitor the low in each drain pipeas well as the t o t a l t rench flow a t d i f fe ren t points along i t slength . They est imatetrench are as follow. tha t the average flow ra te s in to the

SOURCES OF WATER IN TRENCH X-78Floor Drain (Building A) 35 gpmFloor Drain (BuildIng B ) 15 gpmstorm Drain (around Building A) 20 gpmstorm Drain (around Building B) 10 gpmstorm Drain (around Receive & Ship) 20 gpm

These are average flow ra tes and not instantaneous ra tes . Boththe f loor drains and the storm drains vary cons iderably , but thef loor drain flow over any 24 hour period is essen t ia l ly the sameas the average flow ra te . However, th e storm dra in ra te dependsgreat ly upon the weather condi t ions . The highes t ra te a t thedischarge of the t rench repor ted by Environmental Services was500 gpm, but tha t is believed to be near the capaci ty of thet rench . I f the r a in f a l l is grea ter , much of the addi t ional flow1s believed to flow di rec t ly to the r iver , not through the t renchsystem.The state has agreed to accept our promise to build a treatmentfac i l i ty that will be capable of handling storm drain ra tes up to

. f . . L v . . . ~ _ t i m e s - - t h e - - a . v e r . a ~ . _ J l . o w .. r a t e ~ Thus in times of excessivelyheavy ra ins , we wil l be allowed to l e t storm dra in flow ra te s


41/82

greater than this to by pass treatment and go direct ly to ther ive r .The contaminants of in te res t to the regula tory and the i rconcentrat ions have been monitored by Environmental Services a tthe poin t where the trench discharges into the r ive r . They alsolooked a t other components t ha t may be helpfu l and est imated thatthe average concentrat ions are as fol low.

AVERAGE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONSHg 5 (.2 ) ppmt r ich loroethylene 20 (.2 ) ppm1,1,1 t r ich loroethane 15 (+5) ppmTotal PCBs 20 (.1 ) ppmNa 50 ppmCa 40 ppmglycerol 70 ppmTotal organic carbon 150 (+10}ppm

The s ta te regula tors have asked tha t we bring these concentrat iondown to the following leve ls , and our management has agreed tobuild a fac i l i ty to m e e ~ - t h e s e goals .

AGREED DISCHARGE CONCENTRATION LIMITSHg < 30 p p . ~t r ichloroethylene < 1 ppm1,1,1 trichloroethane < 5 ppmTotal PCBs < ~ . pp&a r, 'Total organic carbon


42/82

-------

ESTIMATED COMPOSITION OF WATERS TO TRENCH X-78Component Floor Floor Storm storm StormDrain Drain Drain Drain Drain

Bldg A Bldg B Bldg A Bldg B R&SHg 10 ppm none 5_-pplIL..._ 1 ppm 2 ppm- - - -_ ..__.

~ : E 5 r;;m 100 2 ppm 30 ppm 5 ppmTeA 5 ppm 80 ppm 1 ppm 20 ppm 5 ppmPCBs \ ....J 50: ppb 10,": l ; l ~ m 10J ppb r ~ p p m 20] ppbNa 10 ppm 10 ppm 90 ppm 90 ppm 90 ppmCa 5 ppm 5 ppm 70 ppm 70 ppm 70 ppmglycerol none 400 ppm none 80 ppm 5 ppmTOC 20 ppm 800 ppm 10 ppm 20 ppm 20 ppm

I t i s apparent from these s tud ies t ha t the so i l surrounding (andposs ib ly under) Buildings A and B and the Receiving and Shippingf a c i l i t i e s have been contaminated, and those po l lu tan t s a re being"picked up" by the surface and near surface storm flows. Aneventual option (perhaps a future requirement) wi l l be toremediate the so i l s within th e plant area . However, managemenhas decided tha t would--be too cos t ly a t the pre sen t t ime becauseo f the dis rupt ion it would cause in the operat ions in Buildings Aand B.Prepare a concept ional design of opt iona l methods (a t l e a s t threeopt ions) for meeting the emission goa ls tha t our management hasagreed upon with the s t a t e , and then proceed with a prel iminarydesign and cos t es t imate fo r one s e t of process opt ions . Fouracres of land are avai lab le j u s t south of the Receiving andShipping fac i l i ty for you to bui ld your discharge water t rea tmentf a c i l i t y . The t rack i s approximately square in shape. You mayuse as much of the land as necessary , but it would be d e s i r a b l eto leave as much land as poss ib le fo r other uses in the fu tu re .You wil l need to include accumulat ion tanks for a t l e a s t ~ hoursto re ta in t rea ted water before it i s re leased . ThiS w i l l al lowacceptable monitoring of the water before re l ease . You w i l l needlonger accumulation fo r untreated water to account for the largevar i a t ion in flow caused by weather condi t ions ( r a in ) . Proposeboth su i t ab le accumulat ion capac i ty and methods for holding theaccumulat ion. For cos t ing the discharge water t r ea tmen tf a c i l i t y , you may value the land used a t $75,OOO/acre, providingt ha t the re i s enough remaining land with a su f f i c i en t ly usefulshape fo r fu ture development.


43/82


44/82

I 0 0 ;"1-'

Building A

100 m

t l...0s..1

Exis t ingWastePlant

I,IIl!iBuilding BliI L o a d i n ~Dock----1--,I iii

!"I I i l I ,0\0 I ~ I\:;:, I -=-- -?- -_ J--

_0, , \ \cv ~ " ' \ d-"o.'.", f _ ~ ( h ' l t \ g , r - - - - - - - I Proposed

New WasteTreatmentFac i l i t y4 o:Cf S -:::. L1.t( 4

~ 1 G l ~Figure 1 Layout of Exlstlng Faci l i t ies and Proposed Treatment Plant

( S Co 0 j f! - APPI"AX,' j'M':;' ftl )

I


45/82

APPENDIX 5 VIEWGRAPH PRESENTATION

44


46/82

SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER PLANT Objective: to build a plant that will treat a maximum of

300 GPM of wastewater.Wastewater Contaminants: Mercury, TCE, TCA, PCBMethod of Mercury Removal: ClarlCone clarifier from CBIWalker, Inc. Uses sulfide precipitation process wI

Na or Mn. Slurry discharge will be collected andremoved every month by Chemical WasteManagement.

Method of Organics Removal: Activated carbon bedsfrom Calgon Carbon Corporation. Three beds willbe used. The first bed Is used for PCB removal, andits spent carbon will be removed by ChemicalWaste Management and replaced by Calgon everysix months. The other two beds are used for TCE,TCA, and other organic carbon removal, and eachbed will be removed and replaced by Calgon everyother month. The wastewater will be tested by GCto determine if the carbon needs to be replacedearlier than these times.

Total Capital Investment: $3,693,750Total Operating Cost: $1,41 O,750/yr

45


47/82

, , , ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -RIVER

23 18

CBl

10DJ HB4 I / PO P7 P6 114I11 ... v 119CH ~ ) O .g

...I .. HE3 12 P5 tCR-O

9

5

4

1 2 Pl P2

d,.. . . . . . . M . . . . . J


48/82

FLOWRATES OF POllUTANTS

STREAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

AowRate 300 300 300 - 300 300 -


49/82


50/82

PROCESS STEPSActivated Carbon Beds 2 & 3 (CB2,3)

Adsorbers supplied by Calgon Carbon Corporation Remove TCE, TCA, OC from wastewater stream Each bed's carbon replaced every other monthby Calgon

Holding Basin 4 (HB4) Holds clean water for release Into the river Adjusts pH to 6-7 if necessary, temperature,adds oxygen with fountain

49


51/82


52/82


53/82

DESCRIPTIONThe Calgon Model 10 Adsorption System has been designed for the removal of soluble organic: chemical contaminant!from water or wastewater using granular activated carbonprod uc ts , The s t e r r . is particularly s'Jitable for applicationswith iow levels of organic contaminants or with flow ratesup to 700 gallons per minute per vessel.The ModeJ 10 unit is a complete water treatment system.skid mounted for ease of installation. and is provided withpiping (or series or l c l operation. The skid feature allowsrapid installation because only the stul skid must be atmched to a foundation. while the adsorption vessels and pipingare {hen attached to their proper location on (he steelframework.The ~ o d e l 10 ~ y s t e m provided with pre-assembled pip-ing sections for influent and treated water. utiIity water andcompressed air ~ 3 r b o n transfer and "'enting operations.\\'ater and utility piping need only be brought to the Model10 and connected to complete the installation of the treatment process.The Model 10 adsorber vessels are ASM coded for 75psi" lined lor corrosion resistance and are desilned to COD-tain 20,000 Ibs of Cal&on Carbon's granular . c t i v a ~ W '.bon. Carbon transfer pipina allows use of Calgon Carbonconvenient carbon service indudina special transfer trailers.At a flow rate of 350 g p m ~ each adsorber provides IS ll1inutescontact time.Your Calgon Carbon Technical Sales R c p r c s e n ~ t i v t canhelp you evaluate the ~ u l t a b i l i t y of the ~ i o d e l 10 to satisfyyour requirements, If needed, adsorption evaluation tests orstudies to detennine applicability and economics can be arranged. Calgon Carbon offers adsorption equipment in manyother Si7,es. and carbon supply and exchange services to meetyour particular needs.FEATURES Proven design-downflow fixed bed adsorption. Pre-engineered package-simple and quick installation. ASME code ves5Cls compatible with Calgon Carbon

Service: VinyJ Ester Resin lined vessels suitable for potable water. Pipe sizes are designed for the flow rate desired. Distributor underdrain (or even d i ~ t r i b u t i o n . Manway for maintenance access. Backwash capability can be added if suspended solids arepresent. D e ~ i l n e d to minimiu operltin. labor and avoid manualhandline of carbon. De$ilned for complete removal of exhausted carbon tominimize problem. with contaminated material remainingin vessel. Capable of bulk carbon fillin, aDd remoYll. ' Granular activated carbon fill and dischaqe pipina.

. ,:--,..~

AVAilABLE AUXILIARY SERVICES Calion Carbon ServiceOPTIONAL OPERATION MODES ' Downftow fixed bed orDowntlow fixed bed with backwash capability. Series or Parallel flow.SPECIFICA TIONSVessel Diameter: 10ASME Code: Design is PSIG @ 1500(hi&her pressure vessel ralin,s availablePipe COMections: Process pipe: Sized per flow rateflanJc wnnection sIdWater pipe: llllinch flangCarbon Volumeper Vessel: 715 cu.ft. (nominal 20.000 lbsgranular activated carbonWeight: EIIlp(Y-38.000 Ibs.Operarina-230.000 IbsPressure Relief: 72 PSIO nominal seuilBackwash Rate: 1000 GPM (if requiredTransfer Mode: Air pressuriUld slurry transfe

TYPICAL FLOW RATES ANDCONTACT TIMEPlrallel Operationerin Operation

ContactontKt Timeime MinutesPMinutesPM16000SO

NOT!! Smeller ~ CMon SeMot ~ - . . . ~for amen.r flow , . . ancIlOwtf ~ UII8IlPPkd0n8


54/82

MAJOR EQUIPMENT COSTING Holding Basins 1-4 (HB1-4) 2 concrete, shop-fabricated, 13500 gal tanks 2 concrete, field-erected, 144000 gal tanks Costed with Walas and converted to 92 $ Total cost of 4 tanks: $87,000Clarlcone Mercury Removal Clarifier (C-MR) Cost from CBI Walker: $140,000Mercury-Removal Waste Storage Tank (MST) Stainless steel, field-erected, 50000 gal tank Costed with Walas and converted to 92 $ Cost of tank: $19,700Activated Carbon Beds 1-3 (CB1-3) Cost from Calgon: $100,000 @ for CB2 and CB3,and $70,000 for CB1

Total cost: $270,000 for 3 adsorbersPumps (P1-10) Each pump: Centrifugal, 1750 rpm, VSC,

stainless steel (to handle 300 gpm through6" 10, Sch.40 pipe) Costed with Walas and converted to 92 $ Cost for 10 pumps: $94,000Carbon Bed Removal and Refill Used carbon will be removed by Calgon and

replaced with fresh carbon Cost from Calgon: $239,760/yr for newcarbon, shipping, tax for 3 carbon beds

53


55/82

COST ESTIMATE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTCAPITAL COSTS(A) Holding Basins 1-4(B) Carbon Beds 1-3(C) Pumps 1-10(D) Mercury Removal Tank

Total =(PE) Purchased Equipment (A-D)(E) Ins t a l l a t ion (=40% PEl(F) Instrumentat ion (=15% PEl(G) Ins ta l l ed Piping (=25% PEl

$ 87,000270,00094,000140,000$591,000

(H) Ins ta l l ed Elec t r i ca l (=10% PEl(I) Building (=10% PEl(J) Land (=4 x $75,000) Total =(DC) Direc t Cost (PE + E-J)(K) Engineering Supervis ion (=25% DC)(L) Contractors (=25% DC)(M) Contingency (=25% FCI) Total =(IDC) Indi rec t Cost (K-M)(FCI)Fixed Capi ta l Investment (DC + IDC)(WC) Working Capi ta l (=20% FCI)I (TCI)Total Capi ta l Investment (FCI + WC)OPERATING COSTS(N) Operators (2 ops @ $30000/yr x 4)(0) Chemicals (HCl, CaO, S)(P) Ut i l i t i e s (=10% FCI)(Q) Maintainance (=10% FCI)(R) Taxes (=3% FCI)(S) Depreciat ion(T) Activated Carbon (CB-l)(U) Activated Carbon (CB-2,3)(V) Mercury Removal Waste DisposalTotal =I (OC) Total Operat ing Cost (N-S)

$ 591,000236,40088,650147,75059,10059,100300,000$1,482,000

$ 1,482,000$ 370,500370,500132jtQQQ$1,473,000

s Ijt413,QQQTota l = $ 2,955,000

138,15QTotal $ 3,693,750

$ 240,000/yr7,500/yr295,500/yr295,500/yr88, 650/yr177,300/yr9,760/yr230,000/yr66jt54Q/yf$1,410,750/yr

$1,410,750Iyr

54


56/82


57/82

SOME FACTORS INFLUENCING ADSORPTION AT CARBON/LIQUID INTERFACE1. Attraction of carbon for solute2. Attraction of carbon for solvent3. Solubilizing power of solvent for solute4. Association5. Ionization6. Effect of solvent on orientation at interface7. Competition for interface in presence of multipJe solutes8. Interactions of multiplt solutes9. Coadsorption 1O. Molecular size of molecules in the system 11. Pore size distribution in carbon12. Surface are of carbon13. Concentration of constituents

INFLUENCE OF MOLECULAR ARCHITECTURE ON ADSORBABILllY1. Aromatic compounds are in general more adsorbable than aliphaticcompounds of similar molecular size2. Branched chain are usually more adsorbable than straight chains3. Influence of substi tute group is modified by position occupied" e.g ..ortho. meta. para4. Stereoisomers show inconsistent pattern5. Optical isomers" dextro and levo" appear to be equally adsorbed


58/82

SULFIDE PRECIPITATION OF MERCURY - Sulfide addition is the most precipitation treatment used- combined with flocculation and separation by gravity settling

improves the removal of precipitated mercury sulfide- do not enhance efficiency of precipitation of soluble mercury- achieves 99.9" removal for high initial mercurl levels- minimum effluent mercury achievable appears to be 10-20 /Lg/l- most effective occurs in the near pH range- efficiency decreases at pH above 9- other drawbacks:1) formation of soluble mercury sulfide complexes at high levels of excesssulfide

2) difficulty of monitoring excess sulfide levels 3) possible toxic sulfide residual in the treated effluent - using sodium sulfide addition plus filtration (settling) . costs are SO.50/1 000 gal(1973)- capital cost for treatment system (1973) is $959.33/1 000 gpd capacity


59/82

.. - - . - .... _. - - - - -... - - - - - - - - -- -- - --.----- ---.---+--_.- -------------.

,:10:" - .


60/82


61/82

Free Press and Fair Trial:A Legal and Ethical Dilemma

Tennessee Scholars Senior Project1992

Bryan Litfin


62/82

Outline

I. IntroductionII. The Issue

A. What is at stake?1. Clash of amendments2. What to print?3. Confessions

B. The journalist's perspective: free press1. Roots of press freedom2. Why information should be accessible

C. The lawyer's perspective: fair trial1. Roots of fair trial2. Safeguards for an unbiased jury3. Responsibility for justice

D. Summary of the issueIII. The Legal AspectA. Prejudicial publicity

1. Definition2. Important casesB. Gag orders

1. Definition2. Important casesC. Contempt rulingsD. Closing the courtroom

1. Definition2. Important casesE. Summary


63/82

IV. The Ethical AspectA. Some recent recommendations1. From the legal community

a. The Reardon reporth. The Kaufman report2. From press-hench-har organizations

B. Some ethical frameworks1. Moral relativism2. Natural law3 . Utilitarianism4. Religious ethics

C. A ProposalV. Conclusion


64/82


65/82

the Sixth amendments. One author asks, "At what point does anaccused person's right to a fair, 'speedy and public trial,' protected bythe Sixth Amendment supersede the right of the American public,and the press as the public's representatives, to be fully informedunder the guarantees of the First Amendment?" 2

Specifically, the question is twofold: what information does thepaper publish and when does it publish it? 3 One study found 98percent of papers will publish the person's name and the charge he ISfaced with. 4 From there, in order of increasing reluctance to publishare: details of arrest (13 percent withheld the information); criminalrecord (50 percent withheld); statements by the accused (64percent); witness testimony (65 percent); and guilty plea bargaining(74 percent). After the newspaper has decided what to publish, itmust also decide if it will release the information before, during orafter th e trial.

Another important type of information is confessions made bythe accused. In the case of Rideau v. Louisiana (which will be morefully discussed later in the paper), the defendant was interrogated oncamera by the sheriff, and he confessed to bank robbery, kidnappingand murder. The interrogation subsequently aired on local TV,causing Rideau's attorneys to claim their client's right to a fair trialwas jeopardized. Newspapers must weigh the effects of publicizingsuch confessions, for they are particularly likely to prejudice thepublic.

It should be noted that the free press/ fair trial issue involvestwo communities, and one is partial to a free press while the other isconcerned primarily with a fair trial. 5 From the journalist's point of

2


66/82

View, a free press is a vital part of society, and rarely (i f ever) shouldthis right to print be abrogated. Of course, a free press is alsoimportant to lawyers and judges, just as reporters value a fair trial;but each community has its soap box, and feels "their" amendment ismore crucial.

Journalists can claim a long history of press freedom in thiscountry. Those who shaped the Constitution and its underlyingvalues held to the Miltonian principle that all ideas should beallowed to enter the public forum. Various cases through legalhistory have again and again supported the right of the press (andby implication, other media) to print without fear of prior restraintor punishment. As Donald M. Gillmor, author of Free Press and FairTrial, notes: "Freedom of speech and press as social rights are thekeystone of an open society, the freedoms that best guaranteeagainst the destruction of all other rights." 6

There are at least three reasons why the journalist believeswhat goes on in the courtroom should be information to which theyhave access. First, the reporter usually affirms the concept of anygovernment or official proceeding as being pUblic. To further thisidea, journalists and their interest groups have supported "sunshinelaws." These regulations require such "official" meetings to be open,whether to the press or the public in general. In the same vein, thefederal Freedom of Information Act has also allowed journalistsaccess to government documents.

Second, one nlay say that journalists often feel they are on analtruistic mission to serve the public. They often speak of thepublic's "right to know" certain kinds of information. 7 Since society

3


67/82

is so large and diversified, it would be impossible for every citizen toattend every sort of government function. Thus, the press must bethe public's eyes and ears to maintain a well-informed populace.With such a responsibility on its shoulders, the press affirms its rightof access to courtroom proceedings.

A third reason is perhaps less noble. Very often, the publicloves to hear the details of sensational crimes and theiraccompanying trials, and the newspapers realize covering such trialsis good for business. One only has to look at the recent rash ofsensationalized trials, from Noriega to Dahmer to Kennedy-Smith toTyson, to see this phenomenon. The public has an interest in suchtrials in particular (as to why, this writer will not speculate), andnewspaper coverage can generate reader interest. In a time ofincreased media competition, this can be vital to newspapers,although some editors may wish it were otherwise.

The legal community, on the other hand, sees achieving justicethrough a fair and speedy system of trial and appeals courts as theirprimary concern. They too can claim a long history of striving fortheir noble cause. Gillmor notes that when the colonists came to thiscountry, they brought with them the concept or trial by jury. Hewrites: "The Sixth Amendment guarantees to all persons accused of acrime a trial by an impartial jury, which, by implication, reaches itsverdict solely upon the facts submitted to it by the court." 8 In otherwords, the United States has always been committed (at least intheory) to the concept of a fair trial.

Lawyers and judges, in their concern for the rights of theindividual, have instituted several safeguards to ensure that the jury

4


68/82

will not be biased. 9 Prior convictions are not told to the jury. Thejurors are instructed not to discuss the case among themselves. Thedefendant has the right not to incriminate himself. Hearsay is notpermitted in the courtroom, and only those who touched orparticipated in the events are allowed to function as witnesses. Suchprovisions as these assure, at least to some degree, that the jury ofone's peers before which one is tried will not make its decision basedon anything but the facts of the case.

Those in the legal profession feel the weight of responsibility tothe public in the same way as journalists. Their responsibility,however, is not the "public's right to know" but rather the"individual's right to justice." The American Bar Association asserts"that the primary burden for ensuring fair trial rests on the legalbranch and the agencies which serve and minister to it," and to someextent "the streams of justice which should be clear are made less soby the news media, whose task it is to keep the people informed." 1 0

So it is that one must see the issue of fair trial and free press astwo conflicting concepts, each of which is a high value. As SamRagan, a former APME president notes, "the two are not arrayedagainst each other. They are not incompatible, for there cannot be afair trial without a free press." 11 And yet the two, while not alwaysbeing mutually exclusive, do come into conflict many times in actualpractice. The conflict is perhaps inherent in the U.S. Constitution.Herein lies the heart of the matter. When faced with two concepts,both highly valued in society, where does one draw some lines? Asshall be demonstrated, the question poses both legal and ethicaldilemmas for all involved.

5


69/82

The legal aspect of the issue of pretrial publicity involves caselaw for the most part, especially three major cases: Irvin v. Dowd,Rideau v. Louisiana, and Sheppard v. Maxwell. These will bediscussed in turn. A fourth case, Estes v. Texas, will also bementioned because of its significance, but it deals with the issue ofcameras in the courtroom so it will not be given extensive treatment.

The ABA lists six factors in what may be considered a gooddefinition of pretrial publicity with the ability to cause prejudice. 1 2They are (1) criminal records of the defendant or opinions on hischaracter; (2) a confession by the defendant; (3) the results of anytest (Le., a lie-detector) or the defendant's refusal to take a test; (4)the identity, testimony or credibility of a witness; (5) the possibilityof a guilty plea; and (6) opinions as to guilt or innocence orstatements about the merits of the case or its evidence. The ABAbegan forming such definitions and guidelines in the wake of thesensationalism surrounding the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald and thecases mentioned above, the first of which was Irvin v. Dowd.

In 1954 and '55, SIX murders took place near Evansville,Indiana; and in April of 1955 Leslie Irvin was arrested on charges ofburglary and bad check writing. Soon after his arrest, however, thepolice got from him a confession to the murders, and they issued thisinformation to the public in a press release. Calling him "Mad Dog"Irvin, the news media unleashed a torrent of publicity about thecase. Irvin's previous criminal record was published, and he wasdescribed as a "confessed slayer of six." 13

Irvin's attorney requested a change of venue, and his requestwas granted -- the trial was simply moved to the county next door.

6


70/82

When voir dire proceedings began, 370 of 430 prospective jurorssaid they believed Irvin was guilty. 14 Irvin, as one might guess, wasconvicted, but he appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court.The high court overturned the conviction, thus marking the first timethat pretrial publicity was determined to have prevented a fair trialfrom being obtained. 15

The 1963 case Rideau v. Louisiana was the next step in layingthe legal foundation of prejudicial publicity. This time, televisionwas the culprit, but the principles were the same. Wilbert Rideauwas arrested shortly after a bank was robbed, and while being heldin jai l he was interviewed on camera by the sheriff. The interview,during which Rideau confessed to the crime, was given to a localtelevision station which ran it several times.

Because many people in the area saw the telecast, theattorneys, as in Irvin, requested a change of venue. The request,however, was denied, and Rideau was convicted. Appealing his caseto the Supreme Court, he was able to have his conviction overturnedon grounds of unfair pretrial publicity. The Court ruled that"prejudice generated in this way (by televising the "interview") byan official is so conclusive that change of venue and continuance oftrial are automatic. No amount of care in jury selection could curethe prejudice." 16

The third major case in the free press/ fair trial debate isprobably most important. In 1953, Marilyn Sheppard, the pregnantwife of Dr. Sam Sheppard, was found bludgeoned to death in herhome in Cleveland, Ohio. Police immediately suspected Dr. Sheppard,especially after a somewhat inconsistent story of a "bushy-haired"

7


71/82


72/82

Each will be discussed in turn, with a brief summary of the relevantcase law.

One of the most dubious It safeguards It for a fair trial that hasbeen used is the so-called "gag order." During the late 1960s andearly 1970s, judges increasingly began issuing restrictive orderspreventing the news media from releasing to the public informationconsidered "extrajudicial. It Often, the only information consideredpublishable was the most basic facts of the case such as the person'sname, the circumstances of the arrest, the charge against him, etc.As might be expected, this trend was met with alarm fromjournalists, who called it a form of prior restraint. 1 9

Several case are important here. U.S. v. Dickinson first found ajudge's gag order unconstitutional, but the reporters involved werenevertheless required to pay the fines they had been assessed.However, in the case of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, thepress won a big victory. The Supreme Court ruled that because ofthe N ear proscription against prior restraint, gag orders werepresumed to have a heavy weight against them as to theirconstitutionality. In 1984, however, the pendulum swung the otherway somewhat as the Court upheld a gag order in Seattle Times v.Rhinehart.

A second issue, one quite related, is that of the court'scontempt power. A judge has the power to rule a person (withoutany sort of trial) in contempt if he violates a court order such as a" gag order." 20 This sort of contempt should be differentiated fromanother form of contempt not discussed here, that of a journalist'srefusal to testify or to reveal sources. The contempt resulting from

9


73/82

disobedience of an order may be civil or criminal, and in the case ofjournalist's violation of a gag order in a criminal trial, the offensewould be a criminal one. A jail term would normally last for thetime the court is in session.

A third issue concerns the closing of the courtroom to the newsmedia. Obviously, this solution is repugnant to most members of thepress. One author states that "closure of the criminal courtroom is adrastic remedy even in the face of the accused's clear right under theSixth Amendment to a fair and public trial. Closure flies squarely inthe face of the democratic precepts under the First Amendment .. " 2 1While most people might agree that a courtroom should not beclosed, there is more debate over the idea of closing pretrial hearingsthat are not part of the actual trial.

Two cases are of prime importance here. First, Gannett v.DePasquale determined in 1979 that the press has no right to attendpretrial hearings. The case outraged journalists, who felt that sincemany decisions are made in such hearings, the public has a right toknow about them. Subsequent cases have largely overturned thisruling. A second important case was the 1980 decision in RichmondNewspapers v. Virginia. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that,while the press may not always have the right to cover pretrialhearings, they do have a constitutional right to cover the trialsthemselves. 22

One can therefore see how various cases over the past fourdecades have shaped the law of the free press! fair trial debate. Thejournalist has won victories in some places and suffered setbacks inothers. Pretrial publicity has been determined to be a definite cause

10


74/82

at times for unfair trials. Gag orders and contempt rulings have beenused to curb the media, although this is much less true today.Courtrooms are open to reporters, but pretrial hearings may still bequestionable. These methods of trying to balance free press and fairtrial considerations fall into the realm of law. But, the issue mustalso be addressed from the ethical standpoint.

There is no real agreement among journalists and lawyersabout what is ethically required of each. Of course, both realize theymust do nothing to jeopardize the fairness of the trial orsignificantly compromise the freedom of the press. However, theseare abstract goals, and the question remains of how these ideas areplayed out in concrete terms.

In the legal community, the so-called Reardon report, adoptedin 1968 by the American Bar Association, is of major importance.Soon after it, a report that came to be called the Kaufman report waspublished in response to Sheppard by the Committee on theOperation of the Jury System, part of the Judicial Conference of theUnited States.23 The two reports are in places identical; but, unlikethe Kaufman report, the Reardon report had some extra provisionsthat warrant study. First, however, will come a brief summary of theareas where the reports are in agreement.

Concerning attorneys, the Reardon report concluded, "It is theduty of the lawyer not to release or authorize the release ofinformation or opinion ... in connection with pending or imminentcriminal litigation ... if there is a reasonable likelihood that suchdissemination will interfere with a fair trial." 24 Basically, theattorney is being told it is his ethical obligation to reveal absolutely

11
http:///reader/full/States.23http:///reader/full/States.23http:///reader/full/States.23


75/82

nothing to the media that might jeopardize the trial. This conclusionwas reached also for courthouse personnel involved in a potentiallyunfair trial.

However, whereas the Kaufman report states, "The Committeedoes not presently recommend any direct curb or restraint onpublication by the press of potentially prejudicial material," 25 theReardon report is not so kind. One of the things it recommends is forcourts to adopt a rule giving the defendant the right to make amotion excluding the public, including members of the press, fromany pretrial hearing in a crinlinal case. As has been noted above,this right was upheld in the case of Gannett v. DePasquale, butsubsequent cases have weakened this provision.

Another scary recommendation in the Reardon report is forquite extensive use of the court's contempt power. Although thereport calls for "considerable caution," it also says the contemptpower should definitely be used in certain circumstances. 26 Thesecircumstances include a reporter's release of any "extrajudicialstatement" beyond what is in the public record or his violation of a"gag order" imposed by the judge. The Reardon report, then, iswilling to lay down some strict ethical guidelines to ensure a fairtrial, and will back up any violations of these ethics withpunishment.

Press-Bench-Bar organizations have also tried to put forthsome ethical guidelines concerning the free pressl fair trial dilemma.Many states have such organizations, and different ones have oftensuggested different ideas. This paper will examine one in particular,from the state of Washington, as a representative example.

12


76/82

The Washington statement reaffirms some important principlesthat undergird its proposals. 27 First, it says the news media havenot only the right but the responsibility to report what goes on in thecourtroom; likewise, the parties to a trial have the right to animpartial jury. An important principle, the report states, is that "allnews media should strive for objectivity and accuracy," andreporters must recognize the "responsibility of the judge to preserveorder in the court and to seek the ends of justice." Editors have thefinal say in handling the news, but should recall that a person isinnocent until proven guilty, that readers are potential jurors, andthat no person's reputation should be needlessly injured.

The Washington statement also provides some specificguidelines for courtroom reporting. Certain types of information,such as confessions, prior convictions or witness opinions, areparticularly prone to causing prejudice, and the reporter or editormust weigh this when making a news decision. (However, unlikethe Reardon report, here there is no threat of contempt hanging overthe journalist's head!) The statement further says journalists shouldbe allowed to photograph the defendant outside the courthouse, andare free to report on the proceedings of the trial. Sensationalismshould be avoided at all costs, and of course, it is improper to try andinfluence the outcome of the case.

When attempting to reach an ethical decision in a situation ascomplicated as this one, it may help to follow the particular ethicalframework that seems to best address the issue. The study of ethicshas a long history, and many different systems have been proposed.This paper will examine four.

13


77/82

Under moral relativism, right or wrong will depend oncircumstances. 28 In the "individual form," all moral judgements mustbe made based on personal inclination. However, this system cannotprovide a rule for behavior that is universally applicable. It wouldseem the journalist cannot look to this framework in making ethicaldecisions.

The system of natural law is similar in that it is also lacking inuniversal application. Of course, this is not supposed to be the case;"natural law" by definition is a rule or guideline that will always betrue. However, since natural law principles are not derived fromanything other than "what is natural," there is little agreementamong people as to what is naturally true.

Under a framework of utilitarianism, concrete decisions can bemade by choosing that which furthers human welfare the most.Pleasure is to be maximized in society. 29 However, one must ask ifit was perhaps this principle that guided the papers of the yellowjournalism era in their efforts to titillate their audiences. The recentrash of sensationalized sex crimes trials must also make oneskeptical. Perhaps maximizing the reader's pleasure is not the bestcourse, for this may preclude responsible journalism.

A fourth system has dominated the history of Western societyand may be most helpful in making ethical decisions. A religiousethic that values one's fellow man, as is particularly seen in theJudeo-Christian tradition, may be a good one to follow. This ethicdeclares, in the words of Jesus, "You must love your neighbor asyourself. " One writer correctly notes that "this was expressed in a

14


78/82

concern for social justice." 35 The religious ethic puts higher value onthe worth of the individual than on society as a body.

The journalist should keep such an ethic in mind when doingcourtroom reporting. He does indeed have a responsibility to reportthe news to society. However, when there is a clear and directmutual exclusiveness between reporting something and injuring thefair trial, achieving justice for the individual is a higher value. Inalmost every way, the journalist should intrepidly report on the illsof society to the public. However, when this will damage anindividua1's right to justice, the reporter should defer to theindividual. Censorship and gag orders are not the key. The onlyanswer can come from an ethically-minded journalist.

This paper has tried to demonstrate the complexity of the freepress/ fair trial debate. It has also sought to show the importance ofboth the legal and the ethical aspects of the issue. There are certainlegal limits that bind the reporter, and he must try to live withinthem. However, it is perhaps in the realm of responsible ethics thatthe most advances can be made in solving this historically intricateconfrontation between the First and Sixth amendments.

15


79/82

End Notes

1The Associated Press Managing Editors Association, APME RedBook (New York: The Associated Press, 1965), p.121.

2Julian Adams, Freedom and Ethics in the Press (New York:Richards Rosen Press, 1983), p. 65.3J. Edward Gerald, News of Crime: Courts and Press in Conflict(Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1983), p. 5.4Stuart S. Nagel and Marian G. Neef, Legal Policy Analysis(Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath, 1977), p. 284.5 ABA Standards, Fair Trial and Free Press, preamble (1968).6Donald M. Gillmor, Free Press and Fair Trial (Washington, D.C.:Public Affairs Press, 1966), p. 86.7Adams, Freedom and Ethics, p. 33-34.8Gillmor, Free Press, p. 87.9Gerald , News of Crime, p. 46.10ABA Standards, Fair Trial and Free Press, preamble (1968).11APME Red Book. 1965, p. 130.12J. Edward Gerald, "Prejudicial Publicity," Guide to AmericanLaw, 8th ed., VIII, 257 -258.13Gillmor, Free Press, p. 11.14Ibid, p. 9.15Harold L. Nelson, Dwight L. Teeter and Don R. Le Duc, Law ofMass Communications (Westbury, N.Y.: The Foundation Press, 1989),

p. 473.


80/82

16Gerald, News of Crime, p. 68. 17 "Sam Sheppard," Guide to American Law, 1984, VIII, 246. 18Ibid. 19APME Red Book, 1974, p. 49-50. 20"Contempt," Guide to American Law, 1984, III, 237. 21Warren Freedman, Press and Media Access to the Criminal

Courtroom (New York: Quorum Books, 1988), p. 31.22Nelson, et. aI., Law of Mass Communications, p. 517.23U.S. v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496 (5th cir. 1972).24ABA Standards, Fair Trial and Free Press, sec. 1.1 (1968).25Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Jury Systemon the "Free Press-Fair Trial" Issue 45 F.R.D. 391, p. 401.26ABA Standards, Fair Trial and Free Press, sec. 4.1 (1968).

27Fred S. Siebert, Walter Wilcox and George Hough III, FreePress and Fair Trial (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1970),p. 125-126.28Robert N. Van Wyk, Introduction to Ethics (New York: St.Martin's Press, 1990), p. 15.29Ibid, p. 100.30Ibid, p. 35.


81/82

Bibl iography

Adams, Julian. Freedom and Ethics In the Press. New York: RichardRosen Press, 1983.American Bar Association. Standards Relating to the Administration

of Criminal Justice. Compilation, 1974.Associated Press. APME Red Book. New York: The Associated Press,

1965.Associated Press. APME Red Book. New York: The Associated Press,

1974."Contempt." Guide to American Law. 1984. Vol. III.Freedman, Warren. Press and Media Access to the Criminal

Courtroom. New York: Quorum Books, 1988.Gerald, J. Edward. News of Crime: Courts and Press in Conflict.Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1983.Gerald, J. Edward. "Prejudicial Publicity." Guide to American Law.8th ed. Vol. VIII.Gillmor, Donald M. Free Press and Fair Trial. Washington, D.C.:Public Affairs Press, 1966.Judicial Conference of the United States (Committee on theOperation of the Jury System) Report on the "Free Press - Fair

Trial" Issue. 45 F.R.D. 391, 1968.Nagel, Stuart S. and Neef, Marian G. Legal Policy Analysis. Lexington,Mass: D.C. Heath, 1977.


82/82

\

Nelson, Harold R.; Teeter, Dwight L.; and Le Duc, Don R. Law of MassCommunications: Freedom and Control of Print and BroadcastMedia. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1989.

"Sam Sheppard." Guide to American Law. 1984. Vol. IX.Siebert, Fred S.; Wilcox, Walter; and Hough, George. Free Press andFair Trial: Some Dimensions of the Problem. Athens, Ga.:University of Georgia Press, 1970.U.S. v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496 (5th cir. 1972).Van Wyk, Robert N. Introduction to Ethics. New York: St. Martin'sPress, 1990.

wastewater treatment plant che 490 design project

Documents