Water Treatment Design Proposal Group A Engineering March 14, 2016

Water Treatment Design Proposal
Group A Engineering
March 14, 2016

Francisco Mier y Teran, Adam Richardson, Breeana Rimbach, Haowen Yue

Group A Engineering
Water Treatment Design Project
Dr. Catalina MarambioJones
C&EE 157B: Design of Water Treatment Plants
Boelter 5422
Los Angeles, CA 90024

Subject: Water Treatment Plant Design
New “Greenfield” Water Treatment Plant
Anytown, USA

Dear Dr. Catalina MarambioJones,

In response to the Master Planning effort in your town of Anytown, USA, the design team of
Group A Engineering has designed a surface water treatment plant submitted to you in the following
report. Our design has met each of the requirements put forth by the federal drinking water regulations
and has complied with local water quality goals using the Brown River as its influent water source.
The attached report will summarize our findings for the proposed water treatment plant in
Anytown, USA, including the following items: I. Project Objective, II. Summary of the Source Water
Quality, III. Goals for Treated Water and Regulatory Requirements, IV. Alternative Treatment Process
Evaluations, V. Proposed Design, and VI. Calculations.
Thank you for this opportunity to work with the town of Anytown on this project. Please contact
us if you have any questions or concerns regarding this project proposal.

Sincerely,
Francisco Mier y Teran Adam Richardson Breeana Rimbach Haowen Yue

2

Group A Engineering
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary

II. Introduction (Project Objective)

III. Source Water Quality Summary

IV. Regulatory Requirements and Treated Water Goals

V. Evaluation of Alternative Treatment Processes

VI. Proposed Design
A. Selected Processes
B. Treatment Schematic
1. Site Layout
2. Process Flow Diagram
C. Hydraulic Grade Line
D. Compliance with Sustainability Objectives

VII. References

VIII. Appendix
A. Source Water Quality
B. Water Regulations
C. Calculations
D. Model 2.0 Outputs
E. CT Spreadsheet
F. RTW Spreadsheet

3

Group A Engineering

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This design report of a water treatment plant addresses the necessities for Anytown, USA in
anticipation of projected population growth as part of the Master Planning Effort.
Group A Engineering implemented simple and effective treatment processes to provide all
citizens of Anytown access to clean water. This plant design complies with all federal and local
regulations for clean water MCLs. The plant’s specifications were modeled with WTP 2.0 according to
the available information from studies on the quality and characteristics of the Brown River water. Many
treatment processes were evaluated and analysed for optimal implementation given the guidelines and
characteristics of the water source (Brown River). Our plant’s simple and efficient design was constructed
with financial restrictions and minimal recycling goals in mind as requested by the citizens of Anytown,
USA.
The treatment process begins with the influent water from the Brown River at an elevation of
1035 ft. The water is first moved into presedimentation tanks. These were designed in efforts to reduce
stress on the plant during the summer storms when the turbidity levels have been recorded to reach 500
NTU. From this the water flows into the rapid mix/coagulation tanks where we pump alum (Al[SO
2 ]
4 ) as
3
a the coagulation agent. After this it will pass through 5 trains for flocculation and later will be left to
settle in one of eight basins for sedimentation. After it has settled, the water will pass through filtration
process and the backwash will enter the plant again. Once it is clean the water will be sent to clearwell
tanks for further contact time with our disinfectant and to later enter the distribution center to exit the
plant and into Anytown. Our calculations and models show that this design is an acceptable response to
the needs and requirements of Anytown and those set by federal and local regulations.

4

Group A Engineering

II. INTRODUCTION

The water treatment plant presented in this report has been designed in accordance to the
objectives of Anytown’s Master Planning effort, and has been rigorously tested to ensure that it meets
state and federal requirements for disinfecting the water and minimizing the formation of disinfection
byproducts. The final design to accomplish these goals constitutes: presedimentation, rapid mix /
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, clearwell storage, and distribution. We here at Group
A Engineering pride our design for its efficiency, simplicity, and robustness, in order to provide Anytown
with the water it needs.

III. SOURCE WATER QUALITY

The source water for this project is considered an “impaired source,” which under the State
Department of Public Health means that the Brown River does not meet one or more waterquality
standards and as a result is too polluted for its intended use of finished water. The Brown River contains
a high concentration of Cryptosporidium and other pathogens, including Giardia. The river also
fluctuates heavily in turbidity values, ranging from the average value of 5 NTU to 500 NTU after summer
thunderstorms. The water from this river shows high quality in regards to TDS and hardness, moderate
levels of TOC, but high levels of bromide. Overall, the source water for this treatment plant has not had
significant taste or odor issues in the past 30 years. The tables in Appendix I summarize the water quality
from the Brown River, as well as the pathogen information from this source.

5

Group A Engineering

IV. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND TREATED WATER GOALS

In 1974, President Ford enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which implemented
regulations regarding primary drinking water health concerns and secondary drink water aesthetic
concerns. These regulations set a balance between health and cost for treating water, setting maximum
contaminant levels (MCL’s), which should eliminate the problems from taste, odor, and color from
consumers. An additional regulation was enforced by the SDWA, creating an MCL of 100 ppb for total
trihalomethanes (TTHM). The Surface Water Treatment Rule was then applied in 1989 to surface water
sources used in public water systems. The most important guideline set forth by this rule was the MCL
for viruses, bacteria, Giardia, and Legionella.
In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency established a rule to control the lead and copper in
drinking water aptly named the Lead and Copper Rule. The concentrations must be measured at the taps
of the pipe systems. This rule stipulates that the MCL for lead is 0.015 mg/L and 1.3 mg/L for copper.
There are two stages for disinfectant and disinfection byproducts rules. The Stage 1 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR) limits the exposure of drinking water to disinfection byproducts.
The Stage 2 DBPR makes monitoring more strict for Trihalomethanes (TTHM) and Haloacetic acids
(HAA5).
In this case, as well as the regulations put forth above, the State Department of Public Health has
also required the treatment plant to achieve a total Cryptosporidium inactivation/removal of 3.0 logs,
Giardia inactivation/removal of 4.0 logs, and virus inactivation/removal of 5.0 logs. The state has set a
2
maximum filtration rate of 6 gpm/ft with one filter out of service for backwash, without any radically
new treatment options. The tables in Appendix I show the compliance regulations put forth by the state
and obtained by this treatment plant design.

6

Group A Engineering

V. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESSES

Reverse Osmosis:

Reverse osmosis is a membrane process that separates dissolved solutes from water by
differences in solubility and diffusivity through the membrane material. Only pure water can go through
the membrane and the solids exit the system through a waste stream. The influent raw water at this
location has a total dissolved solids (TDS) of 43 mg/L and a total hardness of 25 mg/L. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to apply reverse osmosis in the treatment process. We have to increase the hardness of the
treated water before water enters the distribution system. Additionally, reverse osmosis system is far more
expensive and complicated for our water treatment plant design. Consequently, reverse osmosis is not a
viable option for alternative treatment process.
Ion Exchange:

Ion exchange is a process in which ions attached to a stationary functional group exchange for
ions in a solution. Ions are exchanged on an equivalence basis (MWH’s Water Treatment Principles and
Design, p1264). Ion exchange can be applied to water for softening the removal of calcium and
magnesium ions. However, as is mentioned above, the raw water influent has a low TDS and total
hardness. So ion exchange is not suitable for our design.
Powdered Activated Carbon:

Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC), with a mean particle size about 24 μm, can be added to water
at various locations in the water treatment process to provide time for adsorption to take place and then
remove the PAC by sedimentation and / or filtration. (MWH’s Water Treatment Principles and Design,
p1159). PAC is effective in removing organic constituents and tasteand odorcausing compounds (EPA).
In this report, the influent maximum Geosmin is 2 ng/L while the maximum MIB is 4 ng/L, which is quite
low since the average detectable level for ordinary people is around 10 ng/L. The odor problem is not a
7

Group A Engineering
primary concern in this situation. Considering the cost of adding PAC in the system, we do not apply
PAC into the treatment system. However, PAC may later be included in the system to ensure a very low
level of geosmin and MIB, if those problems arise.
UV Disinfection:

Ultraviolet light refers to electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength between 100 and 400
nm. (MWH’s Water Treatment Principles and Design, p991). By transforming the DNA of pathogens,
UV light can inactivate those pathogens. UV disinfection could be applied after conventional water
treatment process (Rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration). Despite its efficiency, UV treatment
requires special facilities with high energy needs operated by skilled laborers and thus represents a large
initial financial investment for the plant’s construction and managerial budget. Therefore, we choose a
traditional disinfectant like free chlorine to achieve the removal of certain pathogens instead of UV
disinfection.
Ozone Disinfection:

The major advantage of ozone disinfection is that it does not produce significant downstream
residuals. One downside of ozone disinfection is its tendency to react with bromide to produce bromate, a
known carcinogen. Therefore, when considering the inclusion of ozone in Anytown’s water treatment
plant design, the raw water quality from the Brown River was taken into account. Due to the Brown
River’s high bromide concentration (200 ug/L), the addition of ozone as a disinfectant was rejected.

8

Group A Engineering

VI. PROPOSED DESIGN

A. Selected Processes

We have selected a water treatment system that utilizes presedimentation, rapid mix,
flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection, with appropriate chemical feeds and residual
treatment processes.
PreSedimentation:
Influent water will be brought in through a lowvelocity rack and screen, to prevent anything
living from getting caught and stuck to the inlet. The water will then flow to the presedimentation
process. The presedimentation system has 3 basins, with a designed settling velocity of 0.0069 m/sec
(corresponding to particles greater than 0.1 mm in diameter). These tanks have dimensions of 3 m wet
2
depths (5 m total depths), 5.84 m widths, and 38.04 m lengths, thus the crosssection per tank is 17.53 m.
The sludge removal will be processed by a traveling bridge design that spans each basin. The rate of
operation of the traveling bridges can be adjusted based on how much sludge is being collected by this
presedimentation system, based on the influent water quality and physical observations. A lower rate of
operation is expected most of the time, with higher operations during periods of high turbidity.
Presedimentation basins. ‘Total’ dimensions shown.
9

Group A Engineering
Rapid Mix:
The rapid mix system is the process of injecting and mixing the coagulant into the influent flow.
3
The coagulation turbine mixer has a detention time of 5 seconds, having a total volume of 13.15 m, with
1
diameter of 1 m and length of 4.19 m. A 27 hp motor is needed to attain a G = 1000 s , including an 80%
efficiency factor. A second setup of the exact same capacity will also be constructed, allowing the flow to
be directed to either system, so that maintenance can be performed without interrupting the flow of water
to the rest of the plant.The coagulant, alum, will be injected at this step, right before the turbine blades.
Original image courtesy of “Flocculation and Coagulation.” Image not to scale.
10

Group A Engineering
Flocculation :
From the rapid mix step, the alumdoped water now passes to the flocculation process. A series of
closeable pipes will be used to evenly and quickly distribute this influent to the flocculation basins. The
flocculation process uses vertical turbines to agitate the influent, with a total detention time of 2400
3
seconds, through 5 trains of 4 basins per train. Each basin has a wet volume of 315.6 m, with side
lengths of 6.8 m arranged in a square shape. An additional 2 m of dry wall will be added to the depth,
bringing the total depth of each basin to 8.8m The impeller in each basin is composed of a hydrofoil with
a diameter of 3.46 m,and is raised 2.7 m off of the bottom of the tank. Perforated baffles will be
constructed to separate each turbine in a train.
Sample flocculation basin. ‘Wet’ dimensions shown.
11

Group A Engineering
Sedimentation:
2
For sedimentation, we have determined that there should be 8 basins with areas of 901.7 m each,
with one out of operation at any given time. The basins have dimensions of 15 m wide, 60.1 m long, and
wet depths of 4 m. An additional 2 m of dry depth should be added, bringing the total depths to 6 m.
Each basin has a detention time of 1317 seconds (approximately 4 hours at average flow rate). The sludge
in each basin will be collected by a travelingbridge system, with each basin having an individual bridge
in order to simplify maintenance and repair. The resulting sludge will be drawn off by a simple pump and
sent to the lagoons for dewatering. A diffuser wall will be used to distribute the flow from the flocculation
trains into the sedimentations basins, using a tapered inlet system that collects flow from all the
flocculation trains and carries it to the sedimentation basins. The water will be collected at the end of each
basin by inboard effluent launders.
Side view of a sedimentation basin with travelling bridge sludge collector.
Original image courtesy of “Rectangular Sedimentation…” Image not to scale.
12

Group A Engineering
Dual Media Filtration:
The next portion of the treatment process contains 10 conventional dualmedia filtration systems,
with one out of service at all times for backwashing. The design filtration rate was determined to be 15
m/hr, correlating to filter dimensions of 5 m wide and 14.03 m long. The dual media filter contains a 0.3
m depth of gravel base for support, then 0.3 m of sand (d= 0.55 mm) and a 1.0 m of anthracite (d= 1 mm)
for filtration. The necessary water above these depths is determined to be 2.4 m. Allowing for 2 m of dry
wall above the water surface, that brings the total depth to 6 m (of which 4 m is wet). Cleaning the filter
media will be accomplished with backwashing at a flow rate of 50 m/h, air scouring at 50 m/h, and a
rotating singlearm surface wash at 1.5 m/h at 550 kPa. The backwashwastewater troughs will be set 2 m
from the surface of the anthracite (2.4 m below the top of the filtration tank), to provide plenty of space
for fluidized bed expansion and particulate separation. This will minimize media loss from backwashing.
Cross section of dualmedia sandanthracite filter.
Original image courtesy of “Rapid Sand Filtration.” Image not to scale
13

Group A Engineering
Disinfectant:
The disinfectant we chose to use in this process is chlorine. Chlorine is a traditional disinfectant,
which is effective to remove ammonia and virus. Given the fact that the raw water has a very high
concentration of E. Coli and cryptosporidium, we choose chlorine as the main disinfectant. The
chlorine(gas) is added right before rapid mix. According to the results from Model 2.0 and CT
calculation, the chlorine can be added only once. There is no need for a second disinfection segment since
the primary goal of disinfection can be achieved with only one disinfection segment. The concentration of
AmmoniaN in raw water is 0.01 mg/L. Thus, 0.0761 mg Cl2/L is required to remove all the Ammonia.
However, the dose of free chlorine should be increased to achieve a total Cryptosporidium removal of 3.0
logs, Giardia removal of 4.0 logs and virus removal of 5.0 logs.
The final dose of free chlorine is 2.1 mg Cl2/L under the temperature of 25°C. The required TOC
removal is 45%. Alum is added into the system to achieve TOC removal,reduce the concentration of
DBPs and adjust the pH. After a few trials, the appropriate dose of alum was determined to be 120 mg/L.
As is mentioned before, in order to achieve the TOC removal of 45% and reduce DBPs, the dose of alum
seems a little high, but it is still acceptable. Based on Model 2.0, the TOC removal achieved is 52%. The
formation of DBPs is partly determined by the position where disinfectant is added into the system.
Additionally, 75 mg/L soda ash is added before rapid mix and 23.2 mg/L lime are added into the system
after contact tank to adjust the pH.
In our design, the chlorine is added between flocculation and sedimentation to reduce the
production of DBPs. According to the state regulation, a concentration of 0.2 mg/L free chlorine is
required throughout the distribution system, in addition to meeting the CT standard. After a few trials in
Model 2.0, the final dose of free chlorine is 2.1 mg/L, which is added between filtration and contact tank.
14

Group A Engineering
In Table.8, the residual of chlorine is presented. According to the CT spreadsheet, the final logremoval of
Giardia is 4.83 and the final removal of viruses is 90.72.
Under the minimum temperature of 5°C, the dose of free chlorine is 2 mg/L. Since free chlorine
is not efficient under lower temperature, chlorine dioxide is added to enhance the disinfection. The dose
of chlorine dioxide is 1.3 mg/L. It is added after rapid mix. The dose of alum is 120 mg/L. The dose of
lime is 23.4 mg/L. The dose of ash soda is 75 mg/L. The logremoval of Giardia is 8.61 and the final
removal of viruses is 95.21.
These calculations were performed using the provided CT spreadsheet, based on detention times,
chemical doses, and baffling factors. The baffling factor chosen for the flocculation tanks was 0.5, and
will be produced by adding in perforated baffling walls between the turbines. Based on the sedimentation
tank design, we chose 0.5 to represent the influent distribution, effluent launders, and flow conditions,
according to "Selection of Baffling Factors and Operating Conditions for "T " Calculations."
10

15

Group A Engineering
Chemical Feeds:

For our plant design we have chosen the following chemicals to treat the water:

Alum (Al2[SO4]3): standard water treatment coagulant. Alum will be stored in hydrous form as 5.6 lbs of
alum per gallon.
Dose: 120 mg/L
Max feed: (wet) 446.8 gal/hr
Pumps: 3
Size pump: 245.7 gal/hr
Turndown ratio: 3
Max use 60048(lb) 10723 (gallons)
Average use: 40032 (lb) 7149 (gallons)
Minimum use: 20016 (lb) 6574 (gallons)

Chlorine Gas (Cl2): disinfectant.
Keep in cryogenic tank as liquid form
Dose: max= 2.1 (mg/L) min= 1.8 (mg/L)
Pumps = 3
Size of pump = 347.5 gal/h
Turndown ratio: 3.5
Max use: 1051 (lbs) 15164(gallons)
Average use: 600 (lbs) 8665 (gallons)
Min use: 300(lbs) 4332(gallons)
Storage tank: 9007.2 (lbs)

Calcium Oxide (CaO): water hardening chemical. Commonly known as lime.
Kept in fine powder form.
Dose: max= 23.4 mg/L min= 23.2 mg/L
Pumps = 3
Size of pump= 9.63 gal/hr
Turndown ratio = 3.02
Max use: 11709(lbs) 420 (gallons)
Average use: 7740 (lbs) 278 (gallons)
Min use 3870 (lbs) 139 (gallons)
Storage tank: 116092.8 (lbs)

Sodium Carbonate (Na2CO3): Alkalinity and coagulant buffer. Injected into the treatment system to
maintain pH levels at adequate levels for continuous operation. Commonly known as soda ash
Dose: max=75 (mg/L) min= 75 (mg/L)
Pumps: 3
16

Group A Engineering
Size of pump: 40 (gal/hr)
Turndown ratio: 3
Max use 37530(lbs) 1778(gallons)
Average use: 25020(lbs) 1185 (gallons)
Min use: 12510(lbs) 593(gallons)
Storage tank

Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2): disinfectant. Strong oxidizing agent
Dose: max= 1.3 (mg/L) min= 0.1 mg/L
Pumps: 3
Size of pump: 223.5 (gal/hr)
Turndown ratio: 39
Max use: 651 (lbs) 9753 (gallons)
Average use: 434 (lb) 6501 (gallons)
Min use 17 (lbs) 250 (gallons)
Storage tank: 6505 (lbs)

Residual Treatment:

Since the enaction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the residual sludge from
water treatment plants are categorized as industrial waste and thus must be treated with the best available
technology within economic constraints. There are various processes to treat residual waste, including
gravity thickening, mechanical dewatering and sludge lagoons. Given that Anytown’s water treatment
plant will have access to vast affordable land and emphasized their discretion in budgetary spending,
sludge lagoons were the prefered method of residual management. And since water conservation and
recycling are not a priority for this design guidelines, the dry sludge will be delivered into an
environmentally friendly landfill instead of redistributed to the plant treatment. From the chemicals and
treatment process we have advised to construct, the major sources of sludge for the plant will originate
from the presedimentation process and the alum coagulation byproducts. Lime (calcium oxide) is
commonly accounted as a contributor for sludge when softening the water, but since our influent water
source Ca hardness is relatively low (22 mg/L) our application of lime will be in the end stages of
17

Group A Engineering
treatment to instead harden the water before entering the distribution system and therefore not producing
any sludge.
Since typical plants using alum for their coagulant will retrieve 6090% of their sludge from the
sedimentation process and the remainder from the filters our presedimentation contribution assessment
created minimal values in comparison to alum byproducts (Wiley). The typical range for alum residual as
a percentage of entire plant water flow is 0.080.3. For our assessment we used the conservative value of
0.26 of entire plant flow. We had an end result of 1,320,556 lbs treated every 3.5 months (our
holding/drying period).
We also took into consideration the filtertowaste residual sludge and presedimentation in our
calculations, but the results were magnitudes lower than the alum residual produced. Since we are running
our backwash water through the plant we did not account for these numbers when designing our sludge
lagoons. From these calculations we were able to design four lagoons according to standard practices and
regulations. Our dimensions for each lagoon will be 4.5 ft (depth) x 500 ft (length) x 125 ft (width). So
the entire volume required for average plant operations is 661681 ft^3 and our four lagoons will provide
with 112500 ft^3. Though the extra volume might seem excessive and costly, land availability is not an
issue for this design and it accounts for summer storms which increase our daily turbidity from 5 NTU to
500 NTU. Our calculations also accounted for a conservative drying period of 3.5 months, which will
alleviate stress on the residual management process during the summer storms.
18

Group A Engineering
Sample lagoon layout. Image courtesy of Google Images
Clearwell Storage:
The total volume of the contact tank is 9 million gallons, with rectangular dimensions of 6 m
deep, 36 m wide, and 160 m long. This meets the requirements of a lengthtowidth ratio between 4:1 and
5:1, as well as barriers are set in the basin to make the contact tank well baffled with a baffling factor of
0.7.
Layout of contact tank / clearwater storage.

Addendum:
Due to the nature of any project, these values may require adjustment in during construction or
operation, in order to achieve the desired results. Group A Engineering reserves the ability to perform
minor adjustments needed in order to achieve the design criteria when this plant is constructed and
operated.
19

Group A Engineering
B. Treatment Schematic

1. Site Layout

20

Group A Engineering
2. Process Flow Diagram

21

Group A Engineering
C. Hydraulic Grade Line
22

Group A Engineering

D. Compliance with Sustainability Objectives

Will this design work? Excellent It meets all requirements set forth by
the EPA and the local water treatment goals
Will this design last? Excellent It can last for decades, due to its
simplicity and ruggedness
Will it survive extreme events? Excellent We measured different situations
under higher and lower temperatures, and have
designed the plant under worstcase turbidity
scenario
Is it affordable? Excellent Traditional design costs less
Will it negatively impact the environment? Fair Water not recycled, uses lots of land
Does it require excessive amounts of energy? Excellent Pumps do not consume much energy
What is its carbon footprint? Fair The plant is spread over a large area. Also,
chemical consumption contributes to carbon
emission.

23

Group A Engineering
VII. REFERENCES

Chris Wiant, PhD. “The Chlorine Residual: A Public Health Safeguard” May 2005. Web. 13 Mar. 2016
<http://www.waterandhealth.org/chlorineresidualpublichealthsafeguard/ >.

EPA. “Water Treatment Plant Model Version 2.0 User’s Manual” May 18 2001

"Flocculation and Coagulation." Civil Engineer. N.p., 26 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
<http://whatisacivilengineer.com/flocculationandcoagulation/>.

Howe, Kerry J., John C. Crittenden, Kerry J. Howe, David W. Hand, George Tchobanoglous, and R.
Rhodes. Trussell. Water Treatment: Principles and Design . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Kenneth D. Kerri. “Comparison of Treatment Process Sustainability at Water Plants in the Sacramento
Region” Sep 2011

Marambio Jones, Catalina. “Design of Water Treatment Plants.” Los Angeles, CA. Winter 2016. Lecture.

"Rapid Sand Filtration." Water Treatment Primer . N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.elaguapotable.com/WT%20%20Rapid%20Sand%20Filtration.htm>.

Rectangular Sedimentation Tank with Traveling Bridge SlidePlayer.com
. Digital image. . N.p., n.d. Web.
13 Mar. 2016. < http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3453785/slides/slide_21.jpg >.

"Selection of Baffling Factors and Operating Conditions for "T " Calculations."
10 Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (n.d.): n. pag. 1 Apr. 2004. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
<https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/watersupply/pdw/tcr/baffling_factors.pdf >.

United States Environmental Protective Agency. “History of the Clean Water Act.” 1 June 2015. Web. 10
Mar. 2016 https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/historycleanwateract

United States Environmental Protective Agency. “ Stage 1 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts Rule:
Laboratory Quick Reference Guide ”
https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/stage1andstage2disinfectantsanddisinfectionbyproductsrules
Urs. von Gunten ,
Juerg. Hoigne . “Bromate Formation during Ozonization of BromideContaining Waters:
Interaction of Ozone and Hydroxyl Radical Reactions” July 1994

Vedat Uyak ,
Sema Yavuz ,
Ismail Toroz ,
Sahin Ozaydin ,
Esra Ates Genceli.
“Disinfection byproducts
precursors removal by enhanced coagulation and PAC adsorption” 16 July 2006

24

Group A Engineering
VIII. APPENDIX

A. Source Water Quality

Table 1. Brown River Water Parameters
Parameter Variable Units Value
Min Temperature Tmin deg C 5
Max Temperature Tmax deg C 25
TOC mg/L 4
UV 254 1/cm 0.12
Bromide ug/L 200
TDS mg/L 43
pH () 7.9
Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 20
Ca Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 22
Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 25
Chloride mg/L 3
Sulfate mg/L 1
AmmoniaN mg/L 0.01
Turbidity Avg NTU 5
Turbidity Max NTU 500
Max Flow Rate Qmax mgd 60
Avg Flow Rate Q mgd 40
Min Flow Rate Qmin mgd 20
Max Filtration Rate gpm/ft2 6
Influent Hydraulic Elevation Ho ft 1035
Finished Water Hydraulic Elevation Hf ft 995
Avg Distribution System Detention Time days 1
Max Distribution System Detention Time days 3

25

Group A Engineering

Table 2. Brown River’s Pathogen Information
Pathogen Information Units Value

E. Coli /100 mL Very High
Cryptosporidium /100 L Very High
Geosmin Max ng/L 2
MIB Max ng/L 4

B. Water Regulations

Table 3.
COAGULATION:

Source Water Alkalinity
Enhanced Coagulation (mg/L)
060 60120 >120
2.04.0 35% 25% 15%

Source Water TOC (mg/L) 4.08.0 45% 35% 25%
>8.0 50% 40% 30%

Table 4.
FLOCCULATION:

Detention time greater than 30 min
FlowThrough Velocity 0.5 < v < 1.5 ft/min 0.00254 < v < 0.00762
Conventional G steps 50, 30, 10

Vertical Turbine mixing system
impeller hydrofoil or PBT
blade diameter/ effective tank diameter D/Te 0.30.6
tank height/effective tank diameter H/Te 0.91.1
blade elevation from bottom/tank height C/H 0.50.33
26

Group A Engineering
revolutions per minute N 10.030.0
tip speed m/s 2.03.0
effective tank diameter Te sqrt(4*plan area/pi)
baffling (0.0625 or 0.1) * D
depth H < 8m

Table 5.
SEDIMENTATION:

Minimum sedimentation basins 2
Water Depth 35 ft
LengthtoDepth Ratio, minimum 15:1
WidthtoDepth Ratio 3:1 6:1
LengthtoWidth Ratio, minimum 4:1 5:1
Surface Loading Rate 1.25 2.5 m/h
Horizontal meanflow velocity 0.3 1.1 m/min
Detention Time 1.5 4 h
Reynolds Number < 20,000
Froude Number > 10^6

Table 6.
FILTRATION:

Filtration Rate 2 6 gpm/ft^2
Media Diameter 0.5 1.2 mm
Bed Depth 2 6 ft
Required Head 6 10 ft
Run Length 1 4 days
Pretreatment Coagulation

C. Calculations

PreSedimentation: Requirements & Equations:
Max Plant Flow Rate 2.63 m3/sec
Max hf 0.05 m/sec
Settling vs 0.0069 m/sec For particles > 0.1 mm
# Basins 3
Safety Factor SF 1.75 1.52.0

27

Group A Engineering
CrossSection per Tank 17.53333333 m2 Qmax/(#tanks*hf)

Depth 3 m
Width 5.844444444 m
Length 38.04347826 m SF*depth*hf/vs

Length:Depth 12.68115942 > 6
Length:Width 6.509340387 > 4

Detention Time 12.68115942 min > 6

Overflow Rate 340.662857 m/day 200400

Coagulation Turbine Mixer
Detention Time 5 sec
Pipe Volume 13.15 m3
Pipe Diameter 1 m
Pipe Length 4.185765215 m
G 1000
Mixer Power, in hp 27

Flocculation Vertical Turbine
Detention Time 2400 sec
Total Volume Needed 6312 m3
# Trains 5
# Basins per Train 4
Volume per Basin 315.6 m3
Basin Dimensions (Cube) 6.80841m
Max FlowThrough Velocity 0.00284 m/sec 0.00254 < v < 0.00762

T = 5 C T = 25 C
u= 0.00152 0.000895
Mixer Power for given G, in hp: Motor to Choose:
70 3.152139581 1.856029556 4 hp
50 1.60823448 0.946953855 2 hp
30 0.5789644128 0.3409033878 1 hp
10 0.0643293792 0.0378781542 1 hp

Blade and Tank Ratios
impeller hydrofoil
28

Group A Engineering
effective tank diameter Te (m) 7.68

impeller diameter D (m) 3.46
tank height/effective tank diameter H/Te 0.89 0.91.1
blade elevation from bottom C (m) 2.72
revolutions per minute N 10.030.0
tip speed m/s 2.03.0
baffling B (m) 0.277

Sedimentation Basins:

Basins Number of Floc Trains 5 Recommended min #: 2
Number of Sedimentation Basins 7 0.5 x Flocc Trains, rounded up

Flow Values Typical Overflow Rate 0.000417 m/sec
Typical Overflow Rate 1.50 m/hr Range: 1.52.5
Max Plant Flow 2.63 m3/sec
Avg Plant Flow 1.75 m3/sec
Min Plant Flow 0.88 m3/sec

Per Basin Size Area 901.714m2 A = Q_max / (OR x # basins)
Width 15 m (can be multiple of 6)
Length 60.114 m L = A/W
Depth 4 m 4 m avg
Volume 3606.857 m3

Detention Time Detention Time 1371.429 sec tD = D/(OR*#Basins)

Size Ratios Detention time (Qmax) 2.667 hr 1.5 < tD < 4
Detention time (Qav) 4.008 hr 1.5 < tD < 4
Detention time (Qmin) 7.970 hr 1.5 < tD < 4
Length:Depth 15.029 > 15:1
Length:Width 4.008 > 4:1
Width:Depth 3.75 3:1 5:1
Max Horizontal Flow 0.376 m/min 0.3 < hf < 1.1

Reynolds & Froude Reynolds, Max Flow, 5 deg C 10755.14874 < 20,000 (p*v*Rh)/u
Numbers 2.608695652 m Rh = Ax/Pw
0.006266666667 m/sec vf = hf/60
0.00152 kg/m/sec u
1000 kg/m3 p

Reynolds, Max Flow, 25 deg C 18210.93029 < 20,000 (p*v*Rh)/u
2.608695652 m Rh = Ax/Pw
29

Group A Engineering
0.006266666667 m/sec vf = hf/60
0.000895 kg/m/sec u
997 kg/m3 p

Froude, Max Flow 0.000001534549024 > 1E6 vf^2/(g*Rh)
0.006266666667 m/sec vf
9.81 m/sec2 g
2.608695652 m Rh
Filtration Dual Media

Total # of Filters Max Flow Rate 60 mgd
Max Flow Rate 9468 m^3/h
# Filters 9 N = 1.2 x Q^0.5
Filtration Rate 15 m/h 1525

Size Total Filter Area Needed 631.20 m^2
Per Filter Area 70.13 m^2 25 100
Width 5 m 3.06.0
Length 15.59 m
Depth of Sand (d = 0.55 mm) 0.30 m 0.3 avg
Depth of Anthracite (d = 1 mm) 0.45 m 0.45 avg
Depth Water Above Media 2.40 m 1.82.4
Volume 220.92 m^3
Length:Width 3.46 2:1 4:1

Detention Time, tD 0.21 h tD = (h x A) / Q

Filter Wash System Backwash Flow Rate 50 m/h 4555
Surface Wash, Single Rotating Arm 1.5 m/h 1.251.75
@ Pressure 550 kPa 480690

Disinfection:
Transform all the ammonia into nitrogen gas.
HOCl
3 NH
+ 2 N
3 → g
(
2 H
) + 3 O
2 + 3
HCl
3 mol of HOCl is needed for every 2 mol of NH
3
71 g Cl2
Weight ration: (1.5 mol/mol) 14 g N = 7.61 mg Cl / mg N 14 g N
2
Required dose = 7.61mg Cl /mg N × 0.01mg N/L = 0.0761 mg Cl
2 /L
2
30

Group A Engineering
Chemical Feeds:
31

Group A Engineering
32

Group A Engineering
D. Model 2.0 Outputs
Under higher temperature (2.1 mg/L Free chlorine)

Table 1
Water Quality Summary for Raw, Finished, and Distributed Water
At Plant Flow ( 2.0 MGD) and Influent Temperature (25.0 C)

Parameter Units Raw Water Effluent Avg. Tap End of Sys

pH () 7.9 9.1 9.1 9.2
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 20 60 60 60
TOC (mg/L) 4.0 1.9 1.9 1.9
UV (1/cm) 0.120 0.033 0.033 0.033
(T)SUVA (1/cm) 3.0 1.7 1.7 1.7
Ca Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 22 53 53 53
Mg Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 3 3 3 3
AmmoniaN (mg/L) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bromide (ug/L) 200 115 110 115
Free Cl2 Res. (mg/L as Cl2) 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0
Chloramine Res. (mg/L as Cl2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TTHMs (ug/L) 0 74 80 74
HAA5 (ug/L) 0 31 32 31
HAA6 (ug/L) 0 51 52 51
HAA9 (ug/L) 0 80 83 80
TOX (ug/L) 0 231 240 231
Bromate (ug/L) 0 0 0 0
Chlorite (mg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOC Removal (percent) 52
E.C. not required raw TOC, raw SUVA, and/or finished TOC <= 2
E.C. Step 1 TOC removal requirement ACHIEVED
CT Ratios
Virus () 0.0 840.4 840.4 840.4
Giardia () 0.0 166.4 166.4 166.4
Cryptosporidium () 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

33

Group A Engineering

Table 2
Selected Input Parameters

Parameter Value Units

TEMPERATURES
Average 25.0 (deg. C)
Minimum 5.0 (deg. C)
PLANT FLOW RATES
Average 2.0 (mgd)
Peak Hourly 60.0 (mgd)

DISINFECTION INPUTS/CALCULATED VALUES
Surface Water Plant? TRUE
Giardia Removal + Inactivation Required 3.0 (logs)
Giardia Removal Credit by Filtration 2.5 (logs)
Giardia Removal Credit by Membranes 0.0 (logs)
Giardia Inactivation Credit Required 0.5 (logs)

Virus Removal + Inactivation Required 4.0 (logs)
Virus Removal Credit by Filtration 2.0 (logs)
Virus Removal Credit by Membranes 0.0 (logs)
Virus Inactivation Credit Required 2.0 (logs)

Crypto Removal + Inactivation Required 4.0 (logs)
Crypto Removal Credit by Filtration 2.0 (logs)
Crypto Removal Credit by Membranes 0.0 (logs)
Crypto Inactivation Credit Required 2.0 (logs)

CHEMICAL DOSES
(in order of appearance)
Alum 120.0 (mg/L as Al2(SO4)3*14H2O)
Soda Ash 75.0 (mg/L as Na2CO3)
Chlorine (Gas) 2.1 (mg/L as Cl2)
Lime 23.2 (mg/L as Ca(OH)2)

34

Group A Engineering
PROCESS HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS: T10/Tth T50/Tth VOL. (MG)
Rapid Mix 0.1 1.0 0.0035
Flocculation 0.5 1.0 1.6675
Settling Basin 0.5 1.0 6.6698
Filtration 0.5 1.0 0.5252
Contact Tank 0.5 1.0 9.0000

Table 3
Predicted Water Quality Profile

| Residence Time |
pH TOC UVA (T)SUVA Cl2 NH2Cl | Process| Cum. |
Location () (mg/L) (1/cm) (L/mgm) (mg/L) (mg/L) | (hrs) | (hrs) |

Influent 7.9 4.0 0.120 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
Alum 3.1 4.0 0.120 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
Soda Ash 6.4 4.0 0.120 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
Rapid Mix 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.04
Flocculation 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 20.01 20.05
Settling Basin 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 80.04 100.09
Filtration 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 6.30 106.39
Chlorine (Gas) 6.4 1.9 0.033 1.7 2.0 0.0 0.00 106.39
Contact Tank 6.4 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.3 0.0 108.00 214.39
Lime 9.1 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.00 214.39
WTP Effluent 9.1 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.00 214.39
Average Tap 9.1 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.2 0.0 24.00 238.39
End of System 9.2 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.0 0.0 72.00 286.39

TOC Removal (percent): 52

35

Group A Engineering

Table 4

Calcium Magnesium
pH Alk Hardness Hardness Solids NH3N Bromide
Location () (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (ug/L)

Influent 7.9 20 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Alum 3.1 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Soda Ash 6.4 30 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Rapid Mix 6.4 30 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Flocculation 6.4 30 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Settling Basin 6.4 30 22 3 61.9 0.0 200
Filtration 6.4 30 22 3 61.9 0.0 200
Chlorine (Gas) 6.4 29 22 3 61.9 0.0 200
Contact Tank 6.4 29 22 3 61.9 0.0 115
Lime 9.1 60 53 3 61.9 0.0 115
WTP Effluent 9.1 60 53 3 61.9 0.0 115
Average Tap 9.1 60 53 3 61.9 0.0 110
End of System 9.2 60 53 3 61.9 0.0 115

Table 5
Predicted Trihalomethanes and other DBPs
At Average Flow ( 2.0 MGD) and Temperature (25.0 C)

BrO3 ClO2 TOX |CHCl3 CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr3 TTHMs
Location (ug/L) (mg/L) (ug/L)|(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)

Influent 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alum 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soda Ash 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rapid Mix 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flocculation 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Settling Basin 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Filtration 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorine (Gas) 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contact Tank 0 0.0 231 9 21 38 6 74
Lime 0 0.0 231 9 21 38 6 74
WTP Effluent 0 0.0 231 9 21 38 6 74
Average Tap 0 0.0 240 10 23 41 7 80
36

Group A Engineering
End of System 0 0.0 231 9 21 38 6 74

Table 6
Predicted Haloacetic Acids through HAA5

MCAA DCAA TCAA MBAA DBAA HAA5
Location (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)

Influent 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alum 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soda Ash 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rapid Mix 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flocculation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Settling Basin 0 0 0 0 0 0
Filtration 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorine (Gas) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contact Tank 3 9 8 3 8 31
Lime 3 9 8 3 8 31
WTP Effluent 3 9 8 3 8 31
Average Tap 3 9 9 3 9 32
End of System 3 9 8 3 8 31

Table 7
Predicted Haloacetic Acids (HAA6 through HAA9)
At Average Flow ( 2.0 MGD) and InfluentTemperature (25.0 C)

BCAA BDCAA DBCAA TBAA HAA6 HAA9

Alum 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soda Ash 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rapid Mix 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contact Tank 19 3 3 24 51 80
Lime 19 3 3 24 51 80
WTP Effluent 19 3 3 24 51 80
37

Group A Engineering
Average Tap 20 3 3 25 52 83
End of System 19 3 3 24 51 80

Table 8
Predicted Disinfection Parameters Residuals and CT Ratios

CT Ratios
Temp pH Cl2 NH2Cl Ozone ClO2
Location (C) () (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Giardia Virus Crypto

Influent 25.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alum 25.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Soda Ash 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rapid Mix 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flocculation 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Settling Basin 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Filtration 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chlorine (Gas) 25.0 6.4 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Contact Tank 25.0 6.4 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 166.4 840.4 0.0
Lime 25.0 9.1 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 166.4 840.4 0.0
WTP Effluent 25.0 9.1 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 166.4 840.4 0.0
Average Tap 25.0 9.1 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 166.4 840.4 0.0
End of System 25.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 166.4 840.4 0.0

Table 9
Predicted Disinfection Parameters CT Values

Cl2 NH2Cl Ozone ClO2
Location <(mg/L * minutes)>

Influent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Soda Ash 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rapid Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flocculation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Settling Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Filtration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chlorine (Gas) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
38

Group A Engineering
Contact Tank 840.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lime 840.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
WTP Effluent 840.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Average Tap 840.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
End of System 840.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 10
Predicted Disinfection Parameters
At Peak Flow (60.0 MGD) and Minimum Temperature (5.0 C)
for Surface Water Plant with Coagulation and Filtration

CT Ratios

Influent 5.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alum 5.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Soda Ash 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rapid Mix 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flocculation 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Settling Basin 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Filtration 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chlorine (Gas) 5.0 6.5 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Contact Tank 5.0 6.5 1.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 5.9 34.5 0.0
Lime 5.0 9.3 1.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 5.9 34.5 0.0
WTP Effluent 5.0 9.3 1.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 5.9 34.5 0.0
Average Tap 5.0 9.3 1.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 5.9 34.5 0.0
End of System 5.0 9.3 1.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 5.9 34.5 0.0

Table 11
Predicted Inactivation at Minimum Temperature and Peak Flow
and DBPs at Plant Flow and Influent Temperature

_____ CT Ratios ____ Cl2 NH2Cl ClO2 BrO3 TTHM HAA5
Location Giardia Virus Crypto (mg/L as Cl2)(mg/L) <(ug/L)>

Influent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Alum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Soda Ash 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Rapid Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
39

Group A Engineering
Flocculation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Settling Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Filtration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Chlorine (Gas) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Contact Tank 5.9 34.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 74 31
Lime 5.9 34.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 74 31
WTP Effluent 5.9 34.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 74 31
Average Tap 5.9 34.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0 80 32
End of System 5.9 34.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 74 31

Table 1
Water Quality Summary for Raw, Finished, and Distributed Water

Parameter Units Raw Water Effluent Avg. Tap End of Sys

pH () 7.9 9.2 9.2 9.2
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 20 60 60 60
TOC (mg/L) 4.0 1.9 1.9 1.9
UV (1/cm) 0.120 0.033 0.033 0.033
(T)SUVA (1/cm) 3.0 1.7 1.7 1.7
Ca Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 22 54 54 54
Mg Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 3 3 3 3
AmmoniaN (mg/L) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bromide (ug/L) 200 116 111 116
Free Cl2 Res. (mg/L as Cl2) 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Chloramine Res. (mg/L as Cl2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TTHMs (ug/L) 0 74 80 74
HAA5 (ug/L) 0 30 31 30
HAA6 (ug/L) 0 49 51 49
HAA9 (ug/L) 0 78 80 78
TOX (ug/L) 0 229 238 229
Bromate (ug/L) 0 0 0 0
Chlorite (mg/L) 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9
TOC Removal (percent) 52
CT Ratios
Virus () 0.0 713.5 713.5 713.5
Giardia () 0.0 141.1 141.1 141.1
40

Group A Engineering
Cryptosporidium () 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 2
Selected Input Parameters

Parameter Value Units

TEMPERATURES
Average 25.0 (deg. C)
Minimum 5.0 (deg. C)
PLANT FLOW RATES
Average 2.0 (mgd)
Peak Hourly 60.0 (mgd)

DISINFECTION INPUTS/CALCULATED VALUES
Surface Water Plant? TRUE
Giardia Removal + Inactivation Required 3.0 (logs)
Giardia Removal Credit by Filtration 2.5 (logs)
Giardia Removal Credit by Membranes 0.0 (logs)
Giardia Inactivation Credit Required 0.5 (logs)

Virus Removal + Inactivation Required 4.0 (logs)
Virus Removal Credit by Filtration 2.0 (logs)
Virus Removal Credit by Membranes 0.0 (logs)
Virus Inactivation Credit Required 2.0 (logs)

Crypto Removal + Inactivation Required 4.0 (logs)
Crypto Removal Credit by Filtration 2.0 (logs)
Crypto Removal Credit by Membranes 0.0 (logs)
Crypto Inactivation Credit Required 2.0 (logs)

CHEMICAL DOSES
Alum 120.0 (mg/L as Al2(SO4)3*14H2O)
Soda Ash 75.0 (mg/L as Na2CO3)
Chlorine Dioxide 1.3 (mg/L as ClO2)
Chlorine (Gas) 2.0 (mg/L as Cl2)
Lime 23.4 (mg/L as Ca(OH)2)

PROCESS HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS: T10/Tth T50/Tth VOL. (MG)
41

Group A Engineering
Rapid Mix 0.1 1.0 0.0035
Flocculation 0.5 1.0 1.6675
Settling Basin 0.5 1.0 6.6698
Filtration 0.5 1.0 0.5252
Contact Tank 0.5 1.0 9.0000

Table 3

| Residence Time |
pH TOC UVA (T)SUVA Cl2 NH2Cl | Process| Cum. |
Location () (mg/L) (1/cm) (L/mgm) (mg/L) (mg/L) | (hrs) | (hrs) |

Influent 7.9 4.0 0.120 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
Alum 3.1 4.0 0.120 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
Soda Ash 6.4 4.0 0.120 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
Rapid Mix 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.04
Chlorine Dioxide 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04
Flocculation 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 20.01 20.05
Settling Basin 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 80.04 100.09
Filtration 6.4 1.9 0.047 2.4 0.0 0.0 6.30 106.39
Chlorine (Gas) 6.4 1.9 0.033 1.7 1.9 0.0 0.00 106.39
Contact Tank 6.4 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.2 0.0 108.00 214.39
Lime 9.2 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.00 214.39
WTP Effluent 9.2 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.00 214.39
Average Tap 9.2 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.1 0.0 24.00 238.39
End of System 9.2 1.9 0.033 1.7 0.0 0.0 72.00 286.39

TOC Removal (percent): 52

42

Group A Engineering

Table 4

Calcium Magnesium
pH Alk Hardness Hardness Solids NH3N Bromide
Location () (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (ug/L)

Influent 7.9 20 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Alum 3.1 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Soda Ash 6.4 30 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Rapid Mix 6.4 30 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Chlorine Dioxide 6.4 30 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Flocculation 6.4 30 22 3 0.0 0.0 200
Settling Basin 6.4 30 22 3 61.9 0.0 200
Filtration 6.4 30 22 3 61.9 0.0 200
Chlorine (Gas) 6.4 29 22 3 61.9 0.0 200
Contact Tank 6.4 29 22 3 61.9 0.0 116
Lime 9.2 60 54 3 61.9 0.0 116
WTP Effluent 9.2 60 54 3 61.9 0.0 116
Average Tap 9.2 60 54 3 61.9 0.0 111
End of System 9.2 60 54 3 61.9 0.0 116

Table 5
Predicted Trihalomethanes and other DBPs

BrO3 ClO2 TOX |CHCl3 CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr3 TTHMs
Location (ug/L) (mg/L) (ug/L)|(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)

Influent 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alum 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soda Ash 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rapid Mix 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorine Dioxide 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flocculation 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Settling Basin 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Filtration 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorine (Gas) 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contact Tank 0 0.9 229 8 21 38 6 74
Lime 0 0.9 229 8 21 38 6 74
43

Group A Engineering
WTP Effluent 0 0.9 229 8 21 38 6 74
Average Tap 0 0.9 238 10 22 41 7 80
End of System 0 0.9 229 8 21 38 6 74

Table 6
Predicted Haloacetic Acids through HAA5

MCAA DCAA TCAA MBAA DBAA HAA5

Alum 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soda Ash 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rapid Mix 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorine Dioxide 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contact Tank 3 8 8 3 8 30
Lime 3 8 8 3 8 30
WTP Effluent 3 8 8 3 8 30
Average Tap 2 9 8 3 8 31
End of System 3 8 8 3 8 30

Table 7
Predicted Haloacetic Acids (HAA6 through HAA9)
At Average Flow ( 2.0 MGD) and InfluentTemperature (25.0 C)

BCAA BDCAA DBCAA TBAA HAA6 HAA9

Alum 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soda Ash 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rapid Mix 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorine Dioxide 0 0 0 0 0 0
44

Group A Engineering
Contact Tank 19 2 2 24 49 78
Lime 19 2 2 24 49 78
WTP Effluent 19 2 2 24 49 78
Average Tap 20 3 3 25 51 80
End of System 19 2 2 24 49 78

Table 8
Predicted Disinfection Parameters Residuals and CT Ratios

CT Ratios

Influent 25.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alum 25.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Soda Ash 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rapid Mix 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chlorine Dioxide 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.30 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flocculation 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Settling Basin 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Filtration 25.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chlorine (Gas) 25.0 6.4 1.9 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Contact Tank 25.0 6.4 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 141.1 713.5 0.0
Lime 25.0 9.2 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 141.1 713.5 0.0
WTP Effluent 25.0 9.2 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 141.1 713.5 0.0
Average Tap 25.0 9.2 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 141.1 713.5 0.0
End of System 25.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 141.1 713.5 0.0

Table 9
Predicted Disinfection Parameters CT Values

Cl2 NH2Cl Ozone ClO2
Location <(mg/L * minutes)>

Influent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Soda Ash 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45

Group A Engineering
Rapid Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chlorine Dioxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flocculation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Settling Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Filtration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chlorine (Gas) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Contact Tank 713.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lime 713.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
WTP Effluent 713.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Average Tap 713.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
End of System 713.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 10
Predicted Disinfection Parameters
At Peak Flow (60.0 MGD) and Minimum Temperature (5.0 C)
for Surface Water Plant with Coagulation and Filtration

CT Ratios

Influent 5.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alum 5.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Soda Ash 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rapid Mix 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chlorine Dioxide 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.30 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flocculation 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.67 3.4 24.4 0.1
Settling Basin 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.28 3.4 24.4 0.1
Filtration 5.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.26 3.4 24.4 0.1
Chlorine (Gas) 5.0 6.5 1.9 0.0 0.00 0.26 3.4 24.4 0.1
Contact Tank 5.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 9.0 56.7 0.1
Lime 5.0 9.3 1.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 9.0 56.7 0.1
WTP Effluent 5.0 9.3 1.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 9.0 56.7 0.1
Average Tap 5.0 9.3 1.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 9.0 56.7 0.1
End of System 5.0 9.3 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 9.0 56.7 0.1

46

Group A Engineering

Table 11
Predicted Inactivation at Minimum Temperature and Peak Flow
and DBPs at Plant Flow and Influent Temperature

_____ CT Ratios ____ Cl2 NH2Cl ClO2 BrO3 TTHM HAA5
Location Giardia Virus Crypto (mg/L as Cl2)(mg/L) <(ug/L)>

Influent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Alum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Soda Ash 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Rapid Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
Chlorine Dioxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 0 0
Flocculation 3.4 24.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 0 0
Settling Basin 3.4 24.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 0 0
Filtration 3.4 24.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 0 0
Chlorine (Gas) 3.4 24.4 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.9 0 0 0
Contact Tank 9.0 56.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.9 0 74 30
Lime 9.0 56.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.9 0 74 30
WTP Effluent 9.0 56.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.9 0 74 30
Average Tap 9.0 56.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0 80 31
End of System 9.0 56.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 74 30

E. CT Spreadsheet
47

Group A Engineering
48

Group A Engineering

F. RTW Spreadsheet

49

Group A Engineering
Design Project Responsibilities:

Francisco Adam Breeana Haowen
Executive Summary ✓
Introduction ✓
Source Water Quality ✓
Regulatory ✓
Requirements
Alternative Treatment ✓
Methods
Selected Processes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Site Layout ✓
Flow Diagram ✓
Hydraulic Gradeline ✓ ✓
References ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Calculations ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pre Sedimentation ✓
Design
Rapid Mix Design ✓
Flocculation Design ✓
Sedimentation Design ✓ ✓
Filtration Design ✓ ✓
Disinfection Design ✓
DBPs Management ✓
Chemical Feeds Design ✓
Residuals Management ✓
Lagoons Design ✓
PowerPoint ✓
50

Group A Engineering
Model 2.0 ✓ ✓
CT Spreadsheet ✓ ✓
RTW Spreadsheet ✓ ✓

51

Water Treatment Design Proposal Group A Engineering March 14, 2016

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Water Treatment Design Proposal Group A Engineering March 14, 2016

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Francisco Mier y Teran Adam Richardson Breeana Rimbach Haowen Yue

Min Temperature Tmin deg C 5

Max Temperature Tmax deg C 25

UV 254 1/cm 0.12

Bromide ug/L 200

TDS mg/L 43

pH (­) 7.9

Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 20

Ca Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 22

Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 25

Ammonia­N mg/L 0.01

Turbidity Max NTU 500

Max Flow Rate Qmax mgd 60

Avg Flow Rate Q mgd 40

Min Flow Rate Qmin mgd 20

Influent Hydraulic Elevation Ho ft 1035

Finished Water Hydraulic Elevation Hf ft 995

E. Coli /100 mL Very High

Cryptosporidium /100 L Very High

2.0­4.0 35% 25% 15%

>8.0 50% 40% 30%

Cross­Section per Tank 17.53333333 m2 Qmax/(#tanks*hf)

effective tank diameter Te (m) 7.68

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

pH () 7.9

AmmoniaN mg/L 0.01

2.04.0 35% 25% 15%

CrossSection per Tank 17.53333333 m2 Qmax/(#tanks*hf)