cee 157b project

CEE 157B Final Project Report (Winter 2014)

Water Treatment Plant Design

Design Group Members:Elizabeth Chen

Kevin EllisTiffany HuangLowel Palacpac

Kevin Qi

1

Introduction

Big River’s water, running through Croc, Louisiana, has just been deemed Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water. Our objective here at Barbour Engineering is to design a surface water treatment plant suitable to accommodate up to 12 million gallons of water per day.

Seeing that this plant will provide neighborhoods with water, we must distribute our effluent in a condition suitable for consumption. This means we must produce water void of problems such as taste, odor, trace organisms and viruses, and large concentrations of chemicals. Our exiting water must be able to meet both federal and local regulations. Figures shown are integrated versions of known water treatment facilities

Seeing as this will be a treatment faculity being built from the ground up, do not have any existing conditions that we need to design around; we will propose a new, sustainable, water treatment plant in accordance to current requirements and in preparation of future regulations. We will need to covers our reservoir in accordance to the IESWTR set up sanitary surveys and monitoring systems.

With an excellent influent turbidity of 1 NTU, our TOC and UV254 levels are what stand out. Because our most recent sample came from groundwater, it is within reason to believe that the quality does not catastrophically change within our influent:

Temp: 10-20 degrees C

Total Organic Carbon: 3 mg/L

UV 254: .08 per cm

Bromide: 10 ug

Total Dissolved Solids: 55 mg/L

pH: 7.7

Alkalinity: 28 mg/L as CaCO3

Hardness: 33 (28 from Calcium) mg/L as CaCO3

Chloride: 4 mg/L

Sulfate: 8 mg/L

Ammonia-N: .01 mg/L

Turbidity: 1 NTU

Volumetric Flow: 4-12 million gallons per day

E. coli 2 /100mL

2

With these parameters, we will design to accommodate the minimum of:

• Giardia Removal + Inactivation Required 3.0 (logs)

• Virus Removal + Inactivation Required 4.0 (logs)

• Crypto Removal + Inactivation Required 2.0 (logs)

• TOC removal of 35%

• Effluent Turbid < 0.3 NTU

• Disinfection Byproduct Rule

We want to use the multiple barrier concept, so the facility we are proposing will consist of the following facilities:

- Ozone Disinfection Chamber

- Flash Mixer

- Flocculation Basins

- Sedimentation Basins

- Biologically Active Carbon Filters

- Clearwell

The following process is what Barbour Engineering recommend using the processes listed above in the order they appear in the following two figures:

3

Pre-Treatment and Disinfection

Ozone is the most efficient chemical disinfectant in drinking water. It requires a lower Ct than other disinfectants to provide us with our 4-3-2 log credits. This ozone contact tank will be the first treatment our influent will encounter. To prevent short circuiting, we will use a countercurrent column configuration as shown below. The width of the tank is 4.64 m (into the page, conceptually speaking) in addition to the dimensions shown on the diagram. This volume of 236 cubic meters will give the influent water 5 minutes of ozone contact and another 2.5 minutes for the residual ozone gas to dissipate and exit upward for destruction.

For an ozone dose of 2 mg/L introduction to the water, we will use four sets of stainless steel bubble diffusers. The gas flows with a rate of 3 cubic feet per minute with its content having an O3 concentration of 10.42 (% wt in oxygen). This gas is supplied by two medium frequency oxygen-fed generators rated at 600 pounds per day with turndown ratios of 10:1.

Max Flow(12 MGD) .5258 m^3/s Height 5 m

Ozone Dose 2 mg/L

Time per segment 5 minBubble Zone Length 4 m Flow Rate 3 ft^3/min

Min Volume 157.75 m^3 Upflow Length .4 m Gas Conc.760 mg O3/Lgas

Min Vol @ 85% eff 185.58 m^3 Depth 4.64 m Demand 163 g/day

5

Coagulation with Rapid Mix

We will be using a 30 mg/L dose of Aluminum Sulfate (Al2(SO4)3*14 H2O) for our coagulant. Because this type of coagulant needs to be introduced very quickly, we will use a mechanical flash mixer. With a mix time of 1 second, we will use a 2 HP motor to create a flow velocity of 1.22 m/s through the mixing zone hole. With our dosage and flow, we will administer our liquid coagulant with a diaphragm metering pump sized at .9 GPM with a turndown ratio of 3:1. We should have an additional unit installed incase of emergency. In addition to the dimensions shown below, the mixing zone’s predecessor is a square 3-by-3 m area with a height of 1.83 m.

Vol (m^3) 0.5258 Velocity hole (m/s) 1.22

Rad (m) 0.370481 Alum Feed Rate .25 gal/min

Power (80% eff) 1.15 HP Usage 360 gal/day

6

Flocculation

In order to form the precipitate, we taper our vertical-turbine basins and separate the three stages by diffuser walls. We will distribute flow equally through 4 parallel trains; each of the 12 basins will have square floor dimensions and the height of the water will vary up to 5 m with respect to the plant’s influent flow. The identical lengths and heights of 4.86 m will give each stage an average detention time of 15 minutes.

Because we want to aggregate the mixture a lot in the beginning and slow the rate down, we will use different amounts of power in each of the three stages. First, we will set G to 50 sec-1 to demand a power of .65 HP. In the second stage, our G of 35 sec-1 will require a power input of .32 HP. In our last stage, 20 sec-1 is our lowest G; it needs .1 HP. Each stage has four parallel trains, so we will need 12 motors sized at 1 HP. Each of these motors will be powering an impellor shaft with blade diameters of 2.2 m.

Our last measure to optimize distribution and minimize short-circuiting is that of using diffuser walls. Per guidelines, our redwood walls will stand perpendicular to flow between the stages and utilize a 5% opening area with respect to the cross-sectional flow.

Q (m^3/s) 0.5258 Total Vol (m^3) 1419.66 G (1/s) 50,35,20

H eff (m) 5 Individual Vol (m^3) 118.31Power1(.8 eff) .65 HP

# of stages 3 Indiv L (m) 4.86Power2 (.8 eff) 0.32 HP

# of II trains 4 Indiv D (m) 4.86Power3 (.8 eff) 0.1 HP

time/stage (min) 15 Propellor Diameter (m) 2.19

7

Sedimentation

Our influent to the sedimentation basins comes from the four flocculation basins through the last of the diffuser walls. It then passes over a weir and moves into one of the two parallel horizontal-flow sedimentation basins. Because we estimate an overflow rate of 2 m/hour and a height of 4 m, we need two identical basins with areas of 473 m2. We additionally want a Length-to-Depth Ratio of 15:1. Our dimensions compute to: Length = 60 m, and Width = 7.89 m.

Because we have particles settling at a rate of .62 m/hour and have a detention time of 2 hours, we will want an effluent elevation 1.24 m lower than our influent. Our two overflow weir and launders will be 1 m wide and extend 7.28 m into each basin. These effluents will then merge and flow will be distributed evenly to the filters.

OCR = Crit Vs (m/hr) 2 Total Area (m^2) 946.44 Rh 1.985775# basins 2 Indiv Basin Area (m^2) 473.22 Vf 0.016667Height of Basin (m) 4 Length (m) 60 Re 25314.7Time (hr) 2 Width (m) 7.887 Fr 1.43E-05

8

Filtration

The water that emerges from the sedimentation basins travels over a weir and then is dispersed evenly to five separate, parallel filters. Each of these filters has an equal length and width: 28 ft. The height of the filters’ influent is 10 ft above the under drains (which is also 6 ft above the top of the carbon layer). Because we are feeding granular activated carbon (GAC) with gravity, we will filter at the rate of 2.1 gpm/ft2. Thus, each filter has a residence time of 2.8 minutes.

The height of the activated carbon in all of the filters is 4 feet and their empty bed contact time (EBCT) is 15 minutes. Using a GAC density of 25 lb/ ft3, we have a total of 16711 ft3 GAC weighing 417,780 pounds. The carbon usage rate of our plant is .05 lb/1000gal, which is not exuberantly high.

In order to prevent too much built up, we will need to backwash each filter once every five days. To optimize the filtration of our water, we will backwash only one filter each day for 15 minutes when the influent flow is at its minimum. We will use an effluent-channel supply with an air-scour because we have adequate head. The backwashed water will leave the filter through two semi-circular (radius = 1 foot) troughs spaced 11 ft apart.

Total Area (ft^2) 4170 EBCT (min) 15# of Filters 4.156922 GAC Density (lb/ft^3) 25# Filters Total 5 GAC Vol = t*Q*92.84 (ft^3) 16711.2Indiv Area (ft^2) 834 GAC Height = Vol/Area (ft) 4.007482Length (ft) 28 GAC Weight (lb) 417780Width (ft) 28 Headloss (inch H20/ft GAC) 1

Act. Filt Rate (gpm/ft^2) 2.127551Carbon Usage Rate (lb/1000gal) 0.05

Time per Filter (min) 2.812624

9

Clearwell

The last volume of our water treatment plant before we distribute is a clear well. We want our clear well to be large enough to accommodate 15% of the maximum flow, so we will split the 1.8 million gallons into three separated, parallel basins with lengths of 41.27 m and widths of 13.75 m. Our result is a square area with 3 intermediate walls per basin to minimize the possibility of short-circuiting.

This volume will not be wasted; it will act as both a storage basin and as a means for more “CT.” Because the water that will travel through this tank will be sent through pipelines, we need to calculate the chemical residuals that will enter the effluent pipeline. In order to ensure that our treated water will not corrode piping, we must add lime (Ca(OH)2) with a concentration of 14.33 mg/L. We will also add 1.5 mg/L of mono-chloramine (NH2Cl) to the post-filtered water.

Since this is an open surface tank, the chemical feeds will be discharged by way of two peristaltic metering pumps (one in use for each chemical). Each pump should have a turndown ratio of 3:1. The chloramine pump should be rated at 60 GPD, and the lime pump should be rated at 575 GPD.

Q (mgd) 12 Total Volume(m3) 6813.72 Total Area 1703.43Vol/Q Ratio .15 Indiv Vol (m^3) 2271.24 Indiv Area 567.81Height eff (m) 4 Max Time (hr) 3.6 Length (m) 41.27263# of clearwells 3 Min Time (hr) 1.2 Indiv Width (m) 13.757543

Lime Dose (mg/L) 14.33 Usage172 gal/day

Chloramine Dose(mg/L) 1.5 Usage 18 gal/day

10

Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts

Per conventional standards, we will need to achieve 4 log, 3 log, and 2 log credits for Geosmin, Virus, and Cryptosporidium (respectively). As you can see below: 6.62>4 and 3.51>3. We obtained the 2 log with filtration.

To minimize the about of byproducts, I optimized the ozone (disinfectant) concentration. We did not want to overdose, so I targeted 3.5 log removal. The ozone residuals and the bromide is countered with using GAC as a filtration medium.

BF 1: 0.50 0.50

BF 2: 0.30 0.70

BF 3: 0.50

Contant Tank Ozone 0.55 7.70 10.0 8,333 46,499Floc Ozone 0.00 7.70 10.0 8,333 375,000

Sed Ozone 0.00 6.40 10.0 8,3331,002,00

0Filt Ozone 0.00 6.40 10.0 8,333 130,000

Clearwell Chloramines 1.20 9.35 10.0 8,3331,800,00

0

5.6 2.8 1.5 1.43 3.22 1.00 6.1445.0 13.5 0.0 0.00 0.00

120.2 60.1 0.0 0.00 0.0015.6 7.8 0.0 0.00 0.00

216.0 151.2 181.41,850.0

0 0.29 1,491.00 0.49

3.51 6.62

From CT Spreadsheet

11

Chemical Feeds

Chemical Name

Dose (mg/L) Pump Type (#)

Pump Size Turndown Ratio

Ozone 2 SS Bubble Diffusor (4) 3 scfm N/A

Alum *14H20 30Diaphragm Metering (1+1) .9 GPM 3:1

Lime 14.33Peristaltic Metering (1+1) 60 PGD 3:1

Chloramines 1.5Peristaltic Metering (1+1) 575 GPD 3:1

Chemical Name

Max Usage (per day) Min Usage (per day)

Average Usage (per day)

Generator size (#)

Ozone 360 lb 200 lb 280 lb 600 PPD (1+1)

Alum *14H20360 gal (3000 lb) 120 gal (1000 lb)

240 gal (2000 lb) N/A

Lime172 gal (1432 lb) 58 gal (478 lb)

114 gal (955 lb) N/A

Chloramines18 gal (150 lb) 6 gal (50 lb)

12 gal (100 lb) N/A

For storage of chemicals, I would ask the supplier how to proceed. As the plant manager, you are in constant contact with chemical suppliers. Each supplier has different modes of operation.

12

Processes Performance and Conclusion

See Appendix A for full details from the WTP 2.0 model. The important results we designed to accommodate:

TOC Removal of 43%, which is acceptable

Log Credits above requirements, which is good

No sizeable DBP formation, which is excellent

I may have made a mistake when trying to add chloramines, but the accurate input will yield great effluent quality

Effluent contains properties to minimize corrosion (see Appendix B)

Disinfectant residual adequate to discourage biological growth

No taste, odor, color, or aesthetic displeasing qualities

We have satisfied all of USEPA’s requirements and designed a plant that has the ability to meet future performance requirements!

Thank you for giving me an opportunity,

13

James Barbour

Barbour Engineering

Evaluation of Alternative Treatment Processes

If not for a relatively high TOC and UV254 (relative to our low turbidity of 1 NTU), my first choice would have been direct filtration using PACl (poly-aluminum chloride) and chlorination. After this process, we would have needed to add orthophosphate to the filtered water for corrosion control in the distribution system.

Another option for treatment would be to disinfect with free chlorine, use a combination of aluminum and a high molecular weight cationic polymer for coagulation, flocculation, and settling. It would most likely use a plate settling system followed by coal/sand filtration, then additional disinfection with chloromines.

My reasoning for not using the first option is due to the lack of multiple barriers without a sedimentation basin. Additionally, we would need to conduct studies on how to dose the PACl. I ruled out the second option for two reasons; chlorine may have produced disinfection by-products (DBPs), and finding a suitable high MW polymer would need additional research.

If price of GAC is an issue, other filtration options are available.

14

Appendix A

Process Train: c:\docume~1\44-110~1\desktop\thmmod~1\barb.wtp

Table 1Water Quality Summary for Raw, Finished, and Distributed WaterAt Plant Flow ( 8.0 MGD) and Influent Temperature (10.0 C)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Parameter Units Raw Water Effluent Avg. Tap End of Sys-----------------------------------------------------------------------------pH (-) 7.7 9.3 9.3 9.3Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 28 32 32 32TOC (mg/L) 3.0 1.7 1.7 1.7UV (1/cm) 0.080 0.028 0.028 0.028(T)SUVA (1/cm) 2.7 1.6 1.6 1.6Ca Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 28 47 47 47Mg Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 5 5 5 5Ammonia-N (mg/L) 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.22Bromide (ug/L) 10 10 9 9Free Cl2 Res. (mg/L as Cl2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Chloramine Res. (mg/L as Cl2) 0.0 1.3 1.2 1.2TTHMs (ug/L) 0 3 4 4HAA5 (ug/L) 0 1 1 1HAA6 (ug/L) 0 1 1 1HAA9 (ug/L) 0 1 1 1TOX (ug/L) 0 19 26 26Bromate (ug/L) 0 0 0 0Chlorite (mg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOC Removal (percent) 43E.C. not required - raw TOC, raw SUVA, and/or finished TOC <= 2E.C. Step 1 TOC removal requirement ACHIEVEDCT RatiosVirus (-) 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5Giardia (-) 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Cryptosporidium (-) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Crypto. CT Ratio = 1 because physical removal provided all disinfection

Table 2Selected Input Parameters-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Parameter Value Units-----------------------------------------------------------------------------TEMPERATURESAverage 10.0 (deg. C)Minimum 10.0 (deg. C)PLANT FLOW RATESAverage 8.0 (mgd)Peak Hourly 12.0 (mgd)

15

DISINFECTION INPUTS/CALCULATED VALUESSurface Water Plant? TRUEGiardia 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 2.0 (logs)Crypto Removal Credit by Filtration 2.0 (logs)Crypto Removal Credit by Membranes 0.0 (logs)Crypto Inactivation Credit Required 0.0 (logs)

CHEMICAL DOSES(in order of appearance)Ozone 2.0 (mg/L as O3)Alum 30.0 (mg/L as Al2(SO4)3*14H2O)Chlorine (Gas) 1.5 (mg/L as Cl2)Ammonia 0.5 (mg/L as N)Lime 14.3 (mg/L as Ca(OH)2)

PROCESS HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS: T10/Tth T50/Tth VOL. (MG)(in order of appearance)Ozone Chamber 0.5 1.0 0.0465Rapid Mix 0.1 1.0 0.0001Flocculation 0.3 1.0 0.3750Settling Basin 0.5 1.0 1.0020Filtration 0.5 1.0 0.1250Reservoir 0.7 1.0 1.8000-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3Predicted Water Quality ProfileAt Plant Flow ( 8.0 MGD) and Influent Temperature (10.0 C)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Residence Time |pH TOC UVA (T)SUVA Cl2 NH2Cl | Process| Cum. |Location (-) (mg/L) (1/cm) (L/mg-m) (mg/L) (mg/L) | (hrs) | (hrs) |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Influent 7.7 3.0 0.080 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00Ozone 7.7 3.0 0.066 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00Ozone Chamber 7.7 3.0 0.066 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.14 0.14Alum 6.4 3.0 0.066 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14Rapid Mix 6.4 2.1 0.040 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14Flocculation 6.4 2.1 0.040 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.12 1.26Settling Basin 6.4 2.1 0.040 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.01 4.27Filtration 6.4 1.7 0.040 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.38 4.65Chlorine (Gas) 6.3 1.7 0.028 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.00 4.65Ammonia 6.3 1.7 0.028 1.6 0.0 1.4 0.00 4.65Lime 9.3 1.7 0.028 1.6 0.0 1.4 0.00 4.65

16

Reservoir 9.3 1.7 0.028 1.6 0.0 1.3 5.40 10.05WTP Effluent 9.3 1.7 0.028 1.6 0.0 1.3 0.00 10.05Average Tap 9.3 1.7 0.028 1.6 0.0 1.2 24.00 34.05End of System 9.3 1.7 0.028 1.6 0.0 1.2 24.00 34.05-----------------------------------------------------------------------------TOC Removal (percent): 43E.C. not required - raw TOC, raw SUVA, and/or finished TOC <= 2E.C. Step 1 TOC removal requirement ACHIEVED-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4Predicted Water Quality ProfileAt Plant Flow ( 8.0 MGD) and Influent Temperature (10.0 C)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Calcium MagnesiumpH Alk Hardness Hardness Solids NH3-N BromideLocation (-) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (ug/L)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Influent 7.7 28 28 5 0.0 0.0 10Ozone 7.7 28 28 5 0.0 0.0 10Ozone Chamber 7.7 28 28 5 0.0 0.0 10Alum 6.4 13 28 5 0.0 0.0 10Rapid Mix 6.4 13 28 5 0.0 0.0 10Flocculation 6.4 13 28 5 0.0 0.0 10Settling Basin 6.4 13 28 5 15.5 0.0 10Filtration 6.4 13 28 5 15.5 0.0 10Chlorine (Gas) 6.3 12 28 5 15.5 0.0 10Ammonia 6.3 12 28 5 15.5 0.2 10Lime 9.3 32 47 5 15.5 0.2 10Reservoir 9.3 32 47 5 15.5 0.2 10WTP Effluent 9.3 32 47 5 15.5 0.2 10Average Tap 9.3 32 47 5 15.5 0.2 9End of System 9.3 32 47 5 15.5 0.2 9-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5Predicted Trihalomethanes and other DBPsAt Average Flow ( 8.0 MGD) and Temperature (10.0 C)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------BrO3- ClO2- TOX |CHCl3 CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr3 TTHMsLocation (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 0Ozone 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ozone Chamber 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Alum 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Rapid Mix 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Flocculation 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Settling Basin 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Filtration 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Chlorine (Gas) 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ammonia 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lime 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reservoir 0 0.0 19 3 0 0 0 3WTP Effluent 0 0.0 19 3 0 0 0 3

17

Average Tap 0 0.0 26 4 0 0 0 4End of System 0 0.0 26 4 0 0 0 4-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6Predicted Haloacetic Acids - through HAA5At Average Flow ( 8.0 MGD) and Temperature (10.0 C)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------MCAA DCAA TCAA MBAA DBAA HAA5Location (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Influent 0 0 0 0 0 0Ozone 0 0 0 0 0 0Ozone Chamber 0 0 0 0 0 0Alum 0 0 0 0 0 0Rapid Mix 0 0 0 0 0 0Flocculation 0 0 0 0 0 0Settling Basin 0 0 0 0 0 0Filtration 0 0 0 0 0 0Chlorine (Gas) 0 0 0 0 0 0Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0Lime 0 0 0 0 0 0Reservoir 0 1 0 0 0 1WTP Effluent 0 1 0 0 0 1Average Tap 0 1 0 0 0 1End of System 0 1 0 0 0 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7Predicted Haloacetic Acids (HAA6 through HAA9)At Average Flow ( 8.0 MGD) and InfluentTemperature (10.0 C)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------BCAA BDCAA DBCAA TBAA HAA6 HAA9Location (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Influent 0 0 0 0 0 0Ozone 0 0 0 0 0 0Ozone Chamber 0 0 0 0 0 0Alum 0 0 0 0 0 0Rapid Mix 0 0 0 0 0 0Flocculation 0 0 0 0 0 0Settling Basin 0 0 0 0 0 0Filtration 0 0 0 0 0 0Chlorine (Gas) 0 0 0 0 0 0Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0Lime 0 0 0 0 0 0Reservoir 0 0 0 0 1 1WTP Effluent 0 0 0 0 1 1Average Tap 0 0 0 0 1 1End of System 0 0 0 0 1 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 8Predicted Disinfection Parameters - Residuals and CT RatiosAt Plant Flow ( 8.0 MGD) and Influent Temperature (10.0 C)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

18

CT RatiosTemp pH Cl2 NH2Cl Ozone ClO2 --------------------Location (C) (-) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Giardia Virus Crypto-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Influent 10.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Ozone 10.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 2.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Ozone Chamber 10.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.55 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Alum 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.55 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Rapid Mix 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Flocculation 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Settling Basin 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Filtration 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Chlorine (Gas) 10.0 6.3 1.4 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Ammonia 10.0 6.3 0.0 1.4 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Lime 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.4 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Reservoir 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.3 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 1.0WTP Effluent 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.3 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 1.0Average Tap 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.2 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 1.0End of System 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.2 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.5 1.0-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Crypto. CT Ratio = 1 because physical removal provided all disinfection

Table 9Predicted Disinfection Parameters - CT ValuesAt Plant Flow ( 8.0 MGD) and Influent Temperature (10.0 C)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cl2 NH2Cl Ozone ClO2Location <-----(mg/L * minutes)----->-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Influent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ozone 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ozone Chamber 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Alum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Rapid Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Flocculation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Settling Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Filtration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Chlorine (Gas) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ammonia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lime 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Reservoir 0.0 299.6 0.0 0.0WTP Effluent 0.0 299.6 0.0 0.0Average Tap 0.0 299.6 0.0 0.0End of System 0.0 299.6 0.0 0.0-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 10Predicted Disinfection ParametersAt Peak Flow (12.0 MGD) and Minimum Temperature (10.0 C)for Surface Water Plant with Coagulation and Filtration-----------------------------------------------------------------------------CT RatiosTemp pH Cl2 NH2Cl Ozone ClO2 ---------------------Location (C) (-) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Giardia Virus Crypto

19

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Influent 10.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Ozone 10.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 2.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Ozone Chamber 10.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.59 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Alum 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.59 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Rapid Mix 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Flocculation 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Settling Basin 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Filtration 10.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Chlorine (Gas) 10.0 6.3 1.4 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Ammonia 10.0 6.3 0.0 1.4 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Lime 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.4 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.0Reservoir 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.7 0.3 1.0WTP Effluent 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.7 0.3 1.0Average Tap 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.7 0.3 1.0End of System 10.0 9.3 0.0 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.7 0.3 1.0-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Crypto. CT Ratio = 1 because physical removal provided all disinfection

20

APPENDIX B

22

Appendix C

Ozone Calculations

24

Rapid Mix Calculations

Coagulant Flow Rate

Type: Alum Alum Qmax 45429.12 (m^3/day)

Conc. (mg/L) 30 Qavg 30286.08

(m^3/day)

Qmin 15143.04 (m^3/day)

gal/L 0.264172 Pump sized to feed at

90% capacity during max Q

399.4431 lb/kg ratio 2.2 10% cap at min Q gal/lb ratio 0.1199 1198.329

Chem Use

1362.8736 (Kg/day) 2998.32192 (lb/day) 359.498798 (gal/day)



Coagulant Calculations (Alum)

26

Flocculation Basic Calculations

Theoretical Settling Rates

Total Area (m^2) 946.44 Rh = H*W/(W+2H) (m) 1.985774533Indiv Basin Area (m^2) 473.22 Vf = Q / A (m/s) 0.016666667Length (m) 60 Re = rho*Vf*Rh/mu 25314.70034Width (m) 7.887 Fr = (Vf*Vf)/g/Rh 1.42739E-05Time (hr) 2 OCR = Crit Vs (m/hr) 2Depth of Orrifice (m) 1.235684774 # basins 2Area of Eff Laund 7.283410937 Height of Basin (m) 4Width Laund 1 Length / Height ratio 15

Length Laund 7.283410937 Eff Weir Laund Load (m*m/h) 9

Sedimentation Basins Calc

27

Filtration and GAC Calculations

Clearwell Calculations

Chemical Calculations

29

Hydraulic Grade Line Calculations

30

Dr. Michael J. McGuire

President

Michael J. McGuire, Inc.

1821 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 302

Santa Monica, CA 91608

March 11, 2013

Dear Dr. McGuire:

Barbour Engineering is an engineering firm founded in 2013 by a product of UCLA Engineering. No stranger to challenges and multiple workloads, it has been able to take on tasks requiring long hours and complicated needs. Having worked for years in Pensacola, Florida, our lead engineer is no stranger to the southern conditions. We at Barbour Engineering realize that Croc, Louisiana must meet a unique demand of treating water from Big River that is susceptible to high levels of Total Organic Carbon and UV254 relative to its turbidity. The humidity and weather have the potential to produce short-duration flash storms frequently. Our proposal of a surface water treatment plant has the goal of providing residents with a water supply that meets the criteria of:

1) Safe Drinking Water Act for turbidity requirements2) Ground Water Rule for pathogens and disinfection3) Disinfection Byproduct Rule for byproducts4) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Final

Because there have been pathogens found in the influent water, we will want to use the multiple barrier concept as soon as possible.

The fastest way to start the concept of multiple barriers is to introduce ozone to the influent. This would immediately oxidize inorganic components (which lead to their removal), improve the potential of flocculation precipitation, and react with organic mater to disinfect, inactivate, or break down larger organic compounds.

After the pre-ozonation, we will use a flash mixer to coagulate Aluminum Sulfate (Alum) into the water. Our flocculation basins will mix the water accordingly, and the sedimentation basins located directly after the basins will provide the flocculated particles with enough time to settle. These settled particles will then be removed and taken to the sanitary sewer nearby. What we are left with after sedimentation is water primed for biological activity.

31

Due to our pre-ozonation, the filtration system that will best suit our needs is with an activated carbon media. The activated carbon can both remove ozone byproducts (like bromide) and serve as an area for biological activity in addition to its great adsorption rates. The organic mater degrades and is removed during backwash/cleaning.

After these stages, our treated water will receive lime and chloramines. We need these chemical additions to optimize our distribution system parameters. The lime reduces corrosion and the chloramines ensure disinfection and aid in preventing microbiological re-growth.

Because the regulations are become stricter and disinfection by-products are becoming more of a concern, I designed the process so that chlorine would not need to serve as the primary disinfectant. The replacement of traditional chlorine with ozone not only reduces trihalomethanes and other DBPs today, but will continue to serve as a sustainable treatment method looking ahead. The BAC process has the potential to eliminate any taste, odor, or color concerns (should they arise in the future). Alternative treatment methods are discussed in the following attachment, should you not decide to use our preliminary design..

For your consideration, Barbour Engineering has included an extensive design proposal report that includes diagrams, schematics, and a description of the unit processes. For any inquiries or clarifications, please feel free to contact James Barbour at (626) 833-2437.

Sincerely,

James Barbour

Chief Executive Officer, Barbour Engineering

32

cee 157b project

Documents