Engineering Council of South Africa

Engineering Report
as part of Application for Registration as Professional Engineer
Employer: City of Sacramento,
Sacramento California, Self-
USA(September 2013 till present) evaluation
Position: Senior Civil Engineer
(Applied Research)
Signature:

Date: Word Count:

Engineering and Contextual Knowledge and Understanding both

from the applicant’s education and acquired independently for
effective performance of the work

The City of Sacramento has two water treatment plant

(Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant and the E.A.F. Water
Treatment Plant) with a combine capacity of 300 MGD. The Sacramento
River Water Treatment Plant (SRWTP) was originally constructed in the
1920s, with major plant expansion in the 1930s and in 2003. The 2003
project expanded the design rated capacity to 160 MGD. The treatment
plant consists of a conventional rapid mix, flocculation basin,
sedimentation basin, filters, Chlorine contact basin (CT) tank and
storage facilities. The City changed from alum to aluminum
chlorohydrate to reduce operational cost on August 1, 201, prior to this
time, alum was used for treatment at the SRWTP.. Pursuant to this,
during coordination of monthly water quality reporting with the
regulators, I observed that the Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) in the
distribution system were at historically high levels, this prompted an
evaluation of the treatment processes.
.

In order to perform this research effectively and efficiently, I have

acquired knowledge in the following:

 Underlying principles of coagulation,

 Hydraulic design of the treatment plant
 Principle of open channel flow
 The water treatment process which includes; a) Pre-screening,
Pre-chlorination, b) Addition of coagulant, c) Mixing physics at
the flash mix, d) Flocculation( theory and design),
 e)Sedimentation (theory and design), e) Filtration ( theory and
design), f) Chlorine disinfection, g) storage
 Particle stability
 Particle solvent interaction
 Process chemistry
 Drinking Water regulations
 Gravity separation
 Granular filtration (design and theory)
 AWWA B 100 code of practice
 Knowledge of finite element hydraulic modelling using St
Venant’s Equation for open channels.
 Principle of mass transfer
 Stability analysis of structures using plate theory
 Knowledge of Fisher’s separation and financial theory

Theoretical and practical method used to analyse and solve

engineering problems encountered

I designed the research work to cover two periods of water production

as follows:
1. Base Period: This period extended from August 2011 and July
2013 during which base line water quality data were collected.
Alum was used for treatment during this period .
2. Study Period: This period extended from August 2012 To July
2013. ACH was used for treatment during this period.

I performed this research to meet the following objectives:

 Evaluate the events that triggered the operational evaluation.

 Evaluate the formation of TTHM in the distribution system in the
base and study period.
 Evaluate and compare the formation of TTHM in the distribution
system in both periods.
 Evaluate the changes in raw water characteristics which could be
a pre-cursor for increased TTHM formation in both periods.
 Evaluate the inactivation provided by the filter in both periods.

. I subdivided the research work into three phases as listed below:

  Phase 1: I analyzed baseline data that was collected for the
base period and study period.

 Phase 2: Perform jar tests to mimic both the base and study
Periods using low and high turbidity water.

 Phase 3: Fluorescence Data Analysis of the raw water.

I performed the jar tests in the following schematic sequence:

:
Pass Collect
Prepare finish
Perform water
stock water
testing through
solutions samples
pilot filter

I performed the fluorescence data analysis to identify the dominating

Dissolve Organic Carbon (DOC) group in the raw water. I monitored for
the concentration of this DOC group throughout the treatment process
and in the finished water to compare treatment efficiency in both
periods.

For the Phase 1 part of the research, I compared the baseline data to
the test results from the distribution system and observed that the TTHM
of the finished water leaving the treatment plant were at historical high
levels. In this regard, I investigated the treatment chain which included
pre-disinfection, pre-sedimentation, coagulation/flocculation,
sedimentation and clarification, filtration, secondary disinfection, and
storage for any anomaly. The investigation covered the period between
August 2011 and July 2013 as well as between August 2013 and July
2014

Before proceeding with the Phase 2 part of the research, I prepared

stock solutions for alum, sodium hydroxide, non-cationic polymer and
chlorine solution using the following procedures:

a. 1% NaOH Solution using Sodium Hydroxide solid pellets

i. I used the following materials:
1. (1) I filled 250 mL Volumetric Flask to approximately
1/3 of the way with laboratory grade reagent water.
2. (1) Weigh Boat, (1) Analytical Balance, (1) Spatula,
 and (1) Container of Reagent Grade Sodium
Hydroxide (NaOH) solid pellets.
3. (1) Squirt Bottle containing laboratory grade reagent
water.
ii. Procedure
1. Using the spatula, I accurately transferred exactly 2.5
g of NaOH solid pellets to a weigh boat resting on a
tared analytical balance.
2. I quantitatively transferred the entire contents of the
weigh boat into the 250 mL volumetric flask by rinsing
the interior surface of the weigh boat with the
laboratory grade reagent water squirt bottle.
3. I swirled the contents of the volumetric flask until
completely dissolved and filled to the mark 250 mL
mark using the same squirt bottle in the previous step.
4. I Inverted gently several times, then labelled as “1%
NaOH Solution” with date of preparation and aliquot to
a second 250 mL plastic titrant container.
b. I performed the following procedures for the 1% Alum Solution
using concentration alum from the Day Tank at SRWTP.
i. I utilized the following materials:
1. (1) 1000 mL Volumetric Flask filled approximately 1/3
of the way with laboratory grade reagent water.
2. (1) Weigh Boat, (1) Analytical Balance, (1) glass
Pasteur pipette with rubber bulb, and (1) Container of
Concentrated Alum Day Tank Solution; note the
percentage of “active alum” in solution from the Safety
Data Sheet (SDS); was 48.5% Active Alum or
Aluminum Sulfate.
3. (1) 50 mL Graduated Cylinder.
4. (1) Squirt Bottle containing laboratory grade reagent
water.
ii. Procedure
1. I determined the specific gravity of alum due to any
differences in viscosity, density, or concentration of
alum solution due to evaporation, temperature, and/or
variations of a specific batch of alum from the
manufacturer; by direct measurement of the mass of a
specified volume; i.e.: mass of 50 mL of concentrated
alum day tank solution.
2. With a 50 mL graduated cylinder resting on a tared
 analytical balance, I accurately dispense 50 mL of
concentrated alum day tank solution to the 50 mL
mark using the glass Pasteur pipette, and recorded
the exact mass. I divided the recorded mass by the
volume to obtain the specific gravity or relative density
of the solution.
3. Using a glass Pasteur pipette and rubber bulb, I
accurately transferred exactly 27.3443 g of
concentrated Alum Day Tank Solution to a weigh boat
resting on a tared analytical balance.
4. I quantitatively transferred the entire contents of the
weigh boat into the 1000 mL volumetric flask by
rinsing the interior surface of the weigh boat with the
lab grade reagent water squirt bottle.
5. I swirled the contents of the volumetric flask until
completely dissolved and filled to the mark 1000 mL
mark using the same squirt bottle in the previous step.
6. I inverted gently several times, then label as “1% Alum
Solution” with the date of preparation, Relative
Density, and mass of Concentrated Alum Day Tank
Solution added.

I performed similar procedures for the preparation of stock solutions for

ACH and chlorine solution.
I performed the following procedures for the jar testing:

Steps: I determine the flocculation detention time of the SRWTP

process for the flocculation time using the formula

T = V/Q, where T is theoretical hydraulic retention time, V is the volume

of the flocculator and Q is the flow rate.

I determined the hydraulic retention time for average flow of 80 MGD

and peak flow of 160 MGD.

Step 2: I determined the velocity gradient of the SRWTP from as- built
drawings, I used this value to calculate the no of revolutions per minute
for the jar testing experiment takin into consideration the possible
operational modes by adjusting the stop logs.

Step 3: I calculated the experimental detention time in the jars based on

the hydraulic retention time in the plant sedimentation basin.
Step 4: I collected enough water to fill the jars, I also measured and
recorded all the required parameters (temperature, pH, turbidity,
alkalinity, total organic carbon (TOC), etc.)

Step 5: I poured two litters of sample water into each jar

Step 6: I positioned the jars under the stirrer so they are centered with
respect to the impeller shaft.

Step 7: I lowered the impeller such that each impeller was about one-
third from the bottom of the jar.

Step 8: I began flash mix based on the retention time that simulated full
plant.

Step 9: Using a graduated pipette, I dispensed the desired doses of

coagulant rapidly into each jar.

Step 10: I also added sodium hypochlorite and non-cationic polymer as

required in each jar.

Step 11: I decreased mixing speed to simulate mixing conditions of the

actual plant

Step 12: I flocculated for the time necessary to simulate full scale plants

Step 13: I stopped the stirrer, pull of the impeller, and allowed
sedimentation to occur for the required time to simulate full plant.

Step 14: I took samples for the required analysis, (turbidity, TTHM,
residual chlorine, TOC, DOC, etc.)

Stet 15: I pumped the settled water sample through the pilot filter at a
pressure of 4PSI to simulate full plant hydraulic grade line conditions.

Step 16: I collected filter effluent in a basin and added chlorine as

required.

Step 17: I allowed chlorinated water to rest for the required time to
simulate contact time in the chlorine contact basin.

Step 18: I collected samples for analysis.

I sent the raw and finished water samples to the laboratory for spore
bacillus. I calculated the inactivation of cryptosporidium and Giardia
from the spore bacillus sample results.

I designed the pilot filter to replicate the granular filter of the Sacramento
River Water Treatment Plant. Listed below are the design criteria that I
used for the pilot filter.

Listed in Table xx are the comparisons between the plant filter

and the pilot filter.

Table 1- Process design criteria

Process/Parameter Unit SRWTP Research

s Work
Rapid Mixing Energy, Sec -1 750-1000 750-1000
G
Detention time at Minutes 22 22
maximum flow
Surface Loading gpm/sf 1.3
Rate @max flow
Total media depth inches 42 42
Filtration Rate gpm/sf <8.0 0.2-4
Terminal head loss ft 8.7 selectable

I used the same media that was used on the plant filter on the pilot plant
filter, I also placed the media at the same depth as the actual plant filter.

I also pressurized the pilot filter to match the hydraulic grade line of the
plant filter unit under service conditions. I designed the granular material
of the pilot filter to conform with the requirement of AWWA B-100. I
coordinated the research work with operations, ensuring that samples
are representative of water quality changes throughout the study. I
calculated the media backwash rate for the sand and anthracite to
ensure that there is media compatibility between the media using the
following formula:

QBW = 17.67 *d60 (S.G-1.0)2/3

Where QBW= media backwash rate in gpm/ft.2

D60 = effective size in mm multiply by uniformity coefficient.

S.G. = apparent specific gravity.

During the experiment, I applied a constant pressure to the filter and
controlled the filter effluent through a manually operated flow control
valve.

I analysed the base and study periods water quality data for following
parameters:

Table 2, Analysed Water Quality Parameters

Parameters Taps
Average Turbidity All Taps
Average Alkalinity All Taps
Average Temperature All Taps
Average pH All Taps
Average Filter Head Loss All Taps
Coagulant Dosages All Taps
Chlorine Usage All Taps
Lime Usage All Taps
Polymer Usage All Taps
TOC All Taps
Cryptosporidium All Taps
Giardia All Taps
Virus All Taps
Spores Bacillus All Taps
Total Dissolve Solid (TDS) All Taps
TTHM All Taps
Specific Ultraviolet Absorbance Raw Water
(SUVA)
Langlier Index Finished water
Aggressive index Finished water
Streaming current monitoring Tap 3

I performed the following steps to calculate the inactivation provided by

the media filter using both ACH and alum:

I calculated NR; relative size group

I calculated NG; gravity number

I calculated Pe, pecklet number
I calculated NA; attraction number
I calculated NVDW; Van der Waals number
I calculated γ; porosity coefficient
I calculated AS; porosity function
I calculated ni; transport efficiency due to interception
I calculated NG; gravity number
I calculated ND; transport efficiency due to diffusion
I calculated total transport efficiency
I calculated inactivation log removal.

The inactivation of the bacillus spores in both cases was between 1.1
and 1.15.

I have attached with this report a table listing the actual values of the
water quality parameters analysed.

I performed hydraulic modelling with INFOWATER to determine the

detention time of the finished water in the distribution system using the
most remote water sampling site as a reference. This was determined to
be five days, in this regard, I noted the five day TTHM value on the jar
tests results to represent the terminal TTHM in the distribution system. I
performed the following steps in the development of the hydraulic
model;

 Import the base drawing from auto-card

 I modified the components attributes
 I created the network components
 I modified the network configuration
 I modified the components attributes
 I built the hydraulic model
 I developed the water quality model by specifying the
water quality parameter
 I ran the simulations
 I reviewed model results.

I calculated the rate of formation of TTHM of the finished water

produced by the SRWTP using the first order equation indicated below,
the samples was collected during the study period when ACH was used
for water treatment.:

R= Aert

Where A is the concentration of TTHM on day 1,

R is the rate of formation of TTHM
t is the contact time
In addition to the above analyses, I calculated the Turbidity Robustness
Index (TRI95) of the finished water using the following formula for both
the base and study periods

TRI95 = ½((T95/T50) + (T50/Tgoal))

Where T95 equals the turbidity of a specified dataset at the 95th

percentile.

Similarly, T50 equals the turbidity at the 50th percentile.

The Tgoal equals the filter effluent goal outlined in the City’s Operational
Manual as 0.1 NTU.

By comparing the TRI95 values computed at different times, an indication

of the overall water treatment effectiveness may be determined.

For example, if TRI95 initial- TRI95 Final ≥ 0 = effective water treatment or

if TRI95 Initial- TRI95 Final ˂ 0 = ineffective water treatment; the operator
is advised to adjust water treatment parameters to achieve improved.
I calculated the TTHM formation potential of the finished water from the
bench testing experiment using the following formula:

Log (THM4) =-1.371 +0.015 (T)-0.0005(ALK)+0.188[log(TOC)] +0.188

Log(UV)+0.291[Log(Cl2)]
+0.119[Log(t)] +0.087(pH)
+0.167[log(Clres)] (Obolensky and Singer,2008)

Where THM4= THM concentration in µg/L

T=plant influent temperature in oC
ALK=plant influent alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3
TOC= total organic carbon concentration at point of Cl 2 addition, mg/L
UV=UV254 absorbance at point of Cl2 addition, cm-1
Cl2=Chlorine consumed (dose minus residual), mg/L as Cl2
t= Cl2 contact time in treatment plant in h
Clres= chlorine residual in finished water, mg/L as Cl 2.

I compared the calculated results with the results of the actual test
results to evaluate the robustness of the formula for predicting TTHM
formation. The results for the base and study period are as indicated in
Table xx below:

The TTHM formation potential for the base and study period
using the Obolensky and Singer formula were xxx and xxx while
 the actual TTHM formation after a period of seven days were xxx
and xxx respectively.

Planning, organising, leading and controlling of human and other

resources required to achieve the goals of the engineering work.

I performed the following steps in planning for the research work:

 I defined the purpose and goal of the study
 I defined the information required for the study
 I defined the existing plant conditions
 I defined the chemicals to be used
 I defined the order and point of application of the
chemicals
 I defined the actual tests procedures.
 I defined the sampling monitoring schedule
 I prepared the final report of findings.

I prepared a schedule using MS Project. I coordinated the schedule

with other City staff that are responsible for the sample analysis and
ordering of research chemicals. I finalized the schedule with input from
other stakeholders.

Handling of regulatory considerations, impacts of work that were

not necessarily covered by regulations and ethical issues,
recognition of obligations to society, the profession, and
environment.

The objective of the research is to figure out a way to use ACH in place
of alum at the SRWTP to produce finished water that meets California
Title 22 Code of Regulations. I presented the findings of the research to
the District Engineer of the California Department of Health Services. .I
complied with the laboratory safety rules in the implementation of this
research work. The research work is categorically exempt from
environmental impact assessment. The research work did not study
unregulated contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and personal care
products. The regulations require that the terminal TTHM in the
distribution system not to exceed 80 ppb.
Risk and uncertainty associated with the work and its product

I performed the experiment under static conditions as compared to the

treatment plant which operates under dynamic conditions. Consequently
the data presented by the research work might not represent the plant
processes accurately.

The hydraulics of the sedimentation basin is quite different from the

hydraulics of a two litre jar. This might account for a major difference in
the mixing physics which might lead to a different result in the treatment
plant as compared to the jar tests.

The hydraulic model I developed for the study was not fully calibrated at
the conclusion of the research study, thus there was a tendency for the
hydraulic retention time of the finished water in the distribution

system to be slightly over or underestimated.

Recommendations, judgement, calls and decisions that the

applicant had to make to exercise the applicant’s leadership skill.
I presented the following findings pursuant to the research work I
performed:

 The change in coagulant from ACH to alum did not affect the
inactivation of cryptosporidium and Giardia provided by the filter
media.

 More TOC was removed in the flash mix in the base period
compared to the study period.
 Less chlorine was required for disinfection in the base period
compared to the study period.
 The treated water had a higher terminal TTHM formation in the
study period compared to the base period.
 ACH application requires less lime for acidic neutralization
compared to alum.
 The filter loading in the study period was higher with higher
turbidity water compared to the base period due to higher pre-
filtered turbidity.
 Available filter run time in the study period was lower compared
to the base period due to high pre-filter turbidity in the study
period when the raw water turbidity was at its peak.

In addition, I presented the following options as solutions to the

engineering problem:

Options Cost Implication to

1 I considered the continuation of ACH
for treatment at the SRWTP, this has
the tendency to lead to water quality
violations and litigations because
TTHM is a carcinogen.
2 I considered the option of switching
back to alum for water treatment at
the SRWTP
3 I considered the modification of the
treatment plant to include membrane
treatment such as Nano filtration and
reverse osmosis.
4 I considered the inclusion of
equalisation tank before the grit
basin to reduce DOC and TOC
rate payers
I calculated the cost of
this option to be in
excess of $100 million
due to the possibility of
litigation
I calculated the cost of
this option to be in
excess of $500,000
above the current cost
of treatment.
I calculated the cost of
this option to be
approximately $100
million in excess of the
current cost of treatment
The cost of this option is
in excess of 20 million in
excess of the current
 which are the precursors for TTHM cost of treatment.
formation.

Based on these findings, I recommended option2;that the City should

desist from using ACH and switch back to alum for water treatment at
the SRWTP.

The Nature of the responsibility carried out by the author

and identification of the person to whom the author is
responsible

I carried out included the following responsibilities during this

period::

 Formulation of research hypothesis

 Planning of research process
 Research As-Built drawings
 Design of research process
 Performance of research experiments
 Compilation and analysis of research data
 Performance of engineering calculations
 Report writing and presentation of findings
 Presentation of solution options
 Costs benefit analysis of alternatives
 Recommendations of preferred option to problem
statement
