FINAL

A PLANNER'S MANUAL:

SELECTION OF PRETREATMENT FOR

MEMBRANE DESALINATION OF COLORADO RIVER
BASIN WATERS

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Interior

Water and Power Resources Service
Boulder City, Nevada 89005

By:

PRC
972 Town and Country Road
Orange, California 9261,7

27 MARCH 1981
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. • •

1.1 Purpose of the Manual.

1.2 General Considerations
1.3 Limitations.....

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY AND COSTS

2.1 Manual Layout • • • . .

2.2 Methodology......
2.3 Basis for Cost Projections

CHAPTER 3. PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR

MEMBRANE DESALIN ATlON.

3.1 General ••••..•

3.2 Requirements for Specific
Processes/Membranes • •
3.3 Design Feedwater Quality

CHAPTER 4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

4.1 Water Quality Analyses • . . • . • • •

4.1.1 Required Water Analyses • • • .
4.1.2 Accuracy of Chemical Analyses.
4.2 Pretreatment Process Selection .
4.3 Selection Tree • • • •

CHAPTER 5. DIRECT FILTRA TION

5.1 General Description • .

5.2 System Description ••
5.2.1 Effect of Raw Water Quality on
Direct Filtration • • • • • • •
5.2.3 Advantages of Direct Filtration.
5.2.4 Limitations of Direct Filtration.
5.3 Chemical Requirements •
5.4 Liquid Waste Production •
5.5 Siting Requirements. . .
5.6 Design Criter ia. . • . •
5.7 Direct Filtration Costs
5.7.1 Construction Costs
5.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs.
5.7.3 Total Costs • . • •• • •••
 CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTER 6. LIME-SODA SOFTENING 36

6.1 General Description. • • 36

6.1. I Chemistry of Lime-Soda Softening 38
6.1.2 High-Silica Waters . • . • • • • 39
6.1.3 Variations in the Lime-Soda Process • 39
6.2 System Description • • 39
6.2. I Rapid-M ix . • . • • • 39
6.2.2 Flocculation..... 40
6.2.3 Sedimentation.... 40
6.2.4 Solids-Contact Reactor 40
6.2.5 Stabilization..... 42
6.2.6 Chemical Storage and Feeding 42
6.2.7 Sludge Transfer Pumps. 43
6.3 Chemical Requirements 43
6.4 Sludge Production. . • • . 46
6.5 Siting Requirements. • • • 46
6.6 Design Criteria. • • • • • 47
6.7 Lime-Soda Softening Costs. 47
6.7.1 Construction Costs 47
6.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 47
6.7.3 Total Costs 53

CHAPTER 7. LIME SOFTENING . 55

7.1 General Description . 55

7.1.1 Chemistry of Lime Softening. 55
7.1.2 High-Silica Waters . . • • • 57
7.1.3 Variations in the Lime Process 57
7.2 System Description . • 58
7.2.1 Rapid-Mix . • . • • • 58
7.2.2 Flocculation..... 58
7.2.3 Sedimentation.... 58
7.2.4 Solids-Contact Reactor 59
7.2.5 Stabilization..... 59
7.2.6 Chemical Storage and Feeding 59
7.2.7 Sludge Transfer Pumps. 60
7.3 Chemical Requirements 60
7.4 Sludge Production. . 61
7.5 Siting Requirements. . 61
7.6 Design Cr iter ia. . . • 61
7.7 Lime Softening Costs • 64
7.7.1 Construction Costs 64
7.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs. 64
7.7.3 Total Costs • • . • . . • • • . 70

ii
 CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTER 8. ION EXCHANGE. 72

8.1 General Description . 72

8.1.1 Chemistry of Ion Exchange. 72
8.2 Process Description. • . • • • • 74
8.2.1 Ion Exchange Equipment. • 75
8.2.2 Pretreatment Requirements for Ion Exchange. 75
8.3 Chemical Requirements 75
8.4 Siting Requi rements • 76
8.5 Liquid Waste Disposal . 76
8.6 Design Criteria . • • • 76
8.7 Ion Exchange Costs • • 79
8.7.1 Construction Costs 79
8.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 79
8.7.3 Total Costs • • • • • . • . . 79

CHAPTER 9. COMMON OR PERIPHERAL SYSTEMS 84

9.1 Disposal of Pretreatment Waste Streams. 84
9.1.1 Waste Characteristics • . . • • • 84
9.1.2 Description of Disposal Alternatives. 85
9.1.3 Disposal Costs for Pretreatment Process Wastes 90
9.2 Buildings. • • • . • . • • 99
9.3 Electr ical • • • • • • . • 99
9.4 General Siting Requirements 99
CHAPTER 10. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 102

10.1 Cost Summary Worksheet 102

10.2 Intake Str uctures • • • 102
10.3 Pretreatment Facilities 102
10.4 Desalination System. 105
10.5 Brine Disposal 105

REFERENCES 107

APPENDICES 108

A. Worksheets. 108
B. ll1ustrative Examples 143
C. Documentation of Design Criteria Tables. 172
D. Glossary. • • • • • • • • . • • • . • 175

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

No. Title

3-1 Methods of Pretreatment for Impurities Affecting

Membrane Desalination Systems . . . . • 8

3-2 Membrane Feedwater Quality Requirements 10

3-3 General Membrane Feedwater Requirements for

92-Percent Recovery Systems • • • . • 12

4-1 Laboratory Water Quality Analysis Report 14

4-2 Viable Pretreatment Systems for Var ious

Category Feedwaters • • . • • • • . • 15

4-3 Process Capabilities for the Removal of Contaminants. 17

4-4 Pretreatment Process Selection. . • • • • • 18

4-5 Calculation of Hardness Species for Lime and

Lime-Soda Softening Pretreatment • • • • • 21

5-1 Design Criteria for Direct Filtration Pretreatment 29

5-2 Pretreatment Cost Worksheet for Direct filtration 32

6-1A Chemical Dosages for Lime-Soda Softening: Excessive Silica 44

6-1B Chemical Dosages for Lime-Soda Softening: Calcium Removal 45

6-2 Design Criter ia for UpfJow-Solids-Contact Reactor

and Gravity filters • . . • • . • • • . • . • • 48

6-3 Pretreatment Cost Worksheet for Lime-Soda Softening. 54

7-1A Chemical Dosages for Lime Softening: Low Silica. . • 62

7-IB Chemical Dosages for Lime Softening: Excessive Silica 63

7-2 Design Criter ia for Upflow-Solids-Contact Basin

and Gravity filters • . . . . • • • . . . . • 64

7-3 Pretreatment Cost Worksheet for Lime Softening 71

8-1 Design Criter ia for Ion Exchange Softening. . • 77

8-2 Pretreatment Cost Worksheet for Ion Exchange. 83

iv
 LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

No. Title

9-1 Pretreatment Process Waste Streams ... . . ... 86

9-2 Volumes and Solids Contents of Processed

Pretreatment Wastes • • • • • • • • . 91

9-3 Cost Worksheet for Pretreatment Waste Disposal 92

10-1 Total Project Cost Summary Worksheet 103

10-2 Capital Recovery Factors • • • • • • 105

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title

4-1 Calcium vs. Sulfate Concentrations as a

Function of Ionic Strength • • • • • • 21

5-1 Flow Diagram for Direct Filtration Pretreatment 23

5-2 Schematic Diagram of Pressure and Gravity Filters 24

5-3 Sample Layout of a 20-mgd Direct Filtration

Pretreatment Facility • • • • • • . • • • 30

5-4 Construction Costs for Direct Filtration Pretreatment. 33

5-5 0& M Labor Requirements for Direct Filtration Pretreatment 34

5-6 o & M Mater ials Costs for Direct Filtration Pretreatment 35

6-1 Flow Diagram for Lime-Soda Softening Pretreatment 37

6-2 Schematic Diagram of a Typical Upflow Solids

Contact Reactor • • • . . • • • • • • • • 41

6-3 Sample Layout of the 20-mgd Lime-Soda Softening

Pretreatment Facility. • • • • • • • . . • • . 49

6-4 Construction Costs for Lime-Soda Softening Pretreatment 50

6-5 o & M Labor Requirements for Lime-Soda

Softening Pretreatment • . • . • • . • 51

6-6 0 & M Mater ials Cost for Lime-Soda Softening Pretreatment 52

7-1 Process Flow Diagram for Lime Softening Pretreatment 56

7-2 Sample Layout of a 20-mgd Lime Softening

Pretreatment Facility. • • • • • • . • • 66

7-3 Construction Costs for Lime Softening Pretreatment 67

7-4 0 & M Labor Requirements for Lime Softening Pretreatment 68

.7-5 0 & M Materials Cost for Lime Softening Pretreatment 69

8-1 Process Flow Diagram for Ion Exchange Pretreatment • 73

8-2 Layout of a 20-mgd Ion Exchange Pretreatment Facility 78

8-3 Construction Costs for Ion Exchange Pretreatment 80

pre

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

No. Title

8-4 o &. M Labor Requi rements for Ion Exchange Pretreatment . 81

8-5 o &. M Mater ials Cost for Ion Exchange Pretreatment 82

9-1 Construction Costs for Lined Evaporation Ponds:

Ion Exchange and Direct Filtration • • . • • • 93

9-2 o &. M Labor Requirements for Lined Evaporation Ponds:

Ion Exchange and Direct Filtration • • . • • . • . 94

9-3 o &. M Materials Costs for Lined Evaporation Ponds:

Ion Exchange and Direct Filtration . • • • • • • • 95

9-4 Constr uction Costs for Lime and Lime-Soda Sludge Disposal 96

9-5 o &. M LaborRequirements for Lime and Lime-Soda Sludge

Disposal. • . • • . • • • • • . • . • • • • • . . . • 97

9-6 o &. M Materials Costs for Lime and Lime-Soda

Sludge Disposal. • • • • • • • . . • . • • • 98

9-7 Land Requirements for Pretreatment and Membrane

Desalting Facilities • . . • • • • . . • • • • • • 101

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This Manual was prepared under the direction of Mr. Kenneth M. Trompeter, Water
and Power Resources Service, Department of the Interior, Boulder City, Nevada,
by Dennis R. Kasper, Steven H. Ellis and Paul E. Laverty of Plannin-g Research
Corporation. We wish to thank Mr. Trompeter for his comments and review of the
draft reports. The efforts of Mr. Sus Suemoto, also of the Water and Power
Resources Service, are also acknowledged.

The final manuscript was typed and coordinated by Diane Mercer, Deborah McCue,
Frances Amanna and Wendy Jo Kresen. The graphics were prepared by Vini Reilly
and Mark Schultz. We appreciate the effort and attention given to detail by these
people.

viii
 ABSTRACT

This Manual has been prepared to assist planners and engineers in the selection of
pretreatment processes for membrane desalination of typical wat!'rs of the
Colorado River Basin. The pretreatment processes most applicable to these waters
are direct filtration, lime softening, lime-soda softening and ion exchange.

Quality requirements for feedwaters to membrane desalination systems are

presented. The required pretreatment for a particular sourcewater is identified by
a technique easily used by individuals with minimal chemical backgrounds.
Preliminary design criteria and cost information are presented for each of the four
processes considered. Pretreatment waste stream disposal alternatives and costs
are described. Detailed worksheets have been prepared to facilitate identification
and/or calculation of preliminary design criteria and cost projections. lIIustrative
examples of cost estimates for each of the processes are appended.

Pretreatment processes are selected based on a product water recovery of

92-percent in the desalination system. High recoveries are justified by the high
cost of reject brine disposal in the Colorado River Basin.

ix
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

API Amer ican Petroleum Institute

ac-ft Acre-feet

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand

ED Electrodialysis

ft/s Feet per second

gpd Gallons per day

gpm Gallons per minute

IX Ion exchange

kgal Kilogallons

kwh Kilowatt-hours

lbs Pounds

m-h Man-hours

meq/L Milliequivalents per liter

mg/L Milligrams per liter

mgd Million gallons per day

NTU Nephelometric turbidity units

psi Pounds per square inch

RO Reverse osmosis

s Second

SHMP Sodium hexametaphosphate

TDS Total dissolved solids

yr Year

w/w Weight by weight

x Multiply by

I Divide by

x
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL

Membrane desalting technology has been significantly advanced in the last

decade and is a recognized method of producing high quality waters to meet
present and future water demands and to control salinities of brackish water
streams. Membrane desalination systems have special feedwater quality
requirements to prevent damage to the membranes. The selection of the
optimum pretreatment process is a critical factor in the overall technical
and economic success of a membrane desalting plant.

This Manual has been prepared for use in the preliminary or reconnaissance
level planning of membrane plants desalting waters of the Colorado River
Basin. It provides up-to-date information on the pretreatment systems,
process descriptions, design criteria, system layout diagrams and economics.
Consideration has also been given to special problems such as pretreatment
waste disposal, environmental impacts and quality of the source water.
With this information, the planner or engineer can select the proper
pretreatment processes and estimate capital and operation and maintenance
costs for the selected systems. Preliminary design criteria are provided as
descriptive information for the pretreatment processes.

This Manual is not intended to serve as a substitute for a thorough

engineering analysis that should precede the decision to build a desalting
plant. Rather, the purpose of the Manual is to provide the planner with: 1) a
guide to the selection of pretreatment processes for membrane desalting
systems, and 2) the basis for determining the costs of the selected system.

It is assumed in the that the complete desalination system consists of:

1) intake system, 2) pretreatment facilities including provisions for
pretreated water storage, 3) membrane desalination system, 4) post
treatment system, 5) reject brine disposal facilities, and 6) pretreatment
waste stream disposal facilities.

The cost data presented in this Manual address only the pretreatment
system (Item 2) and the pretreatment waste disposal facilities (Item 5). The
user of this Manual is referred to other documents (e.g., Desalting Handbook
for Planners, U.S. Department of the Interior) containing costs of system
components which are beyond the scope of this Manual.

1.2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

This Manual presents feedwater quality requirements for electrodialysis and

reverse osmosis desalination systems. Four proven processes have been
identified as viable pretreatment processes for membrane desalination
systems: direct filtration, lime treatment, lime-soda softening and ion
exchange. These processes provide adequate pretreatment for the majority
of brackish waters occurring in the Colorado River Basin.
" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C-----

-1-
 Disposal costs for reject brines produced by desalination plants can be
significant for inland plants. In some situations, reject brine disposal costs
represent 35 to 50-percent of the total desalination costs. Brine disposal
costs can be reduced by increasing hydraulic recoveries of the desalination
process. As the recovery increases, the concentration of the salts in the
reject brine increases and the possibility for precipitation of IQw-solubili ty
salts increases. A recovery of 92-percent has been assumed for the
desalination plant to minimize reject brine production. A recovery of
92-percent is justified when reject brine disposal costs are high. Reject
brine disposal costs will be high for disposal to any lined evaporation pond
system, deep-well injection, or mechanical systems such as vapor
compression evaporation. If a low-cost brine disposal alternative exists such
as disposal directly to the sea or to a hydrologically-isolated natural sink
(e.g., a dry lake), then 92-percent recovery may not be cost-effective. This
Manual is predicated upon 92-percent recovery systems. If the user of this
Manual has low-cost brine disposal alternatives available, then his most
cost-effective desalination system will probably be at recoveries less then
92-percent. For systems with recoveries of less than 92-percent, the costs
presented in this Manual should be considered as upper limit; that is, they
will be high.

Design criter ia presented in this Manual are based on conservative, current

practices. The use of conservative design criteria is justified in view of the
stringent quality requirements for membrane pretreatment processes.
Potable water standards are less stringent in some cases.

Standard-process diagrams are presented for each of the four processes

considered. All major average unit flows are given. Typical layouts for
membrane desalination plants utilizing each of the pretreatment processes
are presented for 20-rngd flows. These layouts can be adjusted for
flowrates considered in this Manual. Layouts are based on average land
costs and relatively level sites.

Costs and consumables are presented for pretreatment plants with

capacities ranging between 5 and 50-mgd. Corresponding desalination plant
capacities are slightly lower than this range since product water recoveries
are always less than 100 percent.

Disposal alternatives and costs for the wastes generated by the

pretreatment processes are presented. The assumed conditions for these
disposal systems should be compared with those of the project being
evaluated since site conditions greatly effect disposal costs.

1.3 LIMIT AnONS

This Manual is applicable to the reverse osmosis and electrodialysis

desalination processes. Certain assumptions have been made to simplify the
process selection technique developed and presented in Chapter 4 of this
Manual. These assumptions are described in Section 4.3. The cost
projections are estimated to be within :t15 percent of bid prices.

-2-
 CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY AND COSTS

 CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY AND COSTS

2.1 MANUAL LAYOUT

This Manual consists of ten chapters and three appendices. The bulk of data
on pretreatment processes is presented in four chapters, one for each
process considered. Chapter 3 presents a summary of water quality
requirements for membrane system feedwaters. Both reverse osmosis and
electrodialysis requirements are presented.

Selection of the optimum pretreatment process for a given source water is

described in Chapter 4. A technique for arriving at the optimum process is
presented which requires little chemical background of the user. Chapter 4
also includes an evaluation of the accuracy of the source water chemical
analyses.

Chapters 5 through 8 discuss these four pretreatment processes in detail

(i.e., direct filtration, lime-soda softening, lime softening, and ion
exchange). Process flow diagrams, design criteria worksheets, facility
layouts and cost information are provided for each pretreatment process.
Chapter 9 discusses systems which are common to all four pretreatment
processes. Those systems include reject brine disposal, sludge disposal,
intake structures and environmental impacts. Chapter 10 provides a total
project cost summary worksheet. Additional blank worksheets from
previous chapters of the Manual are presented in Appendix A. Illustrative
examples using these worksheets are presented in Appendix B. Appendix C
documents design criteria for the pretreatment worksheets presented in
Chapters 5 through 8. Appendix D contains a glossary of terms.

2.2 METHODOLOGY

This -Manual has been prepared in a manner which enables a planner or

engineer with a minimum background in membrane desalination to
determine pretreatment-system costs. Complex chemical reactions and
solubility equilibria have been reduced to simple calculations utilizing
graphical aids and tabular worksheets.

The following summarize the principal actions required for full utilization of
this Manual:

a. Obtain water quality analysis of potential feed water •

b. Identify probable membrane desalination system.

c. Review Chapter 3 of this Manual to identify general, pretreatment

requirements.

-d. Utilize Chapter 4 and the water-quality analysis to identify the

recommended, pretreatment process. The user is directed to the
appropriate chapter for the recommended pretreatment process.

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt"C-----"
-3-
 e. Use the data and worksheets provided in the chapter describing the
selected process to define design criteria and to develop
pretreatment-cost pro jections.

f. Proceed to Chapter 9 for components which are common to the four

processes considered and include costs for waste disposal, site and
land requirements, and intake structures.

g. Total project costs can be calculated in Chapter 10. Worksheets are

provided in Appendix A and desalination process costs are provided in
the Desalting Handbook for Planners published by the U.S.
Department of the Interior.

2.2 BASIS FOR COST PROJECTIONS

The costs for each of the pretreatment processes were adapted from
Estimating Water Treatment Costs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
All costs in this Manual have been updated to June 1980. Adjustment of the
costs may be necessary to reflect site-specific conditions geographic or
local conditions, or the need for standby power. These costs should be
particularly useful for estimating the relative economics of alternative
treatment systems and for the preliminary evaluation of general cost level
to be expected for a proposed project. Construction costs include items
such as excavation and site work, manufactured equipment, concrete, steel,
labor, pipes and valves, electrical equipment and instrumentation and
housing. A 15-percent allowance is included in all construction costs for
contingency items.

Labor costs for capital construction can range from 10 to 35-percent of the
total construction cost. This has the potential for impacting the total
construction costs. At certain remote locations, the cost of labor could be
at a premium resulting in higher costs.

The constructin costs presented are less than the final capital costs. The
construction costs do not include costs for special site work, general
contractor overhead and profit, engineering, land, or legal, fiscal, and
administrative and interest during construction. These cost items are all
more directly related to the total cost of a project than to the cost of an
individual process. Generally, as additive factor is added to the
construction cost which includes engineering, overhead, profit, land, legal,
administrative and interest. In this Manual, the additive factor is
32.5-percent of the total construction cost.

Annual equivalent capital costs are determined by using a capital recovery

factor.

Land costs wiIJ depend upon the specific location of the desalting facility.
This Manual provides data on land requirements for the total pretreatment
system and desalting system as a function of the number of area vs. plant
capacity. The user of this Manual determines total land costs by applying
local costs to the presented area requirements.

-4-
 Operation and maintenance costs are presented for: J) energy requirements,
2) maintenance material requirements, 3) labor requirements, and
If) chemical requirements.

Electrical energy requirements include both process energy and building-

related energy, and are presented in terms of kilowatt-hour~ per year.
Building en rgy requirements are calculated using an average of
102.6 kwh/ft 2 per year. Process electrical energy is also included in
electrical energy requirements and is based on manufacturer's data for
required components.

Maintenance mater ial costs include the cost of periodic replacement of

component parts necessary to keep the process operable and functioning.
Examples of maintenance material items included are valves, motors,
instrumentation, and other process items of similar nature. Chemical costs
are based on the quantity of chemical required in the pretreatment process
and is presented in tons per year.

Labor requirements include both operation and maintenance labor, and it is

presented in terms of hours per year.

The total operation and maintenance cost is a composite of the energy,

maintenance material, labor and chemical costs. To determine annual
energy costs, a unit cost of $0.05/kwh of electricity is assumed in the
illustrated examples of Appendix B. An hourly labor rate of $12.00/hr is
also assumed, which includes salary and fringe benefits.

The continued usefulness of the costs presented as a portion of this project

depends on the ability of the costs to be updated to reflect inflationary
. increases in the prices of the various components. Most engineers and
planners are accustomed to updating costs using one all-encompassing index,
which is developed by tracking the cost of specific items and then
proportioning the costs according to a predetermined ratio. The key
advantage of a single index is the simplicity with which it can be applied.

One of the most frequently utilized single indices in the construction

industry is the ENR Construction Cost Index (CCl). The ENR index was
started in 1913 and was intended for general construction cost monitoring.
The large amount of labor included in the CCI was appropriate before World
War II; however, on most contemporary construction, the index labor
component is far in excess of actual labor used. In 1967, an additional ENR
CCI was started with a base value of 100. This index is based on
contemporary construction methods. The costs in this Manual can be
updated using the index started in 1967. The June 1980 value of the
ENR-CCI was 297.73. To update the construction costs, the following
formula may be utilized:

Updated Cost = Total Construction Cost x Current ENR-CCI

297.73

The ENR publishes updated cost indices each week. In adition, specific
regional indices are published for 20 cities in the United States. This allows
for greater accuracy in developing costs for a specific location. Key

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C------"

-5-
advantages of the ENR indices include their availabili ty, their simplicity,
and their geographical specific ty.

Updating the total operation and maintenance costs may be accomplished by

updating the four individual components: energy, labor, maintenance
material and chemical requirements. Energy, labor and chemicals are
updated by multiplying the current unit costs (i.e., $/kwh, $/hr and $/ton,
respectively) to the rate of consumption presented in this chapter (i.e.,
kwh/yr, hrs/yr and tons/yr). Maintenance material costs are presented in
ter ms of dollars per year. This cost can be updated by using the current
Producer Pr ice Index for Finished Goods which is published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The maintenance materials costs in this Manual are based
upon a June 1980 Producer Price Index for Finished Goods of 2112.3. The
following formula may be utilized for updating maintenance materials costs:

Up da t e d C os t = Ma t en'a! s C os t x Current Producer

242.3
Pr ice Index

Current chemical cost information. may be found in the weekly publication

Chemica! Marketing Reporter by Schnell Publishing Company in New York.

Total annual equivalent costs are obtained by adding the annual equivalent
capital cost to the annua! operation and maintenance cost. Unit water costs
are determined by dividing the total annual equivalent cost by the plant
capacity.

-6-
 CHAPTER 3

PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

FOR MEMBRANE DESALINATION

 CHAPTER 3

PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBRANE DESALINATION

3.1 GENERAL

The requirements for the pretreatment of membrane desalination plant

feedwater are determined by:

a. Type and design of the desalination process.

b. Chemical and physical composition of the feedwater.

Table 3-1 lists the commonly encountered constituents of water, which can
have adverse effects on membrane desalination systems. These substances
usuaHy are: excessive amounts of suspended organic and inorganic materials
such as sand, clays, sediments, algae, and bacteria; excessive amounts of
gases such as hydrogen sulfide, and chlorine (for polyamide membranes);
dissolved organic compounds such as humic acid; and, excessive amounts of
calcium.

The typical membrane problems resulting from adverse, source-water

constituents are also listed in Table 3-1. "Scale" refers to the inorganic
precipitates or oxides which form on the membrane surface and reduce
water production, and occasionaHy decrease product quality. "Fouling" is a
more general term which refers to accumulated materials on the membrane
or in the feedwater-concentrate (brine) flow channels. Foulants include
scale, biological growth, and organic and inorganic particulate matter
passing through the pretreatment system and entering the membrane
desalination system.

Seawater, rivers, and lakes often contain large amounts of suspended

organic and inorganic materials. Brackish well waters usually require only
minimal pretreatment, although weH water containing significant
concentrations of gases and calcium is common.

Certain relatively low-cost, specific treatments exist for the constituents of

water cited in Table 3-1. These treatments and their typical application
are:

a. Coagulation with or without sedimentation foHowed by filtration is

used to remove suspended organic and inorganic substances including
bacter ia and algae.

b. Activated carbon adsorption is used to remove dissolved, organic

materials and chlorine.

c. Lime-soda softening is used to remove calcium and magnesium

hardness, iron, manganese, and silica.

-7-
TABLE 3-1. METHODS OF PRETREATMENT FOR IMPURITIES AFFECTING MEMBRANE
DESALlNA TION SYSTEMS

Membrane PotentiaJ Residual

Impurity Problem Treatment Method After Treatment

Dissoly~ Gases Scale Aeration HbS - 1 mg/L

(H S) and C 2 - 5 mg/L
2
Fouling CH 4 - 1 mg/L

Suspended Matter Scale Direct filtration 01 low levels 0.5 mg/L

(Turbidity) Fouling CoagUlation and filtration 0.5 mg/L
Coagulation and .sedimentation plus 0.5 mg/L
filtration
Diatomaceous earth filtration 0.5 mg/L

Color I Organics or Fouling Coagulation, sedimentation, filtration 0.5 mg/L

Bacteria lx. chlorination; activated carbon
adsorption
Oil Fouling API separation of gross amounts of free or J 96 01 influent
emulsified

Calcium, Bar ium Scale Lime softening and filtration 35-85 mg/L as CaCO)
and Stroot iurn 30-80 mg/L as CaCO)
Lime.soda softening and Ijltta tion
Jon eXchange J mg/L
Chemical scale inhibitors Deters precipitation

Re:siduaJ ChJor ine Membrane Activated carbon adsorption Trace

Degradation Sulfite reduction Zero

Sulfate Scale Barium precipitation &: filtration 5 mg/L

Anion ion eXchange I mg/L
Chemical scale inhibitors Deter~ ~aS~\
preclpltatlon
Iron and Manganese Fouling Low concentrations - aeration, oxidation, 0.5 mg/L
pH adjunment, filtration
Moderate to high concentrations - aeration, 0.5 mg/L
oxidation, pH adjustment, chemical
coagulation 6: sedimentation, filtration
Permanganate ox.idation, chlorination 0.2 mg/L

Silica Scale Alum/Iron coagUlation, sedimentation, 3 mg/L

filtration
Lime or lime-soda softening I mg/L

Alkalinity COC0 3 Lime precipitation, sedimentation, 35 mg/L

Scale filtration
Acidification 5 mg/L

-8-
 d. Softening by ion exchange is used to remove calcium and magnesium
hardness.

e. Aeration is used to remove gases (i.e., H S, COZ' etc.).

2
In general, each water must be examined to determine the .appropriate
method of pretreatment.

3.Z REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC PROCESSES/MEMBRANES

Electrodialysis removes only ions. Any bacteria, colloidal material, or silica

in the feedwater stream will remain in the product stream. Most waters
containing less than 50 to 160 mg/L silica, depending on temperature, do not
impair ED operation. Pretreatment requirements are significantly greater
for ED systems without polarity- reversal.

With non polarity-reversal ED plant operation, membrane fouling and scale

deposits form depending upon feedwater quality. The result is an increase in
power requirements. Techniques for cleaning have been developed to
increase the interval between stack disassembly for manual cleaning.

Periodic polarity-reversal reduces or eliminates the need for the addition of

acid to the feedwater and cleans surfaces of scaling materials. Rinsing the
electrodes continuously or periodically, removes gases formed at the
electrodes.

The cost of feedwater pretreatment for electrodialysis will vary with

feedwater quality. A well which produces soft water with no oxidized iron
or manganese, requires minimum pretreatment. Scaling occurs when the
brine stream becomes saturated with one of the less-soluble, alkaline or
non-alkaline salts, such as calcium sulfate. Pretreatment is required to
remove scale precursors.

Alkaline scale, calcium carbonate, and magnesium hydroxide tend to form

on the brine side of the membranes. When acid is added to the feedwater
and the Langlier Index does not exceed +2.0, the concentrated brine stream
is adequately controlled for ED polarity-reversal systems. Calcium sulfate
scale is prevented by limiting the brine concentration to levels not greater
than 150 to 200 percent of the saturation level.

Iron and manganese are removed by pretreatment with potassium

permanganate, or lime softening. The insoluble ferric hydroxide and
manganese oxides (i.e., Fe(OH)3 and MnO Z) formed by oxidation are
removed by filtration. Pretreatment for iron removal is recommended when
feedwaters contain more than 0.3 mg/L iron in the ferric form.

Membrane composition and module configuration affect the specific,

pretreatment-water-quality requirements. For example, the spiral RO
module is less susceptible to fouling than the hollow fine-fiber RO module.
Lower susceptibility is reflected in the lower silt density index limit of the
hollow-fiber module. Other feedwater limitations for specific RO
membranes/modules and the polarity-reversal ED system are presented in
Table 3-2.
" ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C ----

-9-
 TABLE 3-2. MEMBRANE FEEDWATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

C~1Julose
CeJlulose Acetate lc.
Triacetate, Polyamide Cellulose Polarity
Hollow-Fi~~ Hollo....-Fine:- Triacetate Polyamide, Reversal
Para met e!f' Fiber RO Fiber RO Spiral RO Spiral RO ED

Suspended Matter

.) Turbidity, NTU 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

b) Silt Density Index 4.0 3 NS NS NS
c) Plugging Factor, 96 P 30 60 4} NS NS NS

Ionic Content

oj Iron, mg/L 0.7 0.1 max 0.3 0.3 0.2

b) Mang_se, mg/L 1.3 0.1 mu D.} 0.2

c) Strontium, mg/L NS I} NS l}

d) Bar lum, mg/l NS 0.1 NS 1.0

e) Silica in reject,
mg/la.s 5;02 }{l-160 }0-160 }0-160 }0-160 }0-160

Organics NS NS NS ND

Chemical Additives

al ResiduaJ Chlorine, mg/L 1.0 0 0.1 min Zero 0

D.} max
1.0 <2'oC
b) Scx:1ium hexametaphosphate, 0-10 0-10 0·10 0-10 0
mg/l

pH Range 4.0-7.} 6.0 4-6 4-10 NS

Ff!'ed Temperature Max, DC 30° 3}0 35° 4}0 38°

NS - Not Specifi~
ND- NondetectabJe

-10-
 Feedwater quality limits in Table 3-2 have been established on the basis of
cleaning frequency and life of membranes. The tabulated limits are
maximums established by manufacturers of the various systems. Higher
feedwater quality improves membrane performance. Therefore, the design
of pretreatment systems should be based on higher water-quality criteria
than are presented in Table 3- 2.

The tabulated iron limits are for oxidized or ferric iron (Fe+ 3). M~y well
waters containing high concentrations of soluble or ferrous iron (Fe+ ) have
successfully been treated by membrane desalination systems when provisions
were made to prevent the oxidation of the soluble iron. Such provisions
include exclusion of air from the well pump, pretreatment and membrane
desalination system, and no additions of chlorine or any other oxidizing
agents. Use of feedwaters with OXidized-iron concentrations greater than
the tabulated limits requires more frequent cleaning and flushing of the
membranes.

The silica limit of 50-160 mg/L is based on the brine concentration. Silica
solubili ty is highly dependent on temperature. The most applicable silica
solubility data for reverse osmosis systems is presented in DuPont's
Permasep Engineering Design Manual. The silica solubility relationship for
temperatures between 5 and [gOC:

silica solubility (mg/L as Si0 ) = 10.2 T - 22, where T = Temp in

2
°c.
For temperatures above IgOC, the solubility is 160 mg/L The assumed
92-percent recovery (to minimize brine disposal) causes silica feedwater
limits to be 12 mg/L. The electrodialysis process which does not
concentrate silica has a significant advantage over RO for high silica
waters.

Polyamide membranes of both configurations are extremely susceptible to

chemical degradation by iron, manganese, barium and chlorine. The
tabulated limits are critical to operation of the systems.

Specific limits are not given for calcium, sulfate or carbonate ions even
though these are primary ions of concern in scale control. Limits on
specific ions are not meaningful since precipitation tendency (scale
formation) is normally expressed in terms of ion products. Specific ion
limitations are presented in Section 3.3.

3.3 DESIGN FEED WATER QUALITY

Reject-brine disposal costs can be significant for inland membrane

desalination systems. A product recovery of 92-percent has been assumed
to reduce brine-disposal costs. If low-cost reject brine disposal is available
at a specific site, recoveries can be economically reduced, and the criteria
used in this Manual for feedwater concentrations of potential scalants can
be relaxed.

-11-
The design criteria for the pretreatment systems in this Manual are
conservative when compared to many current, conventional, water
treatment plants.

The pretreatment systems are capable of producing water suitable as

membrane feedwater. Product waters of the pretreatment syst.ems satisfy
the general water quality requirements presented in Table 3-3.

As a conservative basis, this Manual for reconaissance level feasibilities is

based upon design with reject brines at less than calcium sulfate saturation.
It is possible to operate membrane desalination systems at calcium sulfate
saturations of 100 to l50-percent with the addition of scale inhibitors such
as sodium hexametaphosphate. Operation under calcium sulfate
supersaturation is a refinement whose feasibility should be determined by
pilot studies and during preliminary design studies.

TABLE 3-3. GENERAL MEMBRANE FEEDWATER REQUIREMENTS

FOR 92-PERCENT RECOVERY SYSTEMS

Turbidi ty <l.ONTU

Silt Densi ty Index <3.0

Plugging Factor <45%

Silica [aJ <4 to 12 mg/L

Calcium Sulfate [bj less than saturation

Calcium Carbonate [bj less than saturation

[aJ For reverse osmosis membranes only; 50-160 mg/L for ED

systems depending on temperature.

[bJ In reject brine.

-12-
 CHAPTER 4

PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

 CHAPTER 4

PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

This chapter contains a decision tree diagram for identification of the required
process for pretreatment of feedwaters to a 92-percent-recovery, membrane
desalination system. A decision tree approach is required because of the many
variables that are considered in the selection of the optimum process. A
confirmation of the validity of the laboratory water quality analyses is presented in
Section 4.1, and the selection procedure is described in Section 4.2.

4.1 WATER QUALITY ANALYSES

The quality of the source water generally determines the type of desalting
process employed and the pretreatment requirements. The purpose of this
section is to interpret the source-water quality into useful terms for
selecting and costing the pretreatment system. Insufficient water-quality
analyses can significantly impair water treatment process selection and cost
estimates. This Manual makes use of both milligrams per liter (mg/L) and
milliequilavents per liter (meq/L).

4.1.1 Required Water Analyses

The source water chemical constituents required for preliminary design of a

membrane desalination and pretreatment system are identified in Table 4-1
which includes both major and minor constituents. Blank copies of
Table 4-1 are presented in Appendix A as worksheets. Analytical data from
report sheets of laboratories should be transposed onto Table 4-1. Data in
Table 4-1 used in subsequent calculations will be identified in terms of line
or entry number.

4.1.2 Accuracy of Chemical Analyses

Provisions for checking the accuracy of the chemical analyses reported by

the laboratory are contained in Table 4-1. Entries 30 and 31 are ion and
TOS balances which must be compared to the indicated ranges for analysis
of acceptable accuracies. The ion balance compares the cation and anion
equivalencies of the major constituents. The TOS balance compares the
gravimetric TOS value with the sum of the specific ions. The gravimetric
TOS is generally less than the sum of the individual ions because of the loss
of carbon dioxide and water from the bicarbonate ions. This loss is
accounted for in Line 29.

If the ion and TOS balances do not fall within the indicated ranges, the
laboratory performing the analyses should be contacted for a reanalysis of a
source -water sample.

4.2 PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

Feedwater-quality requirements for membrane desalination systems are

described in Chapter 3. Alternative, technically viable pretreatment
systems for various category source waters are identified in Table 4-2.
---------------------pt'C ---

-13-
TABLE 4-1. LABORATORY WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT

SUBMITTED By: DATE COLLECTEO:, By: _

COMPANY', LOCATlON, _

RAVl 'I ATER SOURCE:, _

mg/L meq/L JONIe STRE.NGTH CALC.

1. CalCIUm (Ca.. 2, 20.0« x 2
42
2. Magnesium (Mg ) 12.16 r x 2

3. 5a1ium (Na·) 22.99 x

•• PotaSSium IK·) 39.10 x

,. Total Major Cations A' _

"'--- C3

meq/L IONIC STRENGTH C ..\ tC.

MAJO~ ANIONS
Eo. 8lcar!xrla te (HeO)-) 61.00 x
-2
7. Carbonate ( CO) ) I JO.oo x 2

8. Chloride {en I 3.5.", x

Nltrat~ (NO]-)
"
10. Sulfate (.so~
.2)
62.00

4B.03
x

, 2

11. Total Major Anioos All 811 CII

MISCELLANEOUS mg/l meq/L

12. CO 44.00
2
Il. Total Alkalinity
(u CaCO» I '0.00

... SIlica

". Fluor 10e

16. "on
17. Strontium rOS/JON BALANCE

... Barium
27. Total 100
I (A'). (A lJ loU')J

... Hydrogen Sulfide 21. Gravimetr ie IDS

(ReSIdue @ IOloC)
20. Suspl!7'lded Solids

21. BOD ". TDS: «27).O.}x{6l,

JO. Ion !(B'l/(Bll)] Range 0.96 to J .04

22. COO
31. TDS I(W/I")J Range 0.90 to 1.10
23. Turbldlty (N.T.U.)
,.. SpeCIfic Conductance
(.Jmhos/cm)
32. Ionic StTenglh (C5) .. (ell)
2,000

Ionic Strength ____ M

2l. Temp~tu~ CoC)

26. pH

-14-
TABLE 4-2. VIABLE PRETREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR VARIOUS
CATEGORY FEEDWATERS

R~ject Class "IX. ED!RO

CaSO" I - Lime/Lime-soda ... Filtration .. ED/RO
Reject Saturated
'" Si0
'"
OJ
....
«
2
Unsaturated Reject
CaS0
Class
D
-No pretreatment .. ED/RO
;> 4
Unsaturated
0
z
:>
0 Reject Class -IX .. ED (raw feed water not saturated)
'"
<J
Rej~t
CaS0
4
Saturated _
Dl -Lime/Lime-soda .. Filtration .. ED/RO
-CoaguJation .. Filtration ... IX .. ED/RO
SiO
Satar.ted Reject Class -No pretreatment .. ED
CaS0 IV -Lime/Lime-soda .. Filtration .. ED/RO
4
Unsatura ted -Coagulation .. Filtration ... ED/RO

Class -Lime .. Filtration .. ED/RO

V-A -Filtration ... IX .. ED/RO
Reject ~oagulation .. Filtration .. En/RO
CaS0
4
Reject Saturated Class -Lime-soda .. Filtration .. ED/RO
SiC V-B -Filtration .. IX .. ED/RO
Uns1tura ted -Coagulation .. Filtration ... IX .. ED/RO

'"....O'"J
«
Reject
C.S0
Class
VI
-Filtration .. ED/RO
-eoaguJation .. Filtration .. ED!RO
;> 4
Unsaturated
OJ
U
«
u. Class -Lime .. Filtration .. ED/RO
VD-A
'"'"
:>
Reject
-Filtration .. IX .. ED
-Coagulatjc>n + Filtration + IX + ED/RO
CaS0
Reject 4 Class "Lime-soda + Filtration + ED/RO
Saturated
SiO Vll-B -Filtration + IX + ED
Sat3rated -Coagulation. Filtration. IX + ED/RO

Reject Class -Filtration + ED

CaS0
4
VlII -Coagulation + Filtration. ED/RO
Unsatura ted

-Ident iites recommended process.

. -Lime/Lime-soda. Filtration + EO/RO

-15-
 Waters are categorized according to source (groundwaters versus surface
waters) and whether the rejects from the desalination systems are saturated
with respect to silica (Si0 ) and calcium sulface (CaSO 4). There are eight
2
water classes identified in Table 4-2. Alternative treatment systems are
presented and the recommended pretreatment system is identified for each
water class. The recommendations are based on the assumptions described
in Section 4.3. The process selection should be reviewed in the preliminary
engineering evaluation to consider specific source water and siting factors.

The selection technique presented in Section 4.3 and Table 4-2 consider only
silica, calcium, magnesium, sulfate and suspended solids. Other constituents
which may require pretreatment and processes for their removal are
identified in Table 4- 3.

The pretreatment processes required for the majority of source waters

occuring in the Colorado River Basin are presented in this Manual. Acid
addition to reduce the pH to 5.5 is incorporated into all pretreatment
systems. Similarly, sodium hexametaphosphate addition is utilized as a
scalant inhibitor in all systems.

The pH of 5.5 and scalant inhibitor generally prevent calcium carbonate

p reci pit a ti on.

Concentrations of manganese, iron, barium and strontium in excess of the

limits established in Table 3-2 require utilization of one or more of the
processes identified in Table 4-3. If these constituents are excessive, it is
recommended that first the selection tree in Section 4.3 be used to identify
the optimum process for the normal constituents. Table 4-3 should then be
reviewed to determine if the selected process will also remove any
additional scalants present, i.e., manganese, iron, bar ium, etc.

4.3 SELECTION TREE

Table 4-4 presents a methodology for identifying the pretreatment process

which will eliminate calcium sulfate and silica fouling and scaling. The
following assumptions have been made in Tables 4-2 and 4-4:

a. A 92-percent product recovery desalination system is assumed (see

Section 1.2 for the basis of the selection of 92-percent recovery).

b. Groundwaters are obtained from wells which are designed to produce

feedwaters free of particulate matter.

c. All surface waters require a minimum of filtration pretreatment for

removal of suspended solids. Coagulation may be required for
surface water with high turbidities.

d. Low-silica waters are treated for calcium removal by the lime or

lime-soda process if calcium sulfate is a potential scalant.
Magnesium removal is minimized to reduce sludge handling and
dispos aI costs.

e. High-silica raw waters are treated by the lime or lime-soda process

at chemical doses which remove magnesium. Magnesium hydroxide
precipitation is the primary mechanism for silica removal.
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C----
-16-
TABLE 1<-3. PROCESS CAPABILITIES FOR THE REMOVAL OF CONTAMINANTS

0
> 0 l
z
~ ...OT l
z
ti •
0

-
nlAntlHT <
w w
>
~
u. ~, ~
0

-
< . .OCL»L>
U U
~ < >
O~
zo
~
W ~

•
< ~ ~~ ~~
0
<
w < •• ~e
r
-
w.
~ e r 0

d
DfHUWENTAL
~ ~x 0
~
CCW"IITA.lIl.I'\IN4T
E • >. ~ <

Jr,U. T. INtO, c;aJ T 1 0 0 0 1-2 1-2 0

~
of
~< hEA" Y $&.lWfl'lOU)
1 0 0 0 1-2 1-2 0
R~ ~ TUI.JilI)lTY

& loU§IO£HDW IOUDS

MD TUaAlDtTT 2 0 0 0 1-2 1-2 0
~L.C:lCJCAl. MAT1a1A1.
W.OAO 2 1 0 0 1-2 1-2 0
~ au. NolO "LUI..,
0 P-l P-l 0
fl.QAT.u.LU 1 1-2 0
g~
Ro
! f,MUl.K)foIS
1 1-2 0 0 P-l P-l 0

."" MCTUJA 0 1 0 0 1-2 1-2 0

o~

~~

i~
CLOANCS P P-2 0 0 P-l P-l 0

~
->
<~
~>
taOH, MAHC:.AHUl 1:2" 1-2 1-2 -2? 2 2 0
H
~w ....CA 0 0 1-2 0 2 1-2 0
f

~0 HTDOlox.u< ......0< I" 0 0 0 0 0 0

~
>
~
a.uuUM J,OL.fATf
0 0 1-2 2? 2 1-2 0
~

0 1-2 2?
St'aCHnlMllJUUfAT!.
~ 0 2 1-2 0
~ 0
~
CIU.CIUW iUl..U.Tf.
0 1-2 2 2 1-2 0

-•
0 CAl.OUM CAUONATf. 0 P-l 1-2 2 2 1-2 2

SY).\80LS SUPERSCRIPTS
0- NOT VIABLE
• - WITH PRJOR QXIDAnON, C1
P _ POSSlBlY 2

J - VlA&Lf 7. REQUIRES MORE DATA TO

2 • GOOD VIA81UTY MME AN t\l. DECI.!itON

-17-
TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

A. [)eota-mme 11 silia removal is requited. C. Selection of Iime/lime-~ for w.,.-si,lIa surface "'oIten
saturated 1J\ calcium sulute.
A.I
C.l Complete T&hle ,-,•
....1.0tem H of Table .-1}
C.2 If Table __ ll results in Column 2 or 1. usC' lime trutment (Clus
A.l .. mllL "'ater V-A). U Column 1 of r.ble ....4 J.I selected. proc~ to D.

A.2 TemperatlJn' olfeed....ter. o. This section is for lo.-sllie& waters.

....2 .. Otem 2' of TabJeo /j._Io) 0.1 CaJculate tt. sum of 1.0 meq/L • CaJcium NOl1carbonue
Hardnleu.
_ _ _ _DC
0.1 11 1.0 meq/l .. (Item 10 Column I of Table __ ,)
A..) De1ermine Iilia c::oncentration at saturation
0.1 11 1.0 meq/L .. meq/L
If A.2 ( nCc, A.3 .. 10.2 x "'.2 _ 22 m&lL
0.1 11 meq/L
A.J.. mKlt
If A.2~lloC, A.J .. 1'Om&!L
0.2 CA!cu!"'te the SIoM'TI of thoe ra.-.. . .ter sulfate pJus 0.' meq/L.
0.2: 0.' meq/l ~ (Item 10 of Ta.ble 4-1)
A•./j C&lC\Jlate m&XJmum fee<lw&ter &ilia c:oocentr&tICln resultln& in
I.iila saturat.aoo In reject briM from '2-per~nt recovery 0.2 11 0.0 meqJl .. m~/L
reverse oamP5.ls.
0.2: meq/L
A.I>" SiJ.la at ytu!'&tion /12.,
0.3 De1'ermu'>e the u.turatiOl1 sullllt~ for the calCium ".JU4I
c:a.lc:ul,ltecl In 0.1. Ente1'" F.gure ~-l fQf" .. CaJCltnI v.a1ue 0.1 and
P"Oceed up ... ard ttl tt1e nl.-"'ater, iQtllc-streflgth curve. Ra ....
"'.4" mr;lL 1IIateT iOl'llc nre-nsth is lte'Tl 32 of Tablt.' 4~ 1. Rue the
Utur..tlon sulfate on tl'Jlo ordmate sc.aJI('.
,0\.' If A.I > A.J, _ aaumptioo h of Section If.).
D.) : mt"q/l : S.. tUTatlon sulfate
It A.I ?: A••, proceed to E or lJ'e eJecnodloJ1ys..L5 and proceed to 8.

If A.J ( A•• proceed to e.

U D.2 ! 0.3. ~e lirnl(' pretreumeflt (CJu~ 'i ,tef V_A).

U 0.2> 0.3, use lim~-soda pretreatment (Cl..ss "'atel" V-Bl.

E. nus and follow1Tlg sections apply lO r..... waters n!sulting in

'2-p«cent r«:ov~ reject brines saturated in Ioi.ltea.
5. Thls section applies to raw ",at en with Wlc:a Jess than saturation
Inthe ~Ject bnne from '2..percent reverse osmosIS. E.I Determine the ra._water calcium in meq/L.

5.1 Deter mme the ~.-.ater alcium in meq/L. E.I : (]tem 1 01 T~ble .-1)

B.t E Oum I of Table __ I) £.1 E me-q/L

B.1 = lTIeq/l £.2 C&Jeutate the 5Ul'I'I of tM ra....._w..tet' lUUate plus &O--pe'tC'ent of
the ra.~ ..... ater bic.ubof'late. Use meq/l.
B.2 CaJcuJa'te the sum of tl'll! r.",_water sulf,te plus &O-percent of
the ra.-water bicarbonate. Use meq!L E.2 E (Item 10 of Table .-}) .. 0.1 (]tem 6 of Table 4_)}

B.2 : ({tern 10 of Table ~-J) .. 0.1 (Item' of Table .-0 E.l • meq/L • 0.1 x meq/L

B.2 = meqlL .. 0.1 x meq/L E.l • moq/L

B.2 : meq/l EJ Oe'termme the S&tlJu.t1ot1 sulfate fC'K tl'Jlo calcium v~1,lI(' P'"e~ted
as E.J. Enter Filure 4.J for WClum v&lue E.J and proceed
e.' DetermlJ"ie the s"'turauon sulfate tor thie alcium value presented l4'""ud to the ra...- ...ater, iorHc~ftrength curve. Ra"'· ....ter IoniC
a.s B.I. Enter Figure 4_1 tor ca.lCI\JfTl value B.I Vld proceed stt'etllth IS Item 32 of T.bJI(' ~-J. Rea.d tM sa.turation sulfate on
up ....ard to tl'Jlo tI ... - .....uer. Ionic_strength curve. Raw ....ater Ionic the ordmate scale.
str~!tl'l IS Item 32 of T~le ~-1. Re~ the uturation $lJlf.. te on
tne ~dlfl.ate scale. E.3 " meq/L

e.) 11 meqll

8.4 It £..2 < E.l. USe c1Irecl ftltratjon etreatment and

eleoctrodlai-ysis tor sUTia.ce ...aters Class 'IL'aleT Vlll a.nd no
If B 2 < B.3. USI(' direct filtratIon etre,tm",t tor surface etreumenl and electrodl.! SIS for
....ters R::.s.s Water VI and flO retreument for roWld....Uers -..!!!!...!Y...
Ius W.ater II.
If £.2 > 1::.3. Calcium "ulfate scalin! ...i1l occur "'t 92_per~nt
If B.2 > B.3, CaJclum sulfate scalin! .... J,.ll OC'C"ur ,t 92 percent reocovery. . For gro'mc!wuetf, use iOf1 exd"l.a.Ille .nd
recoveq·. Fat grovndWilte1", use loti exchange tel.,", Water O. eJeC'tTodl~YSI5 lClan 'IL llte' liD. F~ sl.lrb.ce ... aters, proceed to
For surface .....teu. proa-t"c1 to c. f.

(cont inued)

-18-
TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION (continued)

F. This MICtion iJ fOf' aJoum ,ulbu ...ttral~. hi&h-sillC& surface

...aten.

F.l Complete Table lo.'.

F.2 U Table ,-, ruu.lts in Column). uu lime- PU:trUltnlmt rei....
W.uer VO- ....).

For Column I, pr~d to G.

For Collnln 2. proce<ed to H.

G. This J«:lion IS tot ClLlcium .wUatt' Mll.... ted. hifh-t.llica sut1acr

....ueo....

G.I Cah:ul...te the sum of the 1'&"'_"'.1«, caJ.cium nonarbot\&te

hMdrlleJS &I'lcI the raw-water m&lneSllnl concentration.

C.I ,,(Item 10 Column I of TAble , . " . (ItflTl 2 of Table a-I)

C.I c meq/l. meq/l

C.I " meq/l

G.2 C~C\Ill.te the sum of the raw-water sulfate plu:ll 0.6 meq/L

G.2" (Item 10 of Table a.I):> (0., meq/U

C.2 " meq/L • 0.' meq,(L

C.2 " meq/l

G.l ~ta'mlne G.l, the ,atun,Hon su\tue fOf' the calcium \/<lJue
c.a..lcuJated In G.l. Enter F1lun: If.-l !Of"'" c.a.Jc,1l,1rTl v&.lue G.t .nd
pl'oceed ~ ....ard to tl'c roI.w-water lonlc.stre0(1h curve. Raw.
water iorllc-sultfl&d.. is Item)2 of Table '-I. Read th~
'AtlS..tion suUAte on the crd.in..ate of Fisufe '-I.
G.) • m~L • saturAtion sultate

G.. Comp.. e G.2 Mld G.).

If C.2 ~ G.), use lime ;wetrutment ICu. "',uer vn-Al.

If F.2) F.), use lime.sodA prettenment (Clau "atC'f "8-8l.

H. Thi.s section IS tor a..IClUfn -.ulIAte wturated, I'll&!' silica "IflICe'

watC'f.

H.I C.LlC\,lI..te the sum of the raw-water, mqneSlum rlOf'lCUboflate

hal'"l:!....'e.s,s plus 1.0 meq!L.

H.l • litem 12 Columl'\ 2 or Table .-}) .. t.O meq/L

H.I • meqfL .. 1.0 meq/L

H.I : meq/l

H.2. litem 10 of Table '-0. (O.t; meq!L)

H.2 "" meqlL • 0.6 meqfL

H.2. meq/l

H.) Determine tl'le sloturation suJfate few ttw calcium "'~ue

caJeulated 11'\ H.!. EntC'f F1lure iJ_1 for a c.lJcum value H.I .a.nd
proceed ~wafd to the raw-wAter ionic-nreflr;th curve. RAw_
WAler 1000iC Hrenr;th IS Item 32 of Table iJ_l. Read the
s.a.turauon suUate on ttole ardinoate of Fil\lre ~-1.

H.): meq/L • saturatlon sulfate

If H.2 ~ H.), l4e lim'" fI("'trutment (Class WatC'f VII-").

II H.2) H.)t lJ5e lime-,ociI. fl(etre,atment (Class. '*'.t« vn-BJ.

-18a -
f. Adequate magnesium is present for the reduction of silica to
acceptable levels in the lime and lime-soda softening processes (see
Sections 6.3 and 7.3 for specific requirements).

g. Residuals of 1.0 meq/L (20 mg/L as Ca +2) of calcium ion and

0.6 meq/L (30 mg/L as CaC0 ) of alkalinity are assumed for lime and
3
lime-soda filtered effluents.

h. The selection process assumes that the raw feedwater is not

saturated with silica. If the feedwater is saturated with silica, the
lime or lime-soda softening process is recommended, depending upon
the relative concentrations of silica, calcium, magnesium and
bicarbonate.

The user of this Manual should fill out the blank worksheets provided in
Appendix A. This will normally involve less than 30-percent of the total
number of entr ies of Table 4-4.

Figure 4-1 has been prepared for an assumed product water recovery of
92-percent. It is based upon calcium sulfate saturation conditions in the
reject, which is concentrated 12.5 times the feedwater concentration at the
assumed recovery. This diagram cannot be used to determine the degree of
saturation of sulfate in the unconcentrated feedwater.

Table 4-5 facilitates the determination of the various carbonate and

noncarbonate species. This data is required for certain source waters and
the table need only be completed if so directed in Table 4-4.

The water class identified in Table 4-4 refers to the categories described in
Table 4-2. Classes V and VII are subdivided to identify whether lime or
lime-soda pretreatment process is recommended.

The required pretreatment processes are identified in Table 4-4. The user
should then proceed directly to the chapter for the recommended process:

Direct Filtration Chapter 5

Lime-Soda Pretreatment Chapter 6
Lime Pretreatment Chapter 7
Ion Exchange Chapter 8
No Pretreatment Chapter 10.

-19-
TABLE 4-5. CALCULATION OF HARDNESS SPECIES FOR LIME AND
LIME-SODA SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

I. Obtain the caJcium, magnesium and alkalinity conc~ntratjons from the

Laboratory "'atec Quality Analysis Report in Table "'~l.

J. Calcium (Ca-+ 2) = meq/L

2
2. Magnesium (Mg+ ) = meq/L

3. Total Alkalinity = meq/L

4. Total Hard""ss [(1I-WI = meq/L

D. Compare CaJcium (1) meq/L with Total Alkalinity (3)

meq!L.

,. If Calcium is g~ater than or equal to Total Alkalinity, use Column 1

of the Hardness Species Chart, i.e., l1l of this table.

6. If Calcium is Jess than Total Alkalinity, compare Tota.J Hardness (II)

_ _ _ _ meq!L with Total Alkalinity (3) meq/L.

7. If Total Hardness is greater than Total Alkalinity, use Column 2 of

the Hardness Species Chart to calculate hardness types.

8. If Total Hardness is less than or equal to Total Alkalinity, use

Column 3 to calculate hardness types. Use lime for pretreatment.

III. Hard~S'5 SpKies Chart (use only one column)

Hardness TVDe Column 1 CoJumn 2 Column 3

9. Calcium Carbona te Alk.OI Ca+ 2 (I) ea+ 2 (j )

Hardness meq/L meq/L meq/L

10. Calcium Noncarbona te ea+ 2 (l}-Alk.01 0 meq/L o meq/L

Hardness meq/L

II. Magnesium Carbonate o mrq/L Alk. O)-C. +2(1) Mg +2(2)

Hard~ss meq/L meq/L

12. Magnesium Noncarbonate Mg+ 2 (2l Tot. Hard"" sse4)- Alk. 0) o meq/L
Hardness meq/L meq/L

-20-
 ',000

',000

2,!l00

1,000

"'"
'00

300

N, 200
~

g
lU
t- 100
<
...::J
u..
Vl

>0
.0

>0

20

10

0.21

, ,',
'T
.,
0.1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.' 1.0 2 , •, _IL
10 20 )0 40)0 100

I
2
•
I ,I I I I I I
10
I
20
I
'"
."
I I I 1I
'00
m&il.
I
200
I I /I I11I
JOO .ao)()O 1,000 2,000

CALCIUM (Ca+2)

FIGURE 4-1. CALCIUM VS. SATURATION SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS

AS A FUNCTION OF IONIC STRENGTH, ASSUMING 92 PERCENT
PRODUCT WATER RECOVERY

-21-
 CHAPTER 5

DIRECT FILTRAlION
 CHAPTER 5

DIRECT FlLTRAnON

5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

In the broadest sense, direct filtration has been defined as a treatment

system in which filtration is not preceded by sedimentation. Flocculation
and contact chambers mayor may not precede the filters. Many existing
reverse osmosis systems (capacity less than 5-mgd) employing the direct
filtration process do not utilize flocculation or contact units; generally a
filter aid such as ferric chloride is injected directly upstream of an in-line,
static mixer. In contrast, municipal water treatment plants generally
provide a 15 to 3D-minute, flocculation period prior to filtration. The
flocculation process prepares the particulate matter for filtration thereby
improving turbidity removal.

In consideration of the stringent pretreatment requirements for membrane

desalting systems, a 2D-minute, flocculation period is used directly upstream
of the pretreatment granular-media filters described and costed in this
Manual. The basic flow diagram for the direct filtration pretreatment
process is illustrated in Figure 5-1.

5.2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

In conventional practice, potable water filters are nearly all down-flow,

single-media, dual-media or mixed-media, deep-bed filters operated at a
high rate. In small plants, at least two pressure filters are commonly used.
The filter media is contained in a pressure tank, and the water is pumped
through the media so that the water enters and leaves the filter under
pressure. Frequently, the filter discharges directly into. the distribution
system. In large plants, at least three gravity filters are used, the filter is
open at the top, and the water flows through the filter by gravity and leaves
the filter at atmospheric pressure. The filter effluent is usually discharged
to a clearwell. Sectional views of pressure and gravity filters are shown in
Figure 5-2.

The efficiency and cost of the direct filtration process depends upon several
factors which include:

a. The concentration and characteristics of the solids in suspension

(particle size distribution, surface characteristics, organic vs.
inor ganic).

b. The characteristics of the porous media (particle size distribution,

surface characteristics, media depth) and filtering aids used.

c. The design of the system and its method of operation.

A chemical filter aid (j.e., polymer) is often added to agglomerate the

suspended solids, and make them more filterable. Dual and ;f1ulti-media
filter hydraulic-loading rates typically range from 3 to 6 gpm/ft •
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C -----'
-22-
 CHLORINE

COAGULANT

PREmEATED
SOURCE
WATER
(SURFACE)
l2JnI I (2 RAPID
~IIX
FLOCCUI.ATlON
BASI~
PRE<S\RI/
GRAVITY
FILTERS
---......r ~
..----r-... 3 r - - ' " I
WATER
STORAGE
TANK

, ]'---,.--
[ -J;- f \
SURGE I BACKWASH 10
DECANT STORAGE MEMBRA\;L
1 TANK TANK
N CENTRIFUGE f---{ 61 " !JESALINATION

""1

!
AVERAGE RELATIVE FLOWS
CD 1007 CEJ 0.010
Q 10311 0.0]5
SLUDGE
TO
GJ 1.000 0.008
I.A:-;DFILL cD 0.030 8 0.007

FIGURE 5-1. FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DIRECT FILTRATION PRETREATMENT

, p~C
 . BA FFLE PLAT ""-
---------------- - --- -- -- - -- ------
•.·-FILTERING SURFACE
----~----------

MEDIA

EFFLUENT

SAMPLE
FAUCET
,., ...

CROSS SECTION OF TYPICAL PRESSURE FILTER

BACKWASH FILTER BA SIN WASH TROUGHS

GULLET

FILTER FLOOR

CUTAWAY VIEW OF MULTI MEDIA GRAVITY FILTER

FIGURE 5-2. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF PRESSURE AND GRAVITY FILTERS

""--- pl"C_--'

- 24-
 The head loss through a clean gravity filter bed and under drain system
during filtration are typically I to 3 feet. The head loss through a clean
filter bed depends upon the depth of media, the water temperature, the
porosity of the bed, the rate of filtration, and the gradation of the media.
Additional losses are in the under drain system and effluent piping. During a
filter run, the porosity of the bed and the head loss are always changing
because of the particulate accumulations on the surface of the grains. Once
filtration is started, the rate of head-loss increase depends upon both the
composition of the bed and the nature of the water being filtered.

Gravity filters are usually run until the head loss reaches 6 or 10 feet before
backwashing. Pressure filters may be run to higher head losses, if desired.

The in-place cleaning of filter media is accomplished by reversing the flow

upward through the bed and expanding it by 30 to 50-percent. Substances
that have accumulated in the bed during filtration are flushed out with the
wash water. Air scouring can also improve the effectiveness of filter media
backwashing and reduce the quantity of backwash water.

5.2.1 Effects of Raw Water Quality on Direct Filtration

Direct filtration can be used in all sizes of treatment plants, from Jess than
I-mgd to over 100-mgd. Direct filtration is suitable only for high-quality,
raw-waters because all solids removal takes place in the filter. In a survey
of direct filtration plants conducted by the Coagulation-Filtration
Committee of the American Water Works Association, the average raw
water turbidity was found to be 25 NTU or less at direct-filtration plant.
[Letterman et al 1976]. By contrast, the turbidity of the water in many
western rivers often runs into hundreds of NTU.

Since the detention time in direct filtration plants is considerably shorter

than in conventional plants having sedimentation (e.g., a half-hour in a
direct-fiitration plant vs. several hours in a sedimentation plant), plant
operators must maintain a constant watch on raw and filtered-water quality
for cha'1ges in raw-water quality which wiIJ produce a change in the product
water.

5.2.3 Advantages of Direct Filtration

The primary advantage of direct filtration is the potential for capital cost
savings (up to 30 percent). This savings results from the elimination of
sludge-collecting equipment and settling basin structures, and the reduction
in capacities of the flocculation equipment and flocculation-basin
structures.

With direct filtration, chemical costs are general1y 10 to 3D-percent lower

because, generally, less coagulant is required to produce filterable flocs
than to produce settleable flocs. The costs for a supplemental polymer may
be greater than in conventional plants, but these higher costs are offset by
the lower costs for coagulant.

Since equipment requirements are minimal, operation and maintenance costs

are reduced.
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C---'

-25-
 Land requirements are reduced because of the elimination of the settling
basins and the reduction in size of the flocculation basin.

Direct filtration produces less sludge than conventional treatment. The

collection of waste solids is simplified. All waste solids are contained in a
single backwash water stream [Culp 1977 and Tate et al 1977].

5.2.11 Limitations of Direct Filtration

Despite the advantages, direct filtration has several disadvantages. Since

all suspended solids are removed in the filter, practical, upper limits exist
on the turbidity, color, and algae that raw-water can contain without
causing unduly short filter runs. As a result, the direct-filtration process is
not applicable to raw waters having turbidities greater than 100 to 200 NTU,
color greater than 100 units, color and turbidity each greater than 25 units,
or plankton exceeding 500 to 1,000 asu/ml [Culp 1977]. When the average
raw-water turbidity exceeds 10 NTU, direct filtration generally becomes
inefficient mainly due to both shorter filter runs and increased probability
of turbidity breakthrough.

Direct filtration does not remove dissolved constituents. For the high-
recovery desalination systems under consideration in this report (i.e.,
n-percent recovery to minimize brine disposal) the following restrictions
apply to the dissolved constituents of the feedwater:

a. Silica less than II to 12 mg/L for RO pretreatment; 50-160 mg/L for

ED pretreatment.

b. CaSOII in the reject brine less than saturation.

5.3 CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS

Small quantities of chemicals are used in the direct filtration process

consisting of filter aids to enhance the removal of suspended solids in the
fiI ter bed. Their use is generally required for consistent production of good
quality filtrate.

Polymers (or polyelectrolytes) are high molecular weight, water soluble

compounds which can be used as primary coagulants, settling aids, or
filtration aids. The compounds may have cationic, anionic, or nonionic
charges. The effectiveness of anionic polyelectrolytes used as coagulant
aids for inorganic coagulants is nearly independent of pH, alkalinity,
hardness, and turbidity. The cationic types typically perform as fJocculants
without the addition of metal coagulants, although this use can result in
rather high residual turbidities. Many of the nonionic poly electrolytes are
derived from natural sources, such as starch and polysaccharide gums.

Generally, polymer doses required as a filtration aid are less than 1.0 mg/L.
As a filtration aid, polymer increases the strength of the chemical floc and
controls the depth of floc penetration into the filter. For maximum
effectiveness in direct-filtration systems, the polymer should be added in an
upstream settling basin or flocculator. In some cases, additional polymer

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C ----

-26-
 should be added at the filter inlet as filtration aid. Many polymers are
delivered in a dry form. Polymers are not easily dissolved, and special-
polymer mixing and feeding equipment is required. Many polymers are
biodegradable, and dilute solutions cannot be stored for more than a few
days without suffer ing significant degradation and loss of strength.

Other types of chemical coagulants also exist. Ferric chloride or" alum doses
of 3 to 10 mg/L are sometimes used as coagulants or filter aids to enhance
solids removal although compounds containing aluminum or tin can have
detrimental effects on some membrane elements (e.g., hollow-fine-fiber).

The optimum chemical dosage used in the coagulation of water depends upon
a var iety of interrelated factors. These include the water's chemical
composition, color, turbidity, pH, temperature, the degree of mixing,
contact time of the coagulant with the water, and the characteristics of the
coagulant.

As a result of the complexity of these factors, laboratory testing is usually

required. The single, most Widely used test to determine dosage and other
parameters is the jar test. Essentially, the jar test consists of a series of
sample containers, and the contents are stirred by mechanically operated
stirrers. Water to be treated is placed in the containers, and the treatment
chemicals are added while the contents are being stirred. Parameters such
as pH, coagulant dosage, and coagulant type can be varied in order to
determine the optimum combination of parameters for a source water.
After a short (J to 5-min) period of rapid stirring to ensure complete
dispersion, the stirring rate is decreased, and flocculation is allowed to
cant inue for a per iod of 10 to 30 min or more, depending upon the intensi ty
of mixing. The stirring is then stopped, and the flocs are allowed to settie
for a selected time. The supernatant can then be analyzed for a variety of
parameters including: I) visual evaluation of floc size; 2) visual or photo-
metr ic measurement of supernatant clarity or color; 3) time of appearance
of first floc; 4) chemical determination of residual coagulant in supernatant;
5) rate of settling of flocs; 6) measurement of the electrophoretic mobility
(zeta potential) of the particles; 7) the filterability characteristics either
through paper, membranes, or miniaturized sand filters.

Data obtained from the jar tests is analyzed using a combination of

parameters selected to determine the optimum coagulant and dosage.

Since the chemical amounts used in direct filtration are relatively smal1 ,
chemical costs are not a significant factor in overall operational costs. In
addition, little variation in total plant operational costs result from use of
different chemicals.

5.4 LIQUID WASTE PRODUCTION

Relatively little chemical sludge is produced in the direct-filtration process.

Filter backwash water will contain silt, turbidity, solids and some chemical
precipitates. The material can be allowed to settle so that the supernatent
can be recycled to the head of the plant. The resulting sludge can then be
disposed. Methods of sludge handling and liquid waste disposal are discussed

" " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pre---"

-27-
 in Section 9.1. The character istics and typical volumes of liquid wastes are
shown in Table 9- I.

5.5 SITING REQUIREMENTS

Usually direct filtration has no specific siting requirements. Approximately

3-percent of the total plant flow consists of backwash water and direct
filtration is suited to environments which are favorable to liquid-waste-
disposal methods at low costs. Section 9.4 discusses additional general
siting requirements for desalting systems.

5.6 DESIGN CRITERIA

A design worksheet for direct filtration is presented in Table 5-1. Based on

the plant capacity, the major design characteristics of the filter can be
develope~. Fixed parameters include the filter, hydraulic-loading rate 'it
3 gpm/ft (of filter area) and the backwash water flowrate at 18 gpm/ft .
The worksheets are generally self-explanatory. The numbers enclosed by
parentheses refer to entries or line numbers on the worksheet. For example,
[(5) x 1801 means that the value given on line 5 of the worksheet is
multiplied by 180. Appendix C documents some of the numerical constants
presented in this Table.

Pretreatment plant capacity for direct filtration can be calculated using the
following relationship based on a 92-percent desalting recovery rate and the
average relative unit flow (I) from Figure 5-1:
Pretreatment Plant = Desalting Plant Installed Capacity x 1.007
Capacity 0.92

Other design criteria such as energy requirements, labor and operator

requirements are discussed with direct filtration costs presented in
Section 5.7.

Based on the sizing of the variou~ components of direct filtration, a sample

layout of a 20-mgd direct filtration pretreatment facility is presented in
Figure 5-3. A membrane desalting room is also shown. Approximately
5 acres of land are required for this facility (see Figure 9-7 for land
requirements for other plant capacities). Area requirements for reject brine
and sludge disposal are not included.

5.7 DIRECT FlL TRA TION COSTS

This section provides current cost data for the direct filtration process. The
bases for costs presented in this Manual are discussed in Section 2.2.

5.7.1 Constr uction Costs

Figure 5-4 presents construction cost data for direct filtration as a function
of pretreatment plant capacity. The construction costs for direct filtration
include the polymer and chlorine feed systems, rapid-mix tank, flocculation
basin, the filtration structure, dual filter media, surface wash, surge basin,

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt"C----'

-28-
 TABLE 5-1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DIRECT FIL TRA nON PRETREATMENT

I. Pretreatment Plant Capacity _ _ mgd

2. Hydraulic Loading Rate 3 gpm/ft 2
3. Total Surface Area [(1) x 231] ft 2 .
--
4. Number of Operation Filters [(3)/1,750,
rounded off to next larger integer. At
flows less than 15-mgd, use 2 filters.]
5. Area of Individual Filter [(3)/(4)]
6. Total Number of Filters (Incl. I standby)
[(4)+1]
2
7. Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 18 gpm/ft
8. Backwash Water Volume per Filter -- gallons
(lO-min backwash time)
[(5) x 180]
9. Filter Height
a. media depth 30 inches
b. total height 84 inches
10. Rapid-Mixer Contact Time I-min
II. Rapid-Mixer Volume [(1) x 700] _ _ gallons
12. Flocculation Basin Contact Time 20-min
13. Flocculation Basin Volume _ _ gallons
4
[(J) x 1.4 x 10 ]
14. Backwash Storage Tank _ _ gallons
[(8) x (4)]
15. Surge/Decant-Tank Volume _ _ gallons
[equal to (14)]
16. Pretreated-Water Storage
Tank Volume [(1) x 1.25 x 10 5 ] _ _ gallons
17. Sodium Hexametaphosphate 5 mg/L
18. Total SHMP requried [7.61 x (1)] _ _ tons/yr
19. H S0 Dosage [0.64 x Item 6, Table 4-1, mg/L] _ _ mg/L
2 4
20. Total H S0 required [(19) x 0) x 1.52] _ _ tons/yr
2 4

-29-
 ..---,
II ELECTRICAL
TRANSFORMERS
I
POST-TREATMENT
FACILITY
BACKWASH
WATER
STORAGE
SURGE/
DECANT
TANK
CENTRIFUGE
L.J

ELECTRICAL
-----;
I
STORAGE I
ROOM I
I
I
I6J
I GRAVITY:

-----{ f-----i----- I I
J , FILTERS
FLOCCULATION
PUMP J I BASIN
ROOM: I
I I I
,
I MEMBRANE
DESALTING
----II ROOM
I
'-" I
o,
CONTROL'
ROOM :
,
I
----I
J PRETREATED WATER
I STORAGE TANK
OFFICES' MAINTENANCE
I
,-------------- SHOPS;)

, LABO"ATORY: :

FIGURE 5-3. SAM PLE LAYOUT OF A 20 MGD DIRECT FILTRATION PRETREATMENT FACILITY.

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prc-..-/
 air-water backwash, pretreated water storage tank, transfer pumping to the
desalting area and the administration, laboratory and maintenance building.
These costs are based on an Engineering News Record Construction Cost
Index (ENR-CCI) value of 297.73 which is representative of June 1980.

5.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

The 0 & M costs for direct filtration include energy, materials, labor and
chemicals. Figure 5-5 presents labor requirements for direct filtration in
terms of man-hours/yr versus pretreatment plant capacity. Figure 5-6
presents materials costs as a function of pretreatment plant capacity. The
costs of materials can be updated using the Producer Price Index for
Finished Goods for June 1980 at a value of 2lf2.3. The chemical
requirements for direct filtration consist of a polymer, inorganic coagulant
and chlorine. The total coagulant chemical requirements are equivalent to
5 tons/yr/mgd plant capaclty. The energy requirement for direct filtration
is approximately 0.15 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd plant capacity.

5.7.3 Total Costs

Table 5-2 is a worksheet for calculating total annual equivalent costs for
the direct filtration process. The total capital costs in Section A of
Table 5-2 are obtained from the construction cost data presented in
Figure 5-lf. These costs can then be updated by multiplying Figure 5-lf costs
by the ratio of the present ENR-CCI to the base index. The remaining
calculations of Part A are self explanatory.

Annual 0 & M costs may be determined from using the data presented in
Figure 5-5 and 5-6. The appropriate consumption rates can be filled in
Part B of the table and multiplied by the current cost rates.

Total annual equivalent costs for direct filtration can then be calculated by
adding the annual equivalent capital cost to the annual 0 & M cost.

-31-
TABLE 5-2. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR DIRECT FILTRATION

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Filtration plant base cost (from Figure 5-4) $

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()]
297.73 x a $
2. Additives @ 32.5% of J(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.325xJ(b)]
3. Total capital cost [(I) + (2)]
_ _ _ _ years
4. Expected life of facility
_ _ _ _ percent
5. Interest rate
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] _ _ _ $/yr
7.
B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] _ _ _$/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _$/ton $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 5-5] m-hr /yr _ _ _$/m-hr $/yr
11. Energy [b] kwh/yr $/kwh $/yr
---
12. Annual a & M cost
[sum (8) through (J I)] _ _ _.$/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _$/yr

13.
Annual a & M cost [(l2)] _ _ _$/yr
14.
Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (l4)] _ _ _$/yr
15.
16. Unit water costs [c 1

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity $/kgal

---$/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity $/kgal
---$/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 5-6 cost by: [Prodected Producer Price Index/242.1] .
[b] Energy requirements are 0.15 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(l5)] /[mgd x 365,000]
$/ac-ft = [$/kgal] x [325.85].

-32-
 ENR-CCI (JUNE 1980),297.73
10
9

1\

7 V
/
6 V
5
V
/
4
/ I
~
/
'"
0

X
if> 3
/
/
~

l-
V)
0
u 2.5
l/V"

2
1.1
V
V
/

I
3 5 6 7 1\ 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: [Adapteo from U.S.Erwlronmental Protection Agency, 1979]

FIGURE 5-4. CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIRECT FILTRAnON PRETREATMENT

''_ Pf'C--,

-33-
 50

40

30

./
25
n::
>- V '"
--
'"0 20

X
Vl
n:: /'
/
::J 15
0
:r:,
z
<l::
~
l/
V
l/

10
./
'/
9 ./
8

5
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: (Adapted Irom U.S. Environmental Protec[ion Agency, 1979)

FIGURE 5-5. 0 & M LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR DIRECT

FILTRAnON PRETREATMENT

---------------------pf""C

-34-
 PRODUCER PRICE INDEX (JUNE 1980) = 2~2.3
10
9

8 /
V
/
7

6
V
5
V
/
I
4 /
V
~

a:
;,.
--
.oj-
a
~

X 3
V
if}
~

f-
/
V
Vl
0 2.5
u
/
2 , /

1.5

1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: (Adapted from U.S. Environmental ProtectIOn Agency, 1979)

FIGURE 5-6. 0 &: M MATERIALS COST FOR DIRECT FILTRAnON PRETREATMENT

'----------------------pr-c
-35-
 CHAPTER 6

LIME-SODA SOFTENING
 CHAPTER 6

LIME-SODA SOFTENING

6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTlON

To reduce excessive calcium noncarbonate hardness and/or silica

concentrations, a commonly used pretreatment process for reverse osmosis
and electrodialysis desalting systems is lime-soda softening. When a
membrane desalting system is operating at a high-recovery rate and the
level of calcium and/or silica in the source water is high, scale can form on
the membranes. The lime-soda softening process precipitates calcium and
magnesium compounds through the addition of calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)Z'
(made by slaking quicklime with water) and soda ash Na C0 , (sodium
Z 3
carbonate). The lime reacts with the calcium and magnesium bicarbonates
to form insoluble calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. Other
magnesium compounds react with lime to form insoluble magnesium
hydroxide and soluble calcium sulfate or chloride or both. Silica
co-precipitates with the magnesium hydroxide.

Lime alone cannot remove the noncarbonate calcium hardness. Calcium

chloride and calcium sulfate, formed either by the reaction of magnesium
sulfate or chloride with lime or originally present in the source water, is
precipitated as calcium carbonate by soda ash addition. These precipitates
are then coagulated and settled and are usually continuously removed from
the settling basin. After settling, the pH can be lowered partially using
carbon dixoide (CO), or sulfuric acid (HZSO J. The water is then filtered.
The membrane feeawater pH is adjusted to 5.) after storage.

The softening process may be carried out in separate-rapid-mix,

flocculating, and sedimentation basins or in upflow-solids-contact reactors,
which embody in one unit the necessary mixing, flocculating, and settling
processes. The principle of using previously preCipitated sludge as seed
material to promote the formation of more readily settleable precipitates is
always part of solids-contact plants and is often used in conventional plants
when sludge is recirculated back to the rapid-mix basin.

Lime-soda softening plants include chemical feeders, rapid-mix,

flocculation, sedimentation basins, and filters. The prime purpose of
lime-soda softening for membrane-pretreatment process, however, is to
promote the necessary chemical reactions to remove calcium by converting
it into insoluble precipitates.

A flow diagram for lime-soda softening pretreatment system is illustrated

in Figure 6- I. The major components of the process include an
upflow-solids- contact reactor, gravity filtration and a clearwell for the
storage of pretreated water. Other components include backwash water and
surge tanks, and gravity thickening and dewatering equipment for sludge
disposal. The average relative flowrates are also indicated in Figure 6- J.
These relative flowrates can be used to estimate flows from typical lime-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pre----'

-36-
 • LIME

I MISe. (POLYMER. CI,)

SOURCE
WATER _ SODA ASH pH ADJUSTMENT
(SURFACE) , (H 2 S04, CO~)

GRIT UPFLOW SOLIDS GRAVITY

BASIN CONTACT REACTOR FILTERS

I 1 (7') , SLUDGE

9 6 6

'""
I
') (6); ,
SURGE BACKWASH
DECANT STORAGE
TANK TANK
THICKENINGI
DEWATERING

PRETREATED
WATER
STORAGE
TANK
AVERAGE RELATIVE FLOWS
CD 1.0075 ® 0.030
o 1.Q45 QJ 0.015
~ 1.030 ® 0.0075
o 1.030 ~ 0.0075 TO MEMBRANE
DESALINATION
CS)1.000

FIGURE 6-1. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR LIME-SODA SOFfENING PRETREATMENT

'-- pt"C ----

 soda softening systems. Final acid addi tion and sodium hexametaphosphate
addition are not illustrated.

6.1.1 Chemistry of Lime-Soda Softening

The chemistry of lime-soda softening is best described by the chemical

reactions that take place when lime and soda ash are added to water which
contains calcium and magnesium salts. The reactions for the lime addition
are identical to those which occur in the lime softening process.

The addition of hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) produces the following reactions:

CO 2 + Ca(OH)2 - CaC0 3 + H 0 [6.1 ]

2
Ca(HCo 3)2 + Ca(OH)2 - 2CaC0 + 2H 0 [ 6.2]
3 2
Mg(HC0 )2 + 2Ca(OH)2- Mg(OH)2 + 2 CaC0
3 3
Reaction [6.1] elevates the raw-water pH to allow the softening reactions
to occur. In reactions [6.2] and [6.3], soluble carbonate hardnesses at a
pH greater than 9.0 are converted into insoluble carbonates and hydroxides,
which precipitate from solution, and are removed by sedimentation and
filtration. In lime softening, only minor reductions occur in the total
dissolved solids content of the raw-water, primarily as a result of
bicarbonate removal. Although carbon dioxide is not hardness, CO
2
consumes lime and must be considered in the chemistry of the system, Le.,
reaction [6. I] .

In sufficient amounts, hydrated lime also reacts with the magnesium

non carbonate hardness a~ follows:

MgSO Ii + Ca(OH)2 - Mg(OH)2 + CaSOIi [ 6.1i]

MgCI 2 + Ca(OH)2 - Mg(OH)2 + CaCI 2 [ 6.5]

As a result of these reactions, magnesium noncarbonate hardness is removed

and an equivalent amount of calcium non carbonate hardness is produced. In
order to remove the noncarbonate calcium, soda ash is added as shown in
the following reactions:

CaSOIi +Na 2C0 3 - CaC0 3 [ 6.6]

CaCI 2 + Na C0 - CaC0 [ 6.7]

2 3 3
Equations [6.1] through [6.7] describe the chemical reactions occurring in
conventional lime-soda treatment. A difference exists between
conventional lime-soda softening and lime-soda softening for membrane-
desalination pretreatment. Conventional lime-soda softening normally
removes both calcium and magnesium hardness. Membrane-pretreatment
systems are only required to remove magnesium when excessive silica is
present. If silica reduction is not required, only calcium reduction is
desirable. However, as magnesium hardness removal succeeds calcium
hardness removal, the chemistry of the processes are virtually identical.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p r c --"

-3&-
 6.1.2 High-Silica Waters

For design purposes, silica will precipitate in 92-percent product recovery

RO systems whenever the feedwater silica concentration exceeds Ii to
12 mg/L depending on temperature. This feedwater limit is based on a
maximum reject brine silica level of 50-160 mg/L. ED feedwater should
have silica concentrations of less than 50-160 mg/L depending on
temperature.

For feed waters with silica greater than Ii to 12 mg/L depending on

temperature, precipitation of magnesium hydroxide by the lime or lime-soda
processes is necessary. This simply means that reactions [6.3] through
[6.5] occur. In reactions [6.6] and [6.7], soda ash requirements are
generally increased due to the production of noncarbonate calcium hardness
via reactions [6.1i] and [6.5J.

The use of the lime-soda process for silica removal is predicated on enough
mangesium being present for removal of silica. Empirical relationships have
sho:;"f, that for every mg/L of silica removed, 2.5 mg/L of magnesium (as
Mg + ) must be removed. For reverse osmosis desalination systems operating
at 92-percent recovery, the maximum silica concentration in the pretreated
water is calculated as Item 16 of Table Ii-I minus Item A.1i of Table Ii-Ii.
The maximum magnesium removed in the lime-soda process equals the raw
water magnesium concentrati0r2 minus the pretreated water residual (j.e.,
1.0 meq/L or 12.2 mg/L as Mg +). Therefore the amount of silica removed
is equal to the maximum magnesium removed di vided by 2.5.

6.1.3 Variations in the Lime-Soda Process

Several var iations in the basic lime-soda process can be used for certain
feedwaters and water treatment objectives. These variations include
selective lime treatment, split treatment, excessive lime, and excess lime
followed by recarbonation. The use of one of the variations in the basic
process can reduce chemical costs up to 25 percent. The user of this Manual
should consult Chapter 9 of Water Quality and Treatment prepared by the
American Water Works Association for additional details.

6.2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The principal process elements of the lime-soda pretreatment system are

rapid mixing, flocculation, sedimentation, stabilization and filtration. Very
often, an upflow-solids-contact reactor which combines rapid mixing,
flocculation and sedimentation into a single unit is used. Ancillary
equipment includes chemical storage, feeding, and sludge disposal. Each of
these process elements is briefly discussed.

6.2.1 Rapid-Mix

The function of rapid-mix is to disperse the added chemicals, maintain this

dispersal for a sufficient period to dissolve them, and start the reactions.
The mixing time and the kind of mixing equipment are influenced by
temperature and reagent. The rate of dissolving of lime is quite low. The
minimum contact time, therefore, should be considered to be 5-min, and
" ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C -------

-39-
 longer times may be desirable. The addi tion of small amounts of a metal
coagulant (e.g., ferric sulfate) to a rapid-mix basin is often advantageous.
In-line blenders are not used for flash-mixing of softening reagents.

6.2.2 Flocculation

In the flocculating basins, the chemical reactions are completed, and the
precipitates are flocculated (i.e., aggregated into large, settleable floes).
By keeping these solids suspended together with recirculated sludge, the
reaction rates are increased due to the large surface area of previously
formed particles. The time required for flocculation is 40 to 60-minutes
[AWWA 1971].

Mechanical flocculation with controlled agitation should be provided in

preference to baffled conduits or basins. To avoid shearing and breaking up
of previously formed floc particles, tapering or gradually reducing the
intensity of agitation from the inlet to the outlet of the basin is advisable.
Reducing agitation is especially helpful to plants treating high-magnesium
waters where no additional coagulant is used to toughen the floc. The
magnesium hydroxide floc is quite fragile and will not reform readily if
broken.

6.2.3 Sedimentation

The sedimentation-basin retention time in lime-soda softening plants is

usually 2 to 3 hours in duration. This retention period is commonly used in
softening as compared to the customary 4 hours recommended for settling
an alum floc. To avoid eddy currents and short circuiting, horizontal
velocities should be less than 0.5 it/min. Baffles are desirable at the inlet
to distribute the flow evenly throughout the basin. Because of the large
volume of sludge produced in lime-soda ash plants, mechanical sludge
collectors are required.

6.2.4 Solids-Contact Reactor

The solids-contact reactor is often used instead of separate flocculation and

sedimentation basins. Upflow-solids-contact reactors combine mixing,
coagulation, liquid-solids separation, and sludge removal into a single basin.
Generally, rapid-mix and coagulation/flocculation are accomplished in the
center of the unit, and upflow clarification occurs through a sludge blanket
in the outer portion of the basin. Upflow-solids-contact clarifiers are
generally selected on the basis of a lower cost and the operational
advantages of combining several processes into a single basin.

A schematic diagram of a typical solids-contact reactor is shown in

Figure 6-2. This type of reactor is very efficient because chemical
reactions occur rapidly and completely in the presence of previously formed
floc. The chemicals are introduced into the top of the unit. The coagulant
precipitates in the presence of a recirculated slurry of previously formed
precipitates. Floc formation is encouraged by this slurry recirculation and
finely divided precipitates are avoided. In the secondary mixing and
reaction zone, the raw water is circulated in contact with 3 to 5 volumes of

~-------------------pt'C ---"

-40-
 CHEMiCAl CHEMICAl

RAW
"ATER

SlUffRY POOL INDICATED BY SHADED AREAS

BLOW-Off AND DRAIN

Source: I Betz, 1967)

FIGUI{E 6-2 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL UPFLOW

SOLIDS CONTACT REACTOR

'___ pl"C

- 41-
 recirculated slurry, aiding in bringing treatment reactions to equilibrium.
Clar ified water separates from the top of the slurry pool and sludge is
automatically blown from the concentrator compartments. A common
detention period allows 2 hours for mixing and clar ification.

Many types of solids-contact basins are available. However, the variations

in design may be classified into two general types. These include:
J) sludge-blanket type, where the raw water is mixed with lime or other
chemicals and then rises through a sludge blanket of previously precipitated
material, and 2) slurry-recirculation type, where the raw water and
chemicals are added to a relatively large recirculating slurry of precipitated
material. Both types of contact basins have been successfuJly used in the
softening process.

6.2.5 Stabilization

Stabilization of softened water to avoid preClpltation of calcium carbonate

can be accomplished by recarbonation (adding CO l, by mineral acid
addition, or by polyphosphate addition. Since the efduent from lime-soda
softening will be used as the feed to the reverse osmosis system and lime
recovery is not being considered in this Manual, acid is used to stabilize the
water. The pH is lowered to approximately 7 prior to filtration in order to
achieve a zero or negative Langlier Index.

6.2.6 Chemical Storage and Feeding

Because of the large amounts of chemicals required in lime-soda softening,

rather large storage bins are necessary. Space for at least a one-month
supply should be provided for each chemical. Mechanical transport of
chemicals between supply cars or trucks and storage bins is a necessity.
Corrosive liquids such as ferric chloride solutions are stored in and fed from
tanks with suitable linings. Pumps are provided to transfer these liquids
between the storage tanks and the feed tanks.

The most important items of chemical feeding equipment are the lime
feeder and the slaker. Gravimetric feeders weigh the lime as it is fed into
the slakers and are usually equipped with temperature regulators and alarms
which protect against excessive slaker temperatures and appreciable under-
feeding and overfeeding. Feeders which proportion the lime feed to the
water and maintain the correct dosage regardless of raw-water influent
rates are available. Also available are overriding pH controls which will
make smaJi changes in the dosage to compensate for variations in the
composition of the raw water and purity of the lime. Most modern slakers
remove coarse, inert material from the slurry before it is fed to the
rapid-mix basin.

Dry feeders for soda ash, alum, ferrous or ferric sulfate, or coagulant aids
may be required. Liquid coagulants have become quite popular because of
the ease of handling. Since these solutions are usuaJly quite corrosive, the
pumps, valves, and piping must be constructed of suitable corrosion-
resistant materials.

-42-
6.2.7 Sludge Transfer Pumps

Sludge transfer pumps must be provided for sludge recirculation and for
sludge disposal. The capacity of the sludge-disposal pumps should be based
on pumping a sludge that is as low as 5-percent solids by weight. The actual
amount to be pumped depends on the maximum influent rate expected and
the analysis of the water to be treated. To avoid wastage of water
provisions should be made for throttling the flow and pumping sludges with
solid contens approaching 20-percent by weight.

6.3 CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS

The chemical requirements for the lime-soda softening process depend upon
the quality of the source water. Various equations have been developed for
calculating lime and soda ash chemical dosages. The equations which follow
are based on the chemical reactions presented in Section 6.1.1. Worksheets
for calculation of these doses are presented as Tables 6-IA and 6-1B.

In the case of excessive silica feedwaters, the amount of lime required to

remove both calcium and magnesium is calculated as follows:

100% CaO Obs/million gallons) = 233.5 x [(meq/L CO )

2
+ (meq/L calcium carbonate hardness) + (2 x meq/L
magnesium carbonate hardness) + (meq/L magnesium
non carbonate hardness)] •

To remove only calcium hardness, the amount of lime required is:

100% CaO Obs/million gallons) = 233.5 x [(meq/L CO )

2
+ (meq/L calcium carbonate hardness)] •

To remove non carbonate hardness where both magnesium and calcium have
been precipitated by the lime, the amount of soda ash required is calculated
as follows:

100% Na C0 Obs/million gallons) = 442.0 x [(meq/L

2 3
calcium non carbonate hardness) + (meq/L magnesium
noncarbonate hardness)] •

If only calcium is being removed from low silica waters, the required soda
ash is given by:

100% Na C0 Obs/million gallons) = 442.0 x [meq/L

2 3
calcium noncarbonate hardness] •

In the above equations, all chemical constituents are based upon raw water
concentrations expressed in milliequivalents per liter (meq/Ll. The lime and
soda ash quantities are based on pure chemical compounds.

The better commercial grades of high-calcium quick lime contain about 88

to 95-percent available CaO. High-calcium hydrated lime contains
approximately 68 to 70-percent CaO. Commercial soda ash contains 99 to

-43-
 TABLE 6-IA. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING:
EXCESSIVE SILICA

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _____ mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent
J. meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness meq/L

3. Magnesium Carbonate Hardness

(multiply by 2) meq/L

4. Magnesium Noncarbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

5. TOTAL [add (I) through (4)] _ _ _ _ meq/L

6. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(5) x 259.4] _ _ _ _ lbs/million
gal10ns
7. CaO Required
[(6) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

B. Soda Ash Dosage as Na C0 :

2 3
Consti tuent

8. Calcium Noncarbonate Hardness meq/L

9. Magnesium Noncarbonate Hardness meq/L

10. TOTAL [add (8) and (9)] meq/L

11. Na2C0 3 Required @ 99% Purity

[(m) x'l46.5l Ibs/miJlion
gal10ns
12. Na CO Required =
[Oil x:O.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _____ tons/yr

c. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] _____ tons/yr

D. Sulfuric Acid (H S0J'

2
8. H S0 Dosage 30 mg/L
2 4
9. Total H 504 Required [45.6 x
pretreatment plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr
" ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----pt'C--'"
-44-
 TABLE 6-1B. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING:
CALCIUM REMOVAL

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent

I. meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness meq/L

3. TOT AL [add (l) and (2)] meq/L

4. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(3) x 259.4] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons
5. CaO Required
[( 4) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

B. Soda Ash Dosage as Na C0 :

2 3
Constituent

6. Calcium Noncarbonate Hardness _ _ _ meq/L

7. Na.:zCO, Required @ 99% Purity

[(o) x 446.5] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons
8. Na CO Required
[61 x (1.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

C. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] tons/yr

D. Sulfuric Acid (H 2 SO J:
8. H S0 4 Dosage
2
30 mg/L

9. Total H 2S0 Required [45.6 x

4 _ _ _ _ tons/yr
pretreatment plant capacity, mgd]

,-------------------------
-45-
 100-percent Na CO . Therefore, the results obtained from these equations
should be accoraing(y adjusted by dividing by the percent of available CaO
for lime or the percent of available Na C0 for soda ash.
2 3
The chemical doses calculated above assume complete lime-soda softening.
For waters with excessive silica, an adequate reduction might be achieved
by partial removal of the magnesium. This would reduce the required
chemical doses for both lime and soda ash. For a reconnaissance level
evaluation, complete lime-soda softening is assumed, resulting in maximum
chemical consumptions and conservative cost estimates.

Temperature, reaction rates, concentrations of recycled sludge and time

influence the degrees of completeness of the chemical reactions, and the
required dosages have to be adjusted based on plant conditions. However,
the equations presented in this section are a good indication as to the
approximate dosages of required lime and soda ash.

Other chemicals such as alum, chlorine and polymer can be added in small
quantities to aid coagulation and floc formation in the lime-soda softening
process. Typical dosages for alum, chlorine, and polymer generally range
from I to 5 mg/L. Prior to filtration, the treated water is stabilized by
lower ing the pH to less than 8.0. This may be accomplished by the use of
carbon dioxide (C0 2 ) or an acid such as sulfuric (H SO Il ).
2
6.11 SLUDGE PRODUCTION

Chemical sludges are produced in the lime-soda softening process. The

amount of sludge produced by the removal of calcium and magnesium in
high-silica feedwaters can be estimated by the following relationship:

dry solids Obs/miUion gallons) = (1117 x meq/L CO:zl +

(8311 x meq/L calcium carbonate hardness) + (1117 x
meq/L magnesium carbonate hardness) + (659 x meq/L
magnesium noncarbonate hardness) + (1117 x meq/L
calcium non carbonate hardness).

The amount of sludge produced by the removal of calcium can be estimated

by:

dry solids Obs/mi11ion gallons) = (1117 x meq/L CO 2) +

(8311 x meq/L calcium carbonate hardness) + (1117 x
meq/L calcium noncarbonate hardness).

The characteristics and typical volumes of sludge are shown in Table 9-1.
Disposal of this large quantity of sludge can present significant problems
and increase unit costs of lime-soda softening pretreatment. Methods of
volume reduction, handling and disposing of chemical sludges are discussed
in Section 9.1.

6.5 SITING REQUIREMENTS

In selecting a site for a desalting facility which includes lime-soda softening

pretreatment, consideration should be given to the area required for sludge
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C-----'

-116-
 disposal. Depending upon the method of sludge disposal, large land
requirements can significantly add to the total cost of the desalting facility.
Section 9.4 discusses siting requirements for desalting systems.

6.6 DESIGN CRITERIA

Table 6-IA and 6-IB are worksheets for calculating stoichiometric chemical
dosages. The required lime and soda ash dosages are calculated based upon
various types of hardness present in a given source water. Table 6-IA and
6-IB are for high and low silica source waters, respectively. Table 6-2
presents design criteria for the upflow-solids-contact reactor and for
gravity filtration. Appendix C documents the values for the factors used in
this table.

Pretreatment plant capacity for lime-soda softening can be calculated using

the following relationship based on a 92-percent desalting recovery rate and
the average relative unit flow (I) from Figure 6-1:
Pretreatment Plant = Desalting Plant Installed Capaci ty x 1.0075
Capaci ty 0.92

Figure 6-3 illustrates a sample layout of a 20-mgd lime-soda softening

pretreatment facility based on the design criteria presented in this section.
Approximately 6 acres of land are required for this facility (see Figure 9-7
for land requirements for other plant capacities). Sludge and liquid waste
disposal areas are considered to be separate from the main
pretreatm ent Idesal ting facHi ty.

6.7 LIME-SODA SOFTENING COSTS

This section provides current cost data for the lime-s9da softening pretreat-
ment process. The basis for costs presented in this Manual are discussed in
Section 2.2.

6.7.1 Construction Costs

Figure 6-4 presents construction cost data for lime-soda softening as a

function of pretreatment plant capacity. The construction costs include
chemical feed systems, grit basin, upflow-solids-contact basins, gravity
filters, surge and backwash water tanks, pretreated-water storage tank,
transfer pumping and the administration, laboratory and maintenance
buildings. These costs are based on an Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) value of 297.73 which is representative
of June 1980.

_ 6.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

The 0 &. M costs for the lime-soda softening include energy, materials,
labor and chemicals. Data presented here are in terms of rates. Figure 6-5
presents labor requirements for lime-soda softening in terms of
man-hours/yr versus pretreatment plant capacity. Figure 6-6 presents
materials costs in dollars per year versus pretreatment plant capacity. The
costs of materials can be updated in terms of the Producer Price Index for
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C ------"

-47-
 TABLE 6-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UPFLOW-SOLIDS-CONTACT REACTOR
AND GRAVITY FILTERS

I. Pretreatment Plant Capacity mgd

2
2. Clarification Loading Rate 1,440 gpd/ft

3. Total Reactor Detention Time 2.25 hrs

4. Total Required Reactor Area [(]) x 700] --- f/

5. Number of Operating Reactors
[(4)/10,000, rounded off to next
larger integer. At flow less than
15 mgd, use 2 reactors.]

6. Area of Individual Reactor [(4)/(5)]

7. Total Number of Reactors (incl. I standby)

[(5) + I]

8. Hydraulic Loading Rate of Filters

9. Total Filter Surface Area [(]) x 231]

10. Number of Operating Filters

[(8)/1,750, rounded off to next
lar ger integer. At flow less than
15 mgd, use 2 filters.]

II. Area of Individual Filter [(9)/(10)]

12. Total Number of Filters (incl. I standby)

[(10) + 1]
2
13. Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 18 gpm/ft

14. Backwash Water Volume per Filter

(lO-min backwash time)
[(II) x 180] _ _ _ gallons

15. Filter Height

a. media depth 30 inches

b. total height 84 inches

16. Backwash Storage Tank Volume [(]4) x (10)] gallons

17. Surge/Decant Tank Volume [(16)] _ _ _ gallons

18. Pretreated Water Storage Tank Volume

5
[(I) x 1.25 x 10 ] _ _ _ gallons

" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C ------

-48-
 (

I ~ POST-TREATMENT
FACILITY
BACKWASH
WATER
STORAGE
SURGEI
DECANT
TANK
TRANSFORMERS
UPFLOW
SOLIDS
CONTACT
ELECTRICAL! REACTOR
---1 GRIT
BASIN
STORACE I
ROOM I
I----J I
I I
PUMP I GRAVITY I
ROOM I ---+--- CHEMICAL
I I FILTERS
STORAGE

..,.
1 ___ J MEMBRANE AREA
DESALTING
ROOM I
'"
1 I I
CONTROL I
ROOM I
I
-----j
PRETREATED WATER
I MAINTENANCE
STORAGE TANK

I
OFFICES
i - - - TSHOP~
-
I LABORATORY I

FIGURE 6-3 SAMPLE LAYOUT OF A 20 MGD LIME-SODA SOFTENING PRETREATMENT FACILITY

"- PI"C ../

 -
ENR CCI (JUNE 1980) ~ 29773
10
/
9
8
/
7
/
/
6
/

5
1/
4
/
,£'
0

X
V
vV
<F> 3
l-
V
V)
a /
./
u 2.5

1.5

3 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: [Adapted from U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1979J

FIGURE 6-4. CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR LIME-SODA

SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

l -50-
Pt"c
 10
9
8

0:: 4
1/
-->-
«\
0

>< /
V
V"l 3
0::
:J /
0
:r:, 2.5 /
z
<C
~
2
,/
/
/
./
,/

3 5678910 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: [Adapted [rom U.S.Envlronmental Protection Agency, 1979J

FIGURE 6-5. 0 &. M LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR LIME-SODA

SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

' - - o prc_-

-51-
 PRODUCER PRICE INDEX (JUNE 1980) - 242.3
10
9
/
V
/
8

7
/
6 V
/
5
/

~
1+
V
V
/
V
--
>-
""
0
~
~
V
x 3 ii"
if>
~

f-
<f) 2.5
V-
0
U

1.5

1
3 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 1+0 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACiTY (mgd)

Source: [Adapted from U.S.Envlronmental ProtectIon Agency, 1979)

FIGURE 6-6. o &: M MATERIALS COST FOR LIME-SODA

SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

'-- p,...c_~

-52-
 Finished Goods. These illustrated costs are based on the Producer Price
Index for June 1980, i.e., a value of 242.3. The chemical requirements for
lime and soda ash are calculated in Table 6-1.

Other miscellaneous chemicals are equivalent to 3-percent of the total

quantity of lime and soda ash required in terms of tons/yr. The energy
r~uirement for lime-soda softening is approximately 0.18 x
10 kwh/yr/mgd of pretreatment plant capacity.

6.7.3 Total Costs

Table 6-3 is a worksheet for determining total annual equivalent costs for
lime-soda softening. The construction cost data presented in Figure 6-3 is
used to determine the total capital costs in Part A of Table 6-3 for a
particular plant capacity. These costs should be updated by multiplying the
ratio of the present ENR-CCI to the base index with the Figure 6-3 costs.
The remaining calculations of Part A are self explanatory.

Annual 0 & M costs are determined from the data presented in Figures 6-5
and 6-6. The appropriate consumption rates can be filled in Part B of
Table 6-3 and multiplied by the current unit costs.

Total annual equivalent costs for lime-soda softening can then be calculated
by adding the annual equivalent capital cost to the annual 0 & M cost.

-53-
 TABLE 6-3. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Lime-soda softening plant base cost (from Figure 6-4) S

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()] .L- _

297.73 x a ~S _
2. Additives @ 32.5% of l(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.)
[0.325 x l(b))
3. Total capital cost [(1) + (2)]
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate _____ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (J)) _ _ _ S/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _S/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 6-5] m-hr/yr _ _ _S/m-hr S/yr
11. Energy [b] kwh/yr _ _ _S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 & M cost
[sum (8) through (II)] _ _ _S/yr
C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _S/yr

14. Annual 0 & M cost [(12)) _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _S/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]
(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity S/kgal
---S/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity S/kgal
---S/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 6-6 cost by: [P~jected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements as 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] S/1000 gal = [(l5lJ I[mgd x 365,000]
S/ac-ft = [SI1,ooO gal] x [325.85].
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C ----'

-54-
 CHAPTER 7

LIME SOFTENING
 CHAPTER 7

LIME SOFTENING

7.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Essentially, the process components for lime softening are identical to those
for lime-soda softening. The costs of both processes are very similar;
however, lime softening has the advantage of lower cost since the addition
of soda ash is not required. A large portion of the text presented in
Chapter 6 is also presented in this chapter so that each process is explored
completely; however, the chapters stand independently.

The softening process may be carried out in separate, conventional rapid-

mix, flocculation, and sedimentation basins, or in upflow-solids-contact
reactors. Using previously precipitated sludge as seed material to promote
the formation of more readily settleable precipitates is inherent in solids
contact reactors and is often used in conventional plants by recirculation of
settled sludge back to the rapid- mix basin.

Lime softening plants include chemical feeders; rapid-mix, flocculation, and

sedimentation basins; and filters. The prime purpose of lime softening for
the membrane pretreatment process is to remove calcium noncarbonate
hardness by converting it into insoluble precipitates.

A flow diagram for the lime softening pretreatment system is shown in

Figure 7-1. The major components of the process include an upflow-solids-
contact reactor, gravity filtration and a clearwell for storage of the
pretreated water. Other components include backwash water and surge
tanks, and gravity thickening and dewatering equipment for sludge disposal.
The average relative flowrates are also indicated in Figure 7-1. These
relative flowrates can be used to estimate flows from typical lime softening
systems. Final acid addition and sodium hexametaphosphate addition are
not illustrated.

7.1. I Chemistry of Lime Softening

The addition of hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) produces the following reactions

with carbonate hardness:

CO 2 + Ca(OH)2 - - CaC0 3 + H20 [7.11

Ca(HC0 )2 + Ca(OH)2 - - 2CaC0 3 + 2H 0

2 [7.2]
3
Mg(HC0 )2 + 2Ca(OH)2-- Mg(OH)2
3
+ 2 CaC0
3
+ 2Hp [7.3]

Reaction [7.11 elevates the raw-water pH to allow the softening reactions

to occur. In reactions [7.2] and [7.3], soluble carbonate hardnesses at a
pH greater than 9.0 are converted into insoluble carbonates and hydroxides,
which precipitate from solution, and are removed by sedimentation and
filtration. In lime softening, only minor reductions occur in the total-

" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C--"

-55-
 , LIME

, MISe. (POLYMER, Ch, IRON SALTS)

SOURCE
WATER ... pH ADJUSTMENT
(SURFACE)
, (H 2 S04 , CO 2)

GRIT UPFLOW SOLIDS GRAVITY

BASIN CONTACT REACTOR FILTERS

,
• - - -....--"'1r7 I SLUDGE

9 6 6

I
\.n

'"
I ,~ r fi ) i '
SURGE BACKWASH
DECANT STORAGE
TANK TANK
THICKENING
DEWATERING

5
PRETREATED
WATER
STORAGE
TANK
AVERAGE I{ELATIVE FLOWS
CD 10075 ® 0.030
C6l l,{1.j5 0 0.015
o 1.030 ® 0.0075
o 1.030 C2:J 0.0075
o J.ooo TO MEMBRANE
DESALINATION

FIGURE 7-1. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR LIME SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

~~------------------------PI""C-
 dissolved solids content of the raw water primarily as a result of
bicarbonate removal. Although carbon dioxide is not hardness, CO 2
consumes lime and must be considered in the chemistry of the system.

In sufficient amounts, hydrated lime also reacts with the magnesium

noncarbonate hardness as foUows:

MgS0 + Ca(OH)2 --- Mg(OH) [7.4]

MgCI 2 + Ca(OH)2 --- Mg(OH~
4 [ 7.5]

As a result of these reactions, non carbonate magnesium hardness is removed

and an equivalent amount of calcium noncarbonate hardness is produced.

Equations [7.1] through [7.5] describe the chemical reactions occurring in

conventional lime treatment. A significant difference exists between
conventional lime softening and lime softening for membrane-desalination
pretreatment. Conventional lime softening normally removes both calcium
and magnesium hardness. Membrane-pretreatment systems are only
required to remove magnesium when excessive silica is present. If silica
reduction is not required, only calcium removal is desirable to prevent
calcium sulfate scaling. For calcium removal, lime should only be added for
reactions [7.1] and [7.2]. Magnesium as both the carbonate and
noncarbonate should not be reacted with lime, i.e. equations [7.3] through
[7.5] • Precipitation of magnesium hydroxide and formation of an
equivalent amount of calcium noncarbonate hardness results in excessive
consumption of both lime and soda.

7.1.2 High Silica Water s

Foc design purposes silica wiIJ precipitate in 92-percent recovery RO

systems whenever the feedwater silica concentration exceeds 4 to 12 mg/L
depending on temperature. This feedwater limit is based on a maximum
reject brine silica level of 50-160 mg/L. ED feedwaters should have silica
concentrations less then 50-160 mg/L.

For feedwaters with silica greater than 4 to 12 mg/L depending on

temperature, precipitation of magnesium hydroxide by the lime or lime-soda
processes is necessary. This simply means that reactions [7.3] through
[7.5] occur. The use of the lime process for silica removal is predicated on
enough magnesium being present for removal of silica. Empirical
relationships have s~wn that for every mg/L of silica removed, 2.5 mg/L of
magnesium (as Mg+ ) must be removed. For reverse osmosis desalination
systems operating at 92-percent recovery, the maximum silica
concentration in the pretreated water is calculated as Item 16 of Table 4-1
minus Items A.4 of Table 4-4. The maximum magnesium removed in the
lime process equals the raw water magnesium concentration minus ~e
pretreated water residual (i.e., 1.0 meq/L or 12.2 mg/L as Mg + ).
Therefore, the amount of silica removed is equal to the maximum
magnesium removed divided by 2.5.

7.1. 3 Var iations in the Lime Process

Several variations in the basic lime process can be used for certain
feedwaters and water treatment objectives. These variations include
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p r c ---'

-57-
 selective lime treatment, split treatment, excessive lime, and excess lime
followed by recarbonation. The use of one of the variations in the basic
process can reduce chemical costs up to 25-percent. It is suggested that the
user of this Manual should consult Chapter 9 of Water Quality and
Treatment prepared by the American Water Works Association.

7.2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The principal process elements of the lime pretreatment system are rapid
mixing, flocculation, sedimentation, stabilization and filtration. Very often,
an upflow-solids-contact reactor which combines rapid mixing, flocculation
and sedimentation into a single unit is used. Ancillary equipment includes
chemical storage, feeding, and sludge disposal. Each of these process
elements is bdefly discussed.

7.2.1 Rapi d-M ix

The function of rapid-mix is to disperse the added chemicals, maintain this

dispersal for a sufficient period to dissolve them, and start the reactions.
The mixing time and the kind of mixing equipment are influenced by
temperature and reagent. The rate of dissolving of lime is quite low. The
minimum contact time, therefore, should be considered to be 5-min, and
longer times may be desirable. The addition of small amounts of a metal
coagulant (e.g., ferric sulfate) to a rapid-mix basin is often advantageous.
In-line blenders are not used for flash mixing of softening reagents.

7.2.2 Flocculation

In the flocculation basins, the chemical reactions are completed and the
precipitates are flocculated (i.e., aggregated into large, settleable flocs).
By keeping these solids suspended together with recirculated sludge, the
reaction rates are increased due to the large surface area of previously
formed particles. The time required for flocculation is 1i0 to 60-minutes
[AWWA 19711.

Mechanical flocculation with controlled agitation should be provided in

preference to baffled conduits or basins. To avoid shearing and breaking up
of the previously formed floc particles, tapering or gradually reducing the
intensity of agitation from the inlet to the outlet of the basin is advisable.
Reducing agitation is especially helpfUl to plants treating high-magnesium
waters where no additional coagulant is used to toughen the floc. The
magnesium hydroxide floc is quite fragile, and broken floc will not reform
readily.

7.2.3 Sedimentation

The sedimentation-basin retention period in lime softening plants is usually

2 to 3 hours in duration. This retention period is commonly used in softening
as compared to the customary Ii hours recommended for settling an alum
floc. To avoid eddy currents and short circuiting, horizontal velocities
should be less than 0.5 ft/min. Baffles are desirable at the inlet to
distribute the flow evenly throughout the basin. Because of the large

-58-
 volume of sludge produced in lime plants, mechanical sludge collectors are
required.

7.2.4 Solids-Contact Reactor

The solids-contact reactor is often used instead of separate flocculation and

sedimentation basins. Upflow-solids-contact reactors combine mixing,
coagulation, flocculation, liquid-solids separation, and sludge removal into a
single basin. Generally, rapid-mix and coagUlation/flocculation are
accomplished in the center of the unit, and upflow clarification occurs
through a sludge blanket in the outer portion of the basin. Upflow-solids-
contact clarifiers are generally selected on the basis of a lower cost and the
operational advantages of combining several processes into a single basin. A
more detailed schematic cliagram of a typical solids contact reactor is
shown in Figure 6- 2.

This type of reactor is very efficient because chemical reactions occur

rapidly and completely in the presence of previously formed floc. Raw
water and chemicals are introduced into the top of the unit. Mixing is
provided to ensure adequate contact between the water, the chemicals and
the previously formed floc. Throughout this mixing zone, a slow rolling
agitation is applied to the slurry. This agitation results in the flocculation
of the particles. A common detention period consists of 2 hours for mixing
and clarification.

Many types of solids-contact basins are available. However, the variations

in design may be classified into two general types. These include:
J) sludge-blanket type, where the raw water is mixed with lime or other
chemicals and then rises through a sludge blanket of previously precipitated
mater ial, and 2) slurry-recirculation type, where the raw water and
chemicals are added to a relatively large recirCUlating slurry of precipitated
matedal. Both types of contact basins have been successfully used in the
softening process.

7.2.5 Stabilization

Stabilization of softened water to avoid precipitation of calcium carbonate

can be accomplished by recarbonation (adding CO ), by mineral acid
2
addition or by polyphosphate addition. Since the effluent from lime
softening will be used as the feed to the reverse osmosis system and lime
recovery is not being considered in this Manual, acid addition is used to
stabilize the water. The pH is lowered to approximately 7 prior to filtration
in order to achieve a zero or negative Langlier Index.

7.2.6 Chemical Storage and Feeding

Because of the large amounts of chemicals required in lime softening, rather

large storage bins are necessary. Space for at least a one-month supply
should be provided for the chemicals. Mechanical transport of chemicals
between supply cars or trucks and storage bins is a necessity. Corrosive
liquids such as ferric chloride solutions are stored in and fed from tanks with
suitable linings. Pumps are generally provided to transfer these liquids
between the storage tanks and the feed tanks.

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C ----'

-59-
 The most important items of chemical feeding equipment are the lime
feeder and the slaker. Gravimetric feeders weigh the lime as it is fed into
the slakers and are usuaUy equipped with temperature regulators and alarms
which protect against excessive slaker temperatures and appreciable under-
feeding and overfeeding. Feeders which proportion the lime feed to the
water and maintain the correct dosage regardless of raw-water influent
rates are available. Also available are overriding pH controls which wiU
make smal1 changes in the dosage to compensate for variations in the
composition of the raw water and purity of the lime. Most modern slakers
remove coarse, inert material from the slurry before it is fed to the
rapid-mix basin.

Dry feeders for other chemicals such as alum, ferrous or ferric sulfate, or
coagulant aids may be required. Liquid coagulants have become quite
popular because of the ease of handling. Since these solutions are usuaUy
quite corrosive, the pumps, valves, and piping must be constructed of
suitable corrosion-resistant materials.

7.2.7 Sludge Transfer Pumps

Sludge transfer pumps must be provided for sludge recirculation and for
sludge disposal. The capacity of the sludge-disposal pumps should be based
on pumping a sludge that is as low as 5-percent solids by weight. The actual
amount to be pumped depends on the maximum influent rate expected and
the analysis of the water to be treated. To avoid wastage of water,
provisions should be made for throttling the flow and pumping sludges with
solid contents approaching 20-percent by weight.

7.3 CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS

The chemical requirements for the lime softening process depend upon the
quality of the source water. Various stoichiometric equations have been
developed for calculating lime dosages. The equations which foUow are
based on the chemical reactions presented in Section 7.1. I.

In the case of low silica feedwaters, the amount of lime required to remove
calcium is calculated as foUows:

100% CaO Obs/miUion gaUons) = 233.5 x [(meq/L CO ) + (meq/L

2
calcium carbonate hardness)] .

For high silica waters having alkalinity greater than total hardness, lime can
be used to precipitate all the magnesium. The lime dose is:

100% CaO Obs/miUion gaUons) = 233.5 x [(meq/L CO 2) + (meq/L

calcium carbonate hardness) + (meq/L magnesium carbonate
hardness)) •

In the above equations, aU chemical constituents are based upon raw water
concentrations expressed in mil1iequivalents per liter (meq/Ll. The lime
dosage is based on IOO-percent purity lime.

-60-
 The better commercial grades of high-calcium quick lime contain about 88
to 95-percent available CaO. High-calcium hydrated lime contains
approximately 68 to 70-percent CaO. Therefore, the results obtained from
these equations should be accordingly adjusted by dividing by the percent of
available CaO for lime.

Temperature, reaction rates, concentrations of recycled sludge and time

influence the degrees of completeness of the chemical reactions and the
lime dose has to be adjusted based on plant conditions. However, the
equations presented in this section are a good indication as to the
approximate dosages of required lime.

Other chemicals such as iron salts, chlorine, and polymer can be added in
small quantities to aid coagulation and floc formation in the lime softening
process. Typical dosages for iron salts, chlorine, and polymer generaJJy
range from I to 5 mg/L. Prior to filtration, the treated water is stabilized
by lowering the pH to less than 8.0. This may be accomplished by the use of
carbon dioxide (C0 ) or an acid such as sulfuric (H SO ).
2 2 Ii
7.1i SLUDGE PRODUCTION

Chemical sludges are produced in the lime softening process. The amount of
sludge produced by the removal of calcium and magnesium in high-silica
feedwaters can be estimated by the foJJowing relationship:

dry solids {Ibs/million gaJJonsl = (iii 7 x meq/L CO ) + (831i x meq/L

2
calcium carbonate hardness) + (1i17 x meq/L magnesium carbonate
hardness).

The amount of sludge by the removal of calcium in low-silica feedwaters

can be estimated by:

dry solids (Ibs/million gaJJons) = (iii 7 x meq/L CO ) + (831i x meq/L

2
calcium carbonate hardness).

The character istics and typical volumes of sludge are shown in Table 9- J.
Disposal of this large quantity of sludge can present significant problems
and increase unit costs of lime softening pretreatment. Methods of volume
reduction, handling and disposing of chemical sludges are discussed in
Section 9.1.

7.5 SITING REQUIREMENTS

In selecting a site for a desalting facility which includes lime softening

pretreatment, consideration should be given to the area required for sludge
disposal. Depending upon the method of disposal, large land requirements
can significantly add to the total cost of the desalting facility. Section 9.1i
discusses siting requirements for desalting systems.

7.6 DESIGN CRITERIA

Tables 7-IA and 7-IB are worksheets for calculating stoichiometric

chemical dosages depending upon the silica level of the raw-water. For a
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C ---'

-61-
TABLE 7-IA. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME SOFTENING: LOW SILICA

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Consti tuent

I. _ _ _ meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness _ _ _ meq/L

3. TOTAL [add (J) and (2)] _ _ _ _ meq/L

4. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(3) x 259.4] _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons

5. CaO Required
[ (4) x 0.182 x pretrea tm'ent plant
capacity mgd 1 _____ tons/yr

B. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

C. Sulfuric Acid (H SO,,):

2
8. H SO 4 Dosage 30 mg/L
2
9. Total H 2 S0 Required [45.6 x
4 tons/yr
pretreatment plant capacity, mgd]

-62-
TABLE 7-1B. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME SOFTENING: EXCESSIVE SILICA
_ _ _ _ mgd
Pretreatment Plant Capacity:

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Consti tuent
meq/L
I.

Calcium Carbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

2.

3. Magnesium Carbonate hardness

_ _ _ _ meq/L
(multiply by 2)

TOT AL [add (1) through (3)] _ _ _ _ meq/L

4.
5. CaO Required @ 90% Purity
[( 4) x 259.4] Ibs/million
gallons

6. CaO Required
[(5) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] tons/yr

B. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

6.

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd 1 tons/yr

C. Sulfuric Acid (H 2 SO J:
H S0 Dosage 30 mg/L
8. 2 4
9. Total HzSO £I Required [45.6 x
pretreatm ent plant ca paci ty, m gd] tons/yr

-63-
 given source water, the required lime dosage based upon various types of
hardness present in the water source can be calculated. Table 7-2 presents
design criteria for the upflow-solids-contact reactor and for gravity
filtration. Appendix C documents the value of factors used in this table.

Pretreatment plant capacity for lime softening can be calculated using the
following relationship based on a 92-percent recovery rate and the average
relative unit flow (j) from Figure 7- I:

P re t rea t men t PI an t = Desalting Plant

0.92
Installed Capacity 1.0075
x
CapacIty

Figure 7-2 illustrates a sample layout of a 20 mgd, lime softening

pretreatment facility based on the design criteria presented in this section.
Approximately 6 acres of land are required for this facility (see Figure 9-7
for land requirements for other plant capacities). Sludge and liquid-waste
disposal areas are considered to be separate from the main
pretreatment/desalting facility.

7.7 LIME SOFTENING COSTS

This section provides current cost data for the lime softening pretreatment
process. The basis for costs presented in this Manual are discussed in
Section 2.2.

7.7.1 Construction Costs

Figure 7-3 presents construction cost data for lime softening as a function
of pretreatment plant capacity. The construction costs include chemical
feed systems, grit basin, upfJow-solids-contact basins, gravity filters, surge
and backwash tanks, pretreated-water storage tank, transfer pumping, and
the administration, laboratory and maintenance buildings. These costs are
based on an Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI)
value of 297.73 which is representative of June 1980.

7.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

The 0 &. M costs for the lime softening include energy, materials, labor and
chemicals. Data presented here are in terms of rates. Figure 7 -If presents
labor requirements for lime softening in terms of man-hours/yr versus
pretreatment plant capacity. Figure 7-5 presents materials costs in dollars
per year versus pretreatment plant capacity. The costs of materials can be
updated in terms of the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods. These
illustrated costs are based on the Producer Price Index for June 1980, i.e., a
value of 2lf2.3. The chemical requirements for lime are calculated in
Table 7-1.

Other misceIJaneous chemicals are equivalent to 3 percent of the total

quantity of lime required in terms of tons/y~ The energy requirement for
lime softening is approximately 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr mgd of pretreatment
plant capacity.

-61f-
 TABLE 7-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UPFLOW-SOLIDS-CONTACT BASIN
AND GRAVITY FILTERS

1- Pretreatment Plant Capacity _ _ _ mgd

- 2.
2
Clarification Loading Rate 1,440 gpd/ft

3. Total Reactor Detention Time 2.25 hrs

4. Total Required Reactor Area [(J) x 700]

--- ft 2

5. Number of Operating Reactors [(4)/10,000,

rounded off to next larger integer. At flows
less than 15 mgd, use 2 reactors]

6. Area of Individual Reactor [(4)/(5)] •

7. Total Number of Reactors (incl. I standby)

[(5) + I]

8. 2
Hydraulic Loading Rate of Fil ters 3 gpm/ft

8. Total Filter Surface Area [(J) x 231]

--- ft 2

10. Number of Operating Filters

[(8)~ 1,750, rounded off to next
lar ger integer. At flows less than 15 mgd,
use 2 fil ters.]

II. Area of Individual Filter [(9)/(10)]

12. Total Number of Filters (incl. I standby)

[(JO) + I]
2
13. Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 18 gpm/ft

14. Backwash Water Volume per Filter

(lO-min backwash water time)
[(Jj) x 180] _ _ _ gallons

15. Filter Height

a. media depth 30 inches

b. total height 84 inches

16. Backwash Storage Tank Volume [(14) x (10)] _ _ _ gallons

17. Surge/Decant Tank Volume [(J6)] _ _ _ gallons

18. Pretreated Water Storage Tank Volume

5
[(I) x 1.25 x 10 ] _ _ _ gallons
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C - _ /
-65-
 I ~ POST·TRLATMENT
r-ACILITY
BACKWASH
WATER
SURGE!
DECANT
TRANSFOHMLHS STORAGE TANK
UPFLOW
SOLIDS
CONTACT
ELECTRICAL! REACTOR
---1 GRIT
BASIN
STallAGE I
ROOM I
___ J I
I I
rUMP
I GRAVITY I
ROOM I ---+--- CHEMICAL
I MEMBRANE I FILTERS STORAGE
___ J DESALTING
I
AREA
ROOM
I
I I
'"'"
I CONTl{()L I
ROOM I
I
---1
PRETREATED WATER
I MAINTENANCE
STORAGE TANK

OH'iCES
I SHOI'~
t----T-
I LABORATORY I

FIGURE 7-2. SAMPLE LAYOUT OF A 20 MGD LIME SOFTENING PRETREATMENT FACILITY

, p~C
 ENR-CCI (JUNE 1980) - 297 7)
10
9

8
1/
7 7
/
6
/

5
/
~
/
'"
~

C)

>< /
V
V '"
<J> 3
l-
V)
0
U 2.5
V
./

1.5

I
3 ~ 5 6 78910 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: l./I.,dapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979)

FIGURE 7.3 CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR LIME SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

''___ pr'c_--./

-67-
 10
9

0:: 4
/
/
--'"->-
0
/
>< ./
Vl 3
0::
::J
0
I
I
2.5 ""
/
Z
«
:;;;
2
l,..-
,/
/
,,- V
1.5 ~ V

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: (Adapted from U.S. EnvIronmental ProtectIOn Agency, 1979J

FIGURE 7-4. 0 OC M LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR

LIME SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

'------------------------pf"'C

-68-
 PRODUCER PRICE INDEX (JUNE 1980)· 2.2.3
10
/
9 /
/
8

7
V
6
/
V
5
/

4
V
7
0::
>- ./
"---
0
3
~
/
x
<J>

I-
V
./
Vl
2.5 v
0
u
2

1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: I AdapteO from U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. 1979)

FIGURE 7-5. o &. M MATERIALS COST FOR LIME

SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

'--- pt"c---'

- 69-
7.7.3 Total Costs
Table 7-3 is a worksheet for determining total annual equivalent costs for
lime softening. The construction cost data presented in Figure 7-3 is used
to determine the total capital costs in Part A of Table 7-3. These costs
should be updated by multiplying the ratio of the present ENR-CCI to the
base index with the Figure 7 -3 costs. The remaining calculations of Part A
are self explanatory.
Annual 0 & M costs are determined from the data presented in Figures 7-4
and 7-5. The appropriate consumption rates can be filled in Part B of
Table 7-3 and multiplied by the current unit costs.

Total annual equivalent costs for lime softening can then be calculated by
adding the annual equivalent capital cost to the annual 0 & M cost.

-70-
TABLE 7-3. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR LIME SOFTENING

_ _ _ _ mgd Date: _
Desalting Plant InstaJJed Capacity:
_ _ _ mgd
Pretreatment Plant Capacity:

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Lime softening plant base cost (from Figure 7-3) $

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [l()]
297.73 x a $

2. Additives @ 32.5% of l(b) (includes engineering,

legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) $
[0.325 x l(b)]
3. Total capital cost [(I) + (2)] $
_ _ _ _ years
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ _ percent
5. Interest rate
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] $/yr
7.
B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost
_ _ _$/yr
8. Maintenance materials [a]
Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _$/ton $/yr
9. _ _ _$/m-hr $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 7-5] m-hr/yr
_ _ _ $/kwh $/yr
11. Energy [b] kwh/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost _ _ _ $/yr
[sum (8) through (1 I)]

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

_ _ _$/yr
13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _$/yr
14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] _ _ _$/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)]
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity $/kgal

-----$/ac-ft
$/kgal
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity -----$/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 7-4 cost by: [Pro~ted Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements are 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr /mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(i5)] /[mgd x 365,000]
$/ac-ft = [$/1,000 gaIl x [325.85].
~-------------------
pre----"

-71-
 CHAPTER 8

ION EXCHANGE
 CHAPTER 8

ION EXCHANGE

8.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The ion exchange process is recommended for pretreatment of groundwaters

containing excessive calcium ion concentrations. The basic objective of ion
exchange as a pretreatment process is to remove calcium ions from the
feedwater thereby reducing the calcium sulfate and calcium carbonate
scaling tendencies. Figure &- I is a flow diagram for the ion exchange
process. Although the process has relatively few components, proper
operation and maintenance of the ion exchange unit is essential.

Ion exchange for calcium removal is referred to as softening and essentially

consists of passing hard water through the bed of an ion exchanger. In the
resin bed, hardness components (calcium and magnesium ions) are removed
from solution and replaced by sodium ions. In practice, the exchange rate is
so rapid that most waters can be easily and completely softened at normal
flow rates regardless of hardness. High sodium ion concentrations in the
raw water can reduce the effective exchange capacity of the resin. The
process removes both calcium and magnesium ions, although magnesium ion
removal is not necessary for membrane pretreatment.

The ion exchange process uses synthetic resins as carriers to exchange for
sodium ions for divalent cations. Synthetic resins with their high exchange
capacities and controllable properties make large-scale ion exchange
practical and feasible. Some exchange resins have a high affinity for a
particular ion, while other resins do not. Commercial resins are broadly
classified as 1) strong acid, 2) weak acid, 3) strong base, and 4) weak base.
Several combinations of the various cation and anion exchange resins can be
used to demineralize water through the removal of both cations and anions.
This chapter is concerned only with resins suitable for softening, i.e., weak
acid, cationic resins.

&.1.1 Chemistry of Ion Exchange

Chemical equations for the reactions are simple for cation-exchange water
softening and regeneration. The exact mechanism of the reaction is not
clearly understood. However, the successful completion is dependent upon
securing adequate contact between the water and the exchange resin. Other
conditions being equal, adequate contact is the most important requisite in
successful cation-exchange water softening. Other important factors
include hardness of water, depth of material, rate of flow, and composition
of the exchanger. If continued maximum contact is to be secured,
reasonably clear water must be applied to the exchanger to avoid fouling its
surface with colloidal or suspended matter.

The following equations, in which "R" represents the ion exchanger resin,
indicate the reactions which occur in cation-exchange, sodium regenerated
softening:

" ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C ----"

-72-
 SOURCE ION PRETREATED
WATER
(WELLS)
1 i [31 ~I EXCHANGE
UNITS
I [ 31 ~I WATER
STORAGE
TANK

BACKWASHI
REGENERATE TO MEMBRANE
STORAGE DESALINATION
,.. [5}---t
I

""'" 6 AVERAGE RELATIVE FLOWS

I
1 1.018
! . 0.D18
3 1.000
SPENT 4 0.030
REGENERATE
S 0.012
TO
DISPOSAL b 0.018

FIGURE 8-1. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR ION EXCHANGE PRETREATMENT

, p~C
 Ca(HC0 )2 + Na R -CaR + 2NaHC0 3 [ 8.1]
3 2
Mg(HC0 )2 + Nq2 R-MgR + 2NaHC0 3 [8.2)
3
CaS0 4 + Na 2R - CaR + Na 2S0 4 [8.3)

CaCl 2 + Na 2 R - CaR + 2NaCl [8.4)

MgS0 + Na R - MgR + Na 2S0 4 [8.5)

4 2
MgCl + Na R
2 2 - MgR + 2NaCl [8.6)

When the exhausted exchanger is regenerated, essentially, the reverse

action takes place:

CaR + 2NaCl .- CaCl + Na 2R [8.7)

2
MgR + 2NaCl _ MgCl 2 + Na 2R [8.8)

These equations emphasize the. base-exchange nature of cation-exchange

softening indicating that the only change in the composition of the water is
the replacement of calcium and magnesium by sodium, which does not
produce scale on desalination membranes.

In addition to the hardness in the water, all multi-valent cations including

iron and manganese will be removed by ion exchange softening. A resin unit
that is exhausted for softening will continue to remove these potentially
troublesome ions from the water. Periodic special flushing and regeneration
procedures are required to remove iron and manganese from the ion
exchange resins.

8.2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The ion exchange resins are confined in vessels where the flows of water and
regenerants are accurately controlled. Softening equipment is designed to
operate with either pressure or gravity flows. Pressure vessels for softeners
are made of steel or fiberglass, and gravity softeners are generally
constructed of concrete or steel. Gravity softeners are usually used where a
large capacity is required and they are similar to the rapid sand filters
which can be readily inspected and maintained. The pressure softeners
generally operate downflow, while the gravity units commonly operate
either downflow or upflow. Large municipal water-softening plants use
gravity softeners.

If the feedwater contains any particulate matter, a downflow operation will

generally be superior because of the filtering capacity.

On completion of the softening cycle, the softener should be backwashed to

loosen the ion-exchange resin, flush out any particulate matter which may
have collected on top of the bed, and regenerate the exchanger. Two to five
minutes is sufficient for the backwash. Resin manufacturers generally
specify the time required for, and the recommended upflow rates to obtain

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt"C-~

-74-
 sufficient cleaning of a specific resin. With gravity-upflow softeners, the
backwash operation is eliminated.

When regenerating the pressure softener, brine is injected through a

distributor system set immediately above the exchanger surface. To obtain
maximum softening capacity from the ion exchanger, the brine must pass
uniformly through and contact all parts of the resin bed.

In large gravity softeners, the concentrated brine and dilution water are
mixed and pumped to the brine distribution system over the bed. Both water
and brine are metered to produce the desired concentration and quantity.

After the brine has been applied to the softener, all the spent brine must be
removed before the unit is returned to service. After completion of the
regeneration cycle, the softener is returned to service by passing the
feed water through the bed and is operated unt il a predetermined hardness
appears in the effluent.

8.2.1 Ion Exchange Equipment

Although ion exchange equipment is relatively simple compared to other

processes, the equipment usually involves many automatic valves and
controls. Because resin beds undergo frequent cycles of backwash, rinse,
and regeneration, manual control is not practical for long-term operation.

Vertical cylindrical tanks or columns are used to hold the resin. Internally,
tanks are equipped with a bottom bed support and water distribution devices
at the required levels. The devices all are designed to maintain even flow
distributions through the bed. If uniform flow is not achieved and
channeling occurs, the column will not properly perform.

8.2.2 Pretreatment Requirements for Ion Exchange

A main concern regarding the feed to ion exchange units is preventing

dissolved organic materials such as humic acid from passing through the
resin beds. Many of these materials are absorbed by the exchange resins and
are difficult to remove. The absorption reduces the exchange capacity of
the resin. Strong, oxidizing agents such as chlorine are also harmful to the
resins. Activated-carbon adsorption ahead of ion exchange units can remove
both dissolved organics and chlorine, however, treatment costs will increase.

The feed water should also be free of suspended substances such as sand,
sediments, clay and colloids. These materials and dissolved organics are
frequently found in surface waters. Since dissolved organic and suspended
substances are present in well waters, pretreatment for resin protection is
normally not used for well waters requiring calcium removal.

8.3 CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS

The only chemical requirement for ion exchange softening is the resin
regenerant. The typical requirement is 6 gallons of a lO-percent sodium

-75-
 chloride (NaCI) solution per cubic foot of resin. The calculations of total
plant regenerant requirements are presented in Table &- I.

Desalination brines can be used for regeneration of ion exchange

pretreatment systems under certain conditions. The Water and Power
Resources Service has conducted extensive pilot testing of such systems at
Yuma, Arizona, and regeneration is not assumed in the cost estimates
presented in this Manual.

&.4 LIQUID WASTE PRODUCTION

Brine volume can be minimized by reuse of regenerate used at the end of

the backwash cycle. The last one-third of regenerate contains significant
amounts of NaCl which is used as the initial regenerate in subsequent
regeneration operations. The volumes of reject brine and waste backwash
waters are primar ily functions of the feedwater hardness and are described
in Table &-1. The characteristics and typical volumes of liquid wastes are
shown in Table 9-1.

8.5 SITING REQUIREMENTS

In selecting a site for a desalting facility which includes ion exchange

pretreatment, consideration should be given to the area required for reject
brine disposal. Large land requirements can significantly add to the total
cost of the desalting facility depending upon the method of reject brine
disposal. Section 9.4 discusses siting requirements for desalting systems.

&.6 DESIGN CRITERIA

Design criteria for ion exchange softening are presented in Table 8-1. The
entries include the number of exchange units, resin volume, chemical
regenerant, backwash water requirements, and volume of pretreated water
storage ttnk. The hydraulic loading rate of the gra vi ty ion exchange unit is
6 gpm/ft • The total depth of the resin media i~ 3 feet. It is assumed that
25,400 meq of hardness are removed per ft of resin. Appendix C
documents some of the design criter ia used in this table.

Pretreatment plant capacity for ion exchange can be calculated using the
following relationship based on a 92-percent recovery rate and the average
relative unit flow 0) from Figure &-1:
Pretreatment Plant = Desalting Plant Installed Capacity x 1.018
Capacity 0.92

A sample layout of a 20-mgd, ion exchange pretreatment facility is

presented in Figure 8-2. Approximately 5 acres of land are required for this
facility (see Figure 9-7 for land requirements for other plant capacities).
Area requirements for brine disposal are not included.

-76-
 TABLE 8-1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING

1. Pretreatment Plant Capacity mgd

2
2- Hydraulic Loading Rate of Ion Exchange Units 6 gpm/ft
3. Length of Run [56/(total hardness, meq/Ll]
Total hardness = Items I + 2 of Table 4-1 _ _ _ hrs
4. Cycle Length [(3) + I] --- hrs
5. On Line Factor for Operational Units [(3)/(4)]
6. Total Required Surface Area [0) xI16/(5)]
7. Number of Ion Exchange Units
[(6)/950, rounded off to the next
largest integer. At flows less than
15-mgd, use 2 exchange units.]
8. Area of Individual Ion Exchange Unit
[ (6)/(7)]
9. Total Number of Ion Exchange Units
(inc!. I standby) [(7) + I]
10. Resin Depth
11. Resin Volume per Unit [(8) x 3]
12. Operational Resin Volume [(I I) x (7)]
13. Total Resin Volume [(II) x (9)]
(includes standby)
14. Regenerate Brine (IO percent NaCO
[(l2) x 144/(4)] _ _ _ gallons/day
15. NaCI Usage [0.166 x (I4)] _ _ _ tons/year
16. Wastewater Volume (backwash and brine)
[2,664 x (6)/(4)] _ _ _ gallons/day
17. Pretreated- Water Storage Tank Volume
5
[(j) x 1.25 x 10 ] _ _ _ gallons
18. Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage (SHMP) 5 mg/L
19. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x (I)] _ _ _ tons/yr
20. H S0 Dosage [0.64 x Item 6, Table 4-1 mg/L] _ _ _ mg/L
2 4
21. Total H S0 required [(20) x (I) x 1.52] _ _ _ tons/yr
2 4

-77-
 POST-TREATMENT
FACILITY

BACKWASH
, I
WATER!
ELECTRICAL REGENERATION
I----j I ION
TANKS
EXCHANGE
I I
STORAGE
ROOM I L UNITS
_
I---J
I
I
PUMP
ROOM
I
I

"
00 I MEMBRANE
DESALTING
I
~__ J ROOM
I PR ETREATED WATER
STORAGE TANK
CONTROL I
ROOM I
1---
I
1
I
OFFICES I
, - LAB- - ~AIN~ANCE
I I I

FIGURE 8-2. LAYOUT OF A 20 MGD ION EXCHANGE PRETREATMENT FACILITY

, pre
8.7 ION EXCHANGE COSTS

This section provides current cost data for the ion exchange pretreatment
process. The basis for costs presented in this Manual are discussed in
Section 2.2.

8.7.1 Construction Costs

Figure 8-3 presents construction cost data for ion exchange softening as a
function of pretreatment plant capacity. These construction costs include
the ion exchange units, backwash facilities, salt storage, brine tank,
pretreated-water storage tank, transfer pumping, and the administration,
laboratory, and maintenance building. These costs are based on the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI). The base
period is June 1980 and the base value of the ENR-CCI is 297.73.

8.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

The a & M costs for ion exchange include energy, materials, labor and
chemicals. Data presented are in terms of rates. Figure 8-4 presents labor
requirements for ion exchange and in terms of man-hours/yr versus
pretreatment plant capacity. Figure 8-5 presents annual materials costs for
ion exchange as a function of pretreatment plant capacity. The cost of
materials can be updated using the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods.
These costs reflect the Producer Price Index for June 1980 at a value of
242.3. The chemical requirements for ion exchange consist of salt (NaCt)
for regeneration. The total salt requirement can be calculated from
Table 8-1 The energy requirement for ion exchange is approximately
0.11 x 10 b kwh/yr/mgd of pretreatment plant capacity.

8.7.3 Total Costs

Table 8-2 is a worksheet for determining total annual equivalent costs for
ion exchange. For a particular plant capacity, use the construction cost
data presented in Figure 8-3 to determine the total capital costs in
Section A of Table 8- 2. These costs can then be updated by multiplying the
ratio of the present ENR-CCI to the base index. The remaining calculations
of Part A are self explanatory.

Annual a & M costs may be determined from using the data presented in
Figures 8-4 and 8-5. The appropriate consumption rates should be fiUed in
Part B of the table and multiplied by the current unit costs.

Total annual equivalent costs for ion exchange can then be calculated by
adding the annual equivalent capital cost to the annual a & M cost.

-79-
 50
-
ENR CCI (JUNE 1980) - 29773

40 /
/
30
V
/
25
/
~

'"0 20
V
><
~
l-
(/)
15
/
V
0
u

1/
)/
10
~
9
V
~
8
V
7

5
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: [,A,dapted lrom U.S. Environmental ProtectIOn Agency, 19791

FIGURE 8-3. CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR ION EXCHANGE PRETREATMENT

'---------------------pt"'c
-80-
 50

ItO

30

25
x
>-
-...
«\ 20
0

X V
/
V)
X
15

v
::J
0
:r:I
Z
«
:2:

10
9
V
/
./
V
8
v
7 V
6

5
3 It 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 ItO 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: [Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979)

FIGURE 8-1t. 0 « M LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR

ION EXCHANGE PRETREATMENT

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PI"C

-81-
 PRODUCER PRICE INDEX (JUNE 1980) - 2423
30

25

20
/
15
/
2
--
r
""0

x
10
9
/
V
l- 8
7
V)
o
u 7
7
6
v
/
5
1I
V
4 V
/
3
3 4 5
/ 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: {Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protl!Ction Agency, 1979J

FIGURE 8-5. o &. M MATERIALS COST FOR

ION EXCHANGE PRETREATMENT

~-----------------------p('c-/

-82-
 TABLE 8-2. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR ION EXCHANGE

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd Date:

-----
Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

I. Construction

(a) Ion exchange plant base cost (from Figure 8-3) $

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()]
297.73 x a $
2. Additives @ 32.596 of I(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) S
[ 0.325 x J(b))
3. Total capital cost [(I) + (2)] $
4. Expected life of facility years
5. Interest rate percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x 0)] S/yr
B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance mater ial s [a] _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _S/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 8-5] m-hr/yr _ _ _S/m-hr S/yr
II. Energy [b] kwh/yr _ _ _S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (J I)] _ _ _S/yr
C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _S/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)) _ _ _S/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity S/kgal

----S/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity S/kgal
----S/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 8-4 cost by: [ProJected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements are 0.11 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(15)] /[mgd x 365,000]
$/ac-ft = [$/kgal] x [325.85].
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pre-----"

-83-
 CHAPTER 9

COMMON OR
PERIPHERAL SYSTEMS
 CHAPTER 9

COMMON OR PERIPHERAL SYSTEMS

This chapter examines the components which are common to all of the
pretreatment systems described in this Manual. These systems include sludge and
liquid waste disposal, intake structures, buildings, electrical systems and
environmental impacts. It is intended that this chapter be used in conjunction with
the chapter on the specific process selected.

9.1 DISPOSAL OF PRETREATMENT WASTE STREAMS

Desalting plant complexes must be planned, designed, and operated to

minimize the deleterious effects of pretreatment sludge pollution, waste-
brine pollution, chemical pollution, and air pollution. No greater constraints
are placed on the desalting industry than are being placed on the process and
utilities industries. The waste effluents and emissions must conform to
Federal, State, and local standards to prevent environmental and ecological
degradation.

9.1.1 Waste Characteristics

The waste streams generated by the pretreatment systems vary according to

process and/or operation. Trash racks and travelling screens remove large,
particulate matter from water streams. Clarifier sludges generally contain
colloidal and particulate matter with organics and color. Lime and lime-
soda softening produce significant volumes of sludge prior to the thickening
and dewatering processes. This sludge also contains substances such as sand,
silt, and organics, as well as treatment chemicals, calcium carbonate and
magnesium hydroxide precipitates. Approximately 80 to 85-percent of this
sludge is composed of calcium carbonate for systems where the treatment
objective is calcium removal. Those lime/lime-soda processes used for
calcium and silica removal produce sludges containing significant quantities
of magnesium hydroxide in addition to calcium carbonate. The relative ease
of dewater ing softening sludges depends upon the ratio of calcium to
magnesium and the amount of gelatinous solids present. Sludges with higher
ratios of calcium to magnesium are more easily dewatered.

To conserve water and facilitate disposal, sludges are normally concentrated

in a thickener, dewatered by a centrifuge or filter press, and consigned to a
landfi1l. The thickener overflow plus the filtrate from dewatering are
typically returned to the headworks of the pretreatment system.

In the direct filtration process suspended solids in the backwash water are
allowed to settle and densify in a conical-bottomed tank and are then
withdrawn and dewatered for solid waste disposal. The supernatant is
returned to the pretreatment headworks.

For the ion exchange pretreatment process, regeneration entails a backwash

step, brine injection, brine displacement, and a final-rinse step. The spent

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p r c ----'

-84-
 regenerant consists of solutions of calcium chloride, magnesium chloride and
sodium chloride. The backwash wastewater contains small amounts of
particulate matter.

Table 9-1 summarizes characteristics of the waste streams from

pretreatment processes under consideration. Typical waste volumes for 5,
25 and 50-mgd pretreatment plants are also presented.

9.1.2 Description of Disposal Alternatives

The waste streams generated by the pretreatment processes considered in

this manual can be classified into two groups. The lime and lime-soda
processes produce sludges and the direct filtration and ion exchange
processes produce liquid waste streams. Specifically, the direct filtration
waste is a dilute suspension, and the ion exchange waste is a brine.

A variety of alternative techniques exist for the disposal of sludges. Once

the sludge has been collected from the solids-contact reactor in the
softening process, the sludge can be dewatered by mechanical or
nonmechanical methods. The objective of dewatering is to reduce the
moisture content of the sludge to decrease the overall volume of sludge.

9.1.2. I Nonmechanical Dewatering Techniques

Nonmechanical dewatering techniques include lagoon facilities for sludge

storage, thickening, and sand drying beds for both drainage and air drying
before ultimate disposal.

Lagoons are a relatively inexpensive method for ultimate sludge disposal in

areas where sufficent land is available and groundwater pollution is not a
problem. Lagoons may also be used as temporary storage units to thicken
sludge before further dewatering and ultimate disposal, perhaps years in the
future.

The sludge dewater ing process occurs by two mechanisms: drainage through
the sludge cake to the sand-bed, and air drying from the surface of the
sludge cake. Usually, both processes must be operative to reach a condition
in which the sludge may be removed from the drying bed for transport to a
point of ultimate disposal. Drainage rates for water-treatment sludges vary
dramatically with the nature of the sludge and the applied depth. Generally,
non-iron and conditioned alum sludges rapidly drain; iron-based coagulant
sludges show intermediate drainage properties; and unconditioned alum
sludges show relatively poor drainage characteristics. The specific
resistance of the sludge correlates with the drainage rate and physical or
chemical conditioning may significantly improve drainage characteristics of
poorly draining sludges.

Although sludge drying rates vary through the depth of sludge, the top layers
dry most rapidly. Sand-bed dewatering is useful where land is available for
sludges that are difficult to dewater by mechanical means without
conditioning.

-85-
 TABLE 9-1. PRETREATMENT PROCESS WASTE STREAMS

Typical Waste
Pretreatment Flowrates From Process Volumes From Pretreatment Plants
Process Waste Character istics Flow Diagrams 5 mgd 25 mgd 50 mgd

Direct Filtration Suspension of particulate

solids, organic and inorganic 0.007 Q 35,000 gpd 175,000 gpd 350,000 gpd

Lime • Calcium removal only - 0.015 Q from Solids

primarily calcium carbonate Contact Reactor @ 5%
I
to
slurry, particulate solids Solids; 0.0075 Q from
a- or Thickener 7,500 gpd 37,500 gpd 75,000 gpd
I
@ 10% Solids;
Lime-Soda • Calcium and silica removal - 0.0015 Q from Centrifuge
Softening calcium carbonate and magnesium @ 40% Solids = 0.0015 Q
hydroxide slurry, silica,
particulate solids

Jon Exchange Brine containing calcium, 0.018 Q (aJ

magnesium and sodium chloride, 90,000 gpd 450,000 gpd 900,000 gpd
particulate solids

~ Q = Pretreatment plant capacity.

[aJ Typical volume; exact volume depends on feedwater hardness.

 9.1.2.2 Mechanical Dewatering Techniques

The most commonly used mechanical dewater ing processes are

centrifugation and vacuum filtration. Centrifugation is basicaJJy a settling
process compressed into a shaJJow depth. Centrifugal force increases the
settling rate of solids, by relying on density differences. Among the
different types of commercial centrifuge settlers the scroJJ-discharge, solid-
bowl decanter, and to some extent the plow-discharge basket-bowl are
considered most applicable.

The vacuum filter consists of a vat, which receives the sludge feed, and a
horizontal drum with a filtering surface which is partiaJJy submerged in the
sludge. An internal piping system draws filtrate through the filter surface,
discharges to a receiver, and then draws air through the cake formed on the
filter surface. A doctor blade or similar device scrapes or blows the cake
from the drum and onto a conveyor. UsuaJJy, an operator is required to be
on hand at all times to make adjustments as sludge density or quality
changes. Chemicals are usuaJJy required to properly condition the sludge for
efficient vacuum filter operation.

9.1.2.3 Ultimate Sludge Disposal

The three principal methods of ultimate sludge disposal include discharge

into water courses (or the ocean), discharge into sewers and discharge to the
land (i.e., lagoons, landfiJJs). Discharge of softening sludges into water
courses or sewers generally has negative effects on the environment and is
usuaJJy prohibited. Landfill operations that accept water treatment plant
sludges vary and are regulated by state law. As a result, ultimate disposal
of this sludge is often attained through the use of lagoons or evaporation
ponds. These ponds should be lined with an impervious material to insure
adequate protection of groundwaters unless natural sinks without
communication paths to underlying strata are available.

9.1.2.4 Liquid Disposal

Both direct filtration and ion exchange produce liquid wastes. These wastes
can be disposed with the brines produced by the desalting processes. Various
alternative methods of liquid waste disposal exist. Disposal may be
accomplished by evaporation in lined ponds or lagoons, deep-weJJ injection,
discharge into an ocean or salt lake sink or by mechanical evaporators.
Stream discharge is generaJJy not feasible in the United States because of
the local poJJution problem that it introduces. Each of the liquid waste
disposal methods is discussed in more detail.

9.1.2.5 Evaporation Ponds

Ion exchange brine, desalting brine, and filter backwash water can be
disposed into evaporation ponds under certain conditions. Evaporation ponds
are applicable in warm, dry climates where the annual evaporation rate
greatly exceeds the annual rainfaJJ, where the terrain is level, and the cost
of land is low. Natural sinks having little or no potential for groundwater
contamination and are suitable for liquid-waste-disposal. However, in the

~--------------pt'C-~
-87-
 major ity of areas, suitable natural sinks do not exist and evaporation ponds
must be sealed with impervious liners.

Lined evaporation ponds are an expensive alternative. Total disposal costs

are between $3.00 and $7.00 per thousand gallons depending on the net
evaporation rate. The net evaporation rate is defined as the annual
evaporation rate minus the average rainfall. A higher evaporation rate
results in lower costs.

The design of both lined and unlined evaporation ponds must consider
variations in net evaporation rates. Sufficient storage must be provided to
accommodate several years with less-than-average evaporation and greater-
than-average precipitation.

Evaporation ponds can occupy vast areas of land, depending on net

evaporation rate and influent flowrates. In a region with 48-inches per year
of net evaporation, one acre is required for each 3,570 gallons per day
produced.

Ion exchange and desalination process brine have definite potential for
salinity contamination of groundwaters. Direct filtration backwash has the
salinity of the source-water and mayor may not pose a groundwater
contamination problem.

9.1.2.6 Deep-Well Disposal

Deep-well injection requires a comprehensi ve geologic investigation and

field testing of the disposal zone and reservoir areas to determine that safe,
effective underground disposal is possible, that the injected brine cannot
encroach on or pollute underground freshwater, that future natural
resources will not be contaminated, and that the risk of causing earthquakes
and eruptions is minimized.

The depth of a deep-well can vary from several hundred to over 12,000 feet.
One disposal formation into which the waste is being injected is a
10,000 square mile area which is 5,000 feet thick. Even in deep disposal
formations, only a fraction of the depth may be suitable for disposal because
of low permeability.

The Gulf Coast and the Atlantic coastal plain are particularly good locations
for injection wells because they contain relatively thick sequences of salt-
water-bearing sedimentary rock, and, also, because the surbsurface geology
of these areas is documented by previous drilling for oil and gas. Volcanic
rock areas are generally not suitable, because fissures and fractures will
allow the escape of the waste into adjacent formations.

Once the well is established, the waste material may be pumped into the
well at a pressure high enough to cause injection into the formation.
Injection rates may be high or low, depending upon the geology, but
generally range from 100 to 300 gpm at pressure levels from 100 to 500 psi.
Lower injection pressure is desirable because of lower pumping costs, slower
pressure pumping, piping, and well casing, and less damage to the confining
strata.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pre---'"

-88-
 Injection is accomplished by centrifugal, turbine, and piston-type-duplex and
multiplex plunger pumps. Centrifugal pumps are the most suitable for
injection under 300 psi. Piston-type pumps are utilized at pressures up to
500 psi. The duplex-piston type and multiplex-plunger pumps are utiIitzed
at higher pressures. The cost of injection disposal can be a substantial part
of the total cost, and waste disposal must be considered in the initial design.
The cost by deep-well injection is primarily dependent upon disposal volume,
well depth, and injection pressure. The cost for drilling the well is usually a
major portion of the total capital cost of the system and normally averages
75-percent of the cost. The remainder is the cost required for pumping and
piping. For wells with a low injection rate, capital costs may be as high as
90-percent of the total cost. Both geology and depth influence the costs of
drilling a deep-well.

Successful injection generally requires that wastewaters be free of

particulate matter which reduce formation permeability and increase
injection pressures. Deep-well disposal of ion exchange (and desalination)
brines is viable if the solutions are not supersaturated since precipitants will
reduce formation permeability. Surface storage ponds may be required to
precipitate calcium sulfate prior to subsurface injection.

Direct filtration backwash waters have poor potential for subsurface

disposal due to high levels of particulate matter.

9.1.2. 7 Surface Water Discharge

In general, direct untreated discharge into a stream, lake, or other

watercourse cannot be made without degrading the surface water quality.
Water-quality-control laws of most states prohibit such discharge. The low-
solids-waste effluents from desalting plants located near the coast could
possibly be discharged into the ocean or large estuaries. Several factors
should be considered for brine disposal into large surface-water bodies:

a. The pretreatment and membrane-desalination process brines are

potentially harmful to fresh and salt water wildlife, primarily,
because of low pH levels.

b. Toxicity of the effluent stream can be readily reduced to acceptable

levels by dilution with the receiving water.

c. Outfalls to the ocean should be located on the open coast. Locations

on estuaries and areas with restricted interchange of water should be
avoided.

9.1.2.8 Mechanical Evaporators

Mechanical evaporators remove the liquid phase from a waste stream

thereby producing an extremely concentrated brine. In addition to the
brine, significant amounts of demineralized water are produced. A primary
advantage of mechanical evaporators is that they significantly reduce the
amount of land needed for evaporation ponds; the primary disadvantage is
high energy consumptions for the process.

'-----~------------- pre-----'

-89-
 9.1.3 Disposal Costs for Pretreatment Process Wastes

The costs for disposal of pretreatment process wastes can represent

between 5 and 20-percent of total pretreatment costs depending on site
specific factors. Typical costs for pretreatment waste disposal are difficult
to define because of the significant influence of the site. In most instances,
the disposal of desalination reject brine is much more difficult and costly
than pretreatment waste disposal. Volumes of pretreatment wastes
typically represent less than 5 to 10-percent of waste reject brines.

For the purpose of this Manual, the following have been selected as
representative of pretreatment waste disposal systems:

Direct Filtration Pumping of decant tank underflow

to lined evaporation ponds.

Lime and Lime-Soda Softening Gravity thickening, centrifugation

and trucking to landfill.

Ion Exchange Pumping of brine to lined evaporation

ponds.

The volumes and solids contents of pretreatment wastes are presented in

Table 9-2. These values are typical for the assumed processes.

The costs for disposal of pretreatment wastes can be projected by using the
worksheet presented in Table 9-3. This worksheet is to be used for all the
pretreatment processes considered in this Manual. Figures 9-1 through 9-6
are to be used in conjunction with Table 9-3.

9.1.3.1 Direct Filtration and Ion Exchange

The assumed disposal system for wastes from the direct filtration and ion
exchange pretreatment systems consists of pipelines and lined evaporation
ponds. The construction costs for lined-pond disposal of direct filtration and
ion exchange brines are presented in Figure 9-1. The construction cost
var ies as a function of the net annual evaporation rate. As the annual rate
of evaporation increases, the construction costs for the lined ponds
decreases. Note that the X-axis indicates the pretreatment plant capacity.
The specific quantities of liquid wastes and brine have already been included
in these costs. The graphs are based upon assumed average productions of
7,000 gpd of liquid waste per mgd for direct filtration and 18,000 gpd of
brine per mgd for ion exchange.

The costs for a pump system and pipeline for transport of the waste
solutions from the desalination plant to the evaporation ponds is not
included in Figure 9-1. It is recommended that the user of this Manual
consult the Dodge Manual for estimating these costs which are shown as
Item l(b) of Table 9-3.

Figure 9-2 presents 0 &. M labor requirements for lined evaporation ponds.
The net evaporation rate has virtually no effect on the labor required. This

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C ---'

-90-
TABLE 9-2. VOLUMES AND SOLIDS CONTENTS OF PROCESSED
PRETREATMENT WASTES
Solids Content
Pretreatment Waste Treatment
Process Inflow Percent w/w
System
Gravity Clarification 0.015Q <0.1 %
Direct Filtration
0.007Q <0.1 %
Evaporation Ponds

Gravity Thickening 0.015Q 5%

Lime/Lime-Soda
0.0075Q 10%
Centr if ugation
0.0015Q 40%
Landfill

Evaporation ponds 0.018Q 0

Ion Exchan ge

Q = Pretreatment Plant Capaci ty.

-91-
TABLE 9-3. COST WORKSHEET FOR PRETREATMENT WASTE DISPOSAL

Method of Disposal: Date: _

A. CAPIT AL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Base cost (from Figure 9-1 or 9-4)

(b) Additional items tal
(c) Subtotal [J(a) + J(b»)
(d) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I(c))
297.73 x $
2. Additives @ 32.5% of J(d) <includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.325xJ(d»)
3. Total capital cost [J(d) + (2»)
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate _ _ _ _ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x 0)] _ _ _$/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance mater ials [bl _ _ _$/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _$/ton $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 9-2 or 9-5] ;m-hr/yr _ _ _S/m-hr S/yr
11. Ener gy kwh/yr _ _ _S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (11)] _ _ _S/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _:S/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(l2)] _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (I4)] _ _ _S/yr

-[a) For direct filtration and ion exchange: pump and pipeline between plant site
and evaporation ponds. Use the Dod e Manual published by McGraw-Hil1 for
costs. No additional costs for lime lime-soda pretreatment.

[b) Multiply Figure 9-3 or 9-6 cost by: [Projected Producer Price Index/242.ll

-92-
 , 1980)
ENR - CCI (JUNE ~ .,
297') 25
10

9
J
8
'/ 20

7 J J

6
/ V 15

'"'
5
E ~ EVAPORATION RATE

if/'/
~I
,'!
~
.of
~

Jq
.f-
.J...~

~
'<-

...~
0 1+
J / "
~,y
~,/
10
~

><
if>

l-
V)
/
/ /
V/ /
/
J
9"b
8
-
><
if>
0 3 ~

U / / / / l-

/ / 1 '//
7 V)

z 0
U
0 2.5
i= 6

////
u.J
« / '-'
0:;
,/ Z
I-
2 «
"-
...l 5 :r:
lJ..
I-
U
u.J
e:: 1.5
./
V
,/

""
,/
,/

./
//
./
1+
u
><
u.J
z
Q
Cl /'
,/
,/
""V V
V /
V
,/
3
/
1 2.5
3 1+ 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 1+0 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPAClTY (mgd)

Source: [Adapted from U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1979)

FIGURE 9-1. CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR LINED EVAPORATION PONDS:

ION EXCHANGE AND DIRECT FILTRATION

'-----------------------p,...c
-93-
 10
9

/
~ 4
v
--"">-
0

><
V) 3
/
~
::J
0
I
Z
, 2.5
v
/
«
:;;;
2
/

1.5
v
v
/
/'
/
./
./
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (MGD)

Source: (Adapted from U.S. EnvIronmental Protection Agency, 1979]

FIGURE 9-2. O&::M LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR LINED EVAPORAnON PONDS:

ION EXCHANGE AND DIRECT FILTRAnON

'-- pl"C

-94-
 PRODUCER PRICE INDEX (JUNE 1980)- 2"2.3
10 25

8 / 20
V
7
/ 15
/
I

~ 1+
o
U V
/ (2
>--
10 .a---
-
a

9 ><
z / ~
o f
8 l-
i= 3 V)
0
<
0:: / 7 u
I-
::J 2.5 / u.J
u.. / 6 '-'
z
/ <
I-
U :r:
~ 2 u
-
Cl
./
./
5
><
u.J
Z

1.5
V 1+ -
0

V
3

1 2.5
3 1+ 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 1+0 50 60 70
PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: [Adapted Irom U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979]

FIGURE 9-3. o&:M MATERIALS COSTS FOR LINED EVAPORATION PONDS:

ION EXCHANGE AND DIRECT FILTRATION

'--------------------------pI"C

-95-
 -
ENR CCI (JUNE 1980) " 29773
10

5
V
4
./
V
/'
- ~
~

'"0
X
~ 3 .....
l- .......
V) ........
0
U
..........
2.5

1.5

1
3 4 5678910 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: [Adapted from U.S.Environmental ProtectIOn Agency, t979)

FIGURE 9-4. CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR LIME AND

LIME-SODA SLUDGE DISPOSAL

---------------------pr"c
 10
9

7
1/
6 V
/
5
/
/
/
oc 4
>-
-...
'"0
><
V)
oc
::J
a
3
V
7
:r:I 2.5 1/
Z
« V
~
2
V
/
1.5
/

1
3 5678910 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (rngd)

Source: (Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979)

FIGURE 9-5. o&:M LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR LIME AND

LIME-SODA SLUDGE DISPOSAL

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ pI"C _ /

-9-7 -
 PRODUCER PRICE INDEX (JUNE, 1980) - 242 I
50

40
/
/
/
30

25
-/
0::

--
>--
20
/
-
'"0
><
~
I-
Vl
0
U
15
V
/
V
I
)
10 7
9

8
/
7

5
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

Source: (Adapted from U.5.E.wironmental Protection Agency, 1979J

FIGURE 9-6. o&:M MATERIALS COST FOR LIME AND

LIME-SODA SLUDGE DISPOSAL

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ pl""C

-98-
 curve may be used either for direct filtration or ion exchange waste
disposal.

Figure 9-3 presents 0 &. M materials costs for evaporated ponds. This curve
can be used for any evaporation rate; however, a distinction exists between
direct fiI;ration and ion exchange materials costs. Power requirements are
0.85 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd of pretreatment plant capacity.

9.1.3.2 Lime and Lime-Soda

The construction cost for this system is presented in Figure 9-4.

Centrifugation wilJ concentrate the sJudge solids content to approximately
40-percent by weight. Sludge hauled by truck for an assumed distance of
10 miles to the landfill site. 0 &. M labor requirements are shown in
Figure 9-5. 0 &. M materials cost for this a1ternative are presented in
Figure 9-6. Power requirements are 0.22 x 10 5 kwh/yr/mgd of pretreatment
plant capacity. Approximately 400 galJons of diesel fuel per year per mgd
of pretreatment plant capacity are required for hauling the sludge by truck
to the landfilJ site. Costs for these consumables are included in Figure 9-6.

9.2 BUILDINGS

An administration building is included in all costs described in Chapters 5

through 8 and is located within the membrane desalting room. The alJotted
4,000 square feet area contains 2,500 square feet for offices, 1,000 square
feet for laboratory facilities and 500 square feet for a maintenance area.
For the ion exchange pretreatment process, the exchange units will be
enclosed within the membrane desalting room. Costs for buildings are
included in the construction costs presented in each process chapter.

9.3 ELECTRICAL

A common electr ical system exists between the pretreatment and desal ting
systems. As shown in the various sample layouts (Figures 5-3, 6-3, 7-2 and
8-2) for a 20-mgd pretreatment facility, a common electr ical area is
adjacent to the membrane desalting area. The majority of the energy is
used in the membrane desalting process. Electrical transformers are shown
outside the membrane desalting area. Transformer costs are included in the
constr uction costs presented in each process chapter.

9.4 GENERAL SITING REQUIREMENTS

The site selected for a desalting plant must have suitable soil-bearing
characteristics. The seismology and geology of a site must be considered.
Severe earthquakes can cause much structural damage, particularly in plants
located on a base with poor earthquake-response characteristics.

The hydrology of a site must be evaluated to avoid floods. Wind-swept spray

from an evaporative brine disposal pond can increase building maintenance
costs.

In t he case of coastal plants, sui table si te character ist ics, protected sandy
beaches, gently-sloping terrain, and closeness to population centers, also
make the site attractive for development.

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C -----

-99-
Reser voirs are generally used for water storage both at the source and near
the distribution system. To lower costs, consideration should be given to
locating desalting plants so that existing reservoirs can be utilized.

Factors which should be considered in selecting the site of a plant are:

a. Distance to source water

b. Availability of product water storage
c. Brine disposal
d. Legal and political constraints
e. Power availability
f. Access for construction and employees
g. Topography and system hydraulic gradeline considerations

Figure 9-7 provides land requirements for pretreatment and desalting

facilities. Four separate curves are shown. The graph distinguishes between
the amount of land needed solely for pretreatment processes and the land
requirements for pretreatment plus membrane desalting facilities. The
direct filtration and ion exchange processes have similar land requirements
and are Jess than the land required for lime or lime-soda softening
pretreatment. The curves presented in this graph, however, do not include
land required for disposal of waste from the pretreatment or desalination
processes.

-100-
 20 r-----r-----r-----,.----,-------,

151-----+------+-------1[-----+--------:7"'--1

to
-;;;
~
u
~
a
z
..:
..J
j

o
o 10 20 30 40 50

PRETREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY (mgd)

FIGURE 9.7. LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR PRETREATMENT

AND MEMBRANE DESALTING FACILITIES

-------------------------pf"'C
 CHAPTER 10

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

 CHAPTER 10

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

This Manual is primarily concerned with the selection of pretreatment processes

and the estimation of pretreatment capital and operating costs. Pretreatment is
only one component of the total desalination system. This chapter identifies all
components of typical membrane desalination systems.

References for cost estimates for components other than pretreatment are
provided.

10.1 COST SUMMARY WORKSHEET

Table 10-1 is a total facilities cost worksheet. The total cost of a desalting
project includes the intake structure, pretreatment and desalting facilities,
and pretreatment waste disposal. Operation and maintenance costs are
directed according to materials, chemicals, labor and energy for each
facility. It should be noted that this Manual provides cost data for only the
pretreatment facility and pretreatment waste disposal. Pretreatment and
desalting land requirements are presented; however, unit land costs are si te
specific and are not provided.

Since each component of a complete desalting project may have a different

economic life span, capital recovery factors are presented in Table 10-2.

10.2 INTAKE STRUCTURES

Depending on the si ze and nature of the installation, intake structures for

surface water can be relatively simple submerged pipes, or fairly elaborate
towerlike structures with multiple-depth intakes. The tower intakes can
house intake gates controlled by stop logs, racks, screens, pumps,
compressors, chlorinators, chemical feeders, venturi meters and other
measuring devices. Intakes should be designed to minimize turbidity thereby
reducing pretreatment costs.

Intakes are connected to the shores and lakes and reservoirs by: j) pipelines
(often laid with flexible joints); or 2) tunnels blasted through rock beneath
the lake or reservoir floor. Pipelines are generally laid in a trench on the
floor and covered after completion. This protects them against disturbance
by waves ice, and boat anchors.

River intakes are constructed well upstream from points of discharge of

sewage and industrial wastes. Small streams may require diversion or intake
dams to submerge intake pipes and preclude air entrainment.

Both capital and operational costs for intake systems are presented in
Desalting Handbook for Planners.

-102-
 TABLE 10-1. TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY WORKSHEET

Plant Location: _
Desalting Plant Installed Capaci ty: mgd Date: _
Pretreatment Plant Capacity: mgd
Recovery percent
Waste Disposal Method:

A. CAPIT AL COSTS

Total Annual
Cost Additive Cost Life CRF Cost
($) @ 32.596 ($) (yrs) [g] ($/yr)

1. Source Water Intake

Facility [a]
-- --
2. Pretreatment Facility
[b]
--
3. Desal ting Facili ty [d]
-- --
4. Post Treatment [d]

5. Pretreatment Waste
Disposal [c 1

6. Desalting Waste
Disposal [d]
--
7. Land [el
-- --
8. Annual Equivalent
Capital Cost ($/yr) --
B. OPERA nON & MAINTENANCE COSTS
Annual
Cost
($/yr)
9. Maintenance Materials

a. Pretreatment Facility [bl

b. Desalting Facility [d]
c. Pretreatment Waste Disposal [c]
d. Desal ting Waste Dispos al [ d]
e. Subtotal

-103-
 TABLE 10-1. TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY WORKSHEET (Continued)

Annual
Cost
10. Chemicals ($/yr)
a. Pretreatment Facility [b]
b. Desalting Facility [d]
c. Post Treatment Facility [d]
d. Subtotal

11. Labor

a. Pretreatm ent Facili ty [b]

b. Desalting Facility [d]
c. Pretreatment Waste Disposal [c]
d. Desalting Waste Disposal [b]
e. Subtotal

12. Energy

a. Pretreatment Facility [b]

b. Desalting Facility [d]
c. Pretreatment Waste Disposal [c]
d. Desalting Waste Disposal [d]
e. Subtotal

13. Annual 0 &. M Cost

(Add subtotals from Lines 8 through 12)

C. TOT AL ANNUAL COSTS

14. Annual Equivalent Capital Cost [(8)] _ _ _ _,$/yr

15. Annual 0 &. M Cost [(13)] _ _ _ _$/yr
16. Total Annual Equivalent Cost [(14) + (15)] _ _ _ _$/yr
17. Unit Water Costs [f]

Based on desalting plant capacity $/kgal

----$/ac-ft

[a] ~ Sectjon 10.2 and DesaJtjng Handbook for Planners

[b] See Table, }-2, 6-3, 7-3 or 8-2
[e] See Chapter 9 and Table 9-3
[d] ~ the Desalting Handlx>ok for Planners by the U.S. Department of the Interior
[e] See Section 9.4
If] S/kgaJ: [(Jm/lmgd x 36~,OOOI x S/ae ft = [S/kga!] x [32~.8~J
Igl Capital Recovery Factors, Table 10.2

-104-
TABLE 10-2. CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTORS

LlFE INTEREST RATE

(years) i=6% i=8% i=IO% i=12%

1 1. 060 00 I. 080 00 1.100 00 1.12000

2 0.545 44 0.560 77 0.576 19 0.59170
3 0.37411 0.388 03 0.402 11 0.41635
4 0.28859 0.301 92 0.315 47 0.32923
5 0.23740 0.250 46 0.263 80 0.277 41

6 0.20336 0.216 32 0.229 61 0.243 23

7 0.179 14 0.192 07 0.205 41 0.21912
8 0.16104 0.17401 0.18744 0.201 30
9 0.14702 0.16008 0.17364 0.18768
10 0.13587 0.14903 0.16275 0.17698

11 0.12679 . 0.140 08 0.15396 0.16842

12 0.11928 0.132 70 0.146 76 0.161 44
13 0.11296 0.12652 0.140 78 0.155 68
14 0.10758 0.12130 0.13575 0.150 87
15 0.10296 0.11683 0.131 47 0.14682

16 0.098 95 0.112 98 0.127 82 0.14339

17 0.095 44 0.10963 0.146 76 0.161 44
18 0.092 36 0.106 70 0.121 93 0.137 94
19 0.08962 0.104 13 0.11955 0.13576
20 0.087 18 0.10185 0.11746 0.13388

21 0.085 00 0.099 83 0.11562 0.132 24

22 0.083 05 0.09803 0.11401 0.13081
23 0.081 28 0.09642 0.11257 0.12956
24 0.079 68 0.09498 0.111 30 0.12846
25 0.07823 0.09368 0.110 17 0.12750

26 0.07690 0.092 51 0.10916 0.126 65

27 0.07570 0.091 45 0.108 26 0.12590
28 0.07459 0.09049 0.207 45 0.12524
29 0.073 58 0.089 62 0.106 73 0.12466
30 0.07265 0.088 83 0.10608 0.124 14

-105-
10.3 PRETREATMENT FACILITIES

The costs for pretreatment processes and disposal of pretreatment wastes

are presented in Chapters 5 through 9 of this Manual.

10.4 DESALIN ATION SYSTEM

The costs for membrane desalination systems including chemicals, opera tion
and maintenance have been updated and summarized in several recent
publications. These include Desalination Handbook for Planners and Reverse
Osmosis Technical Manual published by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

10.5 BRINE DISPOSAL

The costs for disposal of desalination brines can be significant in many

applications. Lined evaporation ponds result in brine disposal costs ranging
between $2.00 and $6.00 per 1,000 gallon depending on site specific
conditions. Brine disposal costs are presented in the Desalination Handbook
for Planners.

-106-
REFERENCES
 REFERENCES

American Water Works Association. 1971. Water Quality and Treatment.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

Betz. 1967. Betz Handbook of Industrial Water Conditioning, Pennsylvania.

"Chemical Marketing Reporter." Schnell Publishing Company, Inc., New York

Culp, R.L 1977. "Direct Filtration." Journal of the American Water Works
Association. (69:7: 375-378).

"Dodge Manua!." 1980. McGraw-Hill, New York

DuPont Company. 1976. Permasep Engineering Design Manua!. Wilmington,

Delaware.

Letterman, R.D. and G.S. Logsdon. 1976. "Survey of Direct Filtration

Practice-Preliminary Report." Presented at AWWA Annual Conference,
New Orleans, LA.

Sanks, R.L. 1978. Water Treatment Plant Design. Ann Arbor Science, Michigan.

Tate, C.H. and J.S. Lang. 1977. "Pilot Plant Tests of Direct Filtration." Journal
of the American Water Works Association. (69:7: 379-384).

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979. Desalting Handbook for Planners. Office
of Water Research and Technology, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979. Reverse Osmosis Technical Manua!.

Office of Water Research and Technology, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA:600/2:79:162a, b. 1979. Estimating

Water Treatment Costs. Gumerman, R.G. and R. L Culp.

-107-
APPENDIX A
 APPENDIX A

WORKSHEETS

Appendix A provides the planner with additional blank worksheets which were
previously presented in the Manual. Included are worksheets for the laboratory
water quality analysis, pretreatment process selection, design criteria, chemical
dosages and costs.

-108-
TABLE 4-1. LABORATORY WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT

SUBMITTED BY: _

l- C~IClUm (ea .. 2)
2
2. MagneSium (Mg+ )

3. Sodium (NiI.·)

4. Pot&:JSlum (K")

,. Total Major Callens

MAJOR ."NIONS
6. BlCarbcna.te (HeOJ-'

Carb<;rlate (CO)
-2 )
7.

8. Chloride tCl-)

,. Nitrate (NO -)
J
2
10. Sulfate (S04- )

Il- Total Mil.JOI' "nions

MiSCELLANEOUS
12. CO 2
13. Toul Alka.11nl'ty
(ilS CaCC)

14. SIlica

". Fluoride

16. '.on
TD5110N BALANCE
17. Strontium
27. Total l()l'l
ICA,}).. (.o..I1)..(JItl)
18. Barium

". Hydrogen SulfIde 28. Gravimetric lOS

(RcSldue @ lOloe)
20. Suspc:nde<l Sohds
ros", I (27)-O ..h(6}j
29.
21- BOO
30. Ian \(M) I (511)) Range 0.96101.04
22. COO
105 1(23)/(29» Range 0.90 to 1.10
JI.
23. Turbldlry (N. T.V.)
(C~) .. (ell)
32. Ionic Strength
24. Specific ConductMIce 2,000
(oJrnhos/c m )
IoniC Strength M

". Temperature fe)

26. pH

-109-
TABLE If-I. LABORATORY WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT

SUBMITTED BY:, _ DATE COLLECTED: BY:

COMPANY' _ LOCATiON:

RA" WATER SOURCE: _

mg/L meq/L JONIC STRENG TH CALC.
1. Calcium (Ca .2) 20.'" x 2

2. Magnes.ium (MS· l ) 12.16 x 2

,. Sodium (Na·) f 22.'J'J x

f J~L 10 x I
•• potassium (K·)

,. Total Malor Catlons A'_ _ _ B>

--- 0

mg/L meq/L IONIC STRENGTH CALC.

MAJOR ANIONS
6. BicMbonatc (Heo)-l f 61.00 x J

7. CarboNtc (COl-I) JO.oo x 2

3. Chloride (Cl-) 3:5 ."" x

,. Nitrate (NO -)
J
62.00 x

10. SulIatc (SO", .2) 43.03 x 2

All BII CII - - -

Il- Total Major Anions
---
MISCELLANEOUS mg/L meq/l

12. CO
2 "'''.00
13. Total Alkallnl'ry
(as Caco )
j f '0.00

to. Silica

". Fluor ide

16. I,on

IDS/ION BALANCE
17. Strontium
27. Total Ion
IS. Barium I (A').(-'" ).!"lJ
19. Hydrogen SuUide 2•. Gravimetric 105
(Rc51due @ IOloC)
20. Suspend~ Solids
2'. TD5 = !(27)·O.}x(6))
21. BOD
JO. Ion {(B.S) I (8 J1 » Range 0.96 to 1.04
22. COO
31. TDS i (2Sll(29)] Range 0.90 to 1.10
23. Turbidity (N. T.li.)
32. Ionic Strength (en. (CIt)
2'. Specific Conduc lance 2,000

2>.
(\Jmhos/cm)

Temperature COe)
Ionic Strength . ___ M

26. pH

-110-
TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

C. SeIK(/Dn of lirn~/hm~·sod& for kftr-s.i..ha sudac~ 'If,aters

A.
"".tun,ted tn C.&I0 ......T1 s.ulfate.
A.I
C.I Complete fOIble ,.,.
A.I .. (hem I. of Table tj.J)
C.2 If Table '.-4 re:wla 11"1 Celumn 2 Of' ), use lime tTtI.UT"l"lt ICla",
11..1 " ml!l. WatCf V-Al. U Column ( of Toible "_1I a u:Je<:tec1, proc~ to D.

11..1 Tem~.t~ of f~ .... ter. D.

11...2 ~ Otem 2" of Table lJ.lI) 0.1 Calcul.tf! t~ sum of 1.0 me-q/L + CalCium Nonaorborr.l.tf!
H.rc:neu.
11..2 ..
_____oc
0.1 =- 1.0 m~l .. (Item 10 ColWTIo I of TUlle ,-,)
A.J Otterm!t.e .Ii..lic.a CJ:lIOC'Entration at s.atuntion
0.1 1.0 mtq/l .. m<q/L
If A.2 ( Iloe. A.J" 10.2 II 11..2 - 22 m&lL
0.1 _ _ _ _ _ mtoq/L
A.) .. mill

U A.2~ 11°C. A.J" J'O m&lL

A.<II C&lC\Jlate malUmum fft'dwuer aUla (::I:lnCe'l'lttatian ~suItin, In

Wlc.& saturation m relect br~ from '2-percerlt recover)' 0.2 =- 0.' mt:q/L .. meq/L
reVl5"st OlmClS.U.
0.2: moq/L

0.3 Delrl'"mlnt! l~ U.lur"ucn lulhtf! tor ltw alclum ..."luc

C&JCul"'lt!d ,n 0.1. Entl:'l' F.sure If_I lor;to clLlClum v&.lue 0.1 "':ld
p«lct"f:(! ~""ard to 1he ...... • .... ler. 10l"l.C'1tre"'r:~. curve. Ria'"
_ _ _ _ 'mi/L ...;ale. lon,C Jlre...sth n Ite~ 31 of T.ble- ".1. Re.o t'le
....tural'on s.ulhu on the ordulf,le 1CAJe.
A.' U 11..1) A.J, S~ USUTTl!HIOfl h of Sectlotl Ii.),
0.3: meq/L ~ suun.uon wIble
If A.1! A.II, procrrO to E Of ute electTodlolJysls &t\d proce<e<l to B.
0.' Comp¥e Dol &f\d D.l
If A.l < A•• proc:red to B.
U 0.2 ~ D.), l,I:1e lime pretrutment (CI.ss "uer \1 • .-,).

U 0.1> D.), USt lime-soda prttteatmt'l'1t (Cla.u "Iler \I·B).

E. Th..u .... d 10Uo.... l1"l& 1.«11Cll'lS apply to ra ........ Iter' ~loUltll'l& III
92-ps-ctnt recovery ..elf!'Ct trlron uturued in lill~.
B. nus Itction applln to raw .... u~n With sUn:. lea th.an w.turatlon Dt1ermlnlt the ......• ..... leI" ClL.Ioum in me-q/l.
In the ~J~l brme from '2-percen1 ""'fene osmOSIS.

B.I Oe-termirM: 1'- raw-.... ter calCium 10 me-q/L..

E:.I ,, "'Itq/l
8.1" Utem 101 Table 4-1l
8.1 " me-q/L E:~ C&!aJl.tr the sum 01 tM r....._... ltt!!" sulfite plus l0"il'ttcent of
tl'llt raW_W.1n blClrbonate. l..lK mcq/L
8.2 Calcul.te the sum of w ra ...-....ater sulfate plus IO-pet'cent of
the ...... ·wller bicarbonAte. UH meq!L.
E~ " (Item 10 01 Tabl~ '.1) . 0.1 Otrm , of Table 11·11

B.2 =- (Jlem 10 of Tit.ble II-I) • 0.1 (Item' of Tit.blf! 11.1) E.l. "'~q/L .. O.lll moq/L

8.2 =- meq/l .. O.lll m<q/L E:.2" "'ltqlL

B.2 • ""'l/L E.J Or'trrmll'lr the !oJ.tur.tlQn sulfitlt 10r ttv: aJclum vlJue prl!:~ted
11 E.J. EntC1' FI&l.Irt to.) 10r CalCIum v&Jue E.I It'd proceed
B.3 DctetmllW tt-. s.tur;all<:ll"l sulf.te for tr-e calCium v&Jue p"es.ente<l "4I"'llTd to thr fl ... • .....,er. IClnlc-strentth CUfve. Ra....... Iter lon,C
a1 e.l. Enter FJ&urf! 1j.·1 for calcium v&JOt! 8.1 And proc;eed strCl"lg1h IS Itrm 31 01 Tlble II-I. Rltiad tht Situ ratIon sulfate on
up.... ard to U1f rlw·....lrI'". ,oniC·ltrcn&th cvrve. R......ter ,onlC the ordmatt ..cale.
uren&th '1 Item )2 of T-.ble '·1. Read thor satu... non wIble on
tt'lf ordll\&le scale. E.l" moq/L

e.l '" moq/L

B.' Comp.t B.2 II"Cl B.l. 11 E~ <: E.), uS!' di~ct lilll"at.ort ttrtat~t'l1t.,.,d
elKtrodilJp'1 tor !Wrllcr ....attr, CII", ".Itr VIll &I'ld no
U B.2 ( B.), use di~1 !illTll10l" e~reltmef\t for wrh,c;e etrea:mef\1 and tltC':l'odlll Hs lor round ... "tel' (Cia",
"',lten R'II", Water VI MId no retreitl~ef\t lor rol,ll'l(l'l,'.tcr, .',Un 1\'.
CJ.~ "Itt'\" n .
If Eol > E.). CalC;l\,lm .u.l1uC' scahnl ....ill occur at '2'pc'fctl'lt
U B.2 > e.), Ca.lCIUITl sulfite scabnl ....Lll OCC:\lr It 92 petC'eftt rec:tlver'!". Fex round*lt~n usC' IOI'l tKchan e .nd
rtc:lVrl'"y. For lround...iIlen, UH 10l'l e:lct\¥lp;e (Clu.5 .... te!" ll. electl'ochiJysu CIIJ:l 'Itn Ill. For Jurlace ...tnS, proceed 10
For lurl.ace ....Iten. pro~ to C. f.

(cont inued)

-111-
TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

c. SelectlC:n of lime/lime-soda far low-silica surface w.llteu

1.tur.ted IfI caloum sult"te.

C.l Complete Table II.'.

C.2 U T"bte /t_1l ruuJu In Column 2 Of' J. usc lime trUIITlt'fll {Clus
A.I • mo!L ....ter V-Al. U Column I or r.. bk lJ-& l4 u.lecte<l. ploceed to D.

1\.2 Trmpen.ture of fced..... ter. o.

"'.2 '" Ote-m 2' of Table II_II) 0.1 C&!c:u~te ttoot JI"Irtl of 1.0 m~JL • Calaum Nonart:aon&tc
Harlt'oea.
_____'c
D.I ~ 1.0 mel:\!l • (Item 10 Column I of Table -'-J)

D.I ~ I.Omc-q/L. moqlL

11 "'.2 < l,oe, .... J " 10.2 Jt "'.2 - 12 m&lL
0.1 = mC\:l/L
"'.J", fTI&/l
0
If A..2 ~ 1I C, A.) " I'D m&1L
0.2 : o.r; meq/l • lltem to of Tl.ble '--I)
A.1t C ..h:ulate m&lUmum feed .... tt'l" Ii_he. CZlnC'entU.lID1"\ rYJultinl, In
uliu ,atwollJon in reJKt briM Irom 92-percl:'ftt recov~y D.2 ~ 0." meq/L • ~ meq/L
reverse ~mC:IlU.
0.2 = moqlL

D.' Oetefml~ ltoe u,tl,lrl.llOf'l ~lbtll': for tl'le alcll,Im .....l..e

A.II: "'.J /12.' mill calcul.ted In c.l. Ernei'" F.&ure '·1 for a cJJaum ~~ve 0.1 Uld
pruceoe~ '4'""ud Ul tre fa""-wtter. 10000lC-Urel'lg'll", ('\I· ... t. R..... •
_ _ _ _mall .... Itl 10tHC Slref'll'" is lte"fl)1 of T.ble ~·1. Rel.C the
l.Iturl.lIon s.uUI.U on thr otdlll.lU: SCIole.
A.' U "'.1> "'.J, _ Ulump.,en h oj SK'I:lor'l II.).
D.) ~ m~l '" saturation s.ullatt
It A.l! A.II. pl'o~ to E or lae elKtrodJ&Jys.a anc:! proc~ to B.
D." Comp..-e 0.2 &nd C.)

11 OJ ~ D.), use lime P'!treatm~l (Clus ' ..teT V·A I.

U 0.2 > D.), use llme·s~ pretreatment (Clus "Utr V-BI.

£. nus aI'ld loIJo.. II'IC M"Ctions apply to ra.. wloter~ rcwlllnl an

'2..percent rll:CO"'cry reject briAn ull.1rued 11'1 S!,hu..
e. nus section applJes to raw ....tl!!'"S _ah slJic.l. less tt'lan ,,-tUUtlDO
E.l Determine tre ra..- ..ater ~Iaum i1'l me-q/l.
1n the reject brine from 'n·percent "'Yff'SC O'$mOSIS.

e.l DetermiM tM raw.watel' CAlcium in meq/L E.1 = Otem 101 Tabk: 11-1)
E.l '" m-.JL

_ _ _ meq/l £.2 CalcuLate thl: sum 01 tM raw_watel'" JoUlh.tt ploA IO-perC'C!1t 01

B.t '" tl'oe r.. w· ... ler blClrbooate. Uu meq/l.
".2 c..leu!ate the .um of tl'le ra..-water sulfate plus IO-percern 01
the raw_water bicarbonate. Use meq/L. E.2 '" Otem 10 of T.ble II. Jl • 0.1 Utem .. of Table 11._1)

B.2 : (Item 1001 rl.ble '-11 • 0.1 (hem b of Tl.ble ,- Jl E.2 • meqll • 0.1 x meqJL

B.2 = meq/L • 0.111: moqlL E.l • meq/L

B.2 '" m-.JL Dn~mll''C I~ s.lturl1lOfl wUate lor tl'le c.aICIUffi v~ue P'"e~t~
IS E.1. En1tt" Flll.lre II-I lor C&lCH"''', v&lue [,1 and proc~d
".J Determine the s.ltl.ll'.tJa'\ suUue for ttw calcIum vaJuoe pre5ft'lted
.s B.1. Entel'" Fllure .-1 IOf C~Clum vJJue 8.1 ~ procl:'ed
"4'ward to t~ r...... _wl1er. lonlC·Strel'lgth curve. R........ Iote~ lorue
Itref1B:th IS Item )2 01 Tlotlle '-I. Re.d the satur.. tlon sulf..te 0"
"4'.. .,d to the r........tel'". lonlC-Sll'efICth curve. R........ter IoniC the ordll"ll.te seale..
stren~h IS Item )2 of Table ,.1. Rud the s.turauon sulf..te on
the ordu\Iote sc.ale. E.)~ m-.JL

e.3 ~ moqlL

".. U E.2 ( E.J. use direct flltrlotlon

electrodIalySIS for surJ;ace ... ters
rette-.. lment and
li,s.!l \l attr "'llll Af'It: no
If B.2 < B.J, use din:-ct !.tltrallon retreatmt'l"lt to( surface retre.atmffil Nld elec1:Todla.J SIS 10r
....aters (t1i,U ~aler "'1 and no retreat:nent 101'" rOul'l(\ .....atel'"S "atet lV •
Class 'Jrutt" II.
It E.1 ) E.J, CI.Jc,um sulfate Kahl'll .. ill oa:ur .t '2·pet~nt
It 8.1 ) 5.l, CAlcium suUUt ~hnl .... iJl occur I t 9Z ptt"CC'l'lt recovel'"y. For rouflCl...ters use Ion eKe""" t 'l'lC
recovery. FOif lround.... tel'"'. use Ion eltct'~le (Clau .....ler n. electrodlaJyslS CI.~ " .. Itt" Ul. 0( surtl.ce .. aters, prote-coC 10
For surlKe ..... len. proceed to C. F.

(continued)

-112-
TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

C. 5electlOl'l or lime/hme-JOda lor low-s.lhca surt.ce ....teu

A.
, ...turult'd 1Tl cAloum suHate.
A.I
C.I Complete T...olc II.'.

C.2 rf rable ~_ll results In Column 2 or ), use lime tTeatme<'ll CCl.lu

A.I"' m<!L Water V-A). U Column 101 Table 1f.-11 u s.elected, proc~ to D.

A.2 TempeutUf"'e 01 feed.....ter. D.

A.2:< (Item 2' of Tab]e t.lI) 0.1 Calculate t~ sum of 1.0 meq/L • C&1oum NonCMbcxate
H&r~,..
_ _ _ _DC
0.1 " 1.0 meq/L .. (Item 10 Column 1 of TAtale 11.'>
A.) Dctt:f'miM silica conc::cntration at IAlur.lion
D.I ,. 1.0 meq/L • meq/L
If "'.2 < aCe. ".J: 10.2 x 11..2·22 mill
0.1 " m~/L

".J .. _ _ _ _ m&!L
0.2 C&leuJ.Ue the sum of the ra...•....ter suUate plus 0.& meq/L.

0.2 " 0.6 meq/t • (Item 10 of Table II_ll

A.II Calculate maxlmum feed .....ter Jilia concrnvat/on resultin& in
J.i.ljca ••turauon in reject triM from 92-pcn:e"t recovery 0.2 " 0.6 me-q/L .. me-q/L
rever SI: 05mosJS..
0.2 " meq/L

D.) Detn-rnll"le the SilturuiOl'\ sulfate {O(' tl'le calCIum vaJ\J4I!:

A.• " "'.3 112.' mg/l calculated It'! 0.1. Entn- f,r;ure 4-1 fO(' &c&1aum value 0.1 ~d
pt"Ocll!t"d ~""&Td to the r."" ......tn-, iOrllC_$trengti'l curve'. RaIL.
~a1er ion,c S1~nr;ti'l is Item 32 01 T&ble 4-1. Rue the
A.II " _ _ _ _m&/l
U.tUl'"&TICll1 sulf"te ClI1 Hoe ordu\llte ~Ie.
A." U A.I ) A.J, tee USumptlOfl h of SoectICll1 11.3.

If A.l ~ A.Ii, pro~ to E at" UK electrodtalyw and proc~ to B.

0.11 Compre 0.2 and 0.3
If A.I < A•• p!"OCftd to B.
U 0.2 ~ 0.3, use lime P!'!tre.nment {CI.~ '-"tll!'l" V·A).

U 0.2) D.), use lime_sodA pretreatment (CJas.s "'Iter V·B).

E. Thu and foUowms I«tiOl'\$ apply to r.w waters resultmg In

91-percent fecrJ'tCf)' rtjeoct brines saturated m sihca.
5. Thu SectIon appues to ra... wat~s ...ith silica leu than w.turatlon
in tM reject bnoc Jrom '2-?'efcent rever$(' osmosIs. E.J Determine It-oe raW_W.Ter CIllaum in meq/l.

E.1 ;. (]tern I of Table 4-1)

5.J De1t!f"mlne" the ,.....-water calcium in meq/l.
E.I"" meq/L
8.1 .Otem 1 of Table "'-1)
8.1 =- meq/L E.2 Ca..lClJlue the sum oj tM r.........ter suUate pJIlS 10-percmt of
t~ fu.· ....ter bicaxbonate. Lbe meqll.
5.' Calculate the ,urn of the r....-....ter s.ul.b_te pillS 10-pC!rcent of
tl'oe r.... ·w.ter bicarbonate, Use meq/l. E.2 ;. Otem 10 of Table II-I). 0.1 Utem 6 oj T&ble /l.-J)

B.2 ;. {Item 10 of Table _-ll. 0.& (Item 6 of rilble .-1) E.2. meq/l • 0.1 x meq/L

B.2 '" meq/L. 0.& x meq/L E.2 ;. meq/l

B.2 ;. meq/l E.' De1:ermu'loII! the satur&tlon suU&te fO(' tl'oe ~IClum ... aJuoe presente<1
as E.I. Entn- FIKure 4·1 for c&Jcnm'l valul:' E.J and proceed
5.J Detl!'f'mu'le t!'oe saturation sulf&te fO(' the calcium value presented 14l....vd to t~ r&'Io'_...ater, iCll11c-suet'!gth curve. Ra.. w"ter 10000IC
as 8.J. Entll!'/' FIgure 4-J fIX calcIUm value B.l and proceed stret'lgth IS Item 32 oj Table 4-1. Reaa tile- Soil,turatlOt'l sulh.te on
upward to tllC! raw.wiUlI!'l", lCll11C-nrll!f>(1h C\Jr...e. Raw WAter iOrlic the Ofdu'II.te sc.a.le.
nr('l111h IS Item )2 of Table .-1. Read the saturauon sulfate on
E.) '" meq/L
the Ofdu'loil.te :lC4le.
B.) r meq/L

5.' Compare 8.2 and B.). l! E.2 .( E.). US~ dlre.::t filtrAtIOfl etreatment.and
electro.:halpls for surtac~ ... "ten Iii-Solo 'lLat~r \fill and no
If B.2 < B.), uSC' dire.::t ti!tr.tIOl'l etrcoatment fex surface I:'treatment and
waters rtlil.!i.S Water VI i&f',d no retreatmen~ fO(' roundwatefS ater IV.
Jass Wuer II •
If E.2 ) E.J. Calcium sulfI.te! KAlil'll will occur at 'j2-peTCC'nt
If 6.2 » B.), Calcium sulfate scalii'll ....ill occur at '32 percent fealVlII!'l"y. For roura:lwaten use Ion ext han co and
recovn-y. For groundwater" U'le Ion exch.1nge (Clan Wolter il. electTodlaJyslS Class ".Iller U1. Fdf surf... ~ ...aters, proceed to
For surface ....uers, Pfocee<i to C. F.

(cootinued)

-113-
TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION (continued)

F. Thu ~lian iI 'or c::aJc.ium sWi'ate I&turated. h.i1h-SillC& surfac~

....tm.

F.l Complete Table 4~'.

F.2 U Table II.' rluuJts l,I\ Column], use lime preuutmlmt lei...
"' ... ler VD·A).

Far Column I, proa-ed to G.

Foc- Column 1., proceed to H.

G. This lectian iJ; fot c:a1ciwn :Mill..le Mu....Wd, hish-wLica ~acz

waren.

G.1 CiJC\ll"te' tl'M!- sum of the '&"'-"'''1., calCium r'IOOc&rbonau:

kMcr.elll;&(}(j the r....- ....ter m"sroeoSl1n'l Cancentratlon.

C.1 ,,(Item 10 Column 1 01 Table 4_". (hem Z of T.ble 4-1l

G.l .. meq/L. moq/L

G.I • moq/L

C.2 C&lC\lI.au: the sum of llw: raw-water IoUIfate plus 0.' me-qJL.
C.2" {!tem 10 of Table .-I~. 10.' m~U

C.2 " meq/l • 0.' mecVL

C.2. meq/L

C.l Determme G.J, the 1,uur.tian sulbtt fOf' dw alcium viJve

c&lculated In G.l. Enter FlllJre 11-1 for I. caJoum value G.l ~d
proa.ed "4lwMd to the ,".... ->lI.ter lCntC-ltrenlth curve. Raw-
...aler ionlc-Jtterlrth l.l Item)2 of Table 4-1. Read the
s.atur&tioo sulbn on Itx arc1inue of F1lure 11:-1.

C.l. meq/L '" s.&turuion sulfate

If C.2 ~ C.l. us~ lime pr~trutmetlt (Cas "'.aU!' YD- ...).

It F.2) F.l. use hme.sod.A pretreatmeflt {Class Water vn-Bl.

H. Th.is sectioo IS lar aJciwn suUue ".lturated, tu&h ulia surface

w.atet.

H.I C.alculue the ,um of the r.a... -wuer, rnqnesium tIOnc.a.rbo4'l..te

hMdnus plus 1.0 rneq!L..

H.I '" (llem 12 Column 2 of T.able 4_') .. 1.0 rneq/L

H.I '" meq/L • 1.0 rneq/L

H.I '" moq/L

H.2 Cfoleul.ate the: sum 01 tlw r.a... ·w.ater su.J.f.te pJUI 0.& me-qll.

H.2 : Ure.rn 10 01 T.able 11_ il .. (0.& meq/Ll

H.2 '" meq/L .. 0.' meq/L

H.2 : moq/L

H.J Cktermlfle the satur.atioo ~U.ate Ie.' the alcum vfolue

c.aJcul.ared In H.I. Enler Fisure '-I lot. C.aJOlom v&lue H.I .and
proaed <.4lward to 1he r..... - ....ater ionIC.nren!"!h eurye. R.aw_
walel IonIC strenl1h IS lam 32 of r"ble ,- J. Read the
".l1Ul"atlon sulfate on the ordi~te oj Flru~ '-I.

H.l '" meq/L '" S&1ur.aban sulJ,a1e

H." Comp... ~ H.2 Iond H.l

IJ H.2 ~ H.l. use lime pretrUlmerl1 (Ciul "'&lee yn-A).

If H.2) H-J, llle lime-soda pretre.trnt't'lt (Clus " ...1« yn-Bl.

-114-
TABLE 4-5. CALCULATION OF HARDNESS SPECIES FOR LIME AND
LIME-SODA SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

I. Obtain tM- calcium, magnes.ium and alkalinity concentrations from the

Laboratory Water Quality Analysis Report in Ta.ble 4-1.

I. CaJcium (Ca .2) = meq/L

2. Magnesium (Mg+ 2 ) = meq/L

3. Total Alkalinity = meq/L

4. Total Hardness [(1 )+(2)J meq/L

D. Compare CaJcium (I) meq/L with Total Alkalinity (3)

meq/L.

.5. If Calcium is greater than or equal to Total Alkalinity, use Column 1

01 t~ Hardness Species Chart, i.e., III 01 this table.

6. 11 Calcium is Jess than Total Alkalinity, compare Total Hardness (4)

_ _ _ _ meq/L with Total Alkalinity (3) meq/L.

7. U Total Hardness is greater than Total Alkalinity, use Column 2 of

the Hardness Species Chart to calculate hardness types.

8. 11 TotaJ Hardness is Jess than or equal to Total Alkalinity, use

Column 3 to c.a.JcuJate hardness types. Use lime for pretreatment.

m. Hardness SpKies Chart (use only one column)

Hardness Type Column 1 Column 2 Column)

9. Calcium Carbona te Alk.O) Ca +2(1 ) Ca· 2 (1)

Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L meq/L meq/L

10. Calcium Noncarbooa te Ca +2 W _A1k .()) o meq/L o meq/L

Hardness meq/L

II. Magnesium Carbonate o meq/L Alk. (J)-Ca +2(1) Mg.2(2)

Hardness meq/L meq/L

12. Magne slum Noncarbona te Mg+ 2 (2) Tot. Hardness( 4)-Alk.(3) o meq/L
Hardness meq/L meq/L

-115-
TABLE 4-5. CALCULATION OF HARDNESS SPECIES FOR LIME AND
LIME-SODA SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

1. Obtain the caJcium, magnes.ium and alkalinity concentrations from the

Laboratory "ater Quality Analysis Repon in Table 4-I.

I. Calcium (Ca +2) = meq/L

2
2. Magnesium (Mg+ ) = meq/L

3. Total Alkalinity = meq/L

•• Total Han:Jness [(1).(2)) meq/L

D. Compare Calcium (I) meq/L with Total AJkalinity (3)

meq/L.

5. If Calcium is greater than Of equal to Total Alkalinity, use Column 1

of the Hardness Species Chart, i.e., III of this table.

6. If CaJcium is Jess than Total Alkalinity, compare Total Hardness (4)

_ _ _ _ meq/L with Total Alkalinity 0) meq/L.

7. If Total Hardness is greater than Total Alkalinity, use Column 2 of

the Hardness Species Chart to calculate hardne'ss types.

S. If Total Hardness is Jess than Of equal to Total Alkalinity, USe

Column 3 to calculate hardness types. Use llme for pretreatmer.t.

III. Hardness Species Chart (use only one coJumn)

Hardness Type CoJumn 1 Column 2 Column 3

9. Calcium Carbona te Alk.O) Ca+ 2 (J) ea+ 2 (1)

Hardness _ meq/L meq/L meq/L

10. Calcium Noncarbona te Ca +2( J)-Alk.(3) o meq/L o meq/L

Hardness meq/L

2 Mg+2(2)
11. Magnesium Carbonate o r=q/L Alk.O)-Ca+ (j)
Hardness meq/L meq/L

12. Magnesium Noncarbonate Mg+ 2 (2) Tot. Hardness( ~)- Alk. (3) o meq/L
Hardness meq/L meq/L

-116-
TABLE 5-1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DIRECT FILTRATiON PRETREATMENT

mgd
1. Pretreatment Plant Capacity 2
3 gpm/ft
2. Hydraulic Loading Rate
ft2
3. Total Surface Area [(1) x 231]
4. Number of Operation Filters [(3)/1,750,
rounded off to next larger integer. At
flows less than 15-mgd, use 2 filters.]
5. Area of Individual Filter [(3)/(4)]
6. Total Number of Filters (Incl. I standby)
[(4)+1] 2
18 gpm/ft
7. Nominal Backwash Loading Rate
gallons
8. Backwash Water Volume per Filter
(lO-min backwash time)
[(5) x 180]
9. Filter Height
30 inches
a. media depth
84 inches
b. total height
I-min
10. Rapid-Mixer Contact Time
_ _ gallons
11. Rapid-Mixer Volume [(1) x 700]
20-min
12. Flocculation Basin Contact Time
_ _ gallons
13. Flocculation Basin Volume
4
[(I) x 1.4 x 10 )
_ _ gallons
14. Backwash Storage Tank
[(8) x (4)]
_ _ gallons
15. Surge/Decant-Tank Volume
[equal to (14)]
16. Pretreated-Water Storage
5 _ _ gallons
Tank Volume [(1) x 1.25 x 10 ]
5 mg/L
17. Sodium Hexametaphosphate
_ _ tons/yr
18. Total SHMP requried [7.61 x (l))
19. H S0 Dosage [0.64 x Item 6, Table 4-1, mg/L] mg/L
2 4 tons/yr
20. Total H S0 required [(19) x (l) x 1.52]
2 4

-117-
TABLE 5-1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DIRECT FIL TRATION PRETREATMENT

_ _ mgd
I. Pretreatment Plant Capacity
2
2. Hydraulic Loading Rate 3 gpm/ft
2
3. Total Surface Area, [(I) x 231] ft

4. Number of Operation Filters [(3)/1,750,

rounded off to next larger integer. At
flows less than I5-mgd, use 2 filters.]
5. Area of Individual Filter [(3)/(4)]
6. Total Number of Filters (Incl. I standby)
[(4) + I]
7. Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 18 gpm/fi
_ _ gallons
8. Backwash Water Volume per Filter
(lO-min backwash time)
[(5) x 180]
9. Filter Height
a. media depth 30 inches

b. total height 84 inches

10. Rapid-Mixer Contact Time I-min

I I. Rapid-Mixer Volume [(I) x 700] _ _ gallons

12. Flocculation Basin Contact Time 20-min

13. Flocculation Basin Volume gallons

4
[(1) x 1.4 x 10 ]
_ _ gallons
14. Backwash Storage Tank
[(8) x (4)]
15. Surge/Decant-Tank Volume gallons

[equal to (14)]
16. Pretreated-Water Storage
5 gallons
Tank Volume [(1) x 1.25 x 10 ]
17. Sodium Hexametaphosphate 5 mg/L

18. Total SHMP requried [7.61 x (I)] _ _ tons/yr

19. H S0 Dosage [0.64 x Item 6, Table 4-1, mg/L] _ _ mg/L

2 4
20. Total H S0 required [(19) x (l) x 1.52] tons/yr
2 4

-118-
TABLE 5-2. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR DIRECT FIL TRA TION

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Filtration plant base cost (from Figure 5-4) ",$ _

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()]
297.73 x a ",-$ _
2. Addi tives @ 32.5% of I(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [O.325xI(b)] ~
3. Total capital cost [(I) + (2)] ~
4. Expected life of facility years
5. Interest rate percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] $/yr

B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance mater ials [a] _ _ _$/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr $/ton $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 5-5] m-hr/yr ---$'/rn-hr $/yr
11. Energy [b] kwh/yr _ _ _$/kwh $/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (I Il] _ _ _$/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _$/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] _ _ _$/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _,$/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity $/kgal

---'$/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity $/kgal
----'$/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 5-6 cost by: [Prodected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements are 0.15 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(l5)] /[mgd x 365,000]
$/ac-ft = [$/kgal] x [325.85].

-119-
TABLE 5-2. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR DIRECT FILTRATION

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Constr uction

(a) Filtration plant base cost (from Figure 5-4) S

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I ( )]
297.73 x a S
2. Additives @ 32.5% of J(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [O.325xJ(b)]
3. Total capital cost [(J) + (2)]
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate _ _ _ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x on _ _ _ S/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tonslyr _ _ _S/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 5-5] ----m-hr/yr S/m-hr S/yr
ll. Energy [b] _ _ _kwh/yr ---S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 &: M cost
[sum (8) through (11)] _ _ _S/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7}J _ _ _:S/yr

14. Annual 0 &: M cost [(12)] _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _S/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity S/kgal

---S/ac-ft
(b) Based on desaiting plant capacity S/kgal
---S/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 5-6 cost by: [Prodected Producer Price Index/242.1] •
[b] Energy requirements are 0.15 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[e] S/I000 gal = [(15)] /[mgd x 365,000]
S/ac-ft = [S/kgal] x 1325.85].

-120-
 TABLE 6-IA. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING:
EXCESSIVE SILICA

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent
J. _ _ _ _ meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

3. Magnesium Carbonate Hardness

(multiply by 2) _ _ _ _ meq/L

II. Magnesium Noncarbonate Hardness meq/L

5. TOTAL (add (J) through (II» meq/L

6. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(5) x 259.11] Ibs/mill ion
gallons
7. CaO Required
[(6) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

B. Soda Ash Dosage as Na 2C0 :

3
Consti tuent

8. Calcium Noncarbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

9. Magnesium Noncarbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

10. TOTAL [add (8) and (9)] _ _ _ _ meq/L

II. Na2CO~ Required @ 99% Purity

[(m) x "4116.5] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons
12. Na CO Required =
[(Ii.) x 1J.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

C. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

D. Sulfuric Acid (H SO
2
J:
8. H S0 Dosage 30 mg/L
2 11
9. Total H SOli Required [115.6 x
pretreatment plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C ------

-121-
 TABLE 6-IA. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING:
EXCESSIVE SILICA

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent
l. CO meq/L
2
2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness meq/L

3. Magnesium Carbonate Hardness

(multiply by 2) _ _ _ meq/L

4. Magnesium Noncarbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

5. TOTAL [add (l)through (4)] _ _ _ meq/L

6. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(5) x 259.4] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons
7. CaO Required
[(6) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] tons/yr

B. Soda Ash Dosage as Na C0 :

2 3
Constituent

8. Calcium Noncarbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

9. Magnesium Noncarbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

10. TOT AL [add (8) and (9)] meq/L

11. Na 2 CO, Required @ 99% Purity

[(m) x'l46.5] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons
12. Na CO Required =
[(1) x 1>.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _____ tons/yr

C. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] _____ tons/yr

D. Sulfuric Acid (H 2SOJ:

8. H S0 Dosage 30 mg/L
2 4
9. Total H S04 Required [45.6 x
pretreatment plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C-----'
-122-
TABLE 6-IB. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING,
CALCIUM REMOVAL

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Consti tuent

I. meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness meq/L

3. TOTAL [add (I) and (2)] _ _ _ _ meq/L

4. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[O)x259.4] _ _ _ _ Ibs/mil1ion
gallons
5. CaO Required
[(4) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] tons/yr

B. Soda Ash Dosage as Na C0 ,

2 3
Constituent

6. Calcium Noncarbonate Hardness meq/L

7. Na.2CO, Required @ 99% Purity

[(o) x ttIl6.5] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons
8. Na CO Required
[(71 x ((.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

C. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] tons/yr

D. Sulfuric Acid (H 2S0J'

8. H S0 4 Dosage
2
30 mg/L

9. Total H 7S0 4 Required [45.6 x

pretrearment plant capacity. mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

-123-
TABLE 6-1B. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING:
CALCIUM REMOVAL

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent

1. _ _ _ meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness ____ meq/L

3. TOTAL [add (j) and (2)] meq/L

4. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[0) x 259.4] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons
5. CaO Required
[(4) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

B. Soda Ash Dosage as Na C0 :

2 3
Constituent

6. Calcium Noncarbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

7. Na.2CO, Required @ 99% Purity

[(6) x /P+6.5] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons
8. Na CO Required
[6.,x (f.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

C. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] tons/yr

D. Sulfuric Acid (H SO
2
J:
8. H S0 Dosage
2 4
30 mg/L

9. Total H 2 S0 Required [45.6 x

4
pretreaf"ment plant capacity, mgd] ____ tons/yr

-124-
 TABLE 6-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UPFLOW-SOLIDS-CONTACT REACTOR
AND GRAVITY FILTERS

mgd
1. Pretreatment Plant Capacity
2
Clar iiication Loading Rate 1,440 gpd/ft
2.
Total Reactor Detention Time 2.25 hrs
3.
ft2
4. Total Required Reactor Area [(I) x 700]

5. Number of Operating Reactors

[( 4)/ I 0,000, rounded off to next
larger integer. At flow less than
15 mgd, use 2 reactors.]

6. Area of Individual Reactor [(4)/(5)]

7. Total Number of Reactors (incl. I standby)

[(5) + I]

&. Hydraulic Loading Rate of Filters

9. Total Filter Surface Area [(I) x 231]

10. Number of Operating Filters

[(&)/1,750, rounded off to next
lar ger integer. At flow less than
15 mgd, use 2 filters.]

I!. Area of Individual Filter [(9)/(10)]

12. Total Number of Filters (incl. 1 standby)

[(10)+1]
2
Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 1& gpm/ft
13.

14. Backwash Water Volume per Filter

(lO-min backwash time)
[(II) x 1&0]
gallons

15. Filter Height

media depth 30 inches

a.

total height &4 inches

b.
Backwash Storage Tank Volume [(14) x (10)] gallons
16.
Surge/Decant Tank Volume [(16)] gallons
17.

1 &. Pretreated Water Storage Tank Volume

5 gallons
[(l) x 1.25 x 10 ]
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pre----"

-125-
TABLE 6-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UPFLOW-SOLlDS-CONTACT REACTOR
AND GRAVITY FILTERS

Pretreatm ent Plant Capaci ty mgd

I.
2
Clarification Loading Rate 1,1+1+0 gpd/ft
2.

Total Reactor Detention Time 2.25 hrs

3.
2
Total Required Reactor Area [(0 x 700] ft
1+.
5. Number of Operating Reactors
[(1+)/10,000, rounded off to next
larger integer. At flow less than
15 mgd, use 2 reactors.)

6. Area of Individual Reactor [(1+)/(5)]

7. Total Number of Reactors (incl. I standby)

[(5) + I)
2
Hydraulic Loading Rate of Filters 3 gpm/ft
8.
ft2
9. Total Filter Surface Area [(I) x 231] ---
10. Number of Operating Filters
[(8)/1,750, rounded off to next
lar ger integer. At flow less than
15 mgd, use 2 filters.)

II. Area of Individual Filter [(9)/(10»)

12. Total Number of Filters (incl. I standby)

[(10)+1)
2
Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 18 gpm/ft
13.
11+. Backwash Water Volume per Filter
(lO-min backwash time)
[(II) x 180) gallons

15. Filter Height

a. media depth 30 inches

b. total height 81+ inches

16. Backwash Storage Tank Volume [(11+) x (lO») gallons

17. Surge/Decant Tank Volume [(l6}) gallons

18. Pretreated Water Storage Tank Volume

5 gallons
[(I) x 1.25 x 10 )
pt'C

-126-
 TABLE 6-3. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: - - - mgd Date:

-------
Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

I. Construction

(a) Lime-soda softening plant base cost (from Figure 6-4) $

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()] "----
297.73 x a :<.$ _

2. Additives @ 32.5% of J(b) (includes engineering,

legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.)
[0.325 x I(b)) $
3. Total capital cost [(I) + (2)] $
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate _ _ _ _ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x 0)) _ _ _ $/yr

B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _S/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 6-5] m-hr /yr _ _ _S/m-hr S/yr
11. Energy [b] kwh/yr _ _ _S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (I I)] _ _ _S/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _S/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _.S/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]
(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity S/kgal
---S/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capaci ty S/kgal
---S/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 6-6 cost by: [P,/?jected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements as 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] S/1000 gal = [(I5)] /[ mgd x 365,000]
S/ac-ft = [S/I,OOO gal] x [325.85].

" ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C -----

-127-
TABLE 6-3. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Constr uction

(a) Lime-soda softening plant base cost (from Figure 6-4) $

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I(») "'----
297.73 x a $
"'----
2. Additives @ 32.5% of J(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.)
[0.325 x J(b)j
3. Total capital cost [(I) + (2)j
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate _ _ _ _ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2)
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x 0)] _ _ _ $/yr

B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a) _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _S/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 6-5] m-hr/yr _ _ _S/m-hr S/yr
11. Energy [b) kwh/yr _ _ _S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 & M cost
[sum (8) through (11)) _ _ _S/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equi valent capi tal cost [(7)) _ _ _S/yr

14. Annual 0 & M cost [(12») _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _S/yr
16. Unit water costs [c)
(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity S/kgal
----'S!ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capad ty S/kgal
----:S/ac-ft

[a) Multiply Figure 6-6 cost by: [Prt>jected Producer Price Index/242.1] •
[b) Energy requirements as 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c) S/1000 gal = [(I5») /[mgd x 365,000)
S/ac-ft = [S/1,OOO gal) x [325.85].
~-------------------prc ----
-128-
TABLE 7-IA. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME SOFTENING: LOW SILICA

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Consti tuent

1. meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness meq/L

TOT AL [add (J) and (2)] _ _ _ _ meq/L

3.

4. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(3) x 259.4] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons

5. CaO Required
[( 4) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

B. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

C. Sulfuric Add (H 2 S0J:

8. H S0 Dosage 30 mg/L
2 4
9. Total H S04 Required [45.6 x
pretreatment plant capaci ty, mgd] ______ tons/yr

-129-
TABLE 7-IA. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME SOFTENING: LOW SILICA

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent

I. meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness _ _ _ meq/L

3. TOTAL [add (J) and (2)] _ _ _ _ meq/L

4. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(3) x 259.4] _ _ _ _ Ibs/million
gallons

5. CaO Required
[(4) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

B. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] ____ tons/yr

C. Sulfuric Acid (H S0J:

2
8. H S0 Dosage 30 mg/L
2 4
9. Total H 2S0 Required [45.6 x
4
pretreatment plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ tons/yr

-130-
TABLE 7-1B. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME SOFTENING: EXCESSIVE SILIC.,o,

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent
meq/L
1.

2. Caicium Carbonate Hardness meq/L

3. Magnesium Carbonate hardness

(mul tiply by 2) meq/L

4. TOT AL [add (l) through (3)] meq/L

5. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(4) x 259.4] _ _ _ _ 1bs/million
gallons

6. CaO Required
[( 5) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] tons/yr

B. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Totai SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

C. Sulfuric Acid (H 2SOJ:

8. H S0 Dosage 30 mg/L
2 4
9. Total H S0 Required [45.6 x
2 4 _ _ _ _ tons/yr
pretreatment plant capacity, mgd 1

-131-
TABLE 7-IB. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME SOFTENING: EXCESSIVE SILICA

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent

I. _ _ _ _ meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness _ _ _ _ meq/L

3. Magnesium Carbonate hardness

(multiply by 2) _ _ _ meq/L

II. TOTAL [add (l)through (3») meq/L

5. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

[(II) x 259.IIJ Ibs/milJion
gallons

6. CaO Required
[(5) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

B. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capacity, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

C. Sulfuric Acid (H SOJ:

2
8. H2SOII Dosage 30 mg/L

9. Total H2 S0 Required [115.6 x

11
pretrea tm ent plant ca paci ty, mgd] _ _ _ _ tons/yr

-132-
 TABLE 7-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UPFLOW-SOLIDS-CONT ACT BASIN
AND GRAVITY FILTERS

I. Pretreatment Plant Capacity _ _ _ mgd

2. Clarification Loading Rate I ,440 gpd/ft 2

3. Total Reactor Detention Time 2.25 hrs

4. Total Required Reactor Area [(I) x 700] ft2

5. Number of Operating Reactors [(4)/ I 0,000,

rounded off to next larger integer. At flows
less than 15 mgd, use 2 reactors]

6. Area of Individual Reactor [(4)/(5)] •

7. Total Number of Reactors (inc!. 1 standby)

[(5) + l]

8. Hydraulic Loading Rate of Filters

8. Total Filter Surface Area [(I) x 231]

10. Number of Operating Filters

[(8) ~ 1,750, rounded off to next
larger integer. At flows less than 15 mgd,
use 2 filters.]

11. Area of Individual Filter [(9)/(10)]

12. Total Number of Filters (incl. I standby)

[(10)+1]

13. Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 2

18 gpm/ft

14. Backwash Water Volume per Filter

(lO-min backwash water time)
[(11) x 180] gallons

15. Filter Height

a. media depth 30 inches

b. total height 84 inches

16. Backwash Storage Tank Volume [(14) x (IO» gallons

17. Surge/Decant Tank Volume [(16)] gallons

18. Pretreated Water Storage Tank Volume

5
[(I) x 1.25 x 10 ] gallons

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt'C----"
-133-
TABLE 7-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UP FLOW-SOLIDS-CONTACT BASIN
AND GRAVITY FILTERS

_ _ _ mgd
1. Pretreatment Plant Capacity
2
1,440 gpd/ft
Clarification Loading Rate
2.25 hrs
3. Total Reactor Detention Time
ft2
4. Total Required Reactor Area [(1) x 700) ---
5. Number of Operating Reactors [(4)/10,000,
rounded off to next larger integer. At flowS
less than 15 mgd, use 2 reactors]

6. Area of Individual Reactor [(4)/(5)] •

7. Total Number of Reactors (jncl. I standby)

[(5) + I)
2
Hydraulic Loading Rate of Filters 3 gpm/ft
8.
ft 2
8. Total Filter Surface Area [(1) x 231) ---
10. Number of Operating Filters
[(8)~ 1,750, rounded off to next
lar ger integer. At flows less than 15 mgd,
use 2 filters.)

11. Area of Individual Filter [(9)/(10))

12. Total Number of Filters (jncl. I standby)

[(10) + I]
2
Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 18 gpm/ft
]3.

14. Backwash Water Volume per Filter

(lO-min backwash water time)
_ _ _ gallons
[(1 J) x 180)

15. Filter Height

30 inches
a. media depth
84 inches
b. total height

Backwash Storage Tank Volume [(14) x (10)) gallons

16.
_ _ _ gallons
17. Surge/Decant Tank Volume [(16))

18. Pretreated Water Storage Tank Volume

5 gallons
[(1) x 1.25 x 10 ]
"--------------------pt"C --"

-134-
 TABLE 7-3. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR LIME SOFTENING

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Lime softening plant base cost (from Figure 7-3) $

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()]
297.73 x a $
2. Additives @ 32.5% of J(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) $
[0.325 x J(b) ]
3. Total capital cost [(j) + (2)] $
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate _ _ _ _ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] _ _ _ $/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] _ _ _$/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _:$/ton $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 7-5] m-hr/yr _ _ _:$/m-hr $/yr
11. Energy [b] kwh/yr _ _ _.$/kwh $/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (l J)] _ _ _$/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _,$/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] _ _ _:$/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(j3) + (14)] _ _ _.$/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity $/kgal

---$'/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity $/kgal
---$:/ac-ft

raj Multiply Figure 7-4 cost by: [Pro~ted Producer Price Index/242.1].
IbJ Energy requirements are 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
IcJ $/1000 gal = [(j5)J I [mgd x 365,000J
$/ac-ft = [$/1,000 galJ x [325.85J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C ------

-135-
 TABLE 7-3. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR LIME SOFTENING

Desalting Plant InstaJIed Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Lime softening plant base cost (from Figure 7-3) S

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()]
297.73 x a S
2. Additives @ 32.5% of I(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) S
[0.325 x I(b))
3. Total capital cost [(I) + (2)] S
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate _ _ _ _ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] _ _ _ S/yr
B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Cons urn pt ion Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _$/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 7-5] m-hr/yr _ _ _:S/m-hr S/yr
11. Energy [b] kwh/yr _ _ _S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (11)] _ _ _S/yr
C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _S/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _S/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity S/kgal

---S/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity S/kgal
---S/ac-ft

[a) Multiply Figure 7-4 cost by: [Pr0j;ected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements are 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] S/IOOO gal = [(15) I [mgd x 365,000]
S/ac-ft = [S/I,OOO gaJ) x [325.85].
" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C ----

-136-
 TABLE 8-1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING

I. Pretreatment Plant Capacity _ _ _ mgd

2. 2
Hydraulic Loading Rate of Ion Exchange Units 6 gpm/ft
3. Length of Run [56/(total hardness, meq/U]
Total hardness = Items I + 2 of Table 4-1 _ _ _ hrs
4. Cycle Length [(J) + 1) _ _ _ hrs
5. On Line Factor for Operational Units [(J)/(4»)
6. Total Required Surface Area [(J) x1l6/(5»)
7. Number of Ion Exchange Units
[(6)/950, rounded off to the next
largest integer. At flows Jess than
15-mgd, use 2 exchange units.)
8. Area of Individual Ion Exchange Unit
[ (6)/(7))
9. Total Number of Ion Exchange Units
(incl. I standby) [(7) + I)
10. Resin Depth
11. Resin Volume per Unit [(8) x 3]
12. Operational Resin Volume [(11) x (7)]
13. Total Resin Volume [(J I) x (9»)
(includes standby)
14. Regenerate Brine (IO percent NaCO
[(I2) x 144/(4») _ _ _ gcllons/day
15. NaCl Usage [0.166 x (I4») _ _ _ tons/year
16. Wastewater Volume (backwash and brine)
[2,664 x (6)/(4)] _ _ _ gallons/day
17. Pretreated-Water Storage Tank Volume
5
[(J) x 1.25 x 10 ) _ _ _ gallons
18. Sodium Hexametaphcsphate Dosage (SHMP) 5 mg/L
19. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x (I») _ _ _ tons/yr
20. H 2 S0 Dosage [0.64 x Item 6, Table 4-1 mg/LJ _ _ _ mg/L
4
21. Total H S0 required [(20) x (I) x 1.52) _ _ _ tons/yr
2 4

-137-
 TABLE 8-1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING

1. Pretreatment Plant Capacity mgd

2
2- Hydraulic Loading Rate of Ion Exchange Units 6 gpm/ft
3. Length of Run [56/(total hardness, meq/LlJ
Total hardness = Items 1 + 2 of Table 4-1 _ _ _ hrs
4. Cycle Length [(J) + 1] _ _ _ hrs
5. On Line Factor for Operational Units [(J)/(4)J
6. Total Required Surface Area [(I) x1l6/(5)]
7. Number of Ion Exchange Uni ts
[(6)/950, rounded off to the next
largest integer. At flows less than
15-mgd, use 2 exchange units.]
8. Area of Individual Ion Exchange Unit
[ (6)/(7)]
9. Total Number of Ion Exchange Units
(inc]. 1 standby) [(7) + 1]
10. Resi n Depth 3 ft
11. Resin Volume per Unit [(8) x 3] ft3
---
12. Operational Resin Volume [(I I) x (m --- ft 3
13. Total Resin Volume [(lJ) x (9)]
(includes standby)
14. Regenerate Brine (10 percent NaCI)
[(12) x 144/(4)] _ _ _ gallons/day
15. NaCI Usage [0.166 x (14)] _ _ _ tons/year
16. Wastewater Volume (backwash and brine)
[2,664 x (6)/(4)] _ _ _ gallons/day
17. Pretreated- Water Storage Tank Volume
[(1) x 1.25 x 10 5 ] _ _ _ gallons
18. Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage (SHMP) 5 mg/L
19. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x (I)] _ _ _ tons/yr
20. H S0 Dosage [0.64 x Item 6, Table 4-1 mg/L] _ _ mg/L
2 4
21. Total H S0 required [(20) x (I) x 1.52] _ _ _ tons/yr
2 4

-138-
 TABLE 8-2. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR ION EXCHANGE

Desalting PJant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ _ mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: _ _ _ mgd

A. CAPlT AL COSTS

l. Construction

(a) Ion exchange plant base cost (from Figure 8-3) $

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [J()]
297.73 x a $
2. Additives @ 32.5% of J(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) $
[0.325 x J(b)j
3. Total capital cost [(1) + (2)] $
4. Expected lif e of facili ty years
5. Interest rate percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table JO-2J
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)J $/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials raj _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _$/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 8-5J m-hr/yr _ _ _$/m-hr $/yr
J1. Energy [bJ kwh/yr _ _ _$/kwh $/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (J Jl] _ _ _,$/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. AnnuaJ equivalent capital cost [(7)J _ _ _$/yr

14. Annual 0 &: M cost [(J2)] _ _ _$/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _S/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity $/kgal

---S/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity S/kgal
----:$/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 8-4 cost by: [ProJected Producer Price Index/242.1 J.
[bJ Energy requirements are 0.11 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(15)] /[mgd x 365,000J
$/ac-ft = [$/kgal] x [325.85J •
" ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pre----'
-139-
 TABLE 8-2. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR ION EXCHANGE

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: _ _ _ mgd Date:

-----
Pretreatment Plant Capacity: ____ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

l. Construction

(a) Ion exchange plant base cost (from Figure 8-3) S

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [J())
297.73 x a S
2. Additives @ 32.596 of J(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) S
[0.325 x I (b))
3. Total capital cost [(I) + (2)] S
4. Expected life of facility years
5. Interest rate percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capi tal cost [(6) x 0)) S/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _S/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 8-5] m-hr/yr _ _ _S/m-hr S/yr
11. Energy [b] kwh/yr _ _ _S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (1J)] _ _ _,S/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _S/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _S/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity S/kgal

---S/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity S/kgaJ
----S'/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 8-4 cost by: [ProJected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements are 0.11 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(15)] /[mgd x 365,000]
S/ac-ft = [S/kgal] x [325.85].
" ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt"C-----'

-140-
TABLE 9-3. COST WORKSHEET FOR PRETREATMENT WASTE DISPOSAL

Method of Disposal: Date:

--------

A. CAPIT AL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Base cost (from Figure 9-1 or 9-4)

(b) Additional items [a]
(c) Subtotal [I(a) + I(b)]
(d) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I(c)]
297.73 x $
2. Additives @ 32.596 of I(d) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.325xI(d)]
3. Total capital cost [I(d) + (2)]
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate _ _ _ _ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x 0)] _ _ _$/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [b] _ _ _$/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _$/ton $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 9-2 or 9-5] m-hr/yr _ _ _$/m-hr $/yr
II. Energy kwh/yr _ _ _$/kwh $/yr
12. Annual 0 &: M cost
[sum (8) through (10] _ _ _,$/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _$/yr

14. Annual 0 &: M cost [(12)] _ _ _$/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] _ _ _$/yr

[aJ For direct filtration and ion exchange: pump and pipeline between plant site
and evaporation ponds. Use the Dodge Manual published by McGraw-Hili for
costs. No additional costs for lime/lime-soda pretreatment.

[b] Multiply Figure 9-3 or 9-6 cost by: [Projected Producer Price Index/242.1]

-141-
TABLE 9-3. COST WORKSHEET FOR PRETREATMENT WASTE DISPOSAL

Met hod of Disposal: Date: _

A. CAPIT AL COSTS

J. Constr uction

(a) Base cost (from Figure 9-1 or 9-4)

(b) Additional items [a]
(c) Subtotal [J(a) + J(b)j
(d) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I(c)]
297.73 x S
2. Addi tives @ 32.5% of J(d) (includes engineer ing,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.325xJ(d)]
3. Total capital cost [J(d) + (2)]
4. Expected life of facility _ _ _ _ years
5. Interest rate ______ percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2]
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] _ _ _S/yr

B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [b] _ _ _S/yr

9. Chemicals tons/yr _ _ _S/ton S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 9-2 or 9-5] m-hr/yr _ _ _S/m-hr S/yr
1I. Energy kwh/yr _ _ _S/kwh S/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (J I)] _ _ _S/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] _ _ _S/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(J 2)] _ _ _S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (4)] _ _ _S/yr

[a] For direct filtration and ion exchange: pump and pipeline between plant site
and evaporation ponds. Use the Dodge Manual published by McGraw-Hill for
costs. No additional costs for lime/lime-soda pretreatment.

[b] Multiply Figure 9-3 or 9-6 cost by: [Projected Producer Price Index/242.1]

-142-
APPENDIX B
 APPENDIX B

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES

This appendix contains four illustrative examples using the worksheets provided in
this Manual. Included are the completed water quality analysis report,
pretreatment process selection table, worksheets for design criteria, calculation of
chemical dosages and costs. These examples are based upon a pretreatment plant
capacity of 20-mgd.

For the purpose of cost calculations, ener gy costs for electr ici ty are calculated as
$0.05Ikwh and hourly labor rates at $12.00/hr. Chemical costs are based upon
$50.00/ton for sulfuric acid (H S04)' $I22.00/ton for soda ash (Na CO ) and
$65.00/ton for lime (CaO), $650.00/ton for sodium hexametaphosphate (S}iM~, and
$35.00/ton for sodium chloride (NaCJ). It is also assumed that the current ENR-
CCI is 317.20 and the current Producer Price Index for Finshed Goods is 258.1.

The following example numbers correspond to the treatment process illustrated:

B-1 Direct Filtration

B-2 Lime-Soda Softening
B-3 Lime Softening
B-4 Ion Exchange.

-143-
TABLE 4-1. LABORATORY WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT

SUBMiTTED BY: DATE COLLECTED: BY:

COMPANY; LOCATION:

RAil' WATER SOURCE: '5URF",u: W"'TC~

mg/t meq/l IONIC STRENGTH CALC.
I. Calcium (COl .1) '+0 20.04 2.00 , 2 J.t. 0 0

2. MagneSlum (Mg.. )
2 2.'5 12.16 :lo.oS , 2. "./0

3. Soc:hum (Na·) 31' 22.99 l}.'& , I 13·7~

•• PotaSSium (K·)
I' 39.10 0·"3 , ,. 0,"3
,. Total Major utlOll!. Al~ 8l~ Cl 22. ,J
mg/t meq/L IO"1lC STRE!"oIG TH CALC
MAJOR ANIONS
6. Bicarbonate (Heal-, 2Q .. 1 61.00 -to 'i 1 , , .,.Ie.,
7. Carbolau: ICO
-2
1 0 Xl.OO 0 , 2 0
J

•• Chlor H:le (en Ii 2. 'I 3j .4~ /1· 94" , I 11·'i I

,. Nitrate (NO)-) Q. I 62.00 OoCOl , I 0. 00'
10. Sulfate (504 -2) 5b 1,I!.03 /. /1. , 2 2.32.
II. Total MaIOI'" ~nJon5 All "77'1 811 l1.q,3 CII~

MISCELLANEOUS mg/t meq/L

12. CO
2
/5 4'-.00 0·) ~
n. Total Alkalinity
(aSUeD) 20b }O.OO If .It.
I'. SJlteU ("
1l. Fluor idle 0·05"
16. I,,," 0·02
0 TDS/ION BALANCE
17. Strontium

... Barium 0
27. Total Ion
I (A})... (A 11 )..(Jll)] /179

". Hydrogen Sulfide 0 2!. GraYlmetr Ie TOS

(Reydue @ IljJoCI 9~<j
20. SU§J>5'lded Solids '2b
2 .. BOD 't ". TDS = I (27)-O..sx(6)j 10 !> 0
/.02
Xl. Ion !(fi:5J I (BII)) Rang~ 0.96 to 1.04
22. COO 10
3 I. TDS {(28)/{29)J 0. 9 7 Range 0.90 to 1.10
2J. TUrbldlty (N. T.u.l
"'·S 32. Ionic Strength (C}).(CU)

". SpecIfic Conductance

(""mhos/em) 11.'0 0.02-
2,000

IoniC Strength M
2J. Tempen.tu~ r'C) ':l'2.
26. pH 4>.9

-144-
 EXAMPLE B-1

TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

A. Oe'l:o:r:rllne d Silica n:movaJll r~qwr~. c. kle<:tlOf'l 01 ume/hme-!oOda few- !aw·t.LItCA surf~t: .... len
l~turl.1ed U\ c&l.aum suU&1e.

C.I Complete T.f.W. 4-'.

C.2 If T~ble *_t resuln In Column 2 ()( J, \.l!C lime :Te.1Ilment (el.. ""
A.I • _-,lp,",-__ m&1L "'.Ief V-A). 11 Coll,llTln I 01 T..ble ll-ll u U:IKled, proct'e<l 10 D.

D.

D.I C&.levlate ttoe ~ of 1.0 mrqlL • CUClW1\ NalQtbon,ue

~rdroeu.

0.1 :: 1.0 meq/t • (Item 10 Column I of TAble Ii.')

0.1 = 1.0 m~L • moqlL

D
IJ ..... 2 < II C, A.). 10.2 Jl ".2 - 22 mIll
0.1 ~ me-q/L

D.2 C~cul;lte the sum 01 the r.... w&ter sulbte plus 0.& me-q/L.

0.2,. 0.& meq/L • (Jtem 10 of T~ble "~I)

A.1l C&!C\llale malUmum lftdwne.- 1l!II:.a ~ntrallon ~5UItl1\& In
Wic. latl,ltat.lOt'l In reJKt tlnne from '2-percenl rec:ovefy 0.2 ~ 0.' mcq/L .. meq/L
re"cr~ oun~ •.
0.2 ~ moqlL
A.lI c s,wa at s.aturAhOO /12.)
0.3 Oc1ermlne Thr s~tUl"Oltll:n
sulhte for l/'ot c.lIClum v~IUo\"
A.Il. "".J /12.' mill colJcul~led In 0.1. Enter- F.lure __ I lor ~ c~C1U'l1 uJue o.l.utd
prvceed ~"'.,.d 10 the " ... • ..uer. lorHc·ure!l(tI', o..;·ve. R... -
A.', 12· 'B mill ... te- 10rH( strl:'Tlllh II la'm 3; 01 Table II-J.
satur.tlon sulh.le on IN: ordll'\f.\e ~le .
Re.d I"'e

..... , 11 "".1 >..... J. ~ usumptlon h of Section 11.3.

If A.I ~ A.Ii, proeeed to E or USor elKtrodl&.lysu am: proC~ to 8.

D.'
JIf A.I ( A.1i prooc-ecl to 8. l
U 0..2 > 0.3. l,D1e Iimle-$or:1a pretrUtTTlCf'll ICI.ss ....,« V-e.t

E. Tl'\a.,.,d follo ... inS I.ec'u~s appl)' to r..... witers newltlns In

'2-1»tI"ctnl rec;:ovtr)' reJect brinn Ulur.ted In s.lhc.l.
B. Thls .ection applJet to raw ....ars with l1ha leY tt\&rl s.tlVfll.t,on
In 1M reject brirw: Jrom '2-perCf:n1 ",vene OlmOl-n. E.l

E.1 • (Item 1 of Table II-I)

B.J
E.I • rnIt<l/L

B.I • ....=:1-'•...::.0.::0_ m<q.!L Calcul.te tl'l: IolJIT\ 01 the r ....• .....ter wl.hte plus !0-perCCf'l1 01
the r.... • ....lt!' blc&rbonue. Use meG/t.
&-2 C&I~I.te IN: sum of the r."'_w..ter s,uU.n plus lO-{)erccnl of
tlW r.w-w.tee- blc&rbooatt:. UJ4: meq.lL. E.l,. (Item 10 of T.ble 4-1l .. O.! {Item (; of hble lo-J)

5.l ,. (Item 1001 hble '-II .. 0.& Utem (; 01 hblle ,. t) E.2 • m~L .. 0_1 l rneq./L

B.2. /./ (P m."'L • 0." t. i I E.2: mcq/l

8.2. 5· 00 meq/L E.' ~ermuw lhe Utur4t1on su!Iue lor 1~ ca.1Clum vll.1ue presented
&i E.J. Enler FjSure It. 1 Jor Ca.JCIU'l'l v&.lue E.l and proc=d
B.' Delee-mine The salur&tlon lullate fer tN: c:a.Jclum valuc prle~ted 1.I;I ...... d to 11'1: r.....- .....ter, lorl.c·nrc-ngth ~nt:'. Ra.........It:'r 10nK
.u 8.t. Enter FI!urle 10-1 for Ca.lClum v;L}ue 8.1 &t1d proCle'lrd nrenglh Ii Ilem 3201 T.ble .II ••• Read lhe J .. tur.lt,oo suU .. le on
l.4' ....,.d to lhe ra.. - ...ter. U:fHc·urenl,h curve. R..", .....tt!' 10l'llC t~ crdlNtt:' loQJe.
ltrt'f1sth II hlem 32 of T...bk '-1. Read the s.turu.lon sult...te on
It. OI'dUW,le s.c.ale. E.) " moqlL

B.3 • moqlL Compre E.l and E.3.

B.' Compre 3_Z ..~ B.3. II E.-2 < E.), use difYet Il!tT.llor'l etru~""en1 ~d
c-ltetroch&.l-YSIS for s\Jr!act:' .... .ilter~ Clau "aICOT "'W, &flC no
If IL2 ( 6.3, use dlr«:l !i!rrUlor'l pt'ttreatmCf'l1 for surface C'trt:'&tmCl'll .-.d
.....ten (Class Walt:'f 'I'll MId no reue.&lmCf'lt for round",Uer, ~.

If E.2 ) E.), Calcium sulf.te SC&hng .. Ill occur ..T '2_pc'TI:ent

If 8.l > B.3, C;L}clum wlhle iClhnl ...1.11 occur .., '2 per~nt rC'Cl)ver)'_ For rourc!....Ten use lOt' e1<cnan e and
recover-yo For ground... alen. use Ion t:'Jl.ch&l'lge (Cl.. u ....ilter- U. electToch&.lys,s Class "al('f III. For surbce "&len, proct:'ed to
Fer surface ... uers. proCiC"t'Cl to C. F.

(coot inued)

-145-
 EXA.' 1P1£ B-1

TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION (continued)

F. This section U for aJcium lW1ate ..turated, hish-liJ1CJI surface

waleN.

F.l Complete Table /j..'.

F.2 U Table 4.) resu]U 11\ Column J, use lime pretreatment {C1us
Water VD· ....).

For Column I, procred to G.

For Column 2, proceed to H.

G. Thil lecUCfl IS fOf' ca.lClum su!.fate saturated, hl!h-ulia surfac::e

waten.

G.I C;alcuJate the sum of the raw_water, l:.L!c\Um nonc.arbol'lolte

hlltdnellS &1ld t~ raw·water malJleSlI"lm concentration.

G.l ,,(Item \0 Column I of hble •. " .. (Item 2 of T~Je fJ-J)

G.l 0 moq/L • moq/L

G.I ,, m~/l

C.2 " (Item 10 of TOlbJe /j.-J) .. fO.6 meqfLl

C.2 " meqll .. 0.6 meq/l

C.2" moq/L

G.) ~t~mlne G.l, the saturation sulfate fOf' the calcum value
c;uculated In C.I. Enter Figure 4_1 lor J, C.IUCJum v.uue C.l ~d
pro~ed ~ward to the ra ..... •...ater iorllc-strength curve. Raw_
",.ler lonlc-strensth is Item J2 of Table 4-i. Read the
uturatlon 5u11&te ClI1 the orwN.te of Fil$ure '-I.

G.) '" meqlL ~ J.aturatiCll1 sulfate

G." Compare G.2 ~ G.).

If G.2 ~ G.3. use lime pretreatment (Clus Water vn~ A,).

11 F.2 > F.J, use I:me~soda pretreat'Tlet\t (Clus "atet vn·B).

H. This ~ectlon IS tOf' ca..loum sulh:te ~turated. tush sdlC& surbee

watet.

H.I Calculate the ~llm of the raw~..,ilter, ma&ne$l.um noncarbonate

hardness plus 1.0 meqlL.

H.I ,,(Item 12 Column 2 of Table 4.') • 1.0 meq/L

H.l _ _ _ _ _ meq/L • \.0 meq/L

H.I " moq/L

H.2 Calculate the sum of the ra..,·...ater sulbte plus 0.6 meq/L.

H.2" lItem lOot Table .~I) .(0.6 meq!L)

H.2 :: meq/L • 0.6 meq/L

H.2" moq/L

H.3 Determlfle the saturation s.uJfate fOf' the ~Clum "alut:

calc:ulil.ted lI\ H.I. Entet FIl$ure "·1 for a caloum "alue H.I and
proceed ~w.d to the n .... - ... aH!f looJc.nrl:'ngth cur"e. Ra... -
watl:"f looic Jtrel'lgth LS Item J2 of Table 4_ J. Read the
Sil.turation sulh.te on the orwN.te at FllUre 4_1.

H.3" rneq/L "U.tufatJorl sulfate

H,fl Compare H.2 and H.J

If H.2 ~ H.3, u.sc lime pretreatment (CI.. g Wilter.Vn~"l.

If H.2> H.J, use lime-soda pretrcatmCflt (Clus W"t~ Vn-B).

-146-
 EXAMPLE B-1

TABLE 5-1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DIRECT FILTRATION PRETREATMENT

I. Pretreatment Plant Capacity ~o mgd

2 Hydraulic Loading Rate 3 gpm/ft 2
3. Total Surface Area [(1) x 231] ~"'20 ft2
4. Number of Operation Filters [(3)/1,750, "3
rounded off to next larger integer. At
flows less than 15-mgd, use 2 filters.]
5. Area of Individual Filter [(3)/(4)]
6. Total Number of Filters (Incl. I standby)
[(4)+1] ~
7. Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 2
18 gpm/ft
8. Backwash Water Volume per Filter "2 '7 ,. 00 0 gallons
(lO-min backwash time)
[(5) x 180]
9. Filter Height
a. media depth 30 inches
b. total height 84 inches
10. Rapid-Mixer Contact Time I-min
11. Rapid-Mixer Volume [(1) x 700] 1'1,000 gallons
12. Flocculation Basin Contact Time 20-min
13. Flocculation Basin Volume 2 \0, DOC gallons
4
[(1) x 1.4 x 10 ]
14. Backwash Storage Tank ",!'7,OOl) gallons
[(8) x (4)]
15. Surge/Decant-Tank Volume ,~"?, 000 gallons
[equal to (14)]
16. Pretreated-Water Storage
l,
Tank Volume [(1) x 1.25 x 10 5 ] 2. S-"O gallons
17. Sodium Hexametaphosphate 5 mg/L
18. Total SHMP requried [7.61 x (I)] J5~ tons/yr
19. H S0 Dosage [0.64 x Item 6, Table 4-1, mg/L]
2 4 1i!.:..!.- mg/L
20. Total H 2 S0 required [(I9) x (I) x 1.52] 51.2 0 tons/yr
4

-147-
 EXAMPLE B-1

TABLE 5-2. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR DIRECT FILTRATION

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: 1'b·2. mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: ..::2::....000-_ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

I. Construction

(a) Filtration plant base cost (from Figure 5-4) $ 3.7.,./0"

(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [ I ( )]
297.73 x a $ 3.9'f~/D'"
2. Additives @ 32.5% of l(b) (indudes engineering,
).2g 1/0"
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.325xl(b)]
.12 ~/O"
3. Total capital cost [(1) + (2)]
Expected life of facility ;L$ years
4. /0 percent
5. Interest rate
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2] 0·11(,1
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] 57j, 9 00 $/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] 50/Joo $/yr

9. Chemicalslst!",'.I\,5oo.,) tons/yr $/ton 38'; JOU $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 5-5] ,.,500 m-hr/yr $/m-hr 198,000 $/yr
11. Energy [b] 3uo(, kwh/yr Q.O~ $/kwh ISO~OOU $/yr
12. Annual 0 & M cost
[sum (8) through (1 I)] 7& ;,2 00 $/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] 57'1,Qoo $/yr

13.
14. Annual 0 & M cost [(12)] 71> 3,.z 00 $/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] " 3l1S, 100 $/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity 0,1'6 $/kgal

"0·0 $/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity 0·.20 $/kgal
<.." .Co $/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 5-6 cost by: [Pro~ected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements are 0.15 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(15)] / [mgd x 365,000]
$/ac-ft = [$/kgal] x [325.85] •

, 1.0
 EXAMPLE B-1

TABLE 9-3. COST WORKSHEET FOR PRETREATMENT WASTE DISPOSAL

Method of Disposal: LI"'fC E~r.P.Il."P<!N PPNb$ Date: _

A. CAPITAL COSTS

I. Constr uction

(a) Base cost (from Figure 9-1 or 9-4) $ .41/0'"

(b) Additional items Ia] • '1/0'-
(d Subtotal [I(a) + I(b)] •. ., ~/O
(d) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I(c)]
297.73 x $ 3·hIO~
2. Additives @ 32.5% of I(d) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.325xI(d)] /.1 "l>~
3. Total capital cost [I(d) + (2)] .1:l. .,.J t.
4. Expected life of facility 20 years
5. Interest rate It> percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2] 0·11]'1
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] "'0,000 $/yr
B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

- Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [b] "37,100 $/yr

9. Chemicals ______O tons/yr t:> $/ton 0 $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 9-2 or 9-5] a~o m-hr/yr /2 $/m-hr ai, &-VO $/yr
ll. Energy /. 7110" kwh/yr D..:>S- $/kwh Il:r,ooo $/yr
12. Annual a &. M cost
[sum (8) through (11)] I~I)/OO $/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] ("IO,ouo $/yr

14. Annual a &. M cost [(12)] ''SI,loO $/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(3) + (14)] 7(,1,IOC> $/yr

IaJ For direct filtration and ion exchange: pump and pipeline between plant site
and evaporation ponds. Use the Dod e Manual published by McGraw-Hill for
costs. No additional costs for lime lime-soda pretreatment.

(bJ Multiply Figure 9-3 or 9-6 cost by: [Projected Producer Price Index/242.1]

_1/.0_
 EXAMPLE B-2

TABLE 4-1. LABORATORY WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT

SUBMITTED B)': 0 .....TE COLLECTED: BY:

COMPANY: LOCATION:

RA" "''''TER SOURCE: SUBfAC.£ Wf\TCi'.tS.

I. calcium (Ca .1)

me/L
I"AO 20.04
meq/t
•• 91 • ,
lOMe STRENGTH CALC.
ITo 9w
,. MaS~sium IMIl; ... 2) 910 J2.16 7.~9 • ,. 1~.79

l. Sodium INa'") 11o 22." ~.7t'

• I f·7i
<. PotU5 ium (I<. .) :2!i 39.10
6·"" • I . o.W
,. Total Malar c.tims " 'til "' 22.1' c' ~S.'7

me/L meq/l IONle STRENGTH CALC.

MAJOR ANIONS
6. BIl:.arba\ol.u: (Heo)-) 350 61.00 5·73 • I 5·73
7. Carbonate (C0 -2)
3 -.2.-_ JO.OO 0 • , 0

•• Chloride' (en £f olQ )} .", ,/."'" , I If· tf'

•• Nitrate- (NO)-) 0-3 62.00 0_1 , I (1'001'

10. Sutbte (SO"-2) 20] / -a.OJ . 1·11 , , 'i."~

II. Toto\.1 Malor Anions ,"~J 811 .2"'~f CII '(,..HI

ml!:/l meq/L
MISCELLANEOUS
12. CO, 30 ••• 00 o·1ci
13. Tota! AlkAlinity
(as Caco) 2i".s }o.oo 5·7.]
10. SW" 3"
". FJuoride 0·2
16. kon 0''5"
0 lOS/JON BALANCE
17. StrontIum
---- V. Total Ton
II. B.ar ium 0 (")'I.AIIl.O'» /~J,I/y. J
". Hydrozen Sul:f Ide 0 'I. Gravimetric lOS
(ResiliJe @ IOJOC) 13"0
20. Suspended Solids ;1.0
,•. TDS::: ((z7)-0.'.d6)J n..f., '1. 3
21. BOD 2·5' Ion 1(8)1/ (8 III) /.02
)0. R&ns~ 0.96 to 1.04
22. COD "1·5
,I. TOS ('alii")] 1.05' R.nS~ 0.90101.10
n.
2'.
Tuf'bldl1Y (N. T.U.)

Sp«ific Cond:.Jctanc~
(lJf'nhos/cm) .2230
" J2. Ionic Strensth (0). (CII)
2..JOO

Str~n(th
v. 17
Ionic 0·°37 M
Tempent~ COe)

'6. pH 7·\
 EXAMPLE B-2

TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

A. c. 5electil:rl of lim~/hme-soda lor low-si.ha surface w&ten

u.turated III c&laum sulfate.
A.I
C.l Complete T.ble ,.,.
A..l ~ Ut~m 't of Table .-1) C.2 If Tillble II." results in Column 2 or J, use lime trutment fClus
A.I • _..:;3L Co",-_ m&lL Water V-A). U Column 1 of TAble It.'- l30 selected, proceed to D.

A.l Temperature of feed'tlater. D. Tha section is for low-silica waten.

A.2 .. Otem 2' of Table II_1t1 0.1 C&.lOollate tile sum of 1.0 meq/L • C&1C1um NonQl'"bcnate
Ha.rnss.
A.2 .. _!..I".:..-'_o c
0.1 " 1.0 meq/L • (Item 10 Column 1 of Table .... 'l
fd o.rtermine silica cnnantraticn .1 u.tUBtion
0.1 " 1.0 meq/L • meq/L

0.1 ,, meq/L
A.J ,. --,-'5"-'.':...·.~_
.. m&lL
0.2 C&.leulatf: the S\M'Tl of the raw-water sulfuc plus 0.& meq/L.

0.2 " 0.6 meq/L • (Item 10 of rolblc .-1)

A.1l Ca.!cu!ate ma:umum fftd .... ater ailica c:oncentntion re$Ultinp; in
alllCA saturation In reject brlOe trom 92-pefl:ent recovel'"y 0.2 " 0.6 meq/L • meq/L
rever.e OIlmCIll./5.
0.2 " meq/L
A.ft:c Silica at u..turation ll2.j
D.l Dnt:"f"mH~ the SAturation sulf.ltc for tne c.aJClum val~
c&.lculated In 0.1. Enter F.gure "-1 lor ... C&.lCl\Jm value 0.1 Uld
proC~ ~will.l"d Ul the r.w_w.tet, lQrllC-ltrenph curve. Ril"'~
A./l " _ _ _ _,mp;/L ... ater loolC ItnTI!th is Item)2 01 Table /l~l. Rud the
"turatlon t.ullUe on tl'c ordInate sc.ale.
A.j U A.I >.....), a.ee USlJmptlOl'\ h of ~lon II.).
0.) r meq/l. :c saturatIon sulfate
J
It A.I ~ A.4, procr:ed to E~ ~ eJt:etrodlalY1l1 and proc:eed to B.
D.'
If A.l < A.'~o~dto B. \)~l~ R.O. If 0.2 !O.), ~e lime fl'!"!treatrnt:nl (Clan '.tel'" V-A).

l! 0.2>0.3. use lime-$oda p~lreatmt:nl (Clan "Iter V-Bl.

E. This and follow1n& 5t:Ctions apply to r."" waten Tl:suhmp; in

'2-percent f"IICX)"ery Telect brines .aturated 111 ,ilic&.

•• nus SectIon .pplies to raw wltt:rS ...ith wica leu than aturatlon
ttl the relect bnne Jrom '2-pe'c:ent revene osm0115.
E.I Oototermine the raw_water calCium in meqfL.

E.1 ,,<.Item 1 of Table It-I)

•• 1 [)ctermme the raw-water calcium itl meq/l.•

&.1., Otem J of Table 4-1l E.I. "ij-n- meq/L

B.l '" meq/l. £.2 Calculate the sum oj the' raw-....tCf su!1ate plus &o~C'Cl1t of
the ra... ·water bicarbonate. LIIe meq!L.
••2 Ca..Iculate the 1um o! the r.",,-water J.ullate plus 10-percent of
the raw_water blCarbonOlte. Use meq/L. E.2" <.Item 10 of Table 4-11 .. 0.1 (hem 6 of hbJe 4-11

B.2" (Item 1001 hble 4-I) .. 0.1 (Item 6 ot TOlble 4-0 E.2 • '1'- '3/ meq/L • 0.1 x 5·" 7 meq/l.

B.2" rneq/L .. 0.1 x meq/l. E.2. 1\-\59 meq/L

B.2" meq/l. E.) Drtlefmll'le t~ 5&turOlll.OTl sulfate!or t~ calaum value presented

as E.I. Etltel'" F,cure ~·I for calCium value E.! and proc:eeod
••3 Detet"ml~ the saturltlOTl suU.te for the Gl.1c,um value presented ~ ...ard 'to t~ raW_WOller, 10000lc-Strenrth curve. R.a .........ter JOOIC
as B.!. Enter FIgure 4_1 for calcIUm value B.I MId proceed st~Bth IS Item )2 of Table Ii- J. Read the sUurUlOO sulhte on
up.... ud to the ra... - .....tCf, lonIC~str=sth curve. Raw "".ter 10000IC the ordInate scale.
strensth 15 Item 32 of Table '-I. Re...:l the 1aturOltl.0f'I sulfate on
the ordUlOlte scale• E.3 • 2....?s.:_ _ m oq/L
•. J. moq/L Comp.. e E.2 .Itld E.'.
••• Comp.. e B.2 and B.'. 11 £.2 < E.), use direct fl1tr.tlOTl etreatment and
eJecttodlaTrsls for 5urhce ....ten Clas.!o "-ater VIII and nQ
If B.2 < B.3, U1e direct tiltratll7l etreatment lor surface etreatment and eJec:tTodJa! 5U lor
waters rtlilU Water VI a.nd no pretreatment lor ground.....aters --!!!!..lY...
(Clus Watel'" m.
It E.2 > Eo), C&Jc.lum 5ulfate KOl.Jin& will occur at 92·~cent
If 8.2 > 5.', CalcIum suUate scahnC will occur .t 92 percent recovCfy. for r"ul'ldwaters use Ion exdan e and
reO)vet"y. For Piroundwilten, use- Jon exchar'l!e (Clau WatCf ll. electrodiaJnis CI.~ 'atef IJJ. For sur ace ....illers. proceed to
For surface ""uen, procrt:'d to C. F.

(continued)

-151-
 EXA11PLE B- 2

TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION (continued)

F. nus loC'Ct.ian u for CIllclum sul!&t~ 1o&1u:'"IlIt'd, tu&h-slllC& sud.c~

waters..

F.l CompJ~le Table ,.,.

F.2 I! Table II.' resuJu 1.... Column), """e lime- pteUeUrne'l'11 (CJua
""ate'r \lD·A).

J
For Column I, procc-oed to G. 1
For Column 1. proc~ to H.

G. This Section 11 for OLloum wlfau: ..,uralit'd, hlsn-s.ilia. swiaa:

...aters.

G.l C&.IcuJale the sum of the r&w..... t«, c.a.lClum l"O"tc,ubon.t.te

tludness and the ' .....- ... &Ieor m"gncslum ccnc~tr.t1Ol'l.

G.l '" (Item 10 Column I of TAble 4.'1 • Utem 2 of r"ble- .-Il

G.l. :3.2't moq/l. 7,1; 'I mrq/l

G.' • _L"""LI7-,-_m..,:l
C.2 C.,]C\lI&te the sum of the ra... -waler $Wlau plUl 0.' me<i/l.

C.2 ~ (Item 10 of Table "-I) • (0.' meq/U

G.2 • _~-,-'3<.:..'_ mrq/l • H mrq/l

G." _~-,-,._q"I__ mrq/l

G.' Detefmine G.'. t!'le ,.tun.llon sulh.H' fIX" the OIlclurn value
c&Jcl,Ilated In C.l. Enter Figure ~_: fOf .. ColJCJum v&.iue G.I ~d
procred ~""ud to the r.""·'MAla' lor"c-urrn(lh OJrve. R.....
w,toIer 10000IC-Hren!;h IS Item n 01 Table a-I. Read lhe
'-I.
u.t .....atlon l...lf"te on lhit or<1lJ'\&tc 01 F-'lUle

C.J • _cl=--.~%,--__ meq/L .....turatlon wHate

If C.2 < G.J. usc lime ptCtrealmCl'lt (C!us Water 'o'n·.t,).

U F.2> F.J. un: hme-soda pretrut'Tlcnl (Clus ~Ue-f Vn·B).

H. This sectIon IS lor Cll10wn sulfate w.tuu.trd, rUgh slhc..& surface

...a1!:'".

H.J Caleul.r.te thit sIJrn of thit r.w·...tS', m&(f>Cllum nonc;ubon.te

l\ardt'leu plw 1.0 meq/L-

H.I • (hem 11 Coll.llTln 2 of T.. ble a_,l • 1.0 meq/L

H.I ,, mC'<llL .1.0m~

H.I " meq/L

H.2 C.aJClJI.r.u: the sum of the r..... -wats- suJ1,ue plus 0.6 meq/L

H.2" (Item 10 oJ Table ._1). (0.' meq/Ll

H.2" meq/L .0.' meq/L

H.2", moq/l

H.) ~ermlllle 1t-.e salurUIOfl wltate (or II-.e a1cium value

calculated In H.1. Enter Fillurc 1il·1 lor a C<IJCl~ v.r,Jue H.I ~d
proaed '4lwwd to the r.w_wattl' 1()I\lc-strenll'l.h curve. R......_
.....ter IonIC HreT\fltl IS Item J2 of TAble 1il_1. Read the
~turallOl1 sulfate on the ordH....te of Flgure 4-1.

H.3" meq/L "saturauOfl sulfate

H.Q Compve H.l and H.3

If H.2 ~ H.), '""c lime ptetreatment {([ass TUft n_Al.

I! H.2) H.3, Ule lime_soda ptetreatment (Class ;Ilter 'o'n·B).

-152-
 EXAMPLE B-2

TABLE 4-5. CALCULATION OF HARDNESS SPECIES FOR LIME AND

LIME-SODA SOFTENING PRETREA TMENT

I. Obtain the calcium, magnesium and alkalinity concentrations from the

Laboratory Water Quality Analysis Report in Table 1.1-1.

1. C&1dum (ea +2) = ~.q'6 m.q/L

2. Magnesium (Mg+ 2) = 7- ~ q m.q/L

3. Total Alkalinity = 5·70 m.q/L

~. Total Hard"".. [(Il«2)j /Io·'to 7 m.q/L

n. Compar. Calcium (I) '6. 9~ meq/L with Total Alkalinity (3)

5.70 m<q/L.

5. If Calcium is greater than or equal to Total Alkalinity, use Column 1

of the Hardness Species Chart, i.e., III of this table.

6. If Calcium is less than Total Alkalinity, compare Total Hardness (4)

_ _ _ _ m<q!L with Total Alkalinity 0) m.q/L.

7. If Total Hardness is greater than Total AJkaliruty, use Column 2 of

the Hardness Species Chart to calculate hardness types.

8. It: Total Hardness is less than or equal to Total Alkalinity, use

Column 3 to calculate hardness types. Use lime for pretreatment.

111. Hardness Species Chart (use only one column)

Hardness Tvoe CoJumn 1 Column 2 CoJumn)

9. Calcium Carbonate Alk.O) Ca+ 2 (1 ) Ca +2(1)

Hardness 5·70 meq/L m<q/L m.q/L

10. Calcium Noncarbonate Ca +2( 1)-Alk.Ol o m.q/L o m.q/L

Hardness
3· .2" m.q/L

11. Magnesium Carbonate o meq/L Alk. O)-Ca +2(1) Mg+2(2)

Hardness m.q/L m.q/L

12. Magnesium Noncarbonate Mg+ 2 (2) Tot. Hard""..( ~)- Alk. (3) o m.q/L
Hardness 7.'9 m.q/L m.q/L

-153-
 EXA'lPLE B-2

TABLE 6-1A. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LiME-SODA SOFTENING:

EXCESSIVE SiLiCA

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: 20 mgd

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Consti tuent
O,lD ~ meq/L

2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness 5,'0 meq/L

3. Magnesium Carbonate Hardness

0 meq/L
(multiply by 2)

4. Magnesium Noncarbonate Hardness ,.Sq meq/L

,~.'n meq/L
5. TOTAL (add (I) through (4)J

6. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

~'O\. \0 Ibs/million
[(5) x 259.4]
gallons
7. CaO Required
[(6) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity, mgd] \:,/nL.t tons/yr

B. Soda Ash Dosage as Na 2C0 3:

Consti tuent

Calcium Noncarbonate Hardness ~.2~ meq/L

8.
Magnesium Noncarbonate Hardness I. ~q meq/L
9.
TOTAL [add (8) and (9)] II, I' meq/L
10.

11. Na.2CO, Required @ 99% Purity ~,!ln

[(ru) x~46.5J lbs/million
gallons
12. Na CO Required =
[Oi) x1J.182 x pretreatment plant ,~ 1';;'4
capacity, mgd] I tons/yr

C. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

6. SHMP Dosage 5 mg/L

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment

plant capaci ty, mgd ] I~ 2,2 tons/yr

D. Sulfuric Add (H 2S0J;

S. H S0 Dosage 30 mg/L
2 4

'--
9. Total H S0 Required [45.6 x
2 4
~p::.r..::e~tr~e:::a::.fi::.m~en=_:..:.t.:p.:.:la:n:.:t~ca=p:::a:::c=-it~y:.-,~m~g~d~]~ -==q=/=2~= ;;::;r /
-154-
 EXA.'1PLE B-2

TABLE 6-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UPFLOW-SOLIDS-CONTACT REACTOR

AND GRA VITY FILTERS

I. Pretreatment Plant Capacity 20 mgd

2
2. Clarification Loading Rate 1,11110 gpd/ft

3. Total Reactor Detention Time 2.25 hrs

II. Total Required Reactor Area [(I) x 700] I"M)OO ft2

5. Number of Operating Reactors

[(11)/10,000, rounded off to next
lar ger integer. At flow less than
15 mgd, use 2 reactors.]

6. Area of Individual Reactor [(11)/(5)]

7. Total Number of Reactors (incl. I standby)

[(5) + 1] 3
8. Hydraulic Loading Rate of Filters

9. Total Filter Surface Area [(I) x 231]

10. Number of Operating Filters

[(8)/1,750, rounded off to next
larger integer. At flow less than
15 mgd, use 2 filters.]

II. Area of Individual Filter [(9)/(10)]

12. Total Number of Filters (incl. I standby)

[{I 0) + I]
2
13. Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 18 gpm/ft

III. Backwash Water Volume per Filter

(lO-min backwash time)
[(II) x 180] 21'1,ooe gallons

15. Filter Height

a. media depth 30 inches

b. total height 811 inches

Backwash Storage Tank Volume [(III) x (10)] 11 }1,oOO gallons

16. ---
Surge/Decant Tank Volume [(16)] ~)7,tlOCl gallons
17.

18. Pretreated Water Storage Tank Volume

5
[(1) x 1.25 x 10 ] 2,~"'o l. gallons

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C ---"

-155-
 EXAMPLE B-2

TABLE 6-3. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR LIME-SODA SOFTENING

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: I~· 2 mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capaci ty: '20 mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Construction

(a) Lime-soda softening plant base cost (from Figure 6-4) $ 5 "/0 l.
(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()]
297.73 x a $5.3'/o~

2. Additives @ 32.5% of l(b) (includes engineering,

legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.)
[0.325 x J(b)] J. 73 '/0 I.
3. Total capital cost [(J) + (2)] 7·"5 '/01-
4. Expected life of facility ;/. 5 years
5. Interest rate 10 percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2] a·lI o l
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x 0)] 77'",S cO $/yr
B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] ....c0 1\ 7/,'100 $/yr

9. Chemicals ~S.)iMP +tI,SAt -(,,0· ~ tons/yr _:-::-__$/ton 3. nS.IGO $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 6-5] 2 700 m-hr /yr 14 $/m-hr 3.2, '100 $/yr
11. Energy [b] ).b ./0· kwh/yr O·oS $/kwh ~$/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (JIl] 3518.9'0 $/yr
~ TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] 771>,800 $/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] 3,51&/100 $/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (J4)] "/,295, lOU $/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]
(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity 0·5& $/kgal
l'Uo $/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity p. b'f $/kgal
208·5 $/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 6-6 cost by: [P'6'jected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements as 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(I5)] J[mgd x 365,000]
$/ac-ft = [$/1,000 gal] x [325.85].

" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pt"C-~

-156-
 EXAMPLE B-2

TABLE 9-3. COST WORKSHEET FOR PRETREATMENT WASTE DISPOSAL

Method of Disposal: CE"'TRIFuu-e; i LMoFILL Date: _

A. CAPIT AL COSTS

1. Construction

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Base cost (from Figure 9-1 or 9-4)
Additional items [a]
Subtotal [J(a) + J(b))
Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI
297.73 x
[I (c)]
I:~.D:
$ '10«,700
2. Additives @ 32.5% of ](d) (includes engineering,

3.
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.325x](d)]
Total capital cost [J(d) + (2)] ! I~",S-:
ni, 1
4. Expected life of facility ~o years
5. Interest rate 10 percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2] Q. 11"'1'1
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] (, ::1,900 $/yr
B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

, Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

&. Maintenance materials [b] 2'-,45"0 $/yr

9. Chemicals o tonslyr -,o-=:-_,$/ton ---,Q~_$/yr
10. Labor [Figure 9-2 or 9-5] '# 200 m-hr/yr -==I-=':l.,,=-_$/m-hr 5' I d. 00 $/yr
II. Energy "i'{o,ooo kwh/yr O·oS $/kwh :u,ooo $/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (&) through (J Il] $/yr
C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] b2,90o $/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(J2)) IOO,H~ $/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (J4)] 143,/~-0 $/yr

'[a] For direct filtration and ion exchange: pump and pipeline between plant site
and evaporation ponds. Use the Dodge Manual published by McGraw-Hill for
costs. No additional costs for lime/lime-soda pretreatment.

[b] Multiply Figure 9-3 or 9-6 cost by: [Projected Producer Price Index/242.1]

-157-
 EXAMPLE B-3

TABLE 4-1. LABORATORY WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT

SUBMITTED BY: DATE COLLECTED: BY:

COMPANY: LOCATION:

RA" 'ATER SOLiRCE.: S\)~f"k:E WATE~

mg/L meq/L IONIC STRENGTH CALC-
I. CalCium (ea .2) ISQ 20.0- 7.50 x 2 15.0"
2. MagneSIum <Mg .. 2 ) 55 12.16 (f·B x 2 9.01
:181f 12.3~ 1:2.3£
..
J. Sodium (Na"') I 22.99 x 1 0

PouS5ium (K·) i5 I 39.10 p.3'&

---- x I . O·]f

l. Total MaJOI' CalionS ~l~ Bl :? If. lr Cl 3 {,·77

mg/l meqfL 10NlC STRENGTH CALC.
MAJOR ..... NIO~S
6. Blcarbcnate {HC0
3 33(.. 61.00 5·5"0 x 1 . 5·50
7. Cubonall~ (CO.3-2) 0 JO.OO Q x 2 <:>
,. Chloride (eJ·) 5fi~ 3~ ,4j ;I>.'j I x 1 '1>''1/
,. NItrate (NO)-) '§ 62.00 0·'3 x 1 0"3
10. Sulfate (504 -2) q7 4&.03 "·0 I x 2 "t. Oil
Il. Toul Majer .... nlons ~II Ion BIl :J1(.o~ CII~

MISCELLANEOUS ms/l meq/L

12. CO
2
~O 410.00 0·'15
lJ. Total AJkaltnrry
(as CaCO)1 ~75 50.00 5.5'0

". SIlica /0

". Fluor Ide 0·05

16. I"'" 0-/0

17. Strontium D .col TOS/ION BALANCE

27. 101a1101"1
IS. Bd.rIUm 0 [(Aj).. (,4,114(11I)) 1537
I'. Hydrogen Su.l!lde 0 2'. Gravimetric TDS
(Re.5Jdue @ ICJoC) '~.;lS-
20. Suspende<l Solids 22
2'. TDS:; (<27)-0.'x(6IJ /3'~
21. BOD ';.5
JO. Ion (8')/(811)) ;'0 3 Range 0.96 to 1.0~
22. COD (p.$'"
JI. TDS i f2!11129)} /-0£ Range 0.90 to 1.10
23. Turbidity (N. T.V.) 3.0
J2. loruc Strength (C').(Clll
20. Spt!Cihc Conductance 2,oell
(oJmhos/cml 2~70
lorHC Streng1h 0·03 M
Tempe!'atu~ t'e) .... '3
2l.
71_
26. pH

-15B-
 EXAMPLE B-3

TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

C. Sd.ctiClr'l of 1i,"~/hmt-MIdI. tar lDw.-ilu:.a ...-faa: .a'tn

u t ~ in calQ16ft IWllatll.

A.I • Ot..m 14 of lUk 4-1)

c..z U T.w.e ,., rRadu in CDI...'nn 2 cw J, _t lim. 1:I'utm~t (ClUJ
...10 _..L'-"O"-_,,..n. W.t..- v-A). 11 Cot\n\n I of Tab.~'.Il ItJt"Ctrd, procl'ed to D,
o
A.J. T. . . . . t\ft 0( ~.w.

AJ.. Qt.m l' 01 Tab" .....) 1).1 _.....

.cale:vlatt. an cd 1.0 fMq/'L • caldUfft HclnQrbGnl.tt

D.1 • La fMq/L • o.m 10 CoI~ I tsf TabW .... 'l

D.I • 1.0 meqlL • 2· 0

If A.2 < Jr'C. A..J. lo.J. A-2 - Z2"'11L
D.I • '}·O ","",L
...) • "..n.
0..2 Cale:waw tM aft! of U. raw-••..- Mfa. plus 0.' meq/L.
, U ".2!: 11°C. ".J • liD mall 1 0.2 • 0., meq/L • (It ern 10 oJ Tablll' .... 0
A.' CalD.l1att: -...imum leoIdwat. Jilia ClII'IQIIntTatjon ~tin& in
a.lha ...,,,atlon in reject IWIIW: ~m '2~ornl NCD.-Itfy 0.2 • U JMq/l. • '.01
,....,M_f&lI.
D.2. ~," M"'L
AA. Si1i ca at ...n ....tion Ill.'
D.l [)nermj,. the MturaliO"l lUlI.tot ... tM add"," vaJUI
A.'. AJ Ill.' m,/L calC1.aU~ed in D.I. Enter FIIU~ '.1 tot' a c.&Jci~ .,61..- 0.1 Mid
~ftd ~ward ICI ..... ,........Ier. ianK...nr~I''' QIl'''~. R.....•
..... 12, fi "..n. ••'el' ionic ~ httab.-cbnate
Mturaticn aw!ak
hem 32
m\ 1'11~.
of Table '-I. a..... d '1M

A., If A.l >AJ, . . .-umptkin h of Seenon 4.l.

DJ. _.J'o.:..'O,,- eqfL a unrration 1U1f1.1~
U A...I ~ A.', ...-oc:-d 10 E or .-e eJec:trodi&I'ItU .-1 pt'ClC*ec:l to a.
D.' c:emp.e D.2 a1d D.'
1 If A..I < A..•• pr:c::d to &.1 J .If 0.2! DJ, \&It lim. r " .... ,me1'rt (Cia• • • 'K Y·Al. J
If D~)D.J., . . 1i"..~ f)!!trutm'll'tl (Caa ".tel' y.&).
L This a1d IoU. ..,. IIIC'tiDnI. IIPPIy ~ nw ..ten NIWU'\I in
n~c:ml ....-.,.
NjK1wiNs utvnted in Illica.
ao This .-:-t1crl ~Liel tID ,..w ...
un witt! aiJia lell ttwn ..,,,.tion
LI Dltwmira _ caJc:iwn in meqIL..
WI 'Chit rtj.et trine ff"l:lm 'Z"1"8"cant ~ ~OI.U;.

a.l ~minr U. ,........ csk:iY'T'l in fnC'q/L. LJ. Qtam 101 Yule U

LJo -.tL
&,1. Otcrn I.f Table .... 1)

LI. 21t? L2 Ce,!e:watt tht an fIf the ,..-water adla,. pJUI lQ...peraem 01
'the ......., .. IWcartlarw.t~ 1JM mec¥L.
L2 CalcuJatt 1tw cd ~ " ..-wa1ft adr.t..
-..r'I p1U1 IO-poefc:enl 01
t'ht ra••••' .. ~Ie. LM mr:cVL.
L2. Ote-m 10 of Tabh! .... O. 0.1 Chem' of Tabk .... O
L2 .. Qum 10 of Tabk __ 1) + C-I Qtltm , o.f Tabior .... 1)
Lh -.tL ..... L

a.2. 2·01 L2 • -.tL

a.2. ,.'1' Oftermine the ..t~tklrllU1f.u for the calcium ....

as £.1. Emft Ficvrt •• ) for caJOInl .,aI~ E.I and proc-d
prrle"lt~ ,ue
t:»t.,.minr ttoe "'waticn aJ1fatt for thl' caJc:i\ftl value pre~,ed . . .d ICI ttll' ,...• •• '.r, 'ank-ctrenrt" Q.lrw. R......ter ionIC
.... &.1. Enter FllUre '-I for ca.la"" nlue &.1 and proceed nrw"l(th is hem )2 oj T.bit: t.J. kud t~ aaturatl(Jrl .ultate on
14Jward lD,hIt ra.·... ltef, ia\lc-ctrr:n(1" ow.... Ita....a,. ionic. thr orda,._ KaJe.
"""11" lA ham J2 of Table t-1. Raad tto. ..t\ltaticn Il.Il1Ata an
n. acliN.tR lCa.Ie. L'" ..... L

... If L2 < U. we di~ fihntic.'l ~.,~, for J~ tU~.'men1 .-.d

.e direct lim.tion treatm,,"t C'ld
Jl,Irface ...ltrs CJ.-J,l, '.If'r VIIl and no

...tm It"l.l", 9'Ut'f VI MId no plTuutmcnt (lC" Ii t.n .....!!.!l.!Y...

(C1c.ss 'hlK til.
If L2 » E.l, c.Jci.-n adfa,e ac.lJnc will ocrur at '2·per~'
If &.2 ) &J. C&lci~ adf.te IC&lina ... W ocrur a' ':l pe'Otr'l1 rac»YWy. For Irt>vl"dwann .~ Ion Uch&rllif' and
l"KD"'t!I'"J'. for IroundwatC'n, ... iDl'l u~lie (Cl&a WatK" U. lIIec1todiatY!.is tCLass Wa,t'\' all. lor
IUrtiC"t .alen, prooted 100
For ~ ....... , proClt'f:C1ID C. t.
Go ~o #·C ,t
(continued)

'--------------------pt'C

-159-
 EXAHPLE B-3

TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION (continued)

F.. Thu 1IK1l_ 11 tot caJavm ~.tt Mllrltll"Cl, tvl"-4i.ha -t","r

.aun.

F.2 tf Table ' . ' I"nults in Column l. uu: I,,,,,,, prrtTnt~ {Ca.
W.,ff .... n- . . . }.

For Column I, procred a) G.

F. CotUTiI'l :z.. pncil"C!'d to H.

c. TNJ Melion • fO!' calc.a...,-. lulhta . ,...... *. hi~1ia arllll2

_,"I.
G.I C&lc:uJate tt. ....-n of the n...- ...~. calOWTI iO .... bu.tr
hw~. atv:llhe r........ter m~c,m c:rw::cnlrIUOI\.

C;;.I • Ctwm 10 CoIwnJl 1 of Tabk ,-n. at-n 2 of T~r __ ll

G.I • "'oq/l. • "'oq/L

G.I • "'""'L

Co2 C&1o.1J.a,llt eN -..Y\ of the ra....... lUUau plw 0.' mrq/L

Co2. (hrm 10 01 Tab. &-1). (0., ",~L)

G.2 • nwq/l • 0.' meq/l

G.2. m~L

GJ on.miM G.l, thr "'\,tItian lUU'atit foe the c:a!cium nJ~

WC\.I1&tcd In C.I. tntet' Fllun: ..... lor .. caJoum uJut G.I &fief
procrrd \4Iw.,d to tto. "'W~"'.I~ iaUc-ftT"el'll1h C1Jrvlt. ita__
• •tllll'" ior\lC-1178'Irth is h ..m)2 01 T&bk .... 1. Jl.-d ttw
satl'l\JOrt .."Ihn on l1w: ':"&n&tlt of F~ "'",,10
G.l • m~ • I&~t.ion a.d.1atlt

U C.2! CO-J, Wit lime fIflttTutment eca. ...,.. YD-"}.

U F.2 > F.l. lIM limr_aoda pr!'tT'utm&rll (CIa.A Wale!' vn-!l).

H. This -=tion b for etJdum tul1atlt ..-n.r.Ud, hl&h sUia. ..-face

••t_.
H.l CalOllate ttw ~ at. dw ra.-. . . . . "'-VC-1nI ~bonate
hw~SlI ph.. 1.0 m""L.

H.l • UtC'm 12 CoI""n 1 of T&bIe ... ,} • 1.0 me-q/L

H.l • m~L + 1.0 m"llL

H.I • "'oq/L

K.2 Calc:ulate ttw -..n of the ra••••ur a.ill.u plus 0"" meq!L.

H.2 • (he-m 10 of Table __ 1) + (0., meq/U

H.2 • meq/L .. 0.' meq/l.

K.2. m.cVL

HJ Dll"temurc tht Mlw-&tion ufa,e for ttw caJcium .,alue

caJC\Jl&led In H.I. E.nte'l' FiJu~ .·1 for. caJdl,l"n ,.alue H.I and
~ I$.... d 10 lhe r .... _.... t . X1nk.n::rft'l(1h C6Ye. R.....
••ta- iClnic la-en(t'h 11 lam)1 of Table ..... 1. Read the
_tllation .llhle Cln t t . crdlnatlt of FiIU"t ..... 1•

..., . meqlL • .-t\Ir&tiCll"l auUate

H.. CompIre H.2 and H.J

If H.2 ! H.,], YM lime pr:e:tr'eument (Clul 'It'.~ YO-A).

If H.l" H.3, Woe llme-1Oda entreatment (C~ W.ter YO·tn.

-160-
 EXAMPLE B-3

TABLE 4-5. CALCULATION OF HARDNESS SPECIES FOR LIME AND

LIME-SODA SOFTENING PRETREATMENT

I. Obtain the calcium, magnes..ium and alkalinity concentrations from the

Laboratory Water Quality Analysis Report in Table "-I.

I. Calcium (Ca +Z) = 7.5 0 meq/L

2. Magnesium (Mg'Z) = '1.52. meq/L

3. Total Alkalinity = 5.50 meq/L

~. Total Hardness [(If-(2)J ,.2. 02 meq/L

D. Compare Calcium (I) ,.5 0 meq/L with Total Alkalinity (3)

s·5"~ meq/L.
3. If Calcium is greater than or equal to Total Alkalinity, use Column 1
of t~ Hardness ecics Chart, i.eo, In of this table.

6. If Calcium is less than Total Alkalinity! compare Total Hardness (4)

_ _ _ _ meq/L with Total Alkalinity (3) meq/L.

7. If Total Hardnes.s is greater than Total Alkalinity, use Column 2 'of

the Hardness Species Chan to calculate hardness types.

8. If Total Hardness is Jess than cr equal to Total Alkalinity, use

Column 3 to calculate hardness types. Use lime for pretreatment.

1Il. Hardness Species Chart (use only one column)

Hardness Type Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

9. CaJcium Carbona te Alk.(J) Ca'Z(J) Ca,Z(J )

Hardness ;5.5'0 meq/L meq/L meq/L

10. Calcium Noncarbonate Ca,Z(J)_Alk.(J) o meq/L o meq/L

Hardness 2·0 meq/L

II. Magnes.ium Carbonate o meq/L Alk. (J)_Ca,2 0 ) Mg ,Z(2)

Hardness meq/L meq/L

12. Magnes.ium Noncarbona te Mg,2(Z) Tot. Hardness(4)-Alk.(J) o meq/L

Hardness 't·'2 meq/L meq/L

-1~1-
 EXAMPLE B-3

TABLE 7-IA. CHEMICAL DOSAGES FOR LIME SOFTENING: LOW SILICA

20 mgd
Pretreatment Plant Capacity:

A. Lime Dosage as CaO:

Constituent
O,JJ5 meq/L
1. CO
2
2. Calcium Carbonate Hardness 5·50 meq/L

TOT AL [add (I) and (2)) S.liS meq/L

3.

4. CaO Required @ 90% Purity

(0) x 259.4]
)5";'3 Ibs/million
gallons

5. CaO Required
[(4) x 0.182 x pretreatment plant
capacity mgd] S('I~ tons/yr

B. Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP):

5 mg/L
6. SHMP Dosage

7. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x pretreatment IS}.2 tons/yr

plant capacity, mgd]

c. Sulfuric Acid (H 2SO I,):

30 mg/L
8. H S0 Dosage
2 4
9. Total H S04 Required [45.6 x
pretreatment plant capacity, mgd] 91z tons/yr

-162-
 EXAMPLE B-3

TABLE 7-2. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR UP FLOW-SOLIDS-CONTACT BASIN

AND GRAVITY FILTERS

Pretreatm en t Plant Capacity 2.0 mgd

I.
2
Clarification Loading Rate 1,440 gpd/ft
2.
Total Reactor Detention Time 2.25 hrs
3.

4. Total Required Reactor Area [(I) x 700] J"• Oo~ ft

2

5. Number of Operating Reactors [(4)/1 0,000,

rounded off to next larger integer. At flows
less than 15 mgd, use 2 reactors] 2-
2
Area of Individual Reactor [(4)/(5)] • 7000 ft
6.

7. Total Number of Reactors (incl. I standby)

[(5) + I] '2l
2
Hydraulic Loading Rate of Filters 3 gpm/ft
8.
2
8. Total Filter Surface Area [(I) x 231] ~"20 ft

10. Number of Operating Fil ters

[(8) .. 1,750, rounded off to next
larger integer. At flows less than 15 mgd,
use 2 iii ters.] 3
2
Area of Individual Filter [(9)/(I a)) 15~c ft
11.

12. Total Number of Filters (incl. I standby) ~

[(10) + 1]
2
Nominal Backwash Loading Rate 18 gpm/ft
13.
14. Backwash Water Volume per Filter
(IO-min backwash water time)
[(II) x 180] 271.000 gallons

15. Filter Height

media depth 30 inches

a.

total height 84 inches

b.

16. Backwash Storage Tank Volume [(I4) x (10)] \\7,001 gallons

17. Surge/Decant Tank Volume [(I6)) ,\7.00. gallons

18. Pretreated Water Storage Tank Volume

5
[(1) x 1.25 x 10 ]
7.; _10 Co gallons
pt'C

-163-
 EXAMPLE B-3

TABLE 7-3. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR LIME SOFTENING

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: ,~.z mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: --,::z~o __ mgd

A. CAP IT AL COSTS

I. Construction

(a) Lime softening plant base cost (from Figure 7-3) $ 5~/olo
(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I()]
297.73 x a $5.31'1 010

2. Additives @ 32.5% of I(b) (includes engineering,

legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) $ ;. 73 tiOC.
[0.325 x I(b)]
3. Total capital cost [(1) + (2)] $7.05~IOc.,
4. Expected life of facility z.5 years
5. Interest rate I {) percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2] 0'11°1
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x 0)] 77l"froo $/yr

B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [a] 5 ",/po 0 $/yr

9. Chemicals (SHo(\P' H.SO" .(.0) tons/yr $/ton 50'/,600 $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 7 -5] -"2'::l.f'::'0l...o--m-hr /yr -/4=-----$/rn-hr 3:1.'100 $/yr
11. Energy [b] H'1/0" kwh/yr o.oS $/kwh 1)0.000 $/yr
12. Annual a & M cost
[sum (8) through (1 J)J

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] 77(,,4"00 $/yr

14. Annual a & M cost [(12)] 7t/.poo $/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] I.l.SS·i,~.o $/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity 0·2, \ $/kgal

--=r.:""l~."':=5-$ / ac - f t
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity b.2) $/kgal
Zk. 'f $/ae-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 7-4 cost by: [Prol,e:=ted Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements are 0.18 x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(15)] / [mgd x 365,000]
$/ac-ft = [$/1,000 gal] x [325.85]. I
'-------PN:---.--J
-164-
 EXAMPLE B-3

TABLE 9-J. COST WORKSHEET FOR PRETREATMENT WASTE DISPOSAL

Met hod of Disposal: CE/IITRlflJ& E f I..AlJtJFlLJ.. Date: _

A. CAPn AL COSTS

I. Construction

(a) Base cost (from Figure 9-1 or 9-4)

(b) Additional items [a]
(c) Subtotal [I(a) + l(b)]
(d) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [I(c)]
297.73 x S .~",70o
2. Additives @ 32.596 of l(d) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.J25x I(d)] ~o
J. Total capital cost [l(d) + (2)] ~
4. Expected life of facility ;l 0 years
5. Interest rate /0 percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2] 0.1\1'1
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x o}] (,,2,9 00 S/yr
B. OPERA nON AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

- Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8.
9.
Maintenance materials [b]
C he mical s --c:c=-",o-::-_tons / yr as/ton
2" •0
,,~-u S/yr
S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 9-2 or 9-5] '"t~oo m-hr/yr /2- S/m-hr S I,e. 00 S/yr
ll. Energy ~l.Io!ooo kwh/yr --2.:..Q....L-S/kw h ;z a,ooc S/yr
12. Annual 0 & M cost
[sum (8) through (I I)]

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capi tal cost [(7)] It>~lq 00 S/yr

14. Annual 0 & M cost [(I 2)] /OO,l'iO S/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [OJ) + (4)] /")'50 S/yr

[a] For direct filtration and ion exchange: pump and pipeline between plant site
and evaporation ponds. Use the Dodge Manual published by McGraw-Hil1 for
costs. No additional costs for lime/lime-soda pretreatment.

[b] Multiply Figure 9-3 or 9-6 cost by: [Projected Producer Price Index/242.1]

-165-
 EXAMPLE B-4

TABLE 4-1. LABORATORY WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT

SUBM1TTED BY: DATE COLLECTED: BY:

COMPANY: LOCATION:

RAq.' "ATER SOURCE: GROllNtr.JATE&

mg/l me:q/L IONIC STRENGTH CALC.
J. Calcium (Ca .2) go 20.04 IM9 x 2 It· 9ll"
2.
2
Magnes.ium (MS .. ) G.'I 12.16 5·~1a x 2
· 10.,.",
3. Sodium (Na·) I~ 22.99 7.& "?> x I
· 7·'B
o .q~
••
,.
Potassium (K·) 3Co 39.10 O·Q;; x I
·
Total Major Uti015 A'~ B'~ C3 ;>.I·PS

mg/l meq/l JONle STREsGTH CALC.

MAJOR ANIONS
30(. 5".0 I
•• Blcartxna.te (Heo)-) 61.00 x I S·O)

,·
-2 0 30.00 0 x 2 0
7. Carbonate (CO) )
----
8. Ch]oru:k' (Cl-j aSIe - 35.45 JO·O-J , 10·0'/
9. Nitrate tNO -)
J
10 62.00 0·/1. x I 0,'"
,
10. SuUate- (SO" -2) \3\0 4&.03 2..&3 2
· S· Go (.
CII ~O·~7
II. Toni MaJOI'" Anions AII~ B 11 ...L..i.-'.-
O'f
MISCELLANEOUS mg/l meq/l

'2. CO
2 '1 "'4.00 0-0<;
13. Total Alkalwlty
(as CaCO)) "2.S1;l.~ '0.00 S·O/
10. Slbea II

". Fluor ide /·1

". Iron 0·9
". Strontlum 0 TDS/!ON BALANCE
27. Total Ion
18. Bi:&rlum 0 [(A5).. (.O\ II )...(IIj)J wert
'9. Hydrogen SulI10e 0 28. Grayjmetr ic TOS
(Re5J,due @ IOJOC) '19 5
0
20.

21-
Suspende-d Solids

BOD 0
29.

30.
TDS:: 1{l7)-0.5x(6)J

Ion I(BS) I (6 II))

/0
/.0;
3'" Range . 0.9610 J.04
22. COO 0
31- TDS (12S11129)) 0.9" Range '" 0.90 to 1.10
".
,..
TUrbidIty (N.T.U.) /·5
32. Ionic Strength (CS) .. (Cll)
SpecifIC Conduct.a.nce 2,OOG
(\Jmnos/cm) IfD20
2;1.£
IoniC StrenVh tJ '0'<' M
23. Tempt!"!ture COC)

2•. pH 7·1

-166-
 EXAMPLE B-4

TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION

A. Ot:'!ermlnf: it IJ.lica rrmov&l U reqUIred. c. Selectlcn of lime/llme-soda lor Lo.-sllIca surface waters
lAturUed Ul c:&l.cium wUllte.

C.I Complete Table It.,.

A.l "Otern JlI of Table 1i.I)
C.2 If T.ble lO•• re:suIU in Column 2 Of" 1, use lime ':tutmefll (Clll,.,
A.I • _....1..1;>,.l__ m&1L Water V-A). U Column 1 of Table 4_1t IS selected, proct"ed to O.

A.2 Tempcntun: of teedwater. D. Thi:s section i.l fClt low-s.ilia waten.

1\.2" Otern 2} of Table 4_lI} 0.1 C.alculate the sum of 1.0 meq!L • C.aJ.aum Nonarbonlte
H..rawu.

0.1 % 1.0 meqjL .. (Item 10 Column I of Table Ij.-.sl

0.1 " 1.0 meq/L .. m"l/L

If 1\.2 < lIDe, A.3" 10.2 x A.2 - 22 mIll
0.1 % m"l/L
".3", mg/l
0.2 C.aJ.culate the sum ot the r.w·water sutlate plus 0.& meqJL.
lit A.2~ I10e, A.l" 160 m&lL
0.2 " 0.6 meqJL • litem 10 of Table •• 1)
A.1i ~C\JJ.,e mallimum fft'dwner Iolhca ~ntrJ.tiQl'1 ~s.uJtU'lr. in
WICI SllU,lf.Uon In reject b"lJle from 92-percent r~"t:'fy 0.2 " 0.6 meq!L .. m"l/L
re..-u- se C$fTlOI.u.
0.2 " m"l/L
A.1i '" 5.Wa at w.turation /12.,
D.3 Qt,ter'T'urot' the saturation 'ulfate fOf' the calCIUm vall.M'
c~culated In 0.1. Enter f'lure 4-1 fOf' & C.a.JCJum value 0.1 MId
proCf"f:'C \4l-"'&Td 110 the UIW_IW&ter, 1000lc_strength curve. Ra",·
_ _ _ _mall ""llter 1001(' nre""l!th IS Ite~,)2 01 T&ble li-l. Read the
satuUtlon :JuUate on the ordH'I.I.te SGlle.
A.~ 11 A.I ) A.), ~ assumption h of Section 11.3.
0.3" me-q/L " s.tUr.tIOfl sulfate
If A.I! A.Ii, proceed to E or ute eJectrodi-.lym anC proceed to B.
D.li Compare 0.2 and 0.3
fa A.1 < A•• p!"o~d to 8. I U 0.1 5. 0.3, USe lime Pf;tTutmmt (CI&,u 'olter V-A).

l! 0.2> D.), usc ~me-5odo1 pretreatment (Clau 'llt!!'r V-B),

E. nus and folJowin! H'Ctu:I"\S apply ttl r.... .... tefS ~suJtmg 11\
'2-i'eI'cent recovery reject bri~ s.tur.ted m uhc.a,
8. Thu. u'Ction .applies to ,.........ttn with tJ..!lca less tholn w.turauon
in the relect bnM from 92-percerlt ~yeue osmosIS. E.I

E.l "Utem 1 oJ Table /j..j)

B.I
E.l " meq/L
B.l a Ot!!'m 1 of T.ble li-ll

8.1. "t. 't'l me<;!L E.2 C&!cul.te the sum of tne r.""-water :JU1.1ate plus to-percent of
the u ... · ....ter tucarbonatc. UU meq/L.
8.2 Calculate tt'c sum of the r.w_water sulfate plus aO-pncer'lt of
the ra...·water bicarbonate. Use meq/L. £.2" Utem 10 of T.ble 4-J) .. 0.1 Utem 6 of T"ble 1o·11

8.2 " (Item 10 of Table 1+- J) • 0.1 {Item 6 of Table II-I} E.2" meq/l .. 0.1 x me'q/l

B.' 0 ;/.'j :, me<vL ~ 0,1 x :;-."0 I meq/L E.l • meq/L

B.'. .,..'i <j. meq/L E.' Determll'lie the s.aturatioo sulfllte fOf' the' calaum yaJue presented
.s E.J. Enter Figure' 11-1 lor calC\L:m vaJue E,I and proc~d
B.' [}etefmine the s.aturatlon suU.te fOf' the c.;a!clUm value presented ~ward ttl the- r.... •.....ter, IC1I'llc-strength curve. Rll........ter IonIC
a~ B.l. Enter F,gvre 4~1 lor calaum valve B.I MId proceed strength ($ Item J2 of Table 11_ L Read the saturauon sulfate on
up ... ard to the ra.......ater, 1a'lIC-nren~h curv!!'. Raw ..... atCf IOtHC the Cltdmate 1QLle.
~trcngth i~ Item 32 of T~le __ I. Read. the ".tUrlltlon sulf.te on

the Cltdll'\&[e scale. E.J .. m"l/L

Comp..e E.2 and E.3.

B.' If E.l < E.3, use direct fJltntlon oretreatment ~d

eleoc:trod"laJYSIS for $urhte ",.ater5 (CIllSS 'aler VlIll ll.'1d nc
If B.2 < 8,), use dlrt'Ct t.Iltntlon retreatment fOf' surface pretreatment and
.....ters rtlass \Ii'aler VI and no retre.ll.tmf:f\t IOf roulld... nen "ater IV:'
Cia", \Ii'.ltef II.
If E.2 ) Eo), CalCium sl.lhte scahnr; ""if I occur .t 92-percent
I! B.2 ) 8.3. CalCIum sulfate )CI.lln! ...111 occur at
percent n recovery. For rcund....ten u:se Ion exchal'l e and
reCOYefY. FOf' lrO'Jnd",Uen, use Ion exchanse {Class W,uer 0. electrochalY$1$ Cla~ '.tef Ill. For surface .....ners, procC'ed to
Fer surta.ce .....ter', proceed to C. F.

(coot inuedl

-167-
 EXA11PLE B- 4

TABLE 4-4. PRETREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION (continued)

F. nw. M'Ctlc.l 1J lor calaum sullatc uturated, h.ll"-UI1CA Jud.cc

__aten.

F.2 If Table 4-' resulu 1fI Column J, uu lime ptetrnlment (CIUli

....Ut VD-.-\).

Fer Column I. prOCNd to G.

FOf Column 2, proce<e<l to H.

G. nus Section IS for C1loum suUate sallXated, l'\Ish-SJhca sudM;.f:

watefl.

G.I Caleulau: tl'ae SWTI of the r.w-water, CAlCium f'Q'K.&J"bonAte

hvdneu MId tl'w: r........ter m~si>..'n ctrlcentr&uon.

G.l : (hem 10 Column I of T&ble 4.') .. (11~ 2 o( Table __ I)

G.I z meq/L .. m"lfl

G.l " mC'q/L

C.2 C.iJculue ll'lc surn 01 d-e raw-wattor su.lf&te plus 0.& me-<;/l.

C.2 " (Item 10 01 Table 4·1) .. (0.6 meq/Ll

C.2 .. rneq/L • 0.' m~l

C.2 ~ meq/L

G.] Deter'ml~ G.', the saturation sulhte tot' trw calCium vl,jue
c.I.JcuJUed In G.L Ent~ Ft!ure ~·I tor a c;a,jc.:urn volJue G.l Uld
proc;z:ed l4Iward 10 the r.... · .. aler 100000lC-sttmgtl"l cur"e. Rlw-
...ater lortlc-Itre<'l(th IS /lem)2 of TAble liI_l. R~ad Ih~
~t .... atil::.\ sWIaa on U1t ord.il'L&te of FIlure '_I.
G.' .. meq/L .. J.atuntion k1lfate

(1 G.2 ~ G.). uu lime prtlrutment {CI.us Watec' vn-.Id.

It F.2) F .J, U$e lime-soda pretreatmerlt IClau "air"!" YO-B).

H. nus Section is lor aJClum sulhte ""'furated, lush lIJic.a Slrface

...atel".

H.I C&!eulatt the sum of the raw_... ater, maa;M5I.Um noncubonate

~cIoeu pha 1.0 meq/l.

H.I : (Item 12 Column 2 of Table __ '1 _ 1.0 meq/L

H.I Z "'eq/L • 1.0 "'e<l/L

H.I = m"lfl

H.2 = (Item 10 of Table '·Il. (0.' mCGIll

H.2 .. meq/L • 0.' me-qlL

H.2 = m"lfl

H.J l)nern'llrtlt the sah.. Ulon sulfate for lhe otlCltun v&1ue
cAoleuJated In H.I. E.1UC'I'" Fllure '-I for a U.JClum v&1ve H.I UH:l
proceed '-4)..... d to t~ raw-water lor\lc-nren~h curve. Raw-
watel" ioniC nrenvh IS II com )2 of Table '-I. Read Ihe
wturatlOl"l sulfate on l~ (Kcllna1e of Fll\lre '_I.
H.) '" meWL '" saturation iu1!ate

H.4 Comp.e H.2 and H.J

If H.2 ! H.l. uJe lime ptelreatmenl (Class Watltf vO-AI.

If H.2;) H.J t un lIme-sodol pretreumC1Tt fClila "at", vn-Bl.

-168-
 EXAMPLE B-4

TABLE 8-1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING

I. Pretreatment Plant Capacity '20 mgd

2
2. Hydraulic Loading Rate of Ion Exchange Units 6 gpm/ft
3. Length of Run [56/(total hardness, meq/Lll
Total hardness = Items I + 2 of Table 4-1 5." hrs
4. Cycle Length [(3) + I] (C ..., hrs
5. On Line Factor for OperatiOflaJ Units [(3)/(4)] O.'~5
6. Total Required Surface Area [(I) x1l6/(5)] ft2
:1.'2'"
7. Number of Ion Exchange Uni ts
[(6)/950, rounded off to the next
largest integer. At flows less than
15-mgd, use 2 exchange units.]
8. Area of Individual Ion Exchange Unit
[ (6)/(7)]
9. Total Number of Ion Exchange Units
(incl. I standby) [(7) + I]
10. Resin Depth 3 ft
II. Resin Volume per Unit [(8) x 3] 212, ft3
12. Operational Resin Volume [(lJ) x (7}J ~ \'t> \ ft 3
13. Total Resin Volume [(lJ) x (9)]
(includes standby)
14. Regenerate Brine (10 percent NaCI)
[(I2l x 144/(4)] 115,1\00 galJons/day
15. NaCI Usage [0.166 x (14») 2~,\,% tons/year
16. Wastewater Volume (backwash and brine) 10
[2,664 x (6l!(4)] 1.0\"0 galJons/day
17. Pretreated- Water Storage Tank Volume
5 1o
[(I) x 1.25 x 10 ] 2.5J/0 gallons
18. Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage (SHMP) 5 mg/L
19. Total SHMP Required [7.61 x (j)] 152.2 tons/yr
20. H 2S0 4 Dosage [0.64 x Item 6, Table 4-1 mg/Ll /fie mg/L
21. Total H S0 required [(20) x (j) x 1.52] 5'\ 5 ~ tons/yr
2 4 •
 EXAMPLE B-4

TABLE 8-2. PRETREATMENT COST WORKSHEET FOR ION EXCHANGE

Desalting Plant Installed Capacity: 1~.2 mgd Date: _

Pretreatment Plant Capacity: ___2...:0,,-_ mgd

A. CAPITAL COSTS

1. Constr oction

(a) Ion exchange plant base cost (from Figure 8-3) $ :l. "10 \.,
(b) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [l()]
297.73 x a $ ~ .1,"/ 0 t.
2. Additives @ 32• .5% of l(b) (includes engineering,
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) $ ,lthN ....
[0.325 x l(b)]
3. Total capital cost [(1) .. (2)] $ ;l.'{",/01.
4. Expected life of facility ~5" years
.5. Interest rate 10 percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2] ,,·/10 I
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x (3)] 1/0,700 $/yr

B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Consumption Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [aJ I o~ ,%00 $/yr

9. Chemicals{SMIl'IP+ ".so., ..
,J"'~"'-(.J!:y _ _ tons/yr _--,--__$/ton 07.IS-poo $/yr
10. Labor [Figure 8-5] nso<> m-hr/yr • 12·()O $/m-hr 11.;2,000 $/yr
11. Energy [b] ;l.:l~IOt. kwh/yr Q .0$ $/kwh I/O,ODO $/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (1 I)]
,
:153'15'OU
)
$/yr

C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

13. Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] "I), ,01) $/yr

14. Annual 0 &. M cost [(12)] :l S} 't;5PV $/yr
15. Total annual equivalent cost [(13) .. (14)] ~'M5,200
, $/yr
16. Unit water costs [c]

(a) Based on pretreatment plant capacity 0·39 $/kgal

127·0 $/ac-ft
(b) Based on desalting plant capacity 0·>0 $/kgal
l'tO'1 $/ac-ft

[a] Multiply Figure 8-4 cost by: [ProJected Producer Price Index/242.1].
[b] Energy requirements are O.ll x 10 kwh/yr/mgd.
[c] $/1000 gal = [(l5)] /[ mgd x 365,000]
$/ac-ft = [$/kgal] x [325.85].
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t " C -~

-170-
TABLE 9-3. COST WORKSHEET FOR PRETREATMENT WASTE DISPOSAL

Method of Disposal: L/~f[) EIJAf'oI!.All'.J p.AJbS Date: _

A. CAPITAL COSTS

I. Construction

(a) Base cost (from Figure 9-1 or 9-4) 'l> "l10r.,

(b) Additional items [a] D.le 'I, 0 lo
(c) Subtotal [J(a) + 1(b)] ;"..1. ), 0 I.
(d) Projected cost = Projected ENR-CCI [l(c)]
297.73 x $ V·/O""
2. Additives @ 32•.5% of J(d) (includes engineering,

3.
legal, fiscal, administrative, interest, etc.) [0.325xl(d)]
Total capital cost [!Cd) + (2)] !~i15... ;~ol.I-
4. Expected life of facility ;J. 0 years
5. Interest rate 10 percent
6. Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) [Table 10-2] 0011'1 'j. .
7. Annual equivalent capital cost [(6) x 0)) I. "IJIO" S/yr
B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

- ConsumptiOn Current Current

Rate Unit Costs Cost

8. Maintenance materials [b] "37, 300 S/yr

9. Chemicals 0 tons/yr '0 S/ton 0 S/yr
10. Labor [Figure 9-2 or 9-.5] 21100 m-hr/yr IJ. S/m-hr 7l etr>o S/yr
11. Energy /. 7'/01.· kwh/yr 0-05 S/kwh 'is". 00 u S/yr
12. Annual 0 &. M cost
[sum (8) through (10] ISI,IOO S/yr
C. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS

Annual equivalent capital cost [(7)] / •., JlO~ S/yr

Annual 0 &. M cost [(I2)] 151" 00 S/yr
Total annual equivalent cost [(13) + (14)] ),SI> ./0'" S/yr

[a] For direct filtration and ion exchange: pump and pipeline between plant site
and evaporation ponds. Use the Dodge Manual published by McGraw-Hill for
costs. No additional costs for lime/lime-soda pretreatment.

[b] Multiply Figure 9-3 or 9-6 cost by: [Projected Producer Price Index/242.1]

-171-
APPENDIX C
 APPENDIX C

DOCUMENTATION OF DESIGN CRITERIA TABLES

TABLE 5-1

_ 6
3. Total Surface Area =:
-"m"'g"'d'-----;;2 x 10 gallons x I day
3 gpm/ft million gallons 1440 min

= mgd x 231

= (J) x 231 ft
2

2
4. Maximum individual filter area = 1,750 ft

8. Backwash Water Volume per Filter = (5) x 10 min x I~~

ft

= (5) x 180 gallons

6
. 10 gallons I day
II. Rapid-Mixer Volume = mgd x I mm x ml·11·Ion g all ons x 1,440 min

= mgd x 700

= (J) x 700 gallons

6
13. ·
FI occu 1atlOn B·
aSJn V0 I ume = mg d x 20· 10 ~allons
mm x ml·11'
x I day
Ion ga 11 ons 1,440 min

= mgd x 1.04 x ]04

= (J) x 1.4 x ]04 gallons

]06 II I day
16. Pretreated Water Storage Tank = mgd x 3 hr x . r ga ~ns x
mIl Ion ga Ions 24 hours
5
= mgd x 1.25 x 10

= (J) x 1.25 x 10 5 gallons

-172-
 TABLE 6-2

6
mgd 10 gal10ns
4. Total Reactor Area = x
2 m il1i on gal10ns
1,440 gpd/ft

= mgd x 700

= (J)x700

5. Maximum Reactor Area= (max. diameter = 112 ft) 10,000 ft2

For design documentation of gravity filters, see criteria under Table 5-1
of this appendix.

TABLE 7-2

See Table 6-2 for documentation of design criteria.

TABLE 8-1

3
3. Resi n Capaci ty = 19,600 grains hardness/ft 3
Resi n Capaci ty = 25,400 meq hardness removed/ft
3
25,400 me hardness/ft x 3 ft dee
Length of Run =
raw water hardness meq/L x 3.785 I x 60 min x 6...BJ?.1:!l.
gal hr ft2

Length of Run (hours) = 56/Raw water hardness, meq/L

4. Cycle Length = Run Length + 1 hour for regeneration

= (3) + 1 hours
mgd 10 6 gallons 1 day
5. Total Surface Area = 2 x x
or Operational Resin 6 gpm/ft mil1ion gal10ns 1,440 min

= mgd x 116/on line factor

2
= [(1) x ]]6/(5)] ft
2
6. Maximum individual ion exchange unit area = 950 ft
3
11. Based on the resin capacity, 6 gal1ons/ft of a la-percent NaCI
solution are requi red per regeneration.
3
Regenerant Solution = Resin Volume x 6 gallons/ft /on line factor

= (10) x 6j(4) gal1ons/day

_171_
13. Fast Rinse wastewater is used for the make-up of backwa~ water + NaCl
regenerant solution. Therefore, 30 gallons of water per ft of resin
are required.
3
Wastewater Volume = Resin volume x number of units x 30 gallons/ft /on
(backwash and brine) line factor

= (IO) x (6) 30/(4) gallons/day

14. Regeneration is accomplished with 6 gallons per cubic foot of a 10 percent

NaCI brine.

= Operational Resin x 6 gal x 24 hrs/day

Brine 3
Volume ft cycle hrs/cycle
Brine = [(12) x 6 x 24/(4)] gallons/day

Brine = [144 x (12)/(4») gallons/day

15. NaCI Usage = Brine gallons x 0.91 lbs NaCl x 365 days/year
day gal 2000lbs!ton

= [0.166 x (14)] tons/year

16. Wastewater Volume (backwash + brine)

For each regeneration:
2 2
(a) Backwash: 5 min @ 6 gpm/ft = 30 gal/ft
2 2
(b) Brine: 20 min @ 0.9 gpm/ft = 18 gal/ft
2 2
(c) Slow Rinse: 10 min @ 2.1 gpm/ft = 21 gal/ft
2 2
(d) Fast Rinse: 20 min @ 4.5 gpm/ft = 90 gal/ft

The last portion of the fast rinse is reclaimed and used for preparation
of the brine and for backwash. The waste production is therefore equal
to:

a +b +c +d- a - b =c +d = 21 + 90 = 111
Wastewater Flow = Operational x III gal x cycles
Area ft2 day
24
= [(6) x III x 1iiT 1 gallons/day

= [2,664 x (6)/(4)) gallons/day

-174-
APPENDIX D
 APPENDIX 0

GLOSSARY

Acidification Addition of acid to any water of a desalting plant, usually

to prevent alkaline calcium carbonate and magnesium
hydroxide scale.

Acidity Quantitative capacity of aqueous solutions to react with

hydroxyl ions. Measured by titration, with a standard
solution of a base to a specified end point.

Acre-Foot The volume of water that would cover I acre to a depth

of I foot (325,850 gallons).

Alkalinity Capacity of water to neutralize acids, due to carbonates,

bicarbonates, hydroxides, and occasionally borates,
silicates, and phosphates. By definition, total alkalinity is
that which will react with acid as the pH of the sample is
reduced to the methyl orange endpoint - about pH 4.3.

Ambient Temperature of surroundings, which is usually assumed to

Temper ature 0
be 70 F when the average temperature is unknown.

Anion Ion in an electrolytic solution that migrates to the anode

and carries a negative charge.

Backwash Process by which water passes through a filtration bed in

the direction opposite to the normal flow. During
backwashing, the granular bed expands, allows previously
filtered material to be washed away.

-175-
Biochemical Oxygen Measure of the concentration of biodegradable organic
Demand (BOD) impurities in wastewater. The amount of oxygen required
by bacteria, while stabilizing organic matter under
aerobic conditions. Expressed in milligrams per liter and
is determined by the amount of oxygen utilized by the
micro-organisms.

Brackis h Water Saline water having a salt concentration ranging from

1,000 mg/L to approximately 10,000 mg/L.

Brine Reject Concentrated flow containing most of the salts from the
Brine Stream
original feedwater and is also called waste brine,
concentrate, and blowdown. Salinity may only be in
brackish range depending on feed water composition and
product water recovery.

Carbonate Hardness Water hardness caused by bicarbonates and carbonates of

calcium and magnesium. If alkalinity exceeds total
hardness, all hardness is carbonate hardness; if hardness
exceeds alkalinity, the carbonate hardness equals the
alkalinity.

Cation Positive ion that migrates to the cathode.

Caustic Soda A common water treatment chemical, sodium hydroxide

(NaOH).

Chemical Oxygen Measure of the required for oxidation of inorganic and

Demand (COD)
organic matter in water and is expressed as the amount of
oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant. Generally
measures both biodegradable and nonbiodegradable
organics. Exceeds the TOC which is a direct measure of
total organic carbon.

-176-
Chemical The phase change in which dissolved species become
Precipitation solids. The solid phase is the precipitate.

Chlorination Application of chlorine to water, generally, for the

purpose of disinfection and, frequently, for chemical
oxidation.

Coagulation The addition of chemicals to aggregate finely divided,

dispersed colloids into larger, rapidly settling particles.
Forces that cause dispersed particles to repel each other
are neutralized by the coagulants.

Colloidal Matter Dispersion of very small (J mlJ to 0.5 lJ) particles in water
that will not settle but may be removed by coagulation,
biochemical action or membrane filtration.

Concentra tion Process of increasing the dissolved solids per unit sol ution
volume.

Concentration Ratio Ratio of the concentrated reject brine salinity divided by

the salinity of the plant feedwater.

Detention Time Average period that a fluid element is retained in a basin

or tank before discharge.

Distr ibution System Pumps, pipes, condui 15, and canals bringing water to the
consumers.

Divalent Ion Ion carrying a double charge which is either positive or

negative (e.g., Mg +2 , SOli - 2) •

Equivalent Weight Gram weight of a substance which combines with or

displaces one gram of hydrogen and is usually obtained by
dividing the formula weight by the valence.

-177-
Feedwater Water entering a plant. See Influent.

Filtration Process of separating solids from a liquid and a porous

substance through which only the liquid passes is used.

Floc Finely divided or colloidal particle formation resulting

from certain chemical-physical or biological operations.

Flocculation Process of aggregating coagulated particles into

settleable flocs, usually of a gelatinous nature.

F ouli ng Inde x Measure of the water tendency to foul a reverse osmosis

membrane, based on times of flow of a specific volume of
feedwater through a 0.45 microm membrane filter at
constant pressure. The Fouling Index equals the Plugging
Factor divided by the time period between aliquate
filtrations, i.e., typically 15 minutes.

Grit Chamber Chamber designed to remove grit and send particles by

gravity settling.

Groundwater Water normally found underground and usually obtained

from wells.

Hardness Characteristic of water imparted by salts of calcium,

magnesium, and iron; these divalent cations cause
curdling of soap, deposition of scale in boilers, damage in
some industrial processes, and sometimes objectionable
taste.

Hydraulic Loading Quantity of flow passing through a column or packed bed,

Rate expressed in the units of volume per unit time per unit
2
area (e.g., gal/min/ft ).

-178-
Hydrolysis Chemical decomposition process involving bond-splitting
and addition of the ions of water.

Influent Water entering a plant. See Feedwater.

Insoluble Mater ials Mater ials which do not or only very slightly dissolve in
water.

Intake Equipment Works or structures at the head of a feedwater conduit

into which water initially enters the plant.

Ion Atom or group of atoms in solution carrying an integral

electrical charge either positive (cation) or negative
(anion).

Ion Exchange Process by which certain ions are absorbed within an ion-
permeable material and are replaced by other ions
contained within the absorbent.

Ionic Strength Empirical measure of solution strength based on both the

concentrations and atomic charges.

Langelier Index Means of expressing the degree of saturation related to

calcium carbonate solubility and a measure of a water's
tendency to deposit or dissolve calcium carbonate.

Leakage Presence in the effluent of a species being removed by an

ion exchanger.

Lime Common water-treatment chemical. CaO (quicklime)

reacts with water produce slaked, or hydrated lime,
Ca(OH)2'

-179-
 Membrane Electrodialysis: semipermeable film permeable to ions of
either positive or negative charge; Reverse osmosis:
semipermeable pJoymeric film that ideally allows the
passage of pure water and blocks the passage of salts.

Micromho Measure of electrical conductance. Mho is the reciprocal

of ohm.

Module Smallest packaged, functional assembly of a plant. A

section or integral portion of a plant which is initially
used to study large-scale technology and critical design
features when preparing for subsequent prototype
construction.

Mole Chemical unit weight or volume corresponding to the

molecular weight.

Monovalent Ion Ion which carries only a single charge, either positive or
negative (e.g., Na+, CI-).

Noncarbonate Hardness in water caused by chlorides, sulfates, and

Hardness nitrates of calcium and magnesium.

Osmosis Natural diffusion through a semipermeable membrane due

to the differences in chemical potentials between two
solutions of differing concentrations. The natural
tendency to equalize concentrations wiJI result in a flow
of solvent from the least 'concentrated solution to the
more concentrated solution.

Per m ea bili ty Ability of a body to pass a fluid.

pH Number indicating the negative logarithm of hydrogen-ion

concentration in a solution. Values greater than
7 indicate a basic (alkaline) solution; values less than
7 indicate an acidic solution.
" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pre----"
-180-
 Pilot Plant An experimental unit of small size, usually less than
100,000 gallons per day capacity, which is used for early
evaluation and development of new processes and to
obtain technical and engineering data.

Plugging Factor A measure of the fouling tendency of a feedwater. It is

equal to 100(Tf-Ti)/T where T is the time to filter
i f
500 ml of feed water through a 0.1f5 microm filter at
30 psi pressure for 15 minutes and Ti is the time to filter
the initial 500 ml through the filter.

Polyamide Polymer formed by polymerization of an amide (e.g.,

ny ion).

Polyelectrolytes Organic chemicals consisting of high-molecular-weight

molecules with many charged groups situated along the
length of the chain. Polyelectrolytes interact with the
fine particles and assist in aggregation into heavier
masses for settling.

Polymer Chain of organic molecules produced by the joining of

primary units called monomers.

Post Trea tm ent Processes that are employed after desalination to reduce
product water corrosiveness.

Potable Water Water that does not contain objectional pollution,

contamination minerals, or infective agents, and is
considered suitable for drinking. Potable water is
typically defined as having a salinity less than 500 mg/L
TDS.

Precipitate Substance separated from a solution by chemical or

physical change and is an insoluble amorphous or
crystalline solid that grows to become settleable.

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pr'C---"

-181-
 Product Final good-quality water from a plant.

Product Recovery See Recovery Ratio.

Recalcination Process for recovering lime and is the heating spent lime
to high temperatures, thereby driving off water of
hydration and carbon dioxide.

Recarbonation Carbon dioxide addition to reduce the pH of lime-treated

water for further calcium removal and/or stabilization.

Recovery Ratio Ratio of the output product fJowrate to the input feed
water flowrate. This ratio is sometimes called the
conversion ratio. Often expressed as a percentage.

Regeneration Term used in ion exchange meaning to return the ion

exchange resin to a condition suitable for removal of
hardness or other ions.

Resin, Ion Ion exchange resins are specific polymeric materials

Exchange
which usually are small beads about 1/32 inch in diameter.

Reverse Osmosis Process that reverses (by the application of pressure) the
flow of water in the natural process of osmosis so that
water passes from the more concentrated to the more
dilute solution.

Salinity 1) Relative concentration of salts, such as sodium

chloride, in a given water; or 2) measure of the
concentration of dissolved mineral substances in water.

Salt Rejection Ability of reverse osmosis membranes to reject dissolved

solids and is usually given as the feed concentration minus
product concentration divided by feed concentration, and
expressed as a percent.

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p t ' C ----

-182-
Scale Precipitate that forms on surfaces in contact with water
as the resuit of a physical or chemical change.

Sedim ent ation Process of gravitational subsidence and deposition of

suspended matter in solution and is usually accomplished
by reducing the liquid velocity. Settling is another
applicable term.

Selectivity Order of a ion exchange preference.

Semipermeable Membrane which is permeable to only certain molecules

Membrane
or ions. Reverse osmosis membranes, for example, ideally
will pass water but not salt. Electrodialysis membranes,
pass ions with a certain charge but not water.

Sil t Densi ty Index SOl is identical to the Fouling Index. It is equal to the
Plugging Factor divided by the total time between
filtration of the aliquotes.

Soda Ash Common water-treating chemical, sodium carbonate

(NaF03)'

Soft Water Water that has a minimal amount of calcium and

magnesium ions. Such waters may contain substantial
amounts of sodium.

Softening Removal of carbonate and noncarbonate hardness from

water.

Solubility Measure of the maximum amount of a certain substance

that can dissolve in a given amount of water or other
solvent at a given temperature.

-183-
Specific Quantitative expression for the solution's capability to
Conductance conduct electricity and it is defined as the conductance of
(Conductivi ty)
a water volume which is I cm long and has a cross
sectional area of I cm 2. Conductivity is usually
expressed in micromhos per cm. See also Micromho.

Specific Gravity Ratio of the density of a substance water density at

specific temperatures.

Stack Alternating array of cation and anion permeable

membranes used in the electrodialysis desalting process.

Stoichiometr ic Ratio of dissolved chemical substances that corresponds

to their combining weights in the theoretical chemical
reaction.

Supersaturated Solution containing more solute than normal would allow

Solution and is in nonequilibrium. The solute has a strong tendency
to come out of solution as crystals until the saturated
condition has been reached.

Surface Water Water in rivers, lakes and ponds.

Suspended Substance Materials which are not dissolved but which are in
or Supended
suspension in the form of finely divided particles.
Solids
Suspended materials may be removed by physical means
such as filtration.

TDS Total dissolved solids and is the sum of all dissolved solid
substances.

-184-
Turbidimeter Instrument for measurement of turbidity, and a standard
suspension is generally used for reference.

Turbidity Opaqueness or cloudiness caused by the presence of

suspended particles in water. The turbidity of a water is
measured by the capacity for scattering light.

Unit Water Cost Cost per unit of product water (e.g., $/kgal or $/acre-
foot).

Valence Number indicating the atomic capacity to combine with

another element.

-185-