CE484Project_v2

Groundwater Treatment Facility Design Report
Carpinteria
Santa Barbara County, California
OWNER/APPLICANT:
WATER AGENCY
CONSULTANTS
ALEXANDER BAKKEN
KEVIN GIBSON
EVAN ROSCA

GroundwaterTreatmentFacilityDesignReport
Carpinteria,SantaBarbara County,California
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT…………………………………………………………………………..3
B. PROJECT LOCATION DESCRIPTION.………………………………………………………………………….3
II. FINDINGS AND STANDARDS………………………………………………………………………………………….4
A. FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
B. STANDARDS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
III. WATER AND LAND DEMANDS………………………………………………………………………………………5
IV. GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM………………………………6
V. GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PROCESS COMPONENTS…………………………………7
A. WATER PUMPS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
B. PRIMARY DISINFECTION…………………………………………………………………………………………7
C. ULTRAFILTRATION………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
D. SLUDGE HANDLING……………………………………………………………………………………………….10
E. REVERSE OSMOSIS…………….………………………………………………………………………………….11
F. BRINE DISPOSAL………………………………………………………………………….………..………………13
G. ION EXCHANGE……………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
H. ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESS………………………………………………………………………….16
I. SECONDARY DISINFECTION…………………………………………………………………………………..17
J. PIPING…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
VI. LABOR…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
VII. TREATMENT FACILITY/OFFICE BUILDING…………………………………………………………………….19
VIII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………19
IX. COST SUMMARIES………………………………………………………………………………………………………20
A. CHEMICAL COST……………………………………………………………………………………………………20
B. CAPITAL COST AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST………………………………..21
X. LIFE PERIOD AND COST OF WATER……………………………………………………………………………..22
XI. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….23

3
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT
The primary purpose of this report is to provide the Water Agency with a preliminary
design for a groundwater treatment facility. Since the State of California is
promoting the replacement of the State Project Water (SPW) as a means to produce
potable water, it is feasible to state that groundwater is a possible alternative.
The scope of this report is to provide a viable schematic treatment design that
addresses the constituents of concern and cost analysis of the intended design. The
constituents of concern formerly mentioned refers to those that are a potential
threat to public health. It should be noted that the calculations of the quantitative
sizing and cost of the equipment is presented in the attached Appendices.
B. PROJECT LOCATION DESCRIPTION
The groundwater location is roughly half a mile northwest of Carpinteria. The star in
Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the intended groundwater treatment
facility. After geotechnical evaluation, the typography of the land has been
characterized as simple: there are no land or soil characteristics that are outstanding
that may exhaustively interfere with the construction and implementation of the
groundwater treatment facility components. Additionally, the typography exhibits a
slight slope that is suitable for an outfall systemadjacent to the coast when the
treatment facility is oriented beneficially.
Figure 1. Groundwater treatment facility location

4
II. FINDINGS AND STANDARDS
A. FINDINGS
The data obtained from the groundwater analysis is presented below in Table 1.
Additionally, based upon groundwater well monitoring, there will be a sufficient
supply of groundwater for the intended service area.
Table 1. Groundwater characteristics
Contaminant Inflow Condition
Turbidity 1 NTU
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Low
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 1,000 mg/L
Nitrate (measured as Nitrogen) 50 mg/L
Soluble Manganese 0.80 mg/L
1,4-dioxane 10 ppb
pH 6.80 mg/L
Alkalinity 100 mg/L as CaCO3
B. STANDARDS
Table 2 presents the water quality standards based upon the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs), and California Water Quality Monitoring Council’s
standards.

5
Table 2. Water quality standards
Contaminant MCL MCLG
Turbidity < 1 NTU -
TOC < 2 mg/L -
TDS 500 mg/L -
Nitrate (measured as Nitrogen) 10 mg/L 10 mg/L
Soluble Manganese - 0.05 mg/L
1,4-dioxane 1 ppb -
pH - 6.5 - 8.5
Alkalinity - -
III. WATER AND LAND DEMANDS
The service area population is 5,000 people. Assuming an average usage of 100 gallons
per day per capita with a 20% contingency, the water demand of the service area is 0.6
million gallons per day (MGD). However, due to the physical and chemical
characteristics of the groundwater’s constituents reverse osmosis (RO) will be employed
during treatment. As part of RO, water is rejected, or in other words, wasted, and so
the actual capacity of the groundwater treatment facility would need to be
approximately 0.95 MGD in order to satisfy the service area population and counter the
RO rejection.
Considering the equation A ³Q0.7
, in which Q is the water demand in MGD and A is the
land demand of the treatment facility in acres, the land demand would approximately
be 0.93 acres. At a cost of $300 per square feet (ft2), the land demand would cost $12.1
million. Additionally, there will be an assumed rate of $5,000 per year to maintain (i.e.
watering and landscaping) the land.

6
IV. GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Considering the groundwater’s constituents of concern, the groundwater treatment
facility will require advanced treatment in order to adhere to the water quality
standards presented in Table 2. Figure 2 shows the intended process flow diagram.
Figure 2. The groundwater treatment facility process flow diagram
Table 3 presents each treatment processes with their respective target constituent and
the resultant concentration in order to satisfy the water quality regulation
Table 3. Treatment processes and target constituents
Contaminant Treatment Process Resultant Adjustment
Turbidity UF 0.5 mg/L
TOC - -
TDS RO 550 mg/L
Nitrate (measuredasNitrogen) RO, IX 45 mg/L
Soluble Manganese UF 0.75 mg/L
1,4-dioxane RO, AOP 9 ppb
pH - -
Alkalinity - -

7
V. GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PROCESS COMPONENTS
A. WATER PUMPS
The intended groundwater treatment facility will utilize two Watertronics
WATERMAX 7000 pumps. Each pump has the capacity up to 800 gallons per minute
(gpm) or up to 1,152,000 gallons per day (gpd), which can easily support the
intended 0.95 MGD influent. Even though one pump is sufficient, it is beneficial to
maintain an additional one for the sake of redundancy and safety. The pump will
enable the conveyance of the 0.95 MGD from the groundwater source to the
treatment facility. Each pump is $2,500, and the operation and maintenance for
these pumps will be $10,000 per year, which includes energy costs. The yearly cost
of the two pumps will be $15,000.
B. PRIMARY DISINFECTION
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) will be injected into the raw water flow for primary
disinfection. Considering the data obtained from the analysis of the groundwater
source, the total organic carbon concentration is very low, and so it is feasible to
state that disinfection byproducts will not be an issue. A purpose of primary
disinfection is to kill or inactivate bacteria, viruses, and other potentially harmful
organisms in the raw water flow. The term “inactivates” refers to the oxidation of
the organisms’ DNA structure. Due to the former oxidation, organisms are unable to
reproduce, thereby inhibiting growth that may otherwise interfere with the
treatment mechanisms of the facility. Another purpose of primary disinfection is to
oxidize taste-, odor-, and color-causing compounds, such as manganese. The
oxidation of manganese results in manganese dioxide, which is a dark precipitate.
The advantages of using sodium hypochlorite as a disinfectant are storage and
transportation simplicity and disinfectant residual production.

8
By adding sodium hypochlorite to water, the following reaction occurs:
. The hypochlorous acid (HOCl) product is the most
active chemical species for disinfection of the reaction. The chlorine of the
hypochlorous acid is the active oxidizing agent that contributes to the inactivation of
pathogens and the oxidation of soluble manganese.
The sodium hypochlorite will be mixed
into the water flow by an in-line static
mixer. The proposed in-line static
mixer will be Koflo Flanged Static
Mixer Series 275 as shown in Figure 3.
The former mixer will allow for
sufficient chemical blending with
minimal maintenance, no operation,
and without energy input. As a result
of sodium hypochlorite addition to facility’s influent, manganese dioxide will form.
The manganese dioxide precipitate will be removed from the water flow via
ultrafiltration (later discussed). The cost of Koflo Flanged Static Mixer Series 275 is
$1,019 per unit. Assuming the mixers need to be replaced four times a year, the
annual cost will be $4,079.
The sodium hypochlorite will be purchased from ChemDirect. The sodium
hypochlorite will be injected as a 12.5% by weight (or 15% by volume) solution.
Assuming 2 mg/L of sodium hypochlorite is sufficient for inactivation and oxidation
purposes, roughly 8 gpd or 36.2 kg per day will need to be injected into the water
flow. Considering the former quantities and using the sodium hypochlorite from
ChemDirect, which is $3.65 per gallon, the annual cost of sodium hypochlorite for
primary disinfection is $10,658.
Figure 3. Koflo Flanged Static
Mixer Series 275 for sodium
hypochlorite chemical blending

9
After primary disinfection, the water flow may need to be filtered through a granular
activated carbon (GAC) filter in order to remove residual free chlorine that may
interfere with the RO process. Due to the preliminary nature of this report, a size
and price of a GAC would be inaccurate. Studies must be performed once the plant
is constructed and implement to accurately size GAC filters.
C. ULTRAFILTRATION
Ultrafiltration (UF) is an osmotic pressure process that will be used to treat the
groundwater supply. The UF functions by pressuring a water flow through a media
that retains constituents. The UF of the intended groundwater treatment facility will
remove manganese dioxide precipitates and turbidity. The UF will reduce the load
of the RO process
Due to the 66% recovery of the
RO system (discussed later),
and 95% recovery of UF, the
UF system will be sized at 0.95
MGD. The UF system
proposed will be Dow™
IntegraPac™ Skid IPD-77-16 as
shown in Figure 4. The former
UF is capable of treating 1
MGD. This unit operates at a
max pressure of 93.75 pound
per square inch (psi), whereas the RO membrane selected for the groundwater
treatment facility operates at a max pressure of 600 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig). The IPD-77-16 model contains a larger membrane than the IPD-51. The D
signifies that it is certified for municipal water treatment, and 16 means that there
are 16 membranes in each skid. The UF system is capable of filtering out solutes
Figure 4. Dow™ IntegraPac™ Skid IPD-77-16

10
larger than .03 microns. There will be no bypass for MF/UF filters, meaning that the
system must be regularly backwashed. The operating manual suggests backwash
every 20-60 minutes, and so 40 minutes is a safe assumption for slow TDS
concentration, which is exhibited by the intended groundwater supply. The IPD-77-
16 skid system does not include a pump. Each skid will require a pump capable of
delivering 313 GPM at just below 90 psi. Dow Water and Process is located in
Michigan, but they likely have a warehouse and representatives in Southern
California, which is beneficial to consider when replacement or repairs might be
necessary. The total capital cost for the UF treatment process is $724,000. The total
annual operation and maintenance for the UF treatment process is $16,342.38.
D. SLUDGE HANDLING
Sludge produced by the UF will be conveyed by a series of pipes to a sludge drying
bed. The purpose of the sludge drying bed is to reduce the mass that will need to
transported by providing a space for the evaporation of water. Since there are no
contaminants in the water that would classify as hazardous waste, the sludge
generated from the backwashing of the UF filters can be disposed of in landfills,
lagoons, or applied to agricultural fields. Current practice in the US is to size sludge
drying beds with dimensions of 15–60 feet (ft) wide by 50–150 ft long, and vertical
side walls. Furthermore, ~6 inch (in) of sand is placed over ~1 ft of a coarser gravel.
Due to the minimal concentration of turbidity and total organic carbon of the
influent, the sludge drying bed will be 20 ft by 60 ft beds of 1 ft thickness, and 1 ft
high walls. The facility will have 2 sludge drying beds. Using the cost concrete to
create the sludge drying beds will be $12,224.00.

11
E. REVERSE OSMOSIS
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a process by which the natural tendency of water to flow
from a low concentration region to a high concentration region is reversed using
pressure. By forcing water from the high concentration to the lower concentration
one will dilute the concentration of the lower concentration even more. The typical
pore size of RO is between 1 and 10 Angstroms or 100 and 1000 picometers. The
pores in RO membranes are only large enough to let water in, however some
squeezing of certain ions can occur. Nitrate is one of these ions. RO typically has a
nitrate rejection value of 70%. Since the source has 50 mg/L, the amount of nitrate
leftover after the RO process is 15 mg/L. The MCL and MCLG for nitrate is 10 mg/L,
therefore the RO alone is not sufficient to adhere to the regulated level. In order to
ensure sufficient nitrate removal ion exchange (IX) will be employed (discussed
later). It is because RO membrane cleaning is arguably easier and typically cheaper
than IX column regeneration, that put IX will be after RO.
The proposed RO is a turnkey skid system. The design has been proven that once
the skid arrives it simply needs to be adjusted to operating conditions. The chosen
vendor addresses these adjustments and all warranty concerns. The selected
vendor, AMPAC USA has a 100,000 gpd RO skid designed for municipal brackish
water treatment. The groundwater treatment facility will utilize 6 skids in order to
supply 600,000 gpd. AMPAC USA is selected because they are located in the Los
Angeles area, and so the proximity to the facility is approximately 100 miles. This
drastically decreases shipping costs and should any system failures occur, repairs
would be addressed promptly. The estimated total cost of the 6 skids is
$1,706,184.00. After purchasing 5 additional membranes. The total capital cost for
the skids and excess membranes is $1,710,133.50.

12
The skids will utilize Dow FilmTec BW30-400
membranes as shown in Figure 5. The
membranes are fouling resistant and certified
for municipal brackish water treatment.
However, the free chlorine tolerance is less
than 0.1 part per million (ppm), therefore
pretreatment with GAC may be necessary
following primary disinfection as discussed in
the Primary Disinfection section. Each
membrane has a daily flow of 10,500 gpd, therefore it is assumed that each skid
contains 10 membranes, for a total of 60 in use at a time. The groundwater
treatment facility will need a total of 65 membranes in case of membrane failure.
Every 3 to 7 years the filters will need to be replaced, given the low level of turbidity
and total organic carbon, an assumption of 5 years is feasible, and will cost
$51,343.50, or $8,557.25 per year after first set of membranes, which is included in
the capital cost estimation.
The groundwater treatment facility is designed under a RO 66% recovery. Therefore
the size of the UF treatment prior to the RO systemwill be 0.95 MGD. The cost
analysis assumes a conservative estimate that the energy usage will be 1.75
kilowatt-hour per kilogallon (kWh/kgal). Given the groundwater treatment facility
size and Southern California Edison electricity price of $.09/kWh, the total annual
energy cost is $34,516.13 per year.
Chemical cleaning of the RO membranes will take place when a 10% decrease in
effluent volume occurs, or when a 20% decrease in effluent quality occurs. The
groundwater treatment facility design assumes that the former will occur every
other month. The membranes will be cleaned in place, and therefore will be
cleaned one skid at a time. Cleaning will be performed at night when water demand
Figure 5. Dow FilmTec
BW30-400 membrane

13
is typically at its minimum. Because the facility will be chemically cleaning regularly
and the water exhibits low turbidity and relatively low total dissolved solids, the
design assumes that the total cleaning time will be minimized, making a total of 5
hours for each of the two cleaning chemicals.
The capital cost for RO cleaning chemicals will be $21,600. The operational and
maintenance cost for RO cleaning chemicals will be $720/year. The total capital cost
for the RO treatment process is $1,731,733.50. The total operation and
maintenance for the RO treatment process is $43,793.38.
F. BRINE DISPOSAL
A result of RO implementation is brine. Since the intended RO systemexhibits a 66%
recovery, there will be 0.32 MGD brine rejection that will need to be disposed of. In
order to handle the rejection, the groundwater treatment facility will utilize an
ocean outfall pipe. The outfall systemwill exhibit a diffusion design in order to
reduce the impact on the local marine environment. The will be injected at various
points along a pipeline that runs a couple of miles out into the ocean. The former
action will be needed because if all the brine is discharged at a single point source, it
will cause drastic change in the salinity concentration, thereby making it detrimental
to the aquatic life at that particular location.
The construction of a new outfall with diffusers has been found to be $5,500,000 per
MGD for facilities treating one MGD or less according to Watereus.org. Since the
size of the intended groundwater treatment facility is 0.6 MGD, the total cost of the
outfall would be $3,300,000. However since this report was prepared for seawater
reverse osmosis (SWRO) and not brackish water reverse osmosis (BWRO), the
recovery rate of our facility is twice that of discussed model. Therefore, it is feasible
to assume the real cost for outfall systemfor the intended groundwater treatment

14
facility is half, or $1,650,000. The former amount is categorized as capital cost and
includes equipment and construction costs.
G. ION EXCHANGE
To ensure sufficient nitrate
removal after RO treatment,
an ion exchange system will
be employed. The proposed
ion exchange system will be
Res-Kem’s Zeo-Tech Nitrate
Removal ZTN78 model as
shown in Figure 6. A single
unit for the model has the
capacity to treat up to 460
gpm, which is adequate for
the facility’s intended 416 gpm; however, for redundancy and safety purposes, it is
beneficial to have two units. The ZTN78 model is includes, but not limited to, a brine
tank for resin regeneration solution storage, flow sensors, inlet and outlet pressure
gauges, and sensor initialed regeneration. The former features allow for simple
operation and maintenance, thus reducing operator training requirements.
The ion exchange system functions by containing a resin that has a great affinity for
anions. This affinity causes the resin structure to retain the anions, thereby
removing them from the water flow. Once the ion exchange systemas achieved its
nitrate-removing capacity, brine must be ran through the system to regenerate the
resin.
Considering the data obtained from the analysis of the groundwater source, sulfate
constituents are minimal or non-existent, and so there will not be an issue of nitrate
Figure 6. Res-Kem Zeo-Tech Nitrate Removal
ion exchange ZTN78 model (multiple units)

15
ions competing with sulfate ions for the exchange sites on the resin. Bearing the
former expectation in mind, it is recommended that a Strong Base Anion Type II
(SBA-2) resin be selected. SBA-2 resin has a high capacity for anions, and therefore
regeneration is less frequent. The fundamental reaction for the SBA-2 is as follows:
where X- may be hydroxide or chloride ions and An- is the intended nitrate ions.
With regards to the treatment facility at hand, as the water flows through the ion
exchange system, nitrate ions dislodge the hydroxide or chloride ions from the resin
structure, thereby adhering to the resin structure and freeing the hydroxide or
chloride ions. The hydroxide or chloride ions are then washed with the ion exchange
effluent. A hydroxide or chloride solution will need to be held in a brine storage
tank for when regeneration is necessary.
The ZTN78 model consists of a 78 in vessel diameter, 83 – 100 ft3 resin volume, and
4 in inlet/outlet pipe size. The continuous flow will be 3 gpm/ft3. The brine storage
tank for each ion exchange unit will be cylindrical with a diameter of 72 in and a
height of 46 in. The ion exchange resin regeneration frequency will be contingent on
the resin’s nitrate-removing capacity; additionally, the resin will need to be replaced
depending on its effectiveness after a particular number of years of operation. The
two former parameters may be determined after an operational time period and
noting the information provided by the flow sensors and pressure gauges.
Each ion exchange unit will cost $105,000, therefore the two ion exchange will be
$210,000. An additional $2,500 will be considered for repair and maintenance
expenses. The Strong Base Anion Type II resin is priced at $0.90 per liter. Since the
resin volume may be assumed to be 100 ft3 and be changed four time a year, the
annual cost for resin for one unit will be $10,193. Additionally, the volume of the
ion exchange brine tank will be 109 ft3, the total brine volume may be assumed to

16
be consumed once a week, and the resin unit price for resin is $0.60 per liter.
Considering the former parameters, the annual brine cost for one ion exchange unit
will be $96,280.
H. ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESS
In the intended groundwater treatment facility, an advanced oxidation process of
ultraviolet (UV) radiation and hydrogen peroxide will be employed. UV radiation is
effective for the facility’s influent due to the low turbidity levels. A disadvantage to
UV radiation is that when turbidity levels are high, the particles in the water can
deflect the UV light, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the treatment. However,
due to the data obtained from the groundwater analysis, high turbidity levels will
not be typical.
Hydrogen peroxide will be added to the water first, and then UV light will help
catalyze the dissociation of H2O2 into hydroxyl radicals (OH*). These hydroxyl
radicals are strong oxidizing agents, which are capable of destroying many organic
and inorganic contaminants. The primary purpose of this AOP is to target the 1,4-
dioxane present in the influent groundwater. When UV light interacts with the
hydrogen peroxide, the follow reaction occurs .
The key components for a UV/H2O2 systemdesign include the hydrogen peroxide
dosage, UV lamp, irradiation intensity, reactor contact time, and a control system to
maintain the temperature and pH. The hydrogen peroxide will be injected into the
water flow prior to entering the AOP tank where the water will be irradiated with UV
light. The AOP tank will have dimensions of 6 ft by 14 ft, with a depth of 10 ft. The
former dimensions were calculated for a flow of 0.6 MGD, and a retention time of 15
minutes (min). The tank will be made out of concrete, with walls of one foot
thickness, which means 568 cubic ft of concrete will be needed to create the tank.

17
Concrete will be purchased from CHENG Concrete at $4.00 per cubic ft of concrete,
and therefore the price to make the AOP tank will be $2,272.00.
When continuous contaminant removal is required, low-pressure high-output lamps
are recommended. The facility will utilize 5.5 Watt 2 ⅛” UV Lamps (ACE no. 12132-
08). The pricing is $566.79 per lamp. There will be two rows of the lamps, and one
lamp per two feet of length (14 ft), for a total of 14 lamps.
The hydrogen peroxide must be transported and stored in stainless steel, aluminum,
or polyethylene containers. This is because spontaneous ignition and/or combustion
can occur with hydrogen peroxide when it comes into contact with certain
flammable substances (wood/paper), organic substances (alcohols, acetones,
aldehydes), and metals (lead, chromium, sodium, potassium, nickel, and gold,
among others). The facility will be using a 0.29 g/L stock solution of hydrogen
peroxide that is created by mixing 30% H2O2 with reagent grade water. The dosage
of hydrogen peroxide used will be 5 mg H2O2 per liter of water. The hydrogen
peroxide will be purchased from Zhengzhou Qiangjin Science And Technology
Trading Co., Ltd at $350.50 per metric ton.
I. SECONDARY DISINFECTION
Prior to public distribution, the treated groundwater is conveyed to a clearwell
reservoir for storage and chlorine contact time purposes, which may be referred to
as secondary disinfection. The chlorine contact time allows for further bacteria,
viruses, and other potentially harmful organisms inactivation.
According to EPA and California Water Quality Monitoring Council’s standards, a 3-
log inactivation of giardia cycts needs to occur for secondary disinfection; a 3-log
inactivation refers to a 99.9% inactivation. In accordance with EPA Concentration x
Time (CT) tables, in order to achieve a 3-log inactivation of giardia cycts by free

18
chlorine of the treated groundwater, the CT value is 56 min-mg/L when 1 mg/L of
free chlorine is added.
Since sodium hypochlorite will be used for primary disinfection, sodium hypochlorite
will also be used for secondary disinfection. Similar to primary disinfection, a Koflo
Flanged Static Mixer Series 275 as shown in Figure 3 will be used to mix the sodium
hypochlorite. The cost of Koflo Flanged Static Mixer Series 275 is $1,019 per unit.
Assuming the mixers need to be replaced four times a year, the annual cost will be
$4,079.
To obtain 1 mg/L of free chlorine, approximately, 4 gpd or 18.2 kg per day of sodium
hypochlorite will be injected into the water flow. Considering the former quantities
and using the sodium hypochlorite from ChemDirect, the annual cost of sodium
hypochlorite for secondary disinfection is $5,329.
Bearing in mind the CT value of 56 min-mg/L when 1 mg/L of free chlorine is added,
the detention time of the clearwell approximately one hour. Since the detention
time is one hour, the volume of the clearwell will be 3,345 ft3, and therefore the
clearwell will be 11 ft x 18 ft x 17 ft. Assuming 1 ft thick walls, the total volume of
concrete needed is 376 ft3. It can be assumed that the cost of concrete may be $93
per cubic yard (yd3) since that was national average of concrete in 2013; therefore,
the cost of the clearwell will be $1,295.
J. PIPING
The piping for the facility is not proposed in the report due to the unknown exact
typography of the land. Depending on the typography of the land, pipes may be
sloped appropriately at a certain length to utilize gravity and ensure beneficial water
flow. The amount of excavation should be monitored to accomplish the former. By
using gravity as beneficially as possible, one can lowering the expenses spent on

19
pumping costs, while reducing the risk of water surges, cavitation due to pressure
differentials, and water hammers.
VI. LABOR
For the operation of the facility, it is safe to assume three workers, and the facility will
be operated 24/7. The workers will work three different shifts on a weekly
rotation: 12:00 am - 8:00 am, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, and 4:00 pm - 12:00 am. They will all
be paid the same annual salary of $80,000, which leads to an annual labor cost of
$240,000.
VII. TREATMENT FACILITY/OFFICE BUILDING
The groundwater treatment facility will consist of the main treatment facility, where
materials will be stored and the equipment/machinery will be constructed, and well as a
one-story office building. The costs for constructing these buildings were estimated
based on the average cost per square footage for constructing office buildings in Los
Angeles, which should be a very conservative estimate, as the location of the
groundwater treatment facility isn’t actually in downtown Los Angeles. The office
building will be one story, and 200 ft by 300 ft, for a total of 60,000 square feet. At
$186.21 per square feet, the estimated cost for constructing the office building is
$11,172,600. There will be an assumed annual rate of $10,000 for building repairs and
maintenance.
VIII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Additional parameters and components should be considered for the intended
groundwater treatment facility; however, they are not part of the scope of this
preliminary report. These parameters and components include, but are not limited to,
emergency and safety measurements, parking lot construction for office building,
worker benefits, supplemental flowmeters, pressure gauges, comprehensive
redundancies of equipment components, automatic and manual valves, cost of

20
equipment and chemical transportation, additional energy expenses, and
implementation of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) programs.
IX. COST SUMMARIES
A. CHEMICAL COST
A summary of the utilized chemicals is presented in Table 4. The unit prices of the
chemicals were derived from the corresponding vendor discussed in Section V.
Table 4. Chemical cost summary
Chemical Usage Unit Price
Quantity
per day
Quantity per
year
Total Yearly
Cost
12.5% Sodium
Hypochlorite
Primary and
Secondary
Disinfection
$3.65/gal 12 gal 4,380 gal $15,987
Strong Base Anion
Type II Resin
Ion Exchange $0.90/liter - 11,324 liter $10,192
Brine Solution Ion Exchange $0.60/liter - 160,466 liter $96,280
Food Grade Citric
Acid Monohydrate
Reverse Osmosis $850/ton - 324 kg $475
EDTA Reverse Osmosis $235/kg - 54 kg $245
Hydrogen Peroxide
AdvancedOxidation
Process
$350/ton 11,360 g 4.2 tons $15,453
Total: $138,631

21
B. CAPITAL COST AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST
A summary of the capital cost and operations and maintenance cost is presented in
Table 5. The construction and installation costs accounts for 50% of the cost of the
equipment and offices; additionally, the permitting accounts for 3% of the total
costs of equipment and office.
Table 5. Capital Cost and Operations and Maintenance Cost
Process Capital Cost Yearly O&M
Pumping $5,000 $10,000
Primary Disinfection $1,428 $14,734
Ultrafiltration $724,000 $16,342
Sludge Handling $12,224 $2,500
Reverse Osmosis $1,731,734 $43,793
Outfall $1,650,000 -
Ion Exchange $218,800 $108,996
Advanced Oxidation Process $12,160 $14,160
Secondary Disinfection $2,519 $10,405
Total Process Cost $4,357,865 $220,931
Land $12,138,887 $5,000
Labor $240,000 -
Offices $11,172,600 $10,000
Construction and Installation $9,944,165 -
Permitting $465,914 -
Total Housekeeping Cost $33,961,566 $15,000
Total Treatment Facility $38,319,431

22
X. LIFE PERIOD AND COST OF WATER
The cost of producing potable water from the groundwater supply with the intended
groundwater treatment facility design was calculated by computing the present values
of the capital cost (assumed to be present) and operations and maintenance cost with a
projected useful life of 30 years and an interest rate of 7%. Using a net present value
analysis, the cost of producing 1000 gallons is $6.29.
The current cost of producing 1000 gallons in Los Angeles is approximately $3.75. The
cost estimate of the report is larger; this may be due to the advance nature of the
groundwater treatment facility and the conservative cost estimations made throughout
the report.

23
XI. REFERENCES1
Pump
"WaterMax 7000." Watertronics. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
<http://www.watertronics.com/watermax-7000>.
Primary and Secondary Disinfection
"Inline Static Mixers, Series 275." Inline Static Mixers. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
<http://www.koflo.com/static-mixers/flanged-industrial-mixers.html>.
Sodium Hypochlorite Supplier
"ChemDirect." ChemDirect. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
<http://chemdirectusa.com/SodiumHypochlori
Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis
Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
<http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_0912/0901b80380912
86a.pdf?filepath=liquidseps/pdfs/noreg/795-50111.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc>.
Outfall System
Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
<https://www.watereuse.org/sites/default/files/u8/WateReuse_Desal_Cost_White_Pap
er.pdf>.
Concrete
"Concrete Price Considerations- Cost of Concrete." Concrete Prices. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
<http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete-prices.html>.
Advanced Oxidation Process
1 References appear in the order used in the report rather than alphabetical order and the
italicized phrases refers to the section reference is used

24
"12132-08 5.5 Watt 2 1/8" UV Lamp."Laboratory Glassware and Scientific Equipment
from Ace Glass, Inc. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. <http://www.aceglass.com/html/detail/12132-
08.php>.
CT Tables
Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
<http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/upload/2001_01_12_mdbp_pro
file_benchpt4.pdf>.
Office Building
"Models." RSMeans. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
<http://www.rsmeans.com/models/warehouse/california/los-angeles/>.

CE484Project_v2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to CE484Project_v2

Similar to CE484Project_v2 (20)

CE484Project_v2