APPENDIX A

Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT

Water Research Foundation Project #3114:

Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

UTAH VALLEY WPP

PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT

SPENT FILTER BACKWASH EQUALIZATION AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

SPENT FILTER BACKWASH TREATMENT EVALUATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Pilot studies were conducted at the Utah Valley Water Purification Plant (WPP) located in Orem, Utah for Foundation Project 3114 investigating “Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash”. Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) staff provided logistical and other support to the project team at Environmental Engineering and Technology, Inc. (EE&T) and to the two participating manufacturers during pilot studies at the WPP. Findings from these studies are described in the final Foundation project report. The following PDR will summarize: (a) characteristics of existing SFBW treatment facilities at the WPP, (b) findings from the pilot studies by the two manufacturer participants, and (c) cost and footprint estimates for new SFBW treatment facilities at the WPP based on results from the pilot testing. Drawings are included depicting the plan, profile, and other characteristics for the systems on which the cost and footprint estimates are based.

The reader should note that the cost and footprint estimates assumed that a new building would be constructed to hold the new processes. Since this report will be part of the Foundation report and will hence be viewed by other utilities, it was determined that it would be better to show these estimates for completely new facilities rather than incorporating more site specific conditions necessary for a retrofit option. For the WPP, although there is room to locate the new facilities as indicated, another alternative would have been to retrofit the new facilities into the south end of the SFBW Reclamation Building, the side housing the train with the traveling bridge sludge collectors that is not currently routinely used. However, it was not possible within the scope of this project to include estimates for both retrofit and non-retrofit options. Consequently, in order to make the results less site specific and potentially of more value to other utilities reading this report, only the non-retrofit options were developed and included in this PDR.

The reader should also note that each manufacturer was only able to conduct testing during one time period. In May 2007 Leopold tested one process, and in July and August 2007 Siemens successfully tested two SFBW treatment processes. Since untreated SFBW characteristics were different in the two time periods, the reader should exercise caution in comparing results from one manufacturer to another since they were not compared side-by-side, although it is appropriate to compare the two processes from Siemens to one another since they were treating the same SFBW. Furthermore, results are presented in the Foundation report in a separate PDR for studies conducted in Cleveland, OH. Readers should also exercise caution in comparing results from manufacturers tested at this location versus studies in Orem. It would of course be more desirable to conduct testing with one or more processes in multiple time periods in order to evaluate seasonal impacts. However, since both CUWCD and the two manufacturers donated considerable staff time and equipment just to complete the studies that were conducted, it was not possible to expect either CUWCD or the manufacturers to denote additional time to get these multi-seasonal results.

Summary of Findings

Performance of the pilot tested processes are summarized in Table A.1. Table A.2 summarizes cost and footprint estimates derived from these findings.

These results demonstrate that 2,000 ft² of space is necessary for a ClariDAF system comprised of two 2,000 gpm treatment trains designed at 14 gpm/ft² nominal (i.e., manufacturer) clarification rate and 16 minutes flocculation time, including all space required for flocculation, clarification, chemical feed, air saturation, and other assorted appurtenances. This is about 2.5 times smaller than the area needed for existing treatment (5,000 ft²). The estimated size of the new building to house these facilities is about 3,500 ft² compared with the current 7,650 ft² building, or less than half the size of the existing building. Therefore, though nominally a 14 gpm/ft² system when you consider only clarification area, when you consider the entire footprint impact, the rate expressed relative to the required area for treatment (assuming one train out of service) is 2,000 gpm for a 2,000 ft² area, or 1.00 gpm/ft², versus 0.40 gpm/ft² for the existing SFBW treatment system (2,000 gpm for 5,000 ft² treatment area, including area for one train out of service). Relative to the entire 3,500 ft² building the rate for ClariDAF is 0.57 gpm/ft², versus 0.26 gpm/ft² for the existing 7,650 ft² treatment building. Furthermore, if the Utah Valley WPP evaluates addition of thickening and dewatering facilities in the future (along with a separate evaluation of whether to add DAF to main processes prior to filtration), the solids from the ClariDAF are expected to be high enough (3 to 4 percent solids) that solids from this SFBW treatment process can go directly to dewatering without requiring additional thickening capacity. By contrast, residuals from existing SFBW treatment would probably require thickening prior to being sent to dewatering processes.

Similar evaluations for the CONTRAFAST process indicates that the required footprint for two 2,000 gpm treatment trains is 1,800 ft², or 1.11 gpm/ft² for the nominal 8.5 gpm/ft² facility when expressed relative to total footprint impact for treatment instead of only clarification area. The Trident HSC assumptions included three 1,050 gpm facilities in order to provide the same redundancy assumption (one train out of service), requiring about 2,600 ft² for a nominal 15 gpm/ft² for the entire process (tubes plus AC), or a 0.81 gpm/ft² clarification rate expressed relative to total footprint (with one train out of service). The size of the entire building for either CONTRAFAST or Trident HSC is estimated to be the same as for ClariDAF, hence the rate expressed relative to total footprint of building is also about the same (~0.57 gpm/ft²). In the case of Trident HSC, the costs were developed using standard designs which typically include an area allowance for filtration following the AC portion of the process. For this application it may be possible to eliminate this area, and consequently further reduce the total footprint. For example, it is possible that eliminating the filtration area from the standard Trident HSC design, in this insistence, could reduce footprint to about 1,850 ft² (i.e., a reduction of about 750 ft²), increasing the rate relative to total footprint to about 1.1 gpm/ft². The CONTRAFAST should produce residuals with percent solids comparable to the ClariDAF, and consequently should not require thickening prior to dewatering processes. However, the Trident HSC, unlike the other high-rate processes tested, will produce residuals <1 percent solids, and consequently may require additional thickening if dewatering (other than existing on-site drying beds) is added at the Utah Valley WPP.

Table A.1

Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report

City	Median untreated turbidity (ntu)	Nominal clarification rate (gpm/ft^2)	Residuals concentration (percent solids)	Information source	Polymer needed?	Pilot- or Full-scale?	95 percent <2 ntu
May 2007
Existing tubes	100	0.45	~0.5	This study	^*	Full	Yes
ClariDAF	100	14	4.4	This study	Yes	Pilot	Yes
July and August 2007
Existing tubes	100	0.92	~0.5	This study	^*	Full	Yes
CONTRAFAST	100	12	>5	This study	Yes	Pilot	Yes
Trident HSC (tubes only)	100	3	~0.3	This study	Yes	Pilot	Yes
Trident HSC (tubes + AC)	100	18	~0.3	This study	Yes	Pilot	Yes

^*Impact of treatment without flocculation not reported

Table A.2

Estimated cost and footprint for high-rate SFBW treatment at Utah Valley WPP

Description	ClariDAF	CONTRAFAST	Trident HSC	Tubes (existing)
Design conditions
Number of treatment trains	2	2	3	2
Capacity per treatment train (gpm)	2,000	2,000	1,050	2,000
Nominal clarification rate (gpm/ft^2)	14	8.5	15	1.5
Flocculation time (min)	16	8.4^**	^HH	15
Cost*
Capital ($ million)	9.3	7.6	10.6	n/a
O&M ($ thousand/yr)	180	110	200	n/a
Net Present Worth ($ million)^H	11.4	8.9	13.0	n/a
Footprint (ft^2)
Treatment only	2,000	1,800	2,600	5,000
Building	3,500	3,500	3,500	7,650
Additional thickening required prior to dewatering^I	no	no	yes	yes
Clarification rate (gpm/ft^2)^'
Nominal (i.e., manufacturer)	14	8.5	15	1.5
Relative to “treatment” footprint	1.00	1.11	0.81	0.40
Relative to “building” footprint	0.57	0.57	0.57	0.26

*December 2007 dollars, includes cost of new building and associated appurtenances

^H20 years, six percent interest

^IAssume thickened solids prior to dewatering have to be >1 percent solids

^'One train out of service

^**Solids contact time (i.e., detention time in reactor tank)

^HHNot applicable

EXISTING FACILITIES

The Central Utah Water Conservancy District’s (CUWCD) Utah Valley Water Purification Plant (WPP) located in Orem, Utah utilizes an initial mix with alum and polymer followed by flocculation and granular media filtration. It has a capacity of 80 mgd, including 12 mono-media filters (60 inches of anthracite) with a rated capacity of 7 gpm/ft². SFBW is treated prior to recycle to rapid mix. Filter-to-waste (FTW) is segregated from SFBW in a separate 152,000 gallon equalization (EQ) basin and recycled to rapid mix without treatment. Figures A.1 and A.2 are the site plan and the schematic for the Utah Valley WPP, respectively.

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007

Figure A.1 Utah Valley WPP site plan

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007

Figure A.2 Utah Valley WPP process schematic

The existing SFBW treatment facilities include a 325,000-gallon equalization basin (separate from the 152,000-FTW equalization basin) designed to handle two consecutive backwashes. Polymer is added to equalized SFBW prior to an in-line static mixer, and then flow is diverted to one or both of two parallel trains with two-stage flocculation and a sedimentation basin with tube settlers in each train. One train employs chain and flight collectors for residuals and is operated most of the time. The other train has a traveling bridge sludge collection system that has not been functioning properly and was not being used at the time of the studies for this project. Each side of the existing facility has a capacity to process about 2,000 gpm (1.48 gpm/ft², or ~3 mgd) of SFBW. Untreated SFBW turbidity frequently exceeds several hundred ntu while treated SFBW is typically <2 ntu when polymer is used. The treated effluent is recycled to rapid mix at the head of the plant while solids gravity flow to drying beds. Figure A.3 is a schematic of the existing SFBW handling processes. Figure A.4 shows a plan view of the SFBW treatment building labeled the WWW Reclamation Building by the Utah Valley WPP.

For future design considerations, a 2,000 gpm SFBW treatment system was chosen to replace current capacity. The sizing and costing including two, 2,000 gpm units as is the existing case.

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007

Figure A.3 Utah Valley WPP SFBW treatment facilities schematic

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007

Figure A.4 Utah Valley WPP SFBW treatment facilities (WWW reclamation building)

HIGH RATE SFBW TREATMENT SYSTEMS PILOTED AT UTAH VALLEY WPP

Figure A.5 illustrates the variation in the number of backwash events each month from October 2005 until September 2006. The pilot studies for this project were planned to coincide with periods when the amount of available SFBW was expected to be greatest between May 1 and September 1, 2007 when the amount of available SFBW was predicted to be highest. Leopold tested their ClariDAF unit in May 2007. Siemens tested their CONTRAFAST high-rate clarifier, their Trident HSC adsorption clarifier, and their immersed hollow fiber membrane in July and August 2007. The first three processes listed above were successfully tested but the fourth, submersible membranes, was not successful due to fouling of the membranes attributed to residual polymer in the untreated SFBW. Different membrane materials may be able to treat this SFBW without fouling, but other materials could not be obtained by the manufacturer in time for this study.

Detailed results of the pilot studies are available in the final report for Foundation Project #3114. Portions of the findings are presented below, as well as cost and footprint estimates for construction of new systems at the Utah Valley WPP as an alternative to the existing SFBW treatment system. Each of the existing SFBW treatment system clarifiers have a surface area of 1,350 ft² and a capacity of 2,000 gpm (2.88 mgd), resulting in a maximum clarification rate of 1.48 gpm/ft².

The following costs and footprint estimates are based on including a new building. One reason for this assumption was that since the report was to be included in a report to be viewed by other utilities, it might be better to show as an example the cost for a new system rather than a site specific retrofit. However, other utilities looking to add similar high-rate processes may be able to further reduce cost and footprint impacts by retrofitting these new processes into existing buildings. In fact, at the Utah Valley WPP a logical place to install new SFBW treatment facilities would be to demolish the currently unused portion of the SFBW reclamation facility (the side with traveling bridge sludge collection), and locate the replacement SFBW treatment facilities in this part of the existing building. However, for purposes of this report it was felt desirable to impose as few site specific limitations as possible, like would be needed to evaluate retrofit option, since it was hoped that other utilities reading this report could evaluate costs for a generic, complete facility, without a great deal of site specific implications associated with the developed costs and footprint. In order to show an example of the impact of site specific limitations, the costs and footprint estimates developed for the Ohio portion of this study do include an evaluation of retrofitting high-rate processes into existing plant facilities.

Figure A.5 Number of filter backwash events per month at the Utah Valley WPP (October 2005 through September 2006)

Option A: ClariDAF

ClariDAF is a high rate dissolved air flotation system designed by Leopold. ClariDAF system components and schematic are depicted Figures A.6 through A.8, including a photo of the pilot trailer set-up at the Utah Valley WPP during May 2007 (Figure A.7).

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007

Figure A.6 ClariDAF schematic

Figure A.7 ClariDAF pilot trailer at Utah Valley WPP during May 2007

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007

Figure A.8 ClariDAF pilot schematic

ClariDAF is a high-rate DAF process which can operate at loading rates of 8 to 15 gpm/ft². Clarification rates for this system are based on flow per square foot area occupied by the effluent laterals located at the bottom of the DAF cell. The ClariDAF system utilizes a rapid mix zone where polymer may be added followed by one or more flocculation basins and a DAF Cell. An internal angled baffle wall create a recirculation effect throughout the DAF Cell which increases bubble density and efficient flotation for removal of the “float”. The clarified water exits the system through the laterals and into an effluent channel while the sludge blanket is mechanically skimmed into a collection channel.

Pilot testing results depicted in Figures A.9 to A.10 demonstrated that acceptable performance was achieved at rates up to 14 gpm/ft². Based on these results, a design loading rate of 14 pm/ft² with a 16 min flocculation time was chosen for a 2,000 gpm matching the existing system the at Utah Valley WPP. Pilot testing demonstrated the need for a polymer to meet treated water goals of <2 ntu.

Figure A.9 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF loading rates for SFBW

Figure A.10 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF polymer impact on SFBW

Option A would consist of two, 2,000gpm ClariDAF systems to match current SFBW treatment capabilities. The new system (two units) would have a total footprint of approximately 32 ft by 63 ft or 2,000 ft² which is 2.5 times smaller than the existing 5,000 ft² system. Cost calculations are listed in Table A.3 below. Costs include construction of a new 3,500 ft² (50 ft by 70 ft) concrete building, ClariDAF basin walls, ClariDAF equipment, instrumentation, controls, pumps, and a polymer feed system. Figure A.11 illustrates the potential footprint of a new building north of the main process flocculation basins and east of the existing SFBW (WWW) Reclamation Building. Figures A.12 and A.13 depict the plan view and the profile view of the ClariDAF system.

Table A.3

New ClariDAF SFBW treatment system cost analysis

Item	Capital cost ($)	O&M cost ($/yr)	20-yr present worth ($)
New ClariDAF treatment facility	9,300,000	180,000	11,400,000

Figure A.11 Utah Valley WPP SFBW ClariDAF facilities site plan

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007

Figure A.12 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy)

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007

Figure A.13 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy)

Option B: CONTRAFAST

The CONTRAFAST is a high rate solids contact process manufactured by Siemens Water Technologies. This process involves internal and external recirculation of solids originating in the untreated water. Untreated water and treatment chemicals first enter a mixed solids contact module, followed by a gravity clarification module using tubes. Clarified water passes through the tubes and a portion of the solids collected in the clarification module are recirculated to the solids contact module. Clarification rates cited by the manufacturer typically are expressed relative to the surface area of clarification, but do not take into account total footprint. This report discusses findings relative to the clarification area, and also relative to total footprint. Solids produced from these processes are typically on the order of 3 to 5 percent, or perhaps higher. As with DAF, these solids may not need thickening prior to dewatering, which is of course desirable and will reduce the net impact on plant footprint due to adding one of these processes for SFBW treatment. Figure A.14 depicts the pilot unit evaluated in July and August 2007 including mixing in the center solids contact zone and then clarification via tube settlers in the clarification zone. Figure A.15 is a photo of the pilot testing equipment installed at the Utah Valley WPP during July and August 2007 (CONTRAFAST is the tall module to left of Trident HSC trailer).

Pilot testing results in Table A.4 and Figures A.16 and A.17 show that acceptable performance was achieved at rates up to 12 gpm/ft². The process may have been capable of achieving acceptable performance at higher rates, but this was the upper hydraulic limit for the pilot unit tested. Based on these results, a CONTRAFAST design loading rate of 8.5 gpm/ft² for the 2,000 gpm systems at Utah Valley WPP was used. Testing also demonstrated the need for polymer to meet treated water goals of <2 ntu.

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007

Figure A.14 CONTRAFAST schematic

Figure A.15 Siemens pilot equipment used at Utah Valley WPP during July and August 2007

Table A.4

Summary of Utah studies with CONTRAFAST – July and August 2007

Date			Duration (hours)	Rate (gpm/ft^2)	Recycle (percent)	Polymer dose (mg/L)	Turbidity (ntu)		Treated turbidity ≤ 2 ntu (percent)	Particles >2 µm (particles/mL)
Start	End						Raw	Treated		Median	95^th Percentile	Max	Mean
Impact of polymer dose (Cytec 1883)
08/30	08/30		2.25	8.0	7.3	none	0.0	4.96	37.5	4,778	8,419	8,637	4,837
08/30	08/30		1.50	8.0	7.3	1.5	3.5	0.36	100.0	2,196	2,705	2,759	2,166
08/30	08/30		1.25	8.0	7.3	3.0	4.9	0.43	100.0	2,774	2,810	2,818	2,715
Impact of rate (gpm/ft^2)
07/18	07/21		39.00	4.0	9.0	0.9	90.7	0.71	95.3	377	932	5,389	444
07/23	07/26		47.25	5.0	7.0	1.0	98.2	0.78	95.5	638	1,324	10,979	746
07/26	08/03	^*	57.75	6.0	6.0	2.0	60.9	0.84	96.4	984	3,497	16,188	1,338
08/06	08/07	^*	12.50	6.4	9.0	3.0	43.4	0.68	100.0	1,311	1,713	1,762	1,255
08/06	08/14	^*	7.00	7.0	8.5	3.0	107.8	0.81	100.0	1,797	3,252	3,419	1,917
08/07	08/16	^*	36.50	8.0	7.3	3.3	44.4	0.90	98.0	1,732	2,584	2,948	1,727
08/14	08/16	^*	18.25	9.0	6.5	3.5	41.8	1.03	99.0	2,173	3,448	3,723	1,922
08/17	08/28	^*	28.00	10.0	7.5	3.5	14.5	0.89	95.1	2,067	6,859	9,487	3,149
08/29	08/30	^*	17.25	12.0	6.2	3.0	8.6	0.73	100.0	2,974	4,926	5,490	3,176
08/30	08/30		1.50	14.0	5.4	4.0	3.7	2.78	35.8	5,117	8,137	8,659	5,261

^*Not continuous between these two date

Figure A.16 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST loading rates for SFBW

Figure A.17 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST polymer impact on SFBW

Option B would consist of two, 2,000-gpm CONTRAFAST systems to match current SFBW treatment capabilities. The new system would have a total footprint of approximately 55 ft by 33 ft or 1,800 ft² which is one third the size of the existing 5,000 ft² system. Cost calculations are listed in Table A.5. Costs include construction of a new 3,500 ft² (50 ft by 70 ft) concrete building, CONTRAFAST equipment, instrumentation, controls, pumps, and a polymer feed system. Figure A.18 illustrates the potential footprint of a new building north of the main process flocculation basins and east of the existing SFBW (WWW) Reclamation Building. Figures A.19 and A.20 depict the plan view and the profile view of the CONTRAFAST system.

Table A.5

New CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system cost analysis

Item	Capital cost ($)	O&M cost ($/yr)	20-yr present worth ($)
New CONTRAFAST treatment facility	$7,600,000	$114,000	$8,900,000

Figure A.18 Utah Valley WPP SFBW CONTRAFAST facilities site plan

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007

Figure A.19 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system - two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007

Figure A.20 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system - two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy

Option C: Trident HSC

Trident HSC depicted in Figures A.21 and A.22 is a high rate clarifier system designed by Siemens Water Technologies. This system does not have the filtration or the UV disinfection of the Trident HSC system. The Trident HSC trailer used at the Utah Valley WPP during July and August 2007 was depicted previously in Figure A.15 (see trailer on right of photo).

The Trident HSC is a solids contact clarifier employing buoyant media capable of operating at loading rates of 8 to 18 gpm/ft², as piloted in Foundation Project #3114. The Trident HSC system includes chemical addition followed by removal of particulate material in two clarification stages. The first stage includes a tube settler section followed by passage of the partially clarified water upward through a bed of buoyant plastic media that the manufacturer describes as an “adsorption clarifier” (AC). Five to ten percent of solids collected from tube settler section are recirculated to the front of the process, thereby promoting additional solids contact prior to clarification in the tube settler portion of the process. The subsequent AC portion of the process provides additional mixing, contact flocculation, and solids removal. In other applications, the clarified water from AC will pass through filtration and UV disinfection stages (see Figure A.21). In all applications, the combined residuals solids from the tube and AC clarification sections produces less than one percent solids, typically on the order of 0.5 percent. The Trident HSC provided effective particulate removal during pilot testing, typically producing treated SFBW with <1 ntu, but only when polymer was used (as with other processes evaluated at the Utah Valley WPP during this study).

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007

Figure A.21 Trident HSC schematic

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007

Figure A.22 Trident HSC process schematic

Pilot testing results in Table A.6 and Figures A.23 and A.24 show that acceptable performance was achieved at rates up to 18 gpm/ft². Based on these results, a Trident HSC design loading rate of 15 gpm/ft² at the adsorption clarifier and 5 gpm/ft² at the tube clarifier was used for Utah Valley WPP (the tube section has a clarification area three times higher than AC section, so at a given flow rate in the process the clarification rate in AC section is consequently three times higher). The process did not function properly when tested without polymer.

Table A.6

Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC pilot data for SFBW

Date		Test duration (hours)	Ferric sulfate dose (mg/L)	Polymer type	Median								Percent of results <2 ntu
					Polymer dose (mg/L)	Rate		Turbidity			Particles >2µm
Start	End					Tube	AC	Raw	Tube	AC	Tube	AC	Tube	AC
						(gpm/ft^2)		(ntu)			(particles/mL)		(percent)
Impact of rate
07/19	07/21	23.0		Cytec A100	0.10	3.0	9.0	100.3	0.26	0.22	1,467	1,507	99.1	100.0
07/23	07/26	50.0		Cytec A100	0.12	4.0	12.0	80.6	0.59	0.26	2,432	1,626	92.0	96.2
07/30	08/15	73.0		Cytec A110	0.35	5.0	15.0	93.9	0.71	0.35	2,078	1,752	86.3	95.2
08/08	08/13	22.3		Cytec A110	0.35	6.0	17.9	112.9	0.99	0.48	3,505	1,306	90.0	96.9
08/13	08/14	5.3		Cytec A110	0.35	6.9	20.7	63.5	5.22	3.20	5,232	4,082	12.5	41.2
Impact of Cytec A110 polymer dose
08/15	08/15	2.5		Cytec A110	0.00	5.0	15.1	57.3	7.10	1.73	7,696	No data	18.1	52.4
08/15	08/15	1.3		Cytec A110	0.09	4.9	14.8	81.6	0.69	0.68	1,333	No data	100.0	100.0
08/15	08/15	5.0		Cytec A110	0.18	5.0	15.0	72.2	0.34	0.32	774	No data	89.3	76.6
07/30	08/15	73.0		Cytec A110	0.35	5.0	15.0	93.9	0.71	0.35	2,078	1,752	86.3	95.2
08/06	08/06	4.0		Cytec A110	0.60	5.0	15.1	31.8	0.93	0.41	1,009	1,529	95.5	93.3
Impact of ferric sulfate dose (plus polymer)
08/06	08/06	4.0	0	Cytec A110	0.60	5.0	15.1	31.8	0.93	0.41	1,009	1,529	95.5	93.3
08/06	08/06	2.8	5	Cytec A110	0.60	5.0	15.1	40.7	2.00	0.63	640	1,434	50.0	82.3
08/06	08/06	4.8	10	Cytec A110	0.60	5.0	14.9	86.7	1.74	0.81	1,192	3,325	63.3	90.3
08/06	08/06	1.0	20	Cytec A110	0.48	4.9	14.8	207.4	2.54	0.43	5,103	2,888	43.3	88.0
Impact of polymer type
07/27	07/27	5.8		Cytec 1986	0.66	3.9	11.8	27.0	0.73	0.29	2,611	1,988	89.5	100.0
07/23	07/26	50.0		Cytec A100	0.12	4.0	12.0	80.6	0.59	0.26	2,432	1,626	92.0	96.2

Figure A.23 Impact of Trident HSC clarification rate on SFBW treated turbidity

Figure A.24 Impact of polymer dose on Trident HSC treated turbidity

Option C would consist of three 1,050-gpm Trident HSC systems comparable to current SFBW treatment capabilities. The new system would have a total footprint of approximately 43 ft by 60 ft or 2,600 ft² which is about half the size of the existing 5,000 ft² system. Cost calculations listed in Table A.7. Costs include construction of a new 3,500 ft² (50 ft by 70 ft) concrete building, Trident HSC equipment, instrumentation, controls, and pumps.

Figure A.25 illustrates the potential footprint of a new building north of the main process flocculation basins and east of the existing SFBW (WWW) Reclamation Building. Figures A.26 and A.27 depict the plan view, profile view, and the piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) for the Trident HSC system.

A significant footprint savings could be achieved by eliminating the Buffer Tank basin on the end of the Trident HSC system. This basin is commonly used for chemical addition or pre-membrane supply retention neither of which is needed at the Utah Valley WPP.

Table A.7

New Trident HSC SFBW treatment system cost analysis

Item	Capital Cost ($)	O&M Cost ($/yr)	20-yr Present Worth ($)
New Trident HSC treatment facility	10,600,000	204,000	13,000,000

Figure A.25 Utah Valley WPP SFBW Trident HSC facilities site plan

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007

Figure A.26 Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC 2,100 gpm system

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007

Figure A.27 Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC 2,100 gpm system P&ID