APPENDIX C Dispersion Modeling of Discharged Brine
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL REPORT APPENDIX C Dispersion Modeling of Discharged Brine Smart Solutions for Engineering, Science and Computing Numerical Brine Dispersion Modeling in the Shubenacadie River Martec Technical Report # TR-07-12 March 2007 Management System Certified to: I SO 9001:200 Smart Solutions for Engineering, Science & Computing Martec Limited tel. 902.425.5101 1888 Brunswick Street, Suite 400 fax. 902.421.1923 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3J8 Canada email. [email protected] www.martec.com 1.0 Numerical Brine Dispersion Modeling in the Shubenacadie River The numerical modeling of brine dispersion in receiving waters of the Shubenacadie River is based on the USEPA supported Cormix Modeling System (Jirka et. al., 1996) for near-field mixing predictions, and a detailed RMA 10/11 finite element hydrodynamic/water quality river model (United States Waterways Experimental Station Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory) to quantify far-field dispersion. Various outfall configurations were considered as potential designs for brine discharge in the Shubenacadie River. These included the following: Option # 1 Submerged Outfall at mid-channel and shore-attached. Option # 2 Submerged Diffuser positioned across the river width (perpendicular diffuser) and along the riverbank (parallel diffuser). In addition, multi- staged diffuser configurations were considered where ports operate only under specific ambient and discharge conditions. Option # 3 Shore-attached discharge from pre-mixing pond. A mid-channel single outfall as well as the perpendicular diffuser were not considered feasible options due to the potential problems associated with sedimentation covering the outfall or ports, erosion, potential damage to the pipe from ice flows, difficulties associated with laying or directional drilling of the pipe or diffuser across the river and the required annual maintenance. For these reasons, only shore-attached outfalls were considered feasible layouts for the three options described above. The Cormix Modeling System provides detailed mixing analysis of dense (negatively buoyant) discharges in steady and unsteady receiving waters and can account for bottom density current mixing with sloping bathymetry. Until recently, very little guidance has been documented in the literature concerning the dispersion of negatively buoyant jets in receiving water environments. However, Jirka (2007) has developed guidelines for the optimal discharge configuration for brine effluents in the marine environment for single and multiple port (diffuser) configurations. These guidelines can be incorporated directly into Cormix with results assessed in terms of efficiency of mixing and the ability of the receiving water environment to assimilate the brine discharge. For submerged outfalls, better mixing efficiencies can be attained with high-velocity discharges in relatively deep water. Previous researchers (Zeitoum et al., 1970 and Roberts et al., 1997) have found that an optimal outfall or port angle with a 60o inclination provides the highest dilution of negatively buoyant jets. However, Cipollina at al. (2005) and Jirka (2007) have found that the negatively buoyant jet inclination should be in the range of 30o to 45o above horizontal in order to provide good trajectory of the effluent as well as a high degree of mixing at the point of impingement on the bottom slope. The lower angle of inclination also provides considerably flatter trajectories, thus allowing the discharge to be located in much smaller ambient depth conditions. 2 Detailed studies by Zhang and Baddour (1998) for negatively buoyant jets have also shown that a high Froude Number (non-dimensional parameter for jet densimetric characteristics) greater than 10, with a recommended range between 20 to 25, produces an efficient jet with improved dilution in the near-field. Similar to a high Froude Number, the US Energy Department has recently recommended that submerged brine discharges be designed with a minimum jet velocity of 9 m/sec to encourage jet mixing and higher dilution in the near field. In addition to these recommendations, Jirka (2007) recommends that the outfall be designed such that the upper jet boundary Zmax be no higher than 75% of the local water depth (Figure 1.0). This prevents surface interaction effects with the plume which can actually cause a visible “boil” and a lower dilution than if interaction does not occur. Figure 1.0 Schematic of Negatively Buoyant Brine Discharges (after Jirka, 2007) Outfall Option # 3 considers a shore-attached surface discharge of brine from a pre-mixing pond where the saturated brine (260 ppt) is diluted to 25 ppt before being released into the river. Numerically, this type of configuration was previously difficult to model in the older versions of Cormix due to limitations in the theory. However, a recent March 2007 release of the model allows negatively buoyant surface discharges to be modeled and includes for the effects of sloping seafloor and bottom density currents. Sensitivity analysis of this model for various surface discharge and ambient conditions are currently underway. 3 1.1 Shore-Attached Submerged Single Outfall (Option # 1) Numerical modeling of brine discharge was carried out for a series of discharge end-of-pipe conditions to establish salinity concentrations above ambient at different downstream locations. The brine was considered saturated with a corresponding salinity of 260 ppt and density of 1200 kg/m3. The general configuration of the shore-attached submerged outfall is presented in Figure 2.0. In order to reduce interaction of the plume with the riverbank, the submerged outfall modeled is located approximately 20 meters from the top of the East Bank with an outfall height of 0.5 meters above the river bottom (geodetic elevation of 3.22 m) Figure 2.0 Schematic of Shore-Attached Submerged Single Outfall The end-of-pipe conditions considered are shown in Table 1.0 with saturated brine volume rates of 6,000 m3/day and 9000 m3/day mixed with various brackish feedwater dilutions (a total of 6 discharge cases). Three receiving water conditions were considered for each discharge case giving a total of 18 overall discharge cases considered. The receiving water conditions were obtained from the flow and water elevation measurements carried out at the site on November 6 and 30, 2006. Figure 3.0 depicts the dispersion results for Case 1.0 showing the salinity above ambient as a function of distance downstream for discharge case #1 for the three river conditions A, B, and C identified in Figure 3.0. Similar plots were generated for Cases 2.0 to 6.0. A summary of the results of the analysis for all 18 discharge cases is given in Table 2.0. The bottom three rows in the table give the salinity values (above ambient, Sa = 10 ppt) expected for each case at 10 m, 100 m and 1000 m downstream of the outfall. 4 Figure 3.0 Discharge Case #1 – Salinity Above Ambient 5 Table 1.0 Numerical Water Quality Simulation Cases End-of-Pipe Discharge Conditions for Various Cases of Saturated Brine Solution Diluted with Brackish River Water (Feedwater) Discharge Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 Saturated Brine Volume Rate (m3/day) 6,000 6,000 6,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 @260 ppt Brackish River Water Volume Rate (m3/day) 0 3,000 6,000 0 4,500 9,000 @10 ppt Total Volumetric Discharge (m3/day) 6,000 9,000 12,000 9,000 13,500 18,000 Total Volumetric Discharge (litres/sec) 69.4 104.2 138.8 104.2 156.3 208.4 Total Brine Concentration (ppt) 260.0 176.7 135.0 260.0 176.7 135.0 Discharge Density (kg/m3) 1,200 1,133 1,101 1,200 1,133 1,101 Receiving Water Conditions for each Discharge Case River Condition A – Flood Flow (750 m3/sec) and Water Elevation (7.0 m) River Condition B – Ebb Flow (400 m3/sec) and Water Elevation (6.2 m) River Condition C – Ebb Flow (200 m3/sec) and Water Elevation (5.0 m) Total Number of Discharge Cases Simulated = 18 A variable brine discharge rate was modeled for each receiving water condition such that during high river flows and elevations greater volumes of brine were released into the receiving waters. Due to the limited water depth at the outfall site, jet velocities exiting the outfall are relatively low, particularly during low water conditions when the brine discharge is throttled back to lower rates. Although the reduced jet velocity prevents interaction with the river surface, it also creates inefficient mixing conditions in close proximity to the outfall. Predicted Froude Numbers for the 18-discharge cases range from 1.5 to 12, well below the recommended range of 20 to 25. 6 Table 2.0 Summary of Near-field 3-Dimensional Dispersion Modeling Results (Option # 1) Discharge 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C Case No. Saturated Brine Rate 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 (m3/day) Feedwater Rate 0 0 0 3000 3000 3000 6000 6000 6000 0 0 0 4500 4500 4500 9000 9000 9000 (m3/day) Total Discharge 6000 6000 6000 9000 9000 9000 12000 12000 12000 9000 9000 9000 13500 13500 13500 18000 18000 18000 (m3/day) Discharge Salinity 260 260 260 177 177 177 135 135 135 260 260 260 177 177 177 135 135 135 (ppt) Outfall Diameter 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.60 (m) Discharge Angle 45 45 45 40 40 40 35 35 35 40 40 40 35 35 35 30 30 30 (o) River Flow +750 -400 -200 +750 -400 -200 +750 -400 -200 +750 -400 -200 +750 -400 -200 +750 -400 -200 (m3/sec) Froude Number 12.0 9.0 4.5 9.9 7.4 3.7 7.4 5.6 2.8 7.9 5.9 3.0 5.4 4.0 2.0 4.1 3.0 1.5 (dim) Salinity (ppt) 8.20 11.25 21.41 7.72 9.99 20.31 8.71 11.40 25.81 13.73 18.92 38.70 16.02 21.94 47.41 21.32 26.94 44.12 @ 10 m Salinity (ppt) 3.99 5.59 7.10 3.77 5.10 6.80 4.28 5.69 8.17 6.81 10.63 13.75 7.90 11.89 14.74 9.81 14.21 14.33 @ 100m Salinity (ppt) 0.30 0.32 0.46 0.30 0.32 0.48 0.32 0.33 0.48 0.38 0.63 0.60 0.39 0.64 0.61 0.40 0.68 0.61 @ 1000 m 7 For most discharge cases, diluting the saturated brine with feedwater has a negative effect and tends to increase downstream salinity.