DOCSLIB.ORG

Guide for Management of Waste Stabilisation Pond Systems in South Africa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Guide for management of waste stabilisation pond systems in South Africa

Philip de Souza & Unathi Jack

TT 471/10

GUIDE FOR MANAGEMENT OF WASTE
STABILISATION POND SYSTEMS IN
SOUTH AFRICA

Report to the
Water Research Commission

by

Philip de Souza and Unathi Jack

on behalf of Emanti Management (Pty) Ltd

WRC REPORT NO. TT 471/10
NOVEMBER 2010

Obtainable from Water Research Commission Private Bag X03 Gezina, 0031

The publication of this report emanates from a project entitled Status Quo

Assessment of Wastewater Ponding Systems (WRC Project No. K5/1657).

DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the WRC, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

ISBN: 978-1-4312-0034-4 Set No. 978-1-4312-0037-5

Printed in the Republic of South Africa

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is understood that the health of a community is significantly influenced by its water quality. The appropriate management of water systems, both the natural resource and municipal water services, is a critical requirement in municipal services provision.

PURPOSE OF THE GUIDE

This guide has been developed with the purpose of providing assistance in terms of:



Planning for construction of an appropriate wastewater treatment system and determining what is appropriate Management to understand what to expect from the contractors and/or consultants in designing a waste stabilisation ponds system



Good operations and maintenance of waste stabilisation ponds system Possible re-use of treated wastewater from waste stabilisation ponds system Upgrading waste stabilisation ponds system.

This guide can be used in conjunction with the following Water Research Commission (WRC)/Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) guides:



DWAF (2004) General Authorisation Permissible Utilisation and Disposal of Treated Sewage Effluent, Department of Health under reference 11/2/5/3: 30 May 1976



“South African water quality guidelines – agricultural use” DWAF 1993 “South African water quality guidelines – industrial use” DWAF 1993 Handbook for the operation of wastewater treatment works (2006) by Frik Schutte All other references at the end of the document A guide for operations and maintenance of waste stabilisation ponds system also developed.

WHO SHOULD USE THIS GUIDE?

The guide has been developed in such a way that it will assist the wastewater management team to answer the following questions:



Is a waste stabilisation pond system appropriate for us? What do we need to consider when designing a waste stabilisation pond system? Once we have constructed a waste stabilisation pond system, how do we operate and maintain the system?

Is the treated wastewater in the waste stabilisation pond system suitable for re-use purposes?



How do we prevent and respond to typical system failures? What options are available if we need to upgrade or refurbish the waste stabilisation pond system?

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following persons and organisations are thanked for their contribution to this project.

Financial Support

Water Research Commission

Members of the Reference Team

  • Dr Heidi Snyman
  • Water Research Commission

University of Pretoria Umgeni Water
Prof At Pretorius Dr Paul Gaydon Mr Andrew Lucas Dr Johan van der Merwe Ms Corrine de Kock
Eastern Cape DWAF Free State DWAF Free State DWAF

WSAs involved

Eastern Cape Mpumalanga Free State

: Maletswai, Senqu, Buffalo City, Inkwanca, Great Kei

: Emalahleni

: Dihlabeng, Kopanong, Letsemeng, Mantsopa, Mohokare, Naledi, Tokologo, Nketoane

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ iii PURPOSE OF THE GUIDE ........................................................................................................... iii WHO SHOULD USE THIS GUIDE? .............................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... vii ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................ viii

1. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR DESIGN OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT
WORKS ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ........................ 3

2.1 Wastewater treatment facility efficiency ............................................................................. 3 2.2 Wastewater treatment facilities economic considerations.................................................. 5 2.3 Indicative operations and maintenance cost .................................................................... 14

3. TYPES OF WASTE STABILISATION PONDS..................................................................... 16

3.1 Anaerobic ponds............................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Facultative ponds ............................................................................................................. 18 3.3 Aerobic ponds................................................................................................................... 18

4. WASTE STABILISATION PONDS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS....................................... 20

4.1 Pond lining........................................................................................................................ 20 4.2 Pond shape and depth ..................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Pond topography .............................................................................................................. 23 4.4 Pond inlet and outlet......................................................................................................... 23 4.5 Pond hydraulic considerations.......................................................................................... 24 4.6 Pond location.................................................................................................................... 26 4.7 General............................................................................................................................. 26

5. MANAGEMENT OF TREATED EFFLUENT......................................................................... 27

5.1 Environmental consideration ............................................................................................ 27 5.2 Agriculture......................................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Industrial use of treated wastewater................................................................................. 30

6. TYPICAL FAILURES AND TROUBLESHOOTING.............................................................. 31

Causes of failing waste water ponds and possible remedial actions........................................ 31 6.1 Lining ................................................................................................................................ 31 6.2 Inlets and outlets .............................................................................................................. 32 6.3 Receiving ponds............................................................................................................... 33 6.4 Fencing............................................................................................................................. 34 6.5 Supervision and Maintenance .......................................................................................... 34 6.6 Algal removal.................................................................................................................... 34 6.7 Odour control.................................................................................................................... 36 6.8 Handling excess flows...................................................................................................... 36 6.9 Process controllers health ................................................................................................ 37 6.10 Environmental Safety: Monitoring and evaluation of pond system performance............ 38

7. UPGRADING PONDS ........................................................................................................... 39

7.1 Additional technologies used to improve ponds............................................................... 39

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX A................................................................................................................................. 44 APPENDIX B................................................................................................................................. 47 APPENDIX C................................................................................................................................. 49 APPENDIX D................................................................................................................................. 58

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Decision support model with respect to community size and discharge

standards :................................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2: Decision support model with respect to land availability for plant site: (Golder Associates

Africa and Zitholele consulting draft report prepared for WRC and DWAF, 2006)........................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Decision support model with respect to operational support and resources:

(Golder Associates Africa and Zitholele consulting draft report prepared for WRC and DWAF, 2006).. 9

Figure 4: Decision support model with respect to maintenance support and resource: (Golder

Associates Africa and Zitholele consulting draft report prepared for WRC and DWAF, 2006)............. 10

Figure 5: Decision support model with respect to existing treatment infrastructure:

(Golder Associates Africa and Zitholele consulting draft report prepared for WRC and DWAF, 2006) 11

Figure 6: Capital Investment Cost Curves for Integrated Ponds Treatment Plants:

(Golder Associates Africa and Zitholele consulting draft report prepared for WRC and DWAF, 2006)13

Figure 7: Capital Investment Cost curves for the Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Treatment

systems: (Golder Associates Africa and Zitholele consulting draft report prepared for WRC and DWAF, 2006).................................................................................................... 14

Figure 8: Indicative O&M costs for Integrated Ponds and Polishing Wetlands: (Golder Associates

Africa and Zitholele consulting draft report prepared for WRC and DWAF, 2006)......................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 9: Indicative O&M costs for Activated Sludge and Trickling Filter Plants: (Golder Associates

Africa and Zitholele consulting draft report prepared for WRC and DWAF, 2006)......................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 10: Detailed waste stabilisation ponds configurations ............................................................. 17 Figure 11: Simple waste stabilisation ponds configurations................................................................. 17 Figure 12: Photographs showing lining in ponds.................................................................................. 21 Figure 13: Illustration of a pond ............................................................................................................ 23 Figure 14: Various pond inlets.............................................................................................................. 24

Figure 15: A waste stabilisation pond system discharging to the environment.................................... 29

Figure 16: Lining issues........................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 17: Illustration of pond flow configuration.................................................................................. 32 Figure 18: Inlet issues .......................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 19: Receiving pond issues ........................................................................................................ 33 Figure 20: Safety issue s....................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 21: U-shaped pipe for algae collection (Gaydon, 2008)............................................................ 35 Figure 22: Algal issues ......................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 23: Sludge removal issue s........................................................................................................ 37 Figure 24: Staff safety issues ............................................................................................................... 37 Figure 25: Illustration of integrated facultative pond............................................................................. 39 Figure 26: Baffled pond ........................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 27: Integrated waste stabilisation ponds system ...................................................................... 40

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Characteristics of typical wastewater treatment systems (Mara, 1976; UNEP, 1997 and Qasm, 1998)............................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2: Variation of design volumetric COD loading on, and COD removal in anaerobic ponds (Mara, 2005)...................................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 3: Wastewater limit values applicable to discharge of wastewater into a water resource.......... 28 Table 4: Wastewater limit values applicable to irrigate with wastewater.............................................. 30 Table 5: Senses Characteristics in waste stabilisation ponds (Federation of Canadian Municipalities and National Research Council, 2004 and Gaydon presentation, 2008).............................................. 38

vii

ABBREVIATIONS

COD : Chemical Oxygen Demand EPA : Environmental Protection Agency FC RBC : Rotating Biological Contactor SS : Suspended Solids
: Faecal Coliform

viii

GLOSSARY

Aerobic Anaerobic Desludge

: a biological process which occurs in the presence of oxygen : a biological process which occurs in the absence of oxygen : the process of removing sediment by draining and cleaning
Discharging : is a process where treated wastewater is discharged of

Effluent Grit

: treated wastewater flowing out of the wastewater treatment system : solid material contained in raw wastewater (e.g. sand, gravel, food waste etc)

Infiltration Influent

: the process of water entering soil

:

untreated wastewater – the wastewater that flows into a wastewater treatment system

Inlet Lining

: opening providing a means of entrance/intake of the untreated wastewater : a protective covering that protects an inside surface of the pond to avoid leaching

Nightsoil

: human excreta collected intentionally

Organic load : amount of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) per unit volume or area per

unit of time; usually expressed as [kg/m3/day] or [kg/m2/day]

Outlet

: opening providing a means exit of the treated wastewater

Overflow

: flows or runs over the top or banks
Overloaded : loaded past/exceeds capacity of the treatment system

Ponds

: are described as relatively shallow bodies of wastewater contained in an earthen basin

Septage Screenings

: material removed from any part of an individual sewage disposal system : the fine or coarse material removed by the screens at the inlet of the wastewater treatment system

Screens Scum

: a device with openings, generally of uniform size, that is used to retain course solids found in wastewater
: filmy layer of slimy matter that forms on or rises to the surface of a pond.
Scum is known to be a form or type of algae

Sludge

: semisolid material deposited during the treatment of wastewater

  • ix
  • x

  • 1.
  • BASIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR DESIGN OF

WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
A

An understanding of the nature of wastewater (i.e. raw wastewater) is fundamental for the design of appropriate wastewater treatment works. Effluent quality is the most important factor in choosing a wastewater treatment technology. Facilities are permitted to meet certain effluent water quality standards, depending on the water quality of the receiving waters.

The ideal wastewater treatment system should satisfy the following criteria (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003; Marais, 1966)

Health criteria – pathogenic organisms should not be spread either by direct contact with wastewater or indirectly via soil, water or food. The treatment system chosen should achieve a high degree of pathogen destruction.



Cost criteria – capital and running costs should not exceed the community’s ability to pay. The financial return from reuse is an important factor in this regard. Ecological criteria – in cases when the wastewater cannot be reused, the discharge of effluent into surface water should not exceed the self purification of the recipient water.



Operational criteria – the skills required for the routine operation and maintenance of the wastewater treatment system components should be available locally or are such that they can be acquired with only minimum training. Reuse criteria – the wastewater treatment process should yield a safe effluent for reuse, preferably for aquaculture and/or agriculture purposes.



Nuisance criteria – No part of the system should become odour offensive. Cultural criteria – the methods chosen for wastewater collection, treatment and reuse, should be compatible with local habits and social practice. This is dependent on issues such as location of the system, cultural value of the area etc.

Recommended publications
  • What Are Evaporation Ponds?

    What Are Evaporation Ponds?

    The Complete Guide to Evaporation Ponds Thank you for downloading the The Complete Guide to Evaporation Ponds ebook. We hope that this book helps you with your evaporation pond projects! We strive to provide our customers with not only great service and quality products, but great information to help them with whatever project they're taking on. For more free ebooks, articles, downloads and more visit our website at www.btlliners.com www.btlliners.com 2 The Complete Guide to Evaporation Ponds Contents What are Evaporation Ponds? .................................................................................................................. 5 Industries that Benefit from Evaporation Ponds ........................................................................................... 5 What’s the Purpose of Evaporation? .............................................................................................................. 6 Placement, Environmental necessities for Evaporation ponds- ................................................................... 6 Choosing a Liner for an Evaporation Pond ............................................................................................... 7 Evaporation Ponds for Landfill Leachates ............................................................................................... 9 No Other Uses .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Alone or as Part of a System .......................................................................................................................
  • Ponds for Stabilising Organic Matter

    Ponds for Stabilising Organic Matter

    WQPN 39, FEBRUARY 2009 Ponds for stabilising organic matter Purpose Waste stabilisation ponds are widely used in rural areas of Western Australia. They rely on natural micro-organisms and algae to assist in the breakdown and settlement of degradable organic matter, generally before discharge of treated effluent to land. The ponds mimic processes that occur in nature for degrading complex animal and plant wastes into simple chemicals that are suitable for reuse in the environment. The operating processes in waste stabilisation ponds are shown at Appendix A. The use of ponds fosters the destruction of disease-causing organisms and lessens the risk of fouling of natural waters. They also limit organic waste breakdown in waterways which strips oxygen out of the water, often resulting in fish and other aquatic fauna deaths. These ponds need to be adequately designed to: • maximise the stabilisation of wastewater and settling of solids • avoid the generation of foul odours • maximise the destruction of pathogenic micro-organisms • prevent the discharge of partly treated wastes into the environment. This note provides advice on the design, construction and operation of waste stabilisation pond systems for use in Western Australia. It is intended to assist decision-makers in setting criteria for effective retention of liquids in the ponds and design measures to ensure their effective environmental performance. The Department of Water is responsible for managing and protecting the state’s water resources. It is also a lead agency for water conservation and reuse. This note offers: • our current views on waste stabilisation pond systems • guidance on acceptable practices used to protect the quality of Western Australian water resources • a basis for the development of a multi-agency code or guideline designed to balance the views of industry, government and the community, while sustaining a healthy environment.
  • Treatment of Concentrate

    Treatment of Concentrate

    Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 155 Treatment of Concentrate U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation May 2009 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. T T T T T 1.T REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) March 9, 2008 Final 2002–2008 4.T TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Treatment of Concentrate Agreement 04-FC-81-1050 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Mike Mickley, P.E., Ph.D. 5e. TASK NUMBER Task F 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT Mickley & Associates NUMBER 752 Gapter Road Boulder CO 80303 9.
  • Evaporation Pond Seepage Soil Solution

    Evaporation Pond Seepage Soil Solution

    from the soil surface. The subcores were fitted and sealed with plexiglass ends and set up to measure Permeability. Drainage water having an electrical conductivity (EC) of 10 dS/m (6100 ppm total dissolved salts) was applied to the cores for three days to ensure saturation and uniform electrolyte concentration. Biological activity was minimized in some of the cores by the addition of chlo- roform to the percolating drain water. Percolating drainage water having pro- gressively larger EC values was applied over periods of one to five days in an effort to exaggerate variations in evaporation pond salinity resulting from evaporation lnfiltrometers (left)were installed in Kings County and fresh drain water additions. The sa- evaporation pond to estimate seepage. Rainfall, evaporation, drainage flows, and changes in pond linity of inflow and outflow water was water levels (herebeing checked by co-author Blake measured periodically along with the per- McCullough-Sanden)were also measured. meability of each subcore. The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is an index of the relative concentration of sodium, calcium, and magnesium in the Evaporation pond seepage soil solution. When soil salinity is low, permeability has been shown to increase Mark E. Grismer o Blake L. McCullough-Sanden as the SAR value of the inflow solution in- creases. Past studies, however, have typi- cally considered SAR values of 30 or less. Rates of seepage from operating evaporation In this study, SAR values of the inflow so- ponds decline substantially as they age and as lution increased in the same stepwise fashion as EC, with values ranging from salinity increases 210 to 660.
  • Ryegate FONSI EA.Pdf

    Ryegate FONSI EA.Pdf

    August 28, 2019 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS As required by state and federal rules for determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary, an environmental review has been performed on the proposed action below: Project Town of Ryegate, Wastewater System Improvements Project Location Ryegate, Montana Project Number C304245 Total Cost $1,958,000 The Town of Ryegate, through its 2016 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), identified the need to make improvements to the Town wastewater treatment lagoons. The existing lagoons are approximately 40-years old, are leaking and have deteriorated to the point where they no longer function as designed. Leaking effluent from the lagoons places several area wells at risk of receiving groundwater contaminated with poorly treated wastewater. The Town has determined a preferred alternative would be to construct a lined lagoon system that allows for full evaporation of effluent most years. The MPDES discharge permit will be retained so if the ponds become full, periodic discharge to the existing outfall can be accomplished. The proposed project consists of approximately 1.4 acres of primary treatment pond and 6.6 acres of storage/evaporation pond. The single lift station operated by the Town will also undergo repairs within the scope of this project. The estimated project cost (including administration, engineering, and construction) is $1,958,000. The Town will fund this work with grants from the DNRC RRGL program ($125,000), and the USDA RD program ($1,100,000). The town will contribute $68,000 and borrow the balance ($665,000) from the USDA RD loan for the work.
  • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O

    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O

    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 GENERAL PERMIT TO DISPOSE OF WASTEWATER under provisions of Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code and 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 205 This permit supersedes and replaces General Permit No. WQG100000, issued on March 28, 2014. Wastewater generated from industrial or water treatment facilities located in the state of Texas may be disposed of by evaporation from surface impoundments adjacent to water in the state only according to wastewater limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in this general permit, as well as the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission), the laws of the State of Texas, and other orders of the commission. The issuance of this general permit does not grant to the permittee the right to use private or public property for disposal of wastewater. This includes property belonging to, but not limited to, any individual, partnership, corporation or other entity. Neither does this general permit authorize any invasion of personal rights nor any violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. It is the responsibility of the permittee to acquire property rights as may be necessary for the disposal of wastewater. This general permit and the authorization contained herein shall expire at midnight, five years after the issued date. ISSUED DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: ___________________________________________ For the Commission General Permit No. WQG100000 TCEQ GENERAL PERMIT NUMBER WQG100000 RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER BY EVAPORATION Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 2 Part I. Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 3 Part II.
  • ICDF Waste Placement Plan

    ICDF Waste Placement Plan

    Document ID: EDF-ER-286 Revision ID: 7 Effective Date: 07/16/2014 Engineering Design File Project No. 23350 ICDF Waste Placement Plan 431.02 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-ER-286 12/11/2013 Revision 7 Rev. 23 Page 2 of 28 EDF No.: EDF-ER-286 EDF Rev. No.: 7 Project No.: 23350 FCF and/or FDC No.: NA 8. Does document contain controlled unclassified information? Yes No If Yes, what category: 9. Will document be externally distributed? Yes No 10. Registered Professional Engineer’s Stamp (if required) NA This Engineering Design File was prepared under the direction of the Registered Professional Engineer as indicated by the stamp and signature provided on this page. The Professional Engineer is registered in the State of Idaho to practice Stamp Engineering. Registered Professional Engineer * Not required for commercial analyses and calculations. 431.02 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-ER-286 12/11/2013 Revision 7 Rev. 23 Page 3 of 28 ABSTRACT This Waste Placement Plan for the Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Disposal Facility (ICDF) provides an overview for waste placement procedures and operational requirements associated with the facility. 431.02 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-ER-286 12/11/2013 Revision 7 Rev. 23 Page 4 of 28 CONTENTS ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ 6 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................
  • Estimating the Ratio of Pond Size to Irrigated Soybean Land in Mississippi: a Case Study Ying Ouyang, Gary Feng, John J

    Estimating the Ratio of Pond Size to Irrigated Soybean Land in Mississippi: a Case Study Ying Ouyang, Gary Feng, John J

    1639 Water Science & Technology: Water Supply | 16.6 | 2016 Estimating the ratio of pond size to irrigated soybean land in Mississippi: a case study Ying Ouyang, Gary Feng, John J. Read, Theodor D. Leininger and Johnie N. Jenkins ABSTRACT Although more on-farm storage ponds have been constructed in recent years to mitigate Ying Ouyang (corresponding author) USDA Forest Service, groundwater resources depletion in Mississippi, little effort has been devoted to estimating the ratio Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research, 775 Stone Blvd., Thompson Hall, Room 309, of on-farm water storage pond size to irrigated crop land based on pond metrics and its Starkville, MS 39762, hydrogeological conditions. In this study, two simulation scenarios were chosen to determine such a USA ratio as well as to investigate pond hydrological processes using a Structural Thinking, Experimental E-mail: [email protected] Learning Laboratory with Animation (STELLA) model, one scenario with and the other without using Gary Feng John J. Read pond water for irrigation for a typical pond that represented the average conditions in East Johnie N. Jenkins USDA-ARS, Mississippi. Simulation results showed that pond water level changed moderately for conditions Crop Science Research Laboratory, 810 Hwy 12 East, without using its water for irrigation, whereas pond water level changed dramatically for conditions Starkville, with using its water for irrigation. A reasonable ratio of pond size to irrigated soybeans land was 1:18 MS 39762, USA if the irrigation rate was 2.54 cm/d (or 1 inch/d) and the low limit of the pond water level was drawn Theodor D.
  • Halophyte and Evaporation Pond for Reverse Osmosis Brine Disposal

    Halophyte and Evaporation Pond for Reverse Osmosis Brine Disposal

    SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENG470 ENGINEERING HONOURS THESIS FINAL REPORT On-Farm Desalination: Halophyte and Evaporation Pond for Reverse Osmosis Brine disposal Rowel De Paz Bachelor of Environmental Engineering Honours (BEng(Hons)) 5th December 2019 SUPERVISORS Dr. Martin Anda Professor Wendell Ela Eng’r. Martin Brezger Dr. Vishnu Ravisankar A report submitted to the School of Engineering and Information Technology in partial fulfilment of requirements for the unit ENG470 Engineering Honours Thesis at Murdoch University, Semester 2, 2019. 1 Thesis declaration I declare that this thesis by publication is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work that has not been previously submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. Rowel De Paz 2 Abstract Management of brine/reject from reverse osmosis (RO) systems has always been a major concern among the engineering and scientific community. The brine disposal of the RO in the arid region was the main concern in this thesis. The small scale RO plants, located inland need to work out different methods of a brine disposal. The most common method to disposal brine on a small scale inland desalination plants is with evaporation ponds. But, the evaporation pond can be expensive and land-intensive. This thesis considering the potential way to minimize the area requirements of evaporation ponds by proposing a halophyte wetland upstream of an evaporation pond. Since halophyte can survive into the salty water, the brine from the RO unit can be fed into the wetland which would reduce the flow into the evaporation pond, consequently reducing the evaporation pond area.
  • Hdpe Lined Produced Water Evaporation Ponds

    Hdpe Lined Produced Water Evaporation Ponds

    Environmental Issues and Solutions in Exploration, Production, Refining & Distribution of Petroleum November 17-19, 2015 Denver, Colorado Grand Hyatt in Downtown Denver 1750 Welton Street * Hotel Phone: 303-295-1234 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Lined Produced/Frac Flowback Water Evaporation Ponds Presented by: Neil Nowak, PE Phone: 303-221-1719 Email: [email protected] Website: scsengineers.com TOPIC OF PRESENTATION: Use of black High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) as the top layer of brine (production) and flow back water evaporation pond facilities and the affects on evaporation rate. Case study. HDPE Lined Evaporation Ponds PURPOSE: • Dispose of production water and flow back water generated from oil and gas development. • Several million barrels of production water and flow water is generated each year in the mountain states. • Other types of evaporation and disposal facilities exist. SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY: Technologies for managing production and flow back water: – Disposal injection into acceptable zone – “Frac” injection of the water into the production formation to enhance yield – Treatment for surface discharge or reuse –Evaporation HDPE Lined Evaporation Ponds Not Extinct Yet? DESIGN…WHY HDPE?: Textured 60-mil HDPE for top liner of ponds not buried. • Ultraviolet (UV) degradation resistance. • Durability (20 plus years, Ivy 2002 ). • Chemical resistance. • Black color enhances evaporation of water. • HDPE was chosen over clay liner and other geomembranes due to being the most compatible with site conditions and regulations (i.e. exposed to sunlight, desiccation, and hydrocarbons). • Textured surface used to aid with traction if operations personnel fall into ponds, and to increase slope friction and stability. DESIGN (continued): High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) designed as the primary or top layer of the lined ponds in order to protect the groundwater and to enhance the evaporation of the production water within the ponds.
  • Design of a Constructed Wetland for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Mount Pleasant, Utah

    Design of a Constructed Wetland for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Mount Pleasant, Utah

    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2012 Design of a Constructed Wetland for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Mount Pleasant, Utah Yue Zhang Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports Part of the Landscape Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Zhang, Yue, "Design of a Constructed Wetland for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Mount Pleasant, Utah" (2012). All Graduate Plan B and other Reports. 216. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/216 This Creative Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Plan B and other Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DESIGN OF A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE IN MOUNT PLEASANT, UTAH by Yue Zhang A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Approved: __________________________ __________________________ Bo Yang, PhD David L. Bell Major Professor Committee Member __________________________ Ryan R. Dupont, PhD Committee Member UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2012 ii Copyright Yue Zhang 2012 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Design of a Constructed Wetland for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Mount Pleasant, Utah by Yue Zhang, Master of Landscape Architecture Utah State University, 2012 Major Professor: Dr. Bo Yang Department: Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning Municipalities in the Intermountain West are facing water shortages based on their current population growth projections. Utah has the second highest per-capita culinary water use in the United States.
  • Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 December 27, 2018

    Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 December 27, 2018

    Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 December 27, 2018 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Deputy Director Mail Stop T8-F5 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Subject: Position Paper: Suspension of Groundwater Extraction and Evaporation Pond Operations, Shiprock, New Mexico, Disposal Site (NRC Docket No. WM-0058) To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review is a Position Paper prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Legacy Management (LM) entitled Position Paper: Suspension ofGroundwater Extraction and Evaporation Pond Operations, Shiprock, New Mexico, Disposal Site (Document No. S16070). In April 2017 groundwater extracted by the remediation system and transmitted to the evaporation pond at the Shiprock site reached the maximum operational design capacity, at a depth of 8 feet (equating to approximately 25 million gallons of water in the pond). Consequently, LM temporarily suspended the active remediation groundwater extraction. This paper presents LM' s position that the temporary suspension of pumping to the evaporation pond should be continued to facilitate decommissioning of either the evaporation pond or the evaporation pond liner. Although the evaporation pond and pond liner are currently functioning as designed, the polypropylene pond liner is exhibiting signs of deterioration. It is LM's position that the decommissioning described in the enclosed report should be conducted prior to the 20-year design life of the pond liner. DOE is reviewing options for future groundwater compliance actions through collaboration with the Navajo Nation, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, and plans to issue a draft Environmental Assessment of those options near the end of fiscal year 2019.