V.

Feasibility Study

V.3.1 Water Quality of WTC and Intercepted Rivers

Deforestation, urbanization and industrial development in the basin of the Citarum River just upstream of West Tarum Canal (WTC) and the basins of rivers (the Cibeet, Cikarang, and Bekasi River) intercepted by the WTC have caused an increase of erosion and discharge of untreated domestic and industrial wastewater, and have resulted in deterioration of the water quality in the WTC. The water uses of WTC are irrigation, raw water supply to water treatment plants and industrial uses. Jakarta water treatment plants (WTP) take raw water on the downstream of WTC which are heavily polluted. The present total raw water demand for Jakarta City is 16.1m3/sec. WTC should belong to CLASS 1 as it supplies raw water for drinking water treatment, but sometimes lies even out of CLASS 4. Water quality management and rehabilitation programs need to be implemented accordingly. All the available water quality data of WTC and intercepted rivers (Cibeet, Cikarang, and Bekasi), will be collected and analyzed and the necessity of separation of the Cibeet and Cikarang River from WTC will be evaluated for water quality improvement. Also savings of various chemicals for the treatment processes of the WTP will be evaluated and compared with the costs for construction of separation facilities of river flows into WTC, taking into account the present and improved water quality in the WTC.

<Table 5.3> Key Water Parameters for Raw Water of Water Treatment Plant

Parameters Temperature TDS SS Turbidity pH BOD COD DO NH3-N NO3-N Fe Mn

Units C mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Class1* Dev.3 1000 50 6-9 2 10 6 0.5 10 0.3 0.1

**

*River Water Classification (Gov. Regulation No. 82/2001 Concerning Water Quality Management)

A. Data Collection

Water quality data covering 1993-2010 provided by PJT II for 13 stations (Figure 5.1) along the West Tarum Canal includes the following parameters: Physical parameter: temperature, TDS, turbidity Chemical parameter: pH, DO, Fe, Mn, Zn, NH3-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, SO4, Cl, H2S, BOD5, and COD.

<Figure 5.1> Water Quality Monitoring Locations in the Citarum River Basin The following is an available data from Pejompongan Water Treatment Plant in 2005. A recent data will be collected and updated to make a better prediction of raw water quality improvement and chemical costs reduction in case of separating the Bekasi and/or Cikarang and/or Cibeet River flows from WTC.

1. Six hourly measurement data for turbidity, pH, temperature, and color. 2. Daily measurement data for conductivity, ammonia, iron and Total Coliform 3. Weekly measurements data for hardness, manganese, nitrite, nitrate, organic matter, TDS,
BOD, COD and DO.

4. Monthly measurement data usually for a group of metal Mercury, Arsenic, Barium,
Cadmium, Chromium, Selenium, Zinc, Copper, Lead, Calcium including Detergent, Sulfate, Sulfide, Chloride and Fluoride. B. Important Water Quality Parameters for Water Quality Management and Water Treatment Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is not a drinking water parameter. It is most commonly used to determine the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic microorganisms to break down organic material in a body of water during the period of 5 days at 20C. It is widely used as an indication of the organic quality of water. BOD itself will not say any health effect but show amount of oxygen depletion which can happen in waters, therefore, becomes one of the most important parameters for river water quality management. River water quality is divided into 4 classes depending on present water quality and intended uses of water bodies. BOD is one of the most affecting parameters for classification.

Suspended Solids Suspended solids in water consist of two fractions an inorganic one constituted of silts, clays, etc. and an organic one consisted of plankton, bacteria and others. All these constituents enter into flowing water by surface run off during rain and man-made wastewater from population and industry. For natural surface runoff, the inorganic portion in suspended solids is usually higher than the organic one, however, wastewater has more organic portion than surface runoff. Turbidity is a measure of the light-transmitting properties of water. Therefore, this parameter is used to indicate the quality of water with respect to suspended matters and colloidal particles to which the turbidity correlates. In this respect, it is important note that there is an approximate relationship between turbidity and total suspended solids as: Total Suspended Solids TSS (mg/l) ~ conversion factor x Turbidity (NTU) This correlation between the two parameters is fundamental in assessing impurity in surface water as it will be much easy and less expensive to get an accurate estimate of total suspended solids in water from continuously monitored turbidity. The conversion factor of total suspended solids versus turbidity is often taken equal to 1. Suspended solids can then be assimilated to Turbidity: TSS (mg/l) ~ Turbidity (NTU).
Turbidity The measurement of turbidity is a simple useful indicator of the condition of water. For filtration facilities, turbidity is also a surrogate for suspended sediment and associated adsorbed chemical contaminants, so reducing turbidity and associated treatment costs often goes beyond simply improving the aesthetic quality. Some particles may contain pathogenic organisms and interfere with disinfection by sheltering microorganisms. Raw water turbidities can vary over a very wide range, from virtually zero to several thousand NTU. Effective treatment should be able to produce final waters with turbidity levels of less than 1 NTU, which is recommended for efficient disinfection with chlorine. The Indonesian drinking water standards set 5NTU. WHO Guidelines also set 5 NTU as the maximum level acceptable to consumers, but also set less than or equal to 1 NTU as a treatment standard for successful disinfection. Ingestion of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts excreted by animals or humans were found to cause acute diarrheal disease, and are more resistant to chlorine than bacteria and viruses. More recently however, the need to ensure the removal of them has led to turbidity targets of less than 0.1 NTU being applied to filtered waters. Turbidity is also the most important quality parameter that affects the coagulant dose for water treatment. Ammonia Ammonia is one of the forms of nitrogen found in water. It exists in water as ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) or as the ammonium ion (NH4+), depending on the pH value, and usually expressed in terms of mg/L free ammonia. Ammonia originates from various sources, but the most important is decomposing plant and animal matter. Increased levels of free ammonia in surface water may be an indicator of recent pollution by either sewage or industrial effluent. The level of free ammonia in raw water is of importance in determining the chlorine for disinfection. Chlorine first combines with ammonia to form chloramines. Free chlorine is a more effective disinfectant than chloramines. The WHO considers that there is no health risk associated with the levels of ammonia found in drinking

water and suggests a maximum level of 1.5 mg/L ammonia to avoid taste and odor problems. Indonesian drinking water standard is also 1.5mg/L. Other parameters will be examined to evaluate whether they will be necessary or not. A graphical method is used to interpret the relation of each quality variable. A further statistical method is used to explain the variation of water quality data. C. Water Quality Levels at WTC and Crossing Rivers

30 25 20 BO D, mg/ L 15 10 5 0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 Year 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

1 C u ru g 11 C ib e e t 12 C ik a ra n g 13 B e k a s i 9 B T b .51

<Figure 5.2> BOD levels at the West Tarum Canal and crossing rivers during the period 1993-2010

16000 14000 12000 T u rb id ity, N T U 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Year 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

1 C u ru g 11 C ib e e t 12 C ika rn g 13 Be ka s i 9 BT b .51

<Figure5.3> Turbidity levels at the West Tarum Canal and crossing rivers during the period 19932010

20

15 B O D, mg / L

1 C urug 11 C ib e e t 12 C ika ra ng 13 Be ka s i 9 BT b .51

10

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ye a r 2009 2010

<Figure 5.4> BOD levels at the West Tarum Canal and crossing rivers during the period 2005-2010

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1 C u ru g 11 C ib e e t 12 C ika rn g 13 Be ka s i 9 BT b .51

<Figure 5.5> Turbidity levels at the West Tarum Canal and crossing rivers during the period 20052010

T u rb id ity, NT U

30 25 20 B O D , mg/ L 15 10 5 0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Year 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

1 Curug 2 BTb.10 3 BTb.23 4 BTb.35 5 BTb.45 6 BTb.49 8 Pulogadung Intake 9 BTb.51

<Figure 5.6> BOD levels along the West Tarum Canal during the period 1993-2010

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 Year 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

<Figure 5.7> Turbidity levels along the West Tarum Canal during the period 1993-2010

T u rb id ity , N T U

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9

C u ru g B T b .10 B T b .23 B T b .35 B T b . 45 B T b .49 P u lo g a d u n g In ta ke B T b .51

Yearly Average BOD (1993 - 2010)

14 12 BOD, mg/ L 10 8 6 4 2
g 0 et 3 g 5 5 e e 9 1 3 e si ru b.1 be b.2 arn b.3 . 4 ka tak tak b.4 b.5 b.5 tak u i b e n n n I I C BT C BT ik BT T BT BT B T n I B 3 B an ng 1 3 2C 4 9 a 11 2 5 6 1 ar 1 14 ng du u a B po og 7 ul om j P Pe 8 0 1
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

<Figure 5.8> Yearly average BOD at the West Tarum Canal and crossing rivers during the period 1993-2010

Yearly Average Turbidity (1993 - 2010)

9000 8000 Turbidity, NTU 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
g 0 et 3 g 5 5 si e e 9 1 3 e ru b.1 be b.2 arn b.3 . 4 ka tak tak b.4 b.5 b.5 tak u T i b e n In n I C B C BT Cik BT BT B BT B T BT n I 1 n g 9 4 a 11 3 12 2 4 5 6 13 a ra un 1 ng u ad B g po o 7 m ul jo P Pe 8 10
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

<Figure 5.9> Yearly average turbidity at the West Tarum Canal and crossing rivers during the period 1993-2010

Monthly Average BOD (1993 - 2010)

11 10 9 BOD, mg/ L 8 7 6 5 4 3
0 5 g e t .23 ng .35 si ke ke 49 51 53 ru b.1 i be . 4 ka ta nta Tb. Tb. Tb. b kar Tb u b T T e In I C C B B B B B Ci BT 3 B n g 1 2 B 11 3 9 4 5 6 1 ara un 12 14 d B u ga o 7 l Pu 8
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

<Figure 5.10> Monthly average BOD at the West Tarum Canal and crossing rivers during the period 1993-2010

Monthly Average Turbidity (1993 - 2010)

2000
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Turbidity, NTU

1500

1000

500

0
0 3 5 5 9 51 53 g g e et si ke .4 . . ru b.1 ibe b.2 arn b.3 b. 4 ka a ak u T T T e nt Int T b Tb Tb I C ik T C B n B B B B B C B g 1 2 B 11 3 9 4 5 6 13 ara un 12 14 d Bu ga 7 lo Pu 8

<Figure 5.11> Yearly average turbidity at the West Tarum Canal and crossing rivers during the period 1993-2010

Figure 5.2 shows BOD5 trend in the WTC and the crossing rivers during the period 1993-2010. Also
the turbidity trend in the WTC and the crossing rivers during the same period is shown in Figure 5.3. If the figures show that three rivers are more polluted and in deteriorating trends are visible, Cibeet partition wall and siphon construction, and/or Cikarang siphon construction can be justified. The water qualities of upstream and downstream of WTC, and three rivers were deteriorating until 1998, but did not further based on BOD5.Tubidities of the three rivers and the upper WTC remained low until 1997, but were in a rapidly increasing trend until 2004. Since 2005 past distinct differences in water qualities between WTC and three rivers have been reduced, however still three rivers are frequently poor in water quality by considerable margin as shown in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 drawn on the increased scale of y-axis to distinguish three rivers and WTC by BOD and turbidity. Although rivers with high BOD and turbidity intersect the WTC, the BOD and turbidity levels do not increase downstream of WTC in a considerable degree (Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7). This may be the result of BOD causing material being self purified and suspended solids being settled flowing along WTC. On some monitoring dates, BOD and turbidity increase gradually after the confluence of the Bekasi River with WTC. At present, a lot of existing polluted drainage water comes into the WTC passing through populated areas after the confluences of three rivers with WTC, and deteriorates the quality of the

canal water. In addition, communities close to the canal banks of WTC commonly dispose liquid and solid wastes directly into waterways.
Water quality data provided by PJT II have 16 parameters measured monthly on the Citarum River Basin. Sometimes data are missing for months and sampling period are not consistent. It is difficult to assess the state of water quality in the three rivers and WTC with only monthly measured data. The quality of storm water depends on the pollution washed off from the catchment surfaces, fertilizers and pesticides in runoff from agriculture and silt (sediment) in runoff. The pollutants can be trapped at the weirs and re-suspended from the sediment in the conditions of canal flow, and the levels of water quality can vary. Water quality data may need to be correlated to precipitation and flow data. Diurnal variation in water quality due to discharge patterns of sewage and industrial

wastewater may not be ignored. Sampling coinciding with cyclic pattern of discharging waste can cause increasing tendency of turbidity and BOD. These mean that concentrations and quantities of pollutants during any sampling time and period may not represent the actual state of water quality, and show only concentrations at one moment of sampling. It may be one of reasons why the tendencies of water quality in three rivers and the upper WTC are not consistent. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show yearly average BOD and turbidity from 1993 to 2010. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show monthly average BOD and turbidity from 1993 to 2010. Monthly average BOD and turbidity of three rivers have been much higher than those in WTC even though yearly BOD and turbidity differences between three rivers and WTC seem to be decrease since 2005. Photo 1 shows the confluence of the Cibeet River with WTC. At the confluence of Cibeet River,

turbid river water does not mix with WTC water flowing along the left bank of WTC. This shows the feasibility of construction of partition wall and siphon to separate turbid Cibeet water without mixing with WTC water, and supply through the siphon to the Kedunggede irrigation canal.

<Photo 1 > Confluence of the Cibeet River with WTC Based on preceding consideration on BOD and turbidity differences between two rivers (Cibeet River and Cikarang River) and WTC, the Cibeet River needs to be separated to decrease turbidity mixing which induces high levels of turbidity in WTC. On the other hand the Cikang needs separation as it induces high BOD in WTC. D. Drainage inlets into the WTC

At present, a lot of existing polluted drainage water come into the WTC passing through urban areas

and deteriorates the quality of the canal water. The consultants will locate drainage inlets into the WTC and investigate measures to isolate and divert the drainage flow into natural drains or proposed parallel drains. Especially, measures are required in the section Bekasi-Jakarta and in other sections of the WTC passing through densely populated areas and which are vulnerable to pollution. V.3.2 Treatment Processes and Treatment Cost of WTPs along the WTC

WTC supplies raw water to the water treatment plants (WTP) of PAM-Jaya in Jakarta. The WTP that receives raw water from WTC is Pejompongan I & II (6.2 m3/sec), Pulogadung (4.4 m3/sec) and Buaran I & II (5.5 m3/sec). The total raw water demand for Jakarta City is 16.1 m3/sec. In addition,

WTC has supplied water to Bekasi City through the municipal water supply agency, PDAM Bekasi. The average water amount supplied by WTC thereto is 1 m3/sec. The water supply status of WTC is shown in following diagram.

<Figure 5.12> Water Supply System of WTC>

A. Raw water turbidity Peak data figures taken from raw water analysis at the three existing treatment plant inlets for the last three year period (2004-2006) are the following average results (Feasibility Study Jakarta Raw Water Transmission Improvement Project of the West Tarum Canal between Bekasi & Cawang, 2008) : Turbidity 15,000 NTU Suspended Solids 15,000 mg/l Organic matters (KMnO4) 15 mg/l Above values are to be considered as extremely high and do not represent typical raw water conditions intended for water treatment and water. A thorough analysis of results available to water treatment concessionaires from raw water analysis at treatment plant inlet would indicate that the most representative typical values of turbidity all through the year are: Dry Season WTC Turbidity: < 200 NTU Wet Season WTC Turbidity: > 500 NTU
Figure 5.13 shows daily average, maximum and minimum turbidity of the raw water from 2006 to 2010 which Buaran Water Treatment Plant takes downstream of WTC located at 6.5 km from the confluence of Bekasi River with WTC. The turbidity ranged from 3 to 28,239 NTU. Such high level of turbidity is considered to be one of the key problems at the Buaran WTP including other WTPs which take raw water along the WTC. The range of raw water turbidity for treatment processes consisted of Pulsator and filter is 40 to 15003000 mg/L (Water Treatment Handbook, ONDEO Degrmont). However, a safe upper limit is about 500 NTU and depending on the particulate matter could be up to 1000 NTU for sludge blanket clarifiers which include Pulsator type (Twort, Ratnayaka and Brandt, Water supply, 2000). The minimum raw water turbidity of 100 NTU has been set by Jakarta Gubernatorial Decree No. 582 in 1995. Buaran WTP has been successfully operated even at turbidity values much over 3000 NTU producing treated water with less than 1 NTU. However more coagulant dose and introduction of polyelectrolytes are inevitable to increase the settling rate and allow greater output through the

sedimentation and filtration. Figure 5.14 shows the frequency of raw water turbidity distribution of 1819 at Buaran WTP from 2006 to 2010. In 1819 days with turbidity measurements, daily average had 132 days of turbidity 1000-3000 NTU and 40 days of turbidity over 3000 NTU, while daily maximum had 134 days of turbidity 1000-3000 NTU and 183 days of turbidity over 3000 NTU. As maximum turbidity 317 days had turbidity over 1000 NTU in five years, that is, raw water turbidity exceed 1000 NTU on 63 days in one year having difficulties in treating highly turbid water. High turbidities were generally observed in September to May, that is, during the wet season, while low turbidities were in July to October in the dry season (Figure 5.13).

<Figure 5.13 > Daily average, maximum and minimum turbidity of raw water at Buaran Water Treatment Plant

Daily average
160 140 120 Frequenc y 100 80 60 40 20 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 57 42 34 26 28 34 33 23 23 28 32 29 17 18 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 78 80 141 129 118 110 148

122 122

117 115

10

50

100

500 Turbidity, NTU

1000

3000

6000 10000

20000

Daily max imum

140 120 100 Fre q u e n c y 80
64 135 123 109 107 90 109 98 86 80 112 106

74 75

60 40 20 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11

53 34 24 20 36 26 25 29 16 37 30 24 17 16 29 17 3 1 1

10

50

100

500 T u rb id ity , N T U

1000

3000

6000 10000

20000 30000

Daily minimum
200
180 167 171 157 153 127

150
130

Frequenc y

116

100
76 58 68

102 81 60 41 44 28 1 0 0 3 1 22 13 10

50

10

50

100

500 Turbidity, NTU

1000

3000

6000

10000

20000

Figure 5.14 Raw water turbidity distribution at Buaran WTP during the period 2006-2010

Keeping NTU value constantly lower could reduce the production costs of WTP including electricity, chemical costs, etc. as well as could supply constant production of water to the 5 million people and other demanders.

<Photo 5.2> Intake gate of the Buaran WTP B. Chemicals Used in Water Treatment Plant

<Photo 5.3> Water purification facilities of WTP

Buaran

The main chemicals used for the treatment of raw water are mainly, aluminum sulfate (alum), lime, chlorine and powdered activated as shown in Table 5.3. Large amount of coagulants are used to aggregate turbidity causing colloidal particles for settling, and the amount of coagulant used generally increases with increasing turbidity. A one percent increase

in turbidity is shown to increase chemicals by one fourth of a percent in the range of turbidity from 6 to 89 NTU in Texas, USA (Dearmont et al. 1997). Ridwan and Nobelia (2009) estimated that one percent increase in turbidity of 25.5-277 NTU would cause one fifth percent increase of Alum Sulfate used as coagulant. They analyzed statistically turbidity, pH, alkalinity and NOM (Natural Organic Matters) data obtained from Ciparay Water treatment Plant which use Upper Citarium River as a source. Turbidity showed the greatest influence on the determination of coagulant dose compared other parameters. Turbidity range is rather wide and high in WTC, but in this way reduction in chemical costs from water quality improvement can be estimated by examining the quantity of chemicals used at the time of different raw water quality at the water treatment plant which takes raw water from the downstream of WTC. Labor and maintenance for more doses of chemicals and disposal of more sludge produced should be considered. If raw water contains toxic inorganic and organic contaminants exceeding the maximum contaminant level (MCL), costly advanced treatment processes are introduced to remove contaminants.
<Table 5.3> Chemicals used for surface water treatment Chemical Use Alum (aluminum sulfate) Coagulation Ferric sulfate Coagulation Polymer Coagulation aid Lime pH adjustment Caustic soda pH adjustment Soda ash pH adjustment Chlorine Disinfection Sodium chlorite Disinfection Activated carbon Taste and odor control

<Table 5.4> Chemicals used at the Buaran Water Treatment Plant Chemical Alum (Liquid) PAC Sudfloc A LT20 LT7994 Lime Chlorine Component Aluminium sulphate Polyaluminium chloride Aluminiun chlorohydrat Polyacrylamide
Polydiallyldimethylammoniu m Chloride

Use Coagulation Coagulation Coagulation Flocculation aid Flocculation aid pH adjustment Disinfection

Price $200-400 per ton $300-320 per ton $750-800 per ton $4.99 per kg $90-200 per ton $100-300 per ton

Calcium hydroxide Liquid chlorine

Table 5.4 shows the chemicals which are used at th Buaran WTP. Three kinds of coagulants (Alum, PAC and Sudofloc A) and two kinds of polymers are used to cope with incoming extremely high turbidity with high frequency as shown in Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.14. Table 5.5 shows the relations between turbidity and concentrations of chemicals used. <Table 5.5>Relation between daily average turbidity removed and chemicals used
Regression equations
Turbidity removed = - 411 + 2.65 Alum + 0.67 PAC + 12.4 Sudofloc A + 1919 Total polymer Turbidity removed = - 457 + 13.3 Alum + 5.06 PAC + 123 Sudofloc A Turbidity removed = 183 + 4.71 Alum Turbidity removed = 374 - 10.2 PAC Turbidity removed = 118 + 93.5 Sudofloc A Turbidity removed = - 384 + 1.91 Total coagulant + 1995 Total polymer Turbidity removed = 29.5 + 7.93 Total coagulant Turbidity removed = - 312 + 2018 Total polymer

R2,

Adjusted R2

R-Sq = 61.7% R-Sq(adj) = 61.6% R-Sq = 29.4% R-Sq(adj) = 29.3% R-Sq = 1.6% R-Sq(adj) = 1.5% R-Sq = 0.5% R-Sq(adj) = 0.4% R-Sq = 19.1% R-Sq(adj) = 19.1% R-Sq = 61.6% R-Sq(adj) = 61.5% R-Sq = 3.9% R-Sq(adj) = 3.8% R-Sq = 61.2% R-Sq(adj) = 61.2%

In general one kind of coagulant is used in moderately turbid raw water. Turbidity of raw water varies in the wide range of 3-28,239 NTU from 2006 to 2007 at Buaran WTP. Extremely high turbidity in high frequency makes purification processes extremely difficult. Therefore, three kinds of coagulant are used to combine the effects of each ones, and two kinds of polyelectrolyte are applied to make dense flocs. So it was difficult to derive the general formula that chemical concentration is related to water quality parameters. Instead turbidity removed was related to the combined effects of chemicals. Like the first formula as shown in Table 5.5, turbidity removal accomplished with the combined action of Alum, PAC, Sudofloc A and polyelectrolytes. C. Water treatment cost

We tried an empirical approach to develop a model that relates chemical cost per unit of treated water to raw water quality. Costs/unit for each chemical are shown in Table 5.4. Water quality parameters such as turbidity, pH, organic matter and color of raw water which are available and considered to influence coagulation process were included in regression equations. As shown in Table 5.6, Cost per unit of treated water was related to the raw water turbidity and the R 2 was not increased above 19.7% by including more parameters. The first equation will be applied to the cost estimation of chemicals used for water treatment. <Table 5.6>Relation between chemical cost per 1000m3 treated and raw water quality
Regression equations
Cost/1000m3 = 23.2 + 0.00464 Daily average turbidity Cost/1000m3 = - 16.6 + 0.00331 Daily average turbidity + 5.59 Daily average pH + 0.0414 Daily average organic matter + 0.0254 Daily average color Cost/1000m3 = - 17.2 + 0.00432 Daily average turbidity + 5.71 pH + 0.0347 Daily average color Cost/1000m3 = - 16.3 + 0.00330 Daily average turbidity + 5.59 Daily average pH + 0.0426 Daily average organic matter

R2,
R-Sq = 19.7% 19.6% R-Sq = 21.4% 21.2% R-Sq = 20.4% 20.3% R-Sq = 21.3% 21.2%

Adjusted R2
R-Sq(adj) =

R-Sq(adj) =

R-Sq(adj) =

R-Sq(adj) =

From Figure 5.14 which shows the raw water turbidity distribution at the Buaran WTP during the period 2006-2010, frequency of turbidity occurrence was estimated.

< Table 5.7>Yearly frequency of raw water turbidity at Buaran WTP

Turbidity, NTU 0 ~ 300 300 ~ 1000 1000 ~3000 3000 ~ 10000 10000 ~ Frequency Frequency of of daily daily maximum average 298 253 32 47 27 27 8 23 14

Table 5.8 shows chemical costs at Buaran WTP and all the WTPs which take raw water from WTC. As the turbidity of raw water is high, chemical costs are extremely high. In case of raw water turbidity improvement to 300 NTU which is much higher than the average turbidity, 153 NTU at the Curug weir, yearly reduction in chemicals cost will be estimated using the equation for cost/1000m 3 in Table 5.6 and yearly frequency exceeding 300 NTU in Table 5.7. In this case Buaran WTP can save 235,265 US$ and 731,462 US$ for all the WTPs which use WTC water. If the turbidity of WTC water could be reduced further, chemical costs could be saved more.

<Table 5.8>Chemical costs at the water treatment plants using raw water from WTC (in US $)

Turbidity range, NTU 0 ~ 300 300 ~ 1000 1000 ~3000 3000 ~ 10000 10000 ~

Frequenc y

Turbidity applied, NTU 150 650 2000 6500 19000

Chemical cost/1000 m3

Chemical cost at Buaran WTP 3,383,903 398,651 416,731 202,853 4,402,139

Chemical cost for all WTPs using WTC raw water 10,520,862 1,239,442 1,295,656 630,690 13,686,650

298 32 27 8

23.90 26.22 32.48 53.36 111.36

Yearly chemical cost

<Table

5.9>Chemical cost savings for raw water turbidity decrease to 300 NTU at the water treatment plants using raw water from WTC (in US $)
Turbidity applied, NTU 150 650 2000 6500 19000 Chemical cost/1000 m3 23.90 26.22 32.48 53.36 111.36 Chemical cost/1000 m3 at 300 NTU 24.59 24.59 24.59 24.59 24.59 Cost reducti on 1.62 7.89 28.77 86.77 235,266 Cost reduction at Buaran WTP 24,695 101,206 109,364 731,463 Cost reduction for all WTPs using WTC raw water 76,780 314,659 340,024

Turbidity range, NTU 0 ~ 300 300 ~ 1000 1000 ~3000 3000 ~ 10000 10000 ~

Frequen cy 298 32 27 8

Yearly chemical cost reduction

V.3.3

Feasibility Study on the construction of siphons

One of the solutions to reduce the turbidity value would be the perfect pre-sedimentation in addition to the Silt Trap located at the entrances of infow to the WTC. BCEOM has proposed silt removing facilities at the silt trap site located at just outlet of the proposed Bekasi siphon, however, such facilities can remove only easily settling large particles but have limit in reducing turbidity. For Turbidity reduction pre-sedimentation works should include (i) installation of movable scrapper (ii) use of proper quantity of chemicals including coagulant such as Poly Aluminum Chloride and Aluminum Sulfate, and polymer as a coagulant aid. Even in this case dissolved pollutants cannot be removed by pre-sedimentation. The consultants will evaluate the present treatment process of WTPs which take raw water from downstream of WTC and analyze the use of chemicals and costs of water treatment to evaluate effect of improved water quality by siphon constructions. Economic and financial feasibility study will be carried out for each separate bypass and for option of both bypasses implemented, considering the present and improved water quality of the the the the

WTC. Benefits will be determined from comparisons between the with-and-without project situations. The main purpose of the river separation works is to prevent the polluted waters of three rivers, Bekasi, Cibeet, and Cikarang from directly entering to the West Tarum Canal. The siphon construction at the confluence of Bekasi River is already in progress. The construction of other two siphons is now under feasibility study. These works will therefore help to improve the quality of raw water supply through the WTC to the treatment plants in Jakarta and to the other raw water users. The benefits from decoupling the flows from polluted river flows are the savings in chemical treatment cost. This can be determined by comparing the unit treatment costs of the Jakarta treatment plants at different quality conditions. The difference in unit costs of present and improved quality conditions will be considered as the direct benefit from the river flow separation works. There may be other conceivable benefits but these are all difficult to quantify and not specifically considered. A. K waters analysis of Cikarang and Bekasi siphons

K water analysed alternative scenarios for water quality management to improve water quality conditions of WTC. Constructing siphon systems for the Cikarang and Bekasi River will improve
water quality of WTC downstream to reduce 12% of BOD concentration at the location of Buaran water treatment plant. The water quality improvement of the Bekasi River by 20% BOD reduction yields 16.7% of BOD decrease at the same location. For the aspect of turbid reduction about 12% turbidity decrease was obtained due to siphon construction at the confluence of Bukase River with WTC.
F ra s low te a dB D n O
( rc 2 2 0 ) Ma h 1 0 7

S u td im la e B D18 O .6

B Do t e O f h

Bks e ai

R e w s lo e th n th t o t e W C iv r a w r a a f h T.

(a)

1 0 8

S u te im la d M a re e su d

0 -2 -2 0 3 1 07 M a ue B Du es r d O p t ej n t nw h h u c io it Bks e ai ( . 6 g ) 47 m /L

) L / g m ( D O B

6 4 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 D tan efro th C ru W ir (K ) is c m e u g e m

S u t dB D im lae O u t eju c io p h nt n w h Bk s it e ai (.6 g ) 18 m /L

(b)

4
B eC as ase

A 1(B LT ekasi only) A 1(com LT bined) B kasi e & C ara ik ng

S hn ip o
Kw t r ae s u t n im laio 10 0% spr t n e aaio

) L / g m ( D O B
2 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 50 6 0 7 0 D tan fromth C ru W (K ) is ce e u g eir m

(c)

BOD Decrease of Bekasi River Water

Base Case ALT2(20%)

ALT2(40%) ALT2(60%)

) L / g m ( D O B

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Distance from the Curug Weir (Km)

(d) <Figure 5.20>BOD simulation of water quality management alternatives by K water

Flowrates and turbidity

(June 12 2007)

(a)

180.0
Simulated

Jun/12/07

150.0

Measured

120.0

) U N ( y t d i b r u T

90.0

60.0

30.0

0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Distance from the Curug Weir (Km)

(b)

T urbidity sim ulation w ith

180.0
Simulated ALT 4

B ekasi siphon construction

Jun/12/07

150.0

120.0

) U N ( y t d i b r u T

90.0

60.0

K w te a r s u tion im la 1 % 00 s pa tion e ra

30.0

0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Distance from the Curug Weir (Km)

(c)

<Figure 5.21>Turbidity simulation for the siphon construction at the confluence of Bukasi River with WTC

K water used only one day data on March 21 2007 although the effectiveness of siphon should be analyzed through the wet and dry seasons. Simulated BOD values do not fit well with measured values (Figure 5.20 (b)). In fact, BOD (3.76 mg/L) of Bekasi River was lower than that (4.76 mg/L) of WTC, however, K water used the simulated value of 1.86 mg/L as BOD up the confluence of Bekasi with WTC, which was much lower than real BOD of Bekasi River. Simulation assumes that WTC water flows through the siphon without mixing with Bekasi water, but is augmented with Bekasi water to satisfy the necessary quantity of water. Here 11.98 m 3/s of Bekasi water is mixed with 10.64m3/s of WTC water to make downstream WTC water to be 22.12m3/s. If the necessary flow downstream of WTC is supplied from Curug weir with 100% separation of Bekasi water from WTC, the effectiveness of Bekasi siphon would be increased to 43% as shown in Figure 5.20 (c). Then the construction of siphon is more effective than the 20% BOD reduction of Bekasi River water by the pollution control in the Bekasi River basin (Figure 5.20 (d)). The effectiveness of the siphon construction for turbidity reduction could be explained in the same way as shown Figure 5.21 showing more improvement than the simulation by K water. On the whole, it can be said that effectiveness of siphons was underestimated

B. Analysis of alternatives for water quality management on WTC

With the construction of siphons at the confluences of Bekasi, Cibeet River and Cikarang River with WTC, BOD and turbidity in the downstream of WTC can be maintained less than the levels of BOD of 4.12mg/L (min; 1.15, max; 8.26) and turbidity of 153 NTU (min; 0.9, max;1,280, Q3; 198) at the

Curug weir by separating the flows from the Cibeet River and the Cikang River analyzing the water qualities from 2005 to2010. The Bekasi siphon is now under construction and effects of two others will be analyzed.

Alternative-1: Cibeet Partition Wall and Siphon Construction As previously mentioned, considerable amount of sediments are entering to the WTC especially during the rainy season. Through the construction of partition wall and siphon, the turbid flow from the Cibeet River will be delivered directly to the Kedunggede irrigation canal through BTB23. The improvement of water quality in WTS is anticipated.

Alternative-2: Cikarang Siphon Construction The Cikarang River flow is also polluted and contributions are remarkable. Cikarang siphon construction will be evaluated for the improvement of water quality of WTC.

Alternative-3: Cibeet Partition Wall and Siphon, and Cikarang Siphon Construction

The flow of Bekasi River is considered the most polluted, and an inverted siphon is now under construction to separate it from entering into WTC. The flows of Cibeet and Cikarang are also polluted and contributions are remarkable. Both of Cibeet partition wall and siphon construction, and Cikarang siphon construction will be evaluated for the improvement of water quality of WTC. Measured water quality values are so scattered along WTC as shown in Figure 5.20 and Figure 5.21, and simulated values can never be fitted to those values. Therefore, variation of BOD and turbidity along the WTC was estimated by a simple material balance method, not using a complicated model such as QUAL2 type. Table 5.6 shows the procedure of calculating BOD and turbidity along WTC at present and after the construction of Bekasi siphon. Calculations of other alternatives are not shown in Table 5.10. However, effects of alternatives for siphon construction in reducing BOD and turbidity at the Buaran WTP intake were summarized in Table 5.11. Averages of water quality from 2005 to 2010 were used even if there are inconsistencies in the data.

<Table 5.10>Variation of water qualities along WTC ((a) present, (b) after Bekasi siphon) (a)
From Curug From Cibeet 10.2 43.9 Flow into WTC m3/s 41.7 WTC flow m3/s 41.7 33.8 BOD mg/L 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.8 4.3 Turbidit y NTU 153.0 153.0 153.0 338.0 195.7

 From Cikarang From Bekasi Downstream

Kedunggede irrigation Cibeet Cikarang Bekasi

7.5 7.1
10.5 29.2 14.3 28.4

33.5 40.9 10.6 17.7

4.3 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.7

195.7 214.0 201.2 201.2 489.0 411.0

(b)
Flow into WTC m3/s 48.8 10.2 7.5 0.0
10.5 29.2 14.3 28.4

WTC flow m3/s 48.8 40.9 51.1 40.6 48.0 17.7 17.7

BOD mg/L 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.4

Turbidit y NTU 153.0 153.0 153.0 338.0 189.8 189.8 214.0 196.1 196.1 489.0 196.1

From Curug From Cibeet From Cikarang From Bekasi Downstream

Kedunggede irrigation Cibeet Cikarang Bekasi

<Table 5.11>Effects of siphons on water qualities at the Buaran WTP intake using water quality data during the period 2005-2010 Alternatives Present Bekasi BOD at Buaran (mg/L) 4.73 4.41 BOD reduction (%) 6.70 Turbidity at Buaran (NTU) 411.0 196.1 Turbidity reduction (%) 52.3

siphon Bekasi & Cikarangsiph on Bekasi & Cibeet siphon Bekasi, Cikarang & Cibeet siphon 4.23 4.31 4.12 10.41 8.75 12.83 185.1 168.9 153.0 55.0 58.9 62.8

In case of using the averages from 1993 to 2010 with all available data from PJT II, summarized results are as shown in Table 5.12. Compared to the effects using recent water quality data (20052010), water quality at the Buaran WTP intake improved remarkably as more siphons are constructed. That is the reason why the previous studies recommended the construction of siphons at the confluences of three rivers to prevent polluted river flows from entering into WTC. In both cases, Cikarang siphon is more effective in reducing BOD, while Cibeet siphon is more effective in reducing turbidity. As mentioned earlier, only available data provided by PJT II may be insufficient to justify the unnecessariness of siphons in addition to Bekasi siphon. Based on that data, the water qualities of three rivers seem to be improved since 2005 as there are not much difference between them and WTC. However, it is difficult to assess the state of water quality in the rivers and WTC with only monthly measured data that sometimes is missing for months and sampled inconsistently. Turbidity values continuously measured by WTP at the Buaran WTP intake range from 16 to 3,465 NTU with average of 279 NTU, while those measured monthly by PJT II range from 16 to 3,465 with average of 279 NTU. It shows the result that monthly measured data is not sufficient in representing the real situation. Continuous water quality monitoring will be prerequisite to judge the necessity of more siphons if recent data can have the credibility in being used for the feasibility. In addition it must iangenclude synthetic organic micro pollutants, heavy metals and microorganisms that can be used to assess the sources of pollution such as industry, agriculture, population, etc.

<Table 5.12>Effects of siphons on water qualities at the Buaran WTP intake using water quality data during the period 1993-2010 Alternatives Present Bekasi siphon Bekasi & Cikarang siphon Bekasi & Cibeet siphon Bekasi, Cikarang & Cibeet siphon BOD at Buaran (mg/L) 8.22 6.53 5.70 6.2 5.26 20.5 30.7 25.0 36.0 BOD reduction (%) Turbidity at Buaran (NTU) 822.9 624.7 504.4 455.3 304.5 24.1 38.7 44.7 63.0 Turbidity reduction (%)