your name creative solutions - veolia canada · creative solutions for our environment your name...

Creative Solutions for our Environment

Your Name Veolia Water North America

June 2010

Evaluation of Actiflo® Carb Process for the Combined Removal of Trace Organic Compounds and Phosphorous during Wastewater Tertiary Treatment

Ronan Tréguer, Ben Blair, Rebecca Klaper, Scott Royer, Chris Magruder

WEFTEC, New Orleans - Technical Session 103

Wednesday, October 3rd

Background of the project

Organization of the project

Description of the pilot unit and testing plan

Results

Conclusion

Presentation outline

Background of the project

Organization of the project

Description of the pilot unit and testing plan

Results

Conclusion

Presentation outline

Problems with trace organics

Increasing concerns (across the US and worldwide) on the impact of Trace Organic Compounds (TOrCs)

– Antibiotics

– Antidepressants

– Anticonvulsants

– Antihistamines

– Beta-blockers

– Contraceptives

– etc…

On the environment, wildlife and ultimately drinking water resources

Need to evaluate reliable wide-range removal processes

Background of the project

Follow-up of a previous project

Follow-up on the R&D project performed with Dr. Klaper (UWM School of Freshwater Sciences) on the occurrence of TOrCs in South Shore WRF and the environment

Background of the project

Discharge

(g/day)

Discharge

(lbs/year)

Caffeine 4700 3800

Acetaminophen 1300 1000

Paraxanthine 1300 1000

Naproxen 1100 880

Sulfamethoxazole 340 270

Sulfanilamide 320 260

Ofloxacin 280 220

Trimethoprim 250 200

Triclosan 240 190

Diltiazem 210 170

Ampicillin 200 160

Follow-up of a previous project

Follow-up on the R&D project performed with Dr. Klaper (UWM School of Freshwater Sciences) on the occurrence of TOrCs in South Shore WRF and the environment

Background of the project

Increasing concern on the Phosphorus discharge limits

Impact of nutrient discharges on the environment (eutrophication and subsequent issues)

Trend to decrease the regulatory limits of phosphorus (across the US and worldwide) in the wastewater effluent discharge

Background of the project

Background of the project

Organization of the project

Description of the pilot unit and testing plan

Results

Conclusion

Presentation outline

Participation to a WERF project

Trace Organic Compounds Removal during Wastewater Treatment - Categorizing Wastewater Treatment Processes by their Efficacy in Reduction of a Suite of Indicator TOrCs

Collaboration in Milwaukee

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

Veolia Water North America

Univ. Wisconsin – Milwaukee (School of Freshwater Sciences)

Pilot unit from Kruger Inc. (Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies)

Project following a collaboration with Dr. Rebecca Klaper (UW-Milwaukee)

Regarding the occurrence of pharmaceuticals within a MMSD’s wastewater treatment plant

Organization of the project

Background of the project

Organization of the project

Description of the pilot unit and testing plan

• The objectives and expectations

• The targeted TOrCs

• The Actiflo® Carb

• The testing site

Results

Conclusion

Presentation outline

Pilot-scale tests

Pilot trailer unit, 200 gpm (288,000 gpd)

Evaluation of P removal and efficiency towards TOrCs

Two periods of pilot tests (April, summer)

Trace Organic Compounds

Short list of 10 compounds, selected following a previous project with Dr. Klaper (antibiotics, antiepileptic, antidiabetic, caffeine…)

Two levels of concentrations

Two levels of PAC dosages

P removal

Achieve consistent removal down to 0.05 mgP/L (The current permit limit is 1.0 mgP/L)

Objectives and expectations

Listing of the selected TrOCs

Compound TypeCommon

names

Average [TOrC]

observed in plant

effluent (ng/L) by

R. Klaper

Target [TOrC] in

Actiflo® Carb

influent (ng/L)

Carbamazepine Anti-epilepticTegretol®,

Carbatrol®200 300

FluoxetineAnti-

depressant

Prozac®,

Sarafem®100 300

Trimethoprim AntibioticTrimpex®,

Proloprim®100 300

Sulfamethoxazole Antibiotic Gantanol® 150 300

Ofloxacin Antibiotic Floxin® 150 300

DiltiazemAnti-

hypertension

Cardizem®,

Dilacor®100 300

Diphenhydramine Anti-histaminic Benadryl® 100 300

Triclosan Biocide Sanitizers 100 300

NaproxenAnti-

inflammatory

Naprosyn®,

Aleve®300 500

Caffeine Tracer stimulant 1,500 2,000

Combination of several technologies

Sedimentation rate of up to 80 m/h (32 gpm/ft2) for Actiflo

Case of a 70 MGD facility:

– Actiflo® footprint: 1,520 ft2

– Conventional (flat-bottom) settling basins footprint: 81,000 ft2

First, a few words on the Actiflo®…

Actiflo®

Addition of powdered activated carbon recirculation…

Then, what is Actiflo® Carb?

• 1 = Fresh PAC Addition• 2 = Contact time with fresh and recycled PAC• 3 = Coagulant Addition and Floc Formation• 4 = Polymer and sand addition plus Turbomix mixing • 5 = Rapid Settling and Material Recirculation• 6 = Separation with Hydrocyclone• 7 = PAC recirculation

1

2

3 4

5

67

Actiflo® Carb

The South Shore Water Reclamation Facility

Owned by MMSD

Operated by Veolia Water

12 miles south of Milwaukee

300 MGD max. capacity

70 MGD base flow

The pilot site…

The pilot site…

And inside the pilot trailer

And the process…

Actiflo® Carb – Operational parameters

Operational parameters Values Units

Influent flow rate 75 – 95 gpm

System HRT 27 – 34 min

Rise rate 34 – 41 m/h

Residuals concentration 8 to 11 g/L

PAC dosage 10 – 20 mg/L

Coagulant type Ferric chloride -

Coagulant dosage (as Fe) 7 to 12 mg/L

Polymer dosage 1.5 to 3.2 mg/L

Microsand effective size 82 µm

Microsand concentration 14 to 16 g/L

Background of the project

Organization of the project

Description of the pilot unit and testing plan

Results

Conclusion

Presentation outline

Selection of activated carbon (AC)

Approach

Comparison of wood and coconut-based ACs

Batch tests with the TOrCs of interest at different dosages and contact times

� Selection of the wood-based carbon (physically activated, surface area ~1100 m2/g)

TOrCs removal

Removal rates per molecule

TOrCs removal

Average removal, across all compounds, independently of treatment conditions: 75%

PAC dosage

Higher removals with higher dosage

10 mg/L: 68% removal across all compounds

20 mg/L: 8 compounds out of 10 removed above 75%

No influence of the rise rate on the performance

Overall, order of performance:

Diltiazem > Trimethoprim > Triclosan > Diphenhydramine > Carbamazepine > Ofloxacin > Sulfamethoxazole > Fluoxetine > Caffeine > Naproxen.

Phosphorus removalIn the case of Actiflo® Carb

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Fe/

P r

atio

TP

(m

g/L

)

Influent TP Effluent TP Fe/P ratio

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Fe/

P

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TP

(m

g/L)

Phosphorus removalIn the case of Actiflo® only (no activated carbon)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0 5 10 15 20 25

Fe/

P r

atio

TP

(m

g/L

)Influent TP Effluent TP Fe/P ratio

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

0 5 10 15 20

Fe/

P

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0 5 10 15 20

TP

(m

g/L

)

Phosphorus removal

With Actiflo® Carb

Concentrations between 0.02 and 0.05 mgP/L consistently achieved in the effluent

Coagulant dosages from 7 to 12 mg/L

With molar ratio (Fe / P) between 7 and 17

As a comparison, with the conventional SSWRF process:

Average influent P: 3.75 mgP/L

Final effluent P averaging 0.47 mgP/L, with an associated average molar ratio (Fe / P) of 1.6

Background of the project

Organization of the project

Description of the pilot unit and testing plan

Results

Conclusion

Presentation outline

Conclusion

Actiflo® Carb performance

Removal of phosphorus to a consistent level of 0.05 mg/L or below

Removal of a series of Trace Organic Compounds at very significant rates

10 mg/L of PAC : average removal of 68 % across the selected TOrCs

20 mg/L of PAC : average removal of 83 %

Ability to provide effective tertiary treatment barrier for multiple contaminants targets

Operational aspects

Ability to start and stop within ½ hour

Small footprint of the process for retrofitting into tight plant sites

Reasonable costs (dependent on the polymer and carbon dosages)

Thanks…

Any questions?