effective use of filter pilot testing and chlorine dioxide demonstration testing to optimize...
DESCRIPTION
Effective Use of Filter Pilot Testing and Chlorine Dioxide Demonstration Testing to Optimize Treatment Plant Performance John Civardi, PE – Hatch Mott MacDonald September 19, 2013. Outline. Background of Aqua Shenango Water Treatment Plant Operational Issues and Treatability Study - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Effective Use of Filter Pilot Testing and Chlorine Dioxide Demonstration Testing to Optimize Treatment Plant PerformanceJohn Civardi, PE – Hatch Mott MacDonaldSeptember 19, 2013
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Outline
· Background of Aqua Shenango Water Treatment Plant· Operational Issues and Treatability Study· UV Peroxide at Shenango· DAF Pilot Testing· Filter Testing Phases 1, 2, and 3· Chlorine Dioxide Testing, bench and demonstration· Where We Are Now
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Plant Background
• Capacity 16 MGD
• Raw water from the Shenango River in Sharon, PA.
• Treatment: ballasted flocculation and dual media filtration, chlorine for primary disinfection and chloramines for secondary disinfection
• Plant commissioned in early 2000.
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Plant Schematic
Pilot Area
Shenango River
Raw Water Pump
FiltersKMnO4 ClearwellACTIFLOChlorine Alum
Lime
Soda Ash
PAC
Chlorine
Caustic Soda
Filter Aid Polymer
Chlorine
Corrosion Inhibitor
PACAmmonia
To Distribution
Caustic SodaSoda Ash
Fluoride
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Plant Operational Issues
· Disinfection By-Products• Range HAAs (53.7-97.7 ppb)
• Range TTHMs (39.0-85.1 ppb)
· UFRVs< 10,000 gal/sf, – Short Filter Runs
· Algae· T&O Geosmin and MIB at 160 ng/L· Manganese
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Water Quality Raw & Treated (Average Conditions)
Turbidity (NTU) TOC (mg/l) Algae
(Counts/ml) Manganese (ppm)
Raw 9.6 5.67 16535 0.11
Filter Influent 0.85 3.46 880 0.03
Treated 0.08 3.12 11 ND
Shown Data collected from Pilot Study from 9/15/11 to 1/23/2012
Water Quality/Performance Issues (Maximum Conditions)Turbidity
(NTU) TOC (mg/l) Algae (Counts/ml) Manganese (ppm)
Raw 102.1 7.1 37440 0.33
Filter Influent 3.39 6.4 2480 0.08
Treated 0.16 4.1 36 0.08
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Treatability Study
Options Matrix
River 4 MG Pre Sed Basin
Replace Filter Media
Option 1: PAC KMnO4
UV-H2O2 Clearwell
Several variations were also considered
Option 2:
River ACTIFLO Ozone Replace Filter Media
CLO2
UV-H2O2 Clearwell
Option 3:
River ACTIFLO DAF Replace Filter Media
CLO2
UV-H2O2 Clearwell
ACTIFLO
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Historical T&O Treatment and Problems
· Powdered Activated Carbon
· Residuals Generation
· PAC provided limited removal especially with Actiflo
· Competitive effects of alum
· Could PAC be optimized and is AOP a suitable option?
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Bench Testing at Aqua’s Neshaminy WTP
· Removal of up to 90% Geosmin & MIB is desired at maximum plant capacity
· Aqua and Carbon Supplier performed jar tests with Geosmin to assess :– Potential competitive effects of alum on carbon usage –
literature contained limited data
– Optimum type of PAC
– Optimum dose and detention time
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA PAC Testing Results
· Dosing PAC together with alum results in significantly lower MIB removal (28% removal Alum/PAC vs 55% PAC then alum)
· Testing found that PAC should be added prior to alum· Minimum PAC detention time is 45 minutes· Min./Max. PAC dosage is 30 mg/L - 60 mg/L
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Plant Impacts of Testing
· 45 Minutes of Detention Time at 15 MGD requires at 500,000 gallon pre-carbon contact tank with mixers
· 30 mg/L dosage results in an additional 3,800 ppd of Dry Solids
· This would double the plant solids production and require additional residuals treatment equipment
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Cost Comparison AOP vs PAC
UV – H2O2 PACCapital $2.5 Million $2.2 Million
O&M $200,000 $310,000
Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost
$384,000 $475,000
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PAA Bit About Carbon Footprint
20 Year Total Carbon Footprint Comparing UV-oxidation and PAC
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
PAC TrojanUVSwift™ECT
Taste and Odor Technology
Tons
of C
02 E
quiv
alen
ts
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Comparison with PAC
· No additional sludge handling is needed whereas the PAC process will generate approx 1.5 tons per day of dry solids (100% increase in solids production)
· Ability to provide 1 log and higher removal of MIB and Geosmin· Ability to achieve additional microbial disinfection· Smaller footprint than the PAC option· Produces less than 25% CO2 compared to UV/Peroxide
· Aqua Selected UV-Peroxide
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
UV Process Layout Shenango WTP
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
UV Process Layout Shenango WTP
Hydrogen Peroxide
UV ReactorFlow Meter
Chlorine
Cooling Water Return
Cooling Water Supply
NC
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Treatability Study to Optimize Filtration
· Technical Experts· Workshops· Selected DAF, Filters, and Chlorine Dioxide
– DAF minimizes residuals, low polymer use, algae performance
ACTIFLO
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Recommended Option Schematic
Shenango River
Raw Water Pump
FiltersKMnO4 ClearwellACTIFLOChlorine Alum
Lime
Soda Ash
PAC
Chlorine
Caustic Soda
Filter Aid Polymer
Chlorine
Corrosion Inhibitor
PACAmmonia
To Distribution
Caustic SodaSoda Ash
Fluoride
Pilot: Dissolved Air Flotation Pilot: Filter
OptimizationTo
Waste
Integration of DAF into the Plant
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Pilot Testing
· Control/Baseline· Components· Coordination with Regulators· Vendors· Why Pilot Test?
– Proof of Design Concept
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PAPilot Testing Continued
· The Team– Owner: Aqua, PA Plant Staff and Main Office Water Quality, Engineering, and
Laboratory in Bryn Mawr, PA
– Engineer: HMM Pilot Engineer (Pittsburgh, PA), Data Review & Coordination (Millburn, NJ)
– Vendors: DAF Supplier (IDI), Filter Constructor
– PADEP – Protocol Approval
· Cost – New Filter Columns, DAF Rental, Power, Chemicals· Data Management· Communication: Weekly Conference Calls
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Pilot TestingContinued
Backwash Controls
Filter Columns
Online Analyzers
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Protocol
· Three seasons: (1) High Algae (2) Cold Water (3) High Turbidity– Phase 1: Filter Optimization (9/27/11 - 10/13/11)
– Phase 2: DAF and Filters at Control Steady State (10/20/11 - 11/23/11)
– Phase 3: Filter Optimization for Ballast Flocculation (12/6/11 – 1/24/2012)
– Phase 4: Chlorine Dioxide Addition
· Control Column with Same Media as Existing Plant Filters · High Turbidity Modifications with Pre-Sedimentation Tank· Integrated Chlorine Dioxide & Sulfuric Acid
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Pilot Testing Schematic
pH Adjustment
Raw Water
Coagulant
Flocculation Chambers
Sample Point
Polymer (if needed)
Air Compressor & Saturator
DAF Tank
Clarified Water
Sludge Scraper
Recycle Pump
To Filters
To Waste
Filter Column 60
Filter Column GAC
Filter Column 47
Filter Column 72
To Waste
From ACTIFLO
Same Configuration as Plant
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Testing Matrix & Lab Coordination
Regular Analytical Schedule
Measurement
Sample Point
FrequencyField
or Lab1
1 2 3 4
Raw Water
Pilot Filter Column Effluent
Plant Clarified Water
Plant Combined Filter Effluent
Turbidity X X X X Online and manually once per day Field
Particle Counts X X X X OnlineWater
Temperature X Once per day Field
pH X X X X 1,2 Online and all manually once per day Field
True Color X X X X Once per day FieldUV254 X X X X Once per day Field
TOC/DOC X X X X Twice per week LabAlkalinity X X Once per day Field
Filterability X Once per day FieldAluminum (total and dissolved) X X X X Once per day Lab
Iron X X X X Once per day LabManganese X X X X Once per day Lab
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Testing Schedule
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
9/27/201110/17/2011
11/6/201111/26/2011
12/16/20111/5/2012
1/25/20122/14/2012
Start Date
Optimizing: pH, Acid & CLO2
Dosage, Flow Rates.
Filter Optimization with Chlorinated ACTIFLO Water
Chlorine Dioxide
Optimize Filter
DAF Running at Steady State
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Phase 1: Optimize Filter using Treated ACTIFLO Water
Filter Media Configuration
Pilot Filter
Column
Sand Media
Depth (in)
Effective Size
(mm)Uniformity Coefficient Type Depth
(in)Effective
Size (mm)Uniformity Coefficient
Total Media Depth
(in)
47 12 0.45-0.55 1.4 Anthracite 35 0.85-0.95 1.4 47
60 12 0.45-0.55 1.4 Anthracite 48 1.15-1.25 1.4 60
72 12 0.65-0.75 1.5 Anthracite 60 1.45-1.55 1.4 72
GAC 12 0.45-0.55 1.4 GAC 60 1.0-1.2 1.5 72
Column 47 Represents the Configuration of the Plant’s Filter
Initial Filter Testing Results
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
· Phase 1 Conclusion: Filter GAC had Lower Run Times than Existing Plant Filter Configuration.
· Filter 72 had the Longest Run Times Compared to All Columns· Replace Filter GAC with Filter 72 Configuration Under ACTIFLO
Treated Water for Benchmark Comparison to DAF· Continue to Phase 2
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
Initial Filter Testing Results
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA DAF & Filter Testing
Filter Media Configuration
Pilot Filter Column
Sand Anthracite
Depth (in) Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient Depth (in) Effective Size
(mm)Total Media Depth (in)
47 12 0.45-0.55 1.4 35 0.85-0.95 47
60 12 0.45-0.55 1.4 48 1.15-1.25 60
72 12 0.65-0.75 1.5 60 1.45-1.55 72
72 12 0.65-0.75 1.5 60 1.45-1.55 72
Phase 2: Dissolved Air Flotation Under Steady State ConditionsColumn 72 is the Optimal Configuration from Phase 1 using ACTIFLO Treated Water
Column 47 is the Existing Plant Configuration using DAF Treated Water
Column 47 Represents the Configuration of the Plant’s Filter
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA DAF Testing
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
DAF & Filters During High Turbidity EventsPA
· Raw Water (Primary Axis) & Filter Influent (Secondary Axis)
Turbidity Spike
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
DAF & Filters During High Turbidity EventsPA
· Phase 2: Effluent Turbidity with DAF Treated Water
Turbidity Spike
Filter 1: 35” AnthraciteFilter 2: 48” AnthraciteFilter 3: 60” AnthraciteFilter 4: 60” Anthracite (ACTIFLO)
ACTIFLO
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
DAF & Filters During High Turbidity Events
Phase 2: Effluent Turbidity with DAF Treated Water
Turbidity Spike
ACTIFLO
Date
47 60 72 72
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Initial Conclusions
Filter
ACTIFLO Treated Water DAF Treated Water Comparison DAF/ACTIFLO
Phase (No.) Average UFRV (gals/sf) Phase (No.) Average UFRV
(gals/sf) UFRV (Ratio)
47 1 4,542 2 11,512 2.5360 1 7,211 2 15,516 2.1572 1 8,670 2 15,507 1.79
· DAF Improved Filter Runs (UFRV) · DAF Could Not Handle High Turbidity Events and the Addition of
Pre-sedimentation was not Cost Effective· Next Step – Optimize Filters for ACTIFLO
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Additional Filter Testing
· Phase 3: Filter Optimization with Chlorinated ACTIFLO Treated Water Under Cold Temperature Conditions – Column 47: Existing Plant’s Configuration– Column 60 & 72: Optimal Configurations from Phases 1 & 2
Filter Media Configuration
Pilot Filter Column
No.
Sand Anthracite
Depth (in)
Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient
Depth (in)
Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient
Total Media Depth
(in)
47 12 0.45-0.55 1.4 35 0.85-0.95 1.4 47
60 12 0.45-0.55 1.4 48 1.15-1.25 1.4 60
72 12 0.65-0.75 1.5 60 1.45-1.55 1.4 72
Column 47 Represents the Configuration of the Plant’s Filter
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Filter Data #1 Phase 3:
Turbidity Under Protocol Threshold
Date
47 60 72
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Phase 3: Head-Loss with ACTIFLO Treated WaterBackwash Occurs when Head-Loss Reaches 120 Inches
Filter Data #2
Filter’s 60 & 72 Have
Longer Run Times
Compared to Filter 47 (Existing
Plant)
Date
47 60 72
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Evaluation of Filter Data & Selection of Media
Table 3.1: Filter Performance Evaluation Criteria Summary*
Pilot Filter
Media Configuration
Filtered Water Turbidity
Filter Run Volume Filtered Water Color (true)
Filtered Water Manganese:
< 0.1 NTU > 7,500 gal. at < 10 ft headloss
< 5 Pt-Co color units < 0.01 mg/L
4735” Anth./12” Sand (control)
6048” Anth./12”
Sand +
7260” Anth./12”
Sand
GAC60” GAC/12”
Sand
* A “” indicates that the evaluation criteria goal was achieved. A “+” indicates that the filter media performed better than the existing plant’s filter media.
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Evaluation of Filter Data & Selection of Media
· Summary of PADEP Requirements: Effective Size, Length/Depth Ratios– Min. 12 in of Media in Effective Size Range No Greater than 0.45 to 0.55 mm
– Ratio Depth (in) to Media Effective Size (mm) Greater than 40
– Anthracite Effective Size 0.8 mm to 1.2 mm, Uniformity Coefficient No Greater than 1.7
– Sand at Least 85% Siliceous Material with an Effective Size of 0.45 to 0.55 mm and a Uniformity Coefficient No Greater than 1.65
· Cost· Availability of Media
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Evaluation of Filter Data & Selection of Media
· Selection of Filter Media: Column 60– Improved UFRV by 40%, Meaning Longer Filter Runs
– Complies with PADEP Standards
– Deeper Anthracite Layer with Larger Effective Size
– Additional 2 Inches of Sand for Pathogen Barrier
– Achieves Water Quality Similar to Existing Filters
Optimal Filter Media Configuration Selected
Pilot Filter
Column No.
Sand Media
Depth (in)
Effective Size (mm)
Uniformity Coefficient Type Depth
(in)Effective
Size (mm)Uniformity Coefficient
Total Media Depth
(in)60 12 0.45-0.55 1.4 Anthracite 48 1.15-1.25 1.4 60
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Chlorine Dioxide
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PABenefits of Chlorine Dioxide at the
Shenango Plant
1. Oxidation of manganese before flocculation allows the manganese to be removed during the clarification process (ACTIFLO) and allows the chlorine dosage applied to the filter influent to be reduced or eliminated.
2. Reduction of the chlorine dosage at the filter influent results in reductions in DBP formation in the Shenango distribution system.
3. Chloramination can increase biofilm and cause nitrification in the distribution system. Chlorine dioxide normally breaks down to form chlorite ion. Studies have shown that the presence of chlorite ion in finished water results in better control of organisms in the distribution system, especially those which cause nitrification
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Approach at Shenango
· Bench Testing· Pilot Testing with DAF· Demonstration Testing· Procurement
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Bench testing with ClO2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Chlorine dioxide demand/decay in Shenango raw water. Temp. = 20˚C, pH = 6.2, Mn2+ = 250 mg/L, TOC = 6.58 mg/L.
2.0 mg/L 1.5 mg/L 1.0 mg/L
Time (min)
ClO
2 (m
g/L)
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.50.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Chlorine dioxide dose (mg/L)
Dis
solv
ed M
n R
esid
ual (
mg/
L)
10 minutes of detention
Bench Testing Chlorine Dioxide
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Bench Testing Ozone
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.50.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Ozone dose (mg/L)
Dis
solv
ed M
n R
esid
ual (
mg/
L)
10 minutes of detention
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA How is CLO2 Delivered?
· ClO2 is best supplied via On-Site Generation Systems– ClO2 gas is too energetic to package and ship - heat, light, pressure, shock
sensitive
– Road transport of ClO2 gas or solutions is not allowed
– Bulk Shipment of CDG 3000 (0.3%) contains 6 lbs chlorine dioxide· Which are then either oxidized or reduced to obtain chlorine
dioxide:– ClO3- chlorate ion
– ClO2 chlorine dioxide
– ClO2- chlorite ion
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Demonstration Testing
The purpose of this full scale test was to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorine dioxide as a pre-oxidant to improve the following:
1. Manganese removal in the ballasted flocculation system.
2. Reduction in filter top chlorine dose while still achieving similar pathogen inactivation. Pre-oxidation with chlorine dioxide was expected to reduce the chlorine demand and allow a reduction in the applied disinfection chlorine dose while still maintaining the same effluent chlorine residual.
3. Reduction in formation of DBPs in the combined filter effluent.
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Demonstration Test
· The CLO2 system delivered 15 to 150 pounds per day (ppd) of chlorine dioxide. At an average plant flowrate of 9.5 MGD and a dose of 1.0 mg/L, approximately 80 ppd of chlorine dioxide was used. At a maximum plant flowrate of 16.0 MGD and a dose of 1.0 mg/L, approximately 135 ppd of chlorine dioxide was used.
· The chlorine dioxide system was furnished by Siemens and was a Millennium III™ C-150 Auto two chemical flow-pacing chlorine gas/sodium chlorite chlorine dioxide generator capable of producing up to a maximum of 150 lbs/ day of chlorine dioxide with a 10:1 turn-down and automatic flow-pacing capability. Chlorine gas was supplied using the plant’s existing pre-chlorinator. Sodium chlorite at a strength of 25% was used and was delivered in 250 gallon totes. At the maximum chlorine dioxide usage of 150 ppd, 84 gallons of sodium chlorite was used and 79 pounds of chlorine was used.
· As this was a demonstration test treating the entire plant flow, design standards from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Public Water Supply Manual 383-2125-108 Section IV.B.2 were followed.
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Findings
Disinfection Byproducts (µg/L) Parameter Value
Chlorine Dioxide Study 2011 Weekly Data (Aug-Nov) CFE1 Tap2 CFE1 Tap2
TTHMs Max 28.1 49.8 49.9 85.1 Mean 12.5 26.0 28.7 53.7 Min 5.6 12.2 14.8 34.5
HAAs Max 37.7 61.5 103.8 97.7 Mean 22.2 41.6 71.7 70.5 Min 9.2 29.9 47.7 53.7
1. CFE is the combined filter effluent 2. Tap is the plant effluent tap.
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Chlorite Levels
Distribution System Chlorite (mg/L)
Location 8/27/2012 9/12/2012 10/29/2012 11/7/2012
Chlorine Dioxide Dose 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00
Near Entry Point 0.344 0.501 0.617 0.536
Average Residence Time 0.324 0.494 0.561 0.538
Maximum Residence Time 0.164 0.278 0.337 0.438
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Summary
· UV-Hydrogen Peroxide is feasible and cost effective for Geosmin and MIB reduction
· DAF provided significant improvement to UFRV but raw water turbidities above 20 NTU were problematic
· Chlorine Dioxide can be purchased and used for 100 gpm pilot studies for feasibility studies
· Chlorine Dioxide can be cost effectively tested at plant flowrates on the order of 20 MGD
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Acknowledgements
· Aqua, PA American Water– Pete Kusky, Plant Supervisor
– Bill Young, Plant Chemist
– Larry Wehr, Process Controls
– Marc Lucca, VP of Production
– Craig Lutz, Water Quality Specialist
– Doug Crawshaw, Production Engineer
– Bill McGinty, Manager of Treatment/QC
– Jack Walter, Division Manager
· Infilco (IDI), Siemens· Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM)
– Josef Argenio, EIT
– Mark Tompeck, PE
Thank You
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
Phase 1: Head-Loss with ACTIFLO Treated WaterBackwash Occurs when Head-Loss Reaches 120 Inches
Filter’s 60 & 72 Have the Longest Run
Times
Existing PlantFilter
Date
47 60 72 GAC
Initial Filter Testing Results
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
· At room temperature, chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is a light sensitive gas denser than air, yellow/greenish in color, highly soluble in water, with a chlorine like odor.
Cl
OOClO2 Molecular Structure
Technical Overview
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Technical Overview
Chlorine Dioxide belongs to the family of chemicals known as Oxidizers. CLO2 is also a powerful disinfectant. · Ozone· Hydrogen Peroxide· Chlorine· Chlorine Dioxide
Measured by ORP potential
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Why Chlorine Dioxide?
· Cost effective disinfectant for regulatory compliance– declining surface water quality favors CLO2
– effective @ pH 2-10
– enhanced CxT’s for crypto and giardia
– reduces THM’s, THAA’s and AOX
– EPA approved for primary and residual disinfection
· Selective oxidant – reduces Mn / Fe, assists on particle count reduction and enhances filter runs
– Improves taste and odor, oxidizes / destroys sulfides, certain humics / fluvics / phenols
· Superior DBP control:– residuals measurable, well studied
– does not oxidize bromide to bromate; no reaction with ammonia
– does not chlorinate organics
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Disinfection with ClO2
· Broad spectrum biocide – bacteria, viruses, fungi, algae, mollusks and biofilm– Provides CxT credits effective for Giardia and Cryptosporidium in multiple barrier approach– lower “CxT” values versus Cl2 and chloramines– Synergy with UV (pre or post UV for wastewater and reclaim water)
· Effective pH 2 to 10– does not oxidize bromide to bromate– does not react with ammonia – is often more effective and less costly than permanganate in reducing manganese and iron concentrations
· Points of Application– ahead of chlorination or chloramination to reduce THM’s– following UV for residual and enhanced disinfection– ahead of ozone to reduce ozone demand and minimize bromate– compatible with chloramines - controls nitrification
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PAAuto Flow-Pacing “Chlorine Free”
Chlorine Dioxide Generators (1 to 110 kg/hr)
• 12% Sodium Hypochlorite
• 15% Hydrochloric Acid
• 25% Sodium Chlorite
• Chlorine in-situ on demand
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PAAuto Batch Generator –
3 Chemical
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500
20
40
60
80
100
120
Reaction time (hours)
Chl
orof
orm
Con
cent
ratio
n (u
g/L)
Chlorine Dioxide Free Chlorine
Chloroform production in water containing 5 mg humic aciddosed with chlorine dioxide or free chlorine
THM Formation
Naock & Doerr 1978
“No THMs with ClO2
”
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Biofilm Control
· CLO2 penetrates and kills biofilm· Does not react with ammonia · Retains disinfection capability with no need to overcome
ammonia demand· Shown to reduce planktonic population by 98.72% and biofilm
population by 99.88%· Additional benefits due the chlorite ion disinfection by-product:
– retards nitrification issues
– extends life of chloramines
Walker, J.T. and M. Morales. 1997. Evaluation of Chlorine dioxide For The Control of Biofilms. Jour. Water. Sci. Tech.. 35:11 (319-323)McGuire, M.J., N. I Lieu and M. S. Pearthree. 1999. Using chlorite ion to control nitrification. Jour. AWWA. 91:10 (52-61)Gates, D. 1998. Chlorine Dioxide Handbook, Water Disinfection Series. Denver,CO: AWWA. Pp. 63 - 64.
g
2013 NYC Watershed/Tifft Science and Technical Symposium
PA Point of Addition
· To eliminate prechlorination (thereby reducing DBP formation) · Head of treatment train
– Low demand waters
· Entry to treatment plant (in combination with coagulation)– High demand waters
· Intake (sufficient time to react)– Turbid waters
– Will not remove TOC, but improves coagulation & particle counts
· After sedimentation (reduced demand)· Before ozonation to reduce demand on ozone and to help reduce
bromate formation by ozone