Está en la página 1de 220

Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Subject Area: Water Resources and Environmental Sustainability

Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Water Research Foundation


The Water Research Foundation (formerly Awwa Research Foundation or AwwaRF) is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers. The Foundations mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources, treatment, distribution, and health effects. Funding for research is provided primarily by subscription payments from close to 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers in North America and abroad. Additional funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national and international organizations and the U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to be leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge to be developed and disseminated. From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Foundations staff directs and supports the efforts of more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These volunteers represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and monitor research studies that benefit the entire drinking water community. The results of research are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Web site, Webcasts, conferences, and periodicals. For its subscribers, the Foundation serves as a cooperative program in which water suppliers unite to pool their resources. By applying Foundation research findings, these water suppliers can save substantial costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and technology. Since its inception, the Foundation has supplied the water community with more than $460 million in applied research value. More information about the Foundation and how to become a subscriber is available on the Web at www.WaterResearchFoundation.org.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Prepared by: David A. Cornwell, John Tobiason, and Richard Brown EE&T, Inc. 712 Gum Rock Court, Newport News, VA 23606

Jointly sponsored by: Water Research Foundation 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098 City of Cleveland, OH and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. Published by:

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DISCLAIMER
This study was jointly funded by the Water Research Foundation (Foundation), the City of Cleveland, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-83110401. The Foundation, City of Cleveland, or USEPA assume no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in this publication or for the opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of the Foundation, City of Cleveland, or USEPA. This report is presented solely for informational purposes.

Copyright 2010 by Water Research Foundation ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or otherwise utilized without permission. ISBN 978-1-60573-084-4 Printed in the U.S.A.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CONTENTS

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... vii FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... xi FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... xix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... xxi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... xxiii CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1 Characteristics of SFBW..................................................................................................... 1 Quantity ........................................................................................................................ 1 Quality (Composition) ................................................................................................. 3 Options for SFBW Treatment ............................................................................................. 4 Equalization (With or Without SFBW Treatment) ..................................................... 4 Low-Rate (Standard) Quiescent Gravity Settling .................................................... 5 Plate (Lamella) or Tube Settlers .................................................................................. 6 Dissolved Air Flotation ................................................................................................ 6 High-Rate Solids Contact Clarification Processes ...................................................... 7 Membranes ................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEWPREVIOUS STUDIES OF SFBW TREATMENT ...... 9 City of Durham, NC (DAF) ................................................................................................ 9 City of Boulder, CO (DAF) .............................................................................................. 14 City of Modesto, CA (Actiflo) .......................................................................................... 17 City of Phoenix, AZ (DAF) .............................................................................................. 21 City of Tempe, AZ (Actiflo) ............................................................................................. 22 Background ................................................................................................................ 22 ResultsCoagulant Screening .................................................................................. 22 Impact of Clarification Rate and Flocculation Time................................................. 24 Impact of Polymer Dose Under Mixed Conditions................................................... 24 East Bay Municipal Utility District, Walnut Creek, CA (Actiflo) ................................... 27 City of Cleveland, OH (DAF) ........................................................................................... 30 United Water (DensaDeg)................................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 3: PILOT- AND FULL-SCALE EVALUATIONS OF CLARIFICATION AND FLOTATION FOR SFBW TREATMENT................................................................... 35 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 35 City of Boulder (Boulder, CO) ......................................................................................... 35 Description ................................................................................................................. 35 Cold Weather Conditions (Spring 2007) ................................................................... 36 Warm Weather Conditions (Summer 2007).............................................................. 38

v
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

vi | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Findings from Spring and Summer Test Periods ...................................................... 39 Central Utah Water Conservancy District (Orem, UT) .................................................... 40 Description ................................................................................................................. 40 Spring 2007 (Pilot Studies) ........................................................................................ 43 Summer 2007 (Pilot Studies) ..................................................................................... 49 Performance of Existing Full-Scale Facilities During Pilot Study Periods .............. 65 Cost and Layout ......................................................................................................... 65 Cleveland Division of Water (Cleveland, OH) ................................................................. 68 Description ................................................................................................................. 68 Spring 2007 ................................................................................................................ 69 Summer 2007 ............................................................................................................. 84 Cost and Layout ......................................................................................................... 89 South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority (New Haven, CT)........................ 91 Passaic Valley Water Commission (Clifton, NJ) .............................................................. 91 CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF MEMBRANES .................................................................... 93 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 93 Bench-Scale Studies.......................................................................................................... 93 Experimental Methods ............................................................................................... 94 Results ...................................................................................................................... 100 Conclusions from Bench-Scale Studies................................................................... 113 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 115 Performance of Alternative Technologies for SFBW Treatment ................................... 115 CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATIONS TO UTILITIES ......................................................... 119 Equalization ..................................................................................................................... 119 Pre-Treatment .................................................................................................................. 119 Performance Criteria........................................................................................................ 119 Area Requirements .......................................................................................................... 119 Retrofitting ...................................................................................................................... 120 Residuals Handling .......................................................................................................... 120 Pilot Testing .................................................................................................................... 120 Additional Information .................................................................................................... 120 APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR UTAH VALLEY WPP, OREM, UT ............................................................................................................................ 121 APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR MORGAN WTP, CLEVELAND, OH ............................................................................................................... 149 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 179 ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... 181

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TABLES
ES.1 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report ....................................... xxv High-rate SFBW treatment options .................................................................................... 4 Summary of standard-rate DAF testing results at Durham in 1999.................................. 11 Summary of standard-rate DAF testing results at Boulder in 1999 .................................. 16 Summary of sand-ballasted coagulation (Actiflo) testing results at Modesto in 2005 ..... 18 Operational matrix during Actiflo testing at Modesto in 2005 ......................................... 18 Recommended future operational matrix for Actiflo used for SFBW treatment at Modesto................................................................................................... 18 Summary of standard-rate DAF testing results at Phoenix in 2000.................................. 21 Summary of polymers tested with Actiflo at Tempe in 1997 (no alum added) ................ 23 Summary of sand-ballasted coagulation (Actiflo) testing results at Tempe in 1997 ........ 26 Summary of sand-ballasted coagulation (Actiflo) testing results at Walnut Creek in 1997 ............................................................................................. 30 Summary of standard-rate DAF testing results at Cleveland in 2000 .............................. 31 Impact of full-scale operating conditions on DAF particulate removal at Boulder in April and May 2007 ................................................................................................ 37 Impact of full-scale operating conditions on DAF particulate removal at Boulder in September 2007 ...................................................................................................... 38 Impact of operating conditions on ClariDAF performance during May 2007 testing in Utah (as measured by turbidity in treated water) .................................................... 46 Treated and untreated SFBW characteristics during May 2007 testing in Utah............... 47 Metals, turbidity, and TOC samples collected on July 23, 2007 ...................................... 53 Summary of results using Trident HSC (tube portion preceding AC portion) at Utah Valley WTP in July and August 2007 ............................................................ 56 Summary of Utah studies with CONTRAFAST in July and August 2007 ...................... 57

2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

2.10 3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4 3.5 3.6

3.7

vii
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

viii | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12

Grab sample data during August and September pilot studies in Utah ............................ 64 Performance data of full-scale tube settler during spring and summer pilot test periods ....... 65 Estimated cost and footprint for high-rate SFBW treatment at Utah Valley WPP ........... 66 Impact of AquaDAF rate on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 ................... 73 Impact of AquaDAF flocculation time and polymer dose on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 ........................................................................................... 74 Impact of AquaDAF recycle on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 ............. 74 Impact of DensaDeg rate on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 ................... 80 Impact of DensaDeg polymer dose on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 ... 80 Summary of grab samples during May 2007 testing in Ohio ........................................... 83 Summary of grab samples during September 2007 testing in Ohio ................................. 86 Treated and untreated SFBW characteristics during September 2007 testing in Ohio..... 87 Estimated cost and footprint for retrofit of high-rate SFBW treatment at Morgan WTP using different assumptions for recycle ........................................... 89 Morgan WTP SFBW EQ cost analysis for 5 and 10 percent recycle limits ..................... 90 Tube settler performance at Passaic Valley Water Commission ...................................... 92 Membrane performance: Operation and assessment ........................................................ 94 Properties of SFBW feed waters ....................................................................................... 94 Bench-scale test membranes ............................................................................................. 97 Membrane performance test conditions ............................................................................ 99 Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report ....................................... 117 Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report ....................................... 123 Estimated cost and footprint for high-rate SFBW treatment at Utah Valley WPP ......... 123 New ClariDAF SFBW treatment system cost analysis................................................... 132

3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19

3.20 3.21 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 A.1 A.2 A.3

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Tables | ix

A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 B.8 B.9 B.10 B.11 B.12 B.13 B.14

Summary of Utah studies with CONTRAFAST in July and August 2007 .................... 136 New CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system cost analysis ........................................ 138 Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC pilot data for SFBW ..................................................... 143 New Trident HSC SFBW treatment system cost analysis .............................................. 145 Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report ....................................... 150 Estimated cost and footprint for high-rate SFBW treatment at Morgan WTP ............... 150 Morgan WTP operational assumptions ........................................................................... 155 Morgan WTP filter operations ........................................................................................ 158 Morgan WTP SFBW EQ cost analysis for 5 and 10 percent recycle limits ................... 160 Summary of Leopold pilot testing at Cleveland Morgan WTP in September 2007 ....... 162 10 percent SFBW recycle EQ and ClariDAF retrofit cost analysis ................................ 163 5 percent SFBW recycle EQ and ClariDAF retrofit cost analysis .................................. 163 10 percent SFBW recycle EQ and AquaDAF retrofit cost analysis ............................... 171 5 percent SFBW recycle EQ and AquaDAF retrofit cost analysis ................................. 171 Impact of loading rate on DensaDeg performance during May 2007 pilot studies ........ 172 Impact of polymer dose on DensaDeg performance during May 2007 pilot studies ..... 173 10 percent SFBW recycle EQ and DensaDeg retrofit cost analysis ............................... 174 5 percent SFBW recycle EQ and DensaDeg retrofit cost analysis ................................. 174

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

FIGURES
1.1 2.1 Predicted backwash rate as a function of temperature ........................................................ 2 Impact of polymer dose on performance of DAF for SFBW treatment at Durham in 1999 ...................................................................................................... 12 Impact of flocculation time during DAF testing at Durham in 1999 ................................ 12 SFBW treatment with DAF at Durham in 1999 ............................................................... 13 Comparison of turbidity reduction in plate settler vs. DAF for SFBW at Durham in 1999 ...................................................................................................... 13 SFBW treatment with Actiflo at Modesto in 2005 ........................................................... 19 SFBW treatment with Actiflo at Modesto in 2005 (turbidity).......................................... 19 SFBW treatment with Actiflo at Modesto in 2005 (particles) .......................................... 20 Treated vs. untreated SFBW turbidity during studies with Actiflo at Modesto in 2005 ................................................................................................................... 20 Comparison of polymer type and dose for Actiflo treatment of SFBW at Tempe in 1997 ........................................................................................................ 23 Impact of polymer dose on Actiflo treatment of SFBW at Tempe in 1997 ...................... 24 Actiflo SFBW treatment at Tempe in 1997 under stable treatment conditions ................ 25 Reduction of SFBW turbidity during treatment with Actiflo under stable treatment conditions at Tempe in 1997 ....................................................................................... 26 Comparison of polymers for Actiflo treatment of SFBW at Walnut Creek in 1997 (0.85 mg/L) .................................................................................................... 27 Impact of 2530TR polymer dose on Actiflo treated SFBW at Walnut Creek in 1997............. 28 SFBW treatment with Actiflo at Walnut Creek in 1997 ................................................... 28 Actiflo turbidity treatment of SFBW at Walnut Creek ..................................................... 29 Actiflo particle count treatment of SFBW at Walnut Creek ............................................. 29

2.2 2.3 2.4

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

2.9

2.10 2.11 2.12

2.13

2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17

xi
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

xii | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2.18

DensaDeg treatment of 100 percent alum SFBW at Haworth and Lake DeForest WTPs in 2005 ..................................................................................... 33 DensaDeg treatment of 100 percent PACl SFBW at Lake DeForest WTP ...................... 33 Seasonal water temperature at Betasso WTP (Lakewood Reservoir) .............................. 36 Turbidity testing at Boulder in April and May ................................................................. 37 Impact of full-scale testing of polymer dose on turbidity at Boulder in summer 2007.......... 39 Utah Valley WPP process schematic ................................................................................ 41 Utah Valley WPP SFBW treatment facilities (WWW reclamation building) .................. 42 ClariDAF trailer provided by Leopold during May 2007 testing in Utah ........................ 43 ClariDAF schematic.......................................................................................................... 43 ClariDAF pilot schematic ................................................................................................. 44 Continuous and grab turbidity during 32-hour period at 14 gpm/ft2 in Utah in May 2007 ................................................................................................... 48 Turbidity and DAF clarification rate during 48-hour period at 8 gpm/ft2 in Utah in May 2007 ................................................................................................... 48 Photo of CONTRAFAST pilot during July and August 2007 in Utah ............................. 50 Schematic of CONTRAFAST pilot .................................................................................. 51 Photo of Trident HSC pilot during July and August 2007 in Utah ................................... 52 Schematic of Trident HSC pilot ........................................................................................ 52

2.19 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

3.10

3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14

3.15 Variability of turbidity in untreated SFBW during July and August 2007 study in Utah .... 54 3.16 3.17 3.18 Impact of spike in turbidity of untreated SFBW on performance of Trident HSC ............. 54 Impact of spike in particle count of untreated SFBW on performance of Trident HSC ......55 Impact of rate on turbidity removal in Trident HSC during July and August 2007 testing in Utah ............................................................................................................. 57 Impact of rate on particle count in Trident HSC during July and August 2007 testing in Utah ............................................................................................................. 58

3.19

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Figures | xiii

3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24

Impact of rate on turbidity removal in tube section of Trident HSC ................................ 58 Impact of rate on combined turbidity removal from tubes and AC in Trident HSC ........ 59 Impact of rate on particle count in tube section of Trident HSC (see Table 3.7) ............. 59 Impact of rate on particle count in AC in Trident HSC (see Table 3.7) ........................... 60 Impact of rate on turbidity removal in CONTRAFAST during July and August 2007 testing in Utah ............................................................................................................. 60 Impact of rate on distribution of turbidity in CONTRAFAST during July and August 2007 testing in Utah .................................................................................................... 61 Impact of rate on particle count in CONTRAFAST during July and August 2007 testing in Utah ............................................................................................................. 61 Impact of rate on distribution of particle count in CONTRAFAST during July and August 2007 testing in Utah ....................................................................................... 62 Impact of polymer dose on turbidity removal in CONTRAFAST testing in Utah ........... 62 Impact of polymer dose on particle count during CONTRAFAST testing in Utah ......... 63 Morgan WTP facilities site plan ....................................................................................... 68 Morgan WTP SFBW treatment facilities site plan ........................................................... 69 Morgan WTP SFBW treatment facilities schematic ......................................................... 69 Schematic of AquaDAF process ....................................................................................... 70 Schematic of DensaDeg process ....................................................................................... 71 AquaDAF pilot (trailer in background) and DensaDeg pilot (blue skid next to car) and full-scale SFBW equalization basins during May 2007 testing in Ohio .............. 71 Float solids collected in AquaDAF pilot during May 2007 testing in Ohio ..................... 72 Impact of AquaDAF rate on turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio ......................... 75 Impact of AquaDAF rate on particle count during May 2007 testing in Ohio ................. 75 Impact of polymer dose and flocculation time on AquaDAF turbidity during May 2007 ......76

3.25

3.26

3.27

3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35

3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

xiv | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

3.40

Impact of polymer dose on AquaDAF turbidity at 5.7 min flocculation time and 14 gpm/ft2 clarification rate during May 2007 ..................................................... 76 Impact of polymer dose on AquaDAF turbidity at 11.3 min flocculation time and 14 gpm/ft2 clarification rate during May 2007 ..................................................... 77 Impact of DAF recycle on AquaDAF turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio........... 77 Impact of flocculation time on AquaDAF turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio ................................................................................................................... 78 Impact of static mix on AquaDAF turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio ............... 78 Impact of rate on DensaDeg performance during May 2007 in Ohio .............................. 81 Impact of DensaDeg rate on turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio ......................... 81 Impact of DensaDeg rate on particle count during May 2007 testing in Ohio ................. 82 Impact of polymer dose on DensaDeg turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio ......... 82 Impact of clarification rate on turbidity removal using ClariDAF during September 2007 .......................................................................................................... 88 Continuous operation (48 hours) under constant conditions at Morgan WTP using ClariDAF ........................................................................................................... 88 Bench-scale membrane test apparatus schematic ............................................................. 95 Photos of bench-scale membrane test apparatus ............................................................... 96 Permeate turbidity, Koch tubular membrane, simulated SFBW..................................... 100 Normalized specific flux, Koch tubular, 8 psi TMP, simulated SFBW ......................... 101 Permeate turbidity, CeraMem ceramic membrane ......................................................... 102 Normalized specific flux, CeraMem ceramic, 5.2 ft/s cross-flow velocity, simulated SFBW........................................................................................................................ 102 Normalized specific flux, CeraMem ceramic, dead-end mode, simulated SFBW ......... 103 Specific flux and permeate turbidity, Koch hollow fiber, simulated SFBW .................. 103 Flux through ceramic membrane treating simulated and Trap Falls SFBW .................. 105

3.41

3.42 3.43

3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 3.49

3.50

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

4.7 4.8 4.9

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Figures | xv

4.10

Ceramic membrane performance with changing influent water quality while treating Trap Falls SFBW ...................................................................................................... 105 Feed (raw) and permeate (filtered) TOC, Fe, and Mn while treating Trap Falls SFBW with ceramic membrane operated at constant pressure and decreasing flux ............ 106 Koch hollow fiber membrane permeate flux, simulated and Trap Falls SFBW ............. 107 Hollow-fiber membrane performance while treating Trap Falls SFBW ........................ 107 Raw and filtered TOC, Fe, and Mn while treating Trap Falls SFBW with hollowfiber membrane operated at constant pressure and decreasing flux ......................... 108 Flux through tubular membrane treating simulated and Trap Falls SFBW .................... 109 Flux and specific flux for ceramic membrane filtration of Trap Falls and Lake Gaillard SFBW at ~constant flux and increasing pressure ....................................... 110 Pressure and specific flux for ceramic membrane filtration of Trap Falls and Lake Gaillard SFBW at ~constant flux and increasing pressure ....................................... 111 Flux and specific flux for hollow-fiber membrane filtration of Trap Falls and Lake Gaillard SFBW at ~constant flux and increasing pressure ....................................... 112 Specific flux and TMP, Koch hollow-fiber membrane filtration of Trap Falls and Lake Gaillard SFBW at ~constant flux and increasing pressure .............................. 112 Specific permeate flux and TMP, Koch tubular membrane, Lake Gaillard SFBW, constant flux ~140 gfd/ft2 ......................................................................................... 113 Utah Valley WPP site plan ............................................................................................. 124 Utah Valley WPP process schematic .............................................................................. 125 Utah Valley WPP SFBW treatment facilities schematic ................................................ 126 Utah Valley WPP SFBW treatment facilities (WWW reclamation building) ................ 127 Number of filter backwash events per month at the Utah Valley WPP (October 2005 through September 2006) ................................................................. 129 ClariDAF schematic........................................................................................................ 129 ClariDAF pilot trailer at Utah Valley WPP in May 2007 ............................................... 130 ClariDAF pilot schematic ............................................................................................... 130

4.11

4.12 4.13 4.14

4.15 4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5

A.6 A.7 A.8

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

xvi | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12

Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF loading rates for SFBW .................................................... 131 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF polymer impact on SFBW ................................................ 131 Utah Valley WPP SFBW ClariDAF facilities site plan .................................................. 132 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy) .................................................................. 133 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy) .................................................................. 134 CONTRAFAST schematic ............................................................................................. 135 Siemens pilot equipment used at Utah Valley WPP in July and August 2007 ............... 136 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST loading rates for SFBW.......................................... 137 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST polymer impact on SFBW...................................... 137 Utah Valley WPP SFBW CONTRAFAST facilities site plan........................................ 138 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy) .................................................................. 139 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy) .................................................................. 140 Trident HSC schematic ................................................................................................... 141 Trident HSC process schematic ...................................................................................... 142 Impact of Trident HSC clarification rate on SFBW treated turbidity ............................. 144 Impact of polymer dose on Trident HSC treated turbidity ............................................. 144 Utah Valley WPP SFBW Trident HSC facilities site plan ............................................. 145 Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC 2,100 gpm system ........................................................ 146 Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC 2,100 gpm system P&ID.............................................. 147 Morgan WTP process schematic .................................................................................... 152 Morgan WTP facilities site plan ..................................................................................... 153

A.13

A.14 A.15 A.16 A.17 A.18 A.19

A.20

A.21 A.22 A.23 A.24 A.25 A.26 A.27 B.1 B.2

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Figures | xvii

B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6

Morgan WTP SFBW treatment facilities site plan ......................................................... 153 Morgan WTP SFBW treatment facilities schematic ....................................................... 154 Morgan WTP SFBW full scale clarifier testing .............................................................. 154 Morgan WTP SFBW production during 24-hour period assuming 55 mgd production rate, three recycle rates (3, 5, and 10 percent), and 28 filter backwash events per day (0.26 MG per backwash event) .......................................................................... 157 Required SFBW equalization assuming 55 mgd production rate, three recycle rates (3, 5, and 10 percent), and nine filter backwash events per day (0.26 MG per backwash event) ........................................................................................................ 157 Morgan SFBW schematic with new EQ and new SFBW treatment system .................. 159 Morgan WTP SFBW new EQ siteplan ........................................................................... 159 ClariDAF schematic........................................................................................................ 161 ClariDAF pilot schematic ............................................................................................... 161 Morgan WTP SFBW ClariDAF system plan view ......................................................... 164 Morgan WTP SFBW ClariDAF system profile view ..................................................... 165 AquaDAF schematic ....................................................................................................... 166 Impact of AquaDAF loading rates on SFBW turbidity at Morgan WTP ....................... 167 Impact of AquaDAF loading rates on SFBW particles at Morgan WTP ....................... 167 Morgan WTP SFBW AquaDAF system plan view ........................................................ 168 Morgan WTP SFBW AquaDAF system profile view .................................................... 169 Morgan WTP SFBW AquaDAF system P&ID .............................................................. 170 DensaDeg schematic ....................................................................................................... 172 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg loading rate for SFBW ............................................... 173 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg impact of polymer dose on SFBW ............................. 174 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg 5,100 gpm system plan view ...................................... 175

B.7

B.8 B.9 B.10 B.11 B.12 B.13 B.14 B.15 B.16 B.17 B.18 B.19 B.20 B.21 B.22 B.23

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

xviii | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

B.24 B.25 B.26

Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg 5,100 gpm system profile view .................................. 176 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg 5,100 gpm system P&ID ............................................ 177 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg system general arrangement ....................................... 178

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

FOREWORD
The Water Research Foundation (Foundation) is a nonprofit corporation that is dedicated to the implementation of a research effort to help utilities respond to regulatory requirements and traditional high-priority concerns of the industry. The research agenda is developed through a process of consultation with subscribers and drinking water professionals. Under the umbrella of a Strategic Research Plan, the Research Advisory Council prioritizes the suggested projects based upon current and future needs, applicability, and past work; the recommendations are forwarded to the Board of Trustees for final selection. The Foundation also sponsors research projects through the unsolicited proposal process; the Collaborative Research, Research Applications, and Tailored Collaboration programs; and various joint research efforts with organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Association of California Water Agencies. This publication is a result of one of these sponsored studies, and it is hoped that its findings will be applied in communities throughout the world. The following report serves not only as a means of communicating the results of the water industry's centralized research program but also as a tool to enlist the further support of the nonmember utilities and individuals. Projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the Foundation's staff and large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. The Foundation serves a planning and management function and awards contracts to other institutions such as water utilities, universities, and engineering firms. The funding for this research effort comes primarily from the Subscription Program, through which water utilities subscribe to the research program and make an annual payment proportionate to the volume of water they deliver and consultants and manufacturers subscribe based on their annual billings. The program offers a cost-effective and fair method for funding research in the public interest. A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by the Foundation's research agenda: resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis, toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to assist water suppliers to provide the highest possible quality of water economically and reliably. The true benefits are realized when the results are implemented at the utility level. The Foundation's trustees are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution toward that end.

David Rager, P.E. Chair, Board of Trustees Water Research Foundation

Robert C. Renner, P.E. Executive Director Water Research Foundation

xix
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank City of Cleveland Division of Water and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District for providing staff, logistical support, and other assistance during pilot studies at their facilities in Spring and Summer of 2007. The City of Cleveland also provided a cash contribution of $20,000 to the project. The City of Boulder contributed similar staff time and logistical support during full-scale testing of DAF for SFBW treatment at one of their facilities. Two other utilities listed below (South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority and Passaic Valley Water Commission) provided full-scale data from evaluations of plate or tube settlers for SFBW treatment at their facilities. Utility staff providing direction and support for these activities at each of these utilities are listed below: City of Cleveland, Division of Water, Morgan Water Treatment Plant, Cleveland, OH Maggie Rodgers, Tyrone Butler, Bob Mehota, and Dr. Edwin Guasp Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Utah Valley Water Purification Plant, Orem, UT David Hardy and Monica Hoyt City of Boulder, Betasso Water Treatment Plant, Boulder, CO Suzanne Givler and Randy Crittenden South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, New Haven, CT Passaic Valley Water Commission, Clifton, NJ Santa Fe Irrigation District, Rancho Santa Fe , CA - Cor Shaffer Aquarion Water Company, Monroe, CT

Infilco-Degremont (IDI), ITT WWW Leopold (Leopold), and Siemens Water Technologies provided equipment and staff, and other logistical support for pilot studies conducted during this project at the Cleveland, OH and Orem, UT locations listed above. These three manufacturers also provided staff time to provide information used to develop drawings and cost estimates for the tested high-rate processes. Pilot test reports were provided by I. Kruger, Inc. (Actiflo), Leopold (standard-rate DAF), and Infilco-Degremont (DensaDeg). Benchscale membrane modules were provided by Koch Membrane Systems and CeraMem Corporation (purchased in April 2008 by Veolia Water Solutions, now part of HPD Membrane Technology Center). Manufacturer support was provided by the following: IDI, Richmond, VA Dr. Robert Kelly Leopold, Zelienople, PA James Farmerie and Christopher Falbo Siemens Water Technologies, Ames, IA - Rohan Wikramanayake Koch, Wilmington, MA, Brian Kilcullen CeraMem, Waltham, MA, Dr. Bruce Bishop

The Foundation Project Manager for this project was Hsiao-wen Chen. Members of the Foundation project advisory committee (PAC) reviewing project findings include David Hardy (Central Utah Water Conservancy District), Abhay Tadwalkar (City of Toronto, ON), and Joe Nattress (CH2M HILL).

xxi
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

xxii | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

EE&T staff, in addition to authors, included Nick Pizzi (coordination and oversight during testing in Cleveland), Venkat Balasubramanian (data evaluation and oversight of testing in Utah), Timothy Natoli (data evaluation, report preparation, and webtool development), and William Cornwell (webtool development and programming). Studies at the University of Massachusetts were conducted by Kenneth Mercer and Hai Anh Nguyen, under the direction of Dr. Tobiason, in Amherst, MA.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION The report includes a description of options available for spent filter backwash (SFBW) treatment, including a discussion of characteristics and performance of some of these alternative processes. The project was particularly designed to evaluate high rate treatment processes that generally require smaller footprints than conventional settling. The information available prior to this project was limited to gravity clarification processes (quiescent settling, with or without tubes and plates) and some standard-rate dissolved air flotation (DAF) studies (defined in this report as DAF processes with rates <6 gpm/ft2). However, for the more innovative, high-rate treatment processes targeted for this study, enough critical performance and cost data were not available prior to this study to allow for ease of evaluation and implementation by utilities. The report summarizes available literature on all processes evaluated for SFBW treatment and has an in-depth analysis of findings from pilot- and full-scale studies of SFBW treatment at drinking water treatment facilities conducted in this project during the Spring and Summer 2007. Findings included evaluations of the impacts of clarification rate, polymer type and dose, initial mix and flocculation, and internal recycle rate (when appropriate) on high-rate SFBW treatment processes. Evaluations at two drinking water plants included comparison of cost and footprint requirement estimated for the high-rate processes pilot tested at these locations Although each manufacturer expresses clarification rate a little differently, typically loading rates are based on the relative clarification area. In this report the rate is also expressed relative to the total footprint required to implement the process, including the area for flocculation, chemical feed, and other ancillary facilities. The Appendices to the report include preliminary design reports discussing details regarding costs and footprint for the two facilities where pilot studies were conducted. Another focus of this report was to evaluate membrane treatment alternatives for SFBW in bench-scale studies. Membrane technologies evaluated included low pressure microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF/UF) types, such as hollow fiber membranes, tubular membranes, and ceramic membranes. DRINKING WATER UTILITY INTEREST IN SFBW TREATMENT The report includes a description of options available for SFBW treatment, including a discussion of characteristics and performance of some of these alternative processes. The project was particularly designed to evaluate high rate treatment processes that generally require smaller footprints than conventional settling. The information available prior to this project was limited to gravity clarification processes (quiescent settling, with or without tubes and plates) and some standard-rate DAF studies (defined in this report as DAF processes with rates <6 gpm/ft2). However, for the more innovative, high-rate treatment processes targeted for this study, enough critical performance and cost data were not available prior to this study to allow for ease of evaluation and implementation by utilities. The report summarizes available literature on all processes evaluated for SFBW treatment and has an in-depth analysis of findings from pilot- and full-scale studies of SFBW treatment at drinking water treatment facilities conducted in this project during the spring and

xxiii
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

xxiv | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

summer 2007. Findings included evaluations of the impacts of clarification rate, polymer type and dose, initial mix and flocculation, and internal recycle rate (when appropriate) on high-rate SFBW treatment processes. Evaluations at two drinking water plants included comparison of cost and footprint requirement estimated for the high-rate processes pilot tested at these locations Although each manufacturer expresses clarification rate a little differently, typically loading rates are based on the relative clarification area. In this report the rate is also expressed relative to the total footprint required to implement the process, including the area for flocculation, chemical feed, and other ancillary facilities. The Appendices to the report include preliminary design reports discussing details regarding costs and footprint for the two facilities where pilot studies were conducted. Another focus of this report was to evaluate membrane treatment alternatives for SFBW in bench-scale studies. Membrane technologies evaluated included low pressure MF/UF types, such as hollow fiber membranes, tubular membranes, and ceramic membranes. SFBW TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES SFBW treatment alternatives discussed in this report include the following: (a) low-rate (i.e., standard) quiescent gravity settling (e.g., standard clarifiers, lagoons, stilling basins, and other processes involving gravity settling in quiescent basins), (b) plate (lamella) or tube settlers, (c) standard-rate DAF (4 to 6 gpm/ft2). (d) high-rate DAF (up to 18 gpm/ft2), (e) high-rate solids contact clarification processes (including process tradenames DensaDeg, CONTRAFAST, Trident HSC, and Actiflodiscussed in more detail in report), and (f) membranes. The first two of these alternatives have already been addressed in previous studies (e.g., Cornwell et al. 2001), and so new information in this report is limited to some data collection from existing full-scale gravity clarifiers containing tubes or plates. The other processes are discussed in more detail in this report including: (1) a literature review of existing pilot study reports for standard rate DAF and two high-rate solids contact processes, (2) data from full-scale DAF used for SFBW treatment, (3) pilot-scale evaluations plus cost and footprint estimates for new or retrofitted facilities at two drinking water plants, and (4) bench-scale data on membranes. PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR SFBW TREATMENT Findings regarding effectiveness of different alternative treatment technologies, except membranes (which are discussed later), summarized below are based on the review of data from existing pilot-scale studies and new full-and pilot-scale studies conducted as part of this project. Processes performance objectives included the reduction of the 95th percentile turbidity to <2 ntu, and median or steady-state turbidity to <1 ntu. Treated SFBW particle count was monitored to help demonstrate optimal treatment conditions. For example, on some occasions more test conditions may have met the above turbidity goals, but higher particle counts occasionally indicated that some of the test conditions were not optimal. Other characteristics used to evaluate effectiveness of performance were total and soluble metals (iron, manganese, and aluminum), total and dissolved organic carbon (TOC and DOC), other organic contaminant indicators (absorbance of ultraviolet light with wavelength 254 nm (UV-254) and color), and percent solids concentration of the residuals stream generated by the SFBW treatment process.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Table ES.1 Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report Median untreated Clarification Residuals turbidity rate concentration Information Polymer 2 City State Year (ntu) (percent solids) source needed? (gpm/ft ) Standard-rate DAF Durham NC 1999 100 up to 5 3.5 mfr records yes Boulder CO 1999 10 up to 7 3.5 mfr records yes Phoenix AZ 2000 not reported up to 6 4 to 6 mfr records * Cleveland OH 2000 20 up to 6 2 to 3 mfr records yes Boulder CO 2007 10 up to 3 up to 3 this study yes High-rate DAF Orem UT 2007 100 12 4.4 this study yes Cleveland OH 2007 20 16 3 this study yes Cleveland OH 2007 20 15 3.6 this study yes Sand-ballasted coagulation/clarification Modesto CA 2005 20 up to 30 Not reported mfr records Tempe AZ 1997 10 up to 20 Not reported mfr records W. Creek CA 1997 100 up to 20 0.45 mfr records Solids contact + tubes W. Nyack NJ 2005 ~50 ~12 2 to 3 mfr records Oradell NJ 2005 ~50 ~12 2 to 3 mfr records Orem UT 2007 100 12 >5 this study yes Cleveland OH 2007 20 16 3 this study yes Tubes Orem UT 2007 100 0.45 ~0.5 this study Orem UT 2007 100 0.92 ~0.5 this study Tubes + upflow buoyant media Orem UT 2007 100 18 ~0.3 this study yes *Ok without polymer, but more stable with polymer Impact of treatment without flocculation and without polymer not reported

Pilot- or Fullscale? pilot pilot pilot pilot full pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot full full pilot

95 percent <2 ntu no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Executive Summary | xxv

xxvi | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

A summary of these findings include the following (see also Table ES.1): Polymer type and dose With rare exceptions, testing showed that SFBW treatment processes generally did not work when no polymer was present, and yet significantly improved performance could be demonstrated with addition of appropriate polymers. Even in the few cases when the above turbidity performance objectives could be achieved without polymer, the processes always worked better when an optimal polymer dose was used. Cationic polymer was often demonstrated to be optimal, but this was not always the case. Consequently, optimal polymer for any location is site specific and the best course of action when evaluating treatment is to evaluate a number of different polymer types. Optimal polymer dose was typically <1 mg/L for the polymers used in studies evaluated as part of this report. Metal salt coagulants were evaluated in some studies, both with and without polymer, but these studies typically demonstrated that use of polymer alone produced optimal performance. Mixing (initial and flocculation) Impact of initial mix was evaluated in some studies, including use of both flash mixers and static mixers. Results typically indicated that optimal performance was achieved with initial mixing, though in some cases the performance was poorer without initial mixing but still sufficient to meet project turbidity objectives. Some treatment processes tested have flocculation as integral parts of the process, particularly solids contact processes that include a solids contact flocculation stage prior to a clarification stage (e.g., DensaDeg and CONTRAFAST). Sandballasted coagulation processes also employ flocculation as an integral part of the process in order to provide sufficient contact flocculation with the added microsand prior to clarification. Therefore, only processes like DAF could be evaluated with and without flocculation, in an effort to see if the process could work without flocculation and hence lower the footprint. When DAF processes were evaluated with and without flocculation, the performance was typically better with flocculation than without, though in some instances project turbidity objectives could be met without flocculation. In one study, 20 to 29 minutes flocculation time was needed prior to standard-rate DAF in order to meet performance objectives. However, less flocculation time was needed in most other standard- and high-rate DAF studies, typically on the order of 10 to 15 minutes. Generally, even when performance objectives could be met at shorter flocculation times, longer flocculation times produced even better performance. Clarification rate The nominal clarification rate is calculated differently by different manufacturers, even those employing similar processes. The clarification rate is typically expressed as process flow rate divided by clarification area (i.e., not including

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Executive Summary | xxvii

solids contact or flocculation area needed to process the water prior to clarification, nor accounting for ancillary processes such as chemical feed). Acceptable performance was typically demonstrated with standard-rate DAF at rates up to 4 to 6 gpm/ft2. For high-rate DAF and solids contact processes (like DensaDeg and CONTRAFAST) it was typically about 15 gpm/ft2 or higher. Clarification rates listed for sand-ballasted coagulation systems were typically >20 gpm/ft2. When taking into account total footprint (including chemical feed, flocculation, and other ancillary equipment), and not just the clarification area as in the rates expressed above, the clarification rates for the three high-rate solids contact and two high-rate DAF processes evaluated in the pilot studies was about 1 gpm/ft2, ranging from 0.8 to 1.5 gpm/ft2 (see Appendices A and B). Cost and footprint estimates for standard-rate DAF, sand-ballasted coagulation, and other processes were not developed during this project, so it was not possible to compare clarification rates calculated in a similar manner to the above high-rate processes. Removal of particulates, turbidity, and other solids in untreated SFBW Optimal conditions for each process were able to achieve desired objectives for turbidity (median of continuous data or steady-state grab samples <1 ntu, and 95th percentile <2 ntu when continuous data available). In many cases, most of the turbidity results could be reduced to <0.5 ntu. Median count of particles <2 m under optimal treatment conditions was typically about 1,000 particles/mL, and lower at some facilities. Particle count data was more sensitive than turbidity to indicate optimal performance (i.e., sometimes higher clarification rates or lower polymer doses could meet turbidity objectives, but produced higher particle counts). Removal of contaminants other than particulates During this study, dissolved inorganic and organic contaminant indicators were typically not well removed by the processes tested. However, the portion of these contaminants associated with particulate matter (i.e., sorbed onto or composed of particulate matter) were well removed, presumably because of the demonstrated particulate removal in all these processes. Concentration of solids in SFBW treatment residuals streams Standard- and high-rate DAF, as well as two of the high-rate solids contact processes evaluated in pilot studies (DensaDeg and CONTRAFAST), typically produce residuals with at least a 3 percent solids concentration, and sometimes higher. Therefore, solids from these processes could potentially be sent to dewatering without thickening. Quiescent gravity clarification, with or without plates or tubes, sand ballasted coagulation (e.g., Actiflo), and upflow buoyant media clarification (e.g., Trident HSC) are not expected to produce residuals less than 1 percent solids, and typically may be on the order of 0.3 percent solids concentration or lower. Consequently, solids produced from these processes will typically need to be thickened prior to dewatering.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

xxviii | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Robustness of SFBW treatment alternatives Some of the high-rate solids contact and DAF processes appear to be more able to resist spikes in flow and particulate content than are lower rate processes. SFBW treatment performance is typically more sensitive to fluctuations in particulate content than to fluctuations in flow rate. Mixing of equalization basins can improve robustness of SFBW treatment processes. Solids can settle out in unmixed or poorly mixed equalization basins. Subsequent backwash events stir up these settled solids, creating short-term spikes in particulate concentrations leaving the equalization basins and entering SFBW treatment. As noted above, SFBW is sensitive to fluctuations in influent particulate content. Therefore, not only is equalization of flow important, but equalization of particulates and other contaminants is also an important consideration. The latter can best be addressed by providing adequate mixing in the equalization basins. At some locations using some processes, SFBW treatment without polymer could achieve acceptable performance, but this performance was not as robust with respect to flow and particulate concentration fluctuations as when optimal polymer doses were used.

The results of bench-scale studies of SFBW treatment using three types of low pressure membranes (tubular, ceramic, hollow fiber) lead to the following main conclusions: Treatment of SFBW at high specific permeate flux rates of 10 to 200 gfd/psi using either hollow fiber or ceramic membranes appears technically feasible. Pilot-scale testing is needed to reach a firm conclusion. Although SFBW has a relatively high solids level, it does not appear necessary to use a large bore (i.e., 1 cm) tubular membrane such as tested in this study for treatment of SFBW. The inherent lower pore size (resulting in higher transmembrane pressure (TMP) for a desired flux) and lower membrane surface area per volume or area of the overall membrane system make this type of membrane less likely to be selected as compared to the other types tested, despite being technically feasible to utilize. Utilization of continuous cross-flow decreased the rate of flux decline for constant pressure filtration of simulated SFBW compared to dead-end filtration yet did not eliminate the need for periodic backflushing to maintain a desired permeate flux; however the specific permeate production prior to backflushing may be relatively high, in the range of 5 to 15 gal/ft2 of membrane. SFBW quality is likely to have a significant impact on membrane performance, so site-specific pilot testing is needed. Type of coagulant(s), organic matter levels, metal (Fe, Al) content, pH, solids concentration, and prior SFBW processing (storage, pumping) may all be important. Due to the very high quality of the permeate from membrane treatment of SFBW, selection of membrane treatment of SFBW may be desirable for utilities with pathogen impacted source waters that need or choose to recycle SFBW to the head of the treatment plant.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Executive Summary | xxix

It is important to note that the membranes in this study were small modules, often operated at constant TMP, very high specific flux levels (10 to 200 gfd/psi), at high throughput prior to backflush (5 to 20 gal/ft2) as compared to conventional dead-end, recirculation or single pass mode MF/UF treatment of surface waters (typically 2 to 8 gfd/psi specific flux and only 0.5 to 2 gal/ft2 prior to backflush). Operation at somewhat lower fluxes, yet still high in comparison to typical dead-end or recirculation operation, may provide even better performance. The preliminary results of this work indicate potential promise for very high flux, low footprint, membrane processes for SFBW treatment prior to recycle. Ultimately, the best choice for SFBW treatment will include considerations of size, cost and the mode of operation of a process. Energy costs in terms of pressure required will become more important in the future. Cleaning costs and membrane replacement costs are two other cost considerations that affect selection of membrane treatment of SFBW. Key aspects of membrane operation that should be considered include the specific flux rate (i.e., the pressure normalized flux rate) and the specific throughput (i.e. the surface area normalized flux rate). Measures of performance should include filtrate quality, TMP and fouling, as well as recovery after backflushing and cleaning procedures to control membrane fouling (reversible and irreversible). UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS The following observations and information items are provided for utilities wishing to evaluate SFBW treatment, including high-rate treatment options, for their facilities: Equalization Equalization will reduce the hydraulic impact of recycle return to the main process, plus it will improve performance of any SFBW treatment systems utilized prior to recycle. Furthermore, equalization will minimize the size of any SFBW treatment needed, thereby minimizing the cost of the SFBW treatment facilities. Equalization basins must be designed with sufficient mixing to keep solids from settling out in the equalization basin. The only exception to this is for large plants with many filters such that the instantaneous backwash flow is low relative to the influent flow. Still a small mixed equalization basin will reduce slug particulate loading to a treatment device. Pre-Treatment Polymer addition and provision of sufficient flocculation time are often necessary for achievement of desired performance in high rate SFBW treatment systems. In some instances, performance objectives can be met without adding polymer or without providing any flocculation prior to clarification, although even in these cases high rate clarification processes perform better when polymer addition and sufficient flocculation time are provided. Furthermore, even though all SFBW clarification processes evaluated were sensitive to fluctuations, especially spikes in the amount of particulate material in the incoming untreated SFBW, the use of proper polymer at optimal dose, and allowance for sufficient flocculation time, made SFBW treatment processes more robust with respect to these fluctuations. As in other processes involving chemical addition, if polymer is added then it is also important to provide sufficient rapid mix.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

xxx | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Performance Criteria Each utility needs to set its treatment objective for the treated water quality whether the water is to be recycled or discharged. For discharge situations the state will dictate the quality requirement. For a recycle situation one approach to SFBW treatment would be to reduce contaminants, including particulate matter, to levels equal to or below levels in raw water at point of recycle return. In this way the recycle cannot increase contaminants entering the plant above that initially present in the raw water. Reducing some contaminants like manganese to levels below raw water levels can require the production of a very low turbidity water. Area Requirements Lower-rate clarification processes (e.g., quiescent gravity settling as described in this report) for SFBW treatment need to include sufficient surface area to produce surface loading rates low enough to reliably achieve the treatment objectives. Furthermore, additional area for chemical addition and flocculation could be needed in some instances to properly prepare the SFBW prior to clarification. It may not be possible to obtain enough area at space-limited sites to meet treatment objectives using the lower rate processes. Consequently, high-rate processes with smaller footprint (like those discussed in this report) may need to be evaluated. Retrofitting If existing SFBW treatment facilities are undersized either under current conditions or under conditions projected after a planned expansion of filtration capacity, it may be possible to retrofit components of high-rate processes to replace existing lower rate processes, thereby providing sufficient treatment capacity to reliably treat more SFBW without requiring more area at space-limited sites. Appendix B includes examples of high-rate processes retrofitted into space occupied by existing lower rate SFBW treatment processes. Residuals Handling Some of the SFBW clarification processes evaluated (standard- and high-rate DAF, solids contact clarification with solids recycle) produced residuals with 3 to 5 percent solids concentration, or higher, under conditions tested. These residuals may not need further thickening prior to dewatering. Other low- and high-rate processes evaluated (quiescent gravity settling with or without plates or tubes, sand ballasted coagulation, upflow clarification in a bed of buoyant media) produced residuals that are typically 0.3 percent solids concentration or lower, and rarely exceed 1 percent solids concentration under most conditions. These residuals will probably need some thickening prior to dewatering. Consequently, utilities without existing SFBW treatment who plan to install systems producing the less concentrated residuals will not only have to provide sufficient area for the processes themselves (including equalization, chemical addition, flocculation, and clarification), but may also need to install thickening facilities or expand existing thickening capacity.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Executive Summary | xxxi

Pilot Testing Pilot testing of low- or high-rate clarification processes is strongly encouraged in order for a utility to evaluate site specific conditions on performance of different alternative treatment technologies. Piloting is not only important to evaluate the clarification technology itself, but also to evaluate chemical addition and flocculation conditions preparing the SFBW prior to clarification. Additional Information Water Research Foundation subscribing utilities are also encouraged to review the webtool produced for this project in order to find additional information to help in their efforts to evaluate SFBW treatment alternatives. The webtool includes example drawings for different facility sizes using the technologies evaluated in this project, as well as a calculation tool to estimate facility cost and footprint for different sizes of high-rate clarification facilities. The webtool is available at the following link: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/resources.aspx? type=WebTool

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND
The driving force for installation of SFBW treatment systems is often attributed to the USEPA Filter Backwash Recycle Rule (FBRR). However, the FBRR does not mandate SFBW treatment prior to recycle. Rather, there are two other drivers for SFBW treatment. One of the major driving forces for utilities to increase the efficiency of existing SFBW treatment or to install new treatment is a proactive concern over process or water quality impacts associated with recycle. According to previous survey studies (Cornwell et al. 2001, Cornwell 1998) about 45 percent of the plants practicing recycle do not have SFBW treatment for solids removal. While in many cases utilities can successfully meet water quality goals without treatment of recycled SFBW, others are finding that more stringent goals and regulations are making it economically desirable to evaluate SFBW treatment. Previous research (Cornwell and Lee 1993, Cornwell et al. 2001) has shown that untreated SFBW can contain elevated levels of Giardia, Cryptosporidium, TOC, DBPs, DBP precursors, and manganese. These research efforts have also shown that removal of solids from SFBW, if efficient enough, eliminates most of the contaminant carryover (particularly, in the case of manganese, if solubilization can be prevented). A second driver for utilities to install SFBW treatment may well result from the new NPDES guidelines being developed by USEPA. These guidelines will be the first time that USEPA has addressed the discharge of water plant residuals, though some states already have such requirements in place. These rules could require treatment where none exists (such as the recent consent order between USEPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers for the Washington, DC treatment plants) or additional efficiencies in treatment to meet the new discharge guidelines. Some information is known about the emphasis of this projectinnovative/high-rate treatment processesbut enough critical performance and cost data were not available prior to this project to allow for ease of evaluation and implementation by utilities. CHARACTERISTICS OF SFBW Quantity Important considerations, particularly when SFBW is recycled, include understanding both the quantity and quality of the SFBW. The amount of water used for backwash, and the frequency and duration of backwash events producing the SFBW, are important in sizing equalization and treatment facilities. Furthermore, quantification of SFBW is also important to evaluate the potential hydraulic impact on the main process stream when SFBW is recycled. If SFBW recycle is not currently used, an understanding of the quantities of backwash water involved indicates the potential increased efficiency and increased production possible if the SFBW is recovered and recycled. Utilities are often faced with the dilemma of finding enough source water of any kind to handle all of their systems needs, particularly enough source water of suitable quality. Many utilities have found that it is easier to recover and recycle SFBW, typically enough to represent about 5 percent of the plants filtered water production, than it is to find other new sources to provide a comparable volume of water for their filter plant. Even when other alternative sources are potentially available, they may not be as easy to treat or as easy to access as the SFBW that the utility already has in its control (i.e., that it does not have to purchase or have public hearings or

1
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

environmental impact statements to obtain). Therefore, though this report focuses a great deal on the necessary considerations for appropriate treatment of SFBW, the fundamentals of the treatment processes involved are still fairly straightforward and generally focus on the separation of particles from water, concepts that are well understood by most drinking water treatment practitioners. When evaluating quantity of backwash generated it is important to evaluate seasonal impacts on SFBW generation. For example, in colder weather, the system demand is often lower and consequently a filtration plant may not need to operate as many filters, and those that are in service may be operated at lower rates. Conversely, in summer many filtration plants often are running all filters at as high a rate as possible, consequently resulting in greater frequency of backwash events. In addition to increasing the frequency of backwash events the backwash rate may also increase in order to properly fluidize the filter media. In order to achieve the same degree of media fluidization, the backwash rate may need to be as much as 1/3 higher, or more, when the water temperature is higher. For example, Figure 1.1 illustrates the required backwash rate predicted for sand media with a density of 2.65 g/cm3, an effective size (d10) of 0.7 mm, and a uniformity coefficient (d60/d10) of 1.51 using relationships developed by Wen and Yu (1966). In this example, the required rate at 5C is about 21 gpm/ft2 and about 28 gpm/ft2 at 20C, or an increase in backwash rate by a factor of 1.33 from the colder water temperature. In 2001 (USEPA 2001), USEPA published federal requirements for recycle of SFBW and other residuals streams at drinking water treatment facilities in the Filter Backwash Recycle Rule (FBRR). This rule requires that recycle flows be returned to the front of the treatment process (e.g., before coagulation). However, although the FBRR does not regulate the quantity of SFBW and other residuals streams that can be recycled, some individual states do have such limits. The recommended recycle limit for utilities that volunteer to follow Partnership for Safe Water guidelines is less than 5 percent, though utilities in the partnership can recycle more water if they complete studies verifying that a higher rate does not impact performance of main treatment process. The literature recommends that recycle flows be limited to at most 10 percent of plant flow (USEPA 2001, Cornwell and Lee 1993).
35 Backwash Rate Required for Fluidization (gpm/ft2)

30

25

20

15

10

0 0 5 10 15 Temperature (C) 20 25 30

Figure 1.1 Predicted backwash rate as a function of temperature

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 1: Background | 3

Quality (Composition) The principal issue with respect to SFBW composition that is most often of concern for treatment and recycle of SFBW is particulate content. This is reflected in total solids (TS) and total suspended solids (TSS) content of the SFBW. Measurements for TS and TSS require collection of samples and heating samples to drive off water to determine the amount of dry solid material present. This requires heating for several hours in a drying oven, or perhaps a few minutes in a moisture balance. In any event, these measurements do not provide on-line continuous data so on-line instruments such as particle counters and turbidimeters are used as surrogates for TS/TSS. Turbidimeters are suitable for monitoring turbidity in both treated and untreated SFBW. However, particle counters can provide valuable information when used in treated SFBW. The large amount of particulate material in untreated SFBW generally does not allow reliable particle counting of untreated SFBW, and consequently, particle counters are not recommended prior to treatment of SFBW. Turbidity of untreated SFBW depends on the raw source water at the plant and the type of treatment facility. In this project two facilities were selected for pilot studies that are believed to represent the range of typical conditions found in US filtration plants, based on a previous study of SFBW conditions in US (Cornwell et al. 2001). One facility uses a raw water source from Lake Erie with little particulate content, treated in a filtration plant with clarification prior to filtration. In this case, much of the particulate material that is present in the raw water or produced by the coagulant is removed in clarification, leaving much less material to be removed during filter backwash. Direct filtration facilities, even though they are necessarily located on sources with low particulate content, have larger particulate content in SFBW than the above example because all the solids in raw water are removed in filters, and consequently end up in SFBW. River sources, even if they have clarification prior to filtration, are expected to have particulate levels comparable to those observed at direct filtration plants. SFBW particulate levels in the first example (raw water with low particulate content, treated with clarification prior to filtration) are about the lowest seen at filtration plants, about 20 ntu or TSS about 50 to 60 mg/L. The high end of the spectrum, as would be expected in clarification plus filtration plants on river sources or direct filtration plants on any source could have turbidity about 200 ntu and several hundred mg/L for TSS and TS. Other contaminants of concern include: (a) regulated and non-regulated microbial contaminants (e.g., Cryptosporidium, Giardia, algae), (b) manganese, (c) iron and other trace metals, (d) DBP precursor and other organic material, (e) regulated and non-regulated DBPs, (f) color/taste/odor-causing substances, and (g) filter media (due to excessive media fluidization). Most of these contaminants can be removed by the SFBW treatment processes described in this report, particularly contaminants composed of or sorbed onto particulate material, since SFBW treatment processes specifically target particulate material. However, these processes do not do as well and are not targeted at removal of dissolved and soluble contaminants. Particulate metals and organic matter can be removed by most SFBW treatment processes, including those described in this report, but dissolved contaminants will remain in the treated SFBW recycled to the main plant. One issue for facilities with manganese in raw water, or with manganese added as a trace contaminant in metal-salt coagulants or other treatment chemicals, is that solid material containing particulate manganese (either originating in particulate forms in the raw water or produced when soluble manganese is converted to insoluble forms due to oxidation during the

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

4 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

preceding treatment processes) is collected in the clarification basins or in the filters prior to backwash. If the manganese-containing solids are not removed quickly enough and if reducing conditions develop in the filters or clarification basins, then the collected solid manganese may be converted to more soluble forms due to reducing conditions, thereby allowing soluble reduced manganese to pass through the filters and end up in the finished water. In this instance, the manganese can re-settle out in the distribution system or in customer plumbing fixtures when the reduced manganese is later oxidized. OPTIONS FOR SFBW TREATMENT There are several possible innovative high-rate processes that could be considered for SFBW treatment as shown in Table 1.1. These will be briefly described below. Note that rates listed are relative to clarification area, but these processes may have different total footprint impacts (e.g., additional space if flocculation or air saturators are required, for example, or if solids produced require additional thickening prior to dewatering). These total footprint impacts are described in more detail later. The discussion below describes different options for SFBW treatment, starting with equalization and then comparing different particle separation alternatives. Table 1.1 High-rate SFBW treatment options Type Plate/tube settler (surface) Standard dissolved air flotation (DAF) High-rate DAF High rate clarifiers (e.g., Trident HSC/DensaDeg/CONTRAFAST) Sand ballast (e.g., Actiflo) Clarification rate (gpm/ft2) 1 2 4 6 12 18 8 10 15 30

Equalization (With or Without SFBW Treatment) Due to the nature of backwash operations, SFBW is generated sporadically. Consequently, even without SFBW treatment, flow equalization prior to recycle to the main process is desirable in order to avoid contributing flow surges which could disrupt the main filtration process. Flow equalization becomes essential if SFBW treatment is involved prior to recycle. This was investigated in Cornwell et al. (2001). Therefore, while flow equalization is not treatment per se, application of proper flow equalization is recommended, if not essential, preparatory process prior to recycle to the main treatment system or prior to SFBW treatment preceding recycle. In particular, in the latter case when SFBW treatment is used, equalization provides the additional benefit of minimizing the size of SFBW treatment facilities needed, thereby minimizing cost of these treatment processes as well. Furthermore, in addition to equalization of flow, equalization of particulates and contaminants is also important prior to recycle. Without mixing in equalization basins, particulate material can settle out in the basin. If this particulate material builds up then each

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 1: Background | 5

succeeding backwash event can stir up this settled material and it can create sporadic spikes of particulate content in the equalized SFBW flow leaving the basin. Consequently, a SFBW equalization basin not only needs to function to reduce hydraulic spikes, it also needs to reduce or eliminate fluctuations of particulates and other contaminants. This latter function can best be achieved by keeping equalization basins well mixed. The case studies described in this report include instances where temporary mixing was provided to existing basins that do not have permanent mixing. Some of these temporary mixing facilities did not function sufficiently well to normalize contaminant spikes. However, permanent mixing facilities can be designed and operated to function more satisfactorily. Low-Rate (Standard) Quiescent Gravity Settling Treatment processes for SFBW include standard clarifiers, lagoons, stilling basins, and other processes involving gravity settling in quiescent basins. These are generally simple and straightforward to operate, particularly for utilities that already use standard clarification basins in the main process prior to filtration. These have lower loading rates and consequently require a larger footprint to operate effectively compared to the higher rate processes that are the subject of this report. Deficiencies in existing standard quiescent gravity settling facilities, or factors that need to be incorporated into optimized versions of new facilities to evaluate in comparison to high-rate processes, include the following factors: 1. Settling AreaThe surface loading rate for properly operating quiescent settling facilities should be 0.2 gpm/ft2 or lower in the main process. However, since SFBW treatment requirements are less severe, a somewhat higher rate could be tolerated for SFBW clarification. Nevertheless, even allowing for the possibility of higher rates at SFBW clarifiers, many existing SFBW clarification processes are operated at too high a rate, and consequently achieve poorer performance than they otherwise could. Therefore, in order to improve the quality of treated SFBW, many treatment plants may need to operate at a lower rate and add more clarification area. Alternatively, space-limited locations that can not add more clarification area could convert to one of the higher rate clarification processes discussed in this report. 2. FlocculationFlocculation would improve clarification, but may existing facilities generally do not have them. 3. Chemical AdditionSFBW has routinely been coagulated, particularly with respect to charge neutralization, and consequently does not often require addition of metal salts during treatment. However, polymer addition often is highly desirable, and may even be essential to make SFBW clarification processes function satisfactorily. Polymer addition can typically allow smaller settling area than without polymer (i.e., higher clarification rates). Many existing processes may not incorporate polymer addition. Processes with polymer addition will also need to provide appropriate static or flash mixing. 4. EqualizationExisting facilities may not incorporate equalization, or if they do they do not incorporate mixed equalization. However, proper equalization is typically essential for optimized SFBW treatment using any process (see previous discussion).

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

5. Operator AttentionUtilities may be able to get better performance from any process with greater level of operator attention. However, in many cases utilities may make a trade-off and decide that they are willing to accept below optimal performance if the process can be left to function with less operator attention. Consequently, realistic assumptions about the above factors for lower rate alternatives may need to be incorporated in order to make appropriate comparisons with some of the higher rate processes described in this report. Another important factor to note when comparing the high rate processes discussed in this report versus new or existing lower rate processes is that the higher rate processes may incorporate more capacity to respond to particulate or flow rate spiking than lower rate processes, especially existing ones. Plate (Lamella) or Tube Settlers Plate (lamella) or tube settlers also remove particulate matter via conventional gravity sedimentation. However, these devices significantly reduce the distance required for particulate matter to settle out, which reduces the minimum time required for particle collection and consequently these devices can be operated at apparent surface overflow rates that are several times higher than the lower rate conventional gravity settling basins described above. There are a number of facilities in the US employing these devices for SFBW treatment, including three utility participants in this project (Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Passaic Valley Water Commission, and South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority). Full-scale data from these facilities were collected during this project, as well as pilot-scale data from the tube module of a high-rate processes piloted in Utah (see later discussion). Since plate and tube settlers are widely used and have been reported in the literature (e.g., Cornwell et al. 2001), further pilot studies were not considered necessary for this project. The surface loading rate for these processes is typically expressed relative to the area of basin, but do not take into account the total impact on plant footprint due to flocculation, chemical feed, etc. In addition, since the solids produced by these and the lower rate processes are typically limited to 0.3 percent or lower, adding these processes for SFBW treatment may consequently require additional thickening capacity, or may use up more of the plants existing thickening capacity. Dissolved Air Flotation Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is certainly a high-rate process even in the traditional clarification rate range of 4 to 6 gpm/ft2 (called standard-rate DAF in this report). Four pilot studies investigating standard-rate DAF for SFBW treatment were conducted prior to this project and are described in this report using information provided by the manufacturer, plus additional data from two of these studies supervised by members of the project team. In addition, one of these four pilot study sites installed a full-scale DAF plant for SFBW (Boulder, CO). Full-scale studies at this facility were conducted during this project and are described in this report. However, prior to this study there were no pilot- or full-scale data on the use of high-rate DAF processes (capable of operating up to 18 gpm/ft2), and so high-rate DAF was evaluated at two test sites during this project using pilot facilities supplied by two different manufacturers (see Chapter 3). As in other high-rate processes discussed below, the manufacturer expresses rates

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 1: Background | 7

relative to clarification area, but in this report the total footprint impact will be evaluated and discussed, including area required for flocculation, chemical addition, air saturation, etc. Available data from both standard- and high-rate DAF processes indicate that solids produced by these processes are on the order of 3 to 5 percent solids, meaning solids may be able to go direct to dewatering without having to undergo further thickening. High-Rate Solids Contact Clarification Processes A group of technologies that are described here as high-rate solids contact clarifiers have had limited reported use for SFBW treatment in US. Four different solids contact clarifiers are discussed in this report regarding their potential for SFBW treatment. The DensaDeg process manufactured by Infilco-Degremont, Inc. (IDI, Richmond, VA) and the CONTRAFAST process manufactured by Siemens Water Technologies (Ames, IA) are similar to one another and slightly different from the other two. The DensaDeg and CONTRAFAST processes both involve internal and external recirculation of solids originating in the untreated water. Untreated water and treatment chemicals first enter a mixed solids contact module, followed by a gravity clarification module using tubes. Clarified water passes through the tubes and a portion of the solids collected in the clarification module are recirculated to the solids contact module. Loading rates cited by the manufacturer typically are expressed relative to the surface area of clarification, but do not take into account total footprint. This report discusses findings relative to the clarification area, and also relative to total footprint. Solids produced from these processes are typically on the order of 3 to 5 percent or perhaps higher. As with DAF, these solids may not need thickening prior to dewatering, which is of course desirable and will reduce the net impact on plant footprint due to adding one of these processes for SFBW treatment. The Actiflo process manufactured by I. Krueger, Inc. (Cary, NC) is a sand ballasted flocculation/clarification system. This system has a flocculation stage, analogous to the contact stage described above, followed by a clarification step. The microsand added prior to the flocculation stage provides additional surfaces for collisions with particulate material in untreated water and the resulting particulate and microsand floc create large, heavy particles that settle rapidly, allowing the clarification step to be operated at a high surface overflow rate. A cyclone separates the higher density microsand particles from other solids so the sand can be recycled. There are data available from three US Actiflo pilot studies. There is also one full-scale facility in California designed to treat SFBW (this process was not in operation during this study, and was being re-evaluated for future use, but this had not been resolved in time for this project). Data from the three previous pilot studies were presented and discussed in this report. The manufacturer typically expresses rates relative to clarification area, which do not take into account total footprint due to flocculation, chemical addition, sand handling, etc. Furthermore, limited information available indicates that solids produced by this process are on the order of 0.3 percent. Consequently, the potential requirement for additional thickening capacity associated with sand-ballasted coagulation, and the consequent impact of this on total footprint, needs to be evaluated in comparison to other alternatives. Another similar solids contact process evaluated during this project was the Trident HSC by Siemens Water Technologies (Ames, IA). This process includes chemical addition followed by removal of particulate material in two clarification stages. The first stage includes a tube settler section followed by passage of the partially clarified water through a bed of buoyant plastic media that the manufacturer describes as an adsorption clarifier (AC). Of solids

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

8 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

collected from the tube settler section, 5 to 10 percent are recirculated to the front of the process, thereby promoting additional solids contact prior to clarification in the tube settler portion of the process. The subsequent AC portion of the process provides additional mixing, contact flocculation, and solids removal. In other applications, the clarified water from AC will pass through a filtration stage. In all applications, the combined residuals solids from the tube and AC clarification sections produces less than 1 percent solids, typically on the order of 0.5 percent. Membranes Membranes for treatment of conventional SFBW have been discussed but in reality have found limited (or no) application. We have not been able to obtain any data on the use of membranes to treat SFBW. EE&T has previously bench tested microfiltration, and pilot tested submerged membranes, to treat SFBW (Cornwell et al. 2001). Although treatment was successful, the cost was quite high compared to other options. However, in an effort to evaluate alternatives that might be more satisfactory, bench-scale testing of potentially lower cost, innovative membrane options were investigated, as discussed in Chapter 4. There are reports in the literature of using crossflow microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) in pilot studies in Europe for treating SFBW (Vigneswaran et al. 1996, Dotremont et al. 1999), and in full scale (Brugger et al. 2001, Song et al. 2001).

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEWPREVIOUS STUDIES OF SFBW TREATMENT


Due to a lack of published literature on high rate SFBW treatment, much of the available background information was obtained from equipment manufacturers and municipal drinking water utilities. Unpublished reports describing eight pilot studies for DAF or solids contact processes for SFBW treatment were obtained. Though the reports were not peer-reviewed, raw data for six of the eight reports were available for the research team to review in order to independently evaluate the findings. Tabular and graphical summaries of these data prepared by the research team are presented in this report. Eight pilot study reports have been obtained from three manufacturers, including four standard-rate DAF studies provided by The F.B. Leopold Company from Durham (NC), Cleveland (OH), Phoenix (AZ), and Boulder (CO); three Actiflo (sand ballasted coagulation) pilot studies from I. Kruger, Inc. from Walnut Creek and Modesto (CA), and Tempe (AZ); and one completed study of the DensaDeg process from Infilco-Degremont, Inc. (IDI) at two utilities operated by United Water (NJ and NY). The sections below describe the results from these studies, grouped by the utility or utilities where the testing took place. CITY OF DURHAM, NC (DAF) Pilot studies were conducted at the Williams Water Treatment Plant in Durham, NC in 1999 principally to evaluate standard-rate DAF for treatment of SFBW (Leopold 1999a). The surface water treatment facility utilizes aluminum sulfate (alum) coagulation, flocculation, clarification, and granular media filtration. The SFBW is normally recycled to a raw water reservoir without treatment. During this study, this process was discontinued and the SFBW was diverted to a holding tank that was converted into a completely mixed equalization basin to feed the SFBW pilot treatment facilities. During these studies, the principal focus was on the evaluation of DAF for SFBW. However, for a short period, a side-by-side comparison of DAF vs. a plate settler was performed. The impacts of the following factors were evaluated with respect to the DAF system: (a) polymer dose, (b) flocculation time, (c) flocculation energy, and (d) DAF loading rate. The following characteristics were measured in order to evaluate the impact of these factors: (1) DAF treated turbidity, (2) DAF treated particle count, (3) Fe and Mn removal in DAF, (4) concentration of SFBW treatment residuals, and (5) filterability of solids (particles, turbidity, and associated Fe and Mn) in the treated SFBW recycle stream. Results and observations from these studies are summarized in Table 2.1: 1. Optimal polymer dose was about 0.3 mg/L using LT22s (cationic polymer from Ciba Corporation (Suffolk, VA)) as shown in Figure 2.1. Studies without polymer produced unacceptably high DAF turbidity (>30 ntu in all cases). 2. Single-stage flocculation (10 to 15 min) prior to DAF did not result in satisfactory turbidity removal in SFBW as shown in Figure 2.2. This figure illustrates that the target DAF turbidity of <2 ntu was achieved less than 20 percent of the time. Increasing flocculation by providing two stages (20 to 29 min) did improve turbidity removal in subsequent DAF process, resulting in DAF turbidity <2 ntu in more than 90 percent of the samples (see Figure 2.2).

9
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

10 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

3. An assessment of the impact of mixing intensity in flocculator basins revealed that increasing the flocculation mixing intensity (G) from 15 to 40/s improved DAF turbidity, but increasing G beyond 40/s provided little additional improvement. 4. Figure 2.3 illustrates DAF performance under optimal conditions established during these studies for the Durham SFBW (4 gpm/ft2, two-stage flocculation (20 to 29 min), and 0.3 mg/L LT22s). These results indicate that about 95 percent of the DAF treated samples were 2 ntu, even though untreated SFBW was typically >40 ntu. Most of the testing was conducted at 4 gpm/ft2, but rates up to 5 gpm/ft2 did also produce DAF turbidity <2 ntu when optimal polymer dose was used, though testing at these other loading rates was not conducted for prolonged time periods (typically ~2 hours). 5. DAF performance for treatment of the SFBW was fairly insensitive to DAF recycle rate. In some high solids applications, such as sludge thickening, the DAF recycle rate can be as high as 50 to 100 percent. For the SFBW influent, increasing the recycle rate did slightly improve DAF performance, but all rates tested down to 5 percent produced <2 ntu. 6. Filtration studies were conducted to simulate the impact of DAF performance on the filterability of the solids in the DAF treated water if they were recycled to the raw water for the main treatment plant. When DAF performance was stable, filtered turbidity following DAF treatment was between 0.1 and 0.2 ntu in each of the two dual media filters tested, one 24 in. of anthracite over 12 in. sand and the other 18 in. anthracite over 12 in. sand. The filters were operated at 4 gpm/ft2 and produced unit filter run volumes of about 5,800 gal/ft2 per filter run. 7. The nature and high solids content created difficulties in measuring particle count in untreated SFBW. Average results reported include about 15,000 particles >2 m per mL in untreated SFBW, about 1,400 particles/mL in treated SFBW, and typically <100 particles/mL in simulated filtration of treated SFBW. 8. DAF appeared to remove most of the particulate Fe and Mn in SFBW, reducing total levels from 3 mg/L Fe and 0.2 mg/L Mn to 0.2 mg/L Fe and 0.1 mg/L Mn. Filtration studies of the DAF treated water revealed that filtered water still had about 0.2 mg/L Fe and 0.1 mg/L Mn. There was no oxidation processes associated with the DAF SFBW treatment train, so no mechanism was in place to convert the soluble reduced Fe and Mn into particulate forms that could be removed by DAF or filtration. 9. Apparent color in untreated SFBW was off the scale (>550 PtCo color units [PCUs]) but DAF treated apparent color was reduced to 8 to 12 PCUs. 10. The average concentration of the DAF residuals was about 3.8 percent solids, median was about 3.5 percent, and the range 3.1 to 5.1 percent for 10 samples. 11. Side-by-side comparisons were conducted between DAF and a plate settler for one 8hour period. The plate settler was dosed with 0.5 mg/L LT22s, while DAF continued to be dosed at 0.3 mg/L. The plate settler loading rate was 2 gpm/ft2 while the DAF remained at 4 gpm/ft2. As shown in Figure 2.4, the plate settler produced 14 ntu treated water and DAF produced turbidity ten times lower (1.4 ntu). Other data from the report also indicates that while Mn removal for plate settler was about the same as DAF (0.1 mg/L Mn in treated water), Fe concentration was higher in plate settler (0.78 mg/L Fe vs. 0.2 mg/L Fe).

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 11

Table 2.1 Summary of standard-rate DAF testing results at Durham in 1999 Polymer dose Optimal = 0.3 mg/L LT22s No polymer = turbidity >30 ntuperformance not acceptable Flocculation time 10 to 15 min (single stage) = turbidity performance not acceptable 20 to 29 min (dual stage) = satisfactory performance Flocculation mixing intensity (G) optimal DAF rate Optimal Higher rate DAF recycle rate Performance was insensitive to DAF recycle rate changes down to 5 percent Particulate removal Untreated = >40 ntu Treated = >95% were <2 ntu, and mean no. of particles >2 m = 1,400 particles/mL Fe and Mn removal Untreated = 3 mg/L Fe and 0.2 mg/L Mn Treated = 0.2 mg/L Fe and 0.1 mg/L Mn Color removal Untreated = >550 PCUs Treated = 8 to 12 PCUs DAF residuals Range Mean Median = 3.1 to 5.1 percent = 3.8 percent = 3.5 percent = up to 4 gpm/ft2 (at optimal polymer dose and flocculation time) = may be possible, but testing at rates higher than 4 gpm/ft2 was limited = 40/s (higher G did not provide noticeable improvement)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

12 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

1000

LT22s

100 DAF Turbidity (ntu)

Calgon 233 no polymer

10

0.1 -0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

Polymer Dose (mg/L)

Figure 2.1 Impact of polymer dose on performance of DAF for SFBW treatment at Durham in 1999

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1

2 Stage Flocculation, 20 to 29 total min 1 Stage Flocculation, 10 to 15 min

10

DAF Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 2.2 Impact of flocculation time during DAF testing at Durham in 1999

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 13

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Treated Untreated

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 2.3 SFBW treatment with DAF at Durham in 1999

100

75.0

75.0

Untreated

Turbidity (ntu)

Treated

14.0 10

1.4 1 plates DAF

Figure 2.4 Comparison of turbidity reduction in plate settler vs. DAF for SFBW at Durham in 1999

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

14 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

CITY OF BOULDER, CO (DAF) Standard-rate DAF, lamella (plate) settlers, and sand-ballasted coagulation were evaluated for SFBW treatment in May 1999 at the Betasso Water Treatment Plant operated by the City of Boulder, CO (Boulder 1999). Prior to the 1999 study, SFBW in the plant was recovered and recycled using a simple sedimentation basin. The main process includes coagulation, clarification, and dual media filtration. Descriptions of full-scale facility are included in Chapter 3. The City prepared a report summarizing findings of their evaluations, including a summary of pilot studies for two of the three processes (DAF and sand-ballasted coagulation). They did not report data from the plate settler pilot because they deemed the results not representative of what they could expect in a full-scale lamella process. The discussion below summarizes general findings provided in the Citys report for the two processes, plus additional details about DAF testing based on the manufacturers report, but no independent review of data, since raw data was not provided by the City or the manufacturer. The Citys report cited data for untreated SFBW from 1997 to 1998 ICR data. These data indicate that: Temperature for December through April was 3 to 6C, peaking at 15 to 18C during July through September From January to December 1998 the reported turbidity ranged from 0.9 to 28.4 ntu, averaging about 5 ntu For the same one year period, TOC ranged from 1 to 12 mg/L, averaging ~3 mg/L

Findings from the Citys report related to the two tested processes included the following: Alum, polyaluminum chloride (PACl), and three polymers (anionic, non-ionic, and cationic) were evaluated, and LT22s (cationic polymer) was optimal for both processes. Optimal dose reported for DAF was 0.2 mg/L and for sand-ballasted coagulation was 0.3 to 0.5 mg/L Under low solids loading (untreated turbidity <10 ntu), both processes were able to produce treated turbidity <1 ntu under City defined best conditions Under high solids loading (untreated turbidity >10 ntu, up to 60 ntu), both processes were able to produce treated turbidity <2 ntu under City defined best conditions (DAF was <1 ntu) As expected, particulate removal by both processes also produced a corresponding reduction in apparent color The DAF process did not demonstrate any removal of dissolved organic constituents (as measured by true color or DOC) under conditions tested, but the sand-ballasted coagulation process appeared to produce slight removal (no true color removal and less than 10 percent TOC removal with DAF, versus 10 to 20 percent true color removal and up to 16 percent TOC removal with sand-ballasted) Acceptable performance was observed at rates up to 7 gpm/ft2 for each process, but not at higher clarification rates

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 15

No information on flocculation time or other operating conditions were cited in the Citys report for either process (DAF process was described in manufacturers report described below) No percent solids data were reported for solids separated in either process in the Citys report, though this information was reported for the DAF process in the manufacturer's report (see later discussion)

The report provided by the manufacturer described the impacts of the following factors evaluated with respect to the DAF system (Leopold 1999b): (a) polymer dose, (b) flocculation time, (c) flocculation energy, (d) DAF loading and recycle rate, and (e) natural and artificially induced turbidity spikes in SFBW influent. The following characteristics were measured in order to evaluate these factors: (1) turbidity, (2) particle counts, (3) Fe and Mn removal in DAF, (4) concentration of SFBW treatment residuals, and (5) filterability of solids (particles, turbidity, and associated Fe and Mn) in the treated SFBW recycle stream. The factors, and measures to evaluate these measures, were nearly identical to the 1999 Durham, NC study described elsewhere in this report. The turbidity of untreated SFBW was normally about 10 ntu, but during normal operations it occasionally spikes up to >50 ntu. Some artificial spikes were deliberately induced during some of the pilot testing (>80 ntu for about four hours) by adding solids from a batch holding tank. Alum improved DAF performance, but the DAF process was unstable if the alum dose was not properly controlled. Since this would require a great deal more operator attention than needed for polymer, alum was not recommended for this application. A PACl product used at the plant did not produce acceptable performance for SFBW treatment. Optimal polymer type and dose tested was 0.2 mg/L LT22s, achieving <1 ntu during both high and low turbidity events. Treatment without polymer did not reliably achieve desired performance of <2 ntu. Flocculation time improved performance, but at zero flocculation time performance was always <2 ntu, and most of the time <1 ntu. Measured number of particles >2 m in treated SFBW were <1,000 particles/mL. Average apparent (i.e., unfiltered) color in the SFBW was reduced from about 175 to 12 PCUs. True (i.e., filtered) color was unchanged at <12 PCUs, typically 6 to 8 PCUs. Fe and Mn in SFBW is also believed to be mostly particulate, with total levels reduced from ranges of about 0.27 to 1.92 mg/L Fe and 0.02 to 0.08 mg/L Mn in untreated SFBW to about 0.1 mg/L Fe and 0.02 mg/L Mn in treated SFBW. For Mn, it was determined that at least 50 percent of Mn in DAF treated water is particulate. DAF float solids were typically 3 to 3.5 percent solids. Measured TSS/turbidity ratio was about 3.4 mg/L per ntu. Treated turbidity was <1 ntu at all rates tested (up to 7 gpm/ft2) and under the conditions evaluated, although at lower loading rates, the turbidity reduction was more effective. DAF recycle rate had little impact on performance. Turbidity spikes did make treated turbidity higher, but flow spikes (rapid increase in flow rate) did not significantly deteriorate performance. The cause of the natural spikes was determined to be sludge buildup over the years in the unmixed backwash holding tank. During a backwash event, the short duration, high flow rate scoured and re-suspended the surface of the sludge at the bottom of the tank. These spikes could be eliminated in the future by removing the sludge built up in the tank (mechanical sludge collection) or by mixing the equalization basins.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

16 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

DAF treated water was evaluated to see how filterable the solids and other constituents would be if recycled back to plant flow. Unit filter run volumes of 5,800 gal/ft2 were achieved, and acceptable turbidity, Fe, Mn, etc. removal were achieved with dual media (sand and anthracite), but performance was not as good with deep-bed mono-media (anthracite). Dual media results were as follows: turbidity = 0.1 ntu, Fe 0.05 mg/L, Mn ~ 0.01 mg/L. The findings from standard-rate DAF studies are summarized in Table 2.2. The City evaluated these findings and decided to install a full-scale DAF process for SFBW. This process was evaluated in full-scale studies described in Chapter 3. Table 2.2 Summary of standard-rate DAF testing results at Boulder in 1999 Polymer dose Optimal = 0.2 mg/L LT22s No polymer = turbidity not reliably <2 ntu under some conditions Flocculation time Zero flocculation time = performance was acceptable Longer flocculation time = better performance DAF rate Optimal = up to 7 gpm/ft2 produced <1 ntu treated water (at optimal polymer dose and flocculation time) DAF recycle rate Performance was insensitive to DAF recycle rate changes Particulate removal Untreated = ~10 ntu, with natural variability up to >50 ntu, and >80 ntu when spiked Treated = <1 ntu (at optimal polymer dose and flocculation time), and mean no. of particles >2 m = 1,000 particles/mL Sensitivity to flow variability = none Sensitivity to turbidity variability = yes, both natural and induced spikes produced increases in particulate levels in treated SFBW Fe and Mn removal Untreated = 0.27 to 1.92 mg/L Fe and 0.02 to 0.08 mg/L Mn Treated = 0.1 mg/L Fe and 0.02 mg/L Mn (50 percent of the latter is particulate) Apparent color removal Untreated = 175 PCUs Treated = 12 PCUs DAF residuals Range = 3 to 3.5 percent TSS/turbidity ratio ~3.4 mg/L per ntu

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 17

CITY OF MODESTO, CA (ACTIFLO) As part of an overall site evaluation to increase plant capacity from 36 to 72 mgd, the Modesto Irrigation District in Modesto, CA, conducted pilot testing with Actiflo to improve turbidity in treated SFBW in order to increase the potential for recycle of treated SFBW (Kruger 2005). The SFBW treated at this facility includes backwash from anthracite mono-media filters as well as membrane filter backwash. Pilot testing conducted from July 11 to 22, 2005, targeted production of <2 ntu in treated SFBW. Particle counts were also measured for treated and untreated SFBW. The untreated SFBW was collected in an existing mixed equalization tank at the site. During the period of the pilot testing, most of the SFBW processed was from the mono-media filters, with the only contribution from membrane backwash occurring for a short period on July 21 (i.e., near the end of the study). Results and observations from the pilot studies are summarized in Table 2.3 including the following: 1. The Actiflo process was operated at a clarification rate of 30 gpm/ft2 with a sand concentration of about 12 g/L during all testing. 2. Three polymers were evaluated: LT25 (anionic), LT22s (cationic), and the cationic polymer used at the time in the main plant (only identified as Catfloc). The LT25 and Catfloc could not achieve <2 ntu in the Actiflo process with or without alum, but the LT22s could achieve treated water turbidity <2 ntu even at influent turbidities as high as 300 ntu, with or without alum (see next item). The LT22s and LT25 are manufactured by Ciba Corporation (Suffolk, VA), and Catfloc is a family of cationic polymers manufactured by Nalco Company (Naperville, IL). 3. At high influent turbidity, alum doses of 5 or 10 mg/L were used in conjunction with higher LT22s doses. There is no evidence that these high turbidity conditions were evaluated without alum to see if acceptable performance could be achieved with polymer alone. During these studies, the operational setpoints outlined in Table 2.4 were used. 4. As shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6, when the Actiflo process was optimized as outlined above the process produced <2 ntu more than 99 percent of the time, and <1 ntu more about 30 percent of the time, even when untreated SFBW turbidity was 100 ntu or higher. The particle count results in Figure 2.7 reflect an analogous reduction in influent solids by the Actiflo process. Figure 2.8 further reflects the ability of the process to produce treated water <2 ntu under a variety of influent concentrations under the conditions tested. 5. On the morning of July 18, a large amount of solids settled around the pump in the backwash basin over the weekend. When this material entered the Actiflo process the incoming turbidity spiked to >1,000 ntu for about 30 minutes. The above referenced figures excluded data from the initial start-up period on July 18. 6. Based on findings from this study, the manufacturer recommended the operational matrix in Table 2.5, if the process was later used for full-scale operations.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

18 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 2.3 Summary of sand-ballasted coagulation (Actiflo) testing results at Modesto in 2005 Chemical dose Polymer = LT22s worked better than other polymers tested Polymer dose = see Table 2.4 for recommended dose Alum dose = see Table 2.4 for recommended dose Actiflo operating characteristics Clarification rate = 30 gpm/ft2 Sand concentration = 12 g/L Particulate removal Untreated = median ~10 ntu, 90th percentile ~100 ntu Treated = <2 ntu >99 percent of time (under optimal conditions), and median no. of particles >2 m = ~1,000 particles/mL (see Figures 2.6 through 2.8)

Table 2.4 Operational matrix during Actiflo testing at Modesto in 2005 Influent turbidity Alum dose Polymer dose Setpoint (ntu) (mg/L) (mg/L) A B C D E 0 to 4 4 to 15 15 to 25 25 to 50 >50 0 0 5 5 10 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.5 3.0

Table 2.5 Recommended future operational matrix for Actiflo used for SFBW treatment at Modesto Backwash of Mono-media filters Membrane backwash Influent turbidity Alum dose (mg/L) Setpoint (ntu) A B C D E 0 to 15 15 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 300 0 0 0 5 10 Polymer dose (mg/L) 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 Alum dose (mg/L) 0 5 5 10 10 Polymer dose (mg/L) 0.8 1.0 2.5 3.0 3.0

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 19

10
15 - Jul 18 - Jul 19 - Jul 20 - Jul 21 - Jul

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Duration of Test (hours)

Figure 2.5 SFBW treatment with Actiflo at Modesto in 2005


99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Untreated Treated

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 2.6 SFBW treatment with Actiflo at Modesto in 2005 (turbidity)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

20 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1

Untreated Treated

10

100

Number of Particles >2 m (particles/L)

Figure 2.7 SFBW treatment with Actiflo at Modesto in 2005 (particles)

2.5 Actiflo Treated Turbidity (ntu)

1.5

0.5

0 1 10 Untreated Turbidity (ntu) 100 1000

Figure 2.8 Treated vs. untreated SFBW turbidity during studies with Actiflo at Modesto in 2005

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 21

CITY OF PHOENIX, AZ (DAF) DAF pilot testing for treatment of SFBW at the Lake Pleasant Water Treatment Facility operated by the City of Phoenix (AZ) was conducted during September 2000 (Leopold 2000b). The Lake Pleasant facility employs coagulation, flocculation, clarification, and dual media filtration. The SFBW from the dual media filters is collected in unmixed BW holding tanks. Prior to the study, washwater from the holding tank was clarified in several large, simple sedimentation basins fitted with sludge collectors, with clarified SFBW recycled to the head of the plant. The SFBW clarifiers have had a problematic history, according to the manufacturers report, and the City initiated this study to evaluate whether DAF can replace them. The manufacturer provided the pilot study report summarizing findings, but was not able to locate original raw data so the project team was not able to independently evaluate reported findings. The objective of the studies was to investigate conditions that could result using DAF to produce treated SFBW with turbidity <1 ntu prior to recycle. Another objective was to reduce the volume of residuals by evaluating whether more concentrated residuals streams were possible with the DAF process. The studies evaluated the impact of polymer type and dose, flocculation time, and DAF loading rate. Characteristics measured included treated and untreated turbidity, and concentration of residuals. Three polymers were evaluated. Anionic polymer (LT25) worked better than the cationic (LT22s) and non-ionic (LT20) products tested (all three manufactured by Ciba Corporation (Suffolk, VA)). Optimal dose was 0.1 mg/L. Treated water turbidity was about the same with or without polymer, but was more stable and reliable with polymer. Without polymer, increasing flocculation to 24 minutes improved performance. With polymer, no flocculation was needed. Loading rates up to 6 gpm/ft2 were tested and proved satisfactory (<2 ntu) and the recommended design rate was 5 gpm/ft2. The DAF process produced about 4 to 6 percent solids in the separated sludge. Treated turbidity was always <2 ntu, but most of the time was reportedly <1 ntu. Study results are summarized in Table 2.6. Table 2.6 Summary of standard-rate DAF testing results at Phoenix in 2000 Polymer dose Optimal = 0.1 mg/L LT25 (anionic), and performance was stable with polymer variable characteristics of untreated SFBW No polymer = performance was generally acceptable, but performance was not reliable (i.e., was subject to periodic variation) without polymer

Flocculation time Without polymer = need a minimum of 24 minutes With polymer = no flocculation needed DAF rate Optimal = up to 6 gpm/ft2 produced <2 ntu treated water (at optimal polymer dose and flocculation time) all the time, and reportedly <1 ntu most of the time

DAF residuals Range = 4 to 6 percent

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

22 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

CITY OF TEMPE, AZ (ACTIFLO) In October 1997 the City of Tempe conducted pilot studies to evaluate the use of Actiflo to treat SFBW prior to recycle (Kruger 1997a). The following includes some background information about the raw source water and treatment facility, as well as details regarding the pilot study included in a pilot study report provided by the manufacturer. The manufacturer was also able to provide electronic copies of the raw data allowing the research team to develop the attached graphical and tabular summaries. These were evaluated in order to develop the findings described below which generally agreed with the findings reported by the manufacturer. Background Results were contained in a pilot study report prepared by I. Kruger, Inc. for Actiflo treatment of SFBW at the Papago Water Treatment Plant in Tempe, AZ during October 1997 This plant is now called the Johnny Martinez Treatment Plant. The other surface water treatment facility operated by the City of Tempe is called the South Tempe Water Treatment Plant. The City also uses local groundwater as a backup water supply (City of Tempe 2004). Most of the surface water is from the Salt River Project, and the rest is from Central Arizona Project Water. Powdered activated carbon (PAC) is added to raw water to help remove taste and odor. Most PAC is removed during clarification, but some PAC is removed in the SFBW. At time of the study, SFBW was collected in a recovery basin. Residence time was about two to three hours, allowing some solids to settle, with supernatant returned to head of the plant. During the pilot study, two sets of conditions relative to the SFBW recovery basin were tested. The mixed studies were conducted by submerging a pump in the basin in order to simulate treatment of equalized SFBW in the Actiflo pilot. The unmixed studies involved taking SFBW from the recovery basin without mixing, therefore, demonstrating effect of Actiflo treatment on SFBW after clarification in the existing recovery basin. The mixed studies simulate impact of replacing recovery basin as currently operated with a well mixed equalization basin followed by Actiflo. The unmixed studies simulate adding Actiflo to existing SFBW process. Although the unmixed studies are generally not relevant for this project, some of the findings (e.g., coagulant screening) were only conducted under unmixed conditions. Consequently, both mixed and unmixed results are discussed below. ResultsCoagulant Screening Polymer screening was conducted during nonmixed conditions (untreated SFBW 2.9 to 4.4 ntu). In the first studies, each polymer was dosed at 0.20 mg/L with no alum at a clarification rate of 20 gpm/ft2 and a flocculation time of six minutes. Results are summarized in Table 2.7 and Figures 2.9 and 2.10. Project objectives included production of treated SFBW <2 ntu and <4 PCU. The results indicate that although many of the polymers could produce results that met the objectives at the doses treated, the LT22s (see Table 2.3) produced the best results for this source water under the conditions tested. Figure 2.10 indicates that a dose of 0.15 mg/L for this polymer achieved <0.2 ntu, and this was improved to <0.1 ntu with 0.3 mg/L, but higher doses did not produce additional improvement.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 23

Table 2.7 Summary of polymers tested with Actiflo at Tempe in 1997 (no alum added) Charge Turbidity Color Manufacturer* Product MW Charge strength (ntu) (PCU) Ciba Ciba Ciba Ciba Ciba Stockhausen
*

LT22s LT25 LT24 LT27 LT20 2530-LTR

V high Low High V high Low V high

+ + None -

Med Weak Med Med Weak Med

0.16 0.28 0.24 0.43 0.24 0.50

2 1 1 2 1 0

Polydyne A-3333P Unk Weak 1.39 Not reported Ciba Corporation (Suffolk, VA), Stockhauden/DeGussa (Dsseldorf, Germany), and Polydyne/SNF Floerger (Riceboro, GA)

1.6 1.4
Treated Turbidity (ntu)

1.39

Anionic

Non-Ionic

Cationic

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 A-3333 2530-TR LT27 LT25 Polymers LT20 LT24 LT22s 0.50

0.43 0.28 0.29 0.24 0.16

Figure 2.9 Comparison of polymer type and dose for Actiflo treatment of SFBW at Tempe in 1997

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

24 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

100

10

Turbidity (ntu)

Untreated Treated

0.1

0.01 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

LT22s Polymer Dose (mg/L)

Figure 2.10 Impact of polymer dose on Actiflo treatment of SFBW at Tempe in 1997 The above polymer evaluations were conducted with polymer alone. Later tests showed that at alum doses of 6 to 8 mg/L, polymer doses of 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L produced about the same turbidity and color (<0.21 ntu, <2 PCU). These tests also showed that at 0.05 mg/L of LT22s the turbidity was >2 ntu when no alum was used in addition to polymer, and <0.2 ntu when 6 mg/L alum was used with the polymer. No testing was recorded using alum without polymer. Although they did show that low LT22s dose without alum did not produce acceptable performance, they did achieve acceptable performance with alum and low polymer dose, as well as with no alum and higher (0.3 mg/L) polymer dose. Impact of Clarification Rate and Flocculation Time After stabilizing at 8 mg/L alum dose, 0.1 mg/L LT22s dose, clarification rate of 20 gpm/ft , and flocculation time 12 minutes, the turbidity and color were ~0.3 ntu and <1 PCU, respectively. Within one hour after increasing clarification rate to 25 gpm/ft2 and correspondingly reducing flocculation time to 9.5 minutes, turbidity was still <0.3 ntu. 30 minutes later, after increasing clarification rate to 30 gpm/ft2 and reducing flocculation time to eight minutes, turbidity was still <0.3 ntu. Consequently, the manufacturer concluded that Actiflo can rapidly respond to variable influent flow rates.
2

Impact of Polymer Dose Under Mixed Conditions When the existing full-scale basin was mixed, the untreated SFBW turbidity fluctuated between 10 and 31 ntu during a six-hour test. The clarification rate (20 gpm/ft2), flocculation time (12 min), and alum dose (6 mg/L) were constant but LT22s dose varied between 0.15 and 0.95 mg/L in response to changes in SFBW turbidity. The resulting treated turbidity was 0.10 to 0.20 ntu.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 25

Under mixed conditions, results under similar Actiflo conditions (clarification rate 20 gpm/ft2, 12 minute floc time, LT22s = 0.15 mg/L), alum doses at 0, 3, and 6 mg/L produced treated water turbidity <0.3 ntu. Therefore, under these conditions a low polymer dose and no alum produced acceptable results. Under mixed conditions, when the clarification rate (20 gpm/ft2), flocculation time (12 min), and polymer dose (0.95 mg/L) were held constant the treated turbidity was <0.3 ntu during a 3.5hour period when the SFBW turbidity was 24 to 38 ntu. During this period the alum dose was 15 to 25 mg/L. It is unclear why alum and polymer dose were so large compared to previous studies with this water. For example, earlier results showed that good turbidity removal was achieved at a lower LT22s dose (0.15 mg/L) when SFBW was mixed with or without alum present. During a 42-hour continuous period using mixed SFBW, the Actiflo process was maintained at 20 gpm/ft2 and a flocculation time at 12 min. Alum dose varied from 8 to 20 mg/L and LT22s varied from 0.10 to 0.90 mg/L, and these were each independently varied throughout the 42-hour period. The longest period when all doses were held constant was about four hours. The last 18 hours one or both coagulant doses were adjusted each hour. Turbidity results from this portion of the test are listed in Figures 2.11 and 2.12. Treated turbidity was always <0.20 ntu but it is unclear whether this was due to the widely fluctuating coagulant doses or if the same performance could be achieved at lower and constant doses. Results from previous experiments with the Actiflo pilot at this facility indicated that suitable performance could have been achieved at constant doses of LT22s about 0.2 mg/L or higher with or without alum, or at LT22s doses as low as 0.05 mg/L with 3 mg/L or more alum. Table 2.8 summarizes findings from the study.

1000

100

Untreated

Turbidity (ntu)

10

1 Treated

0.1

0.01 10/21/06

10/22/06 Date

10/23/06

10/24/06

Figure 2.11 Actiflo SFBW treatment at Tempe in 1997 under stable treatment conditions

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

26 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.01 Untreated Treated

0.1

10

100

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 2.12 Reduction of SFBW turbidity during treatment with Actiflo under stable treatment conditions at Tempe in 1997

Table 2.8 Summary of sand-ballasted coagulation (Actiflo) testing results at Tempe in 1997 Chemical dose Polymer dose = 0.3 mg/L LT22s (see Figure 2.10) Alum dose = manufacturer recommended alum doses of 8 to 20 mg/L Actiflo operating characteristics Clarification rate = up to 30 gpm/ft2 Flocculation time = at least 8 min Particulate removal Untreated = fluctuated from <10 to ~40 ntu Treated = median ~0.2 ntu (when tested under manufacturer recommended conditions) Color removal Treated = <1 PCU

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 27

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, WALNUT CREEK, CA (ACTIFLO) In September 1997 the East Bay Municipal Utilities District evaluated Actiflo for treatment of SFBW prior to recycle return at their water treatment facility in Walnut Creek, CA (Kruger 1997b). On the first day of the study, SFBW was discharged into an unmixed basin prior to feeding the Actiflo pilot. However, this created an influent that was too inconsistent and nonhomogenous to optimize the Actiflo process. Pumps were added to mix and homogenize the SFBW in the basin prior to Actiflo. All the data reported below are for the period following these changes. All testing listed below was conducted at a clarification rate of 20 gpm/ft2 and a flocculation time of 12 minutes. Figure 2.13 summarizes results from polymer testing with one cationic, one non-ionic, and four anionic polymers, all dosed at 0.85 mg/L. The best performance was achieved with the anionic polymer 2530TR manufactured by Stockhausen/DeGussa (Dsseldorf, Germany). Figure 2.14 summarizes studies to evaluate optimal dose for this polymer, which gradually reduced turbidity as dose was increased to 0.7 mg/L, but little additional removal was associated with higher doses of the polymer. Consequently, 0.7 mg/L of this polymer was used in all subsequent studies. Testing was conducted with 0.7 mg/L of the 2530TR polymer supplemented by 0 to 7 mg/L of the Plants PACl, but all of the results were already <0.5 ntu, even without the PACl. Consequently, no PACl was used in subsequent studies.
>80.00

100

Anionic

Non Ionic

Cationic 11.98

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

10

1.08 1 0.77 0.71 0.35

0.1 LT25 2540TR LT27 Polymer 2530TR LT20 LT22S

Figure 2.13 Comparison of polymers for Actiflo treatment of SFBW at Walnut Creek in 1997 (0.85 mg/L)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

28 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Actiflo Treated Turbidity (ntu)

0 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

2530TR Polymer Dose (mg/L)

Figure 2.14 Impact of 2530TR polymer dose on Actiflo treated SFBW at Walnut Creek in 1997 Figures 2.15 through 2.17 illustrate results from a 2-day demonstration under optimal conditions described above. The turbidity of untreated SFBW influent was >100 ntu, but the treated turbidity was always <1 ntu under the conditions tested. During this period, influent TSS was reduced from >700 mg/L to <2.4 mg/L. Reported solids content of the Actiflo residuals was <4,500 mg/L (i.e., <0.45 percent solids concentration). Table 2.9 summarizes testing results at Walnut Creek.
1000 Untreated SFBW Turbidity 100
Turbidity (ntu)

10

Treated SFBW Turbidity 1

0.1 09/15/06

09/16/06

09/17/06

Figure 2.15 SFBW treatment with Actiflo at Walnut Creek in 1997

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 29

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.01 Untreated Treated

0.1

10

100

1000

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 2.16 Actiflo turbidity treatment of SFBW at Walnut Creek


1,000,000 Particle Count (number of Particles >2 m per mL)

Untreated 100,000

10,000

1,000 Treated

100

10 09/15/06

09/16/06

09/17/06

Figure 2.17 Actiflo particle count treatment of SFBW at Walnut Creek

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

30 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 2.9 Summary of sand-ballasted coagulation (Actiflo) testing results at Walnut Creek in 1997 Chemical dose Polymer dose = 0.7 mg/L 2530TR (Stockhausen/DeGussa) PACl = use of plant PACl in addition to polymer did not improve performance Actiflo operating characteristics Clarification rate = up to 20 gpm/ft2 Flocculation time = 12 min Particulate removal Untreated = >100 ntu Treated = always <1 ntu, the only two samples collected were below detection limit for TSS (<2.4 mg/L), and particle >2 m were <1,000 particles/mL Residuals concentration Two samples, highest was 4,500 mg/L (or 0.45 percent) CITY OF CLEVELAND, OH (DAF) In March 2000 pilot testing of DAF (Leopold 2000a, Cornwell et al. 2001) for SFBW treatment was evaluated at the Morgan Water Treatment Facility operated by the City of Cleveland Division of Water (CWD). The SFBW source treated in these studies was derived from backwash of full-scale dual-media filters following alum coagulation, flocculation, and clarification. The SFBW in the full-scale facility was sent directly to one of two equalization basins, which subsequently feed simple clarification tanks for washwater recovery and solids separation. The City had a history of difficulties with these SFBW clarifiers and consequently investigated DAF as a possible alternative during this study. Findings from this study have previously been described in Cornwell et al. 2001. The study investigated the impact of the following on DAF performance: (a) polymer type and dose, (b) flocculation conditions (time and mixing intensity), (c) DAF loading rate, and (d) optimal removal of residuals from DAF (maximize sludge concentration while minimizing impact on DAF treated water). Evaluation of the impact of the varying frequency of solids loads in the SFBW at this facility was a particular focus of the testing protocol. Results from the study showed that (see also Table 2.10): 1. Use of LT26 polymer did not reduce DAF turbidity to desired levels (<2 ntu), but LT22s (a cationic polymer) did improve DAF performance at low doses (both polymers manufactured by Ciba Corporation (Suffolk, VA)). Six different LT22s doses from zero to 0.5 mg/L were evaluated. Increasing the dose from zero to about 0.3 mg/L steadily improved DAF performance, but above 0.3 mg/L the performance was fairly consistent. Therefore, optimal dose determined was 0.3 mg/L of LT22s, producing DAF turbidity of <2 ntu at 4 gpm/ft2 DAF loading, 9 percent internal DAF recycle, and 10 minutes of flocculation prior to DAF.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 31

2. Varying DAF loading rate from 3 to 6 gpm/ft2 produced only minor changes in treated turbidity from DAF, all <2 ntu and typically 1 ntu. 3. Internal DAF recycle rate of about 10 percent produced stable performance. 4. SFBW treatment without flocculation produced about the same DAF performance as flocculation times ranging from 6.6 to 32 minutes. 5. SFBW apparent color was reduced from an average of 158 PCUs to about 15 PCUs. Similarly, total Fe was reduced from an average of 0.135 to 0.009 mg/L and total Mn from 0.241 to 0.030 mg/L. 6. Once system was optimized, DAF turbidity was typically about 1 ntu or less, and rarely >2 ntu at any time. 7. A few TSS samples were collected, with reductions from about 30 to 90 mg/L in untreated DAF to <5 mg/L in DAF treated water. 8. TSS/turbidity ratio was about 3 mg/L TSS per ntu. 9. DAF residuals were typically 2 to 3 percent dry solids. Table 2.10 Summary of standard-rate DAF testing results at Cleveland in 2000 Polymer dose Optimal = 0.3 mg/L LT22s No polymer = turbidity not reliably <2 ntu under some conditions Flocculation time Zero flocculation time = performance was acceptable, and about the same as with flocculation, under conditions tested Flocculation times tested = 6.6 to 32 min DAF rate Optimal = no difference noted under optimal conditions when tested between 3 and 6 gpm/ft2 DAF recycle rate 10 percent Particulate removal Untreated turbidity = <10 ntu to >80 ntu overall, but typically ~20 to 40 ntu Treated turbidity = always <2 ntu, and typically 1 ntu or less (optimal conditions) Untreated TSS = 30 to 90 mg/L Treated TSS = <5 mg/L Fe and Mn removal (mean) Untreated = 0.135 mg/L Fe and 0.241 mg/L Mn Treated = 0.009 mg/L Fe and 0.030 mg/L Mn Apparent color removal (mean) Untreated = 158 PCUs Treated = 15 PCUs DAF residuals Range = 2 to 3 percent TSS/turbidity ratio ~3 mg/L per ntu

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

32 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

UNITED WATER (DENSADEG) In April to May 2005 a DensaDeg pilot clarifier, a high-rate solids contact clarifier/thickener manufactured by IDI (Richmond, VA) was tested for residuals treatment at two water plants (the Lake DeForest Plant in West Nyack, NY and the Haworth Plant in Oradell, NJ) operated by United Water (IDI 2005). Some of the studies involved testing the DensaDeg process on a blend of SFBW and clarifier solids, but other studies were conducted on 100 percent SFBW. The following discussion deals only with the studies of 100 percent SFBW. The objectives of the pilot testing at these facilities were to develop optimal operating conditions, including polymer dose, loading rate, etc. in order to produce a DensaDeg-treated water with turbidity <4 ntu, an underflow solids concentration of 2 to 4 percent, and reduce DensaDeg-treated waters TOC to <10 mg/L. For the studies conducted with 100 percent SFBW, this included about a week and a half using 100 percent PACl SFBW at the Lake DeForest Plant, two days of 100 percent alum backwash at the same plant, and about a week of alum SFBW at the Haworth Plant. Findings from these studies were as follows: 1. For the two studies with 100 percent alum SFBW, loading rates of about 10 gpm/ft2 using polymer doses (Betz 1161, manufactured by GE Betz, Inc. (Trevose, PA)) from 1 to 2 mg/L produced treated water turbidity <1 ntu, underflow solids from 3 to 5 percent, and TOC about 3.4 mg/L at one location (Lake DeForest) versus up to 12.6 mg/L in the other (Haworth). The turbidity data are summarized in Figure 2.18. Higher doses of polymer were used at Haworth, up to 8 mg/L, but results during periods when 2 mg/L dose were used were similar to the studies using 1 to 2 mg/L at Lake Deforest. Similarly, though lower loading rates were used at the Haworth plant during some of the testing, when operated at 10 gpm/ft2 treated water turbidity <1 ntu was produced, similar to treated turbidity produced during testing at Lake DeForest (all at 12 gpm/ft2). 2. For the 100 percent PACl SFBW, during the first three days loading rates of 8 to 12 gpm/ft2 with polymer doses 2 mg/L produced treated turbidity between 1 and 4 ntu. During this period the untreated SFBW TSS was >100 mg/L, with maximum of 750 mg/L. During later periods the influent TSS was generally <100 mg/L, the polymer dose was typically 2 to 3 mg/L, and the loading rate varied from 10 to 20 gpm/ft2. Under these conditions, the treated turbidity was <1 ntu, the underflow solids concentration was between 2 and 3 percent, and TOC <5.3 mg/L. Turbidity data during testing with the PACl SFBW is summarized in Figure 2.19. 3. The mean and median ratio of TSS to turbidity in SFBW influent was as follows: 3.1 mg/L per ntu and 2.6 mg/L per ntu, respectively in PACl SFBW at Lake DeForest 3.2 mg/L per ntu and 3.1 mg/L per ntu, respectively in alum SFBW at Lake DeForest 2.5 mg/L per ntu and 2.0 mg/L per ntu, respectively in alum SFBW at Haworth

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewPrevious Studies of SFBW Treatment | 33

In conclusion, for the conditions tested, the DensaDeg process achieved the SFBW treatment objectives over a range of rates from 5 to 10 gpm/ft2, and in some periods at rates up to 20 gpm/ft2. The underflow solids concentration was typically at least 2 to 3 percent. TOC was generally reduced to less than 5 mg/L, but on some occasions (especially in tests with one of the alum SFBW) levels higher than 10 mg/L were observed.
Untreated - Lake DeForest Treated - Lake DeForest Untreated - Haworth Treated - Hamworth

1000

100 Turbidity (ntu)

10

0.1 04/20

04/23

04/26

04/29

05/02

05/05

05/08

05/11

05/14

Figure 2.18 DensaDeg treatment of 100 percent alum SFBW at Haworth and Lake DeForest WTPs in 2005

Untreated

Treated

1000

100
Turbidity (ntu)

10

0.1 3/28/2005

3/30/2005

4/1/2005

4/3/2005

4/5/2005

4/7/2005

4/9/2005

Figure 2.19 DensaDeg treatment of 100 percent PACl SFBW at Lake DeForest WTP

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CHAPTER 3 PILOT- AND FULL-SCALE EVALUATIONS OF CLARIFICATION AND FLOTATION FOR SFBW TREATMENT
INTRODUCTION This chapter describes test results and findings from full- and pilot-scale studies conducted during this project using plate settlers, high-rate DAF, and high-rate solids contact clarification systems. Full-scale studies were conducted in Colorado (DAF), New Jersey (plates), and Connecticut (plates), and Utah (tubes). Pilot-scale studies were conducted in Ohio and Utah. Evaluation of one type of membrane material was evaluated along with other high-rate technologies during pilot testing in Utah. This was not successful due to fouling of the membrane material used under the conditions tested. More details about bench-scale testing of membranes during this project are discussed in Chapter 4. CITY OF BOULDER (BOULDER, CO) Description The Betasso Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is a 40-mgd conventional treatment facility using alum and PACl coagulation, conventional gravity clarification, multi-media filtration, and free chlorine disinfection to produce finished water from two local reservoirs, the Barker and Lakewood Reservoirs. Filter backwash, about 0.1 MG per backwash event, is provided by a 0.19-MG washwater tank. During the winter when water usage is low, the facility may only need to backwash one filter every one or two days. In the summer when water usage increases, backwash can correspondingly increase to three or four filters a day. The SFBW is treated by a full-scale DAF system prior to recycle to the front of the WTP. The DAF process includes a flash mixer for polymer addition, a single two-stage flocculation basin, and one DAF unit (i.e., no redundancy). Untreated SFBW is collected in a 1-MG equalization basin prior to DAF. However, since the equalization basin is not mixed, the basin also acts as a gravity clarifier that must be manually cleaned periodically to remove particulate material removed prior to DAF (the basin has mechanical sludge collection, but basin still must be manually cleaned at least once a year, though a large amount of settled material was in the basin during the Spring and Summer test periods because the manual cleaning of the basins had not been performed recently). Residuals from SFBW DAF are combined with residuals from the main process gravity clarifier and dewatered in on-site lagoons. The turbidity of untreated SFBW entering the DAF is typically <10 ntu but can occasionally spike to >80 ntu. The DAF facility previously also had difficulty with (a) sufficient DAF recycle pump capacity and (b) reliability of polymer feed. The latter particularly limited DAF performance in the past since operational experience at this facility has indicated that the system can reliably achieve <1 ntu treated SFBW when the polymer feed is functioning properly, but performance deteriorates drastically when polymer feed is disrupted. Operational experience also indicates that when no polymer is present DAF performance is particularly susceptible to the

35
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

36 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

influent turbidity spikes mentioned previously, but these turbidity spikes do not deteriorate performance when polymer is present. The DAF recycle capacity and reliability of polymer feed have both been addressed by improvements implemented in Spring 2007.
30 monthly minimum monthly maximum

25

Water Temperature (C)

20

15

10

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 3.1 Seasonal water temperature at Betasso WTP (Lakewood Reservoir) City staff agreed to (a) provide data from pilot study efforts in 1999 (see Chapter 2) and (b) full-scale testing targeted for cold and warm water conditions at Betasso during 2007. Figure 3.1 demonstrates the seasonal variability of water temperature from calendar years 2004 through 2006. The cold water testing period was originally targeted for February to March 2007, but the tests could not be conducted until April due to replacement of DAF recycle pumps and polymer feed equipment. The warm water testing was conducted in August 2007. Results from each test period are discussed separately below. Cold Weather Conditions (Spring 2007) Testing under cold water conditions began on April 26 and was concluded on May 15. Water temperature during this period was between 7 and 10C. Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2 summarize test conditions and performance of the full-scale DAF during the Spring test period. Collection of particle count data in DAF treated water was attempted in both the Spring and Summer periods. However, difficulties with clogging of the instrument produced results that were not considered reliable or accurate, and consequently these data are not reported. During cold water periods, due to lower plant production rates, there is not enough SFBW produced to operate the DAF at full capacity. Consequently, the average DAF processing rate never exceeded 1.5 gpm/ft2. Therefore, it was not possible to evaluate all aspects of operations as originally planned in the proposed protocol.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 37

Table 3.1 Impact of full-scale operating conditions on DAF particulate removal at Boulder in April and May 2007
Test conditions T TSS (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) SFBW turbidity (ntu) Untreated Treated Percent <2 ntu 100.0 100.0 10.3 99.7 98.8 100.0

Date 04/26/2007 05/01/2007 05/03/2007 05/08/2007 05/09/2007 05/15/2007

Duration Rate Recycle Dose (hours) (gpm/ft2) (percent) (mg/L) pH 16 7 18 8 9 12 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.4 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.9 15.3 20.3 0.91 0.52 0 1.57 0.93 0.94

In 6 9 17 6 6 32

Float solids Out (percent) In 5 1 5 2 1 16 0.53 0.44 0.55 1.52 1.25 2.03

Out Median Median 95th 5.35 5.35 9.16 5.79 5.79 8.79 1.12 1.31 2.21 1.15 1.09 1.20 1.16 1.40 3.45 1.40 1.31 1.48

7.2 7.2 7.4 8.7 7.1 8.6 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.9 7.0 9.9

4.0 2.7 4.1 3.0 6.3 3.8 3.9 3.2 4.5 3.2 7.2 3.5

100

Untreated

Treated

Average Turbidity (ntu)

10

1 04/21/07

04/28/07

05/05/07

05/12/07

05/19/07

Figure 3.2 Turbidity testing at Boulder in April and May The polymer dose ranged from zero to 1.6 mg/L as summarized in Table 3.1. During previous periods of normal operation of the DAF system there were periods where the polymer feed was interrupted or unreliable. Testing on May 3, 2007 confirmed that operating the DAF without polymer produced worse performance than testing with polymer. This is particularly reflected in the percentage of turbidity observations >2 ntu (only about 10 percent were <2 ntu) versus periods where polymer was added (typically nearly 100 percent of observations were <2

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

38 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

ntusee Table 3.1). Impact of not adding polymer was also evaluated in Summer 2007 period, as described later in the warm weather discussion. The average treated turbidity in all Spring 2007 study periods was 2 ntu, except when no polymer was added. The untreated turbidity was typically about 10 ntu or less, only exceeding 20 ntu during May 15 testing. As reflected in Table 3.1, there was a deterioration in DAF performance when no polymer was present, but polymer doses higher than 0.5 mg/L did not significantly improve turbidity or TOC removal (though data suggest a slight improvement in solids concentration in the float material as polymer dose increased). By contrast, data suggest that increasing DAF recycle rate may have caused TOC removal to deteriorate slightly while improving (i.e., increasing) percent solids in DAF float material. Suspended solids (TSS) levels in treated and untreated SFBW was fairly low in all samples, typically <10 mg/L. Float solids were all less than 2.1 percent. Warm Weather Conditions (Summer 2007) Results from warm water testing at Betasso WTP are summarized in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.3. Table 3.2 Impact of full-scale operating conditions on DAF particulate removal at Boulder in September 2007
Test conditions Temp. TSS (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) SFBW turbidity (ntu) Untreated Treated Percent <2 ntu

Date

Duration Rate Recycle Dose (hours) (gpm/ft2) (percent) (mg/L) pH

In

Float solids Out (percent) In

Out Median Median 95th

Impact of polymer dose (1.4 gpm/ft2, 810 percent recycle) 09/24/07 12.25 09/17/07 8.25 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 8.4 8.0 9.2 9.6 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.5 7.36 7.51 7.40 7.38 13.2 14.7 14.3 14.5 2 2 6 2 2 <1 1 1 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.3 2.2 2.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 3.3 2.4 2.1 2.1 3.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 11.7 1.1 1.1 1.2 15.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

09/21/07 12.00 09/20/07 11.00

Impact of DAF rate (0.6 mg/L polymer dose, 910 percent recycle) 09/19/07 8.50 1.0 1.4 2.2 2.3 2.9 9.4 9.6 10.0 8.5 8.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 7.61 7.44 7.58 7.42 7.38 13.8 14.0 16.1 16.9 15.9 76 4 5 14 1 4 2 <1 1 <1
2

2.2 0.3 3.0 2.9 2.2

1.8 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.5

2.4 2.4 2.9 2.5 3.3

1.1 1.0 2.2 1.4 1.8

1.2 1.7 2.5 1.5 5.4

100.0 100.0 34.5 100.0 56.9

09/23/07 16.75 08/31/07 09/07/07 09/06/07 4.75 7.50 8.25

Impact of DAF recycle (1.4 gpm/ft , 0.6 mg/L polymer dose) 09/17/07 8.25 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 8.0 9.6 14.3 19.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 7.51 7.44 7.48 7.44 14.7 14.0 13.9 13.4 2 4 2 6 <1 2 2 <1 1.1 0.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.5 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.5

09/23/07 16.75 09/14/07 14.25 09/13/07 9.50

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 39

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 Polymer Dose zero 0.6 mg/L 1.2 mg/L 1.5 mg/L

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.3 Impact of full-scale testing of polymer dose on turbidity at Boulder in summer 2007 Evaluation of these data reveals the following: Temperature 13 to 17 C Turbidity and particle count data confirm previous observations that the process does not work well without polymer Plant polymer (Peak Poly 2078 EDW by Peak Polymer Performance, Inc. (Monument, CO)) produced better performance at 0.6 mg/L dose than without polymer, and additional polymer above this dose did not improve performance Optimal treatment conditions tested were at 1.4 gpm/ft2 and 15 percent recycle, when polymer was present Principal goal of <2 ntu in more than 95 percent of samples was not achieved at rates above 2 gpm/ft2 (goal was met at 2.3 gpm/ft2, but not at 2.2 or 2.9 gpm/ft2). The secondary goal of also producing median turbidity <1 ntu was not demonstrated under any conditions tested Float solids were variable between 0.3 and 3.0 percent

Findings from Spring and Summer Test Periods Results from cold and warm water testing at Betasso WTP, as well as operational experiences from the past for this facility, revealed the following: DAF process in this application does not work well without polymer. Addition of polymer not only improves performance overall, but also makes the process more robust (i.e., less impacted by sudden swings in incoming solids levels)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

40 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Was not able to demonstrate achievement of <1 ntu median, under conditions tested, but was able to achieve <2 ntu more than 95 percent of the time under optimal treatment conditions Percent solids of floated material was measured at up to about 3 percent solids concentration In cold water, sufficient SFBW was not available to evaluate testing at rates >2 gpm/ft2. In warm water, although it is believed that process will work well at rates >2 gpm/ft2, as demonstrated in pilot-scale studies, full-scale studies did not demonstrate reliable performance at rates >2 gpm/ft2 in this time period, under conditions tested

CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (OREM, UT) Description The Central Utah Water Conservancy Districts (CUWCD) Utah Valley Water Purification Plant (WPP) located in Orem, Utah utilizes an initial mix with alum and polymer followed by flocculation and granular media filtration. It has a capacity of 80 mgd, including 12 mono-media filters (60 inches of anthracite) with a rated capacity of 7 gpm/ft2. SFBW is treated prior to recycle to rapid mix. Filter-to-waste (FTW) is segregated from SFBW, in a separate 152,000-gallon equalization basin, and recycled to rapid mix without treatment. Schematics for the entire WPP process, and for the SFBW portion of this process, are summarized in Figures 3.4 and 3.5, respectively (see also Appendix A). The existing SFBW treatment facilities include a 325,000-gallon equalization basin designed to handle two consecutive backwashes. Polymer is added to equalized SFBW prior to an in-line static mixer, and then flow is diverted to one or both of two parallel trains with twostage flocculation and a sedimentation basin with tube settlers in each train. One train employs chain and flight collectors for residuals and is operated most of the time. The other train has a traveling bridge sludge collection system that has not been functioning properly and was not being used at the time of the studies for this project. Each side of the existing facility has a capacity to process about 2,000 gpm (~3 mgd) of SFBW at a clarification rate of about 1.48 gpm/ft2 (based on area of basin, not on area of tube surfaces). Untreated SFBW turbidity frequently exceeds several hundred ntu, but treated SFBW is typically <2 ntu when polymer is used. The treated SFBW is recycled to rapid mix while separated solids are sent to drying beds. Pilot testing of high-rate SFBW treatment at the Utah and Ohio test sites was predicated on site conditions at participating facilities as well as scheduling and availability of equipment from participating manufacturers. All participating manufacturers agreed to provide all equipment (pilot treatment facilities, pumps, tanks, instrumentation, etc.) and personnel needed for testing, including all expenses associated with transport to site, set-up, operation, and demobilization from the test site (participating utilities provided power and liquid connections to and from the manufacturer pilot facilities). The resulting arrangements included testing of high-rate DAF in Utah and Ohio by Leopold and high-rate DAF and a solids contact clarification process by Infilco-Degremont in Ohio during May 2007. Siemens Water Technologies tested two solids contact processes and a submersible membrane at Utah during July and August 2007. Leopold conducted testing at both study sites, including the Ohio test site during September 2007.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 41

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007 Figure 3.4 Utah Valley WPP process schematic

42 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007 Figure 3.5 Utah Valley WPP SFBW treatment facilities (WWW reclamation building)

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 43

Spring 2007 (Pilot Studies) During May 2007 testing of the Leopold (Zelienople, PA) high-rate DAF process (ClariDAF) took place at the Utah test site. The pilot plant is configured with a rapid mix tank followed by two consecutive flocculation cells with hydrofoil style mixers, an automatic chain and flight skimmer, a level controlled recycle/air saturation system, and online data logging for untreated and treated water (turbidity, temperature, and pH). All instruments were calibrated on power-up, which included chemical feed pumps, turbidimeters, and pH probes. DAF float samples were collected and analyzed by the CUWCD water quality laboratory for percent dry solids. Also, samples of treated and untreated SFBW were collected and submitted to the CUWCD laboratory for TOC, DOC, UV-254, and TSS. Total and filtered metals (aluminum, iron, and manganese) were analyzed by Leopold staff on-site using a Hach DR 4000 Spectrophotometer and employing Standard Methods 8008 (Fe), 8012 (Al), and 8149 (Mn). Figure 3.6 shows the pilot trailer during May 2007 testing in Utah, Figures 3.7 and 3.8 depict the ClariDAF process.

Figure 3.6 ClariDAF trailer provided by Leopold during May 2007 testing in Utah

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure 3.7 ClariDAF schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

44 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure 3.8 ClariDAF pilot schematic

The existing full-scale equalization basin does not have mixing. Consequently, visual observations as well as quantitative data from periodic untreated SFBW turbidity samples revealed that there was substantial variability in solids levels entering the treatment process from this basin. During the start-up and optimization period at the beginning of the study, the manufacturer supplied a mixing pump and worked with the utility to install it in the equalization basin during the remainder of the study. Although there was still a great deal of variability in SFBW turbidity entering the DAF even after adding the pump, the fluctuations were still not as great as it was without the mixing pump (i.e., variability was typically from >100 to ~10 ntu with mixing versus 1,000 to ~0 ntu without mixing). Tables 3.3 and 3.4 and Figures 3.9 through 3.10 summarize results from studies using ClariDAF in Utah during May 2007. Table 3.3 summarizes findings from studies evaluating process performance using treated turbidity data. The first five columns of the table list operating parameters evaluated, and the latter columns indicate untreated SFBW turbidity and four measures of treated turbidity performance including (a) median of all continuous treated turbidity readings or results from a grab sample collected at steady-state, (b) percentage of all continuous data (5-min intervals) less than 0.5 ntu, (c) less than 1.0 ntu, and (d) less than 2.0 ntu. Table 3.4 summarizes treated and untreated results during all periods for turbidity, TS, TSS, four measures of organic carbon content (TOC, DOC, UV-254, and color), and three metals (iron, manganese, and aluminum). Also indicated in this table is the solids concentration of the solids separated by the DAF process (in percent (%) solids). Results for the last set of conditions listed in Table 3.3 (14 gpm/ft2) were a compilation of two time periods, principally including a 32-hour period of continuous operation at the end of the study. Grab and continuous turbidity results during this period are depicted in Figure 3.7. These results demonstrate that the process was not optimized and not at steady state for the entire time

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 45

period, including a three hour period before noon on the first day, and overnight when no operator was present to adjust polymer dose and other operational conditions. These results demonstrate that at this rate (14 gpm/ft2) the system may have been more susceptible to changes in conditions of untreated SFBW, especially incoming solids concentration (i.e., turbidity), than it was when operated at a lower rate. Figure 3.10 depicts results from a similar 2-day period at a lower rate (8 gpm/ft2 most of the time, though flow was reduced to about 6 gpm/ft2 overnight on first night (May 15 and 16)). During this time period there were two intervals during overnight periods when the process was left unattended (from about 6 PM to 8 AM). At these lower rates the process appeared to be less susceptible to the wide fluctuations observed in untreated SFBW turbidity (see previous discussion) than when operated at the higher 14 gpm/ft2 rate (compare Figure 3.9 at 14 gpm/ft2 versus Figure 3.10 at ~8 gpm/ft2). The results in Table 3.3 from other time periods indicate that, under the conditions tested, the process was able to achieve project objectives (median <1 ntu, >95 percent with <2 ntu) at rates up to 12 gpm/ft2, but was not able to meet these objectives at higher rates, though it is possible that the process could have reliably achieved these objectives with significant operator attention throughout (i.e., including adjustments to process operating conditions and polymer doses in response to changes in untreated SFBW characteristics). It is also possible that the process may have performed more reliably at higher rate, even without operator attention, if better mixing was available in equalization basin to normalize particulate concentration fluctuations in untreated SFBW.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

46 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 3.3 Impact of operating conditions on ClariDAF performance during May 2007 testing in Utah (as measured by turbidity in treated water) Polymer Turbidity Flocculation time Dose Recycle Untreated (min) Type* (mg/L) (percent) (ntu) 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 8 16 27 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Grab samples Treated (ntu) Percent of continuous data less than 0.5 ntu none none none none 65 none n/a 100 50 73 100 100 88 100 none 23 none
2

Rate (gpm/ft2) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 6 8 9 10 12 13

1 ntu 100 none 53 15 95 100 n/a 100 78 100 100 100 100 100 41 81 none

2 ntu 100 none 65 23 98 100 n/a 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 100 28

Impact of different polymers LT22s 0.20 7.8 102 0.45 LT25 0.20 LT22 0.20 None Zero 7.8 7.8 7.8 292 34 97 1.82 0.65 13.08

Impact of polymer dose at 8 gpm/ft LT22s 0.10 7.8 43 1.19 LT22s 0.20 LT22s 0.30 7.8 7.8 43 55 1.26 0.31

Impact of flocculation time LT22s 0.30 7.8 81 0.32 LT22s 0.30 LT22s 0.30 7.8 7.8 99 85 0.25 0.53

Impact of clarification rate LT22s 0.30 7.0 81 0.19 LT22s 0.30 LT22s 0.30 LT22s 0.30 LT22s 0.30 LT22s 0.30 LT22s 0.30 15.6 7.8 10.5 8.5 11.9 11.0 95 69 77 150 139 103 0.17 0.26 0.29 0.65 0.56

1.63

14 16 LT22s 0.30 10.4 7 to 184 0.53 44 72 83 *LT22 and LT22s are cationic, LT25 is anionic, manufactured by Ciba Corp. (Suffolk, VA) Median of continuously recorded data

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 47

Table 3.4 Treated and untreated SFBW characteristics during May 2007 testing in Utah Measured results for all periods No. Max Min Mean Median Constituent/Parameter pH T (C) Untreated SFBW turbidity (ntu) TS TSS Sludge (percent solids) Untreated (mg/L) Treated (mg/L) Untreated (mg/L) DOC Treated (mg/L) Untreated (1/cm) UV-254 Treated (1/cm) Untreated (mg/L) Total iron Treated (mg/L) Untreated (mg/L) Soluble iron Treated (mg/L) Untreated (mg/L) Total manganese Treated (mg/L) Untreated (mg/L) Soluble manganese Treated (mg/L) Untreated (mg/L) Total aluminum Treated (mg/L) Untreated (PCUs) Apparent color (i.e., unfiltered) Treated (PCUs) Untreated (PCUs) True color (i.e., filtered) Treated (PCUs) * Excluding one value reported at >11,000 mg/L Number of samples analyzed TOC Untreated (mg/L) Treated (mg/L) Untreated (mg/L)* Treated (mg/L) 47 47 8.09 7.02 7.81 12.8 7.2 2 8.3 106 7.82 8.3 81 322 224 124 1.7 4.4 3.8 2.3 2.7 2.4 0.032 0.025 0.37 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.65 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.51 0.07 520 6 6 0

47 1,000 8 21 7 21 21

574 200 342 267 0 215 314 14 124 12.3 0.1 3.1 7.6 0.4 4.7

8 8.4 2.9 4.9 21 3.2 2.0 2.4 8 3.2 2.1 2.7 21 3.0 2.1 2.4 20 0.118 0.026 0.039 20 0.063 0.020 0.029 5 1.41 0.03 0.49 4 0.03 0.02 0.02 3 0.04 0.02 0.03 3 0.02 0.02 0.02 7 0.77 0.05 0.52 7 0.04 0.02 0.03 7 0.05 0.02 0.03 7 0.03 0.02 0.02 7 0.88 0.08 0.52 7 0.08 0.04 0.07 7 520 11 411 7 16 2 8 6 9 3 6 7 5 0 1

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

48 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Untreated

Treated-grab

Treated-continuous

1000

100 Turbidity (ntu)

10

0.1 05/18/07 08:00

05/18/07 16:00

05/19/07 00:00

05/19/07 08:00

05/19/07 16:00

Figure 3.9 Continuous and grab turbidity during 32-hour period at 14 gpm/ft2 in Utah in May 2007

Untreated-grab 100

treated-grab

treated-continuous

rate 100

10

10

0.1 0.1 05/15/2007 05/15/2007 05/16/2007 05/16/2007 05/16/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 08:00 16:00 00:00 08:00 16:00 00:00 08:00

Figure 3.10 Turbidity and DAF clarification rate during 48-hour period at 8 gpm/ft2 in Utah in May 2007

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Clarification Rate (gpm/ft2)

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 49

Testing to evaluate clarification rate (discussed above) was conducted at a flocculation time of 16 minutes. However, separate testing to evaluate the impact of flocculation time indicated that there was not a great deal of difference in DAF performance at the three times tested (8, 16, and 27 min). Consequently, it is possible that 8-min flocculation time may be suitable under the conditions tested. The pilot facility was not set up to allow by-pass of flocculation, so it was not possible to evaluate the impact of no flocculation. Based on results of bench-scale testing prior to May 2007, the pilot manufacturer recommended evaluation of the three polymers listed in Table 3.3 in order to make the DAF process work best. In bench-scale testing, LT22s worked best. Pilot-scale testing confirmed that project objectives could not be achieved with this process without using polymer, and the only polymer tested that produced acceptable DAF performance (under conditions tested, including dose) was LT22s. Pilot testing to evaluate LT22s polymer dose indicated that 0.3 mg/L was the lowest dose tested that achieved the project objectives (turbidity <1 ntu at median or steady state). The data in Table 3.3 reflect mostly results after the temporary mixing pump was added to SFBW equalization, but a few of the results (particularly untreated turbidity) reflect data also collected prior to adding the mixer. Observations and notes regarding the data in this table are as follows: Water temperature of SFBW was 7.2 to 8.3 C, except for one sample at 12.8 C Maximum untreated SFBW turbidity was 292 ntu after temporary mixing pump added to equalization basin. Before mixing pump was added, maximum untreated turbidity entering DAF was 1,000 ntu TS and TSS results indicate that DAF treatment removed most of the particulate solids Solids separated from SFBW using DAF were concentrated to about 4.5 percent solids Results for organic indicators (TOC, DOC, color, UV-254) as well as inorganic indicators (total and soluble metals) measured in this project demonstrate, as expected, that the soluble constituents for these indicators were little changed by DAF treatment, but removal was noted for constituents associated with the particulate material removed by the DAF process Therefore, total metals, TOC, and apparent color decreased but soluble metals, DOC, and true color were not reduced May have been a slight reduction in true (i.e., soluble) color, in addition to more evident reduction in apparent color results

Summer 2007 (Pilot Studies) Siemens Water Technologies (Ames, IA) tested submerged membranes and two solids contact processes in Utah during July and August 2007. A mixer pump was installed in the fullscale SFBW equalization basin during these studies, as during the May 2007 studies. However, since there was more than one process evaluated in July and August, the untreated SFBW was pumped from the mixed full-scale equalization basin into a temporary storage tank used to mix and store water to be pumped as needed to each pilot. Figure 3.11 is a photo of the CONTRAFAST pilot (tall skid in center of photo). The end of Trident HSC trailer can be seen to left, and membrane skid can be partially seen to right and mixing storage tank is shown in rear of CONTRAFAST.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

50 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Figure 3.11 Photo of CONTRAFAST pilot during July and August 2007 in Utah Two batches of submerged membranes (hollow fiber, polyvinylidene fluoride membranes with nominal size 0.1 m) were evaluated in an effort to treat SFBW but both sets became irreversibly fouled shortly after being exposed to the SFBW. The cause of fouling was attributed to residual filter aide polymer in the SFBW. No further efforts to evaluate membranes were initiated after the second attempt, though the manufacturer did attempt to procure membrane material of a different formulation but this effort was not successful in time for these studies.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 51

The two solids contact processes evaluated were CONTRAFAST (solids contact with internal and external recycle) and Trident HSC (tube settler with recirculated solids followed by a buoyant media upflow clarifier). Figure 3.12 depicts the CONTRAFAST pilot, including mixing in the center solids contact zone and then clarification via tube settlers in the clarification zone. Treatment chemicals (polymer), untreated SFBW, and recirculated solids from the clarification zone enter the process in the center mixing (contact) zone. The Trident HSC pilot is housed in a trailer, as depicted in the photo in Figure 3.13. Figure 3.14 contains a schematic of the Trident HSC processes tested in Utah in July and August 2007. After polymer addition into a mixture of untreated water and recirculated solids (5 to 10 percent solids) prior to static mixer, water is pumped upward through the tube module, then pumped upward through a bed of buoyant media in the solids contact module of the process (called the adsorption clarifier by the manufacturer, and called AC in this report). Note that although the pilot system has the capability for gravity feed to a granular media filter following AC, as shown in Figure 3.13, this filter was not employed during this study.

Polymer Mixer Scraper Drive


Untreated SFBW

Rotating Center Column

Baffle

Treated SFBW

Rotating Reactor

Tube Settler

Recycle Flow (10%)

Up flow

Turbine

Recirc. Pump Sludge

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure 3.12 Schematic of CONTRAFAST pilot

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

52 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure 3.13 Photo of Trident HSC pilot during July and August 2007 in Utah

Chemical Dosing

Tube Section Loading Rate 3-7 18 - 42 gpm/sqft gpm

Adsorption Clarifier Loading 9 - 21 Rate 18 - 42 gpm/sqft gpm

Polymer

Influent Flow 18 - 42 gpm

Polymer Sludge Recirculation 5 to 10 % Sludge Blowdown 1 to 3% Flush Rates SAMPLE POINT To Waste Notes: 1. Flow rates & Loading rates shown above are typical operating conditions for the treatment process; site operating conditions may differ 2. Coagulant/pH adj./oxidant typically ahead of static mixer 3. Polymer typically fed after static mixer 4. Waste flows can be combined or separated. 5. Valving not shown for clarity. 6. Sludge recirculation and blowdown variable based on raw water conditions. 7. See Appendix A for detailed P&ID 10 gpm/sqft 20 gpm

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure 3.14 Schematic of Trident HSC pilot

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 53

Overall, there were four liquid and two solid sample collection points in this study. The liquid sampling points included the untreated SFBW, and treated SFBW for the CONTRAFAST, the tube section of Trident, and the AC section of Trident. Solid samples were collected from CONTRAFAST and the tube section of Trident. Data collection for untreated SFBW included continuously recorded turbidity, pH, and temperature plus once daily grab samples for TS, TSS, TOC, DOC, and UV-254. The three liquid treated SFBW samples included identical constituents for grab samples (daily or at steady-state after a change in conditions), and continuous turbidity and particle counts. Solid samples were analyzed for percent solids. Table 3.5 summarizes turbidity, TOC, and some total (i.e., unfiltered) metals results from untreated SFBW and the three treated SFBW locations sampled on July 23, 2007. These metals results are consistent with data collected in the past for raw and filtered water at Utah Valley WPP. These results indicate that metals levels in untreated SFBW are not high enough to exceed secondary MCLs, and consequently it was not necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment processes for removal of these metals during this study. Qualitative (visual) observations during the study revealed that the systems performed adequately using the plants polymer (Pol-E-Z 675 by Nalco Company (Naperville, IL)), but other polymers worked better with the piloted processes. The floc formation in CONTRAFAST was judged to be better with Cytec 1883 (Kemira Chemicals (Kennesaw, GA)), and for Trident HSC the Cytec A110 (Kemira Chemicals (Kennesaw, GA)) performed best, including avoiding problems of floc sticking to HSC tubes when plants polymer was used. Figure 3.15 illustrates the variability in untreated SFBW turbidity over time during the study period. Figures 3.16 and 3.17 illustrate that even though the untreated SFBW is mixed, there still is enough variability to produce large spikes in turbidity and particle counts entering each process. During most similar events during this study each process was generally able to maintain <2 ntu and 1,000 to 4,000 particles/mL. However, in this instance the performance of the Trident process depicted in these figures did deteriorate in response to a large spike in untreated SFBW. The log scale on the turbidity and particle counts graphs masks the visual impact a little, but between 5 and 7 PM on July 25 the untreated SFBW particulate levels increased by a factor of 40 to 80 (<10 ntu to >800 ntu, and ~1,500 to ~70,000 particles/mL) and the treated SFBW leaving the Trident process increased in response (~0.1 ntu to ~20 ntu and <3,000 to >20,000 particles/mL). The CONTRAFAST produced a similar response during this same event, though this is not depicted in these figures. If operators had been present and able to adjust chemical dose in response to higher incoming solids levels, the processes may potentially have been able to produce better performance during this event. Table 3.5 Metals, turbidity, and TOC samples collected on July 23, 2007 Turbidity TOC Fe Mn Al Sr Cu Zn Ba (ntu) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 102 0.3 0.37 <0.01 4.43 2.61 2.34 2.57 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.034 0.018 0.007 0.008 0.164 0.132 0.179 0.153 0.297 <0.002 <0.002 0.073 0.306 <0.002 <0.002 0.066 0.326 <0.002 <0.002 0.061 0.324 <0.002 <0.002 0.061

Sampling location Untreated

CONTRAFAST Tube only Tube + AC

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

54 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

15-min values

mean daily value

1000

Untreated SFBW Turbidity (ntu)

100

10

0.1 7/14/07

7/21/07

7/28/07

8/4/07

8/11/07

8/18/07

8/25/07

9/1/07

Figure 3.15 Variability of turbidity in untreated SFBW during July and August 2007 study in Utah

untreated

tube

AC

1000

100

Turbidity (ntu)

10
treated turbidity "pegged" just af ter highest untreated turbidity spike

0.1 9:00

12:00

15:00

18:00

21:00

0:00

Time of Day on July 25, 2007

Figure 3.16 Impact of spike in turbidity of untreated SFBW on performance of Trident HSC

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 55

tube - particles

AC - particles

untreated turbidity

100,000

1000
just af ter highest untreated turbidity spike, untreated particle counters spiked or stopped reading

Number of Particles >2m (particles/mL)

10,000

100

1,000 9:00

12:00

15:00

18:00

21:00

10 0:00

Time of Day on July 25, 2007

Figure 3.17 Impact of spike in particle count of untreated SFBW on performance of Trident HSC Table 3.6 summarizes data quantifying performance of tube section and combined performance of tubes and AC in Trident HSC relative to turbidity and particle counts during July/August 2007. Table 3.7 summarizes similar data during this period using CONTRAFAST. Figures 3.18 through 3.23 summarize turbidity and particle count data for tubes alone and AC plus tubes at various rates in Trident HSC. The area of tubes is three times greater than for AC (6 ft2 vs. 2 ft2); consequently, at a given flow rate in the pilot the surface loading rate for the AC portion will be three times the surface loading rate in the tube section. For example, highest surface loading rate conditions tested was at a flow of ~42 gpm in the pilot, or ~7 gpm/ft2 in tubes and ~21 gpm/ft2 in AC. Figures 3.24 thru 3.27 illustrate similar performance vs. rate for CONTRAFAST. Figures 3.28 and 3.29 compare no polymer vs. two polymer doses on CONTRAFAST turbidity and particle counts. The results indicate that in the tube section of the Trident HSC, as a separate process, only the 3 gpm/ft2 rate achieved project objectives (median <1 ntu, >95% <2 ntu). The 4 gpm/ft2 rate almost met the objectives (92% <2 ntu), so perhaps a rate between 3 and 4 gpm/ft2 could achieve the objectives. However, for the tubes followed by AC, the objectives were met at AC surface loading rates of about 18 gpm/ft2, though they did not meet the objectives at the highest rate tested of about 21 gpm/ft2. Similarly, AC particle count data in Figure 3.23 indicate that rates tested up to about 18 gpm/ft2 all had similar particle counts (median <2,000 particles/mL), but at ~21 gpm/ft2 the particle counts were much higher (median >4,000 particles/mL). Figure 3.22 demonstrates that in the tube section particle count gradually increased as rate increased, and the only rate to achieve a median <2,000 particles/mL (see AC data) was 3 gpm/ft2. Table 3.6 indicates that most of the test periods with Trident HSC were conducted with Cytec A110 (an anionic polymer), which produced the best results. Testing with a non-ionic polymer (Cytec 1986) produced acceptable results for a short period (at higher doses), but did not produce superior results to anionic polymer (Cytec A110). The Trident process as a whole, nor the tube section by itself, worked satisfactorily without polymer.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Untreated Turbidity (ntu)

56 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 3.6 Summary of results using Trident HSC (tube portion preceding AC portion) at Utah Valley WTP in July and August 2007
Median Date Start Ferric Test sulfate duration dose End (hours) (mg/L) 23.0 50.0 73.0 22.3 5.3 2.5 1.3 5.0 73.0 4.0 4.0 2.8 4.8 1.0 5.8 50.0 0 5 10 20 Rate Polymer type Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec A110 Cytec 1986 Cytec A110 Polymer dose Tube AC (mg/L) (gpm/ft2) 0.10 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.09 0.18 0.35 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.48 0.66 0.12 3.0 Turbidity (ntu) Particles >2m AC (particles/mL) Raw Tube AC Tube Percent of results <2 ntu Tube AC (percent) 99.1 92.0 86.3 90.0 12.5 18.1 89.3 86.3 95.5 95.5 50.0 63.3 43.3 89.5 92.0 100.0 96.2 95.2 96.9 41.2 52.4 100.0 76.6 95.2 93.3 93.3 82.3 90.3 88.0 100.0 96.2

Impact of rate 07/19 07/21 07/23 07/26 07/30 08/15 08/08 08/13 08/13 08/14 08/15 08/15 08/15 08/15 08/15 08/15 07/30 08/15 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 07/27 07/27 07/23 07/26 9.0 100.3 0.26 0.22 1,467 1,507 0.59 0.26 2,432 1,626 0.71 0.35 2,078 1,752 5.22 3.20 5,232 4,082 7.10 1.73 7,696 No data 0.34 0.32 774 No data 4.0 12.0 80.6 5.0 15.0 93.9 6.9 20.7 63.5 5.0 15.1 57.3 4.9 14.8 81.6 5.0 15.0 72.2 5.0 15.0 93.9 5.0 15.1 31.8 5.0 15.1 31.8 5.0 15.1 40.7 5.0 14.9 86.7

6.0 17.9 112.9 0.99 0.48 3,505 1,306

Impact of Cytec A110 polymer dose 0.69 0.68 1,333 No data 100.0 0.71 0.35 2,078 1,752 0.93 0.41 1,009 1,529 0.93 0.41 1,009 1,529 2.00 0.63 640 1,434 1.74 0.81 1,192 3,325

Impact of ferric sulfate dose (plus polymer)

4.9 14.8 207.4 2.54 0.43 5,103 2,888 3.9 11.8 27.0 4.0 12.0 80.6 0.73 0.29 2,611 1,988 0.59 0.26 2,432 1,626

Impact of polymer type

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 57

Table 3.7 Summary of Utah studies with CONTRAFAST in July and August 2007
Treated Polymer turbidity Duration Rate Recycle dose 2 ntu (hours) (gpm/ft2) (percent) (mg/L) Raw Start End Treated (percent) Impact of polymer dose (Cytec 1883) 08/30 08/30 2.25 8.0 7.3 none 0.0 4.96 37.5 08/30 08/30 1.50 8.0 7.3 1.5 3.5 0.36 100.0 08/30 08/30 1.25 8.0 7.3 3.0 4.9 0.43 100.0 2 Impact of rate (gpm/ft ) 07/18 07/21 39.00 4.0 9.0 0.9 90.7 0.71 95.3 07/23 07/26 47.25 5.0 7.0 1.0 98.2 0.78 95.5 07/26 08/03* 57.75 6.0 6.0 2.0 60.9 0.84 96.4 08/06 08/07* 12.50 6.4 9.0 3.0 43.4 0.68 100.0 7.00 08/06 08/14* 7.0 8.5 3.0 107.8 0.81 100.0 08/07 08/16* 36.50 8.0 7.3 3.3 44.4 0.90 98.0 08/14 08/16* 18.25 9.0 6.5 3.5 41.8 1.03 99.0 08/17 08/28* 28.00 10.0 7.5 3.5 14.5 0.89 95.1 08/29 08/30* 17.25 12.0 6.2 3.0 8.6 0.73 100.0 08/30 08/30 1.50 14.0 5.4 4.0 3.7 2.78 35.8 Date Turbidity (ntu) Particles >2 m (particles/mL) 95th Median Percentile Max 4,778 2,196 2,774 377 638 984 1,311 1,797 1,732 2,173 2,067 2,974 5,117 8,419 2,705 2,810 932 1,324 3,497 1,713 3,252 2,584 3,448 6,859 4,926 8,137 8,637 2,759 2,818 5,389 10,979 16,188 1,762 3,419 2,948 3,723 9,487 5,490 8,659 Mean 4,837 2,166 2,715 444 746 1,338 1,255 1,917 1,727 1,922 3,149 3,176 5,261

*Not continuous between these two dates

untreated

tube

AC

1000

100 Median Turbidity (ntu)

10

0.1 0 3 6 9 12
2

15

18

21

24

AC Rate (gpm/ft ) *

*AC rate equals three times tube rate Figure 3.18 Impact of rate on turbidity removal in Trident HSC during July and August 2007 testing in Utah

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

58 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

tube

AC

6,000

Median Number of Particles >2 m (particles/mL)

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 0 3 6 9 12
2

15

18

21

24

AC Rate (gpm/ft ) *

*AC rate equals three times tube rate Figure 3.19 Impact of rate on particle count in Trident HSC during July and August 2007 testing in Utah
99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.01

3 gpm/ft2 4 gpm/ft2 5 gpm/ft2 6 gpm/ft2 7 gpm/ft2

0.1

10

100

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.20 Impact of rate on turbidity removal in tube section of Trident HSC (see Table 3.7)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 59

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.01

9 gpm/ft2 12 gpm/ft2 15 gpm/ft2 18 gpm/ft2 21 gpm/ft2

0.1

10

100

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.21 Impact of rate on combined turbidity removal from tubes and AC in Trident HSC (see Table 3.7)

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1

3 gpm/ft2 4 gpm/ft2 5 gpm/ft2 6 gpm/ft2 7 gpm/ft2

10

100

Particles >2 m per L

Figure 3.22 Impact of rate on particle count in tube section of Trident HSC (see Table 3.7)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

60 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Percent of Observations Less Than Value (%)

99 98 95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 9 gpm/ft2 12 gpm/ft2 15 gpm/ft2 18 gpm/ft2 21 gpm/ft2

Particles >2 m per L

Figure 3.23 Impact of rate on particle count in AC in Trident HSC (see Table 3.7)

untreated

treated

100

Median Turbidity (ntu)

10

0.1 0 2 4 6 8 Rate (gpm/ft )


2

10

12

14

16

Figure 3.24 Impact of rate on turbidity removal in CONTRAFAST during July and August 2007 testing in Utah

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 61

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 4 gpm/ft2 5 gpm/ft2 6 gpm/ft2 6.4 gpm/ft2 7 gpm/ft2 8 gpm/ft2 9 gpm/ft2 10 gpm/ft2 12 gpm/ft2 14 gpm/ft2

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.25 Impact of rate on distribution of turbidity in CONTRAFAST during July and August 2007 testing in Utah

6,000

5,000

Median Number of Particles >2 m (particles/mL)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 0 2 4 6 8 Rate (gpm/ft2) 10 12 14 16

Figure 3.26 Impact of rate on particle count in CONTRAFAST during July and August 2007 testing in Utah

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

62 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 4 gpm/ft2 5 gpm/ft2 6 gpm/ft2 6.4 gpm/ft2 7 gpm/ft2 8 gpm/ft2 9 gpm/ft2 10 gpm/ft2 12 gpm/ft2 14 gpm/ft2

Particles >2 m per L

Figure 3.27 Impact of rate on distribution of particle count in CONTRAFAST during July and August 2007 testing in Utah

100

Median Treated Turbidity (ntu)

10

0 none 1.5 Polymer Dose (mg/L) 3.0

Figure 3.28 Impact of polymer dose on turbidity removal in CONTRAFAST testing in Utah

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 63

mean

maximum

10,000 9,000

Median Number of Particles >2 m (particles/mL)

8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 none 1.5 Polymer Dose (mg/L) 3.0

Figure 3.29 Impact of polymer dose on particle count during CONTRAFAST testing in Utah The optimal dose of the Cytec A110 in Trident HSC was about 0.35 mg/L, though occasionally this was adjusted up to 0.6 mg/L or higher to get the process to work best under some conditions. An effort was attempted to supplement polymer with ferric sulfate, but this did not produce significant improvement over polymer alone (see Table 3.6). The hydraulic limitation for the CONTRAFAST pilot skid used in Utah is 225 gpm, or 12 gpm/ft2. The unit was tested at rates up to 14 gpm/ft2, but only demonstrated satisfactory performance (median <1 ntu, >95 percent of samples <2 ntu) at rates up to 12 gpm/ft2. However, it is possible that a full-scale version of the process may have been able to operate at rates higher than 12 gpm/ft2, but this could not be demonstrated in the pilot due to the hydraulic limitations of the pilot equipment used. The studies were not able to demonstrate that the CONTRAFAST process could produce satisfactory results without polymer. However, doses from 1 to 4 mg/L (varied with surface loading rate) did perform satisfactorily. Table 3.8 summarizes results from grab samples collected from five sampling locations throughout the study, including untreated SFBW and four treated SFBW samples (CF = CONTRAFAST, HSC-tube = tube portion of Trident HSC, HSC-AC = AC portion of Trident HSC, and a sample on one date for a few constituents from membrane). The main observation apparent from inspection of these data is that the processes tested (including the one sample from membranes) produced similar performance for all constituents tested. The TOC and DOC were reduced from about 3 mg/L to a little less than 2 mg/L. Similar observations can be noted for UV-254, although the data suggest a few samples where removal in CONTRAFAST was not as great as the other processes (the median values were all similar, but mean and 95th percentile values for CONTRAFAST were higher). The TS and TSS results indicate that all the processes removed almost all the TSS, between about 40 and 45 mg/L, leaving <1 mg/L in treated SFBW. The CONTRAFAST process produced residual samples of 5 percent or greater. Conversely, the Trident HSC produced residuals that were typically less than 1 percent solids.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

64 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 3.8 Grab sample data during August and September pilot studies in Utah
Sample location Untreated CF HSC-tube HSC-AC Membrane Untreated CF HSC-tube HSC-AC membrane untreated CF HSC-tube HSC-AC membrane untreated CF HSC-tube HSC-AC membrane Untreated CF HSC-tube HSC-AC Membrane Untreated CF HSC-tube HSC-AC Membrane CF HSC-tube No. of samples Max Min Mean Total organic carbon (mg/L) 27 6.01 1.80 3.24 27 2.47 1.46 1.88 23 2.35 1.37 1.75 22 2.26 1.14 1.74 1 1.86 * * Dissolved organic carbon (mg/L) 27 9.05 1.66 3.18 27 2.70 1.48 1.99 22 2.44 1.37 1.92 22 2.91 1.49 1.93 1 1.94 * * UV254 (1/cm) 28 0.591 0.032 0.100 27 0.523 0.015 0.059 23 0.041 0.016 0.026 22 0.039 0.015 0.025 1 0.027 * * Total suspended solids (mg/L) 29 131.50 2.85 45.90 24 5.86 0.04 0.48 26 2.69 0.00 0.33 18 10.06 0.00 0.62 0 ---Total solids (mg/L) 29 1,315 29 459 24 59 0.40 4.78 26 27 0 3.25 17 101 0.11 6.58 1 23 * * Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 28 804 146 263 24 524 148 225 26 10,227 92 597 17 251 101 207 0 ---Total solids in residuals (percent solids) 25 14.54 0.84 6.55 26 10.12 0.08 0.74 Median 3.00 1.93 1.78 1.73 * 2.87 1.90 1.87 1.87 * 0.054 0.029 0.027 0.025 * 40.80 0.12 0.12 0.02 -408 1.22 1.21 0.22 * 242 215 213 211 -5.24 0.31 95th percentile 4.88 2.34 2.06 2.13 * 4.59 2.59 2.37 2.39 * 0.422 0.254 0.038 0.039 * 123.83 1.49 1.44 2.04 -1,238 15 14 25 * 455 276 273 242 -12.31 1.34

*Only one sample CF = CONTRAFAST, HSC-tube = Trident HSC tube section only, HSC-AC = Trident HSC tube plus AC

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 65

Table 3.9 Performance data of full-scale tube settler during spring and summer pilot test periods Description Median Maximum Minimum May 10 to May 19, 2007 Clarification rate (gpm/ft2) Treated turbidity (ntu) Polymer dose (mg/L) July 16 to August 30, 2007 Clarification rate (gpm/ft2) Treated turbidity (ntu) Polymer dose (mg/L) 0.92 0.6 0.1 1.30 1.9 0.1 0.63 0.3 0.1 0.45 0.8 0.1 0.73 5.1 0.2 0.93 0.3 0.1

Performance of Existing Full-Scale Facilities During Pilot Study Periods Average daily data for the Utah Valley WPP full-scale SFBW treatment system during the spring and summer pilot testing periods are summarized in Table 3.9. During these periods the untreated SFBW turbidity was generally about 100 ntu, occasionally peaking to about 1,000 ntu. The full-scale system was able to achieve a median turbidity <1 ntu during both periods and was able to achieve <2 ntu 100 percent of the time during the period when Siemens was testing in July and August 2007. The full-scale process was able to achieve acceptable performance at about the same or lower polymer doses as the pilot-scale processes, though full-scale system was operated at four to six times lower clarification rates than in the pilot-scale facilities. Cost and Layout The existing full-scale SFBW reclamation facility at Utah Valley WPP includes two 2,000 gpm treatment trains, which provides enough treatment even if one train is out-of-service (i.e., 100 percent redundancy). Derivation of costs and footprint for high-rate processes providing the same capacity (including redundancy) to replace the existing facilities, including a new building, are listed in the preliminary design report (PDR) in Appendix A. These results are summarized in Table 3.10 for the three high-rate processes successfully evaluated at the Utah Valley WPP during this project. These results demonstrate that 2,000 ft2 of space is necessary for a ClariDAF system comprised of two 2,000 gpm treatment trains designed at 14 gpm/ft2 nominal (i.e., manufacturer) clarification rate and 16 minutes flocculation time, including all space required for flocculation, clarification, chemical feed, air saturation, and other assorted appurtenances. This is about 2.5 times smaller than the area needed for existing treatment (5,000 ft2). The estimated size of the new building to house these facilities is about 3,500 ft2 compared with the current 7,650-ft2 building, or less than half the size of the existing building. Therefore, though nominally a 14 gpm/ft2 system when you consider only clarification area, when you consider the entire footprint impact, the rate expressed relative to the required area for treatment (assuming one train out of service) is 2,000 gpm for a 2,000 ft2 area, or 1.00 gpm/ft2, versus 0.40 gpm/ft2 for the existing SFBW treatment system (2,000 gpm for 5,000 ft2 treatment area,

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

66 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

including area for one train out of service). Relative to the entire 3,500 ft2 building the rate for ClariDAF is 0.57 gpm/ft2, versus 0.26 gpm/ft2 for the existing 7,650 ft2 treatment building. Furthermore, if the Utah Valley WPP evaluates addition of thickening and dewatering facilities in the future (along with a separate evaluation of whether to add DAF to main processes prior to filtration), the solids from the ClariDAF are expected to be high enough (3 to 4 percent solids) that solids from this SFBW treatment process can go directly to dewatering without requiring additional thickening capacity. By contrast, residuals from existing SFBW treatment would probably require thickening prior to being sent to dewatering processes.

Table 3.10 Estimated cost and footprint for high-rate SFBW treatment at Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAS T Trident HSC

ClariDAF

Description Design conditions Number of treatment trains 2 2 3 Capacity per treatment train (gpm) 2,000 2,000 1,050 2 Nominal clarification rate (gpm/ft ) 14 8.5 15 ** Flocculation time (min) 16 8.4 Cost* Capital ($ million) 9.3 7.6 10.6 O&M ($ thousand/yr) 180 110 200 Net Present Worth ($ million) 11.4 8.9 13.0 2 Footprint (ft ) Treatment only 2,000 1,800 2,600 Building 3,500 3,500 3,500 no no yes Additional thickening required prior to dewatering 2 Clarification rate (gpm/ft ) Nominal (i.e., manufacturer) 14 8.5 15 Relative to treatment footprint 1.00 1.11 0.81 Relative to building footprint 0.57 0.57 0.57 *December 2007 dollars, includes cost of new building and associated appurtenances 20 years, 6 percent interest Assume thickened solids prior to dewatering have to be greater than 1 percent solids One train out of service ** Solids contact time (i.e., detention time in reactor tank) Not applicable

2 2,000 1.5 15 n/a n/a n/a 5,000 7,650 yes 1.5 0.40 0.26

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Tubes (existing)

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 67

Similar evaluations for the CONTRAFAST process indicates that the required footprint for two 2,000 gpm treatment trains is 1,800 ft2, or 1.11 gpm/ft2 for the nominal 8.5 gpm/ft2 facility when expressed relative to total footprint impact instead of only clarification area. The Trident HSC assumptions included three 1,050 gpm facilities in order to provide the same redundancy assumption (one train out of service), requiring about 2,600 ft2 for a nominal 15 gpm/ft2 for the entire process (tubes plus AC), or a 0.81 gpm/ft2 clarification rate expressed relative to total footprint impact (with one train out of service). In the case of Trident HSC, the costs were developed using standard designs which typically include an area allowance for filtration following the AC portion of the process. For this application it may be possible to eliminate this area, and consequently further reduce the total footprint. For example, it is possible that eliminating the filtration area from the standard Trident HSC design, in this insistence, could reduce footprint to about 1,850 ft2 (i.e., a reduction of about 750 ft2), increasing the rate relative to total footprint to about 1.1 gpm/ft2. The Trident HSC, unlike the other high-rate processes tested, will produce residuals less than 1 percent solids, and consequently may require additional thickening if dewatering (other than existing on-site drying beds) is added at the Utah Valley WPP. The above costs and footprint are based on including a new building. However, other utilities looking to add similar high-rate processes may be able to further reduce cost and footprint impacts by retrofitting these new processes into existing buildings. In fact, at the Utah Valley WPP a logical place to install new SFBW treatment facilities would be to demolish the currently unused portion of the SFBW reclamation facility (the side with traveling bridge sludge collection), and locate the replacement SFBW treatment facilities in this part of the existing building. However, for purposes of this report it was felt desirable to impose as few site specific limitations as possible, like would be needed to evaluate retrofit option, since it was hoped that other utilities reading this report could evaluate costs for a generic, complete facility, without a great deal of site specific implications associated with the developed costs and footprint. In order to show an example of the impact of site specific limitations, the costs and footprint estimates developed for the Ohio portion of this study do include an evaluation of retrofitting high-rate processes into existing plant facilities. The reader should note that characteristics of untreated SFBW were different between the Ohio and Utah study sites, and at either location during the spring versus summer test periods. Consequently, it is not appropriate to compare process performance or cost and footprint estimates between manufacturers since they were not compared side-by-side at the same facility at the same time. About the only comparisons that are valid are the two instances where one manufacturer tested two of their own processes side-by-side at the same location. If there are seasonal variations at a facility, the utility should evaluate processes under all these conditions that might be important. However, in this study, the equipment, staff, and other expenses needed to conduct the studies were donated by the participating manufacturers and utilities and consequently it was not possible to evaluate a process more than once at any one study site.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

68 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

CLEVELAND DIVISION OF WATER (CLEVELAND, OH) Description The Morgan WTP located in Cleveland, Ohio utilizes powdered activated carbon, chlorine, potassium permanganate, alum coagulation, three stage flocculation, and sedimentation prior to granular media filtration. It has a capacity of 150 mgd with 28 dual-media filters rated at 4.4 gpm/ft2. SFBW is treated by a clarifier and recycled to the head of the plant while solids are discharged to the sewer. Figure 3.30 includes a site plan for the Morgan WTP. The existing SFBW treatment facilities include two 350,000-gal equalization (EQ) basins, referred to in this report as the east and west EQ basins. Existing SFBW treatment includes equalization without mixing, polymer addition at a flash mix tank, three-stage flocculation followed by clarification, and recycle to the head of the plant. Clarifier sludge is vacuumed by a traveling bridge sludge collection system to a 450,000-gal sludge holding tank. A sludge dilution chamber mixes the sludge to 0.4 percent solids level before being discharged to the sanitary sewer. The existing treatment facility has a capacity to process about 3,375 gpm (0.6 gpm/ft2 ~5 mgd) of SFBW. Untreated SFBW turbidity is typically around 20 ntu, though higher levels are occasionally observed, including during the Spring 2007 study period. Full scale testing of the existing clarifier was conducted in 2000. During this period the untreated SFBW turbidity was typically around 20 ntu and was effectively treated to <2 ntu at loading rates up to 0.8 gpm/ft2 when polymer was applied. Without polymer addition, the DAF treated turbidity ranged from 5 to 13 ntu at loading rates from 0.53 to 0.8 gpm/ft2 respectively. Based on these test results, a conservative maximum loading rate of 0.6 gpm/ft2 with polymer was chosen. The Morgan WTP currently does not use polymer for full-scale SFBW treatment. Figures 3.31 and 3.32 include a site plan and schematic for the SFBW handling processes at the Morgan WTP.

Figure 3.30 Morgan WTP facilities site plan

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 69

Figure 3.31 Morgan WTP SFBW treatment facilities site plan

Figure 3.32 Morgan WTP SFBW treatment facilities schematic

Spring 2007 During May 2007 two high-rate processes for SFBW clarification were evaluated in Ohio using equipment supplied by IDI. The processes included AquaDAF (high-rate DAF) and DensaDeg (solids contact clarifier with internal and external solids recycle). The AquaDAF system depicted in Figure 3.33 is a high-rate Dissolved Air Flotation process which includes mechanical or hydraulic desludging for removal of separated solids. The DensaDeg process

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

70 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

depicted in Figure 3.34 is a high-rate solids contact clarification process. This process typically includes a rapid mix module, solids contact in the reactor zone following rapid mix, and separation of liquid phase and thickening of solids phase in the clarification/thickening zone. Thickened solids from the clarifier zone are recirculated back into the reactor zone, and the mixer in the reactor promotes solids contact opportunities for the incoming solids in the untreated water along with recirculated solids from the clarification zone. The rapid mix module is normally used in other studies, but was not used in this study. Figure 3.35 shows the DensaDeg skid in the foreground in front of the east equalization basin, with the AquaDAF trailer situated to the right, and the open hatch next to the east equalization basin shows the flexible hose piping used to pump out untreated SFBW into the pilot plants. Treated SFBW from both pilots was transmitted to a similar hatch at the west equalization basin, which is not shown in Figure 3.35 but is out of frame to the left. Figure 3.36 shows the float solids collected by mechanical skimmer in AquaDAF. As during the 2000 pilot testing described in Chapter 2, a mixing pump was temporarily installed into the east equalization basin to keep untreated SFBW well-mixed before feeding the pilot units. The treated SFBW from each pilot was discharged into the west equalization basin.

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure 3.33 Schematic of AquaDAF process

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 71

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure 3.34 Schematic of DensaDeg process

Figure 3.35 AquaDAF pilot (trailer in background) and DensaDeg pilot (blue skid next to car) and full-scale SFBW equalization basins during May 2007 testing in Ohio

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

72 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Figure 3.36 Float solids collected in AquaDAF pilot during May 2007 testing in Ohio IDI personnel operated the pilot units, with observation and oversight provided by EE&T and CWD staff. Flow, turbidity, pH, and temperature were continuously recorded (1 min intervals) in untreated SFBW entering each process, and turbidity and particle count also continuously recorded for treated SFBW in each process. Grab samples were collected once a day for untreated SFBW (TOC, DOC, TS, TSS, UV-254, soluble and total metals (Al, Fe, Mn)). Samples of treated SFBW from each process were collected at least daily, or at steady-state after each change in test conditions during the day. Solid samples were collected for each process at the same time as treated water samples. Samples were analyzed by the CWD Laboratory. Results from testing of AquaDAF, as summarized in Table 3.11 through 3.13 and Figures 3.37 through 3.44, reveal the following: Impact of rate (8 to 16 gpm/ft2) Required about one hour after flow rate change for system to stabilize. Data from first one hour are not included in data evaluations presented in this report All rates tested (from 8 to 16 gpm/ft2) were <1 ntu at the 95th percentile (i.e., meets project objectives for turbidity) Particle count at rates 14 gpm/ft2 and lower were similar, but results for 16 gpm/ft2 were slightly higher Therefore, results indicate 14 gpm/ft2 as highest recommended rate Impact of DAF recycle (11, 14, and 18 percent) All <1 ntu at median and 95th percentile results were all <2 ntu

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 73

Higher rates were better, but all met project objectives (e.g., for 18 percent recycle the 95th percentile turbidity was <1 ntu) Polymer dose (zero to 0.5 mg/L) Zero dose did not produce acceptable results LT22s was the optimal polymer tested, and optimal dose was 0.3 mg/L, during 2000 pilot study (see Chapter 2) At 5.7 min flocculation time, each increase in dose improved turbidity At 5.7 min flocculation time, only 0.25 and 0.5 mg/L produced <1 ntu at median and <2 ntu at 95th percentile At 11.3 min flocculation time, 0.5 mg/L much better than others, though others are close to one another At 11.3 min flocculation time, all <1 ntu at median and all <2 ntu at 95th percentile Any polymer much better than zero polymer for particle count, but no difference in turbidity for doses tested between 0.05 to 0.5 mg/L Impact of flocculation time (5 and 10 min) All <1 ntu at the 95th percentile (i.e., both meet project objectives) Lower flocculation time may also have done as well or better, but was not tested. Also, zero flocculation time was not evaluated (though it was evaluated in September by another manufacturersee later discussion) Impact of static mix (with and without mixing) Both <1 ntu at the 95th percentile (i.e., both meet project objectives) With static mix better than without

Table 3.11 Impact of AquaDAF rate on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 Treated Turbidity (ntu) (particles >2 m/mL) Untreated Treated Sample number < 2 ntu Test Duration 1 2 3 4 conditions* (hours) Median Median Mean 95th (percent) 2 8 gpm/ft , 8.6 min 7.60 14.61 0.55 0.60 0.81 100 3,745 3,029 2,754 2 10 gpm/ft , 6.9 min 6.62 15.16 0.63 0.64 0.76 100 3,460 3,749 3,590 3,132 2 12 gpm/ft , 5.7 min 7.08 14.36 0.58 0.59 0.69 100 3,505 3,222 2,979 3,395 2 14 gpm/ft , 4.9 min 7.50 19.32 0.63 0.64 0.74 100 3,254 3,475 4,153 2 16 gpm/ft , 4.3 min 4.48 18.42 0.75 0.76 0.91 100 5,644 4,883 5,448 7,673 2 *Rate in gpm/ft and flocculation time in minutes are listed. Recycle was ~11.5 percent and polymer dose (LT22s) was 0.3 mg/L under each test condition

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

74 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 3.12 Impact of AquaDAF flocculation time and polymer dose on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 Turbidity (ntu) Particles >2 m/mL Untreated Treated Sample Duration Percent * th (hours) Median Median Mean 95 < 2 ntu 1 2 3 Test conditions 5.7 min flocculation time zero 2.0 19.51 7.74 7.80 9.21 0.0 27,739 28,372 27,527 0.05 mg/L 2.5 16.29 1.98 2.06 2.58 51.7 6,734 6,463 0.10 mg/L 2.6 20.59 1.37 1.37 1.49 100.0 5,935 6,340 8,741 0.25 mg/L 1.5 32.32 0.92 0.93 1.01 100.0 10,941 6,233 0.50 mg/L 2.0 25.68 0.59 0.62 0.79 100.0 7,591 3,253 11.4 min flocculation time 0.05 mg/L 0.5 15.73 1.17 1.27 1.73 100.0 0.10 mg/L 1.0 16.49 0.86 0.85 0.88 100.0 0.25 mg/L 1.5 17.20 0.70 0.82 1.54 99.3 no sample 0.30 mg/L 0.5 15.08 0.89 0.91 0.98 100.0 0.50 mg/L 1.5 20.58 0.40 0.40 0.41 100.0 * Other conditions were constant: rate = 12 gpm/ft2, recycle ~11.5 percent, flocculation time as indicated

Table 3.13 Impact of AquaDAF recycle on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 Turbidity (ntu) Recycle conditions (percent) 11.1 14.4 18.0 Untreated Duration (hours) 0.5 1.0 1.2 Median 15.08 14.70 27.17
2

Treated Median 0.89 0.75 0.71 Mean 0.91 0.78 0.72 95th 0.98 0.99 0.78 Percent < 2 ntu 100 100 100

May 2412 gpm/ft2, 5.7 min flocculation, 0.3 mg/L LT22s

May 18 and 2116 gpm/ft , 11.3 min flocculation, 0.3 mg/L LT22s 10.0 11.5 2.9 4.5 29.89 18.42 0.98 0.75 0.99 0.76 1.13 0.91 100 100

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 75

99 98 95

Observations Less Than Value (%)

90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 8 gpm/sf 10 gpm sf 12 gpm/sf 14 gpm/sf 16 gpm/sf

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.37 Impact of AquaDAF rate on turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio
8,000 7,000 6,000 Particles >2 m (per mL) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 8 gpm/sf, 8.6 min 10 gpm/sf, 6.9 min 12 gpm/sf, 5.7 min 14 gpm/sf, 4.9 min 16 gpm/sf, 4.3 min sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4

Test Conditions (rate and flocculation time)

Figure 3.38 Impact of AquaDAF rate on particle count during May 2007 testing in Ohio

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

76 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

untreated 100 5.7 min floc

treated

11.3 min floc

Median Turbidity (ntu)

10

0 0.05 mg/L 0.10 mg/L 0.25 mg/L 0.50 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.10 mg/L 0.25 mg/L 0.30 mg/L 0.50 mg/L zero

LT22s Polymer Dose

Figure 3.39 Impact of polymer dose and flocculation time on AquaDAF turbidity during May 2007

Percent of Observations Less Than Value (%)

99 98 95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 untreated zero dose 0.05 mg/L 0.10 mg/L 0.25 mg/L 0.50 mg/L

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.40 Impact of polymer dose on AquaDAF turbidity at 5.7 min flocculation time and 14 gpm/ft2 clarification rate during May 2007

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 77

Percent of Observations Less Than Value (%)

99 98 95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 untreated zero dose () 0.05 mg/L 0.10 mg/L 0.25 mg/L 0.30 mg/L 0.50 mg/L

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.41 Impact of polymer dose on AquaDAF turbidity at 11.3 min flocculation time and 14 gpm/ft2 clarification rate during May 2007

99 98

Percent of Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70

50

30 20 10 5 2 1 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 11% recycle 14% recycle 18% recycle

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.42 Impact of DAF recycle on AquaDAF turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

78 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

99 98 95

Observations Less Than Value (%)

90 80 70
5 min (May 17) 10 min (May 25) 5 min (May 29) 10 min (May 30)

50

30 20 10 5 2 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.43 Impact of flocculation time on AquaDAF turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio

99 98 95

Observations Less Than Value (%)

90 80 70

50

30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 w/ static mix w/o static mix

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.44 Impact of static mix on AquaDAF turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 79

Results from testing of DensaDeg, as summarized in Tables 3.14 and 3.15 and Figures 3.45 through 3.48, reveal the following: Impact of rate Rate, dose, and recycle all varied, not just rate All rates tested (from 8 to 16 gpm/ft2) were <1 ntu at median and 95th percentile results were all <2 ntu (i.e., meets project objectives for turbidity) Particlesresults indicate essentially no real difference between 8 to 16 gpm/ft2 Impact of polymer dose Optimal dose for turbidity and particles was 0.25 to 0.5 mg/L LT22s At doses >0.5 mg/L, particle count appeared to be higher though number of samples was limited

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

80 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 3.14 Impact of DensaDeg rate on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 Turbidity (ntu) Particles >2 m per mL Un-treated Clarification rate (gpm/ft2) 8 10 12 14 16
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Treated 1 3,561 5,216 2 2,369 2,876

Sample 3 4 5

Duration (hours) 5.5 7.5 7.1 1.5 2.5

Percent Median Median Mean 95th <2 ntu 0.25 mg/L LT22s and 2.5-percent recycle rate 14.88 14.57 17.22 26.08 16.05 0.65 0.72 0.79 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.73 0.78 0.76 0.71 0.72 0.86 1.54 0.79 0.86 100 100 100 100 100

2,718 987 3,083

3,017 12,232 5,471 2,115 1,805 1,911 2,713

0.5 mg/L LT22s and 2.5-percent recycle rate 5,339 9,353

Table 3.15 Impact of DensaDeg polymer dose on particulate removal at Cleveland in May 2007 Turbidity (ntu) Particles >2 m per mL Un-treated Polymer dose No polymer 0.25 mg/L 0.50 mg/L 0.75 mg/L 1.00 mg/L Duration (hours) 1.1 2.0 4.6 2.0 2.6 Median 7.30 17.74 28.19 18.84 19.81 Median 11.40 0.75 0.89 0.89 0.62 Treated Mean 11.43 0.72 0.87 0.88 0.64 95th 12.67 0.75 0.96 0.96 0.69 Percent <2 ntu 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 15,169 1,873 6,480 4,827 2 Sample 3 No data 2,374 2,438 6,677 4 2,097 3,094

2,941 2,306 5,241

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 81

14,000

12,000

Particles >2 m (per mL)

10,000

8,000
sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
8 gpm/sf, 10 gpm/sf, 12 gpm/sf, 12 gpm/sf, 0.25 mg/L, 2.5% 0.25 mg/L, 2.5% 0.25 mg/L, 2.5% 0.25 mg/L, 2.5% 14 gpm/sf, 0.5 mg/L, 2.5% 16 gpm/sf, 0.5 mg/L, 2.5%

Test Conditions (clarification rate, LT22s dose, percent recycle)

Figure 3.45 Impact of rate on DensaDeg performance during May 2007 in Ohio
99 98 95

Observations Less Than Value (%)

90 80 70

50

30 20 10 5 2 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8


8 gpm/sf 10 gpm sf 12 gpm/sf 14 gpm/sf 16 gpm/sf

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.46 Impact of DensaDeg rate on turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

82 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

16,000 14,000 12,000 Particles >2 m (per mL) 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0
0.25 mg/L 0.50 mg/L 0.75 mg/L 1.00 mg/L

sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4

Test Conditions

Figure 3.47 Impact of DensaDeg rate on particle count during May 2007 testing in Ohio

99 98 95

Observations Less Than Value (%)

90 80 70

50

30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 1000

0.25 mg/L 0.50 mg/L 0.75 mg/L 1.00 mg/L no polymer (final hour)

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.48 Impact of polymer dose on DensaDeg turbidity during May 2007 testing in Ohio

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 83

Results from grab samples (see Table 3.16) reveal similar performance of the two processes during the study period. Both processes produced sludge of about 3 percent solids concentration. However, it is important to note that in normal full-scale DensaDeg operations the solids in the bottom of the clarification zone are allowed to thicken and the solids extracted for recycling to the reactor zones are withdrawn from higher elevations in the clarification zone. During pilot operation, the operating conditions are changed frequently enough that solids levels are not consistent nor are concentrations high enough in the clarification zone. Therefore, in order to provide enough solids to make the process work during pilot operations, including those in Ohio during May 2007, the solids recycled to the reactor zone are withdrawn from the bottom of the clarifier. This has the positive impact of providing enough solids for solids contact in the reactor zone, but has the negative impact of not allowing solids in the bottom of the clarification zone to thicken as well as they would if the bottom zone was not disturbed. Consequently, the results for percent solids from DensaDeg pilot may not be representative, i.e., not as high, as they could be during normal full-scale operations. Both processes reduced incoming TSS from about 40 to about 1.5 mg/L. Little removal of dissolved organic matter was observed in either process (DOC and UV-254 were about the same in treated as in untreated SFBW, about 2 mg/L for DOC and between 0.020/cm and 0.025/cm for UV-254). However, some particulate TOC was removed, with TOC reduced from about 4.2 to 2.2 mg/L in each process. There was little removal of total or soluble trace metals in either process, except there was some evidence of total iron removal in each process (from about 300 g/L to about 35 g/L), soluble aluminum removal with DensaDeg, and some total and soluble aluminum removal with AquaDAF. Table 3.16 Summary of grab samples during May 2007 testing in Ohio Sample location Count Max Min Mean Untreated DensaDeg AquaDAF DOC (mg/L) Untreated DensaDeg AquaDAF TOC (mg/L) Untreated DensaDeg AquaDAF UV-254 (1/cm) Untreated DensaDeg AquaDAF Total Al (g/L) Untreated DensaDeg AquaDAF 11 13 18 11 13 18 11 13 18 11 13 18 11 13 18 74.00 31.40 16.80 3.29 2.28 2.33 5.67 3.61 3.11 0.030 0.030 0.031 677 740 779 4.10 0.20 0.20 1.49 1.51 1.49 2.71 1.91 1.90 0.017 0.007 0.005 136 66 39 40.37 3.56 2.48 2.23 1.83 1.79 4.09 2.33 2.22 0.024 0.019 0.022 255 289 228

Constituent TSS (mg/L)

Median 46.00 1.40 1.40 1.93 1.74 1.72 4.20 2.20 2.14 0.025 0.022 0.024 150 137 94 (continued)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

84 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Constituent Soluble Al (g/L)

Total Fe (g/L)

Soluble Fe (g/L)

Total Mn (g/L)

Soluble Mn (g/L)

Sludge (Percent Solids)

Table 3.16 (Continued) Sample location Count Max Untreated 11 277 DensaDeg 13 241 AquaDAF 18 152 Untreated 11 687 DensaDeg 13 821 AquaDAF 18 705 Untreated 11 28 DensaDeg 13 28 AquaDAF 18 25 Untreated 11 59 DensaDeg 13 75 AquaDAF 18 192 Untreated 11 11.70 DensaDeg 13 8.21 AquaDAF 18 9.17 DensaDeg 13 4.4 AquaDAF 18 3.8

Min 5 8 2 19 17 19 1 0 0 21 20 19 3.34 0.56 0.60 0.1 1.9

Mean 93 73 41 296 145 123 8 7 10 35 34 51 6.17 5.27 3.43 2.7 3.0

Median 113 66 5 325 33 37 5 4 10 31 30 41 5.30 5.28 2.64 3.0 2.9

Summer 2007 During September 2007, the Leopold ClariDAF was tested in Ohio using the same pilot unit tested in Utah in May 2007. The set-up in Cleveland was similar to that discussed previously for May 2007 testing in Cleveland. Continuous data recorded for the pilot, and grab sample collection and analysis (by CWD Laboratory) was the same, including the same parameters and constituents, as described previously for the May 2007 testing in Cleveland. CWD and Leopold had previously evaluated standard-rate DAF at this site in 2000 (see Chapter 2). Consequently, the September 2007 study focused only on higher rates. Also, some of the findings from the 2000 study, particularly with respect to flocculation conditions and polymer type and dose, were used as starting points in the September 2007 evaluation. Note that during September 2007 testing in Ohio it was possible to bypass flocculation prior to DAF to evaluate impact of no flocculation. Note that a mixing pump was temporarily installed in the east equalization basin to keep the untreated SFBW well-mixed prior to pump intake for pilot facilities. Results from September 2007 testing using ClariDAF summarized in Tables 3.17 and 3.18, and Figures 3.49 and 3.50, reveal the following: Untreated SFBW characteristics Untreated SFBW turbidity was higher in May 2007 during testing with AquaDAF in Ohio, and during testing of ClariDAF in Utah. Consequently, comparisons of the results between the two processes and the two test sites are biased by the

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 85

difference in characteristics of untreated SFBW in each test period at each location. Impact of polymer dose (zero versus 0.3 mg/L) Testing in 2000 showed LT22s polymer worked best, and optimal dose was about 0.3 mg/L. The May 2007 testing with AquaDAF resulted in the same conclusion. Based on the previous information, it was not felt necessary to test a number of polymers or doses. The only polymer conditions tested were the previously determined optimal dose (0.3 mg/L LT22s) versus no polymer. The process did not meet treatment objectives for turbidity unless polymer was present. Also, particle count was almost 10 times higher without polymer. Impact of flash mix (with versus without) Particle count was higher and process did not meet turbidity objectives without flash mix, but did under flash mix conditions tested. Impact of flocculation time Results from 2000 suggested that standard-rate process worked better with flocculation, but still met objectives when no flocculation was used. Similar findings were observed during high-rate testing in September 2007. The process did meet performance objectives for turbidity with or without flocculation, under conditions tested. However, particle count without flocculation was about three times higher than it was with flocculation. Although all three flocculation times appeared to produce similar results, the 8 min flocculation time appeared to produce better performance with less variability (see column with 95th percentile data in Table 3.17). In fact, except for difference in particle count results, the zero flocculation conditions, like the 8 min flocculation conditions, also produced less variability with respect to turbidity. Impact of rate (8 to 15 gpm/ft2) All conditions tested, up to 15 gpm/ft2, met project objectives for turbidity and produced particle counts that were similar to each other and about as low as were observed during any part of the September test period (see Table 3.17 and 3.18). Results from 52 hours of continuous operation (1030A on September 15, 2007 until 255P September 17, 2007) are depicted in Figure 3.50. Tested conditions included 15 gpm/ft2, 11.5 percent DAF recycle, 14 min flocculation time, 0.3 mg/L LT22s dose, with flash mix. Median treated turbidity during this period was 0.40 ntu, and 99.8 percent of the readings (630 readings at 5 minute intervals) were <2 ntu. Impact of DAF recycle rate Results under all conditions tested (4.3 to 11.6 percent) met performance objectives for turbidity, and produced similar particle counts. Overall, the higher recycle produced slightly better turbidity and particle counts. During 2000 testing with standard-rate DAF, optimal DAF recycle was similar, about 10 percent. Concentration of solids produced DAF processes produced between 2.5 and 3 percent solids during September 2007 testing. Impact of process on metals, TOC/DOC, TSS, UV-254 (see Table 3.18) TSS was reduced to a median of about 1.4 mg/L About 0.3 mg/L of DOC and 0.5 mg/L of TOC were removed

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

86 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

UV-254 was reduced from between 0.13/cm to 0.23/cm to about 0.025/cm Most particulate aluminum, and about half of the soluble metal (about 0.4 mg/L), or a total of about 3 mg/L were removed. About 0.5 mg/L of mostly soluble metal remained Total and soluble iron was removed down to detection limit Most of total manganese (908 g/L vs. 73 g/L), including dissolved metal (139 vs. <10 g/L), were removed Table 3.17 Summary of grab samples during September 2007 testing in Ohio
Turbidity (ntu) Recycle Duration Rate (hours) (gpm/ft2) (percent) 2.75 2.17 2.17 3.75 2.17 2.58 3.75 3.83 3.83 1.83 2.00 1.83 54.25 1.75 1.42 54.25 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 12 14 15 15 15 15 11.9 11.8 11.8 12.1 12.4 12.3 12.1 12.3 12.3 9.8 14.0 12.2 11.6 4.3 6.8 11.6 Floc time (min) 16 16 16 16 0 8 16 27 27 22 18 14 14 14 14 14 Polymer dose (mg/L) 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Untreated Flash mix no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Treated 95th 7.60 3.98 3.98 1.58 0.66 0.56 1.58 1.43 1.43 0.87 0.45 0.39 0.51 1.94 0.67 0.51 Particles >2 m per mL Treated Percent <2 ntu Samples Average 71.9 74.3 74.3 97.1 100.0 100.0 97.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 95.6 100.0 99.8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 8 9,148 1,297 1,297 915 2,439 926 915 805 805 1,000 1,223 1,082 1,159 1,581 1,652 1,159

Median Median Mean 6.29 3.67 3.67 3.96 3.57 4.95 3.96 4.70 4.70 1.56 1.47 1.38 3.88 2.71 3.15 3.88 1.61 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.65 0.50 0.53 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.58 0.61 0.40 2.58 1.33 1.33 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.62 0.57 0.57 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.42 0.80 0.62 0.42

Impact of polymer dose

Impact of flash mix

Impact of flocculation time

Impact of clarification rate

Impact of DAF recycle

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 87

Table 3.18 Treated and untreated SFBW characteristics during September 2007 testing in Ohio Constituent TSS (mg/L) DOC (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) UV254 (1/cm) Total aluminum (g/L) Soluble aluminum (g/L) Total iron (g/L) Dissolved iron (g/L) Total manganese (g/L) Dissolved manganese (g/L) Sample location Count Max Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 5.00 2.98 2.74 3.54 3.01 95th Min Mean Median percentile 17.50 1.40 2.84 2.53 3.27 2.85 0.127 0.026 3,450 580 874 411 88 * <40 * 908 73 139 <10 2.6 98.75 3.60 2.97 2.72 3.50 3.00 0.605 0.048 17,625 1,041 3,250 527 528 * <40 * 4,590 201 728 <10 3.6 0.20 2.74 2.36 2.97 2.56 1.76 2.84 2.53 3.23 2.81

124.00 11.00 34.50

0.740 0.096 0.231 0.068 0.010 0.025 22,000 2,100 6,300 1,300 3,970 692 670 <40 110 <40 5,750 288 912 13 3.8 440 356 51 * <40 * 47 78 <10 2.3 667 422 175 * <40 * 99 257 <10 2.8 597 1,339

515 1,626

Percent solids Sludge 9 *All samples are identical, and below detection limit

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

88 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 8 gpm/ft2 10 gpm/ft2 12 gpm/ft2 14 gpm/ft2 15 gpm/ft2

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 3.49 Impact of clarification rate on turbidity removal using ClariDAF during September 2007

100

Untreated 10 Turbidity (ntu)

1 Treated

0.1 September 15, 2007

September 16, 2007

September 17, 2007

September 18, 2007

Figure 3.50 Continuous operation (48 hours) under constant conditions at Morgan WTP using ClariDAF

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 89

Cost and Layout The existing full-scale SFBW treatment facility at the Morgan WTP is rated at a capacity of 3,375 gpm, including 7,000 ft2 of clarification area capable of reliably operating at rates up to 0.6 gpm/ft2. However, due to a variety of factors, including increased filtration capacity of the facility due to high-rate certification of the filters, future SFBW handling at the Morgan plant will require not only additional treatment capacity but also additional equalization. Derivation of the capacities and associated costs and footprint for both equalization and high-rate processes are described in the PDR in Appendix B. These results are summarized in Table 3.19 for the three high-rate processes successfully evaluated at the Morgan WTP during this project. The SFBW treatment estimates are based on the assumption that facilities will be retrofitted into the western end of the residual handling building where the current SFBW clarifiers are located. The estimates for equalization listed in Appendix B include estimates for an assumption of 10 percent maximum allowance for SFBW recycle, versus separate estimates for 5 percent maximum recycle. The existing equalization capacity is 0.7 MG (two 350,000-gallon basins). The total equalization volume estimated in Appendix B for the 10-percent recycle assumption is 0.92 MG, or an additional 44-ft diameter circular basin with additional capacity of 0.21-MG equalization capacity. Similarly, for the 5-percent recycle assumption the total required equalization volume is 1.62 MG, or requiring an additional 93-ft diameter equalization basin with an additional 0.92-MG capacity. The results for size and cost under these two assumptions are summarized in Table 3.20. Table 3.19 Estimated cost and footprint for retrofit of high-rate SFBW treatment at Morgan WTP using different assumptions for recycle Description Design conditions Number of treatment trains Capacity per treatment train (gpm) Nominal clarification rate (gpm/ft2) Flocculation time (min) Cost* Capital ($ million) O&M ($ thousand/yr) Net Present Worth ($ million) 8.9 196 11.2 8.7 187 10.9 11.0 225 13.6 3,300 no 10 1.55 2 5,200 14 16 2 5,200 14 15 2 5,100 10 8** ClariDAF AquaDAF DensaDeg

Footprint (ft2) Clarification (including all appurtenances) 4,900 3,600 no no Additional thickening prior to dewatering Clarification rate (gpm/ft2) Nominal (i.e., manufacturer) 14 14 Relative to footprint 1.06 1.44 *December 2007 dollars, includes cost of new building and associated appurtenances 20 years, 6 percent interest Assume thickened solids prior to dewatering have to be greater than 1 percent solids One train out of service **Solids contact time (i.e., detention time in reactor tank)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

90 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 3.20 Morgan WTP SFBW EQ cost analysis for 5 and 10 percent recycle limits Volume of Diameter of Capital O&M 20-yr Maximum recycle equalization circular basin cost cost present worth* allowed (MG) (ft) ($ million) ($/yr) ($ million) 5 percent 10 percent *20 years, 6 percent interest 0.92 0.21 93 44 4.74 2.45 75,000 43,000 5.60 2.94

The costs and footprint for treatment listed in Table 3.19 and Appendix B are based on the 5-percent recycle assumption, and also include sufficient capacity under these assumptions with one unit out of service (i.e., 100 percent redundancy). The costs for the 10-percent recycle assumptions are not presented, but although there would be some economies of scale possible with the larger treatment facilities needed, it is expected that the cost for the 10-percent assumption would be about 1.5 times the amounts listed in Table 3.19 and Appendix B (i.e., one more train, allowing two units in service to handle all required volume with one unit out of service). Total costs and footprint for either the 5 or 10 percent recycle scenarios would include requirements for both high-rate treatment and equalization. However, the residuals produced from these three high-rate processes are expected to be greater than 3 percent solids concentration, and consequently should not require additional thickening prior to dewatering. Although costs for SFBW treatment using conventional gravity settling, including plates or tubes, are not included in Table 3.19 or Appendix B, since these processes do produce residuals with about 0.3 percent solids concentration, these processes would require additional thickening to achieve 1 percent solids concentration or greater prior to dewatering. Consequently, since the high-rate SFBW treatment options produce so much higher percent solids in the residuals stream, installation of these processes would also avoid the thickening costs required for other processes if residuals are to be sent for dewatering. Other high-rate processes, for example sand ballasted coagulation or upflow buoyant media clarification, may not produce percent solids as high as the three processes evaluated in Ohio, and consequently costs for thickening should be included when comparing these processes to the above processes at a study site. These results demonstrate that a ClariDAF system with two 5,200-gpm treatment trains designed at 14 gpm/ft2 nominal (i.e., manufacturer) clarification rate and requiring a minimum of 16 minutes flocculation would require an area of 4,900 ft2 within the western portion of the residuals handling building currently housing the SFBW clarifiers. The estimated footprint includes area for all required flocculation, clarification, chemical feed, air saturation, and other assorted appurtenances. Therefore, though nominally a 14 gpm/ft2 system when you consider only clarification area, when you consider the entire footprint impact (including the 100 percent redundancy assumption), the rate expressed relative to the new total treatment area when one train is out of service is 5,200 gpm for a 4,900-ft2 area, or about 1.06 gpm/ft2. Similar evaluations for the AquaDAF process indicates that the required footprint for two 5,200 gpm treatment trains is 3,600 ft2, or 1.44 gpm/ft2 for the nominal 14 gpm/ft2 process (including 15 min flocculation) when expressed relative to total footprint impact instead of only

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 3: Pilot- and Full-Scale Evaluations of Clarification and Flotation for SFBW Treatment | 91

clarification area. The DensaDeg process assumptions included two 5,100-gpm facilities in order to provide the same redundancy assumption (one train out of service), requiring about 3,300 ft2 for a nominal 10 gpm/ft2 process, or a 1.55 gpm/ft2 clarification rate expressed relative to total footprint impact (with one train out of service). The reader should note that characteristics of untreated SFBW were different between the Ohio and Utah study sites, and at either location during the spring versus summer test periods. Consequently, it is not appropriate to compare process performance or cost and footprint estimates between manufacturers since they were not compared side-by-side at the same facility at the same time. About the only comparisons that are valid are the two instances where one manufacturer tested two of their own processes side-by-side at the same location. If there are seasonal variations at a facility, the utility should evaluate processes under all these conditions that might be important. However, in this study, the equipment, staff, and other expenses needed to conduct the studies were donated by the participating manufacturers and utilities and consequently it was not possible to evaluate a process more than once at any one study site. SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (NEW HAVEN, CT) The filter run time of the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority (SCCRWA) treatment plant included in this study varies from 12 to 30 hours, resulting in a range of 9 to 30 backwashes per day, with a volume of 150,000 gallons per backwash. The SFBW is dosed with a high molecular weight polymer as it flows to an equalization basin (roughly 0.6 million gallons, or about four backwashes). Electronic valves control flow out of the equalization basin to four parallel plate settling process trains. Flow is typically limited to 10 percent of the raw water flow rate. Typical flows to the plate settling process are 2 to 4 mgd resulting in an average plate hydraulic loading rate of 0.25 gpm/ft2. Each train has 92 plates, each with 58 ft2 of surface area. Plate settler treated water turbidity is typically in the range of 0.8 to 1.5 ntu, but can be as low as 0.6 ntu or as high as 2.4 ntu. The settled SFBW is recycled to the head of the plant where it is mixed with raw water with the following average quality: 0.8 ntu, 33 color units, 0.10 cm-1 UV-254. The plate settler sludge is either pumped to a sludge thickener with trucking of thickened sludge off-site to one of the on-site sludge lagoons. PASSAIC VALLEY WATER COMMISSION (CLIFTON, NJ) The Passaic Valley Water Commission (PVWC) operates the 110 mgd Little Falls WTP in north central New Jersey. In recent years this plant was upgraded to include high-rate ballasted sand sedimentation (Actiflo), ozonation, and biologically active GAC/sand filtration. The plant has 24 filters with an average SFBW production of 1.8 mgd. Filter backwash volume ranges from about 111,000 to 120,000 gallons per backwash. SFBW flows to a 450,000-gallon equalization basin from which it is pumped at 950 to 2,500 gpm to two parallel trains of tube settlers; clarified water returned to head of the plant. Each basin has an effective area of 930 ft2 and at an average design flow of 60 mgd the hydraulic loading rate is 1.2 gpm/ft2. Residuals from the tube settlers are pumped to residual thickeners while decant from the thickeners (at 950 to 1,880 gpm) is returned to the head of the plant. The thickeners also receive the residuals from the sand-ballasted sedimentation process.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

92 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

PVWC collected performance data for the tube settler facility for an eight week period in August and September 2007. Data for loading rate and the quality of treated and untreated SFBW were obtained; Table 3.21 summarizes some of these data. The results show relatively similar turbidity and TSS in SFBW treated at hydraulic loading rates of 0.27 to 0.54 gpm/ft2 under variable influent concentrations. Treated TSS concentrations varied from 0.5 to 5 mg/L while turbidity removal varied from 1 to 2.2 ntu. Turbidity readings on September 19th were not reported. The cause of the negative removal on August 29 is unknown. Perhaps one of the two parallel trains was not operating properly. Since the influent and effluent samples were collected at the same time, they do not reflect actual residence time in the settler (i.e., during the time it took water to pass through the clarifier, the influent turbidity may have decreased). Overall, the PVWC data demonstrate that generally over 90 percent removal of TSS and turbidity were achieved by the settling process. The data are considered to reflect typical level and variability of the performance of this process for the treatment of SFBW. Table 3.21 Tube settler performance at Passaic Valley Water Commission Total suspended solids Turbidity (mg/L) (ntu) Hydraulic Percent Percent loading rate removal Untreated Settled removal (gpm/ft2) Untreated Settled 0.54 0.27 0.81 0.54 0.54 0.54 734 107 44 14 88 32 3 2 20 0.52 5.04 1.96 99.6 98.1 54.5 96.3 94.3 93.9 188 85 7.4 4.1 24 9.2 0.98 1.3 1.54 8.5 2.2 99.5 98.4 79.2 -107.1 90.9

Date 08/08/2007 08/15/2005 08/22/2007 08/29/2007 09/05/2007 09/19/2007

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CHAPTER 4 EVALUATION OF MEMBRANES


The purpose of this chapter is to present results of studies directed at evaluating the feasibility of utilizing low pressure membranes for treatment of SFBW. The chapter is focused on bench-scale studies conducted at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (UMass). INTRODUCTION It is important to note that MF/UF membrane processes have been used very effectively for removal of precipitated manganese oxide particles in groundwater treatment, for both the primary treatment train as well a second stage treatment of main train residuals for further water recovery. One example is in Littleton, MA (Antrim and Allen 2005), where Koch (Wilmington, MA) hollow fiber pressure membranes are used, and another is a plant to be completed in late 2007 in Hadley, MA that will utilize GE Zenon (Trevose, PA) submerged hollow fiber membranes. MF/UF processes are increasingly being employed for particle removal in the main process train for surface water treatment facilities (i.e., the post-sedimentation installations in Minneapolis, Presdee et al. 2005). There has been limited prior work that documents the performance of MF/UF processes for treatment of SFBW from surface water treatment plants. Prior work has shown that submerged hollow fiber UF membranes typically used for main train surface water treatment can be used to treat SFBW (i.e., Bourgeois et al. 2004, Walsh and Gagnon 2006), although at relatively low specific flux, i.e., 2 to 8 gallons per day per square foot (gfd) of membrane surface area per psi of transmembrane pressure (TMP). The permeate from such membrane treatment has very low turbidity, yet such low turbidity is not needed for the recycle of treated SFBW to the head of the treatment plant. The current project is focused on assessing the feasibility of using tubular, ceramic and hollow fiber MF/UF membrane processes with larger pores at very high hydraulic loading rates (flux) for treatment of SFBW. It is expected that these processes will also provide excellent treated water quality with turbidity (solids level) likely to be lower than that resulting from the processes described in Chapter 3 such as conventional settling, high rate sedimentation or dissolved air flotation. BENCH-SCALE STUDIES The goal of the bench-scale studies at UMass was to evaluate potential high-rate membrane processes for SFBW treatment. Work was conducted with both simulated and actual SFBW in order to consider a range of SFBW qualities. Quality parameters of interest include type and dose of primary coagulant, nature/level of raw water turbidity and organic matter, pH, and metals. Evaluated membrane technologies are of the low pressure, MF/UF type, including hollow fiber membranes, tubular membranes, and ceramic membranes. Bench-scale testing components were obtained from manufacturers and used to treat batch volumes of SFBW. Key operational parameters include permeate flux and applied pressure, use of backflushing, and chemical cleaning. Measures of performance (See Table 4.1) include filtrate quality, TMP and fouling (rate of TMP increase or flux decrease as well as recovery after backflush/cleaning).

93
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

94 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table 4.1 Membrane performance: Operation and assessment Characteristic Measurements Operations Trans-membrane pressure Feed side applied pressure Permeate flux Flow per unit surface area of membrane Mode of filtration Cross-flow versus dead-end Backflushing Frequency Chemical cleaning Frequency, method Performance assessment Permeate quality Turbidity, UV, TOC, metals Specific flux Flux per unit of TMP Membrane fouling rate Rate of specific flux decrease or TMP increase Experimental Methods The primary objective of the bench-scale studies was to evaluate the performance of MF/UF membrane filters for treating SFBW to meet acceptable water quality standards, i.e., effluent water that resembles raw water in terms of turbidity and organic content. Performance was evaluated based on permeate quality and either the increase in TMP during filter operation at constant flux (as would be conducted at full-scale), or conversely, the rate of flux decline under constant TMP (a common, and easier to control bench-scale approach). Important parameters related to TMP and flux include the quality of the SFBW, the amount and type of coagulant, method of membrane operation (cross-flow velocity, flux) and the application of backflushing. Spent Filter Backwash Waters Bench scale testing was conducted with both simulated and full-scale SFBW suspensions. A summary of characteristics of the simulated and full-scale (Aquarion Water Company (AWC) Trap Falls and SCCRWA) SFBW suspensions used in this work is presented in Table 4.2. Initial testing was conducted with laboratory simulated SFBW. This simulated SFBW was prepared by precipitating aluminum hydroxide in deionized water with appropriate control of pH and alkalinity. Alkalinity was added as sodium bicarbonate while the final pH was controlled through addition of solid sodium hydroxide and titration with alum. The target pH was approximately 6.5, which is near the pH of minimum solubility for Al(OH)3(s). Table 4.2 Properties of SFBW feed waters Simulated SFBW AWC Trap Falls WTP 21 to 30 19 to 28 6.4 to 6.7 110 to 180 20 1
o

Parameter Turbidity (ntu) pH TSS (mg/L) Temp ( C)

SCCRWA WTP 59 to 83 7.0 to 7.2 175 to 270 20 1

7.1 76 to 85 21 to 26

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 95

Full-scale plant SFBW was collected on August 1, 2007 from the AWC Trap Falls WTP in Shelton, CT. Trap Falls WTP is a 25 mgd facility employing alum coagulation and plate sedimentation prior to six parallel dual media filters. The plant intermittently recycles filter backwash for an eight hour period every 24 to 26 hours at a rate of 5 percent of raw water flow, which is decreased during recycle to maintain constant production. SFBW was collected at the beginning of filter backwash from the backwash launder using a submersible pump and several containers. Some experiments were performed on-site while others were conducted at the UMass laboratory. Efforts were made to prepare feed batches with consistent water quality. Full-scale plant SFBW was collected on August 29, 2007 from the SCCRWA (New Haven, CT) treatment plant. The plant filter backwash is treated using plate sedimentation prior to recycle to the head of the treatment plant. A high molecular weight polymer is added to the SFBW in a pipeline as it flows to an equalization basin ahead of the plate settlers. All experiments with the plant SFBW were conducted at UMass. Efforts were made to produce batches of SFBW with similar quality for each new filter run, however, some variability was encountered. At the plant the SFBW was collected from the beginning to the middle of the filter backwash; the cleaner water at the end of a filter backwash was not collected. In this manner, a challenging sample of SFBW was obtained. Bench-Scale Test Apparatus A bench-scale test apparatus was assembled as shown schematically in Figure 4.1 and in the photographs in Figure 4.2. The apparatus is designed for laboratory use or for transport on-site to a full-scale treatment plant. The apparatus has a flexible design to allow for multiple operational modes and different membrane modules. A variable speed positive displacement feed pump is supplied from a stirred feed tank holding the SFBW. The feed side of the membrane was pressurized by closing a downstream valve. A cartridge filter screen (200 by 300 micron) was positioned upstream of the membrane module to prevent damage from large particles.
P

Permeate

Flow Control Valve P Membrane

Cartridge Filter

Cross-flow

Flow meter

Recycle Line (used for Dead-End Operation) Permeate for Backwash

Positive Displacement Pump

Figure 4.1 Bench-scale membrane test apparatus schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

96 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Figure 4.2 Photos of bench-scale membrane test apparatus

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 97

Membrane type Tubular MFK-617 Hollow Fiber Ceramic LM-XXXX-A Membrane Modules

Table 4.3 Bench-scale test membranes Material Pore classification Polyethersulfone Polysulfone Titania 0.1 micron 0.2 micron ~ 0.2 micron

Manufacturer Koch Koch CeraMem

Table 4.3 provides a summary of the three types of membrane modules used in this study. Descriptive information for each membrane type is presented below. Koch Membrane Systems Tubular Membranes. The Koch (Wilmington, MA) tubular membrane module has a single 0.5-inch diameter by approximately 12 inches long membrane tube potted in a 1-inch diameter housing. The working membrane is on the inside of the tube where feed flow (and pressure) is applied. The housing is rated for up to 25 psi while the membrane tube is rated to 90 psi; no backpressure can be applied on the permeate side of tubular membranes so backwashing is not permitted. The membrane surface area in the tubular module is 0.16 square feet. The MFK-617 membrane is manufactured from polyethersulfone (PES) and has an approximate pore size of 0.1 micron. Koch Membrane Systems Hollow Fiber Membranes. The hollow fiber membranes from Koch are also potted in a 1-inch diameter, 12-inch long, housing. Flow is fed to the inside of the hollow fibers; each fiber has an inside diameter of about 1.5 millimeters. The module has a total of 1 ft2 of membrane surface area. The fibers are manufactured from polysulfone with a pore size of about 0.2 micron. Unlike the tubular membranes, the hollow fibers can be backflushed with permeate at pressures no more than 25 psi. CeraMem Ceramic Membrane. Ceramic membranes are a monolithic casting that creates feed and/or cross-flow channels, membrane surface, and permeate channels. CeraMem (Waltham, MA) provided a membrane module (specifically manufactured for the application) and a housing for the bench scale test. This module is 12 inches in length and the exterior is circular at about 1-inch diameter. Flow is fed into about sixty, 2-mm square channels at the end of the module and permeate flows out of the exterior surface of the ceramic element into a stainless steel housing with a single permeate outlet (see Figure 4.2). The membrane surface area is similar to the Koch hollow fiber modules (about 1.5 ft2). Membrane Operation MF/UF membranes can be operated under cross-flow or dead-end flow conditions in either a constant feed pressure or constant permeate flux mode. The most common situation for full-scale MF/UF treatment of the main process flow is use of dead-end flow at constant flux, with periodic backflushing to control TMP which steadily increases to maintain flux during the dead-end filter cycle. Cross-flow operation is common for higher pressure NF and RO membranes that are utilized for dissolved substance removal. In order to control accumulation of cake solids during MF/UF treatment of relatively high solids concentration SFBW, it may be

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

98 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

desirable or necessary to utilize a constant cross-flow operational mode. Typical single stage cross-flow membrane treatment involves high flow rate recirculation of the membrane concentrate with wasting of a small fraction of the concentrate while providing a feed flow equal to the sum of the permeate and waste flows (so-called feed and bleed mode). For treatment of batches of SFBW via cross-flow membrane filtration another option that is not operationally complex is to utilize the entire SFBW feed tank for cross-flow supply, resulting in an ever increasing feed solids concentration as the feed volume decreases. Treatment would cease after a desired volume reductions was achieved. Operation of membranes at constant flux with increasing TMP is necessary for main process water treatment in order to maintain potable water production rates; feed pressure is increased to maintain a desired permeate flux. In contrast, for many laboratory research studies, membranes have been operated at constant feed pressure and declining permeate flux as the membrane fouls; this allows for relatively simple system controls. A danger of constant pressure operation is the possibility of severe membrane fouling at the often extremely high initial permeate fluxes if no permeate flow control is provided. It is possible that constant pressure operation with control of maximum initial flux may be appropriate for intermittent treatment of batches of SFBW. In this study, for operation in cross-flow mode, a ball valve downstream of the membrane module and the variable speed pump control were used to control feed pressure and cross-flow velocity. Permeate was discharged to atmospheric pressure for water quality sampling/analysis and flow measurement. For operation in dead-end mode, the downstream ball valve was closed and the ball valve on the bypass line and the variable pump speed are used to control feed pressure and permeate flow (equal to the module feed flow). Pressure gauges and a pressure transducer were located upstream and downstream of the membrane module (feed side) while a pressure gauge was located on the permeate side of the membrane. In constant pressure operation, TMP was calculated as the average of the pressure upstream and downstream of the membrane, where permeate was discharged at atmospheric pressure. In constant flux operation, TMP was calculated as the average of the up- and downstream feed side pressures less the permeate side pressure (greater than atmospheric due to the flow control valve). During treatment, once a maximum allowable TMP, or a minimum flux rate, was reached, or after a pre-determined volume of SFBW was treated, the membrane filter required backwashing and possibly cleaning. Backwash operational parameters include the quantity and flux of backwash water and the applied pressure. Flux recovery following standard backwashing procedures was determined, as was the recovery following physical and chemical cleaning steps utilized to remove fouling. The type(s) and dose(s) used for chemical cleaning were in accord with manufacturers recommendations. Each membrane was initially cleaned according to the manufacturers recommendations. This typically involved acid, base and oxidant application. Each membrane was also cleaned prior to each test and after each test. Following the cleaning before each test, a pure water permeation (PWP) test using de-ionized (DI) water at various pressures was used to determine an average specific flux. PWP tests were also performed immediately after each test (prior to physical and chemical cleans), after the physical clean, and after the chemical clean. Physical cleaning consisted of applying hot tap water (temperature 453 oC) for thirty minutes at a high cross-flow velocity (9.8 feet per second (fps) for the Koch MFK-617 tubular, 5.2 for the CeraMem ceramic membrane). Chemical cleaning consisted of a fifteen minute flush with warm, caustic solution made with tap water (temperature 45 3 oC, pH 11.0 0.2 pH units)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 99

followed by a fifteen minute flush with warm, acidic solution temperature made with tap water (temperature 45 3 oC, pH 3.2 0.2 pH units), both at the high cross-flow velocity used for the physical clean. Warm water was flushed through the membrane between the chemical cleans. After the chemical clean, a PWP test was performed. If the flux recovery was not sufficient, a second chemical clean was performed and the specific flux was determined again. Prior to initial testing with SFBW, the specific fluxes were generally quite high, and loss of initial flux probably resulted from mechanical compression. After the membrane was broken in, performance was generally repeatable, i.e., specific flux was recovered to within approximately 10 percent of the initial values following the membrane cleaning Two to three cross-flow velocities (which may include zero velocity, i.e., dead-end mode) and two to three TMPs were used to test the performance of the Koch MFK-617 tubular and CeraMem ceramic membranes in treating simulated SFBW. Permeate flux was measured as a function of time with TMP kept relatively constant during the test. Operating in this fashion the flux decreased as the membrane is fouled. A sufficient number of cycles of treatment and cleaning were conducted to assess operational impacts. Table 4.4 summarizes conditions for the variable TMP and cross-flow velocity experiments conducted with simulated SFBW. During most of the experiments using simulated SFBW, the concentrate and permeate were continuously mixed back into the feed tank. This mode of operation caused only minor changes in the feed water quality while maintaining the volume of available feed SFBW. During treatment with the ceramic membrane in the dead-end mode, permeate and concentrate were not returned to the feed tank, resulting in a more constant feed quality. Backwashing of the CeraMem ceramic membrane was performed with permeate collected from the test period immediately preceding the backwash. The backwash was performed at 30 psi for one minute, and the flow through the membrane was not controlled. Many of the results presented in this report are for cross-flow experiments conducted with variable quality of feed SFBW due to return of only the concentrate to the feed tank. This method mimics the possible intermittent treatment of a batch of SFBW at full-scale where the permeate would be recycled to the head of the plant while the concentrated SFBW would be added to the plants residuals management scheme. Table 4.4 Membrane performance test conditions TMP Cross-flow velocity (psi) (fps) 8 16 5 10 0, 4.1, 8.2 0, 4.1, 8.2 0, 5.2 0, 5.2

Membrane Koch Tubular MFK-617 Koch Tubular MFK-617 CeraMem Ceramic LM-XXXX-A CeraMem Ceramic LM-XXXX-A

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

100 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Results Representative experimental results are presented to illustrate significant findings. Membrane performance can be represented as permeate flux, TMP, specific flux (flux/TMP) or permeate quality versus operation time, permeate volume or normalized permeate volume (volume per unit membrane area). In general, normalized representations of performance are utilized. Results for experiments with only simulated SFBW and various operating conditions are presented first followed by results for treatment of the full-scale SFBW samples. Simulated SFBW Only, Constant Feed Quality Koch Tubular MFK-617. Figure 4.3 shows permeate turbidity as a function of specific permeate production (volume of permeate per unit membrane area) for the Koch tubular membrane for different cross-flow velocities and TMPs; specific flux during these tests ranged from approximately 70 to 85 gfd/psi. As expected, permeate turbidity was less than 0.1 ntu under all conditions.
0.25 TMP = 8 psi, X-flow = 8 ft/sec TMP = 8 psi, X-flow = 4 ft/sec TMP = 8 psi, X-flow = 0 ft/sec TMP = 16 psi, X-flow = 8 ft/sec TMP = 16 psi, X-flow = 4 ft/sec TMP = 16 psi, X-flow = 0 ft/sec

0.20

Turbidity (NTU)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 0 5 10 15 20
2

25

30

Specific Permeate Production (gal/ft )

Figure 4.3 Permeate turbidity, Koch tubular membrane, simulated SFBW Figure 4.4 shows the effects of increasing cross-flow velocity at a TMP of 8 psi on the decrease in normalized specific flux (specific flux divided by initial specific flux) as specific throughput (gallons of permeate per square foot of membrane surface area) increased. As crossflow velocity increased, the rate of specific flux decline decreased, and the actual specific flux increased for a given specific throughput. Results were similar for a TMP of 16 psi pressure, but the effects were more prominent at the higher pressure. The initial specific fluxes were slightly lower at the higher TMP (70 vs. 80 gfd/psi), i.e., the initial absolute flux is not quite twice as high at 16 psi TMP versus 8 psi TMP. Note that typical specific fluxes for low pressure membranes might range from 15 to 25 gfd/psi when clean and 2 to 4 gfd/psi after cake formation

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 101

prior to backflushing. Results in general showed limited impact of TMP on normalized performance at a given cross-flow velocity, including dead-end operation. Results for PWP flux tests showed that when operated in cross-flow mode, the initial flux was generally recovered to within 10 percent of the initial level following the physical and chemical cleans. When operated in the dead-end configuration, recovery to within 10 percent of the initial specific flux was typically not achieved. This is most likely due to the higher solids accumulation on the surface of the membrane, which in turn leads to a higher probability of surface and pore fouling. After operation in the cross-flow configuration, the physical clean provided much less recovery than the chemical clean. However, after operation in the dead-end configuration, the physical clean allowed for greater degree of recovery. These results are not surprising as the physical clean should sweep away solids that accumulate on the membrane surface during deadend operation. Tubular membranes would most likely be operated in a cross-flow mode to provide high velocity for minimizing cake accumulation at the membrane surface.
1.0

Normailzed Specific Flux (J'/Jo')

TMP = 8 psi, X-flow = 8 ft/sec, J'o = 78 gfd/psi 0.8 TMP = 8 psi, X-flow = 4 ft/sec, J'o = 84 gfd/psi TMP = 8 psi, X-flow = 0 ft/sec, J'o = 85 gfd/psi 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 5 10 15 20
2

25

30

Specific Permeate Production (gal/ft )

Figure 4.4 Normalized specific flux, Koch tubular, 8 psi TMP, simulated SFBW CeraMem Ceramic LM-XXXX-A. The CeraMem ceramic membrane was tested using the simulated SFBW at two TMPs in cross-flow and dead-end modes. Figure 4.5 shows that the CeraMem membrane permeate turbidity was less than 0.1 ntu when the membrane was operated in cross-flow, however, when in dead-end configuration, there were significant turbidity excursions (as large as 0.25 ntu). It is unclear why the filtered water turbidity was greater than 0.1 ntu in these instances (possibly air bubbles). The specific flux during these tests ranged from approximately 36 to 48 gfd/psi. Specific fluxes during the initial PWP tests were lower for the ceramic membrane (~ 50-57 gfd/psi) than for the Koch tubular membrane (65 to 84 gfd/psi). Because of the much greater surface area of the ceramic membrane as compared to the tubular membrane, total throughput volume was much less for the ceramic membrane tests (limit of tank in the lab). Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show changes in the normalized specific flux as the normalized throughput increased. When operating with crossflow (Figure 4.6), only a small decrease from the initial specific flux was observed, and TMP had

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

102 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

only a minor effect. Periodic backflushing allowed for modest recovery, especially when operating at the higher TMP (10 psi). As expected, when operating in dead-end, the decrease in the specific flux with throughput was dramatic. Backflushing resulted in recovery of only 70 and 50 percent of the initial flux at TMPs of 4 and 12 psi, respectively. Further testing in dead-end mode for a longer operation period is needed. Note that in typical low pressure membrane operation, periodic backflushing may occur after throughputs of only 0.3 to 1 gallon/ft2 (i.e., backpulsing every 20 to 30 minutes at fluxes of 25 to 50 gfd), so these laboratory tests are probably an extreme condition.
0.25
X-flow = 5.2 fps; TMP = 10 psi

0.20

Dead-end; TMP = 12 psi X-flow = 5.2 fps; TMP = 6 psi

Turbidity (NTU)

0.15

Dead-end; TMP = 4 psi

0.10

0.05

0.00 0 4 8 12 16
2

20

Specific Permeate Production (gal/ft )

Figure 4.5 Permeate turbidity, CeraMem ceramic membrane

Normalized Specific Flux (J'/J'o)

X-flow = 5.2 fps; TMP = 10 psi, J'o = 52 gfd/psi

1.0

X-flow = 5.2 fps; TMP = 6 psi, J'o = 57 gfd/psi

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
(Lines denote backflush t )

0.0 0 4 8 12
2

16

20

Specific Permeate Production (gal/ft )

Figure 4.6 Normalized specific flux, CeraMem ceramic, 5.2 ft/s cross-flow velocity, simulated SFBW

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 103

1.0
Dead-end; TMP = 12 psi, J'o = 53 gfd/psi

Normalized Specific Flux (J'/J'o)

Dead-end; TMP = 4 psi, J'o = 52 gfd/psi

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
(Lines denote backflush events)

0.0 0 4 8 12 16 20

Specific Permeate Production (gal/ft2)

Figure 4.7 Normalized specific flux, CeraMem ceramic, dead-end mode, simulated SFBW

250 Specific Flux; X-flow = 4 fps, TMP = 4.5 psi Filtered Turbidity; X-flow = 4 fps, TMP = 4.5 psi 200

0.25

150

0.15

100

0.1

50

0.05

0
0 5 10 15
2

0
20

Specific Permeate Production (gal/ft )

Figure 4.8 Specific flux and permeate turbidity, Koch hollow fiber, simulated SFBW

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Permeate Turbidity (NTU)

0.2

Specific Flux (gfd/psi)

104 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Koch Hollow Fiber. Treatment experiments using the Koch hollow fiber membrane module and the simulated SFBW were conducted at two cross-flow velocities and in dead-end mode for a constant TMP of 4 to 4.5 psi. Representative results for specific flux and permeate turbidity as a function of specific volume treated for the 4 ft/s cross-flow velocity are shown in Figure 4.8. The membrane was operated at very high specific fluxes of 100 to 160 gfd/psi. Backflushing generally recovered nearly 100 percent of the specific flux. Permeate turbidity was between 0.05 and 0.1 ntu. Experiments at a 7 ft/s cross-flow velocity and in dead-end mode showed similar permeate turbidity and specific flux magnitude results, but relative to the 4 ft/s cross-flow results, the rate of specific flux decrease (fouling) prior to backflushing increased greatly in the dead-end mode and decreased significantly at the higher 7 ft/s cross-flow. Full-Scale and Simulated SFBW, Changing Feed Quality Performance tests were conducted under similar conditions using simulated SFBW and full-scale SFBW. Experiments were conducted in cross-flow mode using either constant pressure/declining flux or constant flux/increasing pressure. The membrane concentrate was returned to the batch SFBW supply tank while the permeate was collected in a separate tank. Thus, the feed SFBW became increasingly concentrated over time while supplying flow to maintain a high cross-flow velocity. Permeate quality was excellent in all cases, with permeate turbidity generally 0.05 to 0.1 ntu, occasionally as high as 0.2 ntu. As such, no turbidity data are presented. Comments on levels of metals and organic matter for the full-scale SFBW experiments are included below. Constant Pressure/Declining Flux. Figure 4.9 shows flux results for treatment of the simulated and Trap Falls SFBW with the CeraMem ceramic membrane at average TMPs of 8 and 7 psi, respectively, and a 5 ft/s cross-flow velocity. For the case of the simulated SFBW, flux declined initially but then remained relatively constant over the duration of the test. Feed simulated SFBW turbidity and TSS during this test increased from 30 ntu and 180 mg/L to 170 ntu and 1,000 mg/L, respectively. The increased solids in the simulated SFBW feed water did not appear to impact flux, suggesting that hydraulic shear from the cross-flow controlled fouling. During treatment of the Trap Falls plant full-scale SFBW, the permeate flux declined from 230 to approximately 80 gfd. The decline in flux is probably the result of the accumulation of natural organic matter (NOM) or NOM-metal precipitated particles on the membrane surface that were not removed by the hydraulic cross-flow shear. Figure 4.10 shows the specific flux as a function of specific permeate production (gallons/square-foot) for treatment of the Trap Falls SFBW using the ceramic membrane. During the course of treatment, the TSS increased from 85 mg/L to over 300 mg/L while the turbidity increased from 30 ntu to 113 ntu. The filtered water turbidity during this period was less than or equal to 0.1 ntu. Figure 4.11 shows levels of TOC, iron, and manganese for the feed and permeate over the course of this experiment. SFBW feed water TOC increased from 4.6 to 8.0 mg/L, iron increased from 0.8 to 2.7 mg/L, and manganese increased from 2.9 to 12 mg/L. Iron and manganese levels in the filtered water were 0.01 to 0.02 mg/L, indicating that the metals in the feed were mostly in particulate form. TOC in the filtered water increased from 3.4 to 5.6 mg/L over the course of this filter run.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 105

500

400 Simulated SFBW; TMP: 8 psi, x-flow: 5 fps

Permeate Flux (gfd)

Trap Falls SFBW; TMP: 7 psi, x-flow: 5 fps 300

200

100

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.9 Flux through ceramic membrane treating simulated and Trap Falls SFBW

120 SPECIFIC FLUX: Trap Falls; TMP: 7 psi, x-flow: 5 fps 100 TURBIDITY: Trap Falls; TMP 7 psi, x-flow 5 fps TSS: Trap Falls; TMP: 7 psi, x-flow: 5 fps

360

300

Specific Permeate Flux (gfd/psi) or Feed Turbidity(NTU)

60

180

40

120

20

60

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.10 Ceramic membrane performance with changing influent water quality while treating Trap Falls SFBW

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Feed TSS (mg/L)

80

240

106 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 4 6
2

12 10 8 6 4 2

10

Raw Mn (mg/L) Raw TOC (mg/L) Raw Fe (mg/L) 14 16

0 0 4 6
2

10

Filt. TOC (mg/L) Filt. Mn (mg/L) Filt. Fe (mg/L) 14 16

gallons/ft

gallons/ft

Figure 4.11 Feed (raw) and permeate (filtered) TOC, Fe, and Mn while treating Trap Falls SFBW with ceramic membrane operated at constant pressure and decreasing flux

Figure 4.12 shows the flux results for treating simulated and full-scale SFBW with the Koch hollow fiber membrane. For the case of the simulated SFBW (at 4 psi TMP, 6 ft/s crossflow velocity), flux declined very quickly from the initial clean water test of 900 gfd to approximately 500 gfd for the first sample point. When the flux was approximately 70 percent of the initial (first test point) flux, a one minute backwash with permeate at 25 psi was instituted. Following backwashes, the flux approached or exceeded 500 gfd in most cases. Simulated SFBW feed water turbidity and TSS during this test increased from 22 ntu and 150 mg/L to 130 ntu and 980 mg/L, respectively. Permeate flux declined from approximately 1,500 gfd to 76 gfd during treatment of the Trap Falls full-scale SFBW with the hollow fiber module (at 8 psi TMP, 5 ft/s cross-flow). Similar to the performance of the ceramic membrane, the larger decline in flux for the real SFBW is probably the result of the accumulation of organic material or NOM-metal particles on the membrane surface. The Trap Falls feed SFBW turbidity and TSS increased from 23 ntu and 78 mg/L to 77 ntu and 230 mg/L, respectively. Figure 4.13 shows more results for treatment of the Trap Falls full-scale SFBW with the Koch hollow fiber membrane, including specific flux as a function of normalized water production, and changes in feed water quality. During the course of treatment, the TSS increased from approximately 80 mg/L to 230 mg/L while the turbidity increased from 23 ntu to 77 ntu. The filtered water turbidity during this period was less than 0.1 ntu. Figure 4.14 shows the raw and filtered TOC, iron, and manganese measured over the course of this experiment. Raw water TOC increased from 4.6 to 8.0 mg/L, iron increased from 0.8 to 2.6 mg/L, and manganese increased from 5.5 to 7.0 mg/L. Similar to the ceramic membrane filtered water, iron and manganese levels measured in the permeate were negligible. TOC in the filtered water increased from 4.0 to 4.5 mg/L over the course of this filter run.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 107

1000 Initial flux ~ 1500 gfd Simulated SFBW; TMP: 4 psi, x-flow: 6 fps Trap Falls SFBW; TMP: 8 psi, x-flow: 5 fps 800

Permeate Flux (gfd)

600

400

200

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.12 Koch hollow fiber membrane permeate flux, simulated and Trap Falls SFBW

240 SPECIFIC FLUX: Trap Falls; TMP 8 psi, x-flow 5 fps TSS: Trap Falls; TMP 8 psi, x-flow 5 fps

80

Specific Permeate Flux (gfd/psi) or Feed TSS (mg/L)

TURBIDITY: Trap Falls; TMP 8 psi, x-flow 5 fps

120

40

60

20

0 0 4 8 12 16 20

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.13 Hollow-fiber membrane performance while treating Trap Falls SFBW

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Feed Turbidity (NTU)

180

60

108 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 8 11
2

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

14

Raw Mn (mg/L) Raw TOC (mg/L) Raw Fe (mg/L) 19 19

1 0 1 8 gallons/ft
2

Filt. TOC (mg/L) Filt. Mn (mg/L) 11 Filt. Fe (mg/L) 14 19

gallons/ft

Figure 4.14 Raw and filtered TOC, Fe, and Mn while treating Trap Falls SFBW with hollow-fiber membrane operated at constant pressure and decreasing flux

Figure 4.15 shows flux results for treating simulated and Trap Falls SFBW with the Koch tubular membrane. For the case of the simulated SFBW, flux remained relatively constant. Because of the low surface area of the membrane (0.16 ft2), small differences in TMP are reflected in the flux; this may explain why the flux increases towards the end of the test. TMP was maintained manually during the test, and slight pressure increases were observed. The flux during this test averaged 330 gfd and the ranged from 310 to 360 gfd. Because of the low membrane surface area, the initial SFBW feed water quality was scaled in a fashion so that it was similar to the other tests. In this case, the initial SFBW turbidity and TSS were 46 ntu and 250 mg/L, respectively, while the final feed turbidity and TSS were 170 ntu and 1,700 mg/L, respectively. During treatment of the Trap Falls plant SFBW with the tubular membrane, the feed water quality did not change significantly during the course of the test; average feed water turbidity and TSS were 19 ntu and 64 mg/L, respectively. Despite the relatively low solids level of the SFBW, the flux during treatment of the plant SFBW declined from 360 to 63 gfd. In order to increase the throughput during the test, the TMP was increased from 9 to 17 psi, causing the flux to increase from 125 to 209 gfd, after which the flux quickly declined in a similar fashion as that observed at the lower TMP.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 109

500 Simulated SFBW; TMP: 10 psi, x-flow: 8 fps Trap Falls SFBW; TMP: 9/17 psi, x-flow: 8 fps

400

Permeate Flux (gfd)

300

200

100

Pressure increased from 9 to 17 psi 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.15 Flux through tubular membrane treating simulated and Trap Falls SFBW

The flux decline results presented in Figures 4.9, 4.12, and 4.15 for the three different membrane types show that the differences in water quality between the simulated and actual SFBW had a very significant impact on membrane performance. Tests conducted with the simulated SFBW were performed to characterize the different membranes under similar conditions prior to tests with plant SFBW. Flux decline at constant TMP for treating full-scale plant SFBW that contained NOM and precipitated metal coagulants was much greater than the flux decline for treating simulated SFBW without NOM or metals, despite the similar levels of TSS, turbidity and the use of alum as coagulant. The nature of SFBW makes it difficult to normalize or generalize because SFBW quality changes not only from plant to plant, but also during the period of a filter backwash with lower water quality expected during the initial filter cleaning period. Laboratory or field trials that are intended to simulate treatment of plant SFBW must be conducted with appropriate site-specific SFBW feed water. Constant Flux/Increasing Pressure. Figure 4.16 shows flux and specific flux results for treatment of the SFBW from the Trap Falls and SCCRWA WTPs with the ceramic membrane at constant flux. If the flux decreased significantly from the target of greater than 150 gfd, a one minute backwash with permeate at 25 psi was instituted. Similar performance was observed for treatment of both full-scale SFBWs; specific flux rapidly decreased from 57 gfd/psi to less than 12 gfd/psi when treating the SCCRWA SFBW. Backwash generally recovered the specific flux to approximately 18 to 20 gfd/psi followed by a slow decline to less than 10 gfd/psi.. For the Trap Falls SFBW, the specific flux declined from 43 to 12 gfd/psi prior to the first backwash. Recovery following both backwashes after treatment of the Trap Falls SFBW was 17 gfd/psi.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

110 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

140 SPECIFIC FLUX: Lake Gaillard SPECIFIC FLUX: Trap Falls 120

280

Specific Permeate Flux (gfd/psi)

FLUX: Lake Gaillard FLUX: Trap Falls

240

100

200

80

160

60

120

40

80

20

40

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.16 Flux and specific flux for ceramic membrane filtration of Trap Falls and Lake Gaillard SFBW at ~constant flux and increasing pressure

Figure 4.17 shows the corresponding TMP over these filter runs. The initial pressure loss across the filter is approximately 4 psi. The highest applied pressure during these tests was 18.5 psi, with most filter runs ranging from 8 to 16 psi following the initial run during which the majority of fouling occurred. During filtration of the Trap Falls SFBW with the ceramic membrane in this mode of operation, the TOC of the raw water increased from 2.5 to 3.6 mg/L, while the filtered TOC remained relatively constant at 2.3 mg/L. Raw water turbidity increased from 19 to 77 ntu while filtered water turbidity was always less than 0.1 ntu. During filtration of the SCCRWA SFBW, TOC of the raw water increased from 3.5 to 5.2 mg/L, which the filtered TOC increased from 3.1 to 3.8 mg/L. Raw water turbidity increased from 83 to 172 mg/L while filtered water turbidity was close to or less than 0.1 ntu. Excursions of 0.13 and 0.12 ntu occurred after the first backwash, but subsequent filter runs were less than 0.1 ntu, indicating this may have been the result of some inconsistency during the first backwash. Figure 4.18 shows flux and specific flux results for treatment of the SFBW from the Trap Falls and SCCRWA WTPs using the Koch hollow-fiber membrane. The flux during these filter runs ranged from approximately 150 to 170 gfd. During treatment of the SCCRWA SFBW, the specific flux rapidly increased from 215 gfd/psi to over 500 gfd/psi; this is a result of the nonlinearity of the specific flux at very low pressures. Figure 4.19 shows the corresponding TMP over these filter runs, where the initial pressure loss across the filter is very close to zero. The highest applied pressure during these tests was 13 psi, but in general the pressure was less than 8 psi during the course of both experiments. As shown in Figure 4.18, the specific flux decreases from the initial high level to approximately 30 gfd/psi when treating the SCCRWA SFBW. For

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Flux (gfd)

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 111

the Trap Falls SFBW, the specific flux declined from an initial level of 220 to approximately 30 gfd/psi. During filtration of the Trap Falls SFBW with the hollow-fiber membrane in this mode of operation, the TOC of the feed water increased from 2.6 to 3.6 mg/L, while the filtered TOC remained relatively constant at 2.4 mg/L. Feed water turbidity increased from 20 to 84 ntu while filtered water turbidity was always less than 0.1 ntu. During filtration of the SCCRWA SFBW, the TOC of the feed water increased from 4.1 to 4.5 mg/L, while the filtered TOC increased from 2.6 to 3.4 mg/L. Feed water turbidity increased from 59 to 290 ntu while filtered water turbidity was close to or less than 0.1 ntu. A constant flux experiment was also conducted with the Koch tubular membrane using only SCCRWA full-scale SFBW. Results for specific flux and TMP are shown in Figure 4.20; permeate flux was relatively constant at approximately 140 gfd/ft2 and the cross-flow velocity was 5 ft/s. Specific flux declined in a similar fashion as observed for the ceramic and hollow fiber membranes but was at a much lower absolute level, reflecting the smaller pores size rating of this membrane. For all of the membrane types, clean water flux performance tests were conducted prior to tests with SFBW and after physical and chemical cleaning following treatment of SFBW. When using simulated SFBW, 90 to 100 percent of the initial flux was typically recovered with chemical cleaning having the most impact. Similar results were found after treatment of the fullscale SFBW; however, in these instances, treatment with chlorine was required to make a full flux recovery.

140 SPECIFIC FLUX: Lake Gaillard 120 SPECIFIC FLUX: Trap Falls TMP: Lake Gaillard

28

24

Specific Permeate Flux (gfd/psi)

TMP: Trap Falls 100 20

80

16

60

12

40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.17 Pressure and specific flux for ceramic membrane filtration of Trap Falls and Lake Gaillard SFBW at ~constant flux and increasing pressure

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Transmembrane Pressure (psi)

112 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

700 SPECIFIC FLUX: Lake Gaillard SPECIFIC FLUX: Trap Falls FLUX: Lake Gaillard FLUX: Trap Falls

280

600

240

Specific Permeate Flux (gfd/psi)

500

200

400

160

300

120

200

80

100

40

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.18 Flux and specific flux for hollow-fiber membrane filtration of Trap Falls and Lake Gaillard SFBW at ~constant flux and increasing pressure

700 SPECIFIC FLUX: Lake Gaillard 600 SPECIFIC FLUX: Trap Falls TMP: Lake Gaillard 500 TMP: Trap Falls

28

24

Permeate Specific Flux (gfd/psi)

20

400

16

300

12

200

100

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.19 Specific flux and TMP, Koch hollow-fiber membrane filtration of Trap Falls and Lake Gaillard SFBW at ~constant flux and increasing pressure

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Transmembrane Pressure (psi)

Permeate Flux (gfd)

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Membranes | 113

60 SPECIFIC FLUX: Lake Gaillard; x-flow 5 fps TMP: Lake Gaillard; x-flow: 5 fps

20

Specific Permeate Flux (gfd/psi)

36

12

24

12

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Specific Permeate Production (gallons/sq-ft)

Figure 4.20 Specific permeate flux and TMP, Koch tubular membrane, Lake Gaillard SFBW, constant flux ~140 gfd/ft2

Conclusions from Bench-Scale Studies Results of the bench-scale studies of three membrane types lead to the following conclusions: Treatment of SFBW at high specific permeate flux rates of 10 to 200 gfd/psi using either hollow fiber or ceramic membranes appears technically feasible. Pilot-scale testing is needed to reach a firm conclusion. Although SFBW has a relatively high solids level, it does not appear necessary to use a large bore tubular membrane such as tested in this study for treatment of SFBW. The inherent lower pore size (resulting in higher TMP for a desired flux) and lower membrane surface area per volume or area of the overall membrane system make this type of membrane less likely to be selected as compared to the other types tested, despite being technically feasible to utilize. Utilization of continuous cross-flow decreased the rate of flux decline for constant pressure filtration of simulated SFBW compared to dead-end filtration yet did not eliminate the need for periodic backflushing to maintain a desired permeate flux; however the specific permeate production prior to backflushing may be relatively high, in the range of 5 to 15 gal/ft2 of membrane. SFBW quality is likely to have a significant impact on membrane performance, so site-specific pilot testing is needed. Type of coagulant(s), organic matter levels, metal (Fe, Al) content, pH, solids concentration, and prior SFBW processing (storage, pumping) may all be important

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Transmembrane Pressure (psi)

48

16

114 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Due to the very high quality of the permeate from membrane treatment of SFBW, selection of membrane treatment of SFBW may be desirable for utilities with pathogen impacted source waters that need or choose to recycle SFBW to the head of the treatment plant.

It is important to again note that the membranes in this study were small modules, often operated at constant TMP, very high specific flux levels (10 to 200 gfd/psi), at high throughput prior to backflush (5 to 20 gal/ft2) as compared to conventional dead-end, recirculation or single pass mode MF/UF treatment of surface waters (maybe 2 to 8 gfd/psi specific flux and only 0.5 to 2 gal/ft2 prior to backflush). Operation at somewhat lower fluxes, yet still high in comparison to typical dead-end or recirculation operation, may provide better and recoverable performance. The preliminary results of this work indicate potential promise for very high flux, low footprint, membrane processes for SFBW treatment prior to recycle. Such treatment might be especially desirable in cases of source waters with significant pathogen risk given the excellent permeate quality of membrane processes. Ultimately, the best choice for SFBW treatment will include considerations of size, cost and the mode of operation of a process. Energy costs in terms of pressure required will become more important in the future. Cleaning costs and membrane replacement costs are two other cost considerations that affect selection of membrane treatment of SFBW. Key aspects of membrane operation that should be considered include the specific flux rate (i.e. the pressure normalized flux rate) and the specific throughput (i.e., the surface area normalized flux rate). Measures of performance should include filtrate quality, TMP and fouling, as well as recovery after backflushing and cleaning procedures to control membrane fouling (reversible and irreversible).

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR SFBW TREATMENT Findings regarding effectiveness of different alternative treatment technologies, except membranes, summarized below are based on the review of data from existing pilot-scale studies and new full-and pilot-scale studies conducted as part of this project. Processes performance objectives included the reduction of the 95th percentile turbidity to <2 ntu, and median or steadystate turbidity to <1 ntu. Treated SFBW particle count was monitored to help demonstrate optimal treatment conditions. For example, on some occasions more test conditions may have met the above turbidity goals, but higher particle counts occasionally indicated that some of the test conditions were not optimal. Other characteristics used to evaluate effectiveness of performance were total and soluble metals (iron, manganese, and aluminum), TOC, DOC, UV-254, color, and percent solids concentration of the residuals stream generated by the SFBW treatment process. Some highlights of these findings are summarized below and in Table 5.1: Equalization (including mixing), improves SFBW treatment effectiveness by eliminating slug solids loadings and generally minimizes the treatment size and cost. Solids can settle in unmixed or poorly mixed equalization basins. Subsequent backwash events stir up these settled solids, creating short-term spikes in particulate concentrations leaving the equalization basins and entering SFBW treatment. SFBW clarification is sensitive to fluctuations in influent particulate content. Therefore, not only is equalization of flow important, but equalization of particulates and other contaminants is also an important consideration. The latter can best be addressed by providing adequate mixing in the equalization basins. Optimal polymer addition and flocculation conditions produce best clarification performance with the high rate processes. With rare exceptions, testing showed that SFBW treatment processes had significantly improved performance with the addition of appropriate polymer. Some treatment processes tested have flocculation or solids contact as integral parts of the process. For example, sand-ballasted coagulation processes employ flocculation in order to provide sufficient contact flocculation with the added microsand prior to clarification. In these processes flocculation is integral to the performance. DAF was the only high-rate process that could be evaluated with and without flocculation during this study, in an effort to see if the process could work without flocculation and hence lower the footprint. When DAF processes were evaluated with and without flocculation, the performance was typically better with flocculation than without, though in some instances project turbidity objectives could be met without flocculation. SFBW treatment processes evaluated were able to meet project performance objectives of: (a) 95th percentile turbidity <2 ntu and (b) median or steady-state turbidity <1 ntu. In many cases, most of the turbidity results could be reduced to <0.5 ntu.

115
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

116 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Median count of particles <2 m under optimal treatment conditions was typically about 1,000 particles/mL, and lower at some facilities. When clarification rate was expressed relative to clarification area alone, the high-rate DAF and high-rate solids contact clarification processes evaluated during this study were able to demonstrate acceptable performance at rates of 15 gpm/ft2 or higher. When expressed relative to total footprint (i.e., including space for flocculation, chemical addition, etc.) the rates for these processes were 0.8 to 1.5 gpm/ft2. By contrast, an existing tube settler used for SFBW clarification evaluated in this study had a design rate of about 1.5 gpm/ft2 for rate expressed relative to clarification area alone, and 0.4 gpm/ft2 when expressed relative to total footprint. During this study, dissolved inorganic and organic contaminant indicators were typically not well removed by the processes tested. However, the portion of these contaminants associated with particulate matter (i.e., sorbed onto or composed of particulate matter) were well removed, presumably because of the demonstrated particulate removal in all these processes. Impact of SFBW clarification on thickening and dewatering requirements can also impact footprint implications of adding these processes to drinking water treatment facilities. Information from this study, including the literature review, revealed that standard and high-rate DAF and two of the three high-rate solids contact clarification processes evaluated can typically produce residuals with 3 or more percent solids concentration. These processes could produce residuals suitable for dewatering without need for further thickening. Other SFBW clarification processes evaluated (e.g., tube or plate settlers, sandballasted coagulation, etc.) typically produce about 0.3 percent solids concentration (often less). These less concentrated residuals would generally require thickening prior to dewatering, thereby increasing the footprint associated with adding these types of SFBW clarification processes. Membranes SFBW treatment at high specific permeate flux rates of 10 to 200 gfd/psi using either hollow fiber or ceramic membranes appears technically feasible. Although SFBW has a relatively high solids level, large bore (i.e., 1 cm) tubular membranes (like those used in these studies) may not be necessary. Due to the significant impact of SFBW quality on membrane performance, sitespecific pilot testing of membranes is recommended.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Table 5.1 Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report Median untreated Clarification Residuals turbidity rate concentration Information Polymer 2 City State Year (ntu) (percent solids) source needed? (gpm/ft ) Standard-rate DAF Durham NC 1999 100 up to 5 3.5 mfr records yes Boulder CO 1999 10 up to 7 3.5 mfr records yes Phoenix AZ 2000 not reported up to 6 4 to 6 mfr records * Cleveland OH 2000 20 up to 6 2 to 3 mfr records yes Boulder CO 2007 10 up to 3 up to 3 this study yes High-rate DAF Orem UT 2007 100 12 4.4 this study yes Cleveland OH 2007 20 16 3 this study yes Cleveland OH 2007 20 15 3.6 this study yes Sand-ballasted coagulation/clarification Modesto CA 2005 20 up to 30 Not reported mfr records Tempe AZ 1997 10 up to 20 Not reported mfr records W. Creek CA 1997 100 up to 20 0.45 mfr records Solids contact + tubes W. Nyack NJ 2005 ~50 ~12 2 to 3 mfr records Oradell NJ 2005 ~50 ~12 2 to 3 mfr records Orem UT 2007 100 12 >5 this study yes Cleveland OH 2007 20 16 3 this study yes Tubes Orem UT 2007 100 0.45 ~0.5 this study Orem UT 2007 100 0.92 ~0.5 this study Tubes + upflow buoyant media Orem UT 2007 100 18 ~0.3 this study yes *Ok without polymer, but more stable with polymer Impact of treatment without flocculation and without polymer not reported

Pilot- or Fullscale? pilot pilot pilot pilot full pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot full full pilot

95 percent <2 ntu no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions | 117

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO UTILITIES


The following observations and information items are provided for utilities wishing to evaluate SFBW treatment, including high-rate treatment options, for their facilities: EQUALIZATION Equalization will reduce the hydraulic impact of recycle return to the main process, plus it will improve performance of any SFBW treatment systems utilized prior to recycle. Furthermore, equalization will minimize the size of any SFBW treatment needed, thereby minimizing the cost of the SFBW treatment facilities. Equalization basins must be designed with sufficient mixing to keep solids from settling out in the equalization basin. The only exception to this is for large plants with many filters such that the instantaneous backwash flow is low relative to the influent flow. Still a small mixed equalization basin will reduce slug particulate loading to a treatment device. PRE-TREATMENT Polymer addition and provision of sufficient flocculation time are often necessary for achievement of desired performance in high rate SFBW treatment systems. In some instances, performance objectives can be met without adding polymer or without providing any flocculation prior to clarification, although even in these cases high rate clarification processes perform better when polymer addition and sufficient flocculation time are provided. Furthermore, even though all SFBW clarification processes evaluated were sensitive to fluctuations, especially spikes in the amount of particulate material in the incoming untreated SFBW, the use of proper polymer at optimal dose, and allowance for sufficient flocculation time, made SFBW treatment processes more robust with respect to these fluctuations. As in other processes involving chemical addition, if polymer is added then it is also important to provide sufficient rapid mix. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Each utility needs to set its treatment objective for the treated water quality whether the water is to be recycled or discharged. For discharge situations the state will dictate the quality requirement. For a recycle situation one approach to SFBW treatment would be to reduce contaminants, including particulate matter, to levels equal to or below levels in raw water at point of recycle return. In this way the recycle cannot increase contaminants entering the plant above that initially present in the raw water. Reducing some contaminants like manganese to levels below raw water levels can require the production of very low turbidity water. AREA REQUIREMENTS Lower-rate clarification processes (e.g., quiescent gravity settling as described in this report) for SFBW treatment need to include sufficient surface area to produce surface loading rates low enough to reliably achieve the treatment objectives. Furthermore, additional area for chemical addition and flocculation could be needed in some instances to properly prepare the SFBW prior to

119
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

120 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

clarification. It may not be possible to obtain enough area at space-limited sites to meet treatment objectives using the lower rate processes. Consequently, high-rate processes with smaller footprint (like those discussed in this report) may need to be evaluated. RETROFITTING If existing SFBW treatment facilities are undersized either under current conditions or under conditions projected after a planned expansion of filtration capacity, it may be possible to retrofit components of high-rate processes to replace existing lower rate processes, thereby providing sufficient treatment capacity to reliably treat more SFBW without requiring more area at space-limited sites. Appendix B includes examples of high-rate processes retrofitted into space occupied by existing lower rate SFBW treatment processes. RESIDUALS HANDLING Some of the SFBW clarification processes evaluated (standard- and high-rate DAF, solids contact clarification with solids recycle) produced residuals with 3 to 5 percent solids concentration, or higher, under conditions tested. These residuals may not need further thickening prior to dewatering. Other low- and high-rate processes evaluated (quiescent gravity settling with or without plates or tubes, sand ballasted coagulation, upflow clarification in a bed of buoyant media) produced residuals that are typically 0.3 percent solids concentration or lower, and rarely exceed 1 percent solids concentration under most conditions. These residuals will probably need some thickening prior to dewatering. Consequently, utilities without existing SFBW treatment who plan to install systems producing the less concentrated residuals will not only have to provide sufficient area for the processes themselves (including equalization, chemical addition, flocculation, and clarification), but may also need to install thickening facilities or expand existing thickening capacity. PILOT TESTING Pilot testing of low- or high-rate clarification processes is strongly encouraged in order for a utility to evaluate site specific conditions on performance of different alternative treatment technologies. Piloting is not only important to evaluate the clarification technology itself, but also to evaluate chemical addition and flocculation conditions preparing the SFBW prior to clarification. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Water Research Foundation subscribing utilities are also encouraged to review the webtool produced for this project in order to find additional information to help in their efforts to evaluate SFBW treatment alternatives. The webtool includes example drawings for different facility sizes using the technologies evaluated in this project, as well as a calculation tool to estimate facility cost and footprint for different sizes of high-rate clarification facilities. The webtool is available at the following link: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/resources.aspx? type=WebTool

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR UTAH VALLEY WPP, OREM, UT


SPENT FILTER BACKWASH TREATMENT EVALUATION Introduction Pilot studies were conducted at the Utah Valley Water Purification Plant (WPP) located in Orem, Utah for Foundation Project 3114 investigating Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash. Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) staff provided logistical and other support to the project team at Environmental Engineering and Technology, Inc. (EE&T) and to the two participating manufacturers during pilot studies at the WPP. Findings from these studies are described in the final Foundation project report. The following preliminary design report (PDR) will summarize: (a) characteristics of existing SFBW treatment facilities at the WPP, (b) findings from the pilot studies by the two manufacturer participants, and (c) cost and footprint estimates for new SFBW treatment facilities at the WPP based on results from the pilot testing. Drawings are included depicting the plan, profile, and other characteristics for the systems on which the cost and footprint estimates are based. The reader should note that the cost and footprint estimates assumed that a new building would be constructed to hold the new processes. Since this report will be part of the Foundation report and will hence be viewed by other utilities, it was determined that it would be better to show these estimates for completely new facilities rather than incorporating more site specific conditions necessary for a retrofit option. For the WPP, although there is room to locate the new facilities as indicated, another alternative would have been to retrofit the new facilities into the south end of the SFBW Reclamation Building, the side housing the train with the traveling bridge sludge collectors that is not currently routinely used. However, it was not possible within the scope of this project to include estimates for both retrofit and non-retrofit options. Consequently, in order to make the results less site specific and potentially of more value to other utilities reading this report, only the non-retrofit options were developed and included in this PDR. The reader should also note that each manufacturer was only able to conduct testing during one time period. In May 2007 Leopold tested one process, and in July and August 2007 Siemens successfully tested two SFBW treatment processes. Since untreated SFBW characteristics were different in the two time periods, the reader should exercise caution in comparing results from one manufacturer to another since they were not compared side-by-side, although it is appropriate to compare the two processes from Siemens to one another since they were treating the same SFBW. Furthermore, results are presented in the Foundation report in a separate PDR for studies conducted in Cleveland, OH. Readers should also exercise caution in comparing results from manufacturers tested at this location versus studies in Orem. It would of course be more desirable to conduct testing with one or more processes in multiple time periods in order to evaluate seasonal impacts. However, since both CUWCD and the two manufacturers donated considerable staff time and equipment just to complete the studies that were conducted, it was not possible to expect either CUWCD or the manufacturers to denote additional time to get these multi-seasonal results.

121
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

122 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Summary of Findings Performance of the pilot tested processes are summarized in Table A.1. Table A.2 summarizes cost and footprint estimates derived from these findings. These results demonstrate that 2,000 ft2 of space is necessary for a ClariDAF system comprised of two 2,000 gpm treatment trains designed at 14 gpm/ft2 nominal (i.e., manufacturer) clarification rate and 16 minutes flocculation time, including all space required for flocculation, clarification, chemical feed, air saturation, and other assorted appurtenances. This is about 2.5 times smaller than the area needed for existing treatment (5,000 ft2). The estimated size of the new building to house these facilities is about 3,500 ft2 compared with the current 7,650 ft2 building, or less than half the size of the existing building. Therefore, though nominally a 14 gpm/ft2 system when you consider only clarification area, when you consider the entire footprint impact, the rate expressed relative to the required area for treatment (assuming one train out of service) is 2,000 gpm for a 2,000 ft2 area, or 1.00 gpm/ft2, versus 0.40 gpm/ft2 for the existing SFBW treatment system (2,000 gpm for 5,000 ft2 treatment area, including area for one train out of service). Relative to the entire 3,500 ft2 building the rate for ClariDAF is 0.57 gpm/ft2, versus 0.26 gpm/ft2 for the existing 7,650 ft2 treatment building. Furthermore, if the Utah Valley WPP evaluates addition of thickening and dewatering facilities in the future (along with a separate evaluation of whether to add DAF to main processes prior to filtration), the solids from the ClariDAF are expected to be high enough (3 to 4 percent solids) that solids from this SFBW treatment process can go directly to dewatering without requiring additional thickening capacity. By contrast, residuals from existing SFBW treatment would probably require thickening prior to being sent to dewatering processes. Similar evaluations for the CONTRAFAST process indicates that the required footprint for two 2,000 gpm treatment trains is 1,800 ft2, or 1.11 gpm/ft2 for the nominal 8.5 gpm/ft2 facility when expressed relative to total footprint impact for treatment instead of only clarification area. The Trident HSC assumptions included three 1,050 gpm facilities in order to provide the same redundancy assumption (one train out of service), requiring about 2,600 ft2 for a nominal 15 gpm/ft2 for the entire process (tubes plus AC), or a 0.81 gpm/ft2 clarification rate expressed relative to total footprint (with one train out of service). The size of the entire building for either CONTRAFAST or Trident HSC is estimated to be the same as for ClariDAF; hence, the rate expressed relative to total footprint of building is also about the same (~0.57 gpm/ft2). In the case of Trident HSC, the costs were developed using standard designs which typically include an area allowance for filtration following the AC portion of the process. For this application it may be possible to eliminate this area, and consequently further reduce the total footprint. For example, it is possible that eliminating the filtration area from the standard Trident HSC design, in this insistence, could reduce footprint to about 1,850 ft2 (i.e., a reduction of about 750 ft2), increasing the rate relative to total footprint to about 1.1 gpm/ft2. The CONTRAFAST should produce residuals with percent solids comparable to the ClariDAF, and consequently should not require thickening prior to dewatering processes. However, the Trident HSC, unlike the other high-rate processes tested, will produce residuals less than 1 percent solids, and consequently may require additional thickening if dewatering (other than existing on-site drying beds) is added at the Utah Valley WPP.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 123

Table A.1 Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report


Median untreated turbidity (ntu) Nominal clarification rate (gpm/ft2) Residuals concentration (percent solids) May 2007 Existing tubes ClariDAF 100 100 0.45 14 ~0.5 4.4 July and August 2007 Existing tubes CONTRAFAST 100 100 0.92 12 ~0.5 >5 ~0.3 ~0.3 This study This study This study This study
*

City

Information source

Polymer Pilot- or 95 percent needed? Full-scale? <2 ntu

This study This study

Full Pilot

Yes Yes

Yes

Full Pilot Pilot Pilot

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Trident HSC 100 3 (tubes only) Trident HSC 100 18 (tubes + AC) * Impact of treatment without flocculation not reported

Table A.2 Estimated cost and footprint for high-rate SFBW treatment at Utah Valley WPP
CONTRAFAST Tubes (existing) 2 2,000 1.5 15 n/a n/a n/a 5,000 7,650 yes 1.5 0.40 0.26 Trident HSC 3 1,050 15

Description Design conditions Number of treatment trains 2 2 Capacity per treatment train (gpm) 2,000 2,000 Nominal clarification rate (gpm/ft2) 14 8.5 Flocculation time (min) 16 8.4** Cost* Capital ($ million) 9.3 7.6 O&M ($ thousand/yr) 180 110 Net Present Worth ($ million) 11.4 8.9 Footprint (ft2) Treatment only 2,000 1,800 Building 3,500 3,500 no no Additional thickening required prior to dewatering Clarification rate (gpm/ft2) Nominal (i.e., manufacturer) 14 8.5 Relative to treatment footprint 1.00 1.11 Relative to building footprint 0.57 0.57 *December 2007 dollars, includes cost of new building and associated appurtenances 20 years, 6 percent interest Assume thickened solids prior to dewatering have to be greater than 1 percent solids One train out of service ** Solids contact time (i.e., detention time in reactor tank) Not applicable

ClariDAF

10.6 200 13.0 2,600 3,500 yes 15 0.81 0.57

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

124 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

EXISTING FACILITIES CUWCDs Utah Valley WPP located in Orem, Utah utilizes an initial mix with alum and polymer followed by flocculation and granular media filtration. It has a capacity of 80 mgd, including 12 mono-media filters (60 inches of anthracite) with a rated capacity of 7 gpm/ft2. SFBW is treated prior to recycle to rapid mix. Filter-to-waste (FTW) is segregated from SFBW in a separate 152,000 gallon equalization basin and recycled to rapid mix without treatment. Figures A.1 and A.2 are the site plan and the schematic for the Utah Valley WPP, respectively.

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007 Figure A.1 Utah Valley WPP site plan

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 125

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007 Figure A.2 Utah Valley WPP process schematic

126 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

The existing SFBW treatment facilities include a 325,000-gallon equalization basin (separate from the 152,000-FTW equalization basin) designed to handle two consecutive backwashes. Polymer is added to equalized SFBW prior to an in-line static mixer, and then flow is diverted to one or both of two parallel trains with two-stage flocculation and a sedimentation basin with tube settlers in each train. One train employs chain and flight collectors for residuals and is operated most of the time. The other train has a traveling bridge sludge collection system that has not been functioning properly and was not being used at the time of the studies for this project. Each side of the existing facility has a capacity to process about 2,000 gpm (1.48 gpm/ft2, or ~3 mgd) of SFBW. Untreated SFBW turbidity frequently exceeds several hundred ntu while treated SFBW is typically <2 ntu when polymer is used. The treated effluent is recycled to rapid mix at the head of the plant while solids gravity flow to drying beds. Figure A.3 is a schematic of the existing SFBW handling processes. Figure A.4 shows a plan view of the SFBW treatment building labeled the WWW Reclamation Building by the Utah Valley WPP. For future design considerations, a 2,000 gpm SFBW treatment system was chosen to replace current capacity. The sizing and costing including two, 2,000 gpm units as is the existing case.

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007 Figure A.3 Utah Valley WPP SFBW treatment facilities schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 127

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by CUWCD, September 2007 Figure A.4 Utah Valley WPP SFBW treatment facilities (WWW reclamation building)

128 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

HIGH RATE SFBW TREATMENT SYSTEMS PILOTED AT UTAH VALLEY WPP Figure A.5 illustrates the variation in the number of backwash events each month from October 2005 until September 2006. The pilot studies for this project were planned to coincide with periods when the amount of available SFBW was expected to be greatest between May 1 and September 1, 2007 when the amount of available SFBW was predicted to be highest. Leopold tested their ClariDAF unit in May 2007. Siemens tested their CONTRAFAST high-rate clarifier, their Trident HSC adsorption clarifier, and their immersed hollow fiber membrane in July and August 2007. The first three processes listed above were successfully tested but the fourth, submersible membranes, was not successful due to fouling of the membranes attributed to residual polymer in the untreated SFBW. Different membrane materials may be able to treat this SFBW without fouling, but other materials could not be obtained by the manufacturer in time for this study. Detailed results of the pilot studies are available in Chapter 3. Portions of the findings are presented below, as well as cost and footprint estimates for construction of new systems at the Utah Valley WPP as an alternative to the existing SFBW treatment system. Each of the existing SFBW treatment system clarifiers have a surface area of 1,350 ft2 and a capacity of 2,000 gpm (2.88 mgd), resulting in a maximum clarification rate of 1.48 gpm/ft2. The following costs and footprint estimates are based on including a new building. One reason for this assumption was that since the report was to be included in a report to be viewed by other utilities, it might be better to show as an example the cost for a new system rather than a site specific retrofit. However, other utilities looking to add similar high-rate processes may be able to further reduce cost and footprint impacts by retrofitting these new processes into existing buildings. In fact, at the Utah Valley WPP a logical place to install new SFBW treatment facilities would be to demolish the currently unused portion of the SFBW reclamation facility (the side with traveling bridge sludge collection), and locate the replacement SFBW treatment facilities in this part of the existing building. However, for purposes of this report it was felt desirable to impose as few site specific limitations as possible, like would be needed to evaluate retrofit option, since it was hoped that other utilities reading this report could evaluate costs for a generic, complete facility, without a great deal of site specific implications associated with the developed costs and footprint. In order to show an example of the impact of site specific limitations, the costs and footprint estimates developed for the Ohio portion of this study do include an evaluation of retrofitting high-rate processes into existing plant facilities.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 129

300 Number of Filter Backwash Events per Month

250

200

150

100

50

0 Nov-05 May-06 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Jun-06 Oct-05 Apr-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Jul-06

Figure A.5 Number of filter backwash events per month at the Utah Valley WPP (October 2005 through September 2006)

Option A: ClariDAF ClariDAF is a high rate dissolved air flotation system designed by Leopold. ClariDAF system components and schematic are depicted Figures A.6 through A.8, including a photo of the pilot trailer set-up at the Utah Valley WPP during May 2007 (Figure A.7).

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure A.6 ClariDAF schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

130 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Figure A.7 ClariDAF pilot trailer at Utah Valley WPP in May 2007

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure A.8 ClariDAF pilot schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 131

ClariDAF is a high-rate DAF process which can operate at loading rates of 8 to 15 gpm/ft . Clarification rates for this system are based on flow per square foot area occupied by the effluent laterals located at the bottom of the DAF cell. The ClariDAF system utilizes a rapid mix zone where polymer may be added followed by one or more flocculation basins and a DAF Cell. An internal angled baffle wall create a recirculation effect throughout the DAF Cell which increases bubble density and efficient flotation for removal of the float. The clarified water exits the system through the laterals and into an effluent channel while the sludge blanket is mechanically skimmed into a collection channel. Pilot testing results depicted in Figures A.9 to A.10 demonstrated that acceptable performance was achieved at rates up to 14 gpm/ft2. Based on these results, a design loading rate of 14 pm/ft2 with a 16-min flocculation time was chosen for a 2,000 gpm matching the existing system the at Utah Valley WPP. Pilot testing demonstrated the need for a polymer to meet treated water goals of <2 ntu.
2

g
1,000

y
TREATED

UNTREATED

100 TURBIDITY (ntu)

10

0 4 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 OVERFLOW RATE (gpm/sf)

Figure A.9 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF loading rates for SFBW

UNTREATED

TREATED

1000

TURBIDITY (ntu)

100

10

0.1 No Poly LT22s LT25 POLYMER TYPE LT22

Figure A.10 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF polymer impact on SFBW

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

132 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Option A would consist of two 2,000-gpm ClariDAF systems to match current SFBW treatment capabilities. The new system (two units) would have a total footprint of approximately 32 ft by 63 ft or 2,000 ft2 which is 2.5 times smaller than the existing 5,000 ft2 system. Cost calculations are listed in Table A.3 below. Costs include construction of a new 3,500 ft2 (50 ft by 70 ft) concrete building, ClariDAF basin walls, ClariDAF equipment, instrumentation, controls, pumps, and a polymer feed system. Figure A.11 illustrates the potential footprint of a new building north of the main process flocculation basins and east of the existing SFBW (WWW) Reclamation Building. Figures A.12 and A.13 depict the plan view and the profile view of the ClariDAF system.

Item

Table A.3 New ClariDAF SFBW treatment system cost analysis Capital cost O&M cost 20-yr present worth ($) ($/yr) ($) 9,300,000 180,000 11,400,000

New ClariDAF treatment facility

Figure A.11 Utah Valley WPP SFBW ClariDAF facilities site plan

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

E
12" 3'-0" 12"

12"

12" 12"12"

C
DISPERSION SYSTEM EFFLUENT LATERALS (SCH 40 PVC)

12" 24" 12" 24" 12"

4'-0"

12"

SLUDGE CHANNEL

(M)

AIR SATURATOR (ONE STANDBY)

EFFLUENT WEIR INLET WEIR GATE (TYP.)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

RAPID MIXING CHAMBER

RAPID MIXER

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 133

EFFLUENT CHANNEL RAPID MIX SLIDE GATE

A
FIRST STAGE FLOCCULATOR (TYP.) SECOND STAGE FLOCCULATOR (TYP.)

A
SKIMMER ASSEMBLY

Design Data:
NUMBER OF TRAINS: NUMBER OF BASINS/TRAIN: TOTAL PLANT FLOW: DESIGN FLOW/BASIN (WITHOUT RECYCLE): SURFACE LOADING (WITHOUT RECYCLE): TOTAL DESIGN RECYCLE FLOW (8% OF DESIGN FLOW): TOTAL FLOCCULATION RETENTION TIME: ALL FIELD WIRING, CONDUIT, AND PROCESS SUPPLY PIPING NOT BY LEOPOLD Co.

INFLUENT CHANNEL 1 2 2.88 1.44 14 160 RECYCLE FLOWMETER MGD MGD/BASIN 2 GPM/FT GPM ( K ) AIR COMPRESSOR (ONE STANDBY) LEOPOLD PIPING STARTS AT DISPERSION VALVE AND CONTINUES TO THE DISPERSION HEADERS MATING FLANGE, HARDWARE, AND SUPPORTS NOT BY LEOPOLD Co.

N RECYCLE PIPING
( L) RECYCLE PUMPS (ONE STANDBY)

16 MIN

Plan View
REVISION
THIS DRAWING IS SENT TO YOU SUBJECT TO RETURN UPON DEMAND, AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR USED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN ANY WAY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR INTERESTS. ALL PATENT RIGHTS RESERVED.

A
12'-0"

B
11'-8"

C
15'-6"

PROCESS TANK D E F
27'-0" 59'-10" 2'-0"

DIMENSIONS & DATA G


12'-0"

2007 F. B. Leopold Company

H
14'-0"

J
3'-3" SQ.

EQUIPMENT K L M
2 2 2

N
3"

O
4"

PIPING P Q
2" 10"

R
3"

S
5

1 2 3 4 5
DRAWN BY

Clari-DAF System Arrangement


TM

Leopold
ITT Corporation Advanced Water Treatment F. B. Leopold Company 227 South Division Street Zelienople, PA 16063-1313

Orem, UT
CHECKED BY DATE

07-3592
SCALE DRAWING NUMBER

REVISION

BC

8/3/07

NONE

P3592.97.1

00

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure A.12 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy)

134 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

AIR SATUATOR SATURATOR INFLUENT MANUAL BUTTERFLY VALVE MANUAL INFLUENT SLIDE GATE

O SATURATOR EFFLUENT
BUTTERFLY VALVE with ELECTRIC ACTUATOR

SKIMMER DRIVE ASSEMBLY MANUAL RAPID MIX SLIDE GATE

P DISPERSION HEADER

BUTTERFLY VALVE with ELECTRIC ACTUATOR SKIMMER ASSEMBLY

SLUDGE CHANNEL EFFLUENT WEIR EFFLUENT CHANNEL

ELEV.:

H
ELEV.:

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DAF CELL ELEV.:

ELEV.: 0'-0"

FIRST STAGE FLOCCULATOR

SECOND STAGE FLOCCULATOR

RAPID MIX CHAMBER INFLUENT CHANNEL

DISPERSION LATERALS with ORIFICED NOZZLES

(S) Q" EFFLUENT LATERALS


(SCH 40 PVC)

SLUDGE PIPING (NOT BY LEOPOLD CO.)

Section A-A

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure A.13 Utah Valley WPP ClariDAF SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy)

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 135

Option B: CONTRAFAST The CONTRAFAST is a high-rate solids contact process manufactured by Siemens Water Technologies. This process involves internal and external recirculation of solids originating in the untreated water. Untreated water and treatment chemicals first enter a mixed solids contact module, followed by a gravity clarification module using tubes. Clarified water passes through the tubes and a portion of the solids collected in the clarification module are recirculated to the solids contact module. Clarification rates cited by the manufacturer typically are expressed relative to the surface area of clarification, but do not take into account total footprint. This report discusses findings relative to the clarification area, and also relative to total footprint. Solids produced from these processes are typically on the order of 3 to 5 percent, or perhaps higher. As with DAF, these solids may not need thickening prior to dewatering, which is of course desirable and will reduce the net impact on plant footprint due to adding one of these processes for SFBW treatment. Figure A.14 depicts the pilot unit evaluated in July and August 2007 including mixing in the center solids contact zone and then clarification via tube settlers in the clarification zone. Figure A.15 is a photo of the pilot testing equipment installed at the Utah Valley WPP during July and August 2007 (CONTRAFAST is the tall module to left of Trident HSC trailer). Pilot testing results in Table A.4 and Figures A.16 and A.17 show that acceptable performance was achieved at rates up to 12 gpm/ft2. The process may have been capable of achieving acceptable performance at higher rates, but this was the upper hydraulic limit for the pilot unit tested. Based on these results, a CONTRAFAST design loading rate of 8.5 gpm/ft2 for the 2,000 gpm systems at Utah Valley WPP was used. Testing also demonstrated the need for polymer to meet treated water goals of <2 ntu.

Polymer Mixer Scraper Drive Raw Water

Effluent Recycle Flow (10%) Baffle

Rotating Center Column

Turbine Mixer

Rotating Reactor

Up flow

Tube Settler

Recirculation Pump

Sludge Blowdown

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure A.14 CONTRAFAST schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

136 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Figure A.15 Siemens pilot equipment used at Utah Valley WPP in July and August 2007

Table A.4 Summary of Utah studies with CONTRAFAST in July and August 2007
Treated Polymer turbidity Duration Rate Recycle dose 2 ntu (hours) (gpm/ft2) (percent) (mg/L) Raw Start End Treated (percent) Impact of polymer dose (Cytec 1883) 08/30 08/30 2.25 8.0 7.3 none 0.0 4.96 37.5 08/30 08/30 1.50 8.0 7.3 1.5 3.5 0.36 100.0 08/30 08/30 1.25 8.0 7.3 3.0 4.9 0.43 100.0 2 Impact of rate (gpm/ft ) 07/18 07/21 39.00 4.0 9.0 0.9 90.7 0.71 95.3 07/23 07/26 47.25 5.0 7.0 1.0 98.2 0.78 95.5 07/26 08/03* 57.75 6.0 6.0 2.0 60.9 0.84 96.4 08/06 08/07* 12.50 6.4 9.0 3.0 43.4 0.68 100.0 7.00 08/06 08/14* 7.0 8.5 3.0 107.8 0.81 100.0 08/07 08/16* 36.50 8.0 7.3 3.3 44.4 0.90 98.0 08/14 08/16* 18.25 9.0 6.5 3.5 41.8 1.03 99.0 28.00 08/17 08/28* 10.0 7.5 3.5 14.5 0.89 95.1 08/29 08/30* 17.25 12.0 6.2 3.0 8.6 0.73 100.0 08/30 08/30 1.50 14.0 5.4 4.0 3.7 2.78 35.8 Date Turbidity (ntu) Particles >2 m (particles/mL) 95th Median Percentile Max 4,778 2,196 2,774 377 638 984 1,311 1,797 1,732 2,173 2,067 2,974 5,117 8,419 2,705 2,810 932 1,324 3,497 1,713 3,252 2,584 3,448 6,859 4,926 8,137 8,637 2,759 2,818 5,389 10,979 16,188 1,762 3,419 2,948 3,723 9,487 5,490 8,659 Mean 4,837 2,166 2,715 444 746 1,338 1,255 1,917 1,727 1,922 3,149 3,176 5,261

*Not continuous between these two dates

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 137

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 4 gpm/sf 5 gpm/sf 6 gpm/sf 6.4 gpm/sf 7 gpm/sf 8 gpm/sf 9 gpm/sf 10 gpm/sf 12 gpm/sf 14 gpm/sf

Treated Turbdity (ntu) Figure A.16 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST loading rates for SFBW
6

Median Treated Turbidity (ntu)

0 none 1.5 Polymer Dose (mg/L) 3.0

Figure A.17 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST polymer impact on SFBW

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

138 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Option B would consist of two 2,000-gpm CONTRAFAST systems to match current SFBW treatment capabilities. The new system would have a total footprint of approximately 55 ft by 33 ft or 1,800 ft2, which is one third the size of the existing 5,000-ft2 system. Cost calculations are listed in Table A.5. Costs include construction of a new 3,500-ft2 (50 ft by 70 ft) concrete building, CONTRAFAST equipment, instrumentation, controls, pumps, and a polymer feed system. Figure A.18 illustrates the potential footprint of a new building north of the main process flocculation basins and east of the existing SFBW (WWW) Reclamation Building. Figures A.19 and A.20 depict the plan view and the profile view of the CONTRAFAST system.

Item

Table A.5 New CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system cost analysis Capital cost O&M cost 20-yr present worth ($) ($/yr) ($) $7,600,000 $114,000 $8,900,000

New CONTRAFAST treatment facility

Figure A.18 Utah Valley WPP SFBW CONTRAFAST facilities site plan

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 139

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure A.19 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy)

140 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure A.20 Utah Valley WPP CONTRAFAST SFBW treatment system (two units at 2,000 gpm for redundancy)

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 141

Option C: Trident HSC Trident HSC depicted in Figures A.21 and A.22 is a high-rate clarifier system designed by Siemens Water Technologies. This system does not have the filtration or the UV disinfection of the Trident HSC system. The Trident HSC trailer used at the Utah Valley WPP during July and August 2007 was depicted previously in Figure A.15 (see trailer on right of photo). The Trident HSC is a solids contact clarifier employing buoyant media capable of operating at loading rates of 8 to 18 gpm/ft2, as piloted in this project. The Trident HSC system includes chemical addition followed by removal of particulate material in two clarification stages. The first stage includes a tube settler section followed by passage of the partially clarified water upward through a bed of buoyant plastic media that the manufacturer describes as an adsorption clarifier (AC). Of the solids collected from tube settler section, 5 to 10 percent are recirculated to the front of the process, thereby promoting additional solids contact prior to clarification in the tube settler portion of the process. The subsequent AC portion of the process provides additional mixing, contact flocculation, and solids removal. In other applications, the clarified water from AC will pass through filtration and UV disinfection stages (see Figure A.21). In all applications, the combined residuals solids from the tube and AC clarification sections produces less than 1 percent solids, typically on the order of 0.5 percent. The Trident HSC provided effective particulate removal during pilot testing, typically producing treated SFBW with <1 ntu, but only when polymer was used (as with other processes evaluated at the Utah Valley WPP during this study).

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure A.21 Trident HSC schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

142 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Chemical Dosing

Tube Section Loading Rate 3-7 18 - 42 gpm/sqft gpm

Adsorption Clarifier Loading 9 - 21 Rate 18 - 42 gpm/sqft gpm

Polymer

Influent Flow 18 - 42 gpm

Polymer Sludge Recirculation 5 to 10 % Sludge Blowdown 1 to 3% Flush Rates SAMPLE POINT To Waste Notes: 1. Flow rates & Loading rates shown above are typical operating conditions for the treatment process; site operating conditions may differ 2. Coagulant/pH adj./oxidant typically ahead of static mixer 3. Polymer typically fed after static mixer 4. Waste flows can be combined or separated. 5. Valving not shown for clarity. 6. Sludge recirculation and blowdown variable based on raw water conditions. 7. See Appendix A for detailed P&ID 10 gpm/sqft 20 gpm

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure A.22 Trident HSC process schematic

Pilot testing results in Table A.6 and Figures A.23 and A.24 show that acceptable performance was achieved at rates up to 18 gpm/ft2. Based on these results, a Trident HSC design loading rate of 15 gpm/ft2 at the adsorption clarifier and 5 gpm/ft2 at the tube clarifier was used for Utah Valley WPP (the tube section has a clarification area three times higher than AC section, so at a given flow rate in the process the clarification rate in AC section is consequently three times higher). The process did not function properly when tested without polymer.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Date Start 07/19 07/23 07/30 08/08 08/13 08/15 08/15 08/15 07/30 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 07/27 07/23 End 07/21 07/26 08/15 08/13 08/14 08/15 08/15 08/15 08/15 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 08/06 07/27 07/26

Table A.6 Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC pilot data for SFBW Median Ferric Rate Turbidity Particles >2m Test sulfate Polymer AC duration dose Polymer dose Tube AC Raw Tube AC Tube (hours) (mg/L) type (mg/L) (gpm/ft2) (ntu) (particles/mL) Impact of rate 23.0 Cytec A100 0.10 3.0 9.0 100.3 0.26 0.22 1,467 1,507 50.0 Cytec A100 0.12 4.0 12.0 80.6 0.59 0.26 2,432 1,626 73.0 Cytec A110 0.35 5.0 15.0 93.9 0.71 0.35 2,078 1,752 22.3 Cytec A110 0.35 6.0 17.9 112.9 0.99 0.48 3,505 1,306 5.3 Cytec A110 0.35 6.9 20.7 63.5 5.22 3.20 5,232 4,082 Impact of Cytec A110 polymer dose 2.5 Cytec A110 0.00 5.0 15.1 57.3 7.10 1.73 7,696 No data 1.3 Cytec A110 0.09 4.9 14.8 81.6 0.69 0.68 1,333 No data 5.0 Cytec A110 0.18 5.0 15.0 72.2 0.34 0.32 774 No data 73.0 Cytec A110 0.35 5.0 15.0 93.9 0.71 0.35 2,078 1,752 4.0 Cytec A110 0.60 5.0 15.1 31.8 0.93 0.41 1,009 1,529 Impact of ferric sulfate dose (plus polymer) 4.0 0 Cytec A110 0.60 5.0 15.1 31.8 0.93 0.41 1,009 1,529 2.8 5 Cytec A110 0.60 5.0 15.1 40.7 2.00 0.63 640 1,434 4.8 10 Cytec A110 0.60 5.0 14.9 86.7 1.74 0.81 1,192 3,325 1.0 20 Cytec A110 0.48 4.9 14.8 207.4 2.54 0.43 5,103 2,888 Impact of polymer type 5.8 Cytec 1986 0.66 3.9 11.8 27.0 0.73 0.29 2,611 1,988 50.0 Cytec A100 0.12 4.0 12.0 80.6 0.59 0.26 2,432 1,626

Percent of results <2 ntu Tube AC (percent) 99.1 92.0 86.3 90.0 12.5 18.1 100.0 89.3 86.3 95.5 95.5 50.0 63.3 43.3 89.5 92.0 100.0 96.2 95.2 96.9 41.2 52.4 100.0 76.6 95.2 93.3 93.3 82.3 90.3 88.0 100.0 96.2

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 143

144 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

99 98

Observations Less Than Value (%)

95 90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.01

9 gpm/sf 12 gpm/sf 15 gpm/sf 18 gpm/sf 21 gpm/sf

0.1

10

100

Turbidity (ntu)

Figure A.23 Impact of Trident HSC clarification rate on SFBW treated turbidity

tube 10

AC

Median Turbidity (ntu)

0.1 0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

PolyEZ 675 dose (mg/L)

Figure A.24 Impact of polymer dose on Trident HSC treated turbidity

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 145

Option C would consist of three 1,050-gpm Trident HSC systems comparable to current SFBW treatment capabilities. The new system would have a total footprint of approximately 43 ft by 60 ft or 2,600 ft2 which is about half the size of the existing 5,000-ft2 system. Cost calculations listed in Table A.7. Costs include construction of a new 3,500-ft2 (50 ft by 70 ft) concrete building, Trident HSC equipment, instrumentation, controls, and pumps. Figure A.25 illustrates the potential footprint of a new building north of the main process flocculation basins and east of the existing SFBW (WWW) Reclamation Building. Figures A.26 and A.27 depict the plan view, profile view, and the piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) for the Trident HSC system. A significant footprint savings could be achieved by eliminating the Buffer Tank basin on the end of the Trident HSC system. This basin is commonly used for chemical addition or premembrane supply retention neither of which is needed at the Utah Valley WPP.

Table A.7 New Trident HSC SFBW treatment system cost analysis Capital Cost ($) 10,600,000 O&M Cost ($/yr) 204,000 20-yr Present Worth ($) 13,000,000

Item New Trident HSC treatment facility

Figure A.25 Utah Valley WPP SFBW Trident HSC facilities site plan

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

146 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure A.26 Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC 2,100 gpm system

Appendix A: Preliminary Design Report for Utah Valley WPP, Orem, UT | 147

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Siemens Water Technologies, September 2007 Figure A.27 Utah Valley WPP Trident HSC 2,100 gpm system P&ID

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR MORGAN WTP, CLEVELAND, OH


SPENT FILTER BACKWASH EQUALIZATION AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENT Introduction Pilot studies were conducted at the Garrett A. Morgan Water Treatment Plant (WTP) located in Cleveland, Ohio for Foundation Project 3114 investigating Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash. City of Cleveland Division of Water (CWD) staff provided logistical and other support to the project team at Environmental Engineering and Technology, Inc. (EE&T) and to two participating manufacturers during pilot studies at the WTP. Findings from these studies are described in the final Foundation project report. The following preliminary design report (PDR) will summarize: (a) characteristics of existing SFBW treatment facilities at the WTP, (b) findings from the pilot studies by the two manufacturer participants, and (c) cost and footprint estimates for new SFBW treatment facilities at the WTP based on results from the pilot testing. Drawings are included depicting the plan, profile, and other characteristics for the systems on which the cost and footprint estimates are based. The reader should note that the cost and footprint estimates were based on retrofitting these facilities into the existing SFBW building. This PDR is part of the Foundation report and may be viewed by other utilities. Consequently, these other utilities need to realize that these estimates are impacted by site-specific conditions relative to the retrofit that may not apply to the other utilitys facilities. However, the Foundation report does include a similar PDR for the Utah study site that is more generic and does not involve a retrofit, for utilities to compare alternatives without site-specific limitations. The reader should also note that each manufacturer was only able to conduct testing during one time period. In May 2007 Infilco-Degremont (IDI) evaluated two processes, and Leopold tested one process in September 2007. Since untreated SFBW characteristics were different in the two time periods, the reader should exercise caution in comparing results from one manufacturer to another since they were not compared side-by-side, although it is appropriate to compare the two processes from IDI to one another since they were treating the same SFBW. Furthermore, results are presented in the Foundation report in a separate PDR for studies conducted in Orem, UT. Readers should also exercise caution in comparing results from manufacturers tested at this location versus studies in Cleveland. It would of course be more desirable to conduct testing with one or more processes in multiple time periods in order to evaluate seasonal impacts. However, since both CWD and the two manufacturers donated considerable staff time and equipment just to complete the studiers that were conducted, it was not possible to expect either CWD or the manufacturers to devote additional time to obtain these multi-seasonal results. Summary of Findings Performance of the pilot-tested processes are summarized in Table B.1. Table B.2 summarizes cost and footprint estimates derived from these findings.

149
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

150 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Process Standardrate DAF AquaDAF DensaDeg ClariDAF

Table B.1 Summary of SFBW treatment results discussed in this report Residuals PilotMedian or 95 untreated Clarification concentration (percent Information Polymer Full- percent turbidity rate solids) source needed? scale? <2 ntu (ntu) (gpm/ft2) March 2000 20 20 20 20 up to 6 16 16 15 2 to 3 mfr records May 2007 3 this study 3 this study September 2007 3.6 this study yes yes yes yes pilot pilot pilot pilot yes yes yes yes

Table B.2 Estimated cost and footprint for high-rate SFBW treatment at Morgan WTP Description Design conditions Number of treatment trains Capacity per treatment train (gpm) Nominal clarification rate (gpm/ft2) Flocculation time (min) Cost* Capital ($ million) O&M ($ thousand/yr) Net present worth ($ million) 8.9 196 11.2 8.7 187 10.9 11.0 225 13.6 2 5,200 14 16 2 5,200 14 15 2 5,100 10 8** ClariDAF AquaDAF DensaDeg

Footprint (ft2) Clarification (including all appurtenances) 4,900 3,600 3,300 no no no Additional thickening prior to dewatering 2 Clarification rate (gpm/ft ) Nominal (i.e., manufacturer) 14 14 10 Relative to footprint 1.06 1.44 1.55 * December 2007 dollars, includes cost of new building and associated appurtenances 20 years, 6 percent interest Assume thickened solids prior to dewatering have to be greater than 1 percent solids One train out of service **Solids contact time (i.e., detention time in reactor tank)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 151

The existing full-scale SFBW treatment facility at the Morgan WTP is rated at a capacity of 3,375 gpm, including 7,000 ft2 of clarification area capable of reliably operating at rates up to 0.6 gpm/ft2. However, since the WTP filtration capacity is 150 mgd due to high-rate certification of filters at 4.4 gpm/ft2, to provide treatment capacity for up to 5 percent recycle, the capacity of the new SFBW treatment system will need to be 7 mgd, or about 5,200 gpm. For redundancy, enough treatment should be provided so that new proposed SFBW treatment systems will be able to handle 5,200 gpm of SFBW even with one SFBW treatment train out of service. The costs and footprint for treatment listed in Table B.2 are based on the 5-percent recycle assumption, and also include sufficient capacity under these assumptions with one unit out of service (i.e., 100 percent redundancy). The costs for the 10-percent recycle assumptions are not presented, but although there would be some economies of scale possible with the larger treatment facilities needed, it is expected that the cost for the 10-percent assumption would be about 1.5 times the amounts listed in Table B.2 (i.e., one more train, allowing two units in service to handle all required volume with one unit out of service). In addition to treatment costs, more equalization will be needed as well. The following PDR describes derivation of additional equalization volume needed. The end result is that for the 5-percent recycle assumption (if 10-percent recycle rate was used instead, the required size of SFBW treatment would increase but required equalization volume would decrease) the total equalization volume needed is 0.91 MG, or about 0.21 MG more than the existing volume. This additional volume can be achieved with an additional 44-ft diameter basin at a capital cost of about $2.45 million, $43,000/yr in O&M, or a net present value of about $3 million (20-year lifecycle, at 6 percent interest). Total costs and footprint for the 5-percent recycle scenario would include requirements for both high-rate treatment and equalization. However, the residuals produced from these three high-rate processes are expected to be greater than 3 percent solids, and consequently should not require additional thickening prior to dewatering. Although costs for SFBW treatment using conventional gravity settling, including plates or tubes, are not included in Table B.2, since these processes do produce residuals with about 0.3 percent solids, these processes would require additional thickening to achieve 1 percent solids or greater prior to dewatering. Consequently, since the high-rate SFBW treatment options produce so much higher percent solids in the residuals stream, installation of these processes would also avoid the thickening costs required for other processes if residuals are to be sent for dewatering. Other high-rate processes, for example sand ballasted coagulation or upflow buoyant media clarification, may not produce percent solids as high as the three processes evaluated at Morgan, and consequently costs for thickening should be included when comparing these processes to the above processes. These results demonstrate that a ClariDAF system with two 5,200 gpm treatment trains designed at 14 gpm/ft2 nominal (i.e., manufacturer) clarification rate and requiring a minimum of 16 minutes flocculation would require an area of 4,900 ft2 within the western portion of the residuals handling building currently housing the SFBW clarifiers. The estimated footprint includes area for all required flocculation, clarification, chemical feed, air saturation, and other assorted appurtenances. Therefore, though nominally a 14-gpm/ft2 system when you consider only clarification area, when you consider the entire footprint impact (including the 100-percent redundancy assumption) the rate expressed relative to the new total treatment area when one train is out of service is 5,200 gpm for a 4,900 ft2 area, or about 1.06 gpm/ft2. Similar evaluations for the AquaDAF process indicates that the required footprint for two 5,200 gpm treatment trains is 3,600 ft2, or 1.44 gpm/ft2 for the nominal 14-gpm/ft2 process

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

152 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

(including 15-min flocculation) when expressed relative to total footprint impact instead of only clarification area. The DensaDeg process assumptions included two 5,100-gpm facilities in order to provide the same redundancy assumption (one train out of service), requiring about 3,300 ft2 for a nominal 10-gpm/ft2 process, or a 1.55-gpm/ft2 clarification rate expressed relative to total footprint impact (with one train out of service). EXISTING FACILITIES The Morgan WTP located in Cleveland, Ohio, operated by the CWD, draws source water from nearby Lake Erie. The plant utilizes powdered activated carbon, chlorine, potassium permanganate, alum coagulation, three-stage flocculation, and sedimentation prior to granular media filtration. It has a capacity of 150 MGD with 28 dual-media filters rated at 4.4 gpm/ft2. Figures B.1 and B.2 are a schematic and site plan for the facility. SFBW is treated by a clarifier and recycled to the head of the plant, while the removed solids are discharged to the sanitary sewer. The existing SFBW treatment facilities include two 350,000-gal equalization (EQ) basins, referred to as the East and West EQ basins. Both basins can pump directly to the sludge holding tank, the SFBW clarifier, or to the head of the main plant.

Figure B.1 Morgan WTP process schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 153

Figure B.2 Morgan WTP facilities site plan Analogous to Figures B.1 and B.2 depicting the entire WTP facility, Figures B.3 and B.4 depict a site plan and schematic for the SFBW treatment and handling portion of these facilities. SFBW treatment includes equalization (without mixing), a flash mix tank, three-stage flocculation, clarification, and recycle of clarified SFBW to the head of the plant. The SFBW clarifier is vacuumed by a traveling bridge sludge collection system to a 450,000-gal sludge holding tank where it is combined with sludge from the main plants sedimentation basins. When necessary, a sludge dilution chamber is used to dilute the sludge to a 0.4 percent solids concentration before being discharged to the sanitary sewer.

Figure B.3 Morgan WTP SFBW treatment facilities site plan

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

154 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Figure B.4 Morgan WTP SFBW treatment facilities schematic

18 16 14 12 Turbidity (ntu) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 Time (hrs) 8 10 12 14


Raw water turbidity Week 1 OFR = 0.21 gpm/ft 2 % recycle = 3.1 Week 2 OFR = 0.53 gpm/ft 2 % recycle = 7.8 Week 3 OFR = 0.80 gpm/ft 2 % recycle = 11.8

Without polymer With polymer

Figure B.5 Morgan WTP SFBW full scale clarifier testing

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 155

Full-scale testing of the existing clarifier was conducted in 2000. The turbidity of the Morgan WTPs SFBW was typically around 20 ntu and was effectively treated to <2 ntu at loading rates up to 0.8 gpm/ft2 (Figure B.5) when polymer was applied. Without polymer addition, the treated turbidity ranged from 5 to 13 ntu at loading rates from 0.53 to 0.8 gpm/ft2 respectively. Based on these test results, a conservative maximum loading rate of 0.6 gpm/ft2 with polymer was chosen. Morgan WTP currently does not use polymer for SFBW treatment. SFBW EQUALIZATION DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS Table B.3 lists backwash operation assumptions developed in consultation with CWD for the Morgan WTP. These operational assumptions were used for calculating the EQ storage volume required and were based on present and future Morgan WTP operations information.

Maximum filtration rate Maximum plant flow rate

Table B.3 Morgan WTP operational assumptions 3 gpm/ft2 55 mgd 150 mgd 5 percent (Partnership for Safe Water) 260,000 gal/backwash 30 min/backwash event (1st four filters) 55 min/backwash event (remaining 24 filters) 10 min 28

Minimum plant flow rate (5th percentile flow) Recycle rate (10 percent maximum) Backwash volume Backwash frequency interval Backwash duration Maximum number of backwashes per day

The SFBW EQ basin storage capacity required was calculated using these operational assumptions with the parameters incorporated into a 24-hr storage profile. The results for the assumption with 28 filter backwash events in a 24-hour period (four every 30 minutes in first two hours, than one filter every 55 minutes thereafter) when the Morgan WTP is producing minimum production of 55 mgd are presented in Figure B.6 for three recycle rates (3 percent is upper curve, 5 percent middle curve, and 10 percent lowest curvedashed line is existing EQ capacity). The curves in Figure B.7 demonstrate that even if bigger equalization basins were available and even at a recycle rate of 10 percent the plant would never be able to equalize all the SFBW within a 24-hour period (i.e., plant would have to cease all filter backwashing so EQ could be emptied). Since it was not physically possible to operate the facility under these conditions, a different set of design assumptions were developed, in consultation with CWD. These included assuming a filtration rate of 3 gpm/ft2 (filters are currently permitted at 4.4 gpm/ft2). At this rate, nine filters would be in service when the plant is producing 55 mgd, as opposed to the 28 filters assumed to develop calculations in Figure B.6. Table B.4 lists the number of filters needed at this filtration rate under different main plant production targets. Figure B.7 shows the estimated equalization volume needed under similar conditions as used in Figure B.6, except with nine

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

156 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

filter backwash events within a 24-hour period instead of 28. At 10 percent recycle, the amount of equalization storage needed is 0.91 MG, or 0.21 MG more than the existing 0.7 MG capacity. An additional 44-ft diameter equalization basin would be required for the additional volume. At lower recycle rates, more equalization is needed. The Morgan WTP operates under Partnership for Safe Water guidelines requiring recycle rates less than 5 percent. Calculations reflected in Figure B.7 indicate that required equalization at this recycle rate is about 1.62 MG, or about 0.92 MG more than existing equalization. This would require one additional 93-ft diameter equalization basin. If the recycle rate under these conditions is less than 5 percent, the required equalization is even higher. For example, the predicted equalization storage required for 3 percent recycle is 1.91 MG, or about 0.3 MG more than at 5 percent recycle. Therefore, in order to meet the design assumptions established during conversations with CWD (55 mgd, nine filter backwash events per day, 5 percent recycle), the required equalization is 1.62 MG, or requiring an additional 93 ft diameter equalization basin to supplement the two existing 0.35 MG basins. Note that this does not make any allowances for redundancy, meaning all equalization basins have to be in service to handle the design condition. This preliminary design report for CWD will be included in the Foundation SFBW report to be viewed by utilities throughout the US. For those facilities with similar SFBW quantities as the Morgan WTP that will allow recycle rates higher than 5 percent, the size of equalization will decrease (and size of SFBW treatment (to be discussed below) will be greater). For example, under the same conditions but with an allowance of 10 percent recycle, the total required equalization is 0.91 MG, or an additional 44-ft diameter basin to supplement the existing basins. SFBW TREATMENT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS The above discussion indicated that the design assumption for recycle, and hence for SFBW treatment, is 5 percent recycle. Consequently, 5 percent of 150 mgd is 7 mgd, or about 5,200 gpm. For redundancy, enough treatment will be provided so that new proposed SFBW treatment systems will be able to handle 5,200 gpm of SFBW even with one SFBW treatment train out of service.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 157

3 percent recycle 6,000,000

5 percent recycle

10 percent recycle

existing

Equalization Volume Needed (gal)

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Hours After Initiation of First Backwash Event

Figure B.6 Morgan WTP SFBW production during 24-hour period assuming 55 mgd production rate, three recycle rates (3, 5, and 10 percent), and 28 filter backwash events per day (0.26 MG per backwash event)

3 percent recycle 2,400,000 1.91 MG Equalization Volume Needed (gal) 2,000,000 1.62 MG 1,600,000 0.91 MG 1,200,000

5 percent recycle

10 percent recycle

existing

800,000

400,000

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Hours After Initiation of First Backwash Event

Figure B.7 Required SFBW equalization assuming 55 mgd production rate, three recycle rates (3, 5, and 10 percent), and nine filter backwash events per day (0.26 MG per backwash event)

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

158 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Plant raw water flow rate (mgd) 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 120 125 135 145 150

Table B.4 Morgan WTP filter operations Number of filters in service @3 gpm/ft2 9 11 12 14 16 17 19 19 20 22 23 24 28

Total backwash generated (mgd) 2.3 2.9 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.7 6.0 6.2 7.3

RETROFIT OF MORGAN WTPS SFBW EQ AND TREATMENT FACILITIES Current operational conditions at the Morgan WTP require additional EQ storage volume for the low flow condition and an increase in clarifier capacity for the high flow condition. Considering Morgan WTPs SFBW characteristics and the recent pilot trials by Leopold and IDI, four alternatives were selected for a plant retrofit: Option A: Option B: Option C: Option D: Additional EQ storage basin (common to all clarification options) New ClariDAF system by Leopold New AquaDAF system by IDI New DensaDeg system by IDI

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 159

Option A: Additional Equalization Capacity Option A for solving current Morgan WTP operational challenges involves the construction of a new EQ basin. The flow schematic for this option is provided in Figure B.8. A possible site for this basin is just east of the current EQ basins and is shown in Figure B.9.

Figure B.8 Morgan SFBW schematic with new EQ and new SFBW treatment system

Figure B.9 Morgan WTP SFBW new EQ siteplan

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

160 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Item

Table B.5 Morgan WTP SFBW EQ cost analysis for 5 and 10 percent recycle limits Capital cost ($) 4,740,000 2,453,000

New 0.92 MG EQ basin (5 percent recycle) New 0.21 MG EQ basin (10 percent recycle)

Capital cost for both a 0.92-MG and a 0.21-MG EQ basin are summarized in Table B.5. Obviously, a considerable cost savings would be attained for utilities that can consider increasing the recycle rate from 5 percent to 10 percent during the rare low flow condition. However, CWD operates the Morgan WTP under Partnership for Safe Water guidelines which limit recycle to 5 percent or less. Option B: Retrofit Existing Clarifier With New High Rate ClariDAF System ClariDAF is a high rate dissolved air flotation system designed by Leopold as depicted in Figure B.10. ClariDAF can be operated at loading rates of 8 to15 gpm/ft2. Clarification rates for this system are based on flow per square foot area occupied by the effluent laterals located at the bottom of the DAF cell. A loading rate defined in this manner does not account for the increased footprint due to the remainder of the systems components. The ClariDAF system, as depicted in the schematic in Figure B.11, utilizes a rapid mix zone where polymer may be added followed by one or more flocculation basins and a DAF cell. An internal angled baffle wall create a recirculation effect throughout the DAF cell which increases bubble density and efficient flotation for removal of the float. The clarified water exits the system through the laterals and into an effluent channel while the float solids are mechanically skimmed into a collection channel. Pilot test results from September 2007 are summarized in Table B.6. Based on these results a 14 gpm/ft2 design loading rate and a 16-min flocculation time were used. Testing also demonstrated that a polymer is required to meet treated water goals of <2 ntu. Option B would retrofit the existing 7,000-ft2 clarifier system with two 5,200-gpm ClariDAF systems to meet new SFBW production targets. The new system would have a total footprint of approximately 109 ft by 45 ft or 4,900 ft2 as depicted in Figures B.12 and B.13. The retrofit would involve renovation of the existing building to include raising the clarifier roof, reconstruction of basin walls, and adding necessary equipment. Cost calculations are summarized in Tables B.7 and B.8. Costs include construction of concrete roof, walls, ClariDAF equipment, instrumentation, controls, pumps, and a polymer feed system. Plan and profile drawings of the proposed system are depicted in Figures B.12 and B.13.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 161

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure B.10 ClariDAF schematic

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure B.11 ClariDAF pilot schematic

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

162 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Table B.6 Summary of Leopold pilot testing at Cleveland Morgan WTP in September 2007
Turbidity (ntu) Particles >2 m per mL

Duration (hours)

Untreated Treated Treated Floc Polymer th Recycle time 95 Rate Percent dose Flash (gpm/ft2) (percent) (min) (mg/L) mix Median Median Mean perc. <2 ntu Count Avg Impact of LT22s polymer dose

2.75 2.17

8 8

11.9 11.8

16 16

0.0 0.3

no no

6.29 3.67

1.61 0.50

2.58 1.33

7.60 3.98

71.9 74.3

2 1

9,148 1,297

Impact of flash mix 2.17 3.75 8 8 11.8 12.1 16 16 0.3 0.3 no yes 3.67 3.96 0.50 0.53 1.33 0.62 3.98 1.58 74.3 97.1 1 1 1,297 915

Impact of flocculation time 2.17 2.58 3.75 3.83 8 8 8 8 12.4 12.3 12.1 12.3 0 8 16 27 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 yes yes yes yes 3.57 4.95 3.96 4.70 0.65 0.50 0.53 0.35 0.63 0.50 0.62 0.57 0.66 0.56 1.58 1.43 100.0 100.0 97.1 100.0 1 1 1 2 2,439 926 915 805

Impact of clarification rate 3.83 1.83 2.00 1.83 54.25 8 10 12 14 15 12.3 9.8 14.0 12.2 11.6 27 22 18 14 14 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 yes yes yes yes yes 4.70 1.56 1.47 1.38 3.88 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.57 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.42 1.43 0.87 0.45 0.39 0.51 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 2 1 1 1 8 805 1,000 1,223 1,082 1,159

Impact of recycle 1.75 1.42 54.25 15 15 15 4.3 6.8 11.6 14 14 14 0.3 0.3 0.3 yes yes yes 2.71 3.15 3.88 0.58 0.61 0.40 0.80 0.62 0.42 1.94 0.67 0.51 95.6 100.0 99.8 1 1 8 1,581 1,652 1,159

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 163

Item

Table B.7 10 percent SFBW recycle EQ and ClariDAF retrofit cost analysis Capital cost O&M cost 20-yr present worth ($) ($/yr) ($) 2,453,000 8,900,000 11,353,000 43,000 178,000 221,000 2,944,000 11,000,000 13,944,000

New EQ basin (44-ft diameter) ClariDAF system retrofit TOTAL PROJECT COST

Item

Table B.8 5 percent SFBW recycle EQ and ClariDAF retrofit cost analysis Capital cost O&M cost 20-yr present worth ($) ($/yr) ($) 4,740,000 8,900,000 13,640,000 75,000 178,000 253,000 5,604,000 11,000,000 16,604,000

New EQ basin (93-ft diameter) ClariDAF system retrofit TOTAL PROJECT COST

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

164 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure B.12 Morgan WTP SFBW ClariDAF system plan view

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 165

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by ITT WWW Leopold, September 2007 Figure B.13 Morgan WTP SFBW ClariDAF system profile view

166 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Option C: Retrofit Existing Clarifier With New High Rate AquaDAF System Another option for increasing the treatment capacity is to replace the clarifier with a high rate AquaDAF system by IDI as shown in Figure B.14. A second AquaDAF system of equal size is recommended for redundancy purposes. The same EQ basin volume determined for Option A is also required for Option C. The SFBW flow schematic for this option remains the same as Option A and is provided in Figure B.10. AquaDAF is a high-rate DAF system designed by IDI, which can operate at loading rates of 8 to16 gpm/ft2, as piloted in this project. Clarification rates for this system are based on flow per square foot area of the false floor at the bottom of the DAF cell. A clarification rate defined in this manner does not account for the increased footprint due to remainder of the systems components. The process was developed by the Rictor Company in Sweden and licensed to IDI in 2001. AquaDAF utilizes dual flocculation chambers where polymer may be added followed by a DAF Cell. An internal angled baffle wall and a false floor create a recirculation effect throughout the DAF Cell which increases bubble density and efficient flotation for removal of the float. The clarified water exits the system through a patented hole-patterned piping on the false floor and out an effluent channel while the sludge blanket hydraulically flows over into a collection channel.

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.14 AquaDAF schematic Based on pilot testing results (see Chapter 3), a design loading rate of 14 gpm/ft2 with a 15min flocculation time was used (AquaDAF was successfully piloted with flocculation times <12 min, but 15 min was chosen in order to be conservative). Testing also demonstrated that a polymer is required to meet treated water goals of <2 ntu. Figures B.15 and B.16 include data from the May 2007 pilot studies regarding impact of loading rate on turbidity and particles. In all instances the project goals of median turbidity <1 ntu and 95th percentile turbidity <2 ntu was achieved at all rates tested. However, there was a slight apparent increase in particles at 16 gpm/ft2.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 167

99 98 95

Observations Less Than Value (%)

90 80 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 8 gpm/sf 10 gpm sf 12 gpm/sf 14 gpm/sf 16 gpm/sf

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Note: (0.3 mg/L LT22S, flocculation time from 4.3-8.6 min, ~11 percent recycle) Figure B.15 Impact of AquaDAF loading rates on SFBW turbidity at Morgan WTP

8,000 7,000 6,000 Particles >2 m (per mL) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 8 gpm/sf, 8.6 min 10 gpm/sf, 6.9 min 12 gpm/sf, 5.7 min 14 gpm/sf, 4.9 min 16 gpm/sf, 4.3 min sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4

Test Conditions (rate and flocculation time)

Note: (0.3 mg/L LT22S, flocculation time from 4.3-8.6 min, ~11 percent recycle) Figure B.16 Impact of AquaDAF loading rates on SFBW particles at Morgan WTP

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

168 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.17 Morgan WTP SFBW AquaDAF system plan view

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 169

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.18 Morgan WTP SFBW AquaDAF system profile view

170 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.19 Morgan WTP SFBW AquaDAF system P&ID

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 171

Item

Table B.9 10 percent SFBW recycle EQ and AquaDAF retrofit cost analysis Capital cost O&M cost 20-yr present worth ($) ($/yr) ($) 2,453,000 8,750,000 11,203,000 43,000 187,000 230,000 2,944,000 11,000,000 13,944,000

New EQ basin (44-ft diameter) AquaDAF system retrofit TOTAL PROJECT COST

Item

Table B.10 5 percent SFBW recycle EQ and AquaDAF retrofit cost analysis Capital Cost O&M Cost 20-yr Present Worth ($) ($/yr) ($) 4,740,000 8,750,000 13,490,000 75,000 187,000 262,000 5,604,000 11,000,000 16,604,000

New EQ basin (93-ft diameter) AquaDAF system retrofit TOTAL PROJECT COST

Option C would retrofit the existing 7,000-ft2 clarifier system with two 5,200-gpm AquaDAF Systems to meet new SFBW production targets. The new system would have a total footprint of approximately 79 ft by 45 ft or 3,600 ft2 as depicted in Figures B.17 to B.19. The retrofit would involve renovation of the existing building to include raising the clarifier roof, reconstruction of basin walls, and adding necessary equipment. AquaDAF cost calculations are summarized in Tables B.9 and B.10. Option D: Retrofit Existing Clarifier With New High Rate DensaDeg System Another option for increasing the treatment capacity is to replace it with a High Rate DensaDeg System by IDI as shown in Figure B.20. A second DensaDeg System of equal size is recommended for redundancy purposes. The same EQ basin volume determined for Option A is also required for Option D. The SFBW flow schematic for this option remains the same as Option A and is provided in Figure B.8. DensaDeg is a high-rate solids contact process designed by IDI which can operate at clarification rates of 8 to 16 gpm/ft2, as piloted in this project. Clarification rates for this system are based on flow per square foot area occupied by the tube settlers at the top of the clarification basin. A loading rate defined in this manner does not account for the increased footprint due to remainder of the systems components. This process typically includes a rapid mix module, solids contact in the reactor zone following rapid mix, and separation of liquid phase and thickening of solids phase in the clarification/thickening zone. Thickened solids from the clarifier zone are recirculated back into the reactor zone, and the mixer in the reactor promotes solids contact opportunities for the incoming solids in the untreated water along with recirculated solids from the clarification zone. The rapid mix module is normally used in other studies, but was not used in this study.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

172 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.20 DensaDeg schematic

Pilot testing results (see Chapter 3), as summarized in Table B.11 and Figure B.21, demonstrated that the process could meet project objectives (median <1 ntu, 95th percentile <2 ntu) at rates up to 16 gpm/ft2, the highest rate tested. Based on these results a loading rate of 10 gpm/ft2 was recommended by the manufacturer. Pilot testing also demonstrated that a polymer is required to meet treated water goals of <2 ntu. (Table B.12 and Figure B.22) Table B.11 Impact of loading rate on DensaDeg performance during May 2007 pilot studies
Raw Turbidity (ntu) Treated Water Particles >2 m per mL Sample Percent Test Duration < 2 ntu 1 2 3 4 5 conditions* (hours) Median Median Mean 95th 8 gpm/ft2, 0.25 mg/L, 2.5% 5.5 14.88 0.65 0.65 0.72 100 3,561 2,369 2 10 gpm/ft , 0.25 mg/L, 2.5% 7.5 14.57 0.72 0.73 0.86 100 5,216 2,876 2,718 12 gpm/ft2, 0.25 mg/L, 2.5% 7.1 17.22 0.79 0.78 1.54 100 3,017 12,232 5,471 987 3,083 12 gpm/ft2, 0.25 mg/L, 2.5% 3.1 21.77 0.41 0.46 0.62 100 5,471 987 3,083 14 gpm/ft2, 0.5 mg/L, 2.5% 1.5 26.08 0.79 0.76 0.79 100 2,115 1,911 16 gpm/ft2, 0.5 mg/L, 2.5% 2.5 16.05 0.72 0.71 0.86 100 1,805 2,713 5,339 9,353 * Rate, polymer dose (LT22s), and percent recycle indicated for each test condition

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 173

99 98 95

Observations Less Than Value (%)

90 80 70

50

30 20 10 5 2 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8


8 gpm/sf 10 gpm sf 12 gpm/sf 14 gpm/sf 16 gpm/sf

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Figure B.21 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg loading rate for SFBW

Table B.12 Impact of polymer dose on DensaDeg performance during May 2007 pilot studies Turbidity (ntu) Particles >2 m per mL Raw Polymer Duration dose (hours) Median Median no polymer 0.25 mg/L 0.50 mg/L 0.75 mg/L 1.00 mg/L 1.1 2.0 4.6 2.0 2.6 7.30 17.74 28.19 18.84 19.81 11.40 0.75 0.89 0.89 0.62 Treated Water Mean 11.43 0.72 0.87 0.88 0.64 95th 12.67 0.75 0.96 0.96 0.69 Percent <2 ntu 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Sample 2 3 4

no data 15,169 2,941 2,374 2,097 1,873 2,306 2,438 3,094 6,480 5,241 6,677 4,827

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

174 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

99 98 95

Observations Less Than Value (%)

90 80 70

50

30 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 1 10 100 1000

0.25 mg/L 0.50 mg/L 0.75 mg/L 1.00 mg/L no polymer (final hour)

Treated Turbidity (ntu)

Note: 12 gpm/ft Loading Rate, 2.6 percent recycle Figure B.22 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg impact of polymer dose on SFBW Option D would retrofit the existing 7,000-ft2 clarifier system with two 5,100-gpm DensaDeg Systems to meet new SFBW production targets. The new system would have a total footprint of approximately 110 ft by 30 ft or 3,300 ft2 as depicted in Figures B.23 to B.26. The retrofit would involve renovation of the existing building to include raising the clarifier roof, demolishing existing basin walls, constructing DensaDeg basin walls, and adding necessary equipment. DensaDeg cost calculations are summarized in Tables B.13 and B.14. Costs include construction of new concrete roof, DensaDeg basin walls, DensaDeg equipment, instrumentation, controls, and pumps. Table B.13 10 percent SFBW recycle EQ and DensaDeg retrofit cost analysis
ITEM New EQ basin (44-ft diameter) DensaDeg system retrofit (3300 ft2) TOTAL PROJECT COST Capital cost ($) 2,453,000 11,000,000 13,453,000 O&M cost ($/yr) 43,000 225,000 268,000 20-yr present worth ($) 2,944,000 13,500,000 16,444,000

Table B.14 5 percent SFBW recycle EQ and DensaDeg retrofit cost analysis
ITEM New EQ basin (93-ft diameter) DensaDeg system retrofit (3300 ft2) TOTAL PROJECT COST Capital cost ($) 4,740,000 11,000,000 16,740,000 O&M cost ($/yr) 75,000 225,000 300,000 20-yr present worth ($) 5,604,000 13,500,000 19,104,000

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 175

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.23 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg 5,100 gpm system plan view

176 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.24 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg 5,100 gpm system profile view

Appendix B: Preliminary Design Report for Morgan WTP, Cleveland, OH | 177

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.25 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg 5,100 gpm system P&ID

178 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Provided by Infilco-Degremont, September 2007 Figure B.26 Morgan WTP SFBW DensaDeg system general arrangement

REFERENCES
Antrim, B., and C. Allen. 2005. Seven Years and Counting: The Ultrafiltration Plant in Littleton, Massachusetts. In Proc. of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, CO: AWWA. Boulder 1999. City of Boulder Public Works/Utilities Spent Backwash Water Pilot Study Draft Report. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder. Bourgeois, J., M.. Walsh, and G. Gagnon. 2004. Comparison of Process Options for Treatment of Water Treatment Residual Streams. Jour. of Environmental Engineering and Science, 3(6):477-484. Brgger, A., K. Voenkaul, T. Melin, R. Rautenbach, B. Golling, U. Jacobs, and P. Ohlenforst. 2001. Reuse of Spent Filter Backwash Water by Implementing Ultrafiltration Technology. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 1(5-6):207-214. Cornwell, D. 1998. Study of the Impact of a Ban on Recycle Backwash Residuals Contract 356. Washington, DC: AWWA. Cornwell, D., M. MacPhee, N. McTigue, H. Arora, G. DiGiovanni, M. LeChevallier, and J. Taylor. 2001. Treatment Options for Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Other Contaminants in Recycled Backwash Water. Denver, CO: AWWA and AwwaRF. Cornwell, D. and R. Lee. 1993. Recycle Stream Effects on Water Treatment. Denver, CO: AWWA and AwwaRF. Dotremont, C., B. Molenberghs, W. Doyen, P. Bielen, and K. Huysman. 1999. The Recovery of Backwash Water from Sand Filters by Ultrafiltration. Desalination, 126:87-94. IDI 2005. DensaDeg High-Rate Solids Contact Clarifier/Thickener Pilot Study Report: Lake Forest WTP and Haworth WTP. Infilco Degremont: Richmond, VA. Kruger 1997a. Actiflo Pilot Study For the City of Tempe Public Works Dept. Papago Water Treatment Plant Tempe, AZ. Kruger: Cary, NC. Kruger 1997b. Actiflo Pilot Study For the East Bay Municipal Utility District At The Walnut Creek Filter Plant Walnut Creek, CA. Kruger: Cary, NC. Kruger 2005. Actiflo Process Pilot Study at the MID Water Treatment Plant - Modesto, CA. Kruger: Cary, NC. Leopold 1999a. Leopold DAF Pilot Plant Study Report, Spent Filter Backwash Water Treatment, Williams WTP Durham, NC. Leopold: Zelienople, PA. Leopold 1999b. Betasso (CO) DAF Pilot Plant Study: Spent Filter Backwash Treatment Using Dissolved Air Flotation. Leopold: Zelienople, PA. Leopold 2000a. Leopold DAF Pilot Plant Study Report, Spent Filter Backwash Water Treatment, Morgan WTP Cleveland, OH. Leopold: Zelienople, PA. Leopold 2000b. Phoenix, AZ, DAF Pilot Study: Spent Filter Backwash Treatment using Dissolved Air Flotation. Leopold: Zelienople, PA. Pressdee, J., S. Rezania, and C. Hill. 2005. Minneapolis Water Works' Ultrafiltration Plant Gets Off to a Big Start. Jour. AWWA, 97(12):56-63. Song, H., X. Fan, Y. Zhang, T. Wang, and Y. Feng. 2001. Application of Microfiltration for Reuse of Backwash Water in a Conventional Water Treatment Plant - A Case Study. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 1(5-6):199-206. Tempe, City of. 2004. [Online]. Available: <http://www.tempe.gov/water/waterquality/2004/ ccr2004.pfd>

179
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

180 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

USEPA 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Filter Backwash Recycling Rule 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. Fed. Reg. 66:111:31086-31087. Vigneswaran, S., S. Boonthanonb, and H. Prasanthia. 1996. Filter Backwash Water Recycling Using Crossflow Microfiltration. Desalination, 106:31-38. Wen, C., and Y. Yu. 1966. A Generalized Method for Predicting Minimum Fluidization Velocity. AIChE Jour., 12:610. Walsh, M., and G. Gagnon. 2006. Blending Membrane Treated WTP Waste Residuals with Finished Water: Impacts to Water Quality and Biofilm Formation. Jour. of Water Supply Research and Technology AQUA, 55(5):321-334.

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ABBREVIATIONS
Actiflo AquaDAF AWC AWWA AwwaRF BW
o

tradename of sand-ballasted coagulation/clarification process manufactured by Krueger tradename for high-rate DAF process piloted by IDI in Ohio during this study Aquarion Water Company, Monroe, CT American Water Works Association (Denver, CO) Awwa Research Foundation (Denver, CO) backwash degrees Celsius ceramic membrane manufacturer (Waltham, MA)supplied membranes used in bench-scale testing described in Chapter 4 tradename for high-rate DAF process piloted by Leopold in Utah and Ohio during this study centimeter tradename for high-rate solids contact process piloted by Siemens in Utah during this study Central Utah Water Conservancy District (Orem, UT) utility participant City of Cleveland Division of Water (Cleveland, OH) utility participant dissolved air floatation disinfection by-product tradename for high-rate solids contact process piloted by IDI in Ohio during this study deionized water dissolved organic carbon Environmental Engineering and Technology, Inc. (Newport News, VA) equalization filter backwash recycle rule, part of surface water treatment rule iron Water Research Foundation (new name for AwwaRF, effective January 1, 2009) feet per second filter-to-waste

C CeraMem ClariDAF cm CONTRAFAST CUWCD CWD

DAF DBP DensaDeg DI DOC EE&T EQ FBRR Fe Foundation fps FTW

181
2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

182 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

G gal/ft2 gfd gpm/ft2 High-rate DAF ICR IDI

mixing intensity (1/s) for rapid mix or flocculation gallon per square foot gallons per day per ft2 gallons per minute per square foot DAF rates >8 gpm/ft2, up to about 20 gpm/ft2 Information Collection Rule Infilco-Degremont, Inc. (Richmond, VA)manufacturer participantpilot studies in Ohio and provided historical data from previous studies inch specific flux membrane manufacturer (Waltham, MA)supplied membranes used in bench-scale testing described in Chapter 4 I. Krueger, Inc. (Cary, NC)manufacturer participantprovided historical data from previous studies F. B. Leopold, Inc. (Zelienople, PA), now part of ITT Corporationmanufacturer participantpilot studies in Utah and Ohio and historical date from previous studies microfiltration membranes million gallons million gallons per day milligram per liter minute milliliter millimeter manganese nanofiltration membranes nanometer natural organic matter National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System nephelometric turbidity unit operations and maintenance powered activation carbon and project advisory committee polyaluminum chloride platinumcobalt (PtCo) color unit preliminary design report (see Appendices A and B) polyethersolfone (membrane material)

in. J Koch Krueger

Leopold

MF MG mgd mg/L min mL mm Mn NF nm NOM NPDES ntu O&M PAC PACl PCU PDR PES

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Appendix B: Abbreviations | 183

psi PtCo PVWC PWP RO s SCCRWA SFBW Standard-rate DAF TDS TMP TOC Trident HSC TSS TS UF UK m US USEPA UV-254 WTP WPP x-flow

pounds per in2 platinumcobalt Passaic Valley Water Commission pure water permeation reverse osmosis membranes seconds South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority spent filter backwash DAF rates up to 6 gpm/ft2 total dissolved solids transmembrane pressure total organic carbon tradename for high-rate solids contact process piloted by Siemens in Utah during this study total suspended solids total solids ultrafiltration membranes United Kingdom micrometer United States United States Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, DC) Absorbance of ultraviolet irradiation at 254 nm water treatment plant water purification plant cross flow membrane velocity

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

184 | Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

2010 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Innovative Applications of Treatment Processes for Spent Filter Backwash

6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098 USA P 303.347.6100 F 303.734.0196 www.WaterResearchFoundation.org

3114

1P-3C-3114-03/10-FP

También podría gustarte