Case Study: City of Napa - Tracer Analysis ofChlorine Contact Tank at Hennessey WTP

Guy J. Schott, P.E.Associate Sanitary Engineer

Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Operations Branch50 D Street, Suite 200Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Background

The City of Napa, California serves a population of approximately 75,000 people through 22,707 active service connections. The City of Napa (City) owns and operates three surface water facilities, two of which currently provide complete conventional treatment. The Department of Health Services with the City of Napa agreed to conduct a tracer study at the Hennessey Water Treatment Plant (Hennessey WTP) to determine the detention efficiency of the finished water clearwell. This paper present the procedures utilized for and results obtained from the tracer test at Hennessey.

The Hennessey WTP was placed in service in 1981. It is a 20 million gallon per day (MGD) facility that utilizes conventional treatment, including alum coagulation, sedimentation, and dual media gravity filtration. The facility injects sodium hypochlorite for primary disinfection. Process flow schematics are shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2.

On July 8, 1999, a single slug (pulse-input) test was conducted on the Hennessey clearwell. The clearwell is actually broken into two stages. The first stage is a concrete intake structure (31,600 gallons) followed by a long concrete rectangular basin (257,000 gallons). The second stage consists of two large bay tanks operated in parallel. The test was conducted to determine the overall effective contact time, t10, for both tanks (first and second stage) operated in series and t 10

for the first tank (first stage) alone. The primary clearwell is an underground concrete tank split into two bay tanks having a total volume of approximately 4.8 million gallons. As illustrated in Figure 1.2, water enters the intake structure; overflows into the contact chamber; moves through the contact chamber; exits into the bay tanks; and discharges into the transmission line.

Before the tracer study was initiated, protocols were submitted to the City of Napa. Some of these protocols contained the study’s parameters and procedures, including:

Type of tracer test (pulse-input) Selection of tracer and quantity (liquid fluoride, 58.2 pounds added) Sample frequency, method of sampling, and data analysis Sample bottle type and labeling Preparation of data forms Number of personnel required and pre-test personnel training Test duration Pre-test preparation (lower water levels in distribution tanks, backwash all filters,

etc.) Plant operation (operate at least 91 percent of capacity of plant) Roles and responsibilities of participants

1

Figure 1.1 City of Napa Hennessey Water Treatment Plant process flow schematic

Figure 1.2 Fluoride injection and sampling points

2

The dimensions of the clearwell tanks are summarized in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Unit process criteria

Intake Structure- Type: Two rectangle chambers separated by overflow weir- Dimensions (first chamber): 16 ft deep, 6 ft long, 24 ft wide- Dimensions (second chamber): 16 ft deep, 5 ft long, 24 ft wide- Volume: 31,598 gal (119,597 L), Total- Average flow rate during test: 18.6 MGD (12,917 gpm)- Theoretical detention time: 2.45 minutes

Contact Chamber- Type: long rectangular basin - serpentine- Dimensions: 16.8 ft deep, 272 ft long, 7.5 ft wide (dual units)- Volume: 256,372 gal (970,367 L)- Average flow rate during test: 18.6 MGD (12,917 gpm)- Theoretical detention time: 19.85 minutes

Bay Contact Tanks- Type: (two) rectangular, sloping bottom, no baffles, corner feed- Dimensions: 24 ft deep, 136 ft long, 116 ft wide (each)- Water depth during test: 19.2 ft average- Volume (operating during test): 3,604,174 gal (13,641,800 L)- Average flow rate exiting bay tanks: 16.8 MGD (11,667 gpm)- Theoretical detention time: 309 minutes (5.15 hrs)

Tanks in series (Intake & contact chamber plus bay tanks)- Total Average Volume (during test): 3,892,144 gal (13,641,800 L)- Average flow rate exiting bay tanks: 16.8 MGD (11,667 gpm)- Theoretical detention time: 337 minutes (5.62 hrs)

Tracer Test Procedure

Tracer test procedures used for evaluating the finished water chlorine contact tanks at the Hennessey WTP generally followed the guidelines presented in Appendix C, Determination of Disinfection Contact Time, of the U.S. Environmental Agency (USEPA) Guidance Manual (USEPA 1989) and research presented by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Tracer Studies in Water Treatment Facilities: A Protocol and Case Studies (1996). Since only one test could be run, the plant was operated near maximum to generate a “worst case” t 10 value. The term t10 is defined as the time it takes for 10 percent of a material to pass through a reactor.

Tracer Selection

Fluoride, in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6), was selected as the tracer for the clearwells because it was readily available, easily analyzed, available access to analytical equipment, and acceptable for use in potable water applications at the concentration levels that would be experienced during the study. Because the contact basins to be tested were downstream

3

of the filtration process, there was no potential for interference between the fluoride and the primary coagulant. Sodium fluoride (NaF) was not used because of problems experienced in the past. This compound comes in powder form and previous studies have shown that this material does not readily dissolve at high-localized concentrations.

Tracer Dosing

A pulse-input test (also referred to as a slug dose) involves adding the entire amount of tracer to be used at the beginning of the test. The addition of the pulse must be as instantaneous as possible and the chemical must be completely mixed with the influent flow steam. For this study, two 15-gallon drums of 24 percent of hydrofluosilicic acid were poured in series into the hatch opening of the intake structure of the clearwell. Respirator, safety goggles, gloves, shoes and clothing were required due to the high concentration of acid and fumes that may be released to the atmosphere. Each drum was handled by two personnel and poured one at a time into the intake structure to the clearwell. As a rule of thumb, the time it takes to get the pulse of chemical into the basin should not exceed 1 percent of the theoretical detention time through the basin to be tested. The fluoride was poured into the intake structure within recommended time frame when the overall clearwell detention time is used. However, if only considering the contact chamber, it took approximately 3.5 minutes or 16 percent of theoretical time, which exceeded the recommended 1- percent.

The background fluoride concentration was approximately 0.09 mg/L. The desired feed dispersion concentration was approximately 20 times the background level, or 1.78 mg/L. The quantity of fluoride needed to obtain this dispersion concentration was calculated based upon the entire clearwell volume.

The weight of actual fluoride added to the intake structure was 58.22 pounds, which produced peak fluoride concentration leaving the bay tanks of approximately 1.74 mg/L or 19 times the background levels. The fluoride concentration of the water leaving the chlorine contact chamber and entering the bay tanks were much higher due to its relative volume (7 percent) to the total clearwell volume. The peak fluoride concentration was approximately 37.63 mg/L or 418 times the background levels.

Fluoride Tracer Analysis

All fluoride samples were collected into polyethylene bottles and analyzed on-site within 24 hours using the Hach Combination Fluoride Electrode Model 50265. The Hach 50265 has a concentration range of 0.02 mg/L to saturation. Calibration curves were developed for the Hach instrument with a series of fluoride standards over the range of anticipated measurements. The calibration curves were periodically checked during analysis and immediately after analyses were completed. Figures 1.3 and 1.4 present the calibration curves used for the fluoride samples taken from the contact tank and bay tanks.

As seen in the calibration curves, the maximum fluoride standard used was 100 mg/L for the samples taken from the contact tank versus 10 mg/L for the samples taken from the bay tanks. As discussed later in the report, the fluoride concentration in the samples taken from the contact tank were over twenty times higher than the concentration in those taken from the bay tanks.

4

Figure 1.3 Standard Calibration Curve for Contact Tank

Figure 1.4 Standard Calibration Curve for Bay Tanks

To check if the electrode probe is operating properly the electrode slope is measured. Slope is defined as the change in millivolts observed with every tenfold change in concentration. The difference should be in the range of –54 to –60 mV/decade. In this study, the voltage differences were within the required ranged.

5

Fluoride Probe Standardization Curve

y = -0.016914x + 1.502350R2 = 0.999582

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0

Millivolts ( mv)

Log

(F-)

0.2 mg/L as F-

1.0 mg/L as F-

2.0 mg/L as F-

10.0 mg/L as F-

7/8/99

Fluoride Probe Standardization Curve

y = -0.016827x + 1.499770R2 = 0.999685

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Millivolts ( mv)

Log

(F-)

10.0 mg/L as F-

2.0 mg/L as F-

0.2 mg/L as F-

100. mg/L as F-

1.0 mg/L as F-

Flow Rates

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SWTR Guidance Manual (USEPA 1989) recommends performing tracer tests for at least four flow rates that span the entire range of flow. However, systems with limited resources are permitted to conduct a minimum of one tracer test for each contact basin at a flow rate of not less than 91 percent of the highest flow rate experienced.

The study was conducted at an average plant flow rate of 18.6 MGD or 93 percent of rated plant capacity. The flow through the intake structure and chlorine contact chamber was equal to the flow through the filtration process of the plant. However, the water leaving the bay tanks is gravity flow, which varies based on system demands. During the study, the average flow rate out of the clearwell was approximately 16.8 MGD or 84 percent of rated plant capacity. In 1999, during the month of maximum system demand, the average daily peak flow rate out of the clearwell was 18.3 MGD. The average flow rate out of the clearwell during this study, 16.8 MGD, was approximately 92 percent of average daily peak outflow experienced by the clearwell.

The water level in the intake structure and contact chamber basins at the plant is maintained constant using basin effluent overflow weirs. Therefore, rising or falling basin levels were not a concern. However, this was a concern for the bay tanks. The bay tanks water levels slowly rose throughout the test. The water level at the start and end of the test were 18.7 and 20.0 feet, respectively. The filters were backwashed prior to beginning the test and distribution storage tank water levels were reduced in order to minimize upsetting the flow rates during the tests.

Sample Location & Collection Frequency

Fluoride samples were collected at two locations. The first sample location was the outlet of the clearwell contact chamber. At this location is a sample line used for monitoring the chlorine residual entering the bay tanks. This line was utilized for taking fluoride grab samples.

The second sample location was the outlet of the clearwell bay tanks. A sample line extends from the discharge line of the clearwell to the plant laboratory. Water continuously flows from this line into the laboratory sink. Grab samples were taken from this point. The time it took for the flow of water from the clearwell to reach the plant laboratory was considered before the study.

Tracer discharge concentration must be carefully monitored during the initial phase of the pulse-input test, as this is when abrupt changes may occur. The theoretical detention time of the combined clearwell intake structure and contact chamber was approximately 22.3 minutes (1,338 sec). Therefore, to be sure the sharp concentration increase in the tracer curve front was not missed or underrepresented, the initial maximum sampling frequency was once every one-minute or 0.045T, where “T” is the theoretical detention time of a reactor. The sample frequency was decreased where it was expected to be on the declining concentration curve. The sample frequency was decreased to once every 2 minutes (0.090T), then to 3 minutes (0.13T) and to 4 minutes (0.18T) at the end of the run.

The theoretical detention time of the combined clearwell intake structure, contact chamber and bay tanks was approximately 337 minutes. The initial sample frequency was once every 10 minutes or 0.030T. Later into the test, sample frequency was decreased to once every 15 minutes (0.045T) and then to once every 20 minutes (0.060T).

6

The sampling frequency was pre-determined based on where the predicted tracer concentration would be on the curve. Because of this, the following precautions were taken:

Sample bottles were prenumbered (with waterproof labels) and readily available at sampling point.

A customized recording sheet was prepared to assure that all pertinent data were collected (this included elapsed time intervals).

Protocols were reviewed with the sampler to minimize sampling errors.

Problems Encountered

The major problem encountered was the initial dosing of the fluoride solution. Pouring the fluoride solution into the intake structure took longer than expected. As a rule of thumb, the time it takes to get the pulse of chemical into the basin should not exceed 1 percent of the theoretical detention time through the basin to be tested. When evaluating the overall clearwell contact time, which was the main objective of this study, the 1- percent was not exceeded. However, the 1- percent was exceeded when considering only the combined intake structure and contact chamber. The dosing time could have been improved by cutting out a large hole in each of the fluoride drums. With a large opening, the fluoride solution could have been poured into the intake structure rather quickly compared with pouring the solution through its spout. In evaluating the data for the samples taken from the contact chamber, the results showed a longer tailing off of the concentration curve. This would effect the results by reducing the peak tracer concentration measured and increasing the value of the calculated short circuiting factor, t 10/T. The overall short-circuiting value of the whole clearwell should not have had been effected by the dosing.

Test Results for Combined Intake Structure and Contact Chamber

The City of Napa chlorine intake structure and contact chamber tracer test results are shown in Table 1.1 and plotted in Figures 1.5 and 1.6. A spreadsheet program was developed to handle all the data input and analysis. Table 1.2 is a summary of that spreadsheet. A mass balance of the tracer recovered is a good indication of how well the tracer experiment performed. Results showed that 98.7 percent of the tracer mass was recovered, which is a very good recovery rate. The value generated for t10 was 20.1 minutes compared with the theoretical detention time of 22.3 minutes. The short-circuiting value (t10/T) is then calculated to be 0.90. The short-circuiting value can graphically be determined as illustrated in Figure 1.6. Results show that this portion of the clearwell’s flow regime models closely to plug flow, which is what is preferred in disinfection.

The calculated number of continuous-flow stirred-tank reactors (CFSTRs) was 8.8. In a CFSTR, fluid particles that enter the reactor are instantaneously dispersed throughout the reactor volume. Hence, the tracer concentration in the water leaving the reactor is the same tracer concentration in the reactor at a point in time. When several CFSTRs are put in series, the flow characteristics begin to model the characteristics of a plug-flow reactor (PFR). In a PFR, fluid particles pass through the reactor and are discharged in the same sequence in which they entered the reactor. Each fluid particle remains in the reactor for a time period equal to the theoretical detention time.

As discussed earlier, the t10/T value of 0.90 is most likely higher than the actual short-circuiting value for this portion of the clearwell. If the tracer analysis for the combined intake structure and contact tank were based on the time period starting near the end of tracer dosing opposed to time

7

Table 1.2 Combined intake structure and contact tank tabulated tracer data and analysis* (pulse input)

Time t (minutes) t

Normalized Time, t/T (min/min)

Measured concentration

Cmeasured (mg/L)

Actual concentration

(mg/L)

Average C(mg/L)

Mass RecoveredCtQ(mg)

Cumulative Mass Recovered

(mg)

F(t) Curve(mg/L)/(mg/L)

Tracer ResultsTracer recovered = 57.5 lbs. (26,074 Kg) Theoretical detention time, T = 22.3 minutesTracer added = 58.2 lbs. (26,409 Kg) t50 = 26.4 minutesPercent recovered = 98.7 % t10 = 20.1 minutesNCFSTR = 8.8 Short-circuiting factor, (t10/T) = 0.90

* Initial conditions: average flow into and out of reactor = 18.6 MGD (12,917 gpm); background concentration = 0.091 mg/L.Actual concentration = measured concentration – background.As discussed in this report, the actual short-circuiting value is most likely 0.80 and should replace the 0.90 value.

8

0 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0 01 1 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.002 1 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.003 1 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.004 1 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.005 1 0.22 0.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.006 1 0.27 0.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.007 1 0.31 0.08 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.008 1 0.36 0.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.009 1 0.40 0.12 0.03 0.02 741 741 0.0010 1 0.45 0.29 0.20 0.12 5687 6428 0.0011 1 0.49 0.76 0.67 0.44 21311 27739 0.0012 1 0.54 1.59 1.50 1.08 52953 80692 0.0013 1 0.58 2.38 2.29 1.90 92656 173348 0.0114 1 0.63 3.46 3.37 2.83 138403 311751 0.0115 1 0.67 3.74 3.65 3.51 171480 483230 0.0216 1 0.72 4.61 4.52 4.08 199556 682786 0.0317 1 0.76 6.38 6.29 5.40 264145 946931 0.0418 1 0.81 7.96 7.87 7.08 346012 1292943 0.0519 1 0.85 12.52 12.43 10.15 496106 1789049 0.0720 1 0.90 18.95 18.86 15.65 764884 2553933 0.1021 1 0.94 29.02 28.93 23.90 1168310 3722243 0.1422 1 0.99 34.55 34.46 31.70 1549648 5271891 0.2023 1 1.03 37.19 37.10 35.78 1749311 7021202 0.2724 1 1.08 37.48 37.39 37.25 1820907 8842108 0.3325 1 1.12 37.63 37.54 37.46 1831536 10673645 0.4026 1 1.17 36.20 36.11 36.82 1800137 12473782 0.4727 1 1.21 32.47 32.38 34.24 1674215 14147997 0.5428 1 1.26 31.85 31.76 32.07 1568016 15716013 0.6029 1 1.30 28.25 28.16 29.96 1464663 17180676 0.6530 1 1.35 24.38 24.29 26.22 1282008 18462683 0.7031 1 1.39 19.85 19.76 22.03 1076841 19539524 0.7432 1 1.44 15.55 15.46 17.61 861092 20400617 0.7733 1 1.48 12.91 12.82 14.14 691452 21092068 0.8034 1 1.53 11.32 11.23 12.03 587963 21680031 0.8236 2 1.61 9.55 9.46 10.34 1011252 22691283 0.8638 2 1.70 6.95 6.86 8.16 797476 23488759 0.8940 2 1.79 5.57 5.48 6.17 603138 24091898 0.9142 2 1.88 3.43 3.34 4.41 431276 24523174 0.9344 2 1.97 2.76 2.67 3.01 293993 24817167 0.9446 2 2.06 1.98 1.89 2.28 222986 25040153 0.9548 2 2.15 1.54 1.45 1.67 163159 25203312 0.9550 2 2.24 1.22 1.13 1.29 126000 25329312 0.9652 2 2.33 1.22 1.13 1.13 110392 25439705 0.9654 2 2.42 0.98 0.89 1.01 98574 25538279 0.9756 2 2.51 0.83 0.74 0.81 79575 25617854 0.9758 2 2.60 0.70 0.61 0.68 66024 25683878 0.9760 2 2.69 0.63 0.54 0.58 56250 25740128 0.9762 2 2.78 0.54 0.45 0.50 48518 25788646 0.9864 2 2.87 0.45 0.36 0.41 39686 25828332 0.9866 2 2.96 0.40 0.31 0.33 32689 25861021 0.9870 4 3.14 0.35 0.26 0.28 55303 25916324 0.9874 4 3.32 0.30 0.21 0.23 45223 25961547 0.9878 4 3.50 0.27 0.18 0.19 38068 25999616 0.9882 4 3.68 0.22 0.13 0.16 30840 26030455 0.9986 4 3.86 0.20 0.11 0.12 23536 26053991 0.9990 4 4.04 0.18 0.09 0.10 19841 26073832 0.99

Figure 1.5 City of Napa combined intake structure and contact basin pulse input testC-curve

Figure 1.6 City of Napa combined intake structure and contact basin pulse input test converted to F-curve

9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90

Time, minutes

Fluo

ride,

mg/

L

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0

ti/T, min/min

F(t)

T10/T = 0.9

beginning at the moment the tracer was poured, the t10/T value would be closer to 0.80. In assigning a short-circuiting value, a t10/T of 0.80 should be used.

Shown in Figure 1.5 is the concentration curve. The maximum fluoride concentration measured leaving the contact tank (or entering the bay tanks) was approximately 38 mg/L, which is very high. This was expected since the volume of the combined intake structure and contact chamber is relatively small compared to the bay tanks. Figure 1.6 shows the normalized F-curve. In order to plot the F-curve, the cumulative recovery is plotted on the y-axis against the time on the x-axis. t10 can then be determined graphically by drawing a horizontal line from 0.1 on the y-axis to the curve and vertical line down to the corresponding time. All calculations were based on the mass of tracer added and not the amount of tracer recovered.

Test Results for Combined Intake Structure, Contact Chamber & Bay Tanks

The City of Napa combined chlorine intake structure, contact chamber, and bay tanks tracer test results are shown in Table 1.3 and plotted in Figures 1.7 and 1.8. Results showed that 96.3 percent of the tracer mass was recovered, which is a very good recovery rate. The value generated for t10 was 55 minutes compared with the theoretical detention time of 337 minutes. Results show that when evaluating all the reactors as one unit the clearwell’s flow regime modeled most closely to a CFSTR. The calculated number of CFSTRs was 1.3. The short-circuiting value (t10/T) was calculated to be 0.16. This is much lower than expected and not conducive to the disinfection process. Before the test, it was expected that the short-circuiting factor would be greater than 0.4 based on test results for an another tank of similar design.

Fluoride sampling of this test was terminated after 810 minutes or 2.4T, at which time the filters had to be backwashed. It was known that the tracer test would indeed be terminated before 3T. It was our hope that this would be long enough to obtain adequate tracer mass recovery. At the 810-minute mark, the actual tracer recovered was 91 percent. One other sample was taken the next morning at the 1,380-minute mark (4.1T) to determine if the fluoride concentration was back to normal background level. Results showed that fluoride levels were still slightly greater than background. Based on the slope of the declining C-curve, the level of fluoride concentration at 810 minutes, and the level of fluoride residual the following morning, it was decided that the C-curve could be extrapolated with minimal error. This was done to obtain a more developed C-curve and F-curve, and to obtain a greater accuracy for other data analysis. An equation was developed using an Excel spreadsheet to determine the extrapolated curve. This procedure added approximately 5 percent of tracer mass to give a mass recovery 96.3.

Shown in Figure 1.7 is the concentration curve, which is very similar to what a CFSTR reactor plot curve would look like. The maximum fluoride concentration measured leaving the bay tanks was approximately 1.74 mg/L. If this tank was a true CFSTR, the initial mixed concentration would be 1.78 mg/L, which is very close to the actual peak concentration measured. Figure 1.8 shows the normalized F-curve. It should be noted that the points on the curves in Figures 1.7 and 1.8 between 810 minutes (2.4T) and 1,380 minutes (4.1T) are extrapolation points.

10

Table 1.3 Combined intake structure and contact tank tabulated tracer data and analysis* (pulse input)

Time t (minutes) t

Normalized Time, t/T (min/min)

Measured concentration

Cmeasured (mg/L)

Actual concentration

(mg/L)

Average C(mg/L)

Mass RecoveredCtQ(mg)

Cumulative Mass Recovered

(mg)

F(t) Curve(mg/L)/(mg/L)

Table 1.3 Continued

Time t (minutes) t

Normalized Time, t/T (min/min)

Measured concentration

Cmeasured

(mg/L)

Actual concentration

(mg/L)

Average C(mg/L)

Mass RecoveredCtQ(mg)

Cumulative Mass Recovered

(mg)

F(t) Curve(mg/L)/(mg/L)

11

0 0 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.0010 10 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.01 4244 4244 0.0020 10 0.06 1.62 1.52 0.77 346807 351051 0.0130 10 0.09 1.70 1.61 1.57 704012 1055063 0.0440 10 0.12 1.67 1.58 1.60 714871 1769934 0.0750 10 0.15 1.38 1.29 1.43 642627 2412561 0.0960 10 0.18 1.19 1.10 1.19 534849 2947409 0.1170 10 0.21 1.73 1.64 1.37 612781 3560190 0.1380 10 0.24 1.74 1.65 1.65 732930 4293120 0.1690 10 0.27 1.53 1.44 1.54 687688 4980808 0.19100 10 0.30 1.69 1.60 1.52 677263 5658071 0.21110 10 0.33 1.67 1.58 1.59 707114 6365185 0.24120 10 0.36 1.61 1.52 1.55 690584 7055769 0.27130 10 0.39 1.56 1.47 1.49 665344 7721113 0.29140 10 0.42 1.57 1.48 1.47 657062 8378175 0.32150 10 0.45 1.43 1.34 1.41 627281 9005456 0.34160 10 0.48 1.44 1.35 1.34 593744 9599200 0.36170 10 0.50 1.37 1.28 1.31 583403 10182603 0.39180 10 0.53 1.37 1.28 1.28 570505 10753108 0.41190 10 0.56 1.28 1.19 1.24 549298 11302407 0.43200 10 0.59 1.24 1.14 1.17 518880 11821286 0.45210 10 0.62 1.21 1.12 1.13 499719 12321006 0.47220 10 0.65 1.18 1.09 1.10 484367 12805373 0.48230 10 0.68 1.12 1.03 1.06 461224 13266597 0.50240 10 0.71 1.09 0.99 1.01 438424 13705021 0.52250 10 0.74 1.04 0.95 0.97 419325 14124346 0.53260 10 0.77 1.02 0.93 0.94 406739 14531086 0.55270 10 0.80 0.99 0.90 0.91 398840 14929926 0.57280 10 0.83 0.98 0.89 0.89 382955 15312880 0.58290 10 0.86 0.91 0.82 0.85 368560 15681440 0.59300 10 0.89 0.89 0.80 0.81 359275 16040715 0.61310 10 0.92 0.87 0.78 0.79 350810 16391525 0.62320 10 0.95 0.83 0.74 0.76 335404 16726929 0.63330 10 0.98 0.83 0.74 0.74 325913 17052842 0.65340 10 1.01 0.79 0.70 0.72 315909 17368751 0.66350 10 1.04 0.78 0.69 0.69 305146 17673897 0.67360 10 1.07 0.75 0.66 0.67 298541 17972438 0.68370 10 1.10 0.71 0.62 0.64 283528 18255965 0.69380 10 1.13 0.70 0.61 0.61 271677 18527642 0.70390 10 1.16 0.67 0.58 0.59 261357 18789000 0.71400 10 1.19 0.65 0.56 0.57 250563 19039563 0.72410 10 1.22 0.63 0.54 0.55 242584 19282147 0.73420 10 1.25 0.61 0.52 0.53 233657 19515804 0.74430 10 1.28 0.60 0.51 0.51 230363 19746167 0.75440 10 1.31 0.57 0.48 0.49 222935 19969102 0.76450 10 1.34 0.56 0.47 0.47 210750 20179852 0.76460 10 1.37 0.53 0.43 0.45 201251 20381103 0.77470 10 1.40 0.53 0.44 0.44 197860 20578963 0.78480 10 1.43 0.52 0.43 0.44 197055 20776019 0.79490 10 1.46 0.49 0.40 0.42 187452 20963471 0.79500 10 1.49 0.49 0.39 0.40 179513 21142984 0.80510 10 1.51 0.44 0.35 0.37 167119 21310102 0.81520 10 1.54 0.46 0.37 0.36 160463 21470565 0.81530 10 1.57 0.44 0.35 0.36 160631 21631196 0.82540 10 1.60 0.43 0.34 0.35 155540 21786736 0.82550 10 1.63 0.41 0.32 0.33 147036 21933772 0.83560 10 1.66 0.40 0.31 0.31 136809 22070581 0.84570 10 1.69 0.39 0.30 0.30 130472 22201053 0.84585 15 1.74 0.37 0.28 0.29 184742 22385795 0.85600 15 1.78 0.34 0.24 0.26 168030 22553825 0.85

615 15 1.83 0.33 0.24 0.24 157053 22710879 0.86630 15 1.87 0.31 0.22 0.23 148912 22859790 0.87645 15 1.92 0.28 0.19 0.21 132549 22992339 0.87660 15 1.96 0.31 0.22 0.21 132905 23125244 0.88675 15 2.00 0.29 0.19 0.21 133261 23258505 0.88690 15 2.05 0.28 0.19 0.19 122184 23380689 0.89705 15 2.09 0.26 0.17 0.18 113373 23494062 0.89720 15 2.14 0.26 0.17 0.17 107004 23601066 0.89740 20 2.20 0.23 0.14 0.15 129697 23730762 0.90760 20 2.26 0.23 0.14 0.14 116896 23847658 0.90780 20 2.32 0.23 0.14 0.14 114069 23961728 0.91810 30 2.41 0.22 0.13 0.13 163616 24125343 0.91840 30 2.50 0.21 0.12 0.12 153055 24278398 0.92870 30 2.58 0.20 0.11 0.11 139057 24417455 0.92900 30 2.67 0.19 0.10 0.10 126244 24543700 0.93930 30 2.76 0.18 0.09 0.09 114481 24658181 0.93960 30 2.85 0.17 0.08 0.08 103650 24761831 0.94990 30 2.94 0.16 0.07 0.08 93653 24855484 0.94

1020 30 3.03 0.16 0.07 0.07 84401 24939884 0.941050 30 3.12 0.15 0.06 0.06 75819 25015703 0.951080 30 3.21 0.14 0.05 0.06 67842 25083545 0.951110 30 3.30 0.14 0.05 0.05 60411 25143956 0.951140 30 3.39 0.13 0.04 0.04 53476 25197432 0.951170 30 3.48 0.13 0.04 0.04 46991 25244423 0.961200 30 3.56 0.12 0.03 0.03 40917 25285340 0.961230 30 3.65 0.12 0.03 0.03 35218 25320558 0.961260 30 3.74 0.11 0.02 0.02 29863 25350421 0.961290 30 3.83 0.11 0.02 0.02 24823 25375244 0.961320 30 3.92 0.11 0.01 0.02 20074 25395318 0.961350 30 4.01 0.10 0.01 0.01 15591 25410909 0.961380 30 4.10 0.10 0.01 0.01 11355 25422264 0.96

Tracer ResultsTracer recovered = 56.0 lbs. (26,074 Kg) Theoretical detention time, T = 337 minutesTracer added = 58.2 lbs. (26,409 Kg) t50 = 230 minutesPercent recovered = 96.3 % t10 = 55 minutesNCFSTR = 1.3 Short-circuiting factor, (t10/T) = 0.16

* Initial conditions: average flow into and out of reactor = 16.8 MGD (11,667 gpm); background concentration = 0.091 mg/L.**Data between 810 and 1,380 minutes is extrapolated data.Actual concentration = measured concentration – background.

Figure 1.7 City of Napa combined intake structure, contact basin & bay tanks pulse input test C-curve

Figure 1.8 City of Napa combined intake structure and contact basin pulse input test converted to

12

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080 1140 1200 1260 1320 1380

Time, minutes

Fluo

ride,

mg/

L

F-curve

Summary and Recommendations

The pulse-input test conducted at the City of Napa Hennessey surface water treatment plant was important and useful in determining t10 in the plant’s clearwell. Knowing t10, plant operators can adjust the applied disinfectant concentrations to maintain compliance with regulatory standards for primary disinfection without unnecessarily overdosing the disinfectants, which not only is costly but also can lead to an increase in disinfection byproduct formation. The overall short-circuiting factor for the clearwell (combined intake structure, contact chamber, and bay tanks) was 0.16. Based on the hydraulic characteristic, the clearwell model most closely to one CFSTR. In evaluating the combined intake structure and contact chamber portion of the clearwell, a short-circuiting factor of 0.90 was generated. However, based on the discussing in this report, a short-circuiting factor of 0.80 is a more realistic value that should be used. Using either the higher or lower value, however, this portion of the clearwell exhibits hydraulic characteristics of a plug flow reactor.

Several conclusions regarding tracer test procedures can be made from the tracer testing performed at the Hennessey water treatment plant.

The planning stage of a tracer test cannot be overemphasized. Prior to actually conducting the test, plant personnel should be informed of the importance of this test and be trained on what is required of them to ensure success of a tracer test.

Have good communication with personnel throughout the test and be prepared to make on-site decisions and adjustment to tracer test if the situation calls for it.

13

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2

ti/T, min/min

F(t)

T10/T = 0.16

When performing a pulse-input test, it is important to apply enough tracer mass to have a well define peak. Sampling frequency is very important in defining the peak curve. It is better to take more samples than necessary and not enough.

Maintaining constant gravity flow in a finished water storage tank during tracer testing may be difficult. Prepare ahead of time to minimize fluctuations.

Maintaining a flow greater than 91 percent of the expected peak hourly flow for the duration of a tracer test will be difficult when testing a finished water storage tank. Choose the month to conduct the test that will give you the greater assurance of success.

It is important to have good quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) when performing the analytical analysis. This includes using proper lab techniques and equipment in conducting analysis; checking calibration of measuring equipment; and systematically checking calibration curve for variants.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Ali Rezvani, P.E., CDM (Camp Dresser & McKee Inc); Janice Oakley, Sanitary Engineer, State Health Department, Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, Santa Rosa; Turan Ramandan, MSCE, Water Operation Supervisor, City of Napa; Bob McDill, Water Treatment Facility Supervisor, City of Napa; Susanne Ulrich, Senior Lab Technician, City of Napa; and the City of Napa personnel involved in tracer test.

14

References

AWWA (American Water Works Association). Tracer Studies in Water Treatment Facilities: A Protocol and Case Studies. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association (1996).

BISHOP, M.M.; MORGAN, J.M.; CORNWELL, B. JAMISON, D.K. Improving the Disinfection Detention Time of a Water Plant Clearwell. Jour AWWA, 85:3:68 (Mar. 1993).

LEVENSPIEL. O. Chemical Reaction Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, New York (2nd ed., 1962).

TCHOBANOGLOUS, G. & SCHROEDER, E. D. Water Quality, Characteristics – Modeling – Modification. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. (1985).

TEEFY, S.M. & SINGER, P.C. Performance and Analysis of Tracer Tests to Determine Compliance of a Disinfection Scheme with the SWTR. Jour AWWA, 82:12:88 (Dec. 1990).

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources. Washington, D.C. (1989).

15