Evaluation of Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System For Taste … · 2018. 4. 4. · Taste & odor...

Evaluation of Powdered Activated Carbon Feed SystemFor Taste and Odor Removal at City of Camden WTP

Jane Gan

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAwQjRw&url=http://www.lakewateree.com/&ei=ucpIVd_6FYiaNt2igOAJ&psig=AFQjCNEuW2wtInowaJ0RfUFvkRn9iSy0NQ&ust=1430920249435183

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAwQjRw&url=http://www.lakewateree.com/&ei=ucpIVd_6FYiaNt2igOAJ&psig=AFQjCNEuW2wtInowaJ0RfUFvkRn9iSy0NQ&ust=1430920249435183

2

An Overview of Algae Related T&OFactors affecting algae growth and proliferationTaste & odor control goal settingAlgae Source Management TechniquesTreatment technologies for algae related T&O

control– Performance data– Case Studies

Outline of the Presentation

3

Overview of Algae Related Taste & Odor

Taste & odor can be caused by a wide variety of types and species of algae:– Chlorophyta (Green algae), e.g. Pandorina, Volvox– Cyanophyta (Blue-Green Algae), e.g. Microcystis, Anabaena– Chrysophyta (Yellow-Green Algae), e.g. Dinobryon, Synura– Pyrrhophyta (Dinoflagellates), e.g. Ceratium, Peridinium– Cryptophyta (Cryptomonads), e.g. Cryptomonas

Geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) are by far the most well known T&O causing algae metabolites, but by no means the only ones

The proliferation of algae in Ontario's Lakes

Data from Winter, J. (Ontario MOE)

Blue-green algae

Green algae

North Augusta WTP

Charleston Water System

Newberry WTP

Spartanburg Water

Camden WTPClinton WTP

Beaufort Jasper WSA

Anderson Regional JWS

Greenwood CPW

Lugoff Elgin WA

Gaffney BPW

Occurrence of T & O in SC

6

How do we “measure” Taste & Odor ?

Humans have varying sensitivity to tastes and odors in drinking water

With so many causes of T&O, a “one size fits all” approach to measurement is not possible

Three main methods are used:1. Measurement of specific compounds, e.g. MIB or geosmin2. Threshold Odor Number (TON - Standard Methods) – A fixed

panel measures the intensity of odor (regardless of type)3. Flavour Profile Analysis (FPA) – A fixed panel measures both

type and intensity of flavour

Water Source

Wateree Dam & Hydro Station

Camden WTP IntakeAmmonia 0.226 mg-N/LTotal Phosphorus 0.05 mg-P/L

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Camden’s source water is the Catawba Wateree River basin. It extends from the foothills in NC to the piedmont area in SC. This eleven reservoirs system was originally constructed in the 1900s. It is operated and managed by Duke Energy Nearly two million people depend on the river and its tributaries for drinking water, powder generation, and other uses. Camden’s located near the bottom of the watershed. The WTP withdraws water from the last reservoir, lake Wateree.

1 1 1 1

19.3

1 1 1 2.5 4.41 1 1 1 1 3.3

12.38.7

3.5 4.2 4.1 3.2

44.3

20.5

2.9 4.9 4.41

6.82.3 4.8 4.8 3 6.2 5.9 5.2 4.1 4.9 4 3.9 3.9 5.5

2.9 6.13.5 4.6

3.4 3.6

MIB Geosmin

Concentrations of T&O compounds at Camden Intake

9

So how do we deal with algae related T&O ?

Management of Algae Growth at the Source– Stop or suppress algae growing in the first place– Kill algae at the source

Management of Algae T&O at the Water Treatment Plant– Remove live algae cells through treatment– Kill live algae cells through treatment– Directly treat T&O causing compounds after release

10

Management of Algae Growth at the Source

Several techniques have been considered:– Select an alternative intake location– Reduce nutrient input from point and non-point sources– Precipitate nutrients in-lake using alum or lime– Dredge sediment– De-stratify water with artificial circulation– Aerate the Hypolimnion– Use algaecides (e.g. copper sulphate) as a growth inhibitor– Bio-manipulate at the source

Care is needed, as unintended results can occur, e.g.:– Other environmental impacts (e.g. toxicity due to algaecide use)– Proliferation of other species– Enhanced release of intracellular compounds

Water Quality Sampling Plan with Duke Energy

Sampling locations– Wateree full pond– Camden intake– Lugoff intake

Sampling schedule– Low-level (baseline)– High-level MIB/geosmin

Sampling parameters– In-situ

• Temperature• Dissolved oxygen• pH • Conductivity• Chlorophyll a fluorescence• Blue-green fluorescence• Turbidity

– Nutrient• Total/Ortho phosphate• Ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and total

Kjeldahl nitrogen– Additional Analyses

• Algae Count• MIB/Geosmin

Taste and Odor Occurrence at Camden WTP

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The 2012 T&O spikes also got attention from Duke Energy. They developed a sampling plan for water quality on Lake Wateree with Camden water plant, and the other plant on the lake Lugoff-elgein water plant. The map shows the four sampling locations, two Wateree full pond station, and near intakes of the two water plants. Duke proposed to sample when the algae growth is not very active to obtain baseline data. And sample again when MIB and Geosmin spikes occur. The sampling parameters include some basic water quality parameters, nutrient levels, algae growth indicator such as chlorophyll, and MIB / Geosmin. The initial baseline samples have been collected. But there hasn’t been a huge MIB and Geosmin spikes for the second round of sampling program. But it is a good news for the water plant. Camden has collected some MIB and Geosmin samples. MIB 20, Geosmin 7.

188

190

192

194

196

198

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

214

216

218

220

222

224

226

10 15 20 25 30 35

Ele

vatio

n, ft

Water Temperature, ˚C

11 mi above Camden Intake4.3 mi above Camden IntakeCamden IntakeLEWA Intake

May 28, 2013

LEWA & Camden Upper Intake (210.5-213 ft)

Camden Lower Intake (191-195 ft)

188

190

192

194

196

198

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

214

216

218

220

222

224

226

10 15 20 25 30 35

Ele

vatio

n, ft

Water Temperature, ˚C


September 10, 2015



188

190

192

194

196

198

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

214

216

218

220

222

224

226

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Ele

vatio

n, ft

Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L


May 28, 2013



188

190

192

194

196

198

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

214

216

218

220

222

224

226

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Ele

vatio

n, ft

Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L


September 10, 2015



188

190

192

194

196

198

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

214

216

218

220

222

224

226

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Ele

vatio

n, ft

Fluorometry-estimated Chlorophyll a, µg/L


May 28, 2013



188

190

192

194

196

198

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

214

216

218

220

222

224

226

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Ele

vatio

n, ft

Fluorometry-estimated Chlorophyll a, µg/L


September 10, 2015



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

CAMDEN LEWA 115.0 130.0

Den

sity

(uni

ts/m

L)

Location

Wateree locations

Green Algae Diatoms Blue-green algae Others

Total Algal Density (units / mL)Sample Date: September 10, 2015

19

Treatment Techniques

Removal of Live Algae Removal or Destruction of Extracellular T&O Compounds

Pre-Treatment Techniques Oxidative Techniques• Coag./Flocculation/Sedimentation • Chlorine• Coag./Flocculation/Ballasted

Flocculation • Potassium Permanganate

• Coag./Flocculation/DAF • Advanced Oxidation

• Ozonation

Filtration Processes Sorptive Techniques• Granular Media Filtration • Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)

• Low Pressure Membrane Filtration • Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

• Cartridge and Bag Filters • Biologically Active Filtration

• Strainers

• Reverse Osmosis or Nanofiltration

Treatment Process & Challenge

Source Water Pump Station Coag/Floc Sedimentation Filtration Clearwell Distribution

Alum, Lime, PolymerKMnO4 & PAC Cl2

Challenge- Seasonal spikes of Mn in source water

- Prolonged periods of taste and odor problem in 2012

Treatment process- Pre oxidation with potassium permanganate

- Chlorine on top of the filters

- Powder activated carbon at the raw water pump station

Cl2

Cl2 Contactor

NH3, PO4, F-, Lime



Alum, Lime, PolymerKMNO4 & PAC Cl2 Cl2

Cl2 Contactor

NH3, PO4, F-, Lime

Process

- KMnO4 and PAC have a neutralizing impact on each other

Operation

- Batch slurry system for potassium permanganate as well as carbon

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In fall 2012 for the first time, customers complained about the earthy and musty odor of their drinking water. We started investigating the problem in 2013 We first tried to figure out what the plant did to solve the issue, the plant increased the carbon dose as much as they could at the raw water pump station. The graphs illustrates the dosage of carbon and potassium permanganate in the raw water in 2012. The carbon dose was increased from 2 to 10 mg/L in that summer. The permanganate was around 0.2 mg/L. However, the was not able to stop customers’ complain. Process challenge The problem is related to simultaneous addition of the two chemicals, KMnO4 and PAC have a neutralizing impact on each other. KMnO4 oxidizes PAC, rendering PAC unavailable for adsorption of T&O compounds. Meanwhile PAC consumes KMnO4, rendering KMnO4 unavailable for oxidation of dissolved manganese. Researchers reported that PAC removal efficiencies can decrease by 50-75 % for MIB and 20-40% for geosmin when added simultaneously with oxidants. This partially explains why the WTP was unable to remove enough T&O compounds even though more PAC was added to the raw water. Operation Challenge: The water plant has batch slurry system for both potassium permanganate as well as carbon. The chemicals are stored in 50 lbs of bag. Operators have to dump the bags into slurry tank to make up solution daily. The operator couldn’t feed enough carbon to remove the MIB and Geosmin during the spike.



Alum, Lime, PolymerKMNO4 & PAC Cl2 Cl2

Cl2 Contactor

NH3, PO4, F-, Lime

Optimization of T&O removal• MIB and geosmin occurrence

• PAC type

• PAC dose

• ↑ Contact time prior to coagulation

↑ Performance

• Most effective without interference from oxidant

• Alternative PAC feed system

• Capacity PAC feed system

Actions• Source water monitoring

• PAC process evaluation

• Alternative equipment selection

• Site layout

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation3-Step Jar Test• Select carbon type• Generate dose removal curve• Pre coagulation contact time

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation

44%40%

48%

27%

47%

62%

54%

68%

38%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HydroDarcoEx

20 BF Aqua Nuchar Water Carb Water Carb800

% R

emov

al

Set #1 Carbon Type : Best Performance Aqua Nuchar

MIB Removal Geosmin Removal

Results

25 mg/L of Price MIB Geosmin TOC

$/lb ng/L ng/L mg/LBlank (regular coagulation) 61.1 68.4 2.58

HydroDarco Ex NA 34.1 26.2 2.38

20 BF NA 36.5 31.8 2.44

Aqua Nuchar 1.05 31.9 21.7 2.2

Water Carb 0.76 44.7 42.3 2.69

Water Carb 800 0.92 32.4 27.3 2.5

Water CharacteristicsDate 3/24/2015

Raw water pH 7.04Raw water temperature 15.2 C

Raw water TOC 4.54 mg/LTurbidity 10.2 NTUAlkalinity 30 mg/L

Jar Test ConditionsAlum dose 49 mg/L (wet dose)Rapid Mix 250 rpm 76 sec

Flocculation #1 29 rpm 13 minFlocculation #2 15 rpm 13 minFlocculation #3 12 rpm 17 min

Setting 0 rpm 9 min

3-Step Jar Test• Select carbon type• Generate dose removal curve• Pre coagulation contact time


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

% R

emov

al

Aqua Nuchar Dose (mg/L)

Set #2 MIB & Geosmin Dose Removal Curve by Aqua Nuchar

regular coagulation

Geosmin Removal

MIB Removal

What does it mean??MIB is more difficult to remove.MIB & Geosmin removal is not affected by their initial concentration.

Initial MIB in Source Water

(ng/L)

Target MIB in Finished Water

(ng/L)

Target % MIB Removal

Scenario 1

Required PAC dose without contact time

(mg/L)

10 10 0% 415 10 33% 1420 10 50% 2725 10 60% 4030 10 67% 53

Initial MIB 62 ng/L, Geosmin 69 ng/L.


Pre Coagulation Contact Time (minute)

24 inch pipe (ft) Flow Rate (MGD)6 4 2

Pump station to rapid mix 5500 31.0 46.5 93.1Property line to rapid mix 1200 6.8 10.2 20.3



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 6 15 30

MIB

Con

cent

ratio

n (n

g/L)

Pre Coagulation Contact Time (Minutes)

Set #3 Pre Coagulation Contact Time Initial MIB 46 ng/L

25 ppm 35 ppm

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 6 15 30

Geo

smin

Con

cent

ratio

n (n

g/L)

Pre Coagulation Contact Time (Minutes)

Set #3 Pre Coagulation Contact TimeInitial Geosmin: 35 ng/L

25 ppm 35 ppm



Selected Powdered Activated Carbon: AquaNuchar


(ng/L)


(ng/L)


Scenario 1 Scenario 2


(mg/L)

Required PAC dose with ~30 min contact time

(mg/L)10 10 0% 4 215 10 33% 14 920 10 50% 27 1825 10 60% 40 2730 10 67% 53 3535 10 71% 64 4340 10 75% 74 4945 10 78% 83 5550 10 80% 90 60

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Equipment Selection

Batch Slurry System SuperSack Silo Concrete Slurry Tank

Delivery 50-lb bag 500 to 900-lb sack Tanker truck (40,000 lb)Tank truck (40,000 lb)

dry or slurryUnit Price

(AquaNuchar)$ 1.05/lb $ 1.05/lb $ 1.00/lb $ 1.20/lb

Examples in SC Camden WTPSpartanburg R.B. Simms WTPGreenwood W.R. Wise WTP

Rock Hill WTP Columbia Canal WTP

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAwQjRw&url=http://www.evoqua.com/en/products/physical_chemical_treatment/neutralization_precipitation_systems/Pages/Powdered_Carbon_Slurry_Make-Up_System.aspx&ei=tRxJVc7vAs61sATU44GIDw&psig=AFQjCNFAwX9v97AEcj5i0TNwEo2SC51EuA&ust=1430941237147016

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAwQjRw&url=http://www.evoqua.com/en/products/physical_chemical_treatment/neutralization_precipitation_systems/Pages/Powdered_Carbon_Slurry_Make-Up_System.aspx&ei=tRxJVc7vAs61sATU44GIDw&psig=AFQjCNFAwX9v97AEcj5i0TNwEo2SC51EuA&ust=1430941237147016

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAwQjRw&url=http://www.spiroflowsystems.com/equipment/water-effluent-and-sewerage-treatment/technical.cfm?id%3D51&ei=8RxJVariNaOSsQT414DoDg&psig=AFQjCNH3VC1ip8QpcLx7SQZo2JpdCHYUsw&ust=1430941297996117

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAwQjRw&url=http://www.spiroflowsystems.com/equipment/water-effluent-and-sewerage-treatment/technical.cfm?id%3D51&ei=8RxJVariNaOSsQT414DoDg&psig=AFQjCNH3VC1ip8QpcLx7SQZo2JpdCHYUsw&ust=1430941297996117

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAwQjRw&url=http://sodimate-inc.com/slurry-tank/&ei=DiNJVbXTJu_jsASfm4CYAQ&psig=AFQjCNEP3o3NQt288WtaQsR1lrJpXJ2fVg&ust=1430942862734840

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAwQjRw&url=http://sodimate-inc.com/slurry-tank/&ei=DiNJVbXTJu_jsASfm4CYAQ&psig=AFQjCNEP3o3NQt288WtaQsR1lrJpXJ2fVg&ust=1430942862734840

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System LayoutRaw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant Site

Pump House

Control BuildingPAC, KMnO4

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System LayoutRaw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant Site

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System LayoutRaw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant SiteContact chamber Vs. No contact chamber

Selected Powdered Activated Carbon: AquaNuchar

Initial MIB in Source Water (ng/L)


(ng/L)


Scenario 1 Scenario 2


(mg/L)

Required PAC dose with ~30 min contact

time (mg/L)10 10 0% 4 215 10 33% 14 920 10 50% 27 1825 10 60% 40 2730 10 67% 53 3535 10 71% 64 4340 10 75% 74 4945 10 78% 83 5550 10 80% 90 60

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System Layout

(AWWA WR Report: Optimization of Powdered Activated Carbon Application for Geosmin and MIB Removal


(AWWA WR Report: Optimization of Powdered Activated Carbon Application for Geosmin and MIB Removal

Design Criteria for Evaluation: 15 occurrences per year



(ng/L)


(ng/L)


Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Saving in PAC Cost by

building a ~ 30 min contact

chamber


(mg/L)

Annual PAC Cost for T&O

Spikes

Required PAC dose with ~30 min contact time (mg/L)

Annual PAC Cost for T&O

Spikes

20 10 50% 27 $ 8,866 18 $ 5,911 $ 2,955 25 10 60% 40 $ 13,136 27 $ 8,866 $ 4,269

30 10 67% 53 $ 17,405 35 $ 11,494 $ 5,911

35 10 71% 64 $ 21,017 43 $ 14,121 $ 6,896

40 10 75% 74 $ 24,301 49 $ 16,091 $ 8,210

45 10 78% 83 $ 27,256 55 $ 18,061 $ 9,195

50 10 80% 90 $ 29,555 60 $ 19,703 $ 9,852

Raw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant SiteContact chamber Vs. No contact chamber

• Assumptions• Duration of T&O Spikes: 15 days per year• Plant flow rate during T&O spikes: 2.5 MGD• Unit carbon cost if plant uses super sack system: $1.05/lb

Annual Carbon Cost to Treat T&O Spikes



(ng/L)

Saving in PAC Cost by

building a ~ 30 min contact

chamber

20 $ 2,955

25 $ 4,269

30 $ 5,911

35 $ 6,896

40 $ 8,210

45 $ 9,195

50 $ 9,852

Raw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant SiteContact chamber Vs. No contact chamber

Stage Length Width Depth Volume G(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft3) (s-1)

1 17 17 12.75 3685 272 17 17 12.75 3685 27

Contact Chamber Dimensions (Size similar to third stage flocculation basins at Camden WTP)

Length of 24 inch pipe (ft)

Pre Coagulation Contact Time (minute)

Flow Rate (MGD)6 4 2

Pump station to rapid mix 5500 31 46.5 93.1Property line to rapid mix 1200 7 10 20

Contact Chamber 13 20 40Total Contact Time in WTP 20 30 60

Contact Time

EQUIPMENT DESIGN NOTES QTY UnitsEQUIPMENT

PRICE (UNIT)

EQUIPMENT PRICE

(TOTAL)

CONST. PRICE

(EQ * .50)PRICE

Mixer Vertical Turbine Flocculators 2 EA $ 21,000 $ 42,000 $ 21,000 $ 63,000

Mixer VFD and Control Panel 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 30,000

Concrete Concrete Base (On Grade) 10.70 CY $ 350 $ 3,746 $ 1,873 $ 5,619

Concrete Concrete (Walls) 70.5 CY $ 500 $ 35,259 $ 17,630 $ 52,889

Total: 151,500

Contact Chamber Cost

Powdered Activated Carbon System Design Parameters Carbon type: AquaNuchar Alternative feed system: Supersack system with 900-lb sack Alternative feed system capacity Place alternative PAC system at WTP Extend PAC injection point to the property line Keep KMnO4 raw water pump station

Plant Raw Water Flow

(MGD)

Powdered Activated Carbon Dry Feed Rate - Pounds per Hour

Powdered Activated Carbon, mg/l 2.5 5.0 10.0 25.0 35.0 50.0 70.0 90.0

1.35 1 2 5 12 16 23 33 421.75 2 3 6 15 21 30 43 552.15 2 4 7 19 26 37 52 672.50 2 4 9 22 30 43 61 783.00 3 5 10 26 36 52 73 943.50 3 6 12 30 43 61 85 1094.00 3 7 14 35 49 70 97 1254.50 4 8 16 39 55 78 109 1415.00 4 9 17 43 61 87 122 1565.50 5 10 19 48 67 96 134 1726.00 5 10 21 52 73 104 146 188

Estimated Construction Costs for Recommended System

$416,000

Item Unit Cost

Site Work $25,000

Shed $35,000

Equipment $120,000

Piping/Valves $10,000

Electrical $30,000

SCADA $10,000

Installation $90,000

Contingency (30%) $96,000

Total $416,000

Thank you. We’re listening.

Evaluation of Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System For Taste … · 2018. 4. 4. · Taste & odor...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System For Taste … · 2018. 4. 4. · Taste & odor...