SLIDE 1
A New Perspective in Water Treatment By: Timothy Bailey - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
A New Perspective in Water Treatment By: Timothy Bailey - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
A New Perspective in Water Treatment By: Timothy Bailey Introduction 40 MGD Conventional Treatment Plant Lake Hodges San Dieguito Reservoir San Diego County Aqueduct North No Scale Feb 2008 R.E. Badger Filtration Plant SDR
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
North
No Scale Feb 2008
R.E. Badger Filtration Plant
SLIDE 4
13 MGD Clearwell Flocculation and Sedimentation
- Ops. Bldg.
And Filters
Sludge Processing
Chem. Storage
SDR Raw Water Pipeline LH - Raw Water Pipeline Treated Water to SFID/SDWD Hydroplant CWA Flow Control Facility
I m p
- r
t e d W a t e r A q u e d u c t s
SLIDE 5
Challenging Local Sources
High TOC/ DOC High Manganese Low DO Severe Algae Blooms Fish Kills Stratification High Cost of Treatment High Disinfection Byproducts
SLIDE 6
Challenging Local Sources
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
mg/l
Source TOC (2 Years)
Local Import
SLIDE 7
Challenging Local Sources
50 100 150 200 250 ng/l
Source MIB/ Geosmin
MIB Geosmin
SLIDE 8
Challenging Local Sources
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Manganese (mg/L)
Source Water Manganese
SDR Manganese Lake Hodges Outlet Manganese CWA
SLIDE 9
30 50 70 90 110 5 10 15 20 25 30
D.O., pH, Temperature
Depth (ft)
SLIDE 10
30 50 70 90 110 5 10 15 20 25 30
D.O., pH, Temperature
Depth (ft)
SLIDE 11
Local Sources
Identify the Problems Algae Blooms Low Dissolved Oxygen Lake Turnover High Nutrient Loading Fish Kills High Treatment Cost High Disinfection Byproducts
SLIDE 12
Cost of Treatment
Day of Month Blend of Local and Raw Imported
100% Treated Imported
100% Local
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Cost/ AF
Total Treatmetn Cost ($/ AF)
100% Raw Imported
SLIDE 13
DBP Formation is often the limiting factor in the amount of local water that can be used.
¡ ¡ Q1 ¡ Q2 ¡ Q3 ¡ ¡ Q4 ¡ Q1 ¡ Q2 ¡ Q3 ¡ Q4 ¡ Loc ¡1 ¡
61.0 100.0 58.0 64.0 73.0 110.0 57.0 72.0
Loc ¡2 ¡
62.0 87.0 60.0 62.0 74.0 110.0 56.0 68.0
Loc ¡3 ¡
51.0 100.0 59.0 64.0 75.0 110.0 52.0 67.0
Loc ¡4 ¡
49.0 100.0 59.0 64.0 78.0 120.0 56.0 67.0
Loc ¡5 ¡
50.0 100.0 58.0 62.0 75.0 110.0 56.0 68.0
¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
Q ¡Avg. ¡
54.6 ¡ 97.4 ¡ 58.8 ¡ 63.2 ¡ 75.0 ¡ 112.0 ¡ 55.4 ¡ 68.4 ¡
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ RAA ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
68.5 73.6 77.3 76.4 77.7
SLIDE 14
Local Sources
Identify the Goals – SDR Only Improve quality/ Lower DBPs Reduce the impact from lake Hodges Lower Treatment Costs Increase Local Usage
SLIDE 15
San Dieguito Reservoir Aeration
Aeration Diffusers Seven disks Installed De-stratify SDR Three lake turnovers per day
SLIDE 16
San Dieguito Reservoir Solar Bee Mixer
Gentle Vertical Mixing De-stratification Low Maintenance
SLIDE 17
17
San Dieguito Reservoir Attached Growth Media (Aquamats)
Large surface area Colonize nitrifying bacteria for removal of
- rganically complexed ammonia species
Low Maintenance Reduction of available nutrients – Phosphorus and Nitrogen
SLIDE 18
18
Equipment Placement
SLIDE 19
19
Equipment Placement
SLIDE 20
Results
Before Management After Management
SLIDE 21
Results
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1/7/2002 5/7/2002 9/7/2002 1/7/2003 5/7/2003 9/7/2003 1/7/2004 5/7/2004 9/7/2004 1/7/2005 5/7/2005 9/7/2005 1/7/2006 5/7/2006 9/7/2006 1/7/2007 5/7/2007 9/7/2007 1/7/2008 5/7/2008 9/7/2008 1/7/2009 5/7/2009 9/7/2009 1/7/2010 5/7/2010 9/7/2010 1/7/2011 5/7/2011 9/7/2011 1/7/2012 5/7/2012 Percent (%)
REB TOC Removal
Actual % Removal
SLIDE 22
Results
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1/7/2002 5/7/2002 9/7/2002 1/7/2003 5/7/2003 9/7/2003 1/7/2004 5/7/2004 9/7/2004 1/7/2005 5/7/2005 9/7/2005 1/7/2006 5/7/2006 9/7/2006 1/7/2007 5/7/2007 9/7/2007 1/7/2008 5/7/2008 9/7/2008 1/7/2009 5/7/2009 9/7/2009 1/7/2010 5/7/2010 9/7/2010 1/7/2011 5/7/2011 9/7/2011 1/7/2012 5/7/2012 Percent (%)
Local Water Production
% Local Water Used
SLIDE 23
Disinfection Study
Identify Cl2 application point options Predict cost savings More reliable source blends Prepare for Stage 2 DBPR
SLIDE 24
Disinfection Study
Filters
Flash ¡ Mix
¡Seled
Chlorine ¡ Dioxide ¡ Pre-‑oxidaon
Free Chlorine NH3
Clearwell
SLIDE 25
Disinfection Study
SLIDE 26
Disinfection Study
Filters
Flash ¡ Mix
¡Seled
Chlorine ¡ Dioxide ¡ Pre-‑oxidaon
Free Chlorine NH3
Clearwell
SLIDE 27
Disinfection Study
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Total THMs (ug/l)
Total THMS
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Residual Chlorine (mg/l)
Chlorine Residual
Influent Settled
SLIDE 28
Disinfection Study
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 ug/l
TTHMs
1 2 3 4
Test Condition
SLIDE 29
Disinfection Study
27% Drop in Chlorine Demand
▫ Savings of 20K/year and 77K lbs/year
40% average reduction in TTHMs Potential 10% increase of local water usage (with safety factor)
SLIDE 30
Online Monitoring
AMS THM100 Online TTHM Analyzer Samples Effluent water prior to delivery to the district
SLIDE 31
Online Monitoring
Purge and Trap sample prep Based on the Fujiwara reaction Spectrophotometric detection at 540nm
SLIDE 32
Online Monitoring
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ug/l
Grab-sample (Lab) vs. THM-100 Analyzer
Analyzer THM Grab THM Analyzer CCl3 Grab CCl3
SLIDE 33
Online Monitoring
RSD = 1.2 for TTHM and 2.0 for CHCl3 4.07% average difference between ml551.1 and the online analyzer. Confidence in online readings.
SLIDE 34
Results
Can maximize the usage of local water with a safety factor based on THM production. Can track changes in source water as they affect DBP formation. Able to predict district TTHM values based on average effluent TTHM online values.
SLIDE 35