EVALUATION OF THE CLEANSTREAM FILTRATION SYSTEM FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 22 FOR RECYCLED WATER

Transcription

1 EVALUATION OF THE CLEANSTREAM FILTRATION SYSTEM FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 22 FOR RECYCLED WATER

2 MICROMEDIA FILTRATION, INC. EVALUATION OF CLEANSTREAM FILTRATION UNIT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 22 FOR RECYCLED WATER APPLICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES INTRODUCTION Purpose Objectives of Study Scope Acknowledgments BACKGROUND Introduction Wastewater Recycling Criteria Title 22 Requirements Previous Title 22 Studies Pomona Virus Study Tapia Reclamation Study UC Davis Studies Filtration of Primary Effluent Primary Effluent Filtration Using Pulsed Bed Filters Primary Effluent Filtration Using DynaSand Filters Continuous Backwash Upflow Filter Technology CIeanStream Filtration System BOD Removal Mechanism Demonstration Testing Location FILTRATION EQUIPMENT AND APPURTENANCES Introduction Description of Cleanstream Filtration System Unit Appurtenances Influent Pumping System Instrumentation TABLE OF CONTENTS.doc I 9/4/06 Water 3 Engineering, Inc. Job No

3 MICROMEDIA FILTRATION, INC. EVALUATION OF CLEANSTREAM FILTRATION UNIT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 22 FOR RECYCLED WATER APPLICATIONS 4.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction Operational Procedures Unit Start-Up Weekend Shut-Down Influent Flow Rate Cleaning and Calibrating of Turbidimeters Data Collection Experimental Protocol Testing Conditions Analytical Procedures Data Analysis Procedures RESULTS OF DEMONSTRATION TESTING Introduction Turbidity Removal Total Suspended Solids Removal Biochemical Oxygen Demand Removal Particle Size Distribution Performance Comparison with Chiquita WRP CONCLUSIONS Conclusions REFERENCES References TABLE OF CONTENTS.doc Water 3 Engineering, Inc. 9!4!06 Job No

4 APPENDICES TABLES MICROMEDIA FILTRATION, INC. EVALUATION OF CLEANSTREAM FILTRATION UNIT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 22 FOR RECYCLED WATER APPLICATIONS Appendix A Cleanstream Pilot Study at Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Appendix B Photos of Cleanstream Filtration System Test Unit Appendix C Start-Up Turbidity after Unit Shut-Down Appendix D Particle Count Data Appendix E Daily Turbidity Plots Appendix F Testing Protocol Appendix G "Full Scale Performance at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Employing Primary Effluent Filtration", 1991 Appendix H "Effects of Primary Effluent Filtration on Trickling Filter Design and Operation", 1988 Appendix I "Filtration of Primary Effluent', 1982 Appendix J "Primary Effluent Filtration : Results from a Field Comparison of Three Filters", 1998 Appendix K DualSand Pilot Test Summary Report", 2003 Appendix L Chiquita WRP BOD Blank and Standard Results Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 3-1 Table 4-1 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 PEF Results Using a Single Pulsed Bed Filter Data from Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District Testing Test Unit Design Criteria Description & Frequency of Sampling for the CIeanStream System Total Suspended Solids Results Biochemical Oxygen Demand Results Effluent Particle Size Distribution Chiquita WRP BOD and TSS Results FIGURES Figure 2-1 Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District Process Flow Diagram Figure 2-2 Chiquita WRP Process Flow Diagram Figure 2-3 Preliminary Separator Figure 3-1 CIeanStream Filtration Unit Process Flow Diagram Figure 5-1 Hydraulic Loading Rate Figure 5-2 Influent and Effluent Turbidity Figure 5-3 Effluent vs. Influent Turbidity - Week 1 Figure 5-4 Effluent vs, Influent Turbidity - Week 2 Figure 5-5 Effluent vs. Influent Turbidity - Week 3 Figure 5-6 Running 24-Hour Average Effluent Turbidity Figure 5-7 Continuous Turbidity Measurement Verification Figure 5-8 TSS Results Figure 5-9 BODS Results Figure 5-10 Effluent Particle Count Results TABLE OF CONTENTS.doc Water 3 Engineering, Inc. Job No

5 MICROMEDIA FILTRATION, INC. EVALUATION OF CLEANSTREAM FILTRATION UNIT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 22 FOR RECYCLED WATER APPLICATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Findings from a performance evaluation of the CIeanStream Filtration System are presented in this report. The CIeanStream unit is a continuous backwash upflow media (CBUM) filter, which complies with Title 22 tertiary filtration requirements when used on secondary effluent. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine if the CIeanStream unit would comply with Title 22 tertiary treatment requirements for turbidity using screened raw wastewater as the influent without a conventional secondary process. Based on a prior testing (see Appendix A and K), MicroMedia Filtration, Inc. (MMFI) believes that the first filter includes biological activity similar to a trickling filter and therefore an oxidized effluent is being produced within the first filter and the unit meets the requirements for equivalency to secondary treatment. A full scale CIeanStream Filtration System was installed downstream of the grit chamber at Santa Margarita Water District's Chiquita Water Reclamation Plant. The specific objective of the study was to evaluate the influent and effluent water quality relative to Title 22 requirements, while operating within the manufacturer's range of recommended filtration rates. Routine monitoring was conducted between January 23 and February 10, During this period the unit was operated at a filtration rate between 3.0 and 4.5 gpm/ft2. Filter influent and effluent were measured continuously for turbidity, with grab samples collected and analyzed for turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), and biological oxygen demand (BODE). In addition, effluent samples were collected and analyzed for particle size distribution during the last week of testing. The principle conclusions resulting from the evaluation of the CIeanStream Filtration System are as follows :. Report.doc ES-1 9/4/06 Water 3 Engineering, Inc. Job No

6 1. The CIeanStream Filtration System was effective for treating screened raw wastewater to tertiary filtered effluent quality for turbidity based on the conditions tested and characterized in this report. 2. At the given testing conditions, average effluent turbidity was consistently less than the Title 22 standard of 2 NTU. The unit also consistently met the 95th_ percentile turbidity requirement of 5 NTU and never exceeded 10 NTU at any time. 3. The CIeanStream Filtration System consistently met Title 22 requirements for turbidity between filter loading rates of 3.0 and 4.5 gpm/ft 2. Effluent turbidity was not affected by variations in loading rate below this value. 4. Based on prior testing (March 2002) performed at Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, MMFI believes that the first filter includes biological activity similar to a trickling filter and therefore an oxidized effluent is being produced within the first filter and the unit meets the requirements for equivalency to secondary treatment. ES-2 Report.doc 9/4/06 Water 3 Engineering, Inc. Job No

7 MICROMEDIA FILTRATION, INC. EVALUATION OF CLEANSTREAM FILTRATION UNIT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 22 FOR RECYCLED WATER APPLICATIONS SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 CONCLUSIONS The following are conclusions from the pilot study performed with the MMFI CIeanStream Filtration System : 1. The CIeanStream Filtration System was effective for treating screened raw wastewater to tertiary filtered effluent quality for turbidity based on the conditions tested and characterized in this report. 2. At the given testing conditions, average effluent turbidity was consistently less than the Title 22 standard of 2 NTU. The unit also consistently met the 95 th - percentile turbidity requirement of 5 NTU and never exceeded 10 NTU at any time. 3. The CIeanStream Filtration System consistently met Title 22 requirements for turbidity between filter loading rates of 3.0 and 4.5 gpm/ftz. was not affected by variations in loading rate below this value. Effluent turbidity 4. Based on prior testing (March 2002) performed at Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, MMFI believes that the first filter includes biological activity similar to a trickling filter and therefore an oxidized effluent is being produced within the first filter and the unit meets the requirements for equivalency to secondary treatment. It is anticipated that CA DHS will accept the CIeanStream Filtration System as a technology for use in compliance with the California Water Recycling Criteria, subject the following special provisions : Report.doc 9/4/06 Water 3 Engineering, Inc. Job No

8 1. Media depth shall be a minimum of 2 meters (78.7 inches) in the first filter and 1 meter (39.4 inches) in the second filter. 2. Media specifications shall not exceed those used in this study and include the following : a. Media shall be silca sand and shall meet AWWA Standard B100 ; b. Size shall be within 0.6 to 1.3 mm ; c. Uniformity coefficient shall not exceed Filters should be checked for media size distribution at least once every five (5) years. 4. Coagulant shall be continuously fed to both filters at all times and shall be optimized upon start-up to ensure Title 22 requirements are met. 5. Loading rates shall not exceed 4.0 gpm/ft 2 until sufficient data is submitted to DHS to determine that a higher loading rate is justified. 6. Turbidity in the filtered water shall not exceed an average of 2 NTU within a 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period, and 10 NTU at any time. 7. Acceptance of this technology is contingent on its being complimented with a disinfection process which is compliant with Section (Title 22). 8. Start-up after a shutdown of 24 hours or greater should require a minimum two (2) hours of wasting (recycling to the plant influent) prior to discharging filter effluent to the disinfection system. Report.doc 6-2 9/4/06 Water 3 Engineering, Inc. Job No

9 Richert' Nack - RE : Santa Paula WRF Page 1 From : To : Date : Subject : "Jeff Savard" <JeffSavard@KennedyJenks.com> "Richard Neck" <RNACK@rbf.com> 12/13/2006 9:44 :17 AM RE : Santa Paula WRF Sections 5.1 and Original Message----- From : Richard Nack [mailto:rnack@rbf.com] Sent : Wednesday, December 13, :37 AM To : Jeff Savard Subject : RE : Santa Paula WRF Jeff, I summed Table 5-1 $364,500 (pgs 26-27) Let me know what I missed. Thanks, Rick >>> "Jeff Savard" <JeffSavard@KennedyJenks.com> 12/13/2006 9:08 AM >>> Correction, use $800k (not $600k) for the existing WRF improvements Original Message----- From : Jeff Savard Sent : Wednesday, December 13, :06 AM To : 'Richard Nack' ; Clifford Finley; Ken Bell Cc : David Kirby; Jennifer Kirby; Kevin Schmidt ; Paul Findley ; Reena Thomas Subject : RE : Santa Paula WRF The Summary sheet showing the MBR costs looks fine to me. But I would use $600k for the "existing WRF improvements" based on our April Tech Memo Original Message----- From : Richard Nack [mailto:rnack@rbf.com] Sent : Wednesday, December 13, :53 AM To : Clifford Finley; Jeff Savard ; Ken Bell Cc : David Kirby ; Jennifer Kirby; Kevin Schmidt ; Paul Findley ; Reena Thomas Subject : Santa Paula WRF Cliff, Jeff and Ken, Based on our 12/12 progress meeting I revised format for the project costs. Please review the attached PROJECT COST summary and let me know if you have suggestions/comments/revisions. We need to delete the CAPITAL COST build-up on the individual process worksheets to simplify presentation. The cost build-up for the respective technology can then be inserted into the respective TM as required or cited in the current reports as applicable (i.e., Carollo

10 Richarii Nack - upgrade RE to you Santa in of a Paula existing few W WRF) ' : : for Talk Rick.