wrf webcast biofilter conversion guidance manual and biofilter performance

© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

WRF Webcast

Biofilter Conversion Guidance Manual

March 28, 2017

© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Biofiltration: Defining Benefits and

Developing Utility Guidance

By 2017, determine biofiltration effectiveness at

removing multiple contaminants, define benefits

and communicate to key stakeholders, and provide

utility guidance on optimizing biofiltration.

© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Focus Area ProjectsProject Title

4459 Development of a Biofiltration Knowledge Base

4496 Converting Conventional Filters to Biofilters

4555 Optimizing Biofiltration for Various Source Water Quality

4559Simultaneous Removal of Multiple Chemical

Contaminants Using Biofiltration

4620Practical Monitoring Tools for the Biological Processes in

Biofiltration

4719 Biofiltration Guidance Manual


Biofilter Conversion Guidance

Manual

WRF Project #4496


Speakers

• Jess Brown, PhD, PE – Carollo Engineers

• Giridhar Upadhyaya, PhD, PE – Carollo Engineers

• Ashley Evans, PE – Arcadis


Agenda

• Motivation, Objectives

& Approach

• Survey Results

• Case Studies

• Assessment Tool

• Guidance Manual

“How suitable is biofiltration

for my facility and what are

recommended mitigation

strategies?”

Motivation, Objectives &

Approach


Conventional to Biological

Filtration

Flu

ori

de

Clearwell

Chlo

rine

Am

monia

Sodiu

m H

ydro

xid

e

Raw

Water

Rapid

Mix

Coagula

nt

Poly

mer

Flocculation /

SedimentationFiltration

Distribution

SystemC

hlo

rine

Conventional

Water Treatment



Filtration

Flu

ori

de

Clearwell

Chlo

rine

Am

monia

Sodiu

m

Hydro

xid

e

Raw

Water

Rapid

Mix

Coagula

nt

Poly

mer

Flocculation /

SedimentationBiofiltration

Distribution

SystemC

hlo

rine

(Backup O

nly

)

Biofiltration

Operation

Conventional

Water Treatment



Filtration

Flu

ori

de

Clearwell

Chlo

rine

Am

monia

Optional Ozone

Addition

Raw

WaterOzone

Rapid

Mix

Ozone

Coagula

nt

Poly

mer

Flocculation /

SedimentationBiofiltration

Distribution

SystemOzone

Ozone

Chlo

rine

(Backup O

nly

)

Biofiltration

Operation

Conventional

Water Treatment

Sodiu

m

Hydro

xid

e


Project Driver

• Multiple factors may control bioacclimation and biofilter performance

• No industry guidance for testing, designing, and implementing this transition

− Success factors?

− Optimal operating conditions?

− Case studies?

− Issues and challenges?

− Mitigation strategies?

Construction Type Based on

WRF 4459: Biofiltration

Knowledge Base

New Construction

48%Retrofit

52%

Source: WRF Project 4459


Overall Project Objective

To catalog and summarize

current biofilter conversion

practices with a focus on:

• Planning

• Evaluation (testing)

• Conversion implementation

• Operation and monitoring

• Process optimization

Conversion Guidance Manual

Conversion Assessment

Tool

Developed


Research Approach

Lit ReviewConversion

Survey

Case

Studies


Conversion

Survey Lit Review

Case

Studies

Research Approach

Project Team

Experiences


Research Approach

Project Team

Experiences

Conversion

Survey Lit Review

Case

Studies

Survey Results


Utility Survey Design and Participants

• Facility Information

• Water Quality Information

• Driver for Biofiltration

• Evaluation Phase

• Planning Activities

• Implementation Experience

• Lessons Learned

• 23 to 750 MGD

• 2 to >17 years

• 61% were retrofitted from existing conventional filters

• 41% river, 24% reservoir & 35% blended source waters

17 full-scale facilities!

70 questions in 7 categories!


Participants Represented a Combined

2,286 MGD in Biofilter Capacity

750

280240 220

150120 110

75 59 54 50 40 30 30 30 25 23

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Desi

gn C

apacit

y (

MG

D)

Facilities

Biofiltration Facility Design Capacity


Participants Represented Over 140

Years of Combined Biofilter

Operational Experience

17

1110+ 10+ 10+ 10+ 10+ 10+

9 98

7 7

43 3

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Years

of

Opera

tion

Facilities

Years of Biofilter Operation


Participants Included Facilities with a

Range of Biofiltration Design & Operating

Schemes

Backwash SchemeTreatment Scheme

Legend:

GAC: Granular Activated Carbon

S: Sand

A: Anthracite

A/S -Ozone47%

GAC or GAC/S -Ozone17%

GAC or GAC/S - No Ozone

18%

GAC/S -Chlorine Residual

18%

Non-Chlorinated Backwash

64%

Chlorinated Backwash

27%

Chloraminated Backwash

9%


Most Utilities Targeted More than One

Treatment Objective with Biofiltration

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Organics Removal (TOC, AOC, etc.)

Costs / Media Change-out Frequency

Disinfection Byproducts Precursor Removal

Taste and Odor Removal

Increased Loading Rate

Metals (Fe/Mn) Removal

Distribution System Water Quality Stability

Chlorite Removal

In Use at Other Plants

Number of FacilitiesPrimary Drivers for Conversion

Highlighted in Purple


Key Themes were Identified for Each

Stage of the Conversion Process

Evaluation

• Few infrastructure evaluations

• Pilot scale or full-scale evaluations

• Optimization strategies unavailable

• Limited knowledge transfer

Planning

• No implementation plans

• No mitigation strategies prior to start-up

• No biofiltration process training

• Monitoring parameters varied

Implementation

•Timing based on other factors (e.g., media replacement or construction schedule)

•No biofiltration process optimization

•Costs not tracked


Most Facilities Completed Either a

Pilot or Full-Scale Evaluation Prior to

Conversion

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bench & Pilot Pilot Pilot & Full-Scale Demo / Full-Scale

None

No.

of

Facilit

ies


Most Participating Utilities Converted to

Biofiltration with Minimal Planning

Related to the Biofiltration Process

Number of Facilities

Implementation

Plans

Biofiltration

Process Training

Monitoring

Plans

ExtensiveConstruction Start-

Up DocumentNone

1

13 3 1

16

None Extensive

12 4 1

A Few New Parameters

Several New

Parameters Extensive


Implementation Experiences Varied

Across the Participating Utilities

UtilityA

UtilityB

UtilityC

UtilityD

Full-Scale Challenges?

Summary

Tried Optimization?

No

YesSome

Still

Deciding

No

No

No

Issues

YesNot

Successful

YesContinuous

Continuous

Issues

YesNot

Successful

No

Significant

Planning


Lessons Learned: Mitigation Strategies

were Generally Not Developed until

Challenges Occurred

Algae Control

Copper sulfate

added pre-settling

when temp >18°C

Nutrient & Headloss

Monitoring

Monitored

headloss to signal

underdrain fouling

Monitored for free

ammonia and

phosphorus

Manganese Control

Switched from

ferric to alum

coagulant

Replaced filter

media

Case Studies


Data compared included:

Design and operating characteristics

Water quality

Microbial parameters

Aspects Evaluated in Case Studies

• Performance of biofilters

versus conventional filters

• Effects of media type

• Effects of media age

• Mn release during filter

conversion

Morsang

WTP, France


Key Findings from the Case Studies

• Hydraulic and water treatment performance similar

before and after conversion

• Media age did not impact performance

• Faster acclimation on GAC compared to anthracite

• Legacy Mn release immediately after conversion

mitigated through:

— GAC media

— Performance enhancement strategies


Conventional Filtration VS

Biofiltration


Clearwell

Am

monia

Raw

Water

Rapid

Mix

Ferr

ic C

hlo

rid

e

Flocculation /

SedimentationFilters

Distribution

System

Chlo

rine

Ch

lori

ne

Conventional Filtration VS Biofiltration

Parameters Evaluated

- Hydraulic (Runtime, Headloss)

- TOC and turbidity removal

MediaAge: 10 years

Bottom Layer: 8 inches sand

Top Layer: 26 inches anthracite

Ozone

Ozone

ContactorClearwell

Am

monia

Raw

Water

Rapid

Mix

Alu

min

um

Sulf

ate

Flocculation /

Sedimentation

Distribution

System

Chlo

rine

Provision for Chlorinated Backwash

Chlo

rine

Biofilters

X

X

Ferr

ic C

hlo

rid

e

Ch

lori

ne


Similar Hydraulic Performance Before and

After Conversion

Based on Median Values

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1 2

Loadin

g R

ate

(g

pm

/ft2

)

Before After

N =

36

1

N =

35

9

0

10

20

30

1 2

Filt

er

Runtim

e

(hour)

Before After

N =

36

1

N =

35

9

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1 2

Cle

an-b

ed

Headlo

ss (

ft)

N =

88

N =

27

85

Before After


Similar Effluent Turbidity and TOC Before

and After Conversion

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1 2

Influent T

urb

idity

(NT

U)

Before After

N =

43

22

N =

42

93

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

1 2

Efflu

ent T

urb

idity

(NT

U)

Before After

N =

43

16

N =

42

86

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

1 2

Efflu

ent T

OC

(m

g/L

)

Before After

N =

53

N =

49

Based on Median Values

Filter/Biofilter Influent

TOC data were not

available


Effects of Media Type


Does Media Type Affect Biofilter

Performance?

• Media age: 14 years

Filter No. Media Type Chlorinated Influent?

Filter 1 Anthracite/sand Yes

Filter 4 Anthracite/sand No

Filter 6 GAC/sand No

Parameters Evaluated

- Hydraulic (Run length, Headloss)

- Water quality (Turbidity and aldehyde removal, Mn leaching)


Headloss was Similar Before and

After Conversion to Biofiltration

Max

Min

75th percentile

25th percentile

Median


Lower Run Length Observed in GAC System



Similar Terminal Turbidity Before and



Faster Biological Acclimation Observed in

the GAC Biofilter Compared to the

Anthracite Biofilters

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Ald

eh

yd

e (

µg

/L)

Time (days)

Influent

Conversion





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Ald

eh

yd

e (

µg

/L)

Time (days)

Influent

Cl2 Anth

Conversion





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Ald

eh

yd

e (

µg

/L)

Time (days)

Influent

Cl2 Anth

No Cl2 GAC

Conversion





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Ald

eh

yd

e (

µg

/L)

Time (days)

Influent

Cl2 Anth

No Cl2 GAC

No Cl2 Anth

Conversion


Legacy Mn was not Released from the

GAC Biofilter during Filter Conversion

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

To

tal M

n (

mg

/L)

Time (days)

Cl2 Anth




0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

To

tal M

n (

mg

/L)

Time (days)

Cl2 Anth

No Cl2 GAC




0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

To

tal M

n (

mg

/L)

Time (days)

Cl2 Anth

No Cl2 GAC

No Cl2 Anth




0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

To

tal M

n (

mg

/L)

Time (days)

Cl2 Anth

No Cl2 GAC

No Cl2 Anth

• Similar trend for dissolved Mn

• Dissolved Mn was 35 to 100 percent of total Mn


Can Mn Release be

Controlled/Minimized during Filter

Conversion?


Ch

lori

ne

Filter No. Media Type Filter Type

Filter 19 Anthracite Conventional

Filter 21 Anthracite Biofilter

Filter 24 Anthracite Engineered Biofilter(pH 7.8, 0.02 mg/L P)

Can Mn Release be Controlled/Minimized

During Conversion?

X


0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31

Dis

so

lved

Man

gan

ese (

mg

/L)

Filter Influent

Conversion

Performance Enhancement Strategies

Helped Minimize Mn Release


0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31

Dis

so

lved

Man

gan

ese (

mg

/L)

Filter Influent

Filter 19 - Conv. Filter

Conversion




0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31

Dis

so

lved

Man

gan

ese (

mg

/L)

Filter Influent


Filter 21 - Biofilter

Conversion




0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31

Dis

so

lved

Man

gan

ese (

mg

/L)

Filter Influent



Filter 24 - Eng. Biofilter

Conversion






-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31

Dis

so

lved

Mn

Rem

ova

l (m

g/L

) Filter 19 - Conv. Filter

Conversion




-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31

Dis

so

lved

Mn

Rem

ova

l (m

g/L

)



Conversion




-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31

Dis

so

lved

Mn

Rem

ova

l (m

g/L

)



Filter 24 - Eng. Biofilter

Conversion

Conversion Assessment Tool


Development of the

Assessment Tool was a

Collaborative Process

Workshop

No. 1:

Review of

Survey Results

and Themes

Workshop

No. 2:

"As Is," "Should

Be,"

"Uncertainties"

and "Tools"

Workshop

No. 3:

Assessment

Tool Draft

Workshop

No. 4:

Assessment

Tool Live

Preview

Beta-

Testing

Utility Survey of Full-Scale Biofilters

Developed Draft

Assessment Tool

Finalized Assessment

Tool & Industry Roll-Out

Updates Updates

Project Team

Utilities & PAC

Participants:


The Conversion Assessment Tool

The Tool Does:

• Identify factors that can

negatively affect biofilter

performance

• Identify associated

mitigation strategies

• Establishes facility-

specific relative

suitability for conversion

The Tool Does Not:

• Apply to groundwater

• Limit the application of biofiltration

• Replace a robust process evaluation (e.g., pilot study)


Download the Assessment Tool from the

Project Website

Look under “Web Tools”

http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=4496

The Macro-Based Excel (.xlsx) can be Downloaded and Saved Locally


Utilities answer 24 multiple choice or select

all that apply questions related to:

• Water Quality

• Design Criteria

• Performance Goals

• Operational Information

• Other Key Factors

Step 1: Complete Survey Questions

►


Step 2: Data Calculator (Optional)

• TOC

• Temperature

• AOC

The Assessment Tool will also calculate key statistics and compare them to data provided in the Biofiltration Knowledge Base.

►

Utilities may enter water quality data instead of

selecting a range for the filter influent:


Step 3: Conversion Assessment Report

Utilities are provided a printer-friendly report

summarizing, for each question answered:

►

• Category

• Question

• Selected answer

• Suitability for conversion to biofiltration

• Text description of suitability

• Mitigation strategies



►



Utilities are provided a printer-friendly report comparing their planned facility to those facilities in the Biofiltration Knowledge Base

Option Selected

by the Utility

Highlighted in

Blue

Graphs

summarize

Knowledge

Base

Facilities

Guidance Manual


Key Steps were Identified for Each Stage

of the Conversion Process

Planning

Evaluation

Implementation


Biofilter Conversion Planning Tasks

Conversion Assessment Tool

Evaluation at Bench-, Pilot-, or Full-Scale

Systems

Assess potential benefits & challenges

Determine water treatment &

operational goals

Determine “suitability”

Assess existing facility & resources

Determine potential process

modifications

Identify aspects to be evaluated

Identify potential monitoring parameters


Biofilter Conversion Evaluation Tasks

Testing Design Conduct

Testing

Determine Biological Acclimation

Determine Removal Efficiency/Kinetics

Assess Effectiveness of Monitoring

Parameters

Test Process Optimization

Strategies

Determine Process Upsets

Select Key Parameters for

Full-Scale Implementation

Evaluate Effectiveness of

Mitigation Strategies

Revisit Treatment Goals

Assess Available Budget

Determine Testing Parameters

Determine Testing Schedule

Refine Monitoring Parameters

Identify Water Sources


Biofilter Conversion

Implementation Tasks

Implement Process

Modifications

Start Biofilter

Operation

Optimize Operating Conditions

Implement Mitigation Strategies

Add Ozone Contactor (if

desired)

Implement Other Modifications

Test the Modifications

Relocate Chlorine Injection

Assess System

Performance


WRF 4496: Converting to Biofiltration?


Acknowledgements

• Other Project Team Members

— Jason Carter - Arcadis

— Chance Lauderdale - HDR

— Orren Schneider – American Water

— John Dyksen – Suez

— Scott Summers – University of Colorado

• Foundation Research Managers

— Hsiao-wen Chen

— Kenan Ozekin

• Project Advisory Committee

— Chris Owen – Tampa Bay Water

— David Scott – Toronto Water

— Eva Nieminski – Utah Department of Environmental Quality

— Hua Jiang – Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority

— Jen Smith – CDM Smith

• Participating Utilities− City of Peoria, AZ

− City of Phoenix, AZ

− Greenville Utilities Commission, NC

− Greater Cincinnati Water Works, OH

− Gwinnett County Department of Water

Resources, GA

− Iowa American Water

− Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, UT

− Kentucky American Water

− Lyonnaise-Des-Eaux, France

− Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California, CA

− New Jersey American Water

− Newport News Waterworks, VA

− Suez, NJ

− Trinity River Authority, TX

− Tampa Bay Water, FL

− Toronto Water, Canada

− City of Tulsa, OK

− Utah Department of Environmental Quality, UT


Questions & Answers


Thank You

Comments or questions, please contact:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

For more information visit: www.waterrf.org

mailto:[email protected]




http://www.waterrf.org/

wrf webcast biofilter conversion guidance manual and biofilter performance

Documents