Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
UWMX WTP PowerPoint Presentation

UWMX WTP

138 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

UWMX WTP

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Full-Scale Testing of Innovative High Rate Filter Media for Plant ExpansionBob Raczko, P.E.United Water

  2. UWMX WTP Location: Manalapan, NJ • Size: 5 mgd (790 m3/hr), but needs to be expanded to 8 mgd (1,260 m3/hr) to meet increasing water demands within next several years • Plant Processes: • Coagulation/flocculation/two-stage sedimentation/filtration/disinfection/finished storage/finished water pumping • Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) added to second stage sedimentation for seasonal taste and odor (T&O) control • Filters currently are major limiting step in process: • 6 filters (5 with 1 out of service for backwashing) operate at a nominal rate of 3 gpm/sf (7.3 m/hr) • Based on previous Filtralite testing at Haworth, NJDEP will allow testing up to 7 gpm/sf (17 m/hr) • Also evaluating larger anthracite/sand media, NJDEP will allow testing up to 5 gpm/sf (12 m/hr) • If successful, new media will allow filtration capacity to be expanded without increasing the number of filters, which will significantly reduce capital expenditures

  3. HAWORTH WTP – PREVIOUS PILOT TESTING Compared: • Conventional anthracite/sand • Filtralite – expanded clay media: • Larger size media • Larger macropore size for solids capture Findings: • Filtralite achieved comparable performance at 7.5 gpm/sf compared to anthracite/sand at 5 gpm/sf • Filtralite achieved longer filter runs, less headloss development

  4. UWMX WTP DEMONSTRATION TESTING Received approval from NJDEP to modify two filters for demonstration test: • New underdrains • Provide additional depth for both anthracite/sand and Filtralite medias Received approval from NJDEP to conduct demonstration test: • Anthracite/sand – test up to 5 gpm/sf • Filtralite – test up to 7 gpm/sf • Evaluating: • Turbidity • Particle count • Headloss development • Volume Treated, Run Time

  5. FILTER MEDIA SPECIFICATIONS

  6. EXISTING MEDIA AND UNDERDRAINS

  7. NEW ANTHRACITE/SAND MEDIA AND UNDERDRAIN

  8. FILTRALITE MEDIA AND UNDERDRAIN

  9. NEW UNDERDRAIN - NOZZLES

  10. TESTING TO DATE • Initial Testing (11/10/12 – 1/12/13): • Target flow ~ 1 mgd • Filter 5 (Filtralite) and Filter 6 (new A/S) – premature turbidity/particle breakthrough, believed to be caused by PAC addition in second clarifier; Filter 4 (existing filter) is fine • Added PACl as filter aid • Improved turbidity/particle performance • Initially plant operated 16 hr/day (low demands); switched to 24/7 operation on 1/6 (shut down on weekends); turbidity/particle performance more stable; Filter 6 more stable than Filter 5 • 1/13/13 – 1/24/13: • Increased Filter 5, Filter 6 in steps: 1.2 mgd, 1.4 mgd, 1.5 mgd, 1.6 mgd • PACl filter aid continued • Maintained turbidity/particle performance; shorter filter runs (as expected); Filter 6 more stable than Filter 5 • Testing stopped on 1/25/13: • High TDS in raw water (road salting) • Plant switched to Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells

  11. INITIAL TESTING OBSERVATIONS Filter 5 (Filtralite): • Lowest Headloss Development • Can operate at higher flowrates • Concern with stability of turbidity/particle performance Filter 6 (new anthracite/sand): • Lower headloss development than Filter 4 (existing media) • Can operate at higher flowrates • More stable turbidity/particle performance than Filter 5 (Filtralite)

  12. TESTING 4/22/13 – 9/14/13 • Longer term (two - three week) operation at each flowrate • Goal is to establish acceptable performance at flowrate of 1.5 - 1.6 mgd in order to be able to high rate filters and avoid need to provide additional filters • Eliminating need for additional filters would save approx. $3 million in capital costs • Also evaluate performance w/o filter aid (is media seasoned?)

  13. OBSERVATIONS 4/22/13 – 9/14/13 • Medias appear to be seasoned (generally operate without filter aid) Filter 5 (Filtralite): • Lowest Headloss Development • Can operate at higher flowrates • Concern with stability of turbidity/particle performance; susceptible to changes (hydraulic, water quality), especially near end of run Filter 6 (new anthracite/sand): • Lower headloss development than Filter 4 (existing media) • Can operate at higher flowrates • More stable turbidity/particle performance than Filter 5 (Filtralite)

  14. FUTURE WORK • Continue testing at higher rates (currently at 1.4 mgd) • Plant is currently on a blend of surface water and ASR water because of low streamflowand need tomaintain passing flow. This results in high run times and volumes treated, which are not representative. • Will evaluate higher flowrates when plant is back on full surface water (no ASR) • Consider addition of small layer of sand (about 4 inches) to Filter 5 (Filtralite) to see if that improves stability of turbidity/particle performance

  15. THANK YOU!Any Questions?