slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Copper Removal at the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Copper Removal at the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 40

Copper Removal at the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 549 Views
  • Uploaded on

2002 RMSAWWA / RMWEA Joint Annual Conference. Copper Removal at the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District HDR, Inc. Copper Removal??. Receiving Stream Gore Creek Gold Medal Trout Stream Discharge Limit 27 ug/L monthly average 35 ug/L daily maximum

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Copper Removal at the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant' - keren


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

2002 RMSAWWA / RMWEAJoint Annual Conference

Copper Removal at the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant

Eagle River Water and Sanitation DistrictHDR, Inc.

copper removal
Copper Removal??
  • Receiving Stream
    • Gore Creek
    • Gold Medal Trout Stream
  • Discharge Limit
    • 27 ug/L monthly average
    • 35 ug/L daily maximum
  • Limit is 44 Times Lower than Drinking Water Action Level
vail wwtp
Vail WWTP
  • Plant Rating: 2.7 MGD
  • Process Train:
    • Screening
    • Grit removal
    • Aeration basins
    • Secondary clarification
    • Nitrification
      • Upflow fixed film configuration
    • Disinfection
    • No solids handling – sent to Avon WWTP
slide5

The discharge is largely dissolved Cu – not particulate.

WWTP Cu Levels

30 

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Cu Concentration (µg/L)

20 

10 

Dissolved

Particulate

The particulate fraction could easily be removed via filtration. The dissolved fraction must be chemically treated.

slide6

Dissolved Cu levels cannot be achieved via solubility control.

10-4 

10-5 

[Cu] solubility

10-6 

Discharge Limit

10-7 

5

6

7

8

9

10

pH

The dissolved Cu must be absorbed / co-precipitated.

enhanced cu removal options
Enhanced Cu Removal Options
  • Option 1: Microsand-Assisted Oxidation Adsorption (MAOA)
  • Option 2: Green Sand Filtration
  • Option 3: Manganese Oxide Co-Precipitation
process

4MnO2 + MnO(OH) + K2SO4

3KMnO4 + 2MnSO4

Process
  • Manganic-oxide precipitates have strong affinity for dissolved Cu
  • Manganic-oxide precipitates form quickly
  • Manganic-oxide precipitates are “sticky”
slide9

Microsand-Assisted Oxidation Adsorption (MAOA)

  • 100 mesh fine sand is fluidized in a long column by feed water introduced in an upflow mode.
  • Manganese (manganese sulfate) and oxidant (permanganate) are added to the water at the base of the column, resulting in MnO2 coated sand.
  • Fresh manganic oxide surfaces sorb copper from the water.
  • Developed by Krüger (MetCleanTM), Denmark
maoa pilot unit
MAOA Pilot Unit

20 foot tall column

maoa fluidized sand
MAOA Fluidized Sand

Fluidized sand seen from the glass viewing section.

Reddish brown color is from iron oxide coating of the sand.

slide14

Advantages of the MAOA Process:

  • Process does not produce sludge.
  • The residual product from the MetCleanTM process is less than 10% of the sludge production from a normal precipitation process.
  • Granular / residuals product does not need secondary treatment.
  • The concentration of heavy metals on the granular surfaces is normally between 0.5 and 8%.
  • The granular surface normally consists of 2/3 of the total weight of the waste product.
copper removal with permanganate oxidation and greensand filtration

WasteBackwashTank

Copper Removal with Permanganate Oxidation and Greensand Filtration

Multi-CellPressure Filter

KMnO4 Flash Mix

?

WWTP Effluent

Contact TimeVessel

WasteBackwash

Discharge

DecantRecycle

Solids to Avon Plant

To

slide16

Option 1: Green Sand Filtration

    • effluent / split flow
    • fractional treatment / on demand
  • Option 2: MAOA
    • effluent / split flow
    • fractional treatment / on demand

Both options require significant capital and time to implement

Enhanced Cu Removal at the WWTP

slide17

Option 3: Manganese Oxide Co-Precipitation

    • simple chemical addition
    • utilizes existing processes for removal
    • easily implemented
    • on demand

Jar testing initiated at HDR’s Water Quality Lab

Enhanced Cu Removal at the WWTP

chemical addition effective in lab
Chemical Addition Effective in Lab
  • Can reduce Cu from 500 ug/L to 5 ug/L in clean water with dose as low as 3 mg/l as Mn
  • Wastewater requires higher doses due to competing sorption of organics
  • Dose decreases as organics decrease
  • MnSO4 to KMnO4 ratio of 2:1
slide23

Testing Priority

  • 1. Full-Scale test of the Manganic Oxide / Co-Precipitation Option
    • Minimal equipment requirements
    • Mobile chemical feeds
  • Green sand filtration (50 gpm pilot)
  • MetClean (3 gpm pilot)
  • Last 2 options to be implemented if Full-Scale test unsuccessful
potential application points
Potential Application Points
  • Pre Aeration
    • Eliminated after one day of testing
    • High level of competing organics
  • Pre Nitrification
    • Eliminated to avoid precipitation in nitrification cells
  • Post Aeration
    • Add at outlet of aeration basins
    • Utilizes secondary clarifier for removal of precipitate
test protocol
Test Protocol
  • Add to aeration basin outlet
  • Target dose of 5 mg/L as Mn
  • 2:1 ratio of manganese sulfate to permanganate
  • Adjust dose based on results
feed lines
Feed Lines
  • Plugged line in less than 8 hours
  • Repiped to combine just above application point
slide30

Results

  • Dose ranged from 5.9 to 11.6 mg/L
  • MnSO4 to KMnO4 ratio ranged from 1.5 to 3.4
    • Storage tank size was not what was ordered (actually 245 gallons instead of 275 gallons)
    • First set of scales used to measure chemicals inaccurate
  • Chemicals must be combined as close to application point as possible
  • High levels of Mn colored plant effluent
color
Color
  • Polymer addition ineffective in removing color
  • Lab tests indicate coprecipitating with 2-3 mg/L of iron effective in removing color

Filtered

Settled (w/polymer on left)

implementation costs
Implementation Costs
  • Capital cost estimated at $82,000
  • Operating costs
    • Based on 1.8 mgd
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Co-precipitation can be effective in removing copper
  • Further testing needed to refine dosage
  • Color issue must be addressed to implement
current status
Current Status
  • Plant discontinued testing due to commissioning of new UV system
  • ERWSD now adding corrosion inhibitor to drinking water which has lowered influent Cu levels below discharge limit
slide37

~Acknowledgements~

Eagle River Water and Sanitation DistrictJim EdwardsChuck SteppCandy Burbridge

HDR Engineering, Inc.Steve Reiber

Sid Hendrickson

slide38

2002 RMSAWWA / RMWEAJoint Annual Conference

Copper Removal at the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant

Eagle River Water and Sanitation DistrictHDR, Inc.

slide40

Option 1: MAOA

    • Treat entire flow stream
    • Reduce copper to < 25 µg/L
    • Costs: O&M ≈ $0.5/1000 gal.
    • Capital ≈ ?
  • Option 2: Green Sand Filtration
    • Treat entire flow stream
    • Reduce copper to < 10 µg/L
    • Costs: O&M ≈ $0.25/1000 gal.
    • Capital (1 MGD) ≈ $400,000

Controlling Copper at the Well Head