EPA/600/R-02/100
December 2002
Continuous Deflection Separation,
Fuzzy Filter and UV Treatment of
SSO-Type Wastewaters: Pilot Study Results
Prepared by
Karl Scheible
HydroQual, Inc.
Mahwah, NJ
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative Agreement
No. X-82435210
Awarded to
Rockland County Sewer District No. 1
Orangeburg, NY
Project Officer
Bryan Rittenhouse
Office of Wastewater Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
and
Technical Advisor
Thomas P. O'Connor
Water Supply and Water Research Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, NJ
Additional Funding Supplied by
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Contract No. 4071L-ERTER-NW-96
Project Officer
Lawrence J. Pakenas
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Albany, NY
-------
Notice
This final report was developed under Cooperative Agreement No. X-82435210 awarded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA made comments and suggestions on the
document intended to improve the scientific analysis and technical accuracy of the document.
These comments are included in the report. However, the views expressed in this document are
those of Hydroqual, Inc, and EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services
mentioned in this publication.
This document is being distributed by EPA and New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority under permission from the Rockland County Sewer District No. 1, Orangeburg, New York.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threatens human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and
private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by:
developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development
to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Abstract
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement Number X-8243 5210 by
HydroQual, Inc. under the partial sponsorship of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Partial sponsorship was also provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, Albany, New York, and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1, Orangeburg, New York.
This report covers a period from August 1998 to January 2001, and work was completed as of
November 1999.
The demonstration project first entailed operation of a continuous deflection separation
(CDS) unit to treat raw wastewaters, similar to sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) and combined sewer
overflow (CSO) in solids characteristics. Two screens were evaluated, with 1200-micron and 600-
micron apertures, substantially smaller than the CDS technology typically used (2400-micron) for
floatables removal. Total suspended solids (TSS) removals averaged 10 and 30 percent for the two
screen sizes, respectively. The smaller screen was observed to blind at its surfaces, while the 1200-
micron retained the desired self-cleaning capability characteristic of this technology.
Other technologies were also tested at the same time with the CDS units. A fiber-based
media, high-rate filter, the Fuzzy Filter, was operated downstream of the CDS unit. At loadings
between 400 and 600 Lpm/m2 (10 and 15 gpm/ft2), it was capable of achieving approximately 40
percent TSS removals. The process was found to effectively remove particles greater than 50-
micron, which benefitted the performance of downstream UV disinfection processes.
Three different UV configurations were operated downstream of the CDS and Fuzzy Filter
processes. One used low-pressure, high output lamps while the other two used medium pressure
lamps. The medium pressure units comprised a closed-chamber and an open-channel unit. In
addition to operating the pilot units, collimated-beam, dose-response testing was conducted on the
primary-type wastewaters. The results of the study suggest that 2-log reductions can be consistently
accomplished at doses on the order of 30 mJ/cm2, with minimal removal of particulates. These
reductions can be increased to between 2.3 and 2.8 with removal of larger particles, greater than
approximately 50-micron. These results are based on enumeration of blended samples. If the
exposed samples are not blended, the apparent reductions will be between 2.5 and 3.5 logs.
IV
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Forward iii
Abstract iv
Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Acknowledgment xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Background 1
Hurricane Floyd 1
General Technology Descriptions 2
CDS Technology 2
Fuzzy Filter Technology 2
PCI Wedeco UV Technology 2
Aquionics UV Technology 2
Generic Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel System 2
RCSD Water Pollution Control Plant Description 2
Demonstration Objectives 2
Technical Approach 4
Pilot Plant Facilities 4
Scope of Work 4
Chapter 2 Conclusions 7
UV Disinfection Dose Requirements and Particle Size Impacts 7
CDS Process Performance 7
Fuzzy Filter Performance 7
UV Disinfection Performance 8
-------
Chapter 3 Recommendations 9
Chapter 4 Experimental Procedures 11
Introduction 11
Technology Descriptions 11
Continuous Deflection Separation 11
Fuzzy Filter Filtration 11
Ultraviolet Light Disinfection 14
High-Output, Low-Pressure Lamp System (PCI Wedeco,
Open-Channel) 14
High-Output, Medium-Pressure Lamp System (Aquionics,
Closed-Vessel) 16
High-Output, Medium-Pressure Lamp System (Generic,
Open-Channel) 16
Pilot-Plant Facility Description 16
Experimental Test Plan 22
Demonstration Plan and Modifications 22
Test Plan for Pilot Units 23
Assessment of Fecal Coliform UV Wastewater
Dose-Response Characteristics 23
Collimated-Bean Dose-Response Tests With and Without
Blending 23
Blending Wastewater Samples for Improved Fecal
Coliform Analyses 23
Impact of Particles on Dose-Response Performance 23
Technology Evaluations 26
CDS Technology 26
Fuzzy Filter 26
UV Technologies 26
PCI Wedeco UV System 26
Aquionics Medium-Pressure UV System 28
Generic Open-Channel, Medium-Pressure Lamp System 28
General Sampling and Analysis Plan 28
Chapter 5 Experimental Studies 31
Introduction 31
Dose-Response Testing of Wastewaters 31
Particle Size Distribution 41
Continuous Deflection Separation Technology 46
Fuzzy Filter Technology 51
UV Disinfection 51
Low-Pressure, High-Output Lamp System (PCI Wedeco) 51
High-Output, Medium-Pressure Lamp System (Aquionics,
Closed-Vessel) 57
High-Output, Medium-Pressure Lamp System (Generic,
Open-Channel) 57
Summary of Comparison of Three UV Technologies 58
Application of UV to Low-Grade Waters 58
References 67
VI
-------
Appendices
A Dose Response Data, CDS Pilot Plant Data, Fuzzy Filter Data, and UV Pilot
Plant Data 69
B Demonstration Plan Excerpts (January 1999) 85
C New Jersey Institute of Technology Protocol for Particle Size Analysis 117
vn
-------
Tables
4-1. Example Testing Schedule and Operating Conditions Used for Pilot Plants .... 24
4-2. Primary Technology Operating Variables 27
5-1. Summary of Dose-Response Tests 32
5-2. Summary of Particle Size Analyses Results 43
5-3. Summary of CDS Pilot Plant Results 47
5-4. Summary of Fuzzy Filter Solids Data 52
5-5. Summary of the Low-Pressure, High Output Lamp System Performance Data 57
5-6. Summary of the Medium Pressure, Closed Chamber Lamp System
Performance Data 58
5-7. Medium-Pressure, Open Channel System with Short Lamp and Wide
Spacing 60
5-8. Medium-Pressure, Open Channel System with Short Lamp and Narrow
Spacing 60
5-9. Medium-Pressure, Open Channel System with Long Lamp and Wide
Spacing 60
5-10. Medium-Pressure, Open Channel System with Long Lamp and Wide
Spacing 60
5-11. Summary of Comparison of Three UV System Based on Total and UV
Power Loadings 64
Vlll
-------
Figures
1 -1. Plan Layout of the RCSD Water Pollution Control Plant Showing the Location
of the Testing Area 3
1-2. General Equipment Layout 5
4-1. Rendering of the CDS Technologies Continuous Deflection Separation
Process 12
4-2 Fuzzy Filter Pilot Plant and Rendering of Operation Sequences 13
4-3 Schematic of the PCI Wedeco Low-Pressure, High-Output UV Lamp
Pilot Plant 15
4-4. Schematic of the Aquionics Medium-Pressure UV Lamp Pilot Plant 17
4-5. Schematic of Open-Channel, Medium-Pressure Lamp Pilot Plant 18
4-6 Process Flow Schematic of the Pilot Plant Facility 19
4-7 Photos of Pilot Facility Showing Fuzzy Filters and UV Channel 20
4-8 Photos of Pilot Facility Showing UV Units 21
4-9 Test Sequence for Fractionated Dose-Response Analyses 25
5-1. Dose-Response Results for Primary Influent Sample Collected
Januarys, 1999 34
5-2. Dose-Response Results for Primary Influent Sample Collected
January 8, 1999 35
5-3. Dose-Response Results for CSO Sample No. 1 Collected January 15, 1999 .... 36
5-4. Dose-Response Results for CSO Sample No. 2 Collected January 18, 1999 .... 37
5-5. Dose-Response Results for CSO Sample No. 3 Collected January 25, 1999 .... 38
5-6. Dose-Response Results for CDS Effluent Sample Collected February 3, 1999 39
5-7. Dose-Response Results for Fuzzy Filter Effluent Sample Collected
February 4, 1999 40
5-8. Comparison of Blended and Unblended Dose-Response Results for
Combined Data 42
5-9. Particle Size Analysis Results for the RCSD Primary Influent and CDS
Effluent Samples 44
5-10. Particle Size Analysis Results for the Fuzzy Filter Effluent Sample and
Averages for the Fuzzy Filter Effluent, CDS Effluent and Primary Effluent. . 45
5-11. TSS Mass Removals through the CDS Pilot Unit for Each Test Series 48
5-12. Percent TSS Removals through the CDS Pilot Unit for Each Test Series 49
5-13. Combined CDS Influent/Effluent Mass Solids and Percent Removal Data 50
IX
-------
5-14. Fuzzy Filter Effluent Solids as a Function of Flow for Each Compression
Setting 53
5-15. Fuzzy Filter Percent TSS Removal as a Function of Flow for Each
Compression Setting 54
5-16. Fuzzy Filter Removals as a Function of Flow and Compression 55
5-17. Low-Pressure, High-Output UV Unit Performance Data 56
5-18. Medium-Pressure, Closed-Chamber UV Unit Dose and Performance Results . 59
5-19. Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel UV Unit Dose and Performance Results
for Lamp A (12-Inch Length), 4- and 6-Inch Spacing 61
5-20. Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel UV Unit Dose and Performance Results
for Lamp B (24-Inch Length), 4- and 6-Inch Spacing 62
5-21. Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel UV Unit Dose Results for Alternate Length
and Spacing 63
5-22. Comparison of Performance Results for the Three UV System Configurations
Tested Based on Total Power Loadings 65
5-23 Comparison of Performance Results for the Three UV System Configurations
Tested Based on UV Power Loadings 66
-------
Acknowledgment
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement Number X-82435210 by
HydroQual, Inc. under the partial sponsorship of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Partial sponsorship was also provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (NYSERDA), Albany, New York, and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1,
Orangeburg, New York. This report covers a period from August 1998 to January 2001, and work
was completed as of November 1999.
Preparation of this report was the responsibility of Karl Scheible of HydroQual, Inc. The field
effort was conducted under the direction of HydroQual, and recognition is given to Edward Mignone,
Michael Gushing and Francisco Cardona for their efforts. The project liaison for the Rockland
County Sewer District No. 1 was Martin Dolphin. The District's Executive Director is Ronald Delo.
The Project Officer for the USEPA Office of Water was Bryan Rittenhouse; Thomas O'Connor of
the USEPA Office of Research and Development was the Technical Advisor. The Project Officer
for NYSERDA was Lawrence Pakenas.
XI
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) supports the development and demonstration of
new technologies and technology applications that
advance the treatment of wastewaters, combined sewer
overflows (CSO) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSO).
Such projects develop performance data for a particular
technology, affording potential users the ability to assess
its applicability to their problem and to compare it to
alternatives.
This demonstration project evaluated three technologies
for treatment of sanitary sewer- and combined sewer-type
overflows. These were the Continuous Deflection
Separation (CDS) and Fuzzy-Filter (FF) high-rate solids
removal technologies, and ultraviolet light (UV) high-rate
disinfection. Three different lamp systems were evaluated
within the UV disinfection studies. The work was
conducted at the Rockland County Sewer District No. 1
(RCSD) water pollution control plant in Orangeburg, NY.
The project was completed under USEPA Assistance
Grant No. X-824352010, inclusive of Amendments 1
through 4. In addition to the USEPA, the project was
supported by the RCSD and the New York State Energy
Researchand Development Authority (NYSERDA). Note
that this project was conducted as a sequel, in part, to a
major study of UV disinfection of the RCSD water
pollution control plant (WPCP). Supported by
NYSERDA, it has been reported under separate cover
(HydroQual, Inc., Oct. 1999), and includes the analysis of
UV performance on primary effluents and its associated
design and cost considerations.
Hurricane Floyd
On September 17, 1999, Hurricane Floyd struck the New
York metropolitan region, causing extensive flooding and
related damage in several areas, including the RCSD
water pollution control plant. The entire plant was
flooded, reaching depths of 4 to 6 feet in some areas, and
shutting down operations completely. Although the Plant
was able to respond in remarkably quick fashion to bring
the facility on-line, full recovery still took months, and,
given the condition of the site and lack of budget, the
demonstration study field effort was terminated.
Although the demonstration equipment itself survived,
key data files, including the field log and field
observations book were destroyed. Much of the data and
operating conditions could be reconstructed or preserved
through laboratory sample sheets and office-field
communications, but some were irretrievably lost,
precluding discussions in this report regarding the results
of specific tasks. This primarily affected the CDS unit
evaluation, centering on head-loss information, floatables
capture, and data relating to the bag filters used to capture
CDS underflow solids.
In Chapter 4, Experimental Procedures, there is further
discussion of the impact of the flood and associated losses
on the overall program. This specifically cites the original
work plan as compared to the tasks that were actually
completed.
-------
General Technology Descriptions
CDS Technology
The Continuous Deflection Separation (CDS) mechanism
was developed and has been commercialized, by CDS
Technologies, Mornington, Australia. The company's US
offices are in Alpharetta, GA and Morgan Hill, CA.
It is a passive system that incorporates the advantages of
a vortexing flow pattern within a center chamber to
maintain a non-clogging condition on a pressed-
perforation screen (Wong, 1997). Water passes through
the screen while the solids are deflected to the interior of
the containment chamber and captured in the solids sump.
Applications have been generally directed to the capture
of floatables, with large-aperture screens (2400 to 4800
micron). This study used smaller-aperture screens (600 to
1200 micron openings) to assess possible suspended
solids capture.
Fuzzy Filter Technology
The Fuzzy Filter is an innovative, fiber-sphere media
("fuzzy balls") filter that has been applied to both water
and wastewaters (Caliskaner and Tchobanoglous, 1996).
Operated in an upflow mode, the media are held, via
upper and lower compression plates, at a specific media
density. This compression can be varied, largely as a
function of the types of solids being filtered and desired
removals. The filter represents a departure from
conventional granular filters by allowing wastewater to
flow through the media as opposed to around it.
Hydraulic loading rates between 800 and 1200 Lpm/m2
(20 and 30 gpm/ft2) can be achieved, substantially higher
than the rates normally found with slow sand media
filters.
PCI Wedeco UV Technology
The PCI Wedeco (now Wedeco Ideal Horizons) UV
system represents newer low-pressure lamp UV systems
that have increased their germicidal output by increasing
throughput voltages and/or doping of the inert
gas/mercury mixture in the lamp. It takes advantage of
the high power conversion efficiency of the low-pressure
lamps, while getting higher UV outputs. The
Spektrotherm lamp used by PCI Wedeco has
approximately 3.5 times greater UV output than the
conventional low-pressure lamp. It is configured in a
conventional open-channel design, with the lamps
oriented horizontally and parallel to the direction of flow.
The unit is equipped with an auto-wiper for maintenance
of the quartz sleeves that enclose the lamps.
Aquionics UV Technology
The UV system supplied by Aquionics, Inc. of Erlanger,
Kentucky, utilizes medium-pressure lamps. These are less
efficient than the conventional lamp in their conversion of
electrical input to UV light (approximately 7 percent).
Their total UV output, however, can be substantially
higher, resulting in a lower requirement of lamps. The
lamps in this case were arranged in a pressure chamber,
with flow pumped to the unit. The system has an auto-
wiper for cleaning the lamps' quartz sleeves.
Generic Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel System
In addition to the commercial UV systems tested, a
generic, non-commercial, open-channel unit was operated.
It used two different types of medium-pressure lamps,
differing in their lengths. The channel was designed such
that the lamps could be operated at 10- and 15-cm (4- and
6-inch) spacings.
RCSD Water Pollution Control Plant Description
The RCSD WPCP provides secondary treatment to
wastewaters collected from a drainage area servicing
approximately 160,000 people. The plant has a design
capacity of 98 ML/d (26 mgd), and presently processes
approximately 76 ML/d (20 mgd). Figure 1-1 presents a
layout of the facility, which in the mid-1980s was
upgraded to its present capacity and converted from an
activated sludge process to rotating biological contactors
(RBCs). It also shows the location of the Pilot Study
The WPCP is operated as two treatment trains, identified
as A and B. The total influent passes through bar screens
and is pumped to the influent parshall flume and grit
building. After the aerated grit chambers, wastewater is
split and flows by gravity to the A and B treatment trains.
Each train consists of covered primary clarifiers, aerated
RBCs, secondary clarifiers and chlorine contact tanks.
The plant disinfects seasonally and has the ability to trim
its residual chlorine by the addition of liquid bisulfite to
its outfall. Final discharge is to the Hudson River,
approximately three kilometers (two miles) away.
Collected primary and secondary sludges undergo
anaerobic digestion, gravity thickening and centrifugal
dewatering before disposal to a landfill.
Demonstration Objectives
The overall objective of this project was to evaluate and
assess the feasibility and application of the CDS and
Fuzzy Filter high-rate solids removal technologies to
SSO- and CSO-type wastewaters, and the subsequent UV
-------
;
i
?*
112 I HU—s I
|S J : / \- J
j ./ 1 "•
j-
51
o
O
c
o
'= ra
"o ®
C3J
Q
o
0)
jg- CB
is o
«- o
O _l
jta
Q_
UJ
Of
Z)
e>
-------
disinfection of the wastewaters using high-output lamp
configurations. In addition, several specific objectives
were identified:
(1) Develop UV dose-response relationships for
fecal coliform in primary-type wastewaters and
the impact of particles and particle size on UV
dose requirements.
(2) Determine the suspended solids removal
efficiencies of the CDS system under a range
of hydraulic loadings and with alternative
screen apertures.
(3) Determine the solids removal efficiencies of
the Fuzzy Filter under a range of hydraulic
loadings and alternative filter compressions.
(4) Determine the disinfection efficiencies of the
high output/low pressure UV (High/Low UV)
system and the medium pressure UV system as
a function of dose and hydraulic loading.
(5) Assess the impact of pretreatment by the CDS
and Fuzzy Filter technologies on UV
disinfection efficiencies, including the impact
of solids and solids size distribution, and the
variables that comprise UV dose.
Technical Approach
Pilot Plant Facilities
The pilot-plants were set up in the treatment plant's
screening building, receiving wastewater pumped from
one of three influent channels. Figure 1-2 shows the
general layout of the units. A process flow diagram and
a more detailed description of the system can be found in
Section 2.
The CDS unit was set up in the plant's bar-screen room.
Wastewater was pumped from the below-grade influent
channel to an overhead tank, which was also located in
the screen room (Figure 1-2). The head tank discharged
to the CDS unit. The CDS effluent then flowed to the
outside area in front of the building where the Fuzzy Filter
and up to two UV units were assembled. The CDS
effluent could be directed to any of the three units.
Normal operations incorporated treatment trains
comprising the CDS-High/Low UV; CDS-Fuzzy Filter-
Medium Pressure UV; and, the CDS-Medium Pressure
UV. Drainage from the pilot plants flowed back to the
plant's influent channels.
Scope of Work
The approach to the operation and analysis of the
technologies, given the limited experimental scope of the
project, was to generate data for each technology
independently. In this manner, each unit operation could
be assessed based on its specific feed characteristics for
solids, fecal coliform, and percent transmittance, as
appropriate to the technology itself. In addition, the
wastewaters were also characterized with respect to UV
dose-response and particle size distribution. The overall
scope of work can be divided to the following specific
tasks:
Taskl.
Collimated beam dose-response tests were run on a
number of primary-type wastewaters. This Task included
sequentially filtering the samples and conducting the
dose-response test on the filtrates. In this manner, the
impact of particles and particle size on dose requirements
was evaluated. Additionally, the exposed samples were
subjected to homogenization (blending) to break apart
particles. The intent in this case was to determine the
extent to which particles (fractionated to size classes by
the sequential filtration) occlude coliforms from UV.
Taskl.
Particle size distribution analyses were conducted on
samples collected throughout the operating period. These
were of the raw waters, CSO samples from a location in
New York City, and CDS and Fuzzy Filter effluents. The
intent was to correlate UV performance to possible
particle size impacts, as evidenced by the results of Task
1 and this Task.
Task3.
The CDS unit was operated at all times as the pre-
treatment unit for the Fuzzy Filter and UV units. Two
different screen sizes were used, with apertures of 1200
and 600 microns. Flows were varied and influent and
effluent samples were taken, in addition to samples of the
underflow. In certain cases, the entire underflow was run
through bag filters to capture solids removed by the CDS
system. The CDS unit was operated from February
through mid-September 1999.
Task 4.
The Fuzzy Filter was operated at different compression
ratios and over a range of hydraulic loadings. Influent,
effluent, and backwash samples were taken to assess
removals under these varying operating conditions. The
-------
o
>F
Lu
^
a,
«***T,
O
UJ
QC
UJ
z:
UJ
yj
Q'
"3
o
LJ_
-------
Fuzzy Filter was operated from February through mid-
September 1999, with periodic downtimes
TaskS.
The PCI Wedeco high-output, low-pressure UV unit was
operated with the CDS effluent at all times. The system
was always at full power and the quartz sleeves were
cleaned before each sampling. Influent and effluent
samples were collected over a range of hydraulic loadings
and measured for fecal coliforms, total suspended solids
(TSS), and % Transmittance (at 254nm). This unit was
operated during the period of March through June 1999.
Task 6.
The Aquionics medium-pressure UV unit received both
CDS and Fuzzy Filter effluent. It was operated at
alternate power settings over a range of flows, and the
quartz sleeves were cleaned before each sampling. The
influent and effluent were sampled and analyzed for fecal
coliforms, TSS and % Transmittance (at 254 nm). The
Aquionics unit was operated during the period of March
through June 1999, with some periods of downtime.
Task?.
The medium-pressure lamp, non-commercial UV system
was operated in August and September 1999. Two
different length medium-pressure lamps were tested, each
at two difference centerline spacings. The quartz sleeves
were cleaned before each sampling, and the unit was
operated over a range of hydraulic loadings. Influent and
effluent samples were collected for fecal coliforms, TSS
and % Transmittance (at 254 nm) analyses.
Chapter 4 of this report presents the experimental and
analytical procedures used for this project. The analytical
results were compiled with each unit's operating
condition and are analyzed in Chapter 5, which addresses
each Task separately, and then discusses the results of the
overall project. Conclusions and recommendations
derived from the results of the study are presented in
Chapters 2 and 3, respectively.
-------
Chapter 2
Conclusions
UV Disinfection Dose Requirements and Particle
Size Impacts
The dose-response analyses indicated that removal of
particles greater than 50-micron in size will improve the
efficiency of the UV process because filtration to such
levels removes a substantial amount of occluded bacteria.
Blending the unfiltered samples released fecal coliform
and improved recovery of occluded bacteria. Blending
samples that had been filtered at retention levels between
1 and 50 microns did not have a significant impact on
coliform recovery and did not impact UV dose
requirements to accomplish targeted reductions.
The UV dose requirement to accomplish 3-log reduction
of fecal coliform in a primary-type wastewater, pretreated
to remove particles greater than 50-micron is
approximately 20 mJ/cm2. The results suggest that the
maximum reductions that can be expected under practical
dose applications up to 40 mJ/cm2 are 3.5 to 4 logs. With
unfiltered effluents, and primary wastewaters passed only
through the CDS unit, the maximum reductions suggested
by the dose-response analyses are approximately 2.5 to 3.0
logs (based on enumeration of blended samples).
CDS Process Performance
The CDS process is capable of accomplishing
approximately ten percent TSS removals with a 1200-
micron screen. This increases to approximately 30 percent
with a 600-micron screen. In both cases, it appears that
removals were independent of the flow rate, within the
range of flows tested.
The CDS unit, based on visual observations, was effective
in capturing and removing debris, including paper and
plastics, fibers, and preventing transport to downstream
processes. In this respect, the wider aperture screens were
as effective as the smaller aperture screens and are more
easily maintained. The wider aperture screen tended to be
self-cleaning while the smaller aperture screen required
manual cleaning and tended to retain the debris on the
screen surface. The CDS process can provide protection
of downstream filters or other pretreatment devices by
removing debris and floatables.
Fuzzy Filter Performance
The Fuzzy Filter was effective in removing larger-size SS.
The PSD and dose-response analyses confirmed that these
removals centered on particles greater than 50 micron in
size. The system is more effective in this application at
20-percent compression and at hydraulic loadings between
400 and 800 Lpm/m2 (10 and 20 gpm/ft2). At these
conditions, TSS removals averaged approximately 40
percent. Removals were consistently less at these
hydraulic loadings for the 10 and 30 percent
compressions.
-------
UV Disinfection Performance
The combined results generated with the three UV units
indicates that a degree of disinfection with primary
wastewaters can be accomplished by UV radiation.
Reductions between 2.3 and 2.8 logs can be achieved at
hydraulic loadings between 8 and 38 Lpm/kW of lamp
input power (2 and 10 gpm/kW) based on the enumeration
of blended samples. This is equivalent to approximately
3 to 3.5 logs when enumeration is conducted with
unblended samples. Doses are greater than 40 mJ/cm2 are
required to achieve these reduction levels.
-------
Chapter 3
Recommendations
The use of high-rate solids removal processes such as the
CDS and Fuzzy Filter systems are effective in their
application to primary wastewaters, including CSO- and
SSO-type wastewaters. Their use is recommended for
consideration in such applications, particularly when
subsequent UV disinfection is anticipated. The CDS
process is recommended for removing debris and large
solids, particularly floatables, as a protective device for
downstream processes. A filtration process such as the
Fuzzy Filter offers advantages with respect to suspended
solids removals, particularly those attributed with
occluding significant levels of fecal coliforms. It is
recommended for pretreatment of wastewaters prior to UV
disinfection, to the extent that larger particle size materials
(greater than 50-micron) need to be removed for effective
UV performance. Continued study of the Fuzzy Filter is
recommended, focusing on operational considerations
such as head losses, backwash ratios, power requirements,
etc.
The use of UV technologies for disinfection of primary-
type wastewaters is recommended. Applications can
include primary effluents, CSOs and SSOs, andreductions
up to 2 logs can be achieved with the degree of
pretreatment for solids removals identified in this report.
In order to approach 3 log reductions, pretreatment to
remove solids greater than 50-micron in size is
recommended. Higher degrees of pretreatment would be
required to achieve reductions greater than 3-logs.
-------
Chapter 4
Experimental Procedures
Introduction
This chapter outlines the actual effort accomplished at the
RCSD Plant, including the general operating, sampling
and analysis procedures that were followed. A description
of the technologies is first presented, along with the
manner in which the pilot facilities were assembled.
Technology Descriptions
Continuous Deflection Separation
The CDS process is an innovative solids separation system
that overcomes the problems of blockage, or clogging,
typically experienced with conventional direct screening
or filtration devices that are used for gross pollutant
removal in wastewater systems. A rendering of the
system, excerpted from the supplier's brochure, is shown
on Figure 4-1. The system deflects the inflow and
associated pollutants away from the main flow stream and
into a separation and containment chamber. This
containment chamber (see Figure 4-1) is comprised of an
upper separation section and a sump in the lower section.
Solids are separated in the chamber by a perforated screen
that allows the filtered water to pass through to a volute
return system. The fluid and associated solids contained
within the separation chamber are kept in continuous
motion by the circular flow action generated by the
incoming flow. This motion has the effect of keeping the
solids in the chamber from blocking the perforated screen.
The heavier solids ultimately settle into the containment
sump (Wong, 1997).
The filtration element consists of a large, pressed-
perforation screen, which acts as a filter screen with an
outer volute passage. The perforations in the separation
screen are elongated in shape. The CDS unit has features
that are similar to vortex solids separators or swirl
concentrators that have been adapted for use in CSO
applications. In these systems, the downward, secondary
flow induced by the vortex carries solids to a gutter, while
the separated waters overflow at the top of the chamber.
As the flow increases, this can become increasingly
inefficient because of the higher uplift pressures,
countering the effect of the downward flow. In the CDS,
this is overcome by utilizing a filtration mechanism and a
circular flow action to prevent solids from blocking the
filter medium. This, in effect, allows for higher inflows to
the chamber without affecting the separation mechanism.
A stainless steel CDS unit with a screen diameter and
height of 3 ft was used during these experiments.
Fuzzy Filter Filtration
The Fuzzy Filter pilot plant is comprised of a 0.61 m x
0.61 m (2 ft x 2 ft) wide reactor, 2.4 m (8 ft) tall. Figure
4-2 is a photo of the system, excerpted from the supplier's
brochure. The figure also presents a schematic of the
system when it is in its filtration, wash, and flush cycles.
11
-------
FIGURE 4-1. of Continuous Deflection (CDS) Technology.
12
-------
ActLfSJ'.or for
„*• Uop«r Plate
Filtration Cycle
2O lo 3O caorrt.. sa- ft..
Wsisst-i Cycle
Flush* Oyolo
1O to 3D cfptrTi/sei. fl
FIGURE 4-2. of Fuzzy Filter pilot Plant and
of Sequence.
13
-------
The Fuzzy Filter is an innovative process involving the use
of synthetic fiber medium. The filter's features include:
(1) a highly porous medium; (2) a controllable porosity;
(3) an ability to mechanically increase porosity when
backwashing; and (4) high filtration rates relative to
conventional media filters. The process' name derives
from the fuzzy appearance of the medium, configured in
balls approximately 3.2 cm (1.25 inches) in diameter.
Schreiber Corporation, Trussville, AL, manufactures the
patented process.
The low-density medium is retained between two
perforated compression plates. Based on displacement
tests, the porosity of the non-compacted, quasi-sphere
filter medium itself is estimated to be about 85 percent.
Under compression, the porosity of the media bed is
estimated to be 80 percent. Since the media are
compressible, the porosity of the filter bed can be altered
according to the characteristics of the influent.
Unlike conventional sand and anthracite filter media, the
fiber-ball media allow for flow through the media
structure. In the filtration mode, influent is introduced at
the bottom plate and flows upward through the media.
The filter compression plates are designed to provide equal
distribution of flow across the filter's cross section. To
wash the filter, the same wastewater stream is used. The
upper perforated plate is raised mechanically, and air is
introduced sequentially from the left and right sides of the
filter below the bottom compression plate. This causes a
rolling action in the media as wastewater continues to flow
through the filter, shearing captured solids from the media.
During this backwash cycle, the filter effluent, which now
contains backwashed solids, is diverted for subsequent
processing. This may involve diversion to a sedimentation
tank, or other solids-liquid separation. The backwash
cycle is initiated at a preset pressure differential or on a
pre-scheduled basis. This is typically once or twice each
day, for approximately 45 minutes per cycle. Thus the
backwash waters can comprise 5 to 10% of the total
throughput.
After the backwash cycle, the upper plate is returned to its
original position, and the filter is flushed (again, with the
same wastewater stream) for a short period of time to
remove residual solids. The filter effluent valve is then
opened for normal operation. High rates of filtration are
possible because of the nature of the media and its
relatively high porosity. Typical rates are 1200 - 1600
Lpm/m2 (30 to 40 gpm/ft2), as compared to less than 400
Lpm/m2 (10 gpm/ft2) for conventional media filters
(Caliskaner and Tchobanoglous, 1996; Caliskaner, et al.,
1999).
Ultraviolet Light Disinfection
Ultraviolet disinfection is a physical process in which
electromagnetic energy from a radiation source is
transferred to an organism's cellular material. The
effectiveness of the radiation is a function of the dose
delivered. Dose is defined as the product of the rate at
which germicidal energy is delivered (the average UV
intensity in the system) and the time an organism is
exposed to the energy. The applied dose does not
necessarily result in the killing of the organism; rather, it
primarily interrupts its ability to replicate. The reader is
referred to WEF (1996) and USEPA (1986) for detailed
reviews of the mechanics and kinetics of UV disinfection.
High-Output, Low-Pressure Lamp System (PCI Wedeco,
Open-Channel)
The UV unit supplied by PCI Wedeco (now Wedeco Ideal
Horizons) utilize a high-output, low-pressure lamp,
oriented horizontally and parallel to the direction of flow.
The Spektrotherm lamp uses a mercury-indium amalgam
in the vapor phase. Each had a UV output rating of 95
watts at 254 nm, and a total power draw of 300 Watts.
The lamps had a nominal length of 147 cm (4.8 ft) and an
effective arc length of 143 cm (4.7 ft). The quartz sleeves
were test-tube types, with one sealed end and an outer
diameter of 33 mm (1.3 in).
Figure 4-3 presents a schematic of the pilot plant used at
RCSD. A stainless steel, open channel was used to hold
the lamp/quartz assemblies. A total of 9.3 m (30.5 ft)
long, the channel was fitted with entrance and exit boxes,
each deeper (1.2 m or 3.9 ft) than the main channel (0.7 m
or 2.3 ft). The front box was 0.7 m (2.3 ft) long, while the
exit box was 0.3 m (1 ft) long. The main channel was 8 m
(26 ft) long and 0.6 m (2 ft) wide. A stilling plate was
inserted into the approach section of the channel,
approximately 1.6m (5.2 ft) ahead of the lamp battery. A
motorized level control device was mounted at the end of
the main channel (approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) downstream
of the lamp battery). This consisted of a perforated plate
with orifices automatically adjusted, via a PLC, as a
function of the flow rate. It maintained the liquid depth in
the channel at 37-cm (14.5 in) with a variation in depth of
less than plus or minus 1.3-cm (0.5 in) throughout the
operating range of the unit.
14
-------
Motorized -
Weir
3 2x4 Lamp Modules
M Still ing
Plate
Effluent*
7
Influent
ELEVATION VIEW
PLAN VIEW
FIGURE 4-3,
uv
15
-------
The lamps were mounted inside the channel, in a uniform
array, with a centerline spacing of 10-cm (3.9 in). The
unit was fitted with 24 lamps, arranged in a 6 x 4 array,
using 3 modules (across the channel width), each with 8
lamps. The wiring was run through the module frame to
12 ballasts located in a remote control box. Each ballast
controlled 2 lamps. The electronic ballasts were designed
to plug into a controller board, with an input voltage of
240VAC. Each of the three lamp modules was equipped
with an automatic cleaning device. These consisted of a
pneumatically driven set of Teflon o-ring collars around
each quartz sleeve.
High-Output, Medium-Pressure Lamp System (Aquionics,
Closed-Vessel)
The medium-pressure lamp system supplied by
Aquionics, Inc. was a closed-cylinder, pressure reactor.
Figure 4-4 is a schematic of the reactor. There were four
medium-pressure lamps in the single reactor, enclosed in
48 mm quartz sleeves, 81-cm (2.6 ft) long. The
lamp/quartz assemblies were arranged concentrically, on
a 52.5 mm (2.1 in) radius, with flow directed parallel to
the longitudinal axis of the lamps. The lamps were rated
to have nominal UV outputs of 158 W at 254 nm. The
unit was equipped with step-downs to 125 and 137 W.
The total draw by each lamp is approximately 2.4 kW.
The unit had provided with an automatic wiping system
to keep the quartz sleeves clean, comprised of a single
Teflon ring on each quartz sleeve that stroked along a
threaded rod, driven by a reversible motor. The minimum
stroke rate was about 10 minutes.
High-Output, Medium-Pressure Lamp System (Generic,
Open-Channel)
The third UV unit also used medium pressure lamps, but
was configured as an open-channel, gravity flow unit. A
schematic of the unit is shown on Figure 4-5.
Approximately 4 m (13 ft) long, four medium-pressure
UV lamps were positioned near the downstream end of
the unit, with outflow over an adjustable weir to an
effluent tank. The channel and lamp modules were
designed to allow alternate lamp centerline spacings, 10
and 15 cm (4 and 6 inches). Each lamp had a power
rating of 1 kW, but different lamp-arc lengths. The first,
designated as lamp A, was 10.5 cm (4.1 in) long, and the
second, Lamp B, was 16.5 cm (6.5 in) long.
Pilot-Plant Facility Description
Figure 4-6 presents the layout of the pilot-plant facility at
theRCSD WPCP. As brie fly out lined in Chapter 1, it was
located both inside and just outside of the Plant's bar-
screen building. The feed pump, a submersible
centrifugal pump rated at 1890 Lpm (500 gpm), was set
into one of the three influent channels immediately
downstream of the bar screen and prior to the channel's
isolation gate. The pump itself was placed in a "cage" set
against the isolation gate frame in the channel. This kept
the pump secure and prevented it from moving
downstream. It discharged to a head tank positioned
approximately 3 m (10 ft) above grade in the corner of the
screen room. Similarly, process water was accessed from
existing take-offs and hard-piped to the head tank to
provide for dilution of the raw wastewaters and to meet a
targeted TSS concentration between 30 and 150 mg/L.
The combined flow discharged via a 20-cm (8-in)
diameter line to the CDS unit, controlled by manipulation
of a control valve at the head tank.
The CDS unit, which was set on a platform constructed
inside the bar-screen building, was stainless steel with a
0.9 m (3 ft) screen diameter and 0.9 m (3 ft) high (refer to
Figure 4-1). The unit was covered, sealed sufficiently to
allow a head of up to approximately 1.8 m (6 ft). The
sump was fitted with a 5-cm (2-in) diameter line, which
was routed in a U-shape to approximately 0.3 m (1 ft)
below the water level in the CDS unit. In the first test
series with the 1200-micron screen, it was kept open
during operations, such that there was a continuous, low
flow of purge solids from the unit. This continuous flow
was equivalent to about ten percent of the feed flow to the
CDS. In subsequent tests, this was reconfigured to allow
for intermittent flow, at 10% of the incoming flow rate,
but only 10% of the time. In this way, the underflow
comprised approximately 1 percent of the inflow.
Outflow from the CDS unit was directed either to both of
the downstream UV systems or to one of the UV systems
(High/Low) and to the Fuzzy Filter. Excess flow not used
by the downstream processes was bypassed to the influent
channel. The flow through the CDS unit was monitored
by a 15 cm (6-in) magnetic flow meter (FM-1 in Figure 4-
6) located on the downstream side of the unit. The solids
removed by the CDS unit were captured in the lower
sump and discharged to an influent channel.
Figures 4-7 and 4-8 present photos of the pilot facility,
outside the screen building.
The PCI Wedeco UV unit received wastewater from the
CDS unit, controlled by a 15cm (6-in) control valve
located immediately upstream of the UV channel. It
16
-------
/""
(
{
{
V
f
1 f
^N
) ^
)
)
\ J
^ 4 Concentric Lamps
— s>A
Influent-
Effluent
FIGURE 4-4, of the Aquionics
UV
17
-------
Influent-
Lamp •
Effluent
SECTION VIEW
H
Lamp Battery
PLAN VIEW
FIGURE 4-5. Open-Channel, Lamp
18
-------
O
u,
s
Q
V)
O
oc
IX
O
UL
2
|_
z
_J
O.
5
I
flC
|
g
w
uu
o
O
oc
a.
-,-f
m
cc
O
UL
19
-------
\
UPPER
Influent line (smaller pipe) from CDS unit inside screening building, and
pilot-plant effluent line returning to screen room
*3i-i3Si,;slS^8B>f -Silii-gSft
LOWER
Fuzzy Filter Reactor in foreground, and UV channel in background.
Figure 4-7. Photos of Pilot Facility Showing Fuzzy Filter and UV Channel.
20
-------
View of UV unit installation.
UPPER
LOWER
View of Medium-Pressure Closed Channel unit.
Figure 4-8. Photos of Pilot Facility Showing UV Units.
21
-------
discharged to a 30-cm (12-inch) line, which drained back
to the influent channel. An ultrasonic flow meter was
installed in this line.
The Fuzzy Filter feed pump drew from the 15-cm (12-
inch) CDS effluent line just upstream of the PCI Wedeco
UV unit control valve. The influent to the Fuzzy Filter
was measured by a meter located downstream of the feed
pump (FM-3 in Figure 4-6). The effluent from the Fuzzy
Filter discharged to a tank, which held a submersible feed
pump for the Aquionics UV system. The Fuzzy Filter
could also be bypassed, allowing CDS effluent to
discharge directly to the Aquionics UV unit. The Fuzzy
Filter effluent could also be pumped directly to the PCI
Wedeco UV unit. The backwash from the Fuzzy Filter
was directed to the effluent tank during backwash cycles.
Because the influent was used for backwashing, it was
necessary to direct this stream to the effluent tank so that
there was uninterrupted flow to the Aquionics unit.
Overflow from the effluent tank was directed to a 15-cm
drain line.
Flow to the Aquionics unit was measured by a 10-cm (4-
in) magnetic flow meter. Discharge from the unit was to
the 15-cm (6-in) drain line, which flowed back to the 30-
cm (12-in) final discharge line. Because of the
arrangement of the discharges to the drain lines, the
ultrasonic flow meter (FM-2 in Figure 4-6) in the 30-cm
(12-in) pipe measured the total flow from the PCI Wedeco
UV unit and the Fuzzy Filter. The flow through the PCI
Wedeco unit was indirectly measured by calculating the
difference between the flow in the 30-cm (12-in) pipe and
the flow through the Fuzzy Filter.
In the last series of testing, both the Aquionics and PCI
Wedeco UV units were removed and the generic open-
channel, medium-pressure unit was installed in their
place. It received flow from the Fuzzy Filter.
Experimental Test Plan
The following sections present a summary of the work
actually conducted at the plant site. First, however, there
is a brief discussion about the impact of Hurricane Floyd
and the modifications made to the original Demonstration
Plan.
Demonstration Plan and Modifications
A demonstration plan (HydroQual, Inc., Jan. 1999) was
developed for this project at its inception, and approved
by the USEPA. Relevant excerpts from Sections 2 and 3
of the Demonstration Plan, which described the Test and
the Sampling and Analysis Plans, respectively, are
provided in Appendix B. However, because of Hurricane
Floyd, as discussed earlier, certain parts of the program
could not be conducted, or could not be reported because
data were lost or destroyed. Also, there were certain
additions to the program that expanded experimental
activities, particularly with respect to the CD S unit and to
the evaluation of UV disinfection. The major changes can
be summarized as follows:
• More bench-scale tests were added to the
program to investigate the impact of particles
and particle size distributions on the UV dose
requirement for disinfection. This included
dose-response testing with and without
blending, and with samples that had been
portioned with respect to particle size. A total
of seven samples from CSO discharges and
from the plant itself were tested.
• The three test series originally anticipated by
the program were conducted, but the design
and data collected within each were modified.
In Test Series 1, the program was closely
aligned with the original plan. In Test Series 2,
the CDS underflow collection was modified in
an attempt to capture all underflow solids and
to quantify the removals accomplished by the
unit. In Test Series 3, the PCI Wedeco and
Aquionics units were replaced by a third UV
unit. This was a generic, medium pressure
lamp system that allowed evaluation of
performance at two different lamp spacings,
and with two different length lamps.
• A brief task had been anticipated for the end of
the project to investigate the capture of
floatables by the CDS unit. This was
eliminated when Hurricane Floyd occurred.
Fouling studies conducted on the UV units
were also eliminated.
• The field operating log that was kept at the site
and in the laboratory was destroyed due to
flooding. This impacted the study primarily by
the loss of operating data for the various units,
including head loss measurements for the
operating units and observations with respect
to fouling of the CDS screen and various
operating components for the filter and UV
units.
22
-------
Overall, the work accomplished during the study was
equivalent or greater than the effort originally anticipated
by the Demonstration Plan. This is particularly the case
when considering the bench-scale dose-response tests, the
attemptto capture and quantify the CDS underflow solids,
and the addition of the generic medium pressure lamps.
Unfortunately, certain key data were lost due to the
flooding. Although an attempt was made to reconstruct
activities and observations based on available field notes
and lab sheets, certain aspects of the testing cannot be
reported. These relate primarily to head loss estimates for
the pilot units. The following discussions present the
overall experimental program actually conducted.
Test Plan for Pilot Units
The demonstration test runs were conducted over a period
of approximately 7 months. This was divided to three test
"series," each reflecting operations with a different screen
in the CDS unit and alternate UV configurations. The
following presents the test program effort, including the
sampling and analysis program associated with each of
the test units.
The overall test plan comprised sampling of three process
sequences:
1. CDS -> PCIWedecoUV
2. CDS -> Fuzzy Filter -> AquionicsUV
3. CDS -> Fuzzy Filter -> Open Channel
Medium Pressure UV
Table 4-1 presents an example layout of a test schedule
for a particular set of pilot plants, and operating
conditions for monitoring performance. Footnotes on
Table 4-1 explain the nomenclature used for the various
conditions. The first two columns designate the "series"
and the "test day," respectively. The operating conditions
for each of the pilot units are then shown in the next four
columns. These each designate the flow ("Qn") for the
individual units. The screen size for the CDS unit ("Sn")
is also designated, as is the compression setting for the
Fuzzy Filter ("Cn"). Finally, the last column designates
the analytical schedule that would be followed for that
specific day.
Assessment of Wastewater Fecal Coliform UV
Dose-Response Characteristics
UV dose-response testing was conducted on specific
samples collected at the site and off-site:
(1) Three samples from a CSO location in New
York City.
(2) Two raw RCSD Wastewater Samples (after
the bar screens)
(3) One CDS Effluent
(4) One Fuzzy Filter Effluent
Collimated-Beam Dose-Response Tests With and Without
Blending
Dose-response tests were run with a lab-scale collimated
beam apparatus. This is a device that collimates, or
"straightens," UV light from a conventional UV source,
such that its intensity can be accurately measured. A
sample was exposed to this intensity for a fixed time,
yielding an accurate estimate of the applied dose. Fecal
coliforms were measured before and after application of
the dose, over a series of doses, yielding a "dose-
response" relationship. Three doses, in addition to a
control (no dose), were typically run with each of these.
The exposed samples were enumerated for fecal coliform,
before and after blending.
Blending Wastewater Samples for Improved Fecal Coliform
Analysis
Fecal Coliform can be contained in particles and occluded
from UV exposure. In order to assess capture and
measurement of exposed fecal coliform, the samples were
first homogenized, or blended, in a commercial (Waring)
blender at high speed for a minimum of 30 seconds. The
blending procedure (Scheible, et al., 1986) was first tested
with respect to speed of blending and time. Tests were
also conducted to compare fecal coliform recoveries with
and without blending.
Impact of Particles on Dose-Response Performance
In addition to the collimated beam testing, a number of
the samples and samples from the pilot plants were
analyzed for the impact of particle size and particle size
distribution. Just as the raw sample is subjected to the
dose-response analysis, the samples were serially filtered
through filters with rated retention sizes of 50, 20, 5 and
1 micron. An aliquot from each filtrate was analyzed for
suspended solids and then dosed at a minimum of three
dose levels. These exposed samples (and controls) were
also enumerated for fecal coliforms with and without
blending. Figure 4-9 presents a summary of the testing
23
-------
Table 4-1. Example Testing Schedule and Operating Conditions Used for Pilot Plants (1)
Test
Series
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
Test Day
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9ra
10
11
12
13
14C3)
15
16
CDS Unit
S, Qc,
S,QC,
S, Qc,
S,QC2
s, Q=3
S,QC,
S,QC,
S, Qc,
S, Qc,
S, Qc,
S,QC,
S, Qc,
Clean Screen
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC,
S,QC3
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
Clean Screen
S,QC3
S, Q=3
S,QC2
S,QC1
s, M=3
S,QC3
al VcJ
S,QC3
15 1 VcJ
S,QC3
°1 VcJ
Change CDS Screen
S2Qcx
Fuzzy
Filter
C, Qrrs
C, Qrr,
••
C2Qrr5
C2Qrr,
C,Qrr6
C,Qrr,
C2Qrr5
C2Qrr,
C3 Qrr,
C3Qrrs
C, Qrr6
C, Qrr4
C3 Qrr,
C3 Qrr6
C3 Qrr6
C3 Qrr4
C3 Qrr4
C, Qrr4
^ 1 VFF5
C2Qrr6
•~2 VFF4
C2 Qrr6
^3 VFFS
C3 Qrr3
^2 VFF5
C2 Qrrx
PCI Wedeco
UV
QW2
QW3
Qw.Qw,
QW4QW4
Qw, Qw,
QW2
QW3
QW3
QW4
Qw.Qw,
QW4QW4
Qw,Qw7
QW4
Qws
(4)
(4)
Qws
Qw«
Qw.Qw,
QW4QW4
Qw, Qw,
Mw6
Qw,
VW7
Qwx
Aquionics UV (All
Low Power)
QA3
QA,
QA2 QA2
QA4 QA4
QA7 QA5
QA3
QA,
QA,
QA3
QA2 QA2
QA4 QA4
QA7QA5
QA4
QA2
(4)
(4)
QA2
QA2
QA2QA2
QA4 QA4
QA5 QA5
yA3
QA4
QAX
Sampling and
Analysis
Schedule (2)
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
A
C
C
A
S1)2)3 CDS Screen Size
Qcx CDS Flow Rate
C1)2,3 Fuzzy Filter Compression Setting
QFFX Fuzzy Filter Flow Rate
Qwx PCI Wedeco UV Unit Flow Rate
QAX Aquionics UV Unit Flow Rate
(2) Sampling and Analysis Schedules A, B and C are found in Work Plan (See Appendix B).
24
-------
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
terf
Plate
Plate
Primary Effluent
or
Primary influent
C3
1
«s>
r
50 /J
AA
TSS Control
Sf 1&2
A
^ I
T T
Dose
1
row
Dose
2
iflOB
t t
T
Dos
3
ia>,m
i
J» Surface Dose {I«wf/cm2)
I
2014
I
TSS
-FC
FC
-FC
NOTES:
1. Bulk samples should be gently
mixed to prevent solids settling.
2. Blending should be at high for
3d seconds.
3. Surface Intensity shoyld be
at 200/«w/em2 .
4. Plate three dlIutions In duplicate.
5, TSS collform
will be performed on bulk
sample.
FIGURE 4-9. Test Outline for Solids Fractionation.
25
-------
sequence for these fractionated samples.
Technology Evaluations
Table 4-2 briefly outlines the primary variables for each
of the technologies that were evaluated.
CDS Technology
The CDS unit variables for the demonstration program
were flow (hydraulic loading rate) and screen size. Two
screens were designated for testing, with 1200- and 600-
micron apertures, and were tested at flows ranging from
400 to 1700 Lpm.
The CDS unit was generally operated on a continuous
basis. Flow rates were recorded with each sampling
event. Influent, effluent, and underflow samples were
generated on each of the "test days," as shown on Table
4-1, for the selected operating condition, and analyzed
for suspended solids. All samples were 2-hour
composites, collected manually as a composite of grabs
taken every 20 minutes. The influent and effluent
samples were drawn from the head tank and the PCI
Wedeco (later the Open-Channel Medium Pressure unit)
influent tank, respectively. The screen was typically
cleaned once a week.
Cumulative volume treated was monitored, along with
solids retention and head losses at the different hydraulic
loadings. During a short period in Series 2, the
underflow solids were quantified by filtering the entire
underflow through a bag filter and collecting a
composite of the bag filter filtrate, all during the 2-hr
compositing period for the influent and effluent. Particle
size distribution analyses were also conducted on
selected influent and effluent composites.
Fuzzy Filter
The Fuzzy Filter always received effluent from the CDS
unit. It was generally operated on a continuous basis,
with conditions set, and sampling was conducted
concurrently with the CDS unit. The variables imposed
were flow and compression. The test program for the
Fuzzy Filter encompassed varying both the compression
setting and the flow within a test series, as suggested on
Table 4-1. The media were not changed throughout the
entire test (all 3 series) period and the system
backwashed typically once per day. Flow rates were
recorded with each direct sampling event, and an event
recorder noted the occurrence of any backwash cycle.
The flow rate during a backwash was equivalent to the
feed forward flow rate, as measured by FM3 (Figure 4-
6), the feed flow meter.
Influent and effluent samples were generated on each of
the "test" days, and analyzed for TSS. All samples were
2-hour composites, collected manually as a composite of
grabs taken every 20 minutes. The influent sample was
identical to the CDS effluent sample and was drawn
from the influent tank to the PCI Wedeco unit (later the
open channel, medium-pressure unit). The effluent
sample was drawn from the tank downstream of the
Fuzzy Filter. The backwash was sampled on the days
that the influent/effluent were sampled, and analyzed for
TSS. This was done as a continuous composite by
opening a tap on the backwash line and allowing it to
flow from this tap into a collection drum during the
backwash cycle.
The specific compression settings for the Fuzzy Filter
were 10, 20 and 30 percent. The flow rates examined at
these different compressions ranged between 40 and 340
Lpm (10 and 90 gpm). Selected effluent samples were
analyzed for particle size distribution.
UV Technologies
PCI Wedeco UV System
The PCI Wedeco UV unit received flow from the CDS
unit and was operated at flows between 190 and 1140
Lpm (50 and 300 gpm). Its operation was semi-
continuous, when sampling was to be conducted. All
lamps (24) were operated at full power, and the cleaning
device, an automatic wiper, was operated continuously
at a minimum stroke rate of 15 per hour. The quartz
sleeves were manually cleaned before each sampling
event during the test series.
The only operating variable imposed on the UV system
was flow. All other operational variables, including
wiper rate and lamp power were held relatively constant.
Once the flow rate for a specific sampling was set, and
the system was stabilized with respect to flow and water
level, grab samples were taken from the influent and
effluenttanks of the PCI Wedeco channel. The sampling
for the unit was coordinated with that of the CDS unit, in
that the grabs were taken within the timeframe
representing the 2-hour composites for the CDS and
Fuzzy Filter units. The influent samples were analyzed
for fecal coliform, TSS, and total and filtered
%Transmittance at 254 nm. The effluents were analyzed
26
-------
Table 4-2. Primary Technology Operating Variables
CDS Technology
Series 1: 1200-micron Screen , Flow between 570 and
1700 Lpm (150 and 450 gpm)
Underflow at 10% of Feed Flow
Series 2: 600-micron screen, Flows between 380 and
1140 Lpm,
(100 and 300 gpm)
Underflow at 1% of Feed Flow
Series 3: 600-micron Screen, Flow at 380 Lpm
(100 gpm)
Underflow at 1% of Feed Flow
Fuzzy Filter
Flow between 38 and 114 Lpm (10 and 90 gpm)
Compression at 10, 20 and 30 percent
Feed from CDS
PCIWedeco UV
Full Power
Flows between 190 and 1 140 Lpm (50 and 300 gpm)
Feed from CDS
Aquionics UV
Full Power
Flows between 40 and 400 Lpm (10 and 100 gpm)
Feed from Fuzzy Filter or CDS
Open-Channel
Medium Pressure UV Unit
Full Power
Lamp Length: 10.5 and 16.5 cm (4.1 and 6.5 inches)
Lamp Spacing: 10 and 15 cm (4 and 6 inches)
Flows between 40 and 400 Lpm (10 and 100 gpm)
Feed from Fuzzy Filter
27
-------
for fecal coliforms.
Aquionics Medium-Pressure UV System
The Aquionics UV system received flow from either the
CDS unit or from the Fuzzy Filter. Operations were
semi-continuous. Again, the primary variable imposed
was flow. One power setting was used for the lamps at
all times, equivalent to approximately 125 kW UV output
(nominal). The wiper system was operated at all times at
the maximum stroke rate, which was approximately 6
strokes/hour. The lamp/quartz assemblies were manually
cleaned prior to the performance samplings. Flow rates
were recorded with each sampling event, and influent and
effluent samples were taken on a grab basis. Influent
samples were analyzed for fecal coliforms, TSS, and total
and filtered %T at 254 nm. The sampling for the
Aquionics unit was coordinated with that of the Fuzzy
Filter and/or CDS unit, in that the grabs were taken
within the 2-hour compositing period for the effluents
from either unit. The operating range for sampling was
between 40 and 400 Lpm (10 and 100 gpm).
Generic Open-Channel, Medium-Pressure Lamp
System
The generic open-channel, medium-pressure UV unit
received flow from the Fuzzy Filter and was operated at
flows between 10 and 100 gpm. Its operation was semi-
continuous, when sampling was to be conducted. All
lamps (4) were operated at full power, and the quartz
sleeves were manually cleaned before each sampling
event during the test series.
The operating variables imposed on the UV system were
flow, lamp spacing, and lamp length. Once the flow rate
for a specific sampling was set and the system was
stabilized with respect to flow and water level, grab
samples were taken from the influent and effluent tanks
of the PCI Wedeco channel. The sampling for the unit
was coordinated with that of the CDS unit and Fuzzy
Filter, in that the grabs were taken within the timeframe
representing the 2-hour composites for the CDS and
Fuzzy Filter units. The influent samples were analyzed
for fecal coliform, TSS, and total and filtered
%Transmittance at 254 nm. The effluents were analyzed
for fecal coliforms.
The specific conditions tested for this unit were divided
to four series:
1. Lamp A :
10.5-cm (4.1-in) length
15-cm (6-in) spacing
2. Lamp A:
10.5-cm (4.1-in) length
10-cm (4-in) spacing
3. Lamp B:
16.5-cm (6-5-in) length
10-cm (4-in) spacing
4. LampB:
16.5-cm (6.5-in) length
15-cm (6-in) spacing
General Sampling and Analysis Plan
In general, composite samples were collected for the
CDS and Fuzzy Filter. Grab samples were collected for
the three UV systems. The analyses conducted on the
samples were limited to only a few parameters relevant
to the specific systems:
Suspended Solids (SS)
Conducted on the composites generated for the
CDS and Fuzzy Filter units, including their
respective waste solids streams.
The TSS analysis was also conducted on each grab
influent sample collected for the UV systems.
Fecal Coliform (Blended)
All grab samples were analyzed for fecal coliforms.
These represented the influents and effluents of the
UV units.
Note that the fecal coliform analyses were done on
samples that were pre-blended, or homogenized.
Transmittance at 254nm
The grab influent samples for each of the UV units
were analyzed for percent transmittance at 254 nm
(%T). These were done on unfiltered and filtered
samples. The filtered analyses used the filtrate
generated from the TSS analysis.
Particle Size Distribution
Particle size distribution (PSD) analyses were
conducted on select composites collected for the
CDS influent and effluent and for the Fuzzy Filter
28
-------
effluent.
Temperature
Temperature was measured periodically at the
effluent location for the CDS unit.
Flow
Flow meters FM1 through FM4, as designated on
Figure 4-6, were used to measure flows.
Headloss
Headlosses were monitored with the two UV
systems and the CDS unit.
Analytical procedures followed Standard Methods
(AWWA, et.al., 1995) protocols, where appropriate.
Specifically, analytical procedures can be summarized as
follows:
Total Suspended Solids
Std Methods (19th Ed.)
(Filtration/Gravimetric)
Method 2540 D
Fecal Coliform
Std Methods (19th Ed.) Method 9222 D
Filtration/Direct Count - Membrane
Technique
Filter
% Transmittance
1-cm quartz cell, UV spectrophotometric
technique
Grease and Oil
Standard Methods (19th), Gravimetric
Particle Size Distribution
NJIT SOP
pH
Std Methods (19th Ed.),
Temperature
Std Methods (19th Ed.),
The percent transmittance is not a standard method. It
follows the description provided in the USEPA Design
Manual for Municipal Wastewater Disinfection (3). The
filtered analysis uses the filtrate from the TSS analysis.
The blending procedure used a Waring-type blender in
the third (high) position for 30 seconds. The PSD
analyses were conducted by the New Jersey Institute of
Technology (NJIT), using its standard procedure, which
is provided in Appendix C.
29
-------
-------
Chapter 5
Experimental Results
Introduction
This Chapter presents the results of the demonstration
study, based on data generated for the individual
technologies. The test methods are discussed in Chapter
4, as are details of the technologies' design, sizing and
layout at the RCSD facility.
Dose-Response Testing of Wastewaters
Seven samples were collected and used to develop dose-
response relationships. Five sub-samples were generated
from each of the seven samples: the raw sample, and then
filtrates from progressive 50-, 25-, 5- and 1-micron
filtrations. Each of these samples was then subjected to
three UV doses with a collimated beam apparatus, and
the exposed samples were analyzed before and after
blending. The seven samples and the dates they were
collected were:
RCSD Primary Influent
RCSD Primary Influent
NYC CSO No. 1
NYCCSONo. 2
NYC CSO No. 3
CDS Unit Effluent
Fuzzy Filter Effluent
Januarys, 1999
Januarys, 1999
January 15, 999
January 18, 1999
January 25, 1999
February 3, 1999
February 4, 1999
The CSO samples were collected during overflow events
at a single location in the New York City system. The
RCSD primary influent samples were collected at the
head tank to the CDS unit.
The data for each dose-response analysis are presented in
Tables A1 through A7 in Appendix A. These include all
TSS, Transmittance and Fecal Coliform data. The dose
is computed as the exposure time times the incident
intensity, which is depth averaged:
D =
- e
-kd'
(4-1)
Where:
D = UV dose at 254 nm (mJ/cm2)
t = Exposure time (seconds)
I0 = Incident intensity at the surface of the
sample (mW/cm2)
K = Absorbance coefficient (cm"1) (Note that
this is base e)
d = Depth of the sample (cm)
Table 5-1 summarizes the dose-response data, sorted to
the treatment applied to the samples, and then averaged
within each treatment. The final section of Table 5-1
summarizes these averages. Figures 5-1 through 5-7
present graphical displays of the dose-response data for
the individual samples listed above. The upper panel on
each figure shows the dose-response relationship for the
unblended treatments; the middle panel shows the same
for blended treatments; and the lower panel shows the
residual fecal coliforms for the blended against
unblended samples.
-------
Table 5-1. Summary of Dose-Response Tests
Sample
RCSD Primary Influent 1/5/99
RCSD Primary Influent 1/8/99
NYC CSO No. 1 1/15/99
NYC CSO No. 2 1/18/99
NYC CSO No. 3 1/25/99
CDS Effluent 2/3/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 2/4/99
Average
RCSD Primary Influent 1/5/99
RCSD Primary Influent 1/8/99
NYC CSO No. 1 1/15/99
NYC CSO No. 2 1/18/99
NYC CSO No. 3 1/25/99
CDS Effluent 2/3/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 2/4/99
Average
RCSD Primary Influent 1/5/99
RCSD Primary Influent 1/8/99
NYC CSO No. 1 1/15/99
NYC CSO No. 2 1/18/99
NYC CSO No. 3 1/25/99
CDS Effluent 2/3/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 2/4/99
Average
Treatment
Unfiltered
Unfiltered
Unfiltered
Unfiltered
Unfiltered
Unfiltered
Unfiltered
50-micron
50-micron
50-micron
50-micron
50-micron
50-micron
50-micron
25-micron
25-micron
25-micron
25-micron
25-micron
25-micron
25-micron
TSS
(mg/L)
116.0
192.0
74.0
56.0
156.0
104.0
46.0
106.3
48.0
80.0
10.0
33.0
33.0
50.0
34.0
41.1
47.0
75.0
18.0
32.0
34.0
47.0
34.0
41.0
Trans
(% at 254)
25.0
24.0
27.0
38.0
24.0
33.0
34.0
29.3
24.0
23.0
27.0
37.0
25.0
31.0
33.0
28.6
24.0
25.0
28.0
39.0
26.0
27.0
32.0
28.7
Dose
(ml/cm2)
2.6
2.4
2.7
3.4
2.4
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.7
3.4
2.5
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.7
3.5
2.6
2.7
3.0
2.8
Unblended
LogN/No
-1.1
-0.8
-1.4
-1.4
-0.6
-0.9
-1.1
-1.1
-0.5
-1.6
-1.2
-1.1
-0.6
-0.6
-0.9
-1.2
-1.1
-1.3
-1.2
-1.4
-0.8
-0.9
-1.1
Blended
LogN/No
-1.0
-0.5
-1.3
-1.5
-0.3
-1.0
-0.8
-0.9
-0.3
-1.6
-1.2
-1.2
-0.8
-0.8
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.7
-1.0
-1.1
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
Dose
(ml/cm2)
13.1
12.2
13.3
17.0
12.4
12.2
15.0
13.6
12.4
12.0
13.4
17.0
12.7
13.5
15.0
13.7
12.4
12.0
13.5
17.6
12.8
13.5
15.2
13.9
Unblended
Log N/No
-2.6
-2.3
-3.2
-3.2
-2.7
-1.9
-1.9
-2.5
-3.3
-3.7
-3.3
-2.6
-2.8
-1.9
-1.5
-2.7
-3.2
-3.3
-3.5
-3.0
-3.5
-1.8
-2.3
-2.9
Blended
LogN/No
-1.8
-1.5
-2.2
-2.3
-1.7
-2.0
-2.1
-1.9
-2.9
-3.7
-3.3
-2.6
-2.9
-2.1
-1.7
-2.7
-3.1
-3.2
-3.9
-2.9
-2.8
-2.1
-2.1
-2.9
Dose
(ml/cm2)
26.1
24.3
26.5
34.0
24.7
24.4
30.1
27.2
24.7
24.0
26.8
34.0
25.3
26.9
30.0
27.4
24.7
24.0
26.9
35.2
25.6
27.0
30.8
27.7
Unblended
LogN/No
-4.2
-3.4
-3.5
-3.1
-3.0
-2.4
-2.9
-3.2
-3.4
-4.4
-4.1
-3.5
-3.9
-2.4
-2.5
-3.5
-4.3
-3.6
-3.9
-2.9
-3.8
-3.0
-2.8
-3.5
Blended Log
N/No
-2.1
-2.2
-3.2
-2.5
-1.6
-1.9
-2.8
-2.3
-3.1
-3.7
-4.2
-3.3
-3.6
-2.5
-2.6
-3.3
-4.0
-3.7
-4.3
-2.5
-3.6
-3.3
-2.8
-3.5
32
-------
Table 5-1. (Continued)
Sample
RCSD Primary Influent 1/5/99
RCSD Primary Influent 1/8/99
NYC CSO No. 1 1/15/99
NYC CSO No. 2 1/18/99
NYC CSO No. 3 1/25/99
CDS Effluent 2/3/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 2/4/99
Average
RCSD Primary Influent 1/5/99
RCSD Primary Influent 1/8/99
NYC CSO No. 1 1/15/99
NYC CSO No. 2 1/18/99
NYC CSO No. 3 1/25/99
CDS Effluent 2/3/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 2/4/99
Average
All Samples - Average
Treatment
5-micron
5-micron
5-micron
5-micron
5-micron
5-micron
5-micron
1-micron
1-micron
1-micron
1-micron
1-micron
1-micron
1-micron
Unfiltered
50 micron
25 micron
5 micron
1 micron
TSS
(mg/L)
39.0
46.0
12.0
27.0
28.0
34.0
30.0
30.9
35.0
34.0
16.0
23.0
24.0
24.0
25.0
25.9
106.3
41.1
41.0
30.9
25.9
Trans
(% at 254)
25.0
24.0
28.0
40.0
26.0
28.0
32.0
29.0
25.0
24.0
29.0
40.0
26.0
24.0
31.0
28.4
29.3
28.6
28.7
29.0
28.4
Dose
(ml/cm2)
2.5
2.5
2.7
3.6
2.6
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.8
3.6
2.6
3.1
3.2
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
Unblended
Log N/No
-1.1
-1.2
-1.7
-1.1
-1.0
-0.7
-0.8
-1.1
-1.0
-1.2
-1.7
-1.9
-1.0
-0.8
-1.1
-1.2
-1.1
-0.9
-1.1
-1.1
-1.2
Blended
LogN/No
-0.9
-0.9
-1.6
-1.2
-1.0
-1.2
-0.9
-1.1
-1.0
-1.0
-1.7
-1.6
-1.3
-1.0
-1.0
-1.2
-0.8
-1.0
-1.0
-1.1
-1.2
Dose
(ml/cm2)
12.5
12.5
13.7
17.9
12.9
14.6
15.6
14.2
12.6
12.2
13.9
17.9
13.0
15.4
15.8
14.4
13.6
13.7
13.9
14.2
14.4
Unblended Log
N/No
-3.6
-3.3
-3.9
-3.3
-3.2
-2.0
-1.6
-3.0
-3.9
-3.7
-4.2
-2.8
-2.2
-2.1
-2.7
-2.5
-2.7
-2.9
-3.0
-2.7
Blended
LogN/No
-3.6
-3.0
-3.9
-2.3
-3.0
-2.0
-1.9
-2.8
-3.7
-3.7
-3.7
-2.9
-3.5
-2.6
-1.9
-3.1
-1.9
-2.7
-2.9
-2.8
-3.1
Dose
(mJ/cm2)
25.0
24.9
27.4
35.7
25.7
29.2
31.1
28.4
25.1
24.3
27.8
35.7
25.9
30.1
31.6
28.6
27.2
27.4
27.7
28.4
28.6
Unblended
LogN/No
-5.1
-4.5
-4.7
-3.2
-3.7
-2.5
-2.6
-3.7
-4.5
-4.1
-4.4
-3.4
-3.8
-3.6
-1.9
-3.7
-3.2
-3.5
-3.5
-3.7
-3.7
Blended Log
N/No
-3.9
-4.2
-4.2
-3.1
-3.7
-2.6
-2.5
-3.4
-3.8
-3.9
-4.3
-3.2
-4.0
-3.4
-2.1
-3.5
-2.3
-3.3
-3.5
-3.4
-3.5
33
-------
Log NiNo vs. Dose: Ukiblended Fecal Coif arms
o -2 ••
a
o
-3 ••
-4 ••
-6
Log vs. Blended Colifonns
* Unfiltered
• 9Qu Filtrate
4 25u Filtrate
* 5u Filtrate
*1u Filtrate
15
Dose (mJ/cnr)
Log Blended N¥S. Log Unblended N (Fecal Cofform)
Figure 5-1. Dose-Response Results for Primary Influent Sample Collected January 5, 1999.
34
-------
Log WNo vs. Uilileiilecl Fecal Coliforms
a
o
10
15
(mJ/eni2)
20
25
30
Log NiNo vs. Dose: Bended Fecal Conforms
OJOO
-6.00 •
0
15
I'm Jcrnr)
20
25
30
Log Blended II vs. Log Unblended II (Fecal Coliform)
Log Uhblended N
Figure 5-2. Dose-Response Results for Primary Influent Sample Collected January 8, 1999.
35
-------
Log Nftlo v& Dose Unblended Fecal Conforms
-6
N = Exposed FC density
Mo-~ Initial FG density—-
10
15
Dose (mJfcm:)
20
Log N.'Novs. Blended Feed Coliforins
(m J'cm I
Log Blended Nvs. Log Uhblended N (Fecal Coif orm)
25
30
a
o
-2
-3
Log Unblended N
-4
-5
-6
Figure 5-3. Dose-Response Results for CSO Sample No. 1 Collected January 15, 1999.
36
-------
Log NMo vs. Unblended Fecal Coliforms
o i
-1 -•
-2 -•
BO
O
-3 -•
-4 -•
-5 -•
-6
H = Eiposecl fC density
Ho = lniti.il Ft:) density .
0
10
15
20
Dose (mJ/cm2)
Log NMo vs. Dose: Blended Fecal Coliforms
10
15
20
(mJ/cm:)
25
30
35
40
-6
Log Blended N vs. Log Unblended N |Fecal Coliform)
-2
-3
Log Unblended N
-4
-5
-6
Figure 5-4. Dose-Response Results for CSO Sample No. 2 Collected January 18, 1999.
-------
Loj N/No vs. Unblended Coliforms
Dose
* Unfilteied
• 50u Filtrate
A 25u Filtrate
«• 5u Filtrate
* 1 u Filtrate
Log N/No vs. Dose: Blended Fecal Coliforms
10
15
Dose (m J/cm!)
Log Blended Nvs. Log Unblended N (Fecal Conform)
-1
-2 -3
Log Unblended II
-4
-5
-6
Figure 5-5. Dose-Response Results for CSO Sample No. 3 Collected January 25, 1999.
38
-------
Log Nflto vs. Unblended Fecal Conforms
-3 -•
x Lhfiltered
• 50u Filtrate
JiSu Filtrate
•* 5y Filtrate
Filtrate
15 20
Dose (mJ/cm2)
25
30
35
Log N/No vs. Blemletl Fecal Coliforms
10
15 20
(mJ/crrf)
25
30
35
Log Blended II vs. Log Unblended II (Fecil Coliforni)
-2
-3
Log Unblended II
-4
-5
-6
Figure 5-6. Dose-Response Results for CDS Effluent Sample Collected February 3, 1999.
39
-------
Log N,tlo vs. Unblended Fecal Coliforms
x Unfiltered
« 50u Filtrate
4 25u Filtrate
5u Filtrate
; 1 u Filtrate
10
15 20
Dose (mJ/cnrr)
25
30
35
Log NiNo vs. Hemtecl Fecal Conforms
* Unfiltered
• 50u Filtrate
A 25u Filtrate
+ 5u Filtrate
*1u Filtrate
10
15 20
Dose (mJ/cm*)
25
30
35
-5
_, -4
I
-3
GO .2
Log Blended N vs. Log Unblended N (Fecal Colifonn)
-2 -3
Log Unblended N
-4
Figure 5-7. Dose-Response Results for Fuzzy Filter Effluent Sample Collected February 4, 1999.
40
-------
In general, the results suggest that there is little
difference in the dose-response data developed for the
individual samples, except when the blended and
unblended treatments are compared. If one considers
Figure 5-1 typical (RCSD Primary Influent collected
1/5/99), the upper panel shows that the filtrates are
similar and only slightly more sensitive than the
unfiltered, unblended sample. But, when the samples are
blended before enumeration for fecal coliforms, the
recoveries are increased for the unfiltered samples,
yielding lower survival ratios. For example, a 2.6-log
reduction is accomplished at a dose 17.5 mJ/cm2 for the
unblended sample; at this same dose, the reduction is
lowered to approximately 1.8-log for the blended
unfiltered sample. When the sample undergoes filtration
at retention levels from 50(0, to 1(0,, the reductions from
varying UV doses appear to be similar, and with no
significant impact due to blending.
Similar results were exhibited for the remaining primary
wastewater samples, as shown on Figures 5-2 through 5-
6. These data are combined and displayed on Figure 5-8.
In the upper panel, which shows the average results for
the unblended samples, there is only a slight difference
between the unfiltered sample and those that are filtered
of solids greater than 50 micron. And there is no
difference if one then removes particles down to a 1-
micron size. The lower panel shows the same results for
the blended samples. In this case, the unfiltered sub-
sample shows a substantial reduction in its response. It
is about 0.5 logs lower in reduction then was
accomplished with the unblended sample, demonstrating
that blending the larger primary wastewater particles
releases fecal coliforms that were occluded from
exposure to UV radiation. But, hereto, there are no
differences in samples that have been filtered of solids
greater than 50u, even when blended. The blended
filtrates show essentially the same results as those
exhibited for the unblended filtrates.
When examining the Fuzzy Filter effluent sample
results, it appears that the differences that had been
found with the primary samples do not exist because the
Fuzzy Filter has removed the larger particles. As shown
on Figure 5-7, there is no significant difference between
unfiltered and filtered samples, blended and unblended.
Overall, the dose-response analyses indicate that
removal of particles greater than 50-micron in size will
improve the efficiency of the UV process because a
substantial amount of occluded bacteria have been
removed. Blending the unfiltered samples released fecal
coliform and improved recovery of occluded bacteria.
Blending of the filtered samples at retention between 1
and 50 microns did not have a significant impact on
coliform recovery.
The UV dose requirementto accomplish 3-log reduction
in a primary type wastewater, pretreated to remove
particles greater than 50-micron, is approximately 20
mJ/cm2. The results suggest that the maximum
reductions that can be expected under practical dose
applications up to 40 mJ/cm2 are 3.5 to 4 logs. With
unfiltered effluents and primary wastewaters passed only
through the CDS unit, the maximum reductions
suggested by the dose-response analyses are
approximately 2.5 to 3.0 logs (based on enumeration of
blended samples).
These results are very similar to those obtained in the
earlier project at RCSD (HydroQual, Inc., Oct.1999).
Dose requirements were similar for both blended and
unblended primary influent and primary effluent
samples. Interestingly, that study indicated that the
solids removal accomplished in the primary clarifier
were for those greater than 50(0 in size. Thus, high rate
sedimentation may be considered an appropriate pre-
treatment technology if the goal is to achieve
approximately 3-Logs fecal coliform reduction in the
downstream UV system. If higher targets were imposed,
pre-treatment would have to be directed to
accomplishing sub-micron particle removals.
Particle Size Distribution
A number of samples were analyzed for particle size
distribution (PSD). The results are summarized on Table
5-2 for primary influent, CDS effluent, CDS underflow,
Fuzzy Filter effluent and Fuzzy Filter backwash
samples. These are shown on the Table as cumulative
volumes less than or equal to a given micron size,
ranging up to 600 microns. The last set of data on the
table presents averages for each type of sample.
Figures 5-9 and 5-10 present the same PSD data for the
primary influent, CDS effluent and Fuzzy Filter effluent
wastewater samples, and for the averages for these three
sets of samples. As shown and demonstrated by the
averages on Figure 5-10, the PSDs for the three types of
samples are relatively similar. Nearly 65 percent of the
particle volume is greater than 50-micron in size, the
maximum filter retention used in the dose-response test
41
-------
m
-4 -.
g
Log Survival vs. Dose (Unblended)
* Unflltered
Filtered: 50u
Filtered: 25u
Filtered: 5u
Filtered: 1 u
Unflltered
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Log Survival vs. Dose (Blended)
x Unfiltered
* Filtered: 50u
:.- Filtered: 25u
Filtered: 5u
* Filtered: 1u
- Unfiltered
10 15 20 25
Dose (mJ/cm )
30
35
40
Figure 5-8. Comparison of Blended and Unblended Dose-Response Results for Combined Data.
42
-------
Table 5-2. Summary of Particle Size Analyses Results.
A
B
C
D
E
F
Sample Source
Microns
RCSD Primary Influent 1/5/99
NYC CSO 1/18/99
RCSD Primary Influent 2/3/99
RCSD Primary Influent 3/4/99
RCSD Primary Influent 3/29/99
RCSD Primary Influent 3/29/99
RCSD Primary Influent 4/19/00
RCSD Primary Influent 4/19/00
RCSD Primary Influent 6/16/99
RCSD Primary Influent 6/22/99
RCSD Primary Effluent 8/26/99
RCSD Primary Effluent 9/9/99
CDS Effluent 3/4/99
CDS Effluent 3/29/99
CDS Effluent 3/29/99
CDS Effluent 4/1 9/99
CDS Effluent 6/1 6/99
CDS Effluent 6/22/99
CDS Effluent 8/26/99
CDS Effluent 9/9/99
CDS Underflow 6/16/00
CDS Underflow 6/22/00
CDS Underflow 8/26/99
CDS Underflow 9/9/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 2/4/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 3/4/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 3/29/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 3/29/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 3/29/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 3/29/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 8/26/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 9/9/99
Fuzzy Filter Backwash 8/26/99
Fuzzy Filter Backwash 9/9/99
Average Primary Effluent
Average CDS Effluent
Average CDS Underflow
Average Fuzzy Filter Effluent
Average Fuzzy Filter Backwash
Cumulative Volume Less than or Equal to Micron Size (Percent)
5.24
1.36
2.11
1.95
1.99
2.91
1.32
1.68
1.6
1.68
0.71
1.44
1.86
2.13
2.55
1.58
1.45
1.16
3.29
1.67
2.34
0.98
1.17
2.61
2.07
1.54
12.37
2.18
211
1.86
1.51
1.07
3.2
4.8
1.5
1.72
2.02
1.71
3.23
3.15
9.48
2.63
3.73
4.66
3.85
5.42
2.66
3.83
3.74
3.86
1.5
2.9
4.22
4.53
4.72
3.43
3.35
1.81
9.48
3.82
4.89
1.85
4.51
5.19
4.18
2.99
12.56
3.97
4.03
3.58
3.22
2.2
6.69
9.69
3.07
3.58
4.50
3.93
4.91
6.38
20.9
5.6
6.69
10.84
7.01
10.48
6.72
10.83
10.27
13.4
4.16
7.52
10.99
9.35
10.05
8.24
9.16
4.75
30.75
14.9
11.82
5.66
15.94
13.31
11.98
5.5
18.87
7.12
6.57
5.58
6.42
7.02
15.77
23.98
8.54
8.71
12.38
11.72
9.11
16.26
37.8
12.23
15.89
23.17
14.54
20.96
13.15
23.2
22.15
31.21
9.47
19.2
25.32
17.36
20.98
16.46
20.12
10.6
53.57
36.35
23.83
13.46
33.06
26.92
29.41
12.15
35.4
13.38
12.02
10.43
11.85
19.16
29.61
41.92
21.89
19.21
24.91
25.71
18.00
31.91
56.1
22.98
34.96
36.67
27
36.02
20.32
39
37.61
48.11
12.81
35.72
41.76
29.83
36.28
25.2
34.75
22.89
65.5
53.76
37.61
25.05
48.79
42.25
51.71
24.26
64.73
22.15
20.1
18.81
19.45
36.09
44.32
55.03
41.46
32.75
38.23
41.95
31.24
48.25
83.3
36.85
60.85
57.71
45.49
52.05
26.1
56.04
56.34
64.93
32.46
57.48
59.3
48.07
54
34.15
52.9
46.65
73.4
67.41
54.87
43.53
67.29
61.43
75.35
42.06
87.52
32.34
28.54
29.59
29.31
58.26
62.41
65.56
66.87
50.47
53.93
61.90
46.25
66.22
101
43.96
72.35
67.03
55.73
58.94
31.74
63.24
64.7
71.62
42.38
67.45
66.53
58.18
62.22
36.11
61
60.5
76.84
72.15
63.34
53.61
76.18
70.72
83.7
52.41
94.21
37.76
33.18
36.85
34.88
68.84
71.32
69.36
77.31
58.81
61.29
71.05
53.68
73.34
223
76.79
98.96
95.16
90.38
83.24
48.72
86.74
89
82.74
77.75
89.32
85.57
93.28
91.26
55.82
84.93
96.66
86.91
85.81
89.03
79.51
92.83
95.41
95.97
92.25
99.99
69.84
69.24
72.37
84.48
92.84
95.95
77.84
94.4
83.70
85.46
90.93
84.62
86.12
404
96.58
100
100
99.62
95.51
71.94
98.39
96.65
88.44
89.19
95.29
95.5
99.99
99.99
78.77
95.56
99.46
87.53
95.29
98.95
88.35
93.41
100
97.35
99.99
99.99
93.82
95.84
96.46
88.48
97.82
100
86.43
96.73
93.93
94.44
94.78
96.55
91.58
600
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
43
-------
100.0C
_ 90.0C
-.**
c>
« 80.0C
N
^L 70.0C
O
.5 60 .OC
s
V SO.OC
> 40.0C
*
'•! 3°-o(:
B
i 20.0C
° 10.0C
o.oc
Particle Analysis: RCSD Primary Influent
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
; I
; i
1
: I />-
J •' U
,?;?.
r .If
: .f ••/.
.- jf . { /
f '*. , , I , , , ,
_ ,>"^'*'" ' •* "
x,*f ;,---c
/'
^
^-c*^
•£T_ ysrCT i
^
;*•••-- * :^"^""_ "•»--
^^
fcrn'jr'--;
_ ^.»:""_
i— ™ -^i,.^-^-"""_. .,- -"
i ...-
— • • forage
RCSD Primary Inf. 1 S99
NVCC SO 1fl8/99
RCSD Prim ary Inf. 2/3/99
RCSD Prim ary Inf. 3/4/99
RCSD Prim ary Inf. 3/29/99
RCSD Primary Inf. 3/29/99
R CS DP rim ary Inf. 4/1 9/00
RCSD Primary Inf. 4/19/00
RCSD Primary Inf. 6/16/99
RCSD Primary Inf. 6/22/99
RCSD Primary Inf. 9/999
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Particle Size (microns)
Particle Size Analysis: CDS Effluent
^ n^
Cumulative Vol. < Micron Size (%)
-*• hi <"_
soooooooooe
l
: I
; I
: I
: J .
| I
i .; //
:—---\---/j-
'-• . 'ill
\ll\
'/ '
:f, ... i , ...
:-:-/^*'
^
^^-'"' ' ~*' . _— r - -• •=i"
__ _^^-w-=f- _. --
,
CD S E fflusrt j/4/yy
f~nQ Pfflteri ^flQGQ
V-L/ o C IIILKI L u/^3/33
CD SEfflLert 3/29,99 -
CDSEffluert4/19S9
CDSEffluert6/16B9
fTl^ Fffliprf RO*JflCI
r^riC: Fffli^rt QOROQ
CDSEffluert9fl/99
Average
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 5-9. Particle Size Analysis Results for the RCSD Primary Influent and CDS Effluent Samples.
44
-------
100 -
— 90 -
...o
« 80 -
N
C 70-
g
5 60 -
v. 50 -
O
> 40 -
I 3°-
3
E 20 -
5 10-
.'7
:*]
&
: , , ,
0
:'.fj
, , , ,
Particle
/ *
J-'
/ /
SizeAnaly:
_^- "^
iis: Fuzzy Filter Effluent
------ ^^— Fuzzy Filter Effluent 2/4/99
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 3/4/99
^^F uzzy Filter E ffluent 3^29/99
r L4iiy r liter t Illuesiil Airafaa
F uzzy F i Ite r E fflue nt 3 /29/9 9
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 3/29/9 9
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 8/26/99
F i rrrv FiH-^r F ffli ^rrt Q (QdQ
— • -Average
i i
i i i i i
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Pirfiele Size (microns)
•i nn
Cumulative Vol. < Mcron Size (% )
-1K)Ca*-aiOl~-IOOCDC
3OOOOOOOOOC
1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 ! 1
n
If
•y
Particle Size Analysis: Averages
•J//
!//
f
f
/ '
* ... i ....
U
0
X/.-'
rx •
^^x**^*^
L
• -l^-^"~-
(i^^i-^^
— — — ^ygj^qg priniQrv Effluort
Average CDS Effluent
L
Average Fuzzy Filter Effluent
iii i
100 200 300 400 500 600
Particle Size (microns)
700
Figure 5-10. Particle Size Analysis Results for the Fuzzy Filter Effluent Sample and Averages for the Fuzzy
Filter Effluent, CDS Effluent and Primary Effluent.
45
-------
discussed in the preceding section. This suggests that
solids greater than 50 micron impact the performance of
the UV process, given the increased fecal coliform
recoveries when the unfiltered samples are blended, and
the fact that blending the filtrates from 50(0, filtrations
showed no increase. Additionally, one can suggest that
the Fuzzy Filter substantially removes particles greater
than 50(0,, based on the PSD analysis and the dose-
response analysis discussed earlier. This is similar to the
performance expected from gravity settling (HydroQual,
Inc., Oct. 1999). Overall, it can be suggested that
pretreatment will impact UV performance only if
particles greater than 50 micron are removed. The CDS
system will not accomplish this (nor was it expected to);
but, such a device as the CDS will provide protection of
downstream filters or other pretreatment processes by
removing debris and floatables.
Continuous Deflection Separation Technology
Data collected from the CDS pilot plant are compiled on
Tables A8 through A10 in Appendix A, for Series 1
through 3, respectively. Averages for the same data are
presented on Table 5-3. Note that the 1200-micron
screen was in place for Series 1. Series 2 and 3 reflect
operation with the 600-micron screen. The data
summarized in Appendix A and in Table 5-3 include the
influent and effluent TSS, and a measure of the
underflow solids. During Series 1, these comprised a
composite of the underflow, taken as a series of grabs
during the typical 2-hr compositing period. The
underflow rate during this period was also set at
approximately 10 percent of the influent flow.
In Series 2 and 3, the 600-micron screen was used. In
this case, the underflow was set at 10 percent of the
incoming flow, but was operated only 10 percent of the
time, yielding an equivalent underflow of 1 percent of
the forward flow. During this period, sampling of the
underflow was done by capturing all larger solids in a
600-micron bag filter. A composite of the filtrate was
also collected. As shown on Table 5-3 for Series 2, this
was converted to a total captured solids estimate. Note
that in Series 3, although the same procedure was used,
the bags and data were lost due to the flood and cannot
be reported.
Table 5-3 presents the averages for each Series and at the
flow rates tested during the series. With respect to the
1200-micron screen (Series 1), it is evident that modest
removals were experienced. On a mass-in to mass-out
basis, removals averaged between 5 and 18 percent and
did not appear to be influenced by flow. The estimated
underflow mass represented approximately 11 to 20
percent of the total mass in, in reasonable agreement
with the mass removal estimate. When examined on the
basis of concentrations, the removals were less, ranging
on average from -5 to 10 percent. This is simply
computed as the concentration in - concentration out
divided by the influent concentration. However,
expressing performance in this manner may not be
appropriate. For example, in this case, the underflow
represents 10 percent of the total flow. One would at
least expect that the removals should be greater than 10
percent, butthe concentration-based calculation does not
recognize the flow differential. This suggests that the
mass-based calculation is best since it accounts for the
losses to the waterflow.
When the 600-micron screens were put in place,
removals were evidenced by consistently lower effluent
solids. On both a mass and concentration basis, the
removals were approximately 30 percent across the full
range of flows in Series 2. In Series 3, during which the
flow was set at 380 Lpm (100 gpm) throughout, the
solids removals were approximately 56 percent. Such
removals were not reflected, however, by the underflow
measurements in Series 2. The underflow was
approximately 1 percent of the influent flow, and the
solids estimated from the bag filter capture and the
composite filtrate were substantially less than the solids
removal suggested by the difference between the influent
and effluent mass solids. There is no immediate
explanation of this, except that the underflow data were
limited during this period and the procedure may not
have been effective in capturing a representative sample.
Additionally, debris captured by the screen may have
remained attached to the screen rather than being carried
to the lower sump. There was visual evidence of this
and attempts were made to quantify the debris clinging
to the screen. However, this proved unsuccessful; it was
difficult to effectively remove the material from the
screen and to retain it.
Figure 5-11 presents the influent and effluent TSS data
for each series, as kg/d. The slopes of these
relationships reflect the average removals, ranging from
approximately 10 percent for the 1200-micron screen to
about 30 percent for the 600-micron screen. Figure 5-12
shows the same data on a percent removal basis as a
function of flow. In the case ofboth screens, it is
46
-------
Table 5-3. Summary of CDS Pilot Plant Results'1'.
Series 1
Averages
1200u
Screen
Series 2
Averages
600u
Screen
Series 3
Average
600u
Screen
Influent
Flow
(gpm)
153
224
333
440
100
200
300
100
Influent
Flow
(Lpm)
579
849
1260
1665
379
757
1136
379
Influent
TSS
(mg/L)
113
86
79
75
144
115
95
101
Influent
Mass TSS
(kg/d)
94
105
144
181
78
125
155
55
Equivalent
Underflow
(Lpm)
57
98
125
152
3.8
7.6
11.4
4
Underflow
TSS
(mg/L)
126
132
136
150
292
184
109
206
Underflow
Mass TSS
(kg/d)
10
19
25
33
1.6
2.0
1.8
1.0
Underflow
Captured Mass
TS
(kg/d)
13.0
5.6
4.5
Percent of
Inf Mass
discharged
to
Underflow
(%)
11
20
17
19
22.1
5.5
4.2
Effluent
TSS
(mg/L)
105
82
86
67
94
75
69
41
Effluent
TSS
Mass
(kg/d)
79
88
140
145
50
81
112
22
TSS
Mass
Removal
(%)
17
11
5
18
31.9
32.5
29.7
56
TSS
Concentration
Removal
(%)
8
-1
-5
10
31.2
31.8
29
56
(1) Reference is made to Table A8 through A10 in Appendix A for all data that comprises the averages shown on this table. The averages are for data within a given flow set.
-------
EfFluentMassTSS vs. Influent Mas sTSS: Series 1
==- 400
60
P 50
I 4°
2 30
= 20
A 600 u Series 3
----- -4
*
--^-.
__
•*
— — -~
_^
— — "*"
*
_^ ^ — •
4
_ -,iiiii— •••^ """
*• fc
20 40 60 80 100 120
Influent Mass TSS (kg/dj
140 160
180
Figure 5-11. TSS Mass Removals through the CDS Pilot Unit for Each Test Series.
48
-------
TSS Remo¥il (%)
TSS vs. Influent Flow: 1
•» 1 200 u Series 1
en '
ou -;
40 -;
20 -|
n -i
-2011
-40 -;
-60 -;
Rll —
$_£ +
+ ^4 / :
* * %j j -^
-2(|0 4I|0 6(0- 8$0*----40t30 «plt— — UpO -16J30 18
; •
Flow {Lpm)
30
TSS Removal (%)
TSS vs. Influtnt Flow: 2
J 600 u Series 2
iuu -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
n -
-20 i
-40 -
_ . . . . . j
i .2)0 4lj0 Bt)0 800 IQpQ- -12C
Flow (Lpm)
]Q
TSS Removal (%)
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
30 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
-10-
-20 -
TSS Removil vs. Influtnt Flow: Series 3
4 600 u Series 3
LZLLLLLLl^^
Flow (Lpm)
Figure 5-12. Percent TSS Removals through the CDS Pilot Unit for Each Test Series.
49
-------
CDS Unit; TSS Removal vs. Influent Flow Composite)
•\\-jfj
80 -
60 -
se 40 -
15
> 20 -
o
* 0 -
0£ U
0> <
W .20 -
-40 -
-60 -
: 2<
0 «
*
r "^T"1
i i i 4|.
0 6(
*
•til!
0 8(
t>
__
jh
0 10
+
)0 12
-------
apparent that removals were about the same across the
full range of flows. The data are combined on Figure 5-
13. Overall, the removals observed with the 600-micron
are likely due to "deflection" of particles and retention
in the system. Additionally, solids/debris tended to bind
to the screen, possibly enhancing its ability to capture
larger particles. This also required additional cleaning,
a task accomplished with a high pressure hose. It is
important to also note that the screens were effective in
capturing larger solids and floatable debris such as
string, wrappers, plastics, etc., which would cause
difficulties with downstream processes such as the Fuzzy
Filter and/or UV disinfection units.
Fuzzy Filter Technology
Tables All and A12 in Appendix A compile the data
generated around the Fuzzy Filter. These are
summarized on Table 5-4 and are segregated by
compression setting and by flow. Figures 5-14 and 5-15
present effluent TSS concentration and percent removal,
respectively, as a function of flow for each compression
ratio. The average removals at each compression setting
are exhibited as a function of flow on Figure 5-16.
The Fuzzy Filter results suggest that similar removals
are accomplished irrespective of hydraulic loading,
which ranged between 200 and 800 Lpm/m2 (5 and 20
gpm/ft2), or compression, which was evaluated at 10, 20
and 30 percent. Influent solids to the unit average
between 40 and 175 mg/L, and effluent solids ranged
between 20 and 90 mg/L. Effluent TSS concentrations
and % TSS removals are shown as a function of flow in
Figures 5-14 and 5-15, respectively. As shown, although
there is substantial variation in the data, the general
observation is that these removals and effluent quality
are somewhat constant as one moves across the range of
flows experienced by the system. On Figure 5-16, other
than the apparent high removal efficiency observed at
the lowest flow at 10-percent compression, one can
suggest that the system is more effective in this
application at 20 percent compression and at loadings
between 400 and 800 Lpm/m2 (10 and 20 gpm/ft2, or 40
to 80 gpm on Figure 5-16). At these conditions, TSS
removals averaged approximately 40 percent. Removals
were consistently less at these loadings for the 10 and 30
percent compressions. Backwashing was a relative
simple operation and was typically required once/day.
Overall, the Fuzzy Filter was able to remove up to 40%
TSS. The PSD and dose-response analyses discussed
earlier suggest that these removals center on particles
greater than 50 micron in size. This is a benefit to
downstream UV processes, which are most effective in
matrices that are limited to smaller particle sizes.
UV Disinfection
Three UV Systems were operated during the
demonstration project, as described in Chapter 4. The
following discussions present the results obtained for
each.
Low-Pressure, High-Output Lamp System (PCI
Wedeco)
The performance data for the PCI Wedeco unit are
compiled on Table A13 in Appendix A. Table 5-5
presents a summary of the data averaged for specific
hydraulic loadings. The flows studied ranged from 276
to 100 Lpm (73 through 266 gpm) on average. TSS
averages were between 53 and 104 mg/L. There was
some variation in unfiltered %T, ranging from 24 to 43
%, on average, but the equivalent filtered %T values
were very consistent around 50%.
The fecal coliform results suggest a very consistent log
reduction across the entire hydraulic loading range. This
may appear somewhat anomalous in that one would
expect a decreasing efficiency with an increasing flow
(lower exposure times). However, across this entire flow
regime, the log reduction averaged between -2 and-2.3.
When these reductions are compare to the unfiltered,
blended dose-response curve on Figure 5-8, the implied
delivered doses to achieve reductions are between 16 and
28 mJ/cm2. On the basis of the unit's hydraulic loading
per total lamp power, and a total power draw of 7.2 kW,
the operating range was 38 to 140 Lpm/kW (10 to 37
gpm/kW).
Figure 5-17 presents the unit performance data. The
upper panel presents the Log survival ratio as a function
of flow. The lower panel shows the implied delivered
dose as a function of flow. These demonstrate the
relatively constant performance of the system over the
full test flow range. The apparent constant reductions in
coliform reflect the input of the high TSS in the
wastewater. Reductions will be accomplished to a certain
level, such as the 2 to 2.3 logs exhibited in Figure 5-17,
at which point no further improvement can be made.
Thus, even at very low flows (and high applied dose),
the reductions remain the same.
51
-------
Table 5-4. Summary of Fuzzy Filter Solids Data (1>.
Averages
10%
Compression
Averages
20%
Compression
Averages
30%
Compression
Influent Flow
(gpm)
20
39
60
81
20
39
58
79
89
20
45
86
Influent Flow
(Lpm)
76
146
227
306
76
146
217
300
338
74
168
325
Compress
(%)
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
Influent TSS
(mg/L)
100
73
49
91
41
87
175
75
87
122
98
66
Influent Mass
TSS
(kg/d)
11
15
16
40
4.5
19
54
32
42
13
23
31
Effluent TSS
(mg/L)
33
46
23
64
21
56
97
47
64
89
80
48
Effluent Mass
TSS
(kg/d)
3.6
10
7
28
2.3
12
30
20
31
9.4
18
23
Backwash TSS
(mg/L)
177
419
525
1098
296
310
737
223
395
306
658
293
Backwash Mass
TSS
(kg/d)
0.4
2
4
10
0.7
1.4
5
•}
4
0.7
3.5
2.9
Mass
Removed
by Filter (2)
(kg/d)
7
4
5
2
1.6
5.2
20
10
7.5
2.8
1.5
5.4
Mass
%
Removal
55
31
33
18
30
37
41
39
21
27
19
31
(1) Reference is made to Table A- 1 1 and A- 12 in Appendix A for all data that comprises the averages shown in this table. The averages are for data within a give flow set.
(2) Mass removed (kg/d) = Influent Mass TSS (kg/d) - Effluent TSS (kg/d) - Backwash TSS (kg/d)
-------
icn
lou
!~ ' 1 in
m 14U
= ion
£/% inn
(/?
i— on
i uu
= RO
g DU
s in
C 4U
LJJ 9n
— 1RO n
en 1 >tn -
•£• nn -
(/>
I* mn
(/) lUU
„ fan .
3 en
— ou -
E in -
E 4U
9n -
n -
U i
C
1RR -T
'"f i in -
21 i?n -
"""" mn -
(/> IUU
£ RD
^ OU
•B en -
i bU
— in -
E
m9fi .
0M
^
C
Fuzzy Filter: Effluent TSS vs. Influent Flow (10% Compression)
* 1 0% Compression
: I *
*- ^
__________^_-._______________-.____ «p, _________-^___________J___________ ^p _________-^___-_______
; * >T-
J Jfc J J ^_ ^
* * i i 1
i * ^ 1 »
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4C
Flow (Lpm)
Fuzzy Filter: Effluent TSS vs. Influent Flow Compression)
20% Compression
:!!!!!!!
--- — ~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~^,~~ -------- ^--~--------j-----------^-------- — ~~f~~~~~ ~~~~~j,~~~~~~~~~~~
) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4C
Flow (Lpm)
Fuzzy Filter: Effluent TSS vs. Influent Flow Compression)
' 30% Compression
! ', I ! !
: : A : : :
! ' ! ! !
i i : : * ....: i
! ! ^ ! ! I
; ; ; * i ;
1 i~ J !~ i ir ~A~t
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4C
Flow (Lpin)
)0
10
10
Figure 5-14. Fuzzy Filter Effluent Solids as a Function of Flow for Each Compression Setting.
53
-------
Fuzzy Filter: TSS Removal vs. Influent Flow (10% Compr
•inn -r
_ 80 "
§S 60 -
m
| 4°-
| 20-
c/i n -
V)
H -20 I
AH -
3
f
& it
!
* ;
__^. i
'f
jt
|
jt
»I
)a .up 2(
*
^
*
H»
»
)0 2*
' » "
ession)
» 1 0% Compression
i
!
i
!A
I
Sa sip--
i*
Flow (Lpm)
*
^
pO 4)0
Fuzzy Filter:
inn
_ 80 -
£ 60 -
1 40 -
o
£ 20 -
OS
CL. n -
(rt
{£ -201
-40 -
__
! 5
TSS Removal vs. Influent Flow (20% Compression)
] ^
IQ U
0 -21
10 21
Flow (Lpm)
3$Q 4(
20% Compression |-
10
Fuzzy Filter: TSS Removal vs. Influent Flow (30% Compression)
70 -j
60 -
£ 50 -
T8 40-
1 30 -
1 20 -
10-
P5 n -
-10 i
A 30% Compression
* 1
-5J3 UJIB M
>
4
t * *
A |
4
,0 2$0- 2$0 -3(JB 3$0 4£
Flow (Lpni)
0
Figure 5-15. Fuzzy Filter Percent TSS Removal as a Function of Flow for Each Compression Setting.
54
-------
100 -,
90 -
80 -
E 7° -
ob
5 6°-
1 50 -
o
1 40 -
cc
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
Fuzzy I
11 i i i i
=ilter: A
¥erag§
•
snno¥al
.41
' ill"
vs. Influ
intFIo1
•A-
w (Composite)
4 1 0% Compression
20% Compression
A 30% Compression
i" "
..4
fiii i i
0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 315 350
Flow (Lpni)
Figure 5-16. Fuzzy Filter Removals as a Function of Flow and Compression.
55
-------
Log Survival vs. Flow
-0.5 -
-1 -
-1,5 -
o -2-
= -2.5-
BJ
O
J -3-
-3.5 -
-4 -
-4.5 -
t *
"
-------
Table 5-5. Summary of the Low-Pressure, High Output Lamp System Performance Data.
Flow
(gpm)
73
100
150
173
266
Flow per
Watt
(gpm/KW)
10.1
13.9
20.8
24.0
36.9
Flow
(Lpm)
278
379
566
656
1007
Flow per
kW
(Lpm/kW)
38
53
79
91
140
Initial Fecal
Coliform, No
(col/lOOmL)
3,365,000
4,828,000
3,370,000
4,647,000
4,236,000
Final Fecal
Coliform, N
(col/lOOmL)
20,300
31,200
30,500
29,700
18,800
Log N/No
-2.22
-2.19
-2.04
-2.19
-2.35
Implied11'
Delivered
Dose
(mJ/cm2)
24
22
16
22
28
TSS
(mg/L)
104
103
103
76
56
Trans at 254nm
Unfiltered
%
29.6
43.4
24.2
25.0
32.0
Trans at 254 nm
Filtered
%
53.1
51.1
45.8
49.0
50.8
(1) From Figure 5-8.
High-Output, Medium-Pressure
(Aquionics, Closed-Vessel)
Lamp System
Table A14 in Appendix A compiles the data generated
for the medium pressure, closed chamber UV unit.
These data are also summarized in Table 5-6, segregated
by the flow rates used to test the unit. Flows ranged
from 40 to 400 Lpm (10 to 90 gpm), equivalent to
loadings of 1 to 9 Lpm/kW total power. TSS levels were
on the order of 70 to 110 mg/L, with unfiltered
transmittances between 25 and 41%. Filtered
transmittances were between 46 and 53%. Overall, these
characteristics were similar to those experienced for the
low-pressure, high-output unit evaluation, as discussed
above, even though the Aquionics unit received the
Fuzzy Filter effluent.
The reductions accomplished by the unit appeared to be
related to the loading to the system, ranging from 2.4
logs at the low flow to 1.2 logs at the maximum flow.
Hereto, there was a limit to the reduction that could be
achieved, on the order of 2 to 2.4 Logs, similar to the
high output/low-pressure unit. Figure 5-18 presents the
performance data, showing log reduction as a function
of the flow and the implied delivered dose as a function
of flow. Doses ranged from 5 to 30 mJ/cm2.
High-Output, Medium-Pressure Lamp System
(Generic, Op en-Channel)
The data generated with the medium-pressure lamp,
open-channel system are compiled on Table A15 in
Appendix A. A total of four alternative configurations
were evaluated with this system: two lamp lengths 10.5
and 16.5 cm (4.1 and 6.5 inches) at two different
centerline spacings 10 and 15 cm (4 and 6 inches).
These results are summarized on Tables 5-7 through 5-
10 for the system configurations: Lamp A (the shorter
lamp) at the two spacings and for Lamp B (the longer
lamp) at the same two spacings. The total power was 4
kW for the four lamps, with testing at flows between 40
and 300 Lpm (10 and 80 gpm).
The wastewaters tested during this phase of testing were
effluent from the Fuzzy Filter and generally similar in
characteristics. The TSS ranged between 40 and 120
mg/L, and the unfiltered transmittance (at 254 nm)
ranged between 25 and 50 percent. The filtered
transmittance was consistently between 50 and 60
percent. Overall, the wastewaters were of somewhat
better quality than had been experienced with the
previous testing with the closed-chamber medium
pressure lamp system, or the low-pressure lamp unit.
Figure 5-19presents the performance results fortheunit
with the 10.5-cm (4.1-inch) lamps in place. This shows
the log survival ratio as a function of flow (upper panel)
and dose as a function of flow (lower panel). The dose
is estimated from the dose-response relationship shown
on Figure 5-8 for the unfiltered, blended samples. The
15-cm (6-inch) spacing was ineffective, yielding low
reductions and equivalent doses at low hydraulic
loadings. At 40 Lpm, or 10 Lpm/kW (10 gpm or 2.5
gpm/kW), a 2.3-log reduction was achieved, equivalent
to a delivered dose of approximately 20 mJ/cm2. The
10-cm (4-inch) spacing configuration was able to
accomplish nearly 3-logs reduction at a similar loading
and was nearly 1-log higher in reduction through the
entire tested loading range.
A similar analysis is presented on Figure 5-20 for the
configuration with the longer 16.5-cm (6.5-inch) lamps.
The results were essentially the same as experienced
with the shorter lamp. There was the same 1-log
57
-------
Table 5-6. Summary of the Medium Pressure, Closed Chamber Lamp System Performance Data.
Flow
(gpm)
11
21
30
49
70
90
Flow per
Watt
(gpm/W)
1.1
2.2
3.1
5.1
7.3
9.4
Flow
(Lpm)
41
79
114
185
265
341
Initial Fecal
Flow per kW Coliform, No
(Lpm/kW) (col/lOOmL)
4.2
8.3
11.7
19.3
24.6
35.6
4,579,000
5,456,000
2,965,000
3,971,000
2,327,000
2,397,000
Final Fecal
Coliform, No
(col/lOOmL)
19,300
38,700
61,300
43,900
10,400
138,000
Log N/No
-2.38
-2.15
-1.68
-1.96
-1.85
-1.24
Implied
Delivered
Dose (1)
(mJ/cm2)
28
22
10
16
14
5.5
TSS
(mg/L)
114
97
68
72
69
71
Trans at 254
nm
Unfiltered
24.8
28.7
28.6
33.4
41.3
34.0
Trans at 254 nm
Filtered
49.0
51.0
45.7
50.1
53.5
48.9
(1) From Figure 5-8.
increase in reductions with the narrower spacing. A
comparison of the two lamp lengths is shown in Figure
5-21, which suggests a slight improvement with the longer
lamp at the narrower spacing, although not significant.
Summary Comparison of Three UV Technologies
Table 5-11 summarizes a comparison of the three UV
units tested during this study. These are:
(1) The medium-pressure, closed-chamber unit;
(2) The medium-pressure, open-channel unit (in this
comparison, the results from the 16.5-cm spacing,
10.5-cm long lamp evaluation are used); and
(3) The low-pressure, low-output lamp system.
Overall, the combined results generated with the three UV
units indicate that a significant degree of disinfection can
be accomplished by UV radiation, dependent on the level
of particulates. Figure 5-22 displays the combined results
of the three units. In the upper panel, the log survival ratio
is shown as a function of the hydraulic loading per total
kW of power (Lpm/kW). These data suggest that
reductions between 2.3 and 2.8 logs can be achieved,
based on the enumeration of blended samples. This is
equivalent to approximately 3 to 3.5 logs when
enumeration is conducted with unblended samples.
Required doses are greater than 40 mJ/cm2 to achieve
these reduction levels, as shown on the lower panel.
The power-conversion inefficiency of the medium-
pressure lamp is evident in that the performance is less
per equivalent total power input. When the performance
is compared to the estimated power input at 254 nm, the
three systems tend to fall near the same line. This is
presented in Figure 5-23. The open-channel medium
pressure unit appears to be somewhat more efficient than
the closed-reactor unit, possibly because of improved
hydraulics.
Application of UV to Low-Grade Waters
The reader is referred to the NYSERDA report on the
application of UV to primary and secondary wastewaters
(HydroQual, Inc., 1999b). This report examined the
design and cost considerations for the application of UV
to CSO- and SSO-type wastewaters. In that report,
confirmed by this study, pre-treatment of such
wastewaters is needed to remove large suspended solids
(>50 (o.m) in order to accomplish 3-logs reduction or
more by downstream UV disinfection. Gravity settling
can accomplish this TSS removal (HydroQual, Inc., Oct.
1999b) as can the Fuzzy Filter technology, based on the
results of this study.
The earlier study, confirmed by this study, suggested
that disinfection of a primary effluent required a system
sizing that was approximately twice that needed for a
secondary effluent.
58
-------
Log Survival vs. Flow Rite (Aqu ionics)
-0.5 -
-1 -
-1 .5 -
e -2'
=
Z -2.5 -
a
e
J -3-
-3.5 -
-4 -
-4.5 -
:-- +LC
g Survival
+•
*
__,,_____
_^_____
*
*
0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 260 315 350
Flow(Lpm)
Delivered Dose vs. Flow Rate (Aquionics)
30-
~. 25~
"f
DosefmJtoi
— * w
<_n O
£
* 10"
.1
*•
o
5-
[
*
*
* Delivered Dose
*
*L .
) 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 315 350
Flow (Lpm)
Figure 5-18. Medium-Pressure, Closed-Chamber UV Unit Dose and Performance Results
59
-------
Table 5-7. Medium-Pressure, Open Channel System with Short Lamp and Wide Spacing.
Lamp A, 10.5 cm (12-Inch) length, 1 kW, 15-cm (6-Inch) Spacing
Flow
(gpm)
10.0
21.4
43.3
88.0
Table 5-8.
Lamp A, 10
Flow
(gpm)
10.0
20.0
40.0
80.0
Table 5-9.
Lamp B, 16
Flow
(gpm)
10
20
40
80
Table 5-10.
Lamp B, 16
Flow
(gpm)
10
20
40
80
Flow
(Lpm)
58
81
164
333
Medium-Pres
.5 cm (4-Inch)
Flow
(Lpm)
38
81
164
333
Medium-Pres
Loading
(gpm/kW)
2.5
5.4
10.8
22.0
sure, Open Channel
length, 1 kW, 10 cm
Loading
(gpm/kW)
2.5
5.0
10.0
20.0
sure, Open Channel
Loading
(Lpm/kW)
9.5
20.2
41.0
88.2
Log N/N.
-2.3
-1.7
-1.3
-0.9
System with Short Lamp and
(4-Inch) Spacing
Loading
(Lpm/kW)
9.5
20.2
41.0
88.2
Log N/N.
-2.79
-2.68
-2.18
-2.14
System with Long Lamp and
Implied Dose
(ml/cm2)
23.0
11.0
6.0
4.0
Narrow Spacing.
Implied Dose
(ml/cm2)
50.0
40.0
18.0
16.0
Wide Spacing.
TSS
(mg/L)
66.5
75.3
87.3
74.8
TSS
(mg/L)
56.5
60.4
59.0
63.7
Unfiltered
Transmittance
(%)
32.0
27.6
28.7
26.0
Unfiltered
Transmittance
(%)
30.2
33.0
41.9
37.0
Filtered
Transmittance
(%)
55.2
52.6
52.4
51.9
Filtered
Transmittance
(%)
52.3
52.5
54.5
51.8
.5 cm (6.5-Inch) length, 1 kW, 15 cm (6-inch) Spacing
Flow
(Lpm)
38
81
164
333
Loading
(gpm/kW)
2.5
5.0
10.0
20.0
Loading
(Lpm/kW)
9.5
20.2
41.0
88.2
Log N/N.
-1.67
-1.35
-1.53
-0.89
Implied Dose
(ml/cm2)
10.0
6.0
8.5
3.5
TSS
(mg/L)
70.5
72.5
36.3
48.0
Unfiltered
Transmittance
(%)
42.0
39.6
43.2
35.6
Filtered
Transmittance
(%)
52.4
51.5
52.3
48.4
Medium-Pressure, Open Channel System with Long Lamp and Narrow Spacing.
.5 cm (24-Inch) Length, 1 kW, 10 cm (4-Inch) Spacing
Flow
(Lpm)
38
81
164
333
Loading
(gpm/kW)
2.5
5
10
20
Loading
(Lpm/kW)
9.5
20.2
41.2
88.2
Log N/N.
-2.9
-2.57
-2.34
-1.98
Implied Dose
(ml/cm2)
60
40
24
16
TSS
(mg/L)
41
108
105
126
Unfiltered
Transm ittance
(%)
50.6
32.3
36.6
33.7
Filtered
Transmittance
(%)
59.6
53.4
54.5
54.7
60
-------
Log Survival vs. Flow Rate: 10.5 cm (4.1 inch J Lamps , 10 & 15 cm (4 & S
°1
-1 -
z
555
O
-1 -3-
-4-
C
inch) Spacing
( — — —
.#--''"
|_-*-
) 35 70 105 140
•* 10.5 crn(4.1 inch) Length, 15 orn(6-inch) Spacing
• 10.5 cm (4.1 inch) Length, 10 cm (4 inch) Spacing
175 210 245 280 315
350
Flow(Lpn|
Implied Dosews. Flow Rate
™^
60 -
50 -
c-v.
I 40-
* on .
(ft JU
o
o
20 -
10 -
n -
',,«,, ,
yfc_ _
\,
,,,,,,
"*»_-__-_
\
X.
r<^:^
,,,,,,
i i i i i t
, , , , , ,
•
,,,,,,
i
0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 230 315 350
Flow (Lpm)
Figure 5-19. Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel UV Unit Dose and Performance Results for Lamp A (10.5-
cm [4.1-inch] Length, 10-cm [4-inch] and 15-cm [6-inch] Spacing)
61
-------
Log Survival vs. Flow Rate: 16.5 cm (6.5 inch} Lamps, 10 § 15 cm (4 H 8
inch) Spacing
n _
-1 -
1 ~2~
z
^
o
—1 "J. -
-4-
0
t
rrr....j
*— —
_m_™™««—
^»-—
__^
. — . — • — —
16.5 orn(6.5 hoh) Length, 15 crnij6 inoh) Spaong
— » — 16.5 eim(6.5 hch) Length, 10 cm (4 inch) Spacing
35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 315 350
Flow(Lpm)
70
60
50
OJ^
1 40
* on
CD JU
o
Q
20
10
0
Implied Dosevs. Flow Rate
.»*
\
\
\
^
-Hlp^^
^-_
"fTrr^r^,
V^-sci^j;
T— ^-^^_
,
0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 315 350
Flow (Lpmj
Figure 5-20. Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel UV Unit Dose and Performance Results for Lamp B (24-
Inch Length), 4- and 6-Inch Spacing
62
-------
Implied Dost
7n
60 -
50 -
gt—%
eg
.0 40 -
-J
feMMrf
S 30 -
o
Q
20 -
10 -
J
\
. _ _ Ju _ _ _
m
\
*-.v.-.
L J
"HI..
s™"™11"^"™1 — w.......^^^
L
,„„„.....'
5 vs. Flow Rate
— • — 1 0.5 cm (4,1 inch) Length, 1 5 cm (6 inch) Spacing
1 0.5 cm (4.1 inch) Length, 1 0 cm (4 inch) Spacing
— s — 1 6.5 cm (6.5 inch) Length, 1 5 cm (6 inch) Spacing
-• 1 6.5 cm (6.5 inch) Length, 1 0 cm (4 inch) Spacing
-~ ~ -
=^
"™" ~~~- ™J
L
».....».««„
— -»;=.-
_
I— •
i i i i i i i i i
0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 315
Flow (Lpnf
350
Figure 5-21. Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel UV Unit Dose Results for Alternate Lamp Length and
Spacing
63
-------
Table 5-11. Summary of Comparison of Three UV Systems Based on Total and UV Power Loadings
Technology
Medium Pressure
Closed Chamber
Medium Pressure
Open Channel
16.5 cm Lamp, 10 cm Spacing
Low Pressure
Open Channel
Loading
gpm/kW
(Total)
1.1
2.2
3.1
5.1
7.3
9.4
2.5
5.0
10.0
20.0
10.1
13.9
20.8
24.0
36.9
Lpm/kW
(Total)
4.2
8.4
11.7
19.3
27.6
35.6
9.5
18.9
38.8
77.6
38.2
52.6
78.7
90.8
140
gpm/kW UV
(at 254 nm)
20.9
41.8
58.9
96.9
139.
179
40.
80
160
320
32
44
66
76
116
Lpm/kW
(at 254 nm)
79.1
158
223
367
526
678
145
290
580
1160
121
167
250
288
439
Log
N/N0
-2.38
-2.15
-1.68
-1.96
-1.85
-1.24
-2.9
-2.57
-2.34
-1.98
-2.22
-2.19
-2.04
-2.19
-2.35
Implied (1)
Delivered Dose
(ml/cm2)
28
22
10
16
14
5.5
60
40
24
16
24
22
16
22
28
(1) From Figure 5-8.
64
-------
L0g Survival vs. L©iding
0__
-1 -
o -2-
Z
Z
ss
o
J -3 -
-4 -
c
«
jf.
". *
#
»
*
J
^. _ _ _ _
* btedium- Press ure, 10 crn(4 inch) Spacing
Low - Pr es s u re , H igh- 0 utput Lamp
i1 Iwted ium- Press ure.Cbsed-Cha mbe r Lamp
-
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Loading tip iriftW Total Power)
80 -
70 -
,r 60 "
1 5°'
5 40-
c
0
$ 30 -
- 20 -
10 -
0 -
Delivered Dose vs. Lo
„.*,. _______
• »
'• *
«.
+
*
I
.
acting
*• Medium- Press ure, 10 em(4ineh) Spacing
Low -Press ure. High- Output Lamp
- Medium- Press ure, Closed- Chamber Lamp
>
1
_.
,
0 25 50 75 100 125
Lsaciing (Lpm/WV Total Power)
150
Figure 5-22. Comparison of Performance Results for the Three UV System Configurations Based on Total
Power Loadings
65
-------
0 -,
-1 -
O -2 -
Z
Z
0
-1 -3 -
-4 -
-5 -
C
Log Survival vs. Loading
: :"
-------
References
AWWA, WEF, ASTM, (1995). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th Edition.
Caliskaner, O., and G. Tchobanoglous, (1996). "Evaluation of the Fuzzy Filter for the Filtration of Secondary
Effluent." Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis.
Caliskaner, O., G. Tchobanoglous, and A. Carolyn, (1999). "High-Rate Filtration with a Synthetic Compressible
Media." Journal Water Environmental Research, Volume 71, Number 6, September/October 1999.
HydroQual, Inc., (October, 1999). Evaluation of Alternative Disinfection Technologies: Application of Alternative
UV Technologies to Primary and Secondary Effluents: Rockland County Sewer District No. 1. Final Report 99-6, New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 4071-ERTER-MW-95, Albany, New York.
HydroQual, Inc., (January, 1999). "Demonstration Plan: Pilot-Scale Demonstration of the Continuous Deflection
Separation Technology, Fuzzy Filter Filtration Technology and High-Output UV Technologies for the Treatment of
SSO-Type Wastewater," Cooperation Agreement No. X-82435210. USEPA Office of Wastewater Management.
Mahwah, NJ.
Scheible, O. Karl, Casey, M.C., and Forndran, A., (1986). Ultraviolet Disinfection of Wastewaters from Secondary
Effluents and Combined Sewer Outflows. EPA-600/2-86/005.NTIS No. PB86-145182. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Design Manual for Municipal Wastewater Disinfection. 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1986). Design Manual: Municipal Wastewater Disinfection: EPA-625/1-86-
021, Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Water Environment Federation (1996). Water Disinfection. Manual of Practice FD-10. Task Force on Wastewater
Disinfection, WEF, Alexandria, VA.
Wong, T.H.F., (1997). "Continuous Deflection Separation: It's Mechanism and Applications" Monas University,
Department of Civil Engineering, Presented at the 1997 Water Environment Federation 70th Annual Conference,
Chicago.
67
-------
Appendix A
Dose Response Data, CDS Pilot Plant Data, Fuzzy Filter Data, and UV Pilot Plant Data
1. Tables Al through A7: Dose-Response Data
2. Tables A8 through A10: CDS Pilot Plant Data
3. Tables All andA12: Fuzzy Filter Pilot Plant Data
4. Tables A13 through A15: UV Pilot Plant Data
69
-------
Table Al. Dose-Response Test Data for the Primary Influent Sample Collected January 5,1999
Trans
Sample Treatment TSS Unfiltered
(mg/L) (%T at
254nm)
RCSD Primary Influent Unfiltered 116 25
1/5/99
50[i Filtrate 48 24
25^ Filtrate 47 24
5[i Filtrate 39 25
l[i Filtrate 35 25
UV Dose
(mWs/cm2)
0.0
2.6
13.1
26.1
0.0
2.5
12.4
24.7
0.0
2.5
12.4
24.7
0.0
2.5
12.5
25.0
0.0
2.5
12.6
25.1
Unblended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
280,000
9,000
250
260,000
1,700
1,200
260,000
2,400
190
250,000
800
30
300,000
400
90
Table A2. Dose-Response Test Data for the Primary Influent Sample Collected January 8,
Trans
Sample Treatment TSS Unfiltered
(mg/L) (%T at
254nm)
RCSD Primary Influent Unfiltered 192 24
1/8/99
50[i Filtrate 80 23
25[i Filtrate 75 25
5[i Filtrate 46 24
l[i Filtrate 34 24
UV Dose
(mWs/cm2)
0.0
2.4
12.2
24.3
0.0
2.4
12.0
24.0
0.0
2.4
12.0
24.0
0.0
2.5
12.5
24.9
0.0
2.4
12.2
24.3
Unblended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
1,140,000
390,000
2,800
1,310,000
900
160
340,000
2,200
1,100
310,000
2,300
140
300,000
900
340
Unblended
Survival
Ratio
(LogN/No)
-1.13
-2.63
-4.18
-1.08
-3.27
-3.41
-1.16
-3.2
-4.3
-1.13
-3.63
-5.05
-0.97
-3.85
-4.49
1999
Unblended
Survival
Ratio
(LogN/No)
-0.79
-2.26
-3.40
-0.49
-3.65
-4.40
-1.08
-3.27
-3.57
-1.19
-3.32
-4.54
-1.18
-3.70
-4.12
Blended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
350,000
53,000
30,000
350,000
3,600
2,200
345,000
2,700
370
330,000
800
400
290,000
600
400
Blended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
2,360,000
195,000
39,400
1,900,000
800
800
410,000
2,700
900
450,000
3,600
220
410,000
900
530
Blended
Survival
Ratio
(Log N/No)
-1.01
-1.83
-2.08
-0.8
-2.88
-3.09
-1.01
-3.11
-3.98
-0.94
-3.56
-3.86
-0.97
-3.65
-3.83
Blended
Survival
Ratio
(Log N/No)
-0.45
-1.53
-2.22
-0.29
-3.67
-3.67
-1.00
-3.18
-3.66
-0.89
-2.99
-4.20
-1.00
-3.66
-3.89
70
-------
Table A3. Dose-Response Test Data for NYC CSO No. 1 Sample Collected January 15,1999
Sample Treatment TSS
(mg/L)
NYC CSO No. 1 1/15/99 Unfiltered 74
50[i Filtrate 10
25 \i Filtrate 18
5[i Filtrate 12
1^ Filtrate 16
Table A4. Dose-Response Test Data for NYC CSO
Sample Treatment TSS
(mg/L)
NYC CSO No. 2 1/18/99 Unfiltered 56
50[i Filtrate 33
25\i Filtrate 32
5\i Filtrate 27
l[i Filtrate 23
Trans
Unfiltered
(%T at
254nm)
27
27
28
28
29
UV Dose
(mWs/cm2)
0
2.7
13.3
26.5
0
2.7
13.4
26.8
0
2.7
13.5
26.9
0
2.7
13.7
27.4
0
2.8
13.9
27.8
Unblended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
80,000
1,500
680
54,000
900
150
75,000
500
160
43,000
300
50
62,000
200
100
Unblended
Survival
Ratio
(LogN/No)
-1.44
-3.17
-3.51
-1.55
-3.32
-4.10
-1.27
-3.45
-3.94
-1.73
-3.88
-4.66
-1.65
-4.15
-4.41
Blended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
165,000
20,000
1,800
93,000
1,800
220
70,000
500
170
94,000
400
210
65,000
800
200
Blended
Survival
Ratio
(Log N/No)
-1.26
-2.16
-3.21
-1.60
-3.31
-4.23
-1.71
-3.86
-4.33
-1.55
-3.92
-4.20
-1.74
-3.65
-4.26
No. 2 Sample Collected January 18, 1999
Trans
Unfiltered
(%T at
254nm)
38
37
39
40
40
UV Dose
(mWs/cm2)
0
3.4
17.0
34.0
0.0
3.4
17.0
34.0
0.0
3.5
17.6
35.2
0.0
3.6
17.9
35.7
0.0
3.6
17.9
35.7
Unblended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
20,000
300
360
31,000
1,200
170
26,000
400
520
47,000
300
400
8,000
1,000
230
Unblended
Survival
Ratio
(LogN/No)
-1.39
-3.21
-3.13
-1.22
-2.63
-3.48
-1.19
-3
-2.89
-1.11
-3.3
-3.18
-1.86
-2.76
-3.4
Blended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
19,000
2,900
1,700
29,000
1,100
250
39,000
500
1,300
40,000
3,000
480
14,000
700
320
Blended
Survival
Ratio
(Log N/No)
-1.46
-2.28
-2.51
-1.18
-2.60
-3.25
-1.02
-2.91
-2.50
-1.15
-2.27
-3.07
-1.59
-2.90
-3.24
71
-------
Table AS. Dose-Response Test Data for NYC CSO No. 3 Sample Collected January 25,1999
Trans
Sample Treatment TSS Unfiltered
(mg/L) (%T at
254nm)
NYC CSO No. 3 1/25/99 Unfiltered 156 24
50u Filtrate 33 25
25u Filtrate 34 26
5u Filtrate 28 26
lu Filtrate 24 26
UV Dose
(mWs/cm2)
0.0
12.4
24.7
0.0
2.5
12.7
25.3
0.0
2.6
12.8
25.6
0.0
2.6
12.9
25.7
0.0
2.6
13.0
25.9
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
800
480
27,000
500
40
14,000
100
50
28,000
200
60
30,000
50
Survival
Ratio
(LogN/No)
-2.74
-2.96
-1.06
-2.79
-3.89
-1.36
-3.51
-3.79
-1.02
-3.16
-3.68
-0.99
-3.76
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
9,400
11,400
23,000
400
90
27,000
500
80
38,000
400
80
15,000
100
30
Ratio
(Log N/No)
-1.66
-1.58
-1.18
-2.94
-3.59
-1.10
-2.83
-3.63
-0.98
-2.95
-3.65
-1.30
-3.48
-4.00
Table A6. Dose-Response Test Data for CDS Effluent Sample Collected February 3, 1999
Trans
Sample Treatment TSS Unfiltered
(mg/L) (%T at
254nm)
CDS Effluent 2/3/99 Unfiltered 104 33
50[i Filtrate 50 31
25 \i Filtrate 47 27
5[i Filtrate 34 28
l^i Filtrate 24 24
UV Dose
(mWs/cm2)
0.0
2.4
12.2
24.4
0.0
2.7
13.5
26.9
0.0
2.7
13.5
27.0
0.0
2.9
14.6
29.2
0.0
3.1
15.4
30.1
Unblended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
490,000
28,000
7,700
810,000
41,000
12,000
410,000
38,000
2,700
270,000
14,000
4,500
360,000
15,000
575
Unblended
Survival
Ratio
(LogN/No)
-0.63
-1.88
-2.44
-0.57
-1.86
-2.40
-0.79
-1.82
-2.97
-0.74
-2.03
-2.52
-0.84
-2.22
-3.64
Blended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
780,000
18,000
22,000
620,000
33,000
15,000
780,000
25,000
1,700
150,000
23,000
6,600
340,000
8,300
1,200
Blended
Survival
Ratio
(Log N/No)
-0.34
-1.98
-1.89
-0.83
-2.10
-2.45
-0.56
-2.05
-3.32
-1.22
-2.04
-2.58
-0.96
-2.57
-3.41
72
-------
Table A7. Dose-Response Test Data for the Fuzzy Filter Effluent Sample Collected February 4,1999
Sample
Treatment
TSS
(mg/L)
Trans
Unfiltered
(%T at
254nm)
UV Dose
(mWs/cm2)
Unblended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
Unblended
Survival
Ratio
(LogN/No)
Blended
Fecal
Coliforms
(col/lOOmL)
Blended
Survival
Ratio
(Log N/No)
Fuzzy Filter Effluent 2/4/99 Unfiltered 46 34
50[i Filtrate 34 33
25[i Filtrate 34 32
5[i Filtrate 30 32
l[i Filtrate 25 31
0.0
3.0
15.0
30.1
0.0
3.0
15.0
30.0
0.0
3.0
15.2
30.3
0.0
3.1
15.6
31.1
0.0
3.2
15.8
31.6
300,000
33,000
3,430
520,000
78,000
6,600
400,000
13,000
4,100
370,000
53,000
6,200
230,000
25,000
35,000
-0.94
-1.9
-2.88
-0.63
-1.45
-2.52
-0.85
-2.33
-2.82
-0.79
-1.64
-2.57
-1.1
-2.06
-1.92
280,000
24,000
4,000
450,000
53,000
7,200
430,000
20,000
4,000
320,000
31,000
7,000
290,000
34,000
21,000
-0.98
-2.05
-2.83
-0.79
-1.72
-2.59
-0.75
-2.08
-2.78
-0.88
-1.89
-2.54
-0.95
-1.88
-2.09
73
-------
Table A8. CDS Pilot Data from Series 1: 1200-Micron Screen
Date
42299
42299
42299
42399
42399
42399
42099
42099
41999
21899
32999
32399
32499
32599
20999
21199
21199
21299
21299
21999
21999
30399
30399
31899
32299
32999
32699
32699
32499
30499
31699
31999
31999
32299
30499
30599
30599
31799
31799
AVG
Series 1
1200 n
Influent
Flow
(gpm)
145
150
150
150
152
153
155
168
200
219
224
225
225
225
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
230
230
327
329
329
330
335
335
335
335
340
440
440
440
440
440
153
224
333
440
Influent
Flow
(Lpm)
549
568
568
568
575
579
587
636
757
827
848
852
852
852
855
855
855
855
855
855
855
855
855
871
871
1238
1245
1245
1249
1268
1268
1268
1268
1287
1665
1665
1665
1665
1665
579
849
1260
1665
Influent
TSS
(mg/L)
87
119
124
89
124
129
134
100
95
278
55
72
42
36
106
40
102
72
88
56
92
80
87
55
107
64
39
72
68
87
118
46
81
138
127
40
70
54
86
113
86
79
75
Influent
Mass
TSS
(kg/d)
69
97
101
73
103
108
113
92
104
331
67
88
52
44
131
49
126
89
108
69
113
99
107
69
134
114
70
129
122
159
215
84
148
256
305
96
168
130
206
94
105
144
181
Equivalent
Underflow
(Lpm)
55
57
57
57
57
58
57
57
94
98
81
94
94
94
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
114
114
103
111
111
114
133
133
133
133
152
152
152
152
152
152
57
98
125
152
Underflow
TSS
(mg/L)
106
68
158
121
140
130
134
150
173
128
170
242
70
68
164
96
80
67
166
106
126
137
140
64
248
45
57
161
214
107
248
103
123
165
217
80
80
169
203
126
132
136
150
Underflow
Mass TSS
(kg/d)
8.4
5.6
13.0
9.9
11.5
10.9
11.0
12.3
23.4
18.1
19.8
32.8
9.5
9.2
23.1
13.5
11.3
9.5
23.4
15.0
17.8
19.3
19.8
10.5
40.7
6.7
9.1
25.7
35.1
20.5
47.5
19.7
23.6
36.1
47.5
17.5
17.5
37.0
44.4
10
19
25
33
Underflow
Captured
Mass TS
(kg/d)
Percent of
InfMass to
Underflow
(%)
12
6
13
14
11
10
10
13
23
5
30
37
18
21
18
27
9
11
22
22
16
20
18
15
30
6
13
20
29
13
22
23
16
14
16
18
10
29
22
11
20
17
19
Effluent
TSS
(mg/L)
79
114
140
67
94
135
99
110
71
225
52
82
44
48
138
68
118
56
92
58
82
90
57
49
62
78
44
66
52
57
218
43
86
129
103
40
47
51
92
105
82
86
67
Effluent
Mass
(kg/d)
56
84
103
49
70
101
76
92
68
236
57
89
48
52
151
74
129
61
100
63
89
98
62
53
68
127
72
108
85
93
356
70
141
211
224
87
102
111
200
79
88
140
145
TSS
Removal
(inf-eff
mass)
(%)
18.3
13.8
-1.6
32.3
31.7
5.8
33.3
-0.1
34.5
28.7
14.5
-1.3
6.8
-18.6
-15.3
-50.5
-2.4
31.1
7.4
8.3
21.1
0.4
42.0
22.6
49.6
-11.7
-2.8
16.5
30.5
41.4
-65.4
16.3
5.0
17.6
26.3
9.1
39.0
14.2
2.8
17
11
5
18
TSS
Removal
(inf-eff
cone)
(%)
9
4
-13
25
24
-5
26
-10
25
19
5
-14
-5
-33
-30
-70
-16
22
-5
-4
11
-13
34
1
42
-22
-13
8
24
34
-85
7
-6
7
19
0
33
6
-7
-1
-5
10
74
-------
Table A9. CDS Pilot Data from Series 2: 600-Micron Screen
Date
6/1/1999
6/1/1999
6/2/1999
6/3/1999
6/4/1999
6/4/1999
6/5/1999
6/5/1999
6/14/1999
6/9/1999
6/9/1999
6/10/1999
6/14/1999
6/15/1999
6/19/1999
6/19/1999
6/20/1999
6/20/1999
6/22/1999
7/15/1999
6/10/1999
6/15/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
7/15/1999
7/15/1999
7/16/1999
7/16/1999
7/16/1999
7/19/1999
7/19/1999
AVG
Series 2
600 n
Influent
Flow
(gpm)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
200
300
Influent
Flow
(Lpm)
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
757
757
757
757
757
757
757
757
757
757
757
1136
1136
1136
1136
1136
1136
1136
1136
1136
1136
1136
379
757
1136
Influent
TSS
(mg/L)
435
122
92
133
114
122
61
126
87
146
140
92
113
125
122
110
136
166
30
83
62
95
87
132
100
157
44
78
127
85
78
144
115
95
Influent
Mass
TSS
(kg/d)
237
66
50
72
62
66
33
69
47
159
153
100
123
136
133
120
148
181
33
90
101
155
142
216
164
257
72
128
208
139
128
78
125
155
Equivalent
Underflow
(Lpm)
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
3.8
7.6
11.4
Underflow
TSS
(mg/L)
144
184
144
178
945
150
290
306
290
362
358
21
152
149
366
126
142
252
67
34
45
129
144
155
188
209
118
64
78
44
26
292
184
109
Underflow
Mass TSS
(kg/d)
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
5.2
0.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
3.9
3.9
0.2
1.7
1.6
4.0
1.4
1.5
2.7
0.7
0.4
0.7
2.1
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.4
1.9
1.0
1.3
0.7
0.4
1.6
2.0
1.8
Underflow
Captured
Mass TS
(kg/d)
24.7
31.4
22.8
2.0
15.1
1.7
7.7
8.5
2.9
2.9
5.0
5.7
5.2
5.5
5.6
9.5
1.8
1.5
3.5
2.8
2.3
3.9
6.6
14.6
6.3
1.7
13.0
5.6
4.5
Percent of
InfMass to
Underflow
(%)
10.7
48.7
47.0
4.1
32.6
3.8
27.9
14.8
9.4
3.7
4.9
7.3
5.5
4.8
4.6
2.2
10.9
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.6
2.2
8.1
6.0
7.6
5.1
1.7
22.1
5.5
4.2
Effluent
TSS
(mg/L)
232
70
94
137
80
82
38
60
49
52
78
47
133
31
132
50
44
154
28
77
61
92
64
64
121
182
35
22
70
26
26
94
75
69
Effluent
Mass
(kg/d)
125
38
51
74
43
44
21
32
26
56
84
51
144
33
142
54
47
166
30
83
99
149
104
104
196
295
57
36
113
42
42
50
81
112
TSS Removal
(inf-eff mass)
(%)
47.2
43.2
-1.2
-2.0
30.5
33.5
38.3
52.9
44.2
64.7
44.8
49.4
-16.5
75.4
-7.1
55.0
68.0
8.2
7.6
8.2
2.6
4.1
27.2
52.0
-19.8
-14.8
21.3
72.1
45.4
69.7
67.0
31.9
32.5
29.7
TSS
Removal
(inf-eff
cone)
(%)
47
43
_2
-3.0
29.8
32.8
37.7
52.4
43.7
64.4
44.3
48.9
-17.7
75.2
-8.2
54.5
67.6
7.2
6.7
7.2
1.6
3.2
26.4
51.5
-21.0
-15.9
20.5
71.8
44.9
69.4
66.7
31.2
31.8
29.0
75
-------
Table A10. CDS Pilot Data from Series 3: 600-Micron Screen
Date
8/9/1999
8/9/1999
8/10/1999
8/10/1999
8/10/1999
8/11/1999
8/11/1999
8/12/1999
8/12/1999
8/16/1999
8/16/1999
8/17/1999
8/17/1999
8/17/1999
8/18/1999
8/18/1999
8/18/1999
8/26/1999
8/26/1999
8/30/1999
8/30/1999
9/1/1999
9/7/1999
9/8/1999
9/8/1999
9/8/1999
9/14/1999
AVG
Series 3
600 n
Influent
Flow
(gpm)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Influent
Flow
(Lpm)
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
Influent
TSS
(mg/L)
62
35
72
76
118
84
128
87
66
108
188
112
104
126
80
70
64
304
282
66
54
74
64
69
60
61
115
101
Influent
Mass
TSS
(kg/d)
34
19
39
41
64
46
70
47
36
59
102
61
57
69
44
38
35
166
154
36
29
40
35
38
33
33
63
55
Equivalent
Underflow
(Lpm)
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
4
Underflow
TSS
(mg/L)
90
397
68
44
164
174
74
156
454
380
168
168
168
190
104
160
132
625
645
71
62
52
165
160
225
147
318
206
Underflow
Mass TSS
(kg/d)
0.5
2.2
0.4
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.9
2.5
2.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.7
3.4
3.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.8
1.7
1
Underflow
Captured
Mass TS
(kg/d)
0
Percent of
InfMass to
Underflow
(%)
Effluent
TSS
(mg/L)
61
38
22
34
36
10
128
35
37
24
26
28
48
50
26
60
28
92
98
27
33
70
12
14
9
8
48
41
Effluent
Mass
(kg/d)
33
21
12
18
19
5
69
19
20
13
14
15
26
27
14
32
15
50
53
15
18
38
6
8
5
4
26
22
TSS Removal
(inf-eff mass)
(%)
2.6
-7.5
69.8
55.7
69.8
88.2
1.0
60.2
44.5
78.0
86.3
75.3
54.3
60.7
67.8
15.1
56.7
70.0
65.6
59.5
39.5
6.4
81.4
79.9
85.2
87.0
58.7
56
TSS
Removal
(inf-eff
cone)
(%)
2
-9
69
55
69
88
0
60
44
78
86
75
54
60
68
14
56
70
65
59
39
5
81
80
85
87
58
56
76
-------
Table All. Fuzzy Filter Results at 10% Compression
Date
31699
32699
8/12/1999
30499
42099
42399
30399
30599
42199
42299
8/9/1999
8/16/1999
8/26/1999
9/1/1999
9/8/1999
30499
31999
7/15/1999
8/12/1999
8/18/1999
9/7/1999
30399
30599
5/17/1999
5/17/1999
5/18/1999
6/1/1999
6/1/1999
7/16/1999
8/9/1999
8/16/1999
8/26/1999
9/8/1999
9/8/1999
6/20/1999
Averages
10%
Compression
Influent
Flow
(gpm)
20
20
20
30
35
38
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
60
60
60
60
60
60
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
90
20
39
60
81
Influent
Flow
(Lpm)
76
76
76
114
132
144
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
227
227
227
227
227
227
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
303
341
75.7
146
227
306
Compress
(%)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Influent
TSS
(mg/L)
218
44
37
103
111
67
90
47
86
79
93
24
92
70
14
57
43
121
35
28
12
57
40
138
150
134
232
122
44
38
26
98
9
9
178
99.7
73
49
91
Influent
Mass
TSS
(kg/d)
23.8
4.8
4.0
16.8
21.2
13.9
19.6
10.2
18.7
17.2
20.3
5.2
20.1
15.3
3.1
18.6
14.1
39.6
11.4
9.2
3.9
24.9
17.4
60.2
65.4
58.4
101.2
53.2
19.2
16.6
11.3
42.7
3.9
3.9
87.3
10.9
15
16
40
Effluent
TSS
(mg/L)
56
12
30
40
32
57
43
23
72
47
61
30
78
60
11
10
22
33
30
26
15
47
23
122
76
42
128
94
35
34
28
86
11
12
154
32.7
46
23
64
Effluent
Mass
TSS
(kg/d)
6.1
1.3
3.3
6.5
6.1
11.8
9.4
5.0
15.7
10.2
13.3
6.5
17.0
13.1
2.4
3.3
7.2
10.8
9.8
8.5
4.9
20.5
10.0
53.2
33.1
18.3
55.8
41.0
15.3
14.8
12.2
37.5
4.8
5.2
75.5
3.6
10
7
28
Backwash
TSS
(mg/L)
242
140
148
357
518
474
400
207
386
396
240
140
1770
76
68
347
126
1655
828
104
88
120
280
364
925
1245
485
2000
234
704
174
4660
75
80
4024
176.7
419
525
1098
Backwash
TSS
(kg/d)
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
0.9
1.8
1.8
1.1
0.6
8.0
0.3
0.3
2.4
0.9
11.3
5.6
0.7
0.6
1.1
2.5
3.3
8.4
11.3
4.4
18.2
2.1
6.4
1.6
42.3
0.7
0.7
41.1
0.4
2
4
10
FF
Balance
(kg/d)
17.1
3.2
0.4
9.1
13.0
0.0
8.4
4.3
1.3
5.2
5.9
-1.9
-5.0
1.8
0.3
13.0
6.0
17.5
-4.0
-0.1
-1.6
3.3
4.9
3.7
23.9
28.8
40.9
-6.0
1.8
-4.7
-2.5
-37.1
-1.6
-2.0
-29.4
6.9
4
5
2
*
Removal
74.3
72.7
18.9
61.2
71.2
14.9
52.2
51.1
16.3
40.5
34.4
-25.0
15.2
14.3
21.4
82.5
48.8
72.7
14.3
7.1
-25.0
17.5
42.5
11.6
49.3
68.7
44.8
23.0
20.5
10.5
-7.7
12.2
-22.2
-33.3
13.5
55.3
31
33
18
77
-------
Table A12. Fuzzy Filter Results at 20% and 30% Compression
Date
21999
8/11/1999
8/18/1999
8/30/1999
21299
32999
42299
42299
8/11/1999
8/18/1999
8/30/1999
21899
6/19/1999
6/20/1999
32699
20999
21299
31799
32999
7/19/1999
21999
31999
7/15/1999
7/16/1999
Averages
20%
Compression
42399
21199
42399
6/19/1999
7/19/1999
7/15/1999
32599
7/16/1999
21199
31799
6/22/1999
Averages
30%
Compression
Influent
Flow
(gpm)
20
20
20
20
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
53
60
60
75
80
80
80
80
80
88
90
90
90
20
38.6
57.5
79.2
89.4
19
20
38
40
40
60
80
80
90
90
90
19.5
44.5
86
Influent
Flow
(Lpm)
76
76
76
76
114
151
151
151
151
151
151
199
227
227
284
303
303
303
303
303
331
341
341
341
75.7
146.0
217.6
299.6
338.3
72
76
144
151
151
227
303
303
341
341
341
73.8
168.4
325.5
Compression
%
(mg/L)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30.0
30.0
30
Influent
TSS
(mg/L))
82
30
26
27
56
78
114
140
128
60
33
225
110
190
66
138
92
51
52
49
58
86
182
22
41.3
87.0
175.0
74.7
87.0
126
118
135
132
46
77
48
70
90
92
28
122.0
97.5
65.6
Influent
Mass
TSS
(kg/d))
8.9
3.3
2.8
2.9
9.2
17.0
24.9
30.5
27.9
13.1
7.2
64.4
36.0
62.1
27.0
60.2
40.1
22.2
22.7
21.4
27.7
42.2
89.3
10.8
4.5
18.5
54.2
32.3
42.5
13.0
12.9
28.0
28.8
10.0
25.2
20.9
30.5
44.1
45.1
13.7
13.0
23.0
30.9
Effluent
TSS
(mg/L)
12
10
36
25
43
28
61
126
84
30
22
152
94
44
38
74
86
32
25
26
46
30
152
26
20.8
56.3
96.7
46.8
63.5
94
84
136
108
46
31
17
68
68
71
16
89.0
80.3
48.0
Effluent
Mass TSS
(kg/d)
1.3
1.1
3.9
2.7
7.0
6.1
13.3
27.5
18.3
6.5
4.8
43.5
30.7
14.4
15.5
32.3
37.5
14.0
10.9
11.3
21.9
14.7
74.6
12.8
2.3
11.9
29.5
20.2
31.0
9.7
9.2
28.2
23.5
10.0
10.1
7.4
29.7
33.4
34.8
7.8
9.4
18.0
22.6
Backwash
TSS
(kg/d)
273
800
94
16
155
258
560
752
236
160
49
248
1132
832
422
174
140
175
124
304
166
258
1098
58
295.8
310.0
737.3
223 .2
395.0
352
260
416
985
314
915
187
308
254
298
416
306.0
657.5
292.6
Backwash
TSS
(kg/d)
0.6
1.8
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.2
2.5
3.4
1.1
0.7
0.2
1.5
7.7
5.7
3.6
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.1
2.8
1.6
2.6
11.2
0.6
0.7
1.4
5.0
2.0
4.0
0.8
0.6
1.8
4.5
1.4
6.2
1.7
2.8
2.6
3.0
4.3
0.7
3.5
2.9
FF
Balance
(kg/d)
7.0
0.4
-1.3
0.2
1.6
9.7
9.0
-0.4
8.5
5.8
2.2
19.4
-2.5
42.1
7.9
26.3
1.3
6.7
10.6
7.3
4.1
24.8
3.5
-2.6
1.6
5.2
19.7
10.0
7.5
2.6
3.1
-2.0
0.8
-1.4
8.8
11.8
-1.9
8.2
7.3
1.6
2.8
1.5
5.4
%
Removal
85.4
66.7
-38.5
7.4
23.2
64.1
46.5
10.0
34.4
50.0
33.3
32.4
14.5
76.8
42.4
46.4
6.5
37.3
51.9
46.9
20.7
65.1
16.5
-18.2
30.2
37.4
41.3
38.6
21.0
25.4
28.8
-0.7
18.2
0.0
59.7
64.6
2.9
24.4
22.8
42.9
27.1
19.3
31.5
78
-------
Table A13. Performance Data for the PCI Wedeco UV Unit (Low Pressure/High Output)
Date
61699
21899
32299
32299
32299
32299
32499
32499
60199
60299
60499
60499
61099
61499
61599
61699
60199
60299
60399
60999
61099
61499
62299
21899
31899
31899
31899
31899
32299
32299
32299
32299
32499
32499
51799a
51799b
51799c
51799d
51799e
51799f
51899a
51899b
51899c
51899d
51899e
51899f
60999
60999
61599
62299
71599
71699
71999
30399
71599
71699
30499
Flow
(gpm)
50
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
140
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
160
180
180
240
Flow
(Lpm)
189
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
530
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
606
681
681
908
Initial Fecal
Coliform, No
(col/lOOmL)
5,144,000
7,000,000
1,166,000
922,000
4,236,000
2,583,000
1,149,000
2,154,000
5,050,000
4,100,000
4,236,000
5,976,000
3,866,000
9,675,000
3,521,000
3,742,000
5,457,000
4,574,000
5,150,000
4,600,000
6,307,000
5,079,000
3,231,000
6,200,000
742,000
832,000
6,216,000
5,300,000
890,000
955,000
707,000
2,345,000
975,000
1,936,000
2,985,000
5,477,000
5,639,000
6,099,000
3,873,000
4,561,000
6,797,000
2,223,000
5,667,000
7,200,000
3,464,000
7,294,000
4,733,000
9,859,000
2,285,000
4,080,000
6,364,000
6,245,000
7,520,000
3,161,000
5,030,000
6,315,000
6,134,000
Final Fecal
Coliform, N
(col/lOOmL)
34,000
258,000
11,000
15,000
21,000
8,000
1,000
2,000
54,000
33,000
29,000
34,000
29,000
23,000
66,000
22,000
40,000
38,000
37,000
18,000
17,000
58,000
29,000
296,000
2,000
1,000
23,000
26,000
6,000
9,000
11,000
17,000
1,000
14,000
137,000
102,000
45,000
52,000
80,000
139,000
45,000
38,000
59,000
51,000
104,000
179,000
45,000
99,000
23,000
20,000
73,000
31,000
41,000
16,000
53,000
31,000
16,000
Log N/No
-2.18
-1.43
-2.03
-1.79
-2.30
-2.51
-3.06
-3.03
-1.97
-2.09
-2.16
-2.24
-2.12
-2.62
-1.73
-2.23
-2.13
-2.08
-2.14
-2.41
-2.57
-1.94
-2.05
-1.32
-2.57
-2.92
-2.43
-2.31
-2.17
-2.03
-1.81
-2.14
-2.99
-2.14
-1.34
-1.73
-2.10
-2.07
-1.68
-1.52
-2.18
-1.77
-1.98
-2.15
-1.52
-1.61
-2.02
-2.00
-2.00
-2.31
-1.94
-2.30
-2.26
-2.30
-1.98
-2.31
-2.58
TSS
(mg/L)
84
232
112
121
81
130
32
58
115
86
128
136
69
106
83
94
119
166
139
84
74
108
30
232
40
46
91
91
142
168
139
121
36
48
156
118
118
138
96
144
78
79
102
93
119
118
70
120
87
31
75
81
101
57
90
82
43
Trans at
254nm
Unfiltered
%
29
9
25
25
26
23
52
35
48
46
27
28
29
17
29
27
52
35
26
36
33
25
34
9
40
31
17
20
26
25
23
24
49
37
17
22
17
14
11
14
32
30
18
20
19
17
37
25
37
25
38
Trans at
254 nm
Filtered
%
63
42
57
56
52
53
61
57
39
63
49
49
47
35
62
63
59
62
46
54
48
43
47
42
46
44
38
38
55
55
52
54
60
58
42
41
39
37
36
35
49
49
41
40
40
39
54
61
47
49
63
Difference
Filt-Unfilt %T
%
34
33
32
31
26
30
9
22
-8
17
23
21
19
18
33
37
7
27
19
18
15
18
12
33
6
13
21
18
29
30
29
30
11
21
25
19
22
23
25
22
18
19
22
20
21
22
17
0
36
9
24
25
79
-------
Table A13. Continued
Date
30499
31799
30499
31799
Flow
(gpm)
240
250
300
300
73
100
150
173
266
Flow
(Lpm)
908
946
1136
1136
278
379
566
656
1007
Initial Fecal
Coliform, No
(col/lOOmL)
5,200,000
3,873,000
4,876,000
2,265,000
3,365,406
4,828,607
3,370,055
4,647,884
4,236,286
Final Fecal
Coliform, N
(col/lOOmL)
4,000
160,000
115,000
2,000
20,294
31,226
30,480
29,734
18,811
LogN/No
-3.11
-1.38
-1.63
-3.05
-2.22
-2.19
-2.04
-2.19
-2.35
TSS
(mg/L)
89
97
54
104.19
102.86
102.60
76.33
56.60
Trans at
254nm
Unfiltered
%
17
23
50
29.60
34.41
24.18
25.00
32.00
Trans at
254 nm
Filtered
%
38
52
50
53.06
51.06
45.77
49.00
50.75
Difference
Filt-Unfilt %T
%
21
29
0
23.46
16.64
21.58
24.00
18.75
80
-------
Table A14. Performance Data for the Aquionics UV Unit
Date
60499
60499
61099
61499
61599
71599
60999
60999
61599
61699
62299
60299
21899
30399
30499
31899
31899
31899
31899
32399
60399
71599
71699
60199
21899
30499
30499
60999
61099
61499
71699
71999
32399
30399
31799
32399
60199
31799
32399
60299
Flow
(gpm)
10
10
10
10
10
15
20
20
20
20
20
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
70
70
70
70
80
90
100
10.8
20.8
30
49
70
90
Flow
(Lpm)
38
38
38
38
38
57
76
76
76
76
76
95
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
151
189
189
189
189
189
189
189
189
189
265
265
265
265
303
341
379
41
79
114
185
265
341
Initial Fecal
Coliforms No
(col/100 mL)
2,429,000
6,325,000
5,231,000
5,365,000
4,142,000
5,164,000
7,838,000
4,035,000
4,996,000
6,604,000
4,050,000
6,245,000
4,948,000
2,939,000
4,314,000
2,366,000
1,349,000
4,450,000
3,811,000
620,000
2,670,000
6,293,000
4,399,000
6,481,000
4,948,000
3,040,000
3,600,000
6,998,000
4,964,000
5,324,000
4,774,000
3,146,000
1,000,000
3,527,000
1,497,000
1,045,000
5,310,000
1,755,000
1,755,000
4,472,000
4579378
5456460
2964862
3970939
2326535
2397096
Final Fecal
Coliform N
(col/lOOmL)
5000
3000
51000
42000
18000
89000
31000
343000
272000
24000
2000
24000
167000
100
245000
94000
50000
1800000
1673000
22000
18000
502000
4000
60000
23000
98000
120000
35000
87000
80000
336000
4000
5000
50000
99000
14000
17000
102000
211000
122000
19287
38647
61315
43897
32945
137958
Log(N/No)
-2.69
-3.32
-2.01
-2.11
-2.36
-1.76
-2.40
-1.07
-1.26
-2.44
-3.31
-2.42
-1.47
-4.47
-1.25
-1.40
-1.43
-0.39
-0.36
-1.45
-2.17
-1.10
-3.04
-2.03
-2.33
-1.49
-1.48
-2.30
-1.76
-1.82
-1.15
-2.90
-2.30
-1.85
-1.18
-1.87
-2.49
-1.24
-0.92
-1.56
-2.38
-2.15
-1.68
-1.96
-1.85
-1.24
TSS
(mg/L)
158
158
72
126
131
36
120
122
135
129
16
60
82
43
40
55
47
111
107
16
160
39
50
124
82
10
146
85
130
62
57
24
47
40
61
128
66
50
96
114
97
68
72
69
71
Trans at
254 nm
Unfiltered
(%)
25
27
37
17
19
27
26
18
18
35
47
12
36
32
30
42
20
16
48
22
45
12
44
32
23
45
33
49
39
44
24
38
40
24.8
28.7
28.6
33.4
41.3
34.0
Trans at
254 nm
Filtered
(%)
48
48
50
39
59
51
50
59
58
46
43
36
53
53
46
44
38
38
60
43
50
36
63
49
44
59
52
50
53
59
31
54
62
49.0
51.0
45.7
50.1
53.5
48.9
Difference
Filt-Unfilt
%T
(%)
23
22
14
22
40
24
24
41
40
10
-4
24
17
21
16
2
18
22
12
22
5
24
19
17
21
14
19
1
14
15
7
16
22
24.2
22.3
17.1
16.7
12.2
14.9
81
-------
Table A15. Performance Data for the Medium-Pressure, Open-Channel UV Unit
Influent Fecal Effl
Coliform C
Date Flow (gpm) (No, col/lOOmL) (N, c
Unfiltered Filtered
uent Fecal Trans at Trans at
oliform Log N/No TSS 254nm 254nm
ol/lOOML) (mg/L) (%) (%)
8599 10 7,300,000 410000 -1.25 98 27.9 56.5
Lamp A 8599 25 7,500,000 150000 -1.70 102 27.7 59.2
6" Lamp Spacing 8599 50 6,100,000 600000 -1.01 108 28.8 58.7
100% Power 8599 100 6,500,000 940000 -0.84 108 29.1 58.4
12-inch Length 8599 10 7,200,000
23000 -2.50 106 18.8 53.0
8599 25 6,000,000 200000 -1.48 122 18.6 51.2
8599 50 6,100,000 350000 -1.24 128 19.3 50.5
8599 100 6,500,000 1000000 -0.81 128 19.4 50.0
8999 10 4,436,000 453000 -0.99 118 27.6 55.2
8999 20 5,550,000 364000 -1.18 94 23.0 52.0
8999 40 3,828,000 203000 -1.28 54 27.6 53.7
8999 80 4243000 749000 -0.75 56 21.0 46.2
81099 10 4363000
WeekKM 81099 20 8062000
Lamp A 81099 40 5084000
23000 -2.28 22 34.0 55.2
98000 -1.92 38 26.4 51.1
39000 -2.12 20 42.3 57.6
6" Lamp Spacing 81099 80 5730000 464000 -1.09 50 25.0 50.3
100% Power 81099 40 5544000 530000 -1.02 34 32.2 54.4
12-Inch Length 81099 80 6293000 756000 -0.92 32 35.0 54.5
81199 10 3046000
81199 20 3752000
1000 -3.48 28 44.4 58.0
47000 -1.90 58 32.3 56.2
81199 20 5947000 171000 -1.54 82 27.0 42.9
81199 40 5444000 820000 -0.82 180 22.0 39.7
81299 10 2805000
81299 20 3572000
81699 10 2683000
81699 20 3533000
81699 40 2065000
81699 80 3947000
81799 10 5244000
81799 20 5187000
Week # 2
81799 40 5254000 2
Lam D A
,, . 81799 80 8773000
?nhat^P Spacmg 81799 40 6928000
100% Power
_ 81799 80 6148000 t-
12-Inch Length 818gg 1Q 8598000
81899 20 7899000
81899 20 4671000
81899 40 6708000
81899 10 5797000
81899 20 4395000
82599 10 4142000
82599 40 6508000
82599 80A 5977000
82599 SOB 5745000
82699 10 720000
82699 20 5598000
2000 -3.15 27 39.2 53.3
47000 -1.88 31 38.1 55.4
3000 -2.95 12 34.9 55.1
4000 -2.95 64 35.2 53.3
5000 -2.62 40 54.0 55.2
5000 -2.90 40 46.0 52.9
16000 -2.52 104 27.5 50.7
28000 -2.27 98 25.1 47.9
'19000 -1.38 40 48.2 57.0
34000 -2.41 30 46.4 58.2
37000 -2.27 126 19.1 46.8
166000 -1.12 121 18.7 44.3
34000 -2.40 80 17.5 48.8
34000 -2.37 84 20.3 44.6
8000 -2.77 28 43.7 58.9
25000 -2.43 30 464.0 59.0
3000 -3.29 30 41.0 54.4
4000 -3.04 28 40.9 57.6
2000 -3.32 39 58.4 61.1
51000 -2.11 120 31.8 47.9
76000 -1.90 122 31.3 46.4
75000 -1.88 136 27.7 49.2
1000 -2.86 22 60.1 62.5
35000 -2.20 250 24.0 50.6
82699 40 5596000 661000 -0.93 296 18.6 50.4
,., . ^ „ 82699 80 7797000 825000 -0.98 368 17.2 53.8
Week # 3
" " 83099 10 6481000
amp . 83099 20 5348000
7n,h,am,P Cm9 83099 40 2219000
100% Power
'" 83099 80 3995000
24-Inch Length 831gg 1Q 2049000
83199 20 3057000
83199 40 4948000
83199 80 5892000
83199 10 4228000
83199 20 3947000
90199 40 2782000
90199 80 5599000
9000 -2.86 108 36.3 56.1
31000 -2.24 110 22.9 51.0
2000 -3.05 14 48.8 62.2
30000 -2.12 18 48.9 61.6
6000 -2.53 20 48.8 58.9
3000 -3.01 55 34.0 52.8
5000 -3.00 35 42.4 56.8
28000 -2.32 59 33.1 57.8
5000 -2.93 18 49.6 59.6
6000 -2.82 16 48.1 59.1
7000 -2.60 61 41.2 55.1
19000 -2.47 61 40.0 52.6
82
-------
Table A15. Continued
Date
Flow (gpm)
Influent Fecal
Coliform
(No, col/100mL)
Effluent Fecal
Coliform
(N, col/IOOML)
Log N/No
TSS
(mg/L)
Unfiltered
Trans at
254nm
Week #4 Lamp B
6" Lamp Spacing
100% Power
24-Inch Length
90799
90799
90899
90899
90899
90899
90899
90899
90999
90999
91399
91399
91499
91499
10
20
10
20
40
80
40
80
10
20
10
20
40
80
646000
3286000
3223000
3175000
3699000
4243000
3594000
4025000
675000
2223000
3264000
3900000
23000
23000
202000
612000
35000
290000
46000
212000
14000
25000
141000
624000
-1.45
-2.15
-1.20
-0.71
-2.02
-1.17
-1.89
-1.28
-1.68
-1 .95
-1.36
-0.80
147
116
22
38
20
60
36
29
83
93
30
43
53
55
40.5
34.2
48.5
48.0
45.2
32.8
44.3
35.0
39.4
38.6
39.4
37.5
40.1
39.1
Filtered
Trans at
254nm
55.0
51 .7
55.7
56.1
53.5
47.3
52.6
48.2
48.4
48.6
50.6
49.4
50.7
49.6
83
-------
-------
Appendix B
Demonstration Plan Excerpts (January 1999)
Section 2.5: Demonstration Plan
SectionS: Sampling & Analysis Plan
85
-------
2.5 DEMONSTRATION TEST PLAN
The demonstration test runs will be conducted over a period of approximately 12 weeks. This is
divided into three test "series," each reflecting operations with a different size screen in the CDS unit. Two
will be alternative screen sizes, with the third left to future decisions based on the results with the first two
screens. The downstream pilot units are operated under alternative conditions that have some dependency
on the operating conditions for the CDS. The following presents the test program design, including a
discussion of the test design and the framework and limitations within which it will be conducted. The
sampling and analysis plan, which implements this Test Plan, is presented in Section 3.
2.5.1 General Test Plan
The overall test plan anticipates evaluation of three process sequences:
(1) CDS -" PCI-Wedeco UV
(2) CDS -" Aquionics UV
(3) CDS ">• Fuzzy Filter —>• Aquionics UV
These three sequences will be tested in each of the three series discussed earlier. The only potential
modifications may be the changeout of the PCI UV unit for an alternative medium pressure unit. This will
depend on the results of the current test program and the availability of the alternative unit.
Table 2-1 presents the layout of the test schedule and operating conditions for monitoring the
performance of the four pilot plants. It calls for a total of approximately 12 calendar weeks of testing,
exclusive of special tests that are planned. Within this period, there are a total of 48 "Test Days" when one
or more of the pilot units is being sampled. The makeup of the feed will be dependent to some degree on
the amount of flow needed and on the approximate dilution desired. It is expected that the feed pump will
be in operation at all times, with one process stream full open. The second process stream will be used
when higher flows are demanded for the CDS unit.
Footnotes on Table 2-1 explain the nomenclature used for the various conditions. The first two
columns designate the "series" and the "test day," respectively. The operating conditions for each of the
four pilot units are then shown in the next four columns. These each designate the flow ("Qn") for the
individual units. The screen size for the CDS unit ("Sn") is also designated, as is the compression setting
for the Fuzzy Filter ("Cn"). Finally, the last column designates the analytical schedule that would be
followed for that specific day. These are presented in Section 3, Sampling and Analysis Plan.
-------
Test
Series
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Table 1. Testing Schedule and Relevant Operating Conditions for the Four Pilot Plants'1'
Test
Day
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9<3>
10
11
12
13
14W
15
16
17
CDS Unit
S.Qc,
S.Qo,
S.Qo,
S:QC2
S:QC3
S.Qo,
S.Qo,
S.Qo,
S.Qo,
S.Qc,
S.Qo,
S.Qc,
Clean Screen
S:QC2
S:QC2
S.Qc,
S:QC3
S.Qcz
S.Qcz
S:QC2
S:QC2
S!QC2
S:QC2
S!QC2
Clean Screen
S:QC3
S:QC3
S!QC2
S.Qc,
S:QC3
S:QC3
S:QC3
S:QC3
S:QC3
S:QC3
S:QC3
Change CDS
Screen
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
Fuzzy
Filter
C, QFF5
C, QFF3
C2 QFF5
C2QFF3
C: QFF6
C: QFF3
C2 QFF5
C2QFF3
C3 QFF3
C3QFF5
C: QFF6
C: QFF4
C3 QFF3
C3 QFF6
C3 QFF6
C3 QFF4
C3 QFF4
C: QFF4
C: QFF5
C2 QFF6
C2 QFF4
C2 QFF6
C3 QFF5
C3 QFF3
C2 QFF5
C2 QFFX
C: QFFX
C: QFFX
PCI-Wedeco
UV
QW2
QW3
Qwi Qwi
VW4 ^
-------
Test
Series
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Table 1. Testing Schedule and Relevant Operating Conditions for the Four Pilot Plants'1'
Test
Day
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
CDS Unit
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
Clean Screen
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
Clean Screen
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
Change CDS
Screen
S2Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
Fuzzy
Filter
C2 QFFX
C2QFFX
C, QFFX
C, QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3QFFX
Ct QFFX
C. QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
Ct QFFX
C, QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2 QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2 QFFX
C: QFFX
C: QFFX
PCI-Wedeco
UV
Qwi Qwi
QW2 QW2
^
-------
Test
Series
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Table 1. Testing Schedule and Relevant Operating Conditions for the Four Pilot Plants'1'
Test
Day
No.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
CDS Unit
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3 Qcx
S3Qcx
S3 Qcx
S3Qcx
Clean Screen
S3 Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
Clean Screen
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
Fuzzy
Filter
C2 QFFX
C2QFFX
Ct QFFX
C, QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3QFFX
C: QFFX
C: QFFX
C3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
C: QFFX
C: QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2 QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
C2 QFFX
PCI-Wedeco
UV
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwi Qwi
QW2 QW2
QW3 QW3
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
QW1QW1
QW2 QW2
^2>3
Qcx
C1>2>3
CDS Screen Size
CDS Flow Rate
Fuzzy Filter Compression Setting
QFFX
Vwx
QAX
Fuzzy Filter Flow Rate
PCI Wedeco UV Unit Flow Rate
Aquionics UV Unit Flow Rate
(2) Sampling and Analysis Schedules A, B and C are found in Section 3.
(3) Floatable Matrix will be inserted into CDS System.
89
-------
Note that specific designations are given to the flows and other pertinent operating conditions for
the first test series in Table 2-1. These are discussed further in the following sections. Subsequent settings
are unknown; these will be established to some extent on the basis of the results generated from Test Series
1. It is important to understand that the operating conditions are influenced by the operating condition of
the upstream unit. As an example, if the CDS unit is set to a flow of 300 gpm, approximately 10 percent
of this flow, or 30 gpm, is lost to the underflow. Thus, about 270 can be sent to the downstream units. If
both the Fuzzy Filter and Wedeco units are operating, the flow is divided into the two. The Fuzzy Filter
is expected to have an operating range of 20 to 100 gpm; if the Fuzzy Filter flow is set to 50 gpm (via the
pump/control valve), then the remaining flow is sent through the PCI-Wedeco unit. In this case the flow
would be 220 gpm, which is within the operating range of 50 to 350 gpm. The Aquionics unit, which is
expected to have an operating range of 20 to 150 gpm, would then receive the flow from the Fuzzy Filter.
Since it is being pumped from the effluent tank, the actual flow has to be set somewhat lower than the
Fuzzy Filter flow in order to avoid having the tank run dry, an unacceptable condition for the Aquionics
lamps. In this example, the flow would likely be set to approximately 40 gpm, or 80 percent of the Fuzzy
Filter flow rate.
2.5.2 Test Plan for the CDS
The CDS unit variables for the demonstration program will be flow (hydraulic loading rate) and
screen size. Based on a review of the plan by CDS and the proposed application to primary wastewaters,
two screens have been designated for testing: the 1200- and 600-micron aperture designs. These will be
tested in the first and second test series, respectively. The third test series will either repeat the testing of
one of these two screens, or will address an alternative screen.
Series 1: Weeks 1 to 4 Screen 1, 1200-micron Flows 200, 300 and 500 gpm
Series 2: Weeks 5 to 8 Screen 2, 600-micron Flows 100, 200 and 300 gpm
• Series 3: Weeks 9 to 12 Screen 3 Size and flows to be determined.
The flows will be confirmed with CDS and verified as valid ranges upon startup of the unit with each
screen in-place.
2.5.2.1 CDS Demonstration Framework and Limitations
The CDS unit will be evaluated within the following framework and limitations:
(1) Two screen sizes will be tested. These will have nominal aperture sizes of 600 and
1200 um. A third screen may be tested in Run 3, or Run 1 or 2 will be repeated.
(2) The wastewaters will be drawn from the influent channel, representing raw wastes
90
-------
that have passed only through the plant's bar screens. Every effort will be made to
operate the system and monitor its performance during wet weather conditions,
during which times only the raw wastewaters would be fed through the unit.
However, this may not always be possible within the budgetary and time constraints
of the project. During dry weather conditions, in order to proceed with the project
in a timely fashion, the dilution normally encountered with a wet weather event will
be provided with the addition of plant process water. This is treated secondary
effluent. This will be set to comprise 30 to 50 percent of the total flow to the CDS
unit during these periods. The data and field records will clearly document the
operating conditions of the unit.
(3) Floatables capture will be evaluated only on a limited basis, and only with the
largest screen (1200 microns). For all practical purposes, one would not use smaller
screen sizes for floatables capture, and may in fact have a larger screen size prior to
the unit as a "pretreatment" stage. A wetted litter "matrix" will be prepared (this is
described in subsequent discussions) and added via a ram to the inlet (at the
immediate entrance point to the unit's separation chamber) in quantified slugs over
a defined period of time.
(4) The operating variables will be the screen size and the hydraulic loading to the unit.
This loading is described as the flux rate, in gpm/ft2 of plan surface area.
(5) Other variables will be monitored, but not controlled, including the wastewater
characteristics with respect to particle concentration and particle size distribution
and the head loss through the system. System performance will be monitored by
solids removal efficiencies, and the ability to maintain a "non-clogging" condition
on the screen. Clogging will be observed visually and by changes in head loss at
equivalent loadings.
2.5.2.2 CDS Demonstration Run - Test Design
The test program for the CDS unit encompasses several elements, including monitoring for the
duration of the study, headloss observations and screen fouling, maintenance and floatables capture. Most
tasks are included in the routine program developed for the system.
(a) Routine Monitoring
Throughout the study, the system will be operated on a continuous basis. It will typically receive
raw wastewaters directly during "wet weather" conditions at the plant and a diluted flow during dry
91
-------
weather conditions. Flow conditions will be set daily (Monday through Friday), including the rate and the
makeup of the feed water. Flows will be constant, and changed only by manual manipulation of the
appropriate control valve.
Flow rates will be recorded at the start and finish of any direct sampling event, and as a routine
matter during daily monitoring and maintenance of the system. The flow rate of the solids underflow will
also be measured and recorded at the same times as the unit flow.
Influent, effluent and underflow samples will be generated on each of the "test days," as shown on
Table 2-1, for each noted operating condition. All samples will be 2-hour composites, collected manually
as a composite of grabs taken every 20 minutes. The influent and effluent samples will be drawn from the
head tank and PCI-Wedeco influent tank, respectively.
The sampling, analysis and monitoring schedule will be as shown in Section 3 on Tables 3-1,3-2,
and 3-3. The flow rate will be relatively constant through the unit within a week, but at different rates for
each of three successive 6-test-day blocks within a test series. These rates were delineated on a preliminary
basis and will be modified as needed once the testing begins with each screen configuration. The intent
is to evaluate the system under each screen configuration at high, moderate and low hydraulic loading rates.
This will allow evaluation of overall retention of solids at three operating velocities, and observation of
screen condition with respect to fouling. The screen will be cleaned at the beginning of each 6-test-day
block. These cleanings are also shown on the Test Schedules in Table 2-1. Overall, each test series is
expected to take between 3 and 4 weeks.
Table 2-1 shows specific flow designations for the CDS unit during Series 1. The screen in this
case (S^ is the 1200 micron unit. The flows Qcl, Qc2 and Qc3 are 200, 300 and 500 gpm, respectively. On
the days that the screen is cleaned or changed, the flow to the unit will be varied over a wide range and the
headlosses recorded; this will be done under both clean and fouled conditions.
Cumulative volume treated will be monitored, along with solids retention and head losses at the
different hydraulic loadings. This will allow an assessment of fouling (head loss buildup) with time (or
volume treated). Solids are monitored each test day, including influent and effluent and the discharge from
the solids sump. This will allow a qualitative solids balance. Particle size distribution (PSD) will also be
conducted on the influent and effluent composites once per week; these analyses will be conducted by New
Jersey Institute of Technology. Once each week, fecal coliform and grease and oil measurements will be
made on grab samples. The fecal coliform analyses will be measured on blended samples; this will be to
account for coliform occlusion within larger particles. Any floatable material collected in the separation
compartment (held at the surface within the center vortex) will be removed at least twice (more often if
warranted) per week and quantified.
92
-------
(b) Operations During Routine Monitoring Periods
The operational and sampling/monitoring tasks during the typical, "routine" monitoring week can
be summarized as follows. Consider a day when the screen is to be cleaned and the flow increased (e.g.
day 6):
(1) Record flow rate to the unit. Measure the underflow rate. Record head
measurement.
(2) Collect the 2-hour composite influent, effluent and underflow samples, mix
thoroughly and take aliquots for required analyses.
(3) After the 2-hour composite is collected, vary the flow from a low to high rate. At
each flow setting, once the unit is stabilized, record the flow and head
measurements.
(4) Turn off the flow to the CDS unit (and all downstream operations), drain the unit
to approximately one half the screen level and remove the cover.
(5) Remove any floating material, drain and weigh. Measure and record volume.
(6) Drain the unit to below the screen. Observe the condition of the screen and record.
Take pictures of the interior of the unit and the condition of the screen.
(7) Clean the screen by procedures set by CDS. This will entail hosing the screens
and brushing the debris off the screen surface. The material will be swept to the
sump; any floatable material will be captured and added to the other floatable
materials removed from the unit.
(8) Restore the unit cover and bring the screen back on-line.
(9) Repeat the flow variation and head measurement sequence, as conducted in Step
(3).
(10) Set the desired flow rate for the next several test days. Measure the sump
underflow rate and set it to approximately 10 percent of the total flow. Record the
flow measurement.
(11) Collect 2-hour composite samples of the CDS influent, effluent and underflow
streams.
(12) Continue operations and flow through the system.
Other operating days would entail simply maintaining the flow through the system (weekends and
holidays), or conducting the necessary sampling under the stated operating conditions (test days). The
cleaning (and associated flow-headloss measurements) task is expected at this point to occur about once
per week, unless otherwise warranted.
93
-------
2.5.2.3 Floatables Capture - Demonstration Run
When the 1200-micron screen is tested, two of the "routine" monitoring days will include direct
input of a floatables "matrix" to assess the capture efficiency of the larger screen for litter-type trash. These
will likely occur during the latter part of the 16 test days in Series 1, on days 9 and 14 (see Table 2-1).
After the start of a selected test day's compositing, litter will be injected into the inlet of the unit. This will
be done with a large diameter tube (e.g., 4 inches) which will be used to direct the trash, pushed through
the tube with a rod. This will be done three times within each of the 2-hour compositing intervals for the
given test day. Note that during these special sampling periods, the downstream operations will be
temporarily curtailed.
The matrix will be synthesized on the basis of work conducted by HydroQual for New York City,
which characterized and quantified floatables reaching combined sewer outfalls from street runoff. Similar
matrices were utilized during direct testing to evaluate catch basin trapping efficiencies. At this point, the
suggested matrix will be comprised of the following (equal numbers of each): plastic (bags, candy
wrappers, straws, bottle caps, juice bottles, hard plastic pieces), glass (broken vials), metal (cans),
polystyrene (pieces and cups), paper (cigarette butts). The inputs would be at a rate to be determined; for
example, one or two cubic feet total per day. The matrix would be pre-soaked for at least 10 minutes to
simulate wet weather conditions.
During this floatables capture evaluation, a 1000-micron netting will be fitted into the 12-inch drain
in order to capture any residual litter passed by the unit (this has not been tested, although it is not expected
that any debris of that size will pass the CDS unit). Knowing what passed will enable an assessment of the
capture efficiency of the screen. The unit will also be closely observed and documented with respect to
retention of the material and avoidance of any clogging on the screen. Inspections will entail shutting the
flow off, draining the unit sufficiently to allow removal of the cover, and then observations of the internals
of the unit including the screen. This will be done at the end of the 2-hour composite run (before each, the
unit will have been inspected and any floating debris removed).
2.5.3 Test Plan for the Fuzzy Filter
The Schreiber Fuzzy Filter will receive effluent from the CDS unit at all times. The operation of
the filter will be continuous with conditions set and sampling conducted concurrently with the CDS unit.
The variables that will be imposed will be flow and compression setting.
2.5.3.1 Fuzzy Filter Demonstration Framework and Limitations
The Fuzzy Filter unit will be operated within the following framework and limitations:
94
-------
(1) Three compression settings will be evaluated. These will be 10, 20 and 30 percent.
(2) The wastewaters will be drawn from the CDS effluent only. The Filter will not be
operated with wastewaters that have not been screened.
(3) Flows to the Filter will be between 20 and 90 gpm. These are equivalent to flux rates
between 9 and 40 gpm/ft2
(4) The wash is set to cycle when the pressure switch exceeds 60 inches above the static pump
head, per the manufacturer's recommendation. If more frequent washing is determined to
be necessary, the cycling time will be modified. As a failsafe, the unit will automatically
wash every 6 hours.
2.5.3.2 Fuzzy Filter Demonstration Run - Test Design
The test program for the Fuzzy Filter will encompass varying both the compression setting and the
flow within a test series, as shown on Table 2-1. The media will not be changed throughout the period.
Actual flows and wastewater conditions will be dictated by the operations of the CDS unit, as discussed
in Section 2.5.2.
(a) Routine Monitoring
Flow rates will be recorded at the start and finish of any direct sampling event and as a routine
matter during daily monitoring and maintenance of the system. The flow rate during a wash is equivalent
to the feed forward flow rate, as measured by FM3, the feed flow meter. The wash waters are cycled
through the Aquionics unit if the unit is operating at the time.
Influent and effluent samples will be generated on each of the "test" days as shown on Table 2-1
for each noted operating condition. All samples will be 2-hour composites, collected manually as a
composite of grabs taken every 20 minutes. The influent sample is identical to the CDS effluent sample
and will be drawn from the influent tank to the PCI-Wedeco unit. The effluent sample will be drawn from
a tap off the effluent line of the Fuzzy Filter.
The wash waters will be sampled on the days that the influent/effluent are sampled. This will be
done as a continuous composite by opening a tap on the wash line and allowing it to flow from this tap into
a collection drum during the wash cycle. This will be the equivalent of a continuous time composite.
The sampling, analysis and monitoring schedule will be as shown in Section 3 on Tables 3-1, 3-2
and 3-3. The intent will be to sample the filter under a varied matrix of compression and hydraulic settings
and to monitor the system's suspended solids removal performance. Additionally, the washwaters will be
sampled and analyzed in order to develop a qualitative solids balance for the system.
95
-------
Table 2-1 shows specific compression settings for the Fuzzy Filter: C^ C2 and C3 represent 10, 20 and 30
percent compressions, respectively. In Series 1, these are coupled with flows of approximately:
QFFI = 2° gPm
QFF2 = 30 8Pm
QFFS = 4° gPm
QFF4 = 60 gPm
QFFS = 80 gPm
QFF6 = 90 gpm
as designated on Table 2-1. The effluent composites are each analyzed for TSS. Once per six test days
(coincident with the CDS analyses) the effluent is analyzed for PSD. The wash waters, when collected,
will be analyzed for TSS only.
(b) Operations During Routine Monitoring
The operational and sampling/monitoring tasks during a typical, "routine" monitoring week can
be summarized as follows. As discussed, this ties in with the operation of the CDS unit:
(1) Record the flow rate to the unit. Record pressure readings and record the wash cycles
experienced since the previous test day.
(2) Mix and draw a sample from the backwash collection drum. Turn off the backwash
sampling valve.
(3) Collectthe first 2-hour composite of the effluent, coincident with the CDS effluent sample.
Mix thoroughly and take aliquots for analysis.
(4) After the first composite has been collected, change the flow rate to the next setting, as
described by the Test Plan on Table 2-1.
(5) Once the CDS unit operations have been modified as needed, commence the collection of
the second 2-hour composite, again coincident with the collection of the second CDS
effluent sample. Mix and split off the aliquots required for analysis.
(6) Set the flow to the filter to that planned for sampling the next "test day." For example, if
the next sampling will be at 80 gpm, this should be the flow rate that the unit operates at
until that composite has been collected. Open the wash sampling valve.
As shown on Table 2-1, the Fuzzy Filter will be sampled regularly, typically 5 days per week. Other than
when required for maintenance or for times when the CDS unit is shut down, the filter will be operated on
a continuous basis. When on standby, the feed pump will be off and there will be no flow to the unit. If
the Fuzzy Filter remains idle for an extended period between runs (more than 1 week), the media will need
to be disinfected prior to restarting.
96
-------
2.5.4 Test Plan for the PCI-Wedeco UV System
The PCI-Wedeco UV unit will receive flow from the CDS unit. It has an expected operating range
of 50 to 350 gpm. Its operation will be semi-continuous except when the system is being evaluated for
fouling impacts.
2.5.4.1 PCI-Wedeco Demonstration Framework and Limitations
The demonstration framework and limitations established for the PCI-Wedeco UV system are
summarized as follows:
(1) All lamps (24) will be operated at full power
(2) The cleaning device, an automatic wiper, will be operated at all times. This will be
at a minimum stroke rate of 15 strokes per hour.
(3) The quartz sleeves will be manually cleaned before each sampling event during the
test series summarized on Table 2-1. This task will include cleaning the channel
walls and floor.
(4) The fouling of the quartz sleeves, with and without the wiping system in operation
will be evaluated separately, outside of the schedule presented in Table 2-1.
2.5.4.2 PCI-Wedeco Demonstration Run - Test Design
The only operating variable imposed on the UV system will be flow. All other operational
variables, including wiper rate and lamp power will be held relatively constant. Actual flows and
wastewater conditions will be dictated by the operations of the CDS unit. Conditions for Series 1 are
summarized on Table 2-1.
(a) Routine Monitoring
Flow rates will be set for the unit after activating the system. This will be done only after the unit
has been cleaned. The flow for the UV unit is measured indirectly by taking FM2 and subtracting the flow
rate measured at FM3 (influent to the Fuzzy Filter). Once the flow rate for a specific sampling is set (per
Table 2-1) and the system is stabilized with respect to flow and water level (about 15 minutes will be
allowed), grab samples will be taken from the influent and effluent tanks of the PCI channel.
The sampling for the PCI unit will be coordinated with that of the CDS unit in that the grabs will
be taken within the timeframe representing the 2-hour composites for the CDS and Fuzzy Filter units. As
shown on Table 2-1, the PCI unit will be sampled three out of each five test days. On two of these days,
two samplings will be conducted, while on the third day, three flow loadings will be sampled in duplicate
97
-------
(the Fuzzy Filter is bypassed on these days, during the UV Systems' sampling cycles).
Table 2-1 shows specific flow designations for Test Series 1. The flows represented for the
PCI-Wedeco unit are set at this point at:
Qwi = 75 gpm
QW2= 120 gpm
QW3 = 160 gpm
QW4 = 200 gpm
Qws = 240 gpm
Qwe = 300 gpm
Qw? = 350 gpm
As the program moves to Series 2 and 3, the flow designations for the PCI-Wedeco unit will be established
based on the results of the first test series. The grabs taken from the PCI unit will be independent of the
2-hour composites taken forthe CDS unit. The influentwill be analyzed for fecal coliform, TSS, and %T
(T and F). The effluent will be analyzed for fecal coliforms.
(b) Operations During Routine Monitoring Periods
The operation of the PCI-Wedeco unit during the test days will encompass the following routine:
(1) On a designated test day for the PCI unit, shut off any flow to the PCI unit. If there
is flow from the CDS unit at the time (which will be typical) open the bypass
(downstream of the CDS flow meter, FM1) and close the control valve to the PCI
unit (this will still enable flow to the Fuzzy Filter if it is operating at the time).
Allow the channel to drain. Remove and clean the lamp modules and quartz sleeves.
Swab down the sides and bottom of the channel, rinse the entire system thoroughly
with clean water, and then restore the lamp modules to their proper placement.
(2) Set the operations for the CDS unit, open the PCI control valve and then establish
the flow rate through the UV unit, per Table 2-1. This may require using the bypass
immediately downstream of the CDS flow meter (FM1). The flow through the PCI
unit is the flow measured by FM2 minus the flow through FM3.
(3) Turn on the lamps once flow is established in the unit. Check to be certain that all
lamps are operating. Note that when they are cleaned or taken out of the channel,
that the lamps are properly positioned with respect to the amalgam pool (it should
be on the top) before placing the modules back into the channel.
98
-------
(4) Bring the unit to stable operation by allowing the lamps to warm for a minimum of
one-half hour, and being sure that the liquid level is steady and within the desired
range of depth above the upper quartz surface (between 2 and 3 cm).
(5) Record the liquid level, head difference between the inlet and exit points of the lamp
battery, flow rate, wastewater temperature, lamp output (on PCI control panel) and
operating hours.
(6) Take grab samples from the upstream and downstream tanks of the channel.
(7) Allow the system to flow at this rate until the first CDS composite has been
collected. At that point, change the flow rates per Table 1 for the second sampling.
Repeat steps 4 through 6.
(8) At the end of the samplings for the PCI unit, turn off the lamps. The unit should be
left in a flowing condition, with the lamps off and the wipers on, until the next
sampling event. The flow should be as high as is permissible during these standby
periods.
During other non-test days, the unit will be kept in operation, with the wiper on, but with the lights off.
The only time this would be changed is when special studies are being conducted to evaluate the fouling
of the quartz sleeves.
2.5.4.3 Fouling studies for the PCI-Wedeco UV Unit
Through the course of the testing, specific experiments will be conducted to evaluate the impact
of quartz fouling. This will essentially entail leaving the unit running, lamps on, at some predetermined
flow, with or without the wiper in operation, and monitoring the effluent fecal coliforms.
The periods tentatively set to run these experiments are on test days 9 and 10, 20 and 21, 25 and
26, and 30 and 31. For each of these periods, on the previous day after the samples have been taken, the
lights will not be turned off. Instead, operations will be sustained at the same flow rate. The wiper may
be kept on or turned off; the intent of the study is to do this twice with the wiper on and twice with the
wiper off.
Fecal coliform will be monitored in the influent and effluent every 8 hrs. As the coliforms increase
beyond a preset level (this is anticipated to be approximately 10,000 cfu/100 mL in the effluent), the quartz
will be manually cleaned and the monitoring continued. These periods will be scheduled such that the
99
-------
weekends can be used to complete the sampling effort.
2.5.5. Test Plan for the Aquionics Medium Pressure UV System
The Aquionics UV system will receive flow from either the CDS unit or from the Fuzzy Filter.
Operations will be semi-continuous. The variables that will be imposed for the evaluation of performance
are flow and lamp power.
2.5.5.1 Medium Pressure UV System Demonstration Framework and Limitations
The evaluation of the medium pressure UV lamp system will encompass the following framework
and limitations:
(1) One power setting will be used for the lamps at all times. This is the lower of three
available, equivalent to approximately 125 kW UV output (nominal).
(2) The wiper system will be operated at all times at the maximum stroke rate, which is
approximately 6 strokes/hour.
(3) The system is limited by the throughput from the Fuzzy Filter and/or the Fuzzy Filter feed
pump (when the Filter itself is being bypassed).
(4) The lamp/quartz assemblies will be manually cleaned prior to the performance samplings.
(5) Fecal coliform analyses will be done on blended samples.
(6) In no case can the unit be left on without flow through the reactor. The will result in
damage to the reactor.
2.5.5.2 Medium Pressure Demonstration Run - Test Design
The test program for the Aquionics UV system is presented on Table 2-1. As shown for Test Series
1 on Table 2-1, the unit will receive flow from the Fuzzy Filter or from the CDS unit (bypassing the Filter).
Flow rates will be recorded before and after any sampling event, as will the appropriate monitoring
parameters specific to the unit. Flow meter FM4 measures the flow through the medium pressure system.
(a) Routine Monitoring
Flow rates, as designated by Table 2-1, will be set for the unit after activating the system. This will
be done only after the unit is cleaned. Once the system is stabilized with respect to flow and lamp output,
grab samples will be taken from the influent tank and effluent sample tap.
The sampling for the Aquionics unit will be coordinated with that of the Fuzzy Filter and/or CDS
100
-------
unit, in that the grabs will be taken within the 2-hour compositing period for the effluents from either unit.
Sampling of the UV unit will be on three of each five test days, using the same schedule as the PCI UV
system on Table 1 . On two of these days the unit will receive effluent from the Fuzzy Filter; on the third
day, the Filter will be bypassed and the UV unit will receive effluent from the CDS unit. Sampling will
be in duplicate on this third day.
Table 2-1 shows the specific flow designations for Test Series 1. The flows represented for the
Aquionics unit are:
QAI = 30
QA2 = 50 gpm
QA3 = 70 gpm
QA4= 100 gpm
QA5=150gpm
As the study moves to Series 2 and 3, these flow designations will be established, based on the results of
the first test series. The grabs taken for the Aquionics unit are independent of the composites taken for the
CDS and Filter units. The influents will be analyzed for fecal coliform, %T (T and F), and TSS. The
effluents will be analyzed for fecal coliforms.
(b) Operations During Routine Monitoring Periods
During designated test days (Table 2-1), the operation of the Aquionics unit will encompass the
following routine:
(1) On a designated day for sampling the Aquionics unit, shut off any flow to the unit.
This may entail using the overflow from the Fuzzy Filter effluent tank. Allow the
unit to drain. Disassemble the reactor and remove the quartz sleeves. Manually
clean the quartz and rinse the reactor shell. Reassemble the system.
(2) Set the operations for the upstream units (CDS and/or Fuzzy Filter), start the
Aquionics unit feed pump (in the Fuzzy Filter effluent tank) or the Filter feed pump
(if the Filter is being bypassed) and set the flow rate though the UV unit.
(3) Turn the lamps on once the flow is established. Check for operation of the lamps
and allow them to stabilize for at least one -half hour.
(4) Record the flow and other operating parameters pertinent to the Aquionics unit.
(5) Take grab samples of the influent and effluent from the Aquionics unit.
(6) Allow the unit to continue at the set flow rate until finished collecting the 2-hour
composites for the Filter and CDS. At that point, change the flow rates to all units,
as called for in Table 2-1, for the second sampling. Repeat steps 4 and 5.
101
-------
(7) At the end of the samplings, turn off the lamps. The unit should be left in a flowing
condition, with the lamps off and the wipers on, until the next sampling event. The
flow should be as high as is permissible during these standby periods.
During other non-test days, except when conducting fouling tests, the unit will be kept in a standby mode
with flow on, wipers on and lamps off.
2.5.5.3 Fouling Studies for the Aquionics UV Unit
As with the PCI unit, experiments will be conducted to determine the rate of fouling of the quartz
sleeves with and without the wiper in operation. The periods tentatively identified to conduct these
experiments are the same as those for the PCI unit: Test days 9 and 10, 20 and 21, 25 and 26, and 30 and
31. For each of these, on the preceding day, after the last samples have been taken (these become the
"initial" samples for the fouling study), the lights will be kept on and the flow will be maintained at the
same rate. The wiper may be kept on or off, depending on the purpose of the immediate test. It is the
intent of the test plan to evaluate the unit twice with the wiper in operation and twice without it.
Fecal coliforms will be monitored in the influent and effluent every 8 hours. As the effluent
coliforms increase to a level above 10,000 cfu/lOOmL, the unit will be shut down and the quartz cleaned.
Once cleaned, the operation will be started again (with an "initial condition" sampling) and the monitoring
continued. As mentioned with the PCI unit, these experiments will be scheduled such that the weekends
can be utilized for the additional sampling.
2.5.6 Bench-Scale, Dose-Response Analyses
Special testing will also be conducted on specific samples collected at the site and off-site. These
samples are:
(1) CSO Samples: Three samples will be collected as grabs during an overflow event in the
NYC metro area.
(2) Raw Wastewater
(3) CDS Effluent (after 1200- and 600-micron screening)
(4) Fuzzy Filter Effluent
At minimum, this represents 6 samples. As will be discussed below, replicates will be run on certain
samples in addition to evaluating the impact of particulates and particulate size on a selected number of
samples.
102
-------
2.5.6.1 Dose-Response Test
A dose-response test will be run on a lab-scale collimated beam apparatus. This is a device that
collimates UV light from a conventional UV source, such that its intensity can be accurately measured.
A sample is exposed to this intensity for a fixed time, yielding an accurately applied dose. The fecal
coliforms are measured before and after application of the dose, over a series of doses, yielding a
"dose-response" relationship. Three to four doses, in addition to a control (no dose) will be run with each
of these. The exposed samples will be blended before enumeration for fecal coliform.
This dose response analysis will be run on two to three replicates of samples 2, 3 and 4, as
described above. It will be conducted on each of the three CSO replicates identified as sample 1. Each
sample will also be characterized for TSS and PSD.
2.5.6.2 Impact of PSD on Dose-Response Relationship
At least one of each of the above samples will also be tested via the dose-response procedure for
the impact of particulates and particulate size. In addition to the raw sample that is subjected to the dose
response analysis, the sample will be serially filtered through filters with rated retention sizes of 50, 20,
5 and 1 micron. An aliquot from each filtrate will be analyzed for suspended solids and will be dosed at
a minimum of three dose levels. Additionally, the exposed samples (and controls) will be enumerated for
fecal coliforms with and without blending.
The results of this portion of the test program will allow for an evaluation of the impact of
particulates on disinfection efficiency, and a determination of the size particles that are significant to
disinfection. The actual work will be scheduled for times that become available through the test program,
generally because of downtime with the pilot plants.
2.5.7 Other Data Compilation
To the extent that it is necessary to support the project objectives, other related data collected by
the RCSD plant will be compiled. This data is outside the scope of the QA objectives and will be used for
comparative purposes only. These will include:
(1) Plant influent wastewater characterization data for one year prior to the startup of
the study, and for the term of the study. These will include flows (daily, minimum
and maximum hourly), BOD5, TSS, G/O, pH, and Temperature.
(2) Weather related data, including temperature and precipitation records (daily, and
maximum hourly rates).
(3) Grit Removal (quantitation on a daily/weekly basis)
103
-------
(4) Primary effluent BOD5 and TSS (daily concentrations)
(5) Primary Clarifier operating conditions (number in operation).
These data will be analyzed to construct the characteristics of the plant wastewaters and the impact of storm
events, and to assess the efficiencies of the grit removal chamber and primary clarifiers relative to that of
the CDS and Fuzzy Filter systems.
104
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 summarize the sampling, monitoring and analytical schedule to be followed
by the project. Sample collection will be by HydroQual personnel, assisted as needed by RCSD personnel.
Analyses will be conducted at the RCSD laboratory. Analyses for TSS, G/O, and Fecal Coliforms will
be done by approved EPA and Standard Methods, 19th Ed. PSD analyses will be conducted by NJIT at
their laboratory in Newark. HydroQual personnel will deliver the samples. Percent transmittance analyses
will be conducted at HydroQual.
3.1 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
Table 2-1 in Section 2 presented the test plan to be followed for the four pilot plants. This table also
identified specific sampling and analysis plans for each "test day," noting them as plans "A," "B" and "C."
These plans are presented on Tables 3-1,3-2 and 3-3, respectively, and primarily reflect which systems are
being sampled that particular day:
A.... CDS -+ PCI-Wedeco UV
CDS -" Fuzzy Filter ->• Aquionics UV
B .... CDS -+ PCI-Wedeco UV
CDS -" Aquionics UV
C .... CDS -" Fuzzy Filter
Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 identify the sampling location (see Figure 3) and then explain the type of sample
to be taken:
C — 2-hour Composite
G.... Grab
In general, the composite samples are collected for the CDS and Fuzzy Filter. Grab samples are collected
for the two UV systems. The analyses to be conducted on the samples are presented, limited to only a few
parameters relevant to the specific systems:
Suspended Solids (TSS) Conducted on the composites generated for the CDS and
Fuzzy Filter units, including their respective waste solids
streams.
105
-------
The TSS analysis is also conducted on each grab influent
sample collected for the UV systems.
Fecal Coliform (Blended)
All grab samples will be analyzed for fecal coliforms.
These will represent the influents and effluents of the two
UV units. Periodically, samples will also be taken of the
raw wastewater entering the CDS unit, as shown on Table
2-1.
Note that the fecal coliforms will be done on samples that
are pre-blended, or homogenized. Selected samples, as
noted on the Table 2-1, schedules will also be analyzed
for fecal coliforms without pre-blending.
Transmittance
The grab influent samples for each of the UV units will
all be analyzed for percent transmittance at 254 nm (%T).
These will be done on unfiltered and filtered samples.
The filtered analysis will use the filtrate generated from
the TSS analysis.
Grease and Oil
Grease and Oil (G/O) analyses will be done periodically,
per the Table 2-1 schedules, on the raw influent and the
effluents from the CDS and Fuzzy Filter units. These
will be grab samples collected during the 2-hour
compositing period for the two units.
Particle Size Distribution
Particle size distribution (PSD) analyses will be collected
only on the composites collected for the CDS influent and
effluent and for the Fuzzy Filter effluent. This analysis
will typically be done once per week at these locations.
pH
pH will be measured on a grab sample only at the CDS
effluent location. Since no chemical additions or
treatments are being practiced, this is believed to be
sufficient.
Temperature
Temperature will be measured once per day at the
effluent location for the CDS unit.
106
-------
The Tables also present the monitoring parameters to be recorded during these sampling events, including
flow, pressure, head loss, liquid depths, relative intensity and wiper interval.
Flow
Flow meters FM1 through FM4, as designated on Figure
1-3 (3) , will be used to measure flow for the four
systems. Typically, flows will be recorded every time a
sample is collect from a particular unit, including the
grabs taken to construct a composite.
Pressure
There are two pressure gauges in the system. These will
be recorded each time a sample is generated. The
locations are the CDS influent line and the Fuzzy Filter
influent.
Headloss
Headlosses will be monitored with the open-channel UV
system. These will be recorded by the level differential
between locations up and downstream of the PCI lamp
battery.
Headlosses as a function of flow rate will also be done
with the CDS unit, as noted on the Table 2-1 schedules.
This will be done once per week before and after cleaning
a screen.
Depth
Depth will be measured in the PCI UV unit at each
sampling. This will be done up and downstream of the
lamp battery.
Relative Intensity
Relative Intensity meter readings on the two UV units
will be recorded at each sampling.
Wiper Interval
The preset wiper stroke rate will be recorded for both UV
units at each sampling.
Lamp Hours
The cumulative lamp hour meters will be recorded at each
sampling for the two UV units.
107
-------
3.2
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
As discussed, there are two sample types that will be taken: grab and composite. There are a total
of 7 sampling locations, as designated on Figure 2-5. The procedures for sampling are as follows:
Location 1: CDS Influent This is the head tank. Samples will be grabs taken about 6 inches
below the surface near the center of the tank.
Location 2: CDS Effluent, PCI Influent and Fuzzy Filter Influent (and Aquionics Influent when
the Fuzzy Filter is bypassed)
This is the front tank section of the PCI-Wedeco unit.
Samples will be grabs taken about 6 inches below the
surface of the section, near the center.
Location 3: PCI Effluent
Samples will be grabs taken from the effluent section of
the PCI unit, approximately 1 foot downstream of the
lamp battery. The sample will be taken from about 6
inches below the surface, near the center of the channel.
Location 4: Fuzzy Filter Effluent, Aquionics Influent
This is a tap off the effluent line from the Fuzzy Filter.
The line will be purged for 30 seconds before the grab
sample is taken.
Location 5: Aquionics Effluent
This is a tap off the effluent line from the Aquionics unit.
The line will be purged for 30 seconds before the grab
sample is taken.
Location 6: CDS Underflow
This is a 2-inch tap off the 2-inch solids underflow line.
The underflow runs continuously when the CDS unit is
operating. When a grab sample is to be collected the
sampling valve will be opened and the discharge valve
(downstream of the sampling tap) will be closed, forcing
the entire flow through the sample tap into a 5-gallon
pail. When the pail is full, the discharge valve will be
opened and the sample valve closed. The bucket contents
will then be stirred sufficiently to keep the contents
108
-------
mixed. A grab sample will be collected from the bucket
while it is being mixed.
Location 7: Fuzzy Filter Wash A tap located on the wash line will be kept open when the
unit is in the wash cycle. This will allow a steady stream
from the tap, directed into a 5-gallon bucket, during the
entire cycle. Once the cycle is complete, the sample in
the bucket will be stirred sufficiently to suspend the
solids and an aliquot drawn for analysis (while the bucket
contents are being stirred).
A stainless steel pail will be used in all locations, except 6 and 7, to collect the "bulk" grab sample.
It will then be used to immediately pour the sample to the respective containers when grab samples are to
be used for analysis. These may include sterile 1L opaque jars for fecal coliform analyses, wide mouth 1
L plastic containers for TSS, %T, and pH analyses, and/or 1 L wide-mouth amber jars for O/G analysis.
When doing this transfer, the contents of the pail will be stirred continuously and the aliquots poured
quickly. The fecal coliform jars will be transported in PVC containers to avoid any contact with sunlight.
When generating a 2-hour composite sample, including sample locations 6 and 7, the grabs are
collected every 20 minutes. Approximately 1 L of each 20 minute grab is added to a 5-gallon pail provide
for each location from which a composite is collected (Locations 1,2,4,6 and 7). Hereto, the grab sample
is stirred continuously as the 1 L aliquot is transferred to the dedicated 5-gallon bucket. Once the 2-hours
is completed (resulting in the collection of six 20-minute grabs), the resulting composite is then thoroughly
mixed and the proper aliquots are taken by pouring into their respective sample jars. These will be a 1L
plastic wide-mouth container for TSS, a 1L amber glass, wide-mouth jar for G/O and a 1L wide mouth
plastic container for PSD. The remaining liquid is discarded and the containers are cleaned.
Allocation 7, the sample collected in the 5-gallon bucket (see above discussion of location 6), will
represent a composite of the backwash. As described, the bucket will be thoroughly mixed while an aliquot
is poured from the bucket into a 1L plastic wide-mouth bottle (for TSS analysis). Allocation 6, 1 L of each
3 to 4 gallon grab sample will be poured into a dedicated 5-gallon bucket while the sample is being stirred.
Once the composite is collected (from a total of 6 grabs in a two hour period), the 5-gallon pail will be
stirred and an aliquot will be poured into a plastic, 1L wide-mouth container for TSS analysis.
The flow meters have been described earlier. Direct readouts are provided on each for recording
when sampling events take place. This will be done according to the schedules presented in Table 2-1.
109
-------
Test
Series
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 1. Testing Schedule and Relevant Operating Conditions for the Four Pilot
Plants*1'
Test
Day
No.
1
2
o
3
4
5
6
7
8
9(3)
10
11
12
13
14(3)
15
CDS Unit
S.Qd
S.Qd
S.Qd
S,QC2
S,QC3
S.Qd
S.Qd
S.Qd
S.Qd
SiQd
S,QC,
SiQd
Clean Screen
S,QC2
S,QC2
SiQd
S,QC3
S,QC2
S!QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
S,QC2
Clean Screen
S,QC3
S,QC3
S!QC2
S.Qd
S,QC3
S,QC3
S!QC3
S,QC3
^i^c3
S,QC3
Fuzzy
Filter
c, QFF5
c, QFF3
*^2 VFF5
C2QFF3
C, QFF6
C, QFF3
C2 QFF5
C2QFF3
C3 QFF3
C3QFF5
C, QFF6
C, QFF4
C3 QFF3
C3 QFF6
C3 QFF6
C3 QFF4
C3 QFF4
C, QFF4
C^ QFF5
C2 QFF6
c2 gFF4
C2 QFF6
c3 gFF5
C3 QFF3
PCI-
Wedeco
UV
QW2
QW3
Qwi Qwi
Qw4 Vw4
VW7 VW7
QW2
QW3
QW3
QW4
Qwi Qwi
Qw4 Qw4
Qw7 Qw7
QW4
QW5
(4)
(4)
QW5
QW6
Qwi Qwi
QW4 QW4
QW7 QW7
QW6
QW7
Aquionics
UV (All
Low Power)
QA3
QAI
QA2 QA2
QA4 QA4
QA7 QA5
QA3
QAI
QAI
QA3
QA2 QA2
QA4 QA4
QA7 QA5
QA4
QA2
(4)
(4)
QA2
QA2
QA2QA2
QA4 QA4
QA5 QA5
QA3
QA4
Sampling and
Analysis
Schedule <2)
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
A
C
C
110
-------
Test
Series
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Table 1. Testing Schedule and Relevant Operating Conditions for the Four Pilot
Plants*1'
Test
Day
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
CDS Unit
S,QC3
Change CDS
Screen
S2QCX
S2QCX
S2QCX
S2QCX
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2QCX
S2Qcx
S2QCX
Clean Screen
S2 Qcx
^2 Vex
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2QCX
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2QCX
Clean Screen
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
S2QCX
S2Qcx
S2Qcx
^2 Vex
Fuzzy
Filter
^2 QFFS
^2 QFFX
C, QFFX
^i VFFX
^2 VFFX
C2QFFX
^i VFFX
C, QFFX
C2 QFFX
^2 QFFX
C3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
C, QFFX
^i QFFX
C3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
^i QFFX
C, QFFX
^2 QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2 QFFX
PCI-
Wedeco
UV
QW7
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qw, Qw,
Qw2 Qw2
QW3 QW3
Qwx
Qwx
(4)
Qwx
Qwx
Qwi Qwi
Qw2 Qw2
Qw3 Qw3
Qwx
Qwx
(4)
Qwx
Qwx
Qwi Qwi
QW2 QW2
QW3 QW3
Qwx
Qwx
(4)
Aquionics
UV (All
Low Power)
QA2
QAX
QAX
QAX
QAI QAI
QA2 QA2
QA3 QA3
QAX
QAX
(4)
QAX
QAX
QAI QAI
QA2 QA2
QA3 QA3
QAX
QAX
(4)
QAX
QAX
QA,QA,
QA2 QA2
QA3 QA3
QAX
QAX
(4)
Sampling and
Analysis
Schedule <2)
A
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
A
C
111
-------
Test
Series
2
2
3
3
3
3
o
3
3
3
O
3
3
o
3
3
3
3
3
Table 1. Testing Schedule and Relevant Operating Conditions for the Four Pilot
Plants*1'
Test
Day
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
CDS Unit
S2QCX
S2QCX
S2QCX
Change CDS
Screen
S2QCX
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3QCX
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3QCX
S3 Qcx
S3QCX
S3 Qcx
S3Qcx
Clean Screen
S3 Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
Clean Screen
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
Fuzzy
Filter
C3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
C2 QFFX
^2 QFFX
C, QFFX
^i QFFX
^2 QFFX
^2QpFX
C, QFFX
C, QFFX
C2 QFFX
C2QFFX
^3 QFFX
C3QFFX
^i QFFX
^i QFFX
^3 QFFX
C3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
^3 QFFX
C, QFFX
^i QFFX
C2 QFFX
PCI-
Wedeco
UV
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwi Qwi
Qw2 Qw2
Qw3 Qw3
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwi Qwi
QW2 QW2
Qw3 Qw3
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwx
Qwi Qwi
Qw2 Qw2
Qw3 Qw3
Qwx
Qwx
Aquionics
UV (All
Low Power)
QAX
QAX
QAX
QAX
QAI QAI
QA2 QA2
QA3 QA3
QAX
QAX
QAX
QAX
QAI QAI
QA2 QA2
QA3 QA3
QAX
QAX
QAX
QAX
QA,QA,
QA2 QA2
QA3 QA3
QAX
QAX
Sampling and
Analysis
Schedule <2)
C
A
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
A
C
C
A
B
A
112
-------
Test
Series
3
3
3
Table 1. Testing Schedule and Relevant Operating Conditions for the Four Pilot
Plants*1'
Test
Day
No.
46
47
48
CDS Unit
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
S3Qcx
Fuzzy
Filter
C2 QFFX
^2 QFFX
C3 QFFX
^3 VFFX
C2 QFFX
PCI-
Wedeco
UV
Qwx
Aquionics
UV (All
Low Power)
QAX
Sampling and
Analysis
Schedule <2)
C
C
A
3.3
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Analytical procedures will follow EPA and Standard Methods protocols, where appropriate. These
are discussed in greater detail in the projects Quality Assurance plan in Section 4. Specifically, procedures
that are applicable to the analyses that will be conducted during this project can be summarized as follows:
Total Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliform
% Transmittance
Grease and Oil
Particle Size Distribution
pH
Temperature
Ed.)
Method 2540 D
Std Methods (19'
(Filtration/Gravimetric)
Std Methods (19th Ed.) Method 9222 D
Filtration/Direct Count - Membrane Filter Technique
1 cm quartz cell, UV spectrophotometric technique
Standard Methods (19th), Gravimetric
NJIT SOP
Std Methods (19th Ed.),
Std Methods (19th Ed.),
The percent transmittance is not a standard method. It follows the description provided in the
USEPA Design Manual for Municipal Wastewater Disinfection. The filtered analysis uses the filtrate from
the TSS analysis. The blending procedure uses a Waring-rype blender in the third (high) position for 30
seconds.
113
-------
Table 3-1. Analytical Schedule "A"
SAMPLING
POINT:
PARAMETERS
EVENT
SS
SS
FC Blended
FC Unblended
%T -Total7
%T -Filtered7
G/O
PSD
pH
Temperature
Flow - Headless9
Q
Pressure/Head Loss
Depth
Relative Intensity
Wiper Interval
Lamp Hours
1
CDS INF
1
C1
G2
G2
-
-
G8
C1'2
-
-
/
-
G
-
-
-
2
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
G
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
CDS EFF;
FF INF; PCI INF
1
C1
G
G
G2
G
G
G8
C1'2
G
G
C3,G4
G
-
-
-
2
C1
G
G
-
G
G
-
-
-
-
C3,G4
G
-
-
-
3
C1
G
G
-
G
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
PCI EFF
1
-
-
G
G2
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
G
G
G
G
G
2
-
-
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
G
G
G
G
G
3
-
-
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
FFEFF;
AQ INF
1
C1
G
G
G2
G
G
G8
C1'2
-
-
G4
-
-
-
-
2
C1
G
G
-
G
G
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
AQ EFF
1
-
-
G
G2
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
G
G
G
2
-
-
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
G
G
G
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
CDS
UNDERFLOW
1
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
2
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
FF BW
X
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
*C: Composite; G: Grab Sample
1 2 hr composite comprised of 6 grab samples taken 20 minutes apart
2 1/calendar week
3 Record instantaneous flow when each composite grab is collected
4 Record instantaneous flow when grab sample collected
5 Estimate flow volume/time
6 Backwash sampled as a composite of the run = I/day
7 Total1 is unfiltered, Filtered F areas filtrate from the suspended solids analysis on the same grab sample
8 Once per 2 calendar weeks.
9 Once/week screen is cleaned. Vary flow and measure headless. Do this on fouled and cleaned screen.
114
-------
Table 3-2. Analytical Schedule "B"
SAMPLING
POINT:
PARAMETERS
EVENT
SS
SS
FC Blended
FC Unblended
%T -Total7
%T -Filtered7
G/O
PSD
pH
Temp erature
Flow - Headless9
Q
Pressure/Head
Loss
Depth
Relative Intensity
Wiper Interval
Lamp Hours
1
CDS INF
1
C1
G2
G2
-
-
G8
C1'2
-
-
/
-
G
-
-
-
2
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
G
-
-
-
3
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G
-
-
-
2
CDS EFF;
FF INF; PCI INF
1
C1
G
G
G2
G
G
G8
C1'2
G
G
C3,G4
G
-
-
-
2
C1
G
G
-
G
G
-
-
-
-
C3,G4
G
-
-
-
3
C1
G
G
-
G
G
-
-
-
-
C3,G4
G
-
-
-
3
PCI EFF
1
-
-
G
G2
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
G
G
G
G
G
2
-
-
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
G
G
G
G
G
3
-
-
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
G
G
G
G
G
4
FFEFF; AQ
INF
1
-
-
G
G2
G
G
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
G
-
G
G
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
G
-
G
G
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
-
-
5
AQ EFF
1
-
-
G
G2
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
G
G
G
2
-
-
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
G
G
G
3
-
-
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G4
-
-
-
-
6
CDS
UNDERFLOW
1
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
2
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
3
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
7
FFBW
X6
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
*C: Composite; G: Grab Sample
1 2 hr composite comprised of 6 grab samples taken 20 minutes apart
2 1/calendar week
3 Record instantaneous flow when each composite grab is collected
4 Record instantaneous flow when grab sample collected
5 Estimate flow volume/time
6 Backwash sampled as a composite of the run = I/day
7 Total1 is unfiltered, Filtered F areas filtrate from the suspended solids analysis on the same grab sample
8 Once per 2 calendar weeks.
9 Once/week screen is cleaned. Vary flow and measure headless. Do this on fouled and cleaned screen.
115
-------
Table 3-3. Analytical Schedule "C"
SAMPLING
POINT:
PARAMETERS
EVENT
SS
SS
FC Blended
FC Unblended
%T -Total7
%T -Filtered7
G/O
PSD
pH
Temp erature
Flow - Headless9
Q
Pressure/Head Loss
Depth
Relative Intensity
Wiper Interval
Lamp Hours
1
CDS INF
1
C1
-
-
-
G7
C1'2
-
-
/
-
G
-
-
-
2
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
G
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
CDS EFF;
FF INF; PCI INF
1
C1
-
-
-
-
G7
C1'2
G
G
C3
G
-
-
-
2
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C3
G
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
PCI EFF
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
FFEFF;
AQ INF
1
C1
-
-
-
-
-
G7
C1'2
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
AQEFF
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
CDS
UNDERFLOW
1
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
2
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
FF
BW
X6
C1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C5
-
-
-
-
*C: Composite; G: Grab Sample
1 2 hr composite comprised of 6 grab samples taken 20 minutes apart
2 1/calendar week
3 Record instantaneous flow when each composite grab is collected
4 Record instantaneous flow when grab sample collected
5 Estimate flow volume/time
6 Backwash sampled as a composite of the run - I/day
7 Once per 2 calendar weeks.
8 Once/week screen is cleaned. Vary flow and measure headless. Do this on fouled and cleaned screen.
116
-------
Appendix C
New Jersey Institute of Technology Protocol for Particle Size Analysis
117
-------
Particle Size Determination Procedure
The principal steps for particle size distribution measurement, in accordance with the Standard Methods
For Examimtion of Water and Wastewater, are enumerated as follows:
1. Preparation. The instrument and any sample handling unit should be switched on and
any connections between the optical unit, sample handling unit and computer should be
in place. The correct range, lens should be fitted to the instrument and the lens caps
removed. Any sample cell should be correctly fitted and the windows should be clean.
In particular, the correct instrument range should be selected.
2. Background measurement. A background measurement is necessary before any sample
measurement.
3. Blank sample measurement. Measure at least one blank sample of particle-free water.
4. Calibration. Calibrate by determinbg the channel number into which particles of known
size are sorted by the instrument. Use spherical particles manufactured for this purpose.
Use three sizes of calibration particles in similar concentrations to calibrate a sensor.
Calibrate under conditions identical with those of the sample measurement, e.g., settings
on the instrument, flow rate, and type of sample cell.
5. Measurement of samples. The light scattered by the particles must be measured for a
suitable period to ensure that all particles are represented in the measurement and to
average out fluctuations caused by the dispersing medium. A suitable measurement period
is 10 to 30 seconds depending on the size range of the distribution.
6. Data reporting. Particle concentrations are shown in both tabular and graphical formats.
118
------- |