GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR THE

DISPOSAL OF CHLORINATED WATER

Maria W. Tikkanen, Ph.D., East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA
John H. Schroeter, P.E., East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA
Lawrence Y.C. Leong, Ph.D., QEP., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Irvine, CA
Rajagopalan Ganesh, Ph.D., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Irvine, CA


This document was supplied and copied with the permission of
Rajagopalan Ganesh, Ph.D for informational purposes only. We wish to
thank Rajagopalan Ganesh, Ph.D for offering this copy, for
distribution, of for his comprehensive work on dechlorination
chemistry and its application in treating discharge water.

Copied By:























GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR THE DISPOSAL OF CHLORINATED WATER
Maria W. Tikkanen, Ph.D., East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA
John H. Schroeter, P.E., East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA
Lawrence Y.C. Leong, Ph.D., QEP., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Irvine, CA
Rajagopalan Ganesh, Ph.D., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Irvine, CA
ABSTRACT
Periodically, water utilities discharge finished water containing residual chlorine during emergency and planned
activities that may end up in receiving streams. Chlorine is toxic to aquatic life, however, even at concentrations that cannot
be detected by field measurements. In addition, the Endangered Species Act may be listing more aquatic species in the near
future. Hence, preventing chlorinated water releases from reaching receiving streams is becoming an increasingly important
issue for water utilities.

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has recently undertaken an AWWARF project to prepare a guidance
manual for dechlorination of potable water releases. The objective of the project is to summarize applicable federal and
state regulations, summarize planned and unplanned sources of chlorinated water, summarize dechlorination methods
currently in use, and develop standard operation guidelines for disposal. Ten participating utilities located throughout North
America provided information concerning dechlorination, as well as overall technical review during the project. Field test
data were also developed by several water utilities concerning the use of dechlorination chemicals.

The AWWARF guidance manual summarizes the state of the art of dechlorination, provides a sample Fly Sheet
for quick reference for operationally focused management staff and operators, and recommends future work required to
develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) for each dechlorination activity.
INTRODUCTION
Chlorine is widely used as a disinfectant by water utilities. Chlorinated waters from potable water systems are
released to the environment through activities such as water main flushing, disinfection of new mains, distribution system
maintenance, water main breaks, filter backwash and other utility operations. Although chlorine protects humans from
pathogens in water, it is highly toxic to aquatic species in the receiving streams. In particular, chlorine may be toxic to
many species protected under the Endangered Species Act, even at very low concentrations.

Dechlorination is practiced by some water utilities during releases of chlorinated water. Several chemical and non-
chemical methods are used for chlorine neutralization during such releases. However, dechlorination is still an evolving
practice in the water industry. Impacts of dechlorination chemicals on the water quality of receiving streams are not well
documented. For example, over-application of chemicals such as sodium metabisulfite and sulfur dioxide, which are
commonly used for dechlorination, may deplete the dissolved oxygen concentration or alter the pH of receiving streams.
Currently, there is no industry guidance or AWWA standards for dechlorination of potable water releases. Recent changes
in regulatory approach, that includes a more ecological and watershed perspective, have caused an increased level of
scrutiny concerning current dechlorination practices. The regulatory review can become more significant as some of the
secondary impacts of the dechlorinated discharges are more completely understood.

Currently, most written materials that are available to water utilities concerning dechlorination practices are
summarized in utility reports. The reports are not readily available to other utilities that have to deal with dechlorination
issues.

East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA, has undertaken an American Water Works Association Research
Foundation (AWWARF) project to develop a guidance manual for the disposal of chlorinated water from potable water
sources. This guidance manual summarizes available information on current dechlorination regulations and disposal
practices in a centralized, easily available manner. The manual, which addresses dechlorination issues in the United States
and Canada has been prepared through the active participation of ten utilities in geographically diverse locations throughout
the U.S. and Canada. The utilities differ significantly in their use of disinfectant, source waters and in the population served
(Table 1). These variations in utility activities have an impact on the water management practices and hence, in the
approach to dechlorination. The manual addresses dechlorination of free and combined chlorine (chloramine) disinfectants.

Table 1. Participating Utility Information
Utility Location Population
Served
Water Source
(% Annual Basis)
Disinfection
Residual
East Bay Municipal Utility District Oakland, CA 1,200,000 100% Surface Combined
Bureau of Water Works Portland, OR 800,000 Primarily Surface Combined
City of Mesa Mesa, AZ 360,000 80% Surface, 20%
Ground
Free
Department of Public Utilities Naperville, IL 110,000 100% Surface Free
South Central Connecticut
Regional Water Authority
New Haven, CT 379,000 Surface & Ground Free
Environmental Operations
Division, Broward County
Pompano Beach,
FL
250,000 100% Ground Combined
Tacoma Public Utilities Tacoma, WA 300,000 90% Surface, 10%
Ground
Free
El Paso Water Service El Paso, TX 1,060,000 45% Surface, 55%
Ground
Free
Department of Water Works Cincinnati, OH 810,000 88% Surface, 12%
Ground
Free
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-
Carleton
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
650,000 100% Surface Combined

SCOPE OF WORK: GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR THE DISPOSAL OF CHLORINATED WATER
The objective of this project is to develop a guidance manual that summarizes the state of the art of dechlorination.
The following tasks were performed to accomplish this.
1) Identification of existing regulatory requirement and agencies. Federal, State and Provincial regulations related to
the disposal of chlorinated water were identified. The permit programs used by state/provincial regulatory agencies for
disposal of chlorinated waters were also summarized.

2) Identification of sources of chlorinated water releases. Data on various sources of chlorinated potable water release
were obtained from the participating utilities. The sources were then categorized based on the volume of flow, nature of
release and amount of chlorine present, in order to assist in the development of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

3) Identification and evaluation of existing disposal and treatment practices and technologies. Non-chemical and
chemical dechlorination methods currently practiced in the industry, their benefits and limitations were identified. In
addition, dechlorination chemical feed techniques, chlorinated water flow control measures, and analytical techniques for
measuring residual chlorine concentrations were briefly summarized.

4) Field test selected candidate technologies. Subsequently, field tests were conducted using six dechlorination
chemicals to obtain data on dechlorination efficiency. Rates of dechlorination, effect of over-application of chemicals,
impacts on water quality, impact of dechlorination chemical forms and impacts of the type of chlorine present were
evaluated.

5) Develop Guidance for chlorinated water disposal. The final task of the project was to assist in the development of
BMPs for disposal of chlorinated water. Based on the available data, a sample Fly Sheet was prepared to provide a state
of the art, quick summary for operationally focused management staff and operators for disposal of chlorinated water from
hydrants. In addition, future work required to facilitate development of BMPs for each dechlorination scenario were
identified.

STATE OF THE PRACTICE OF DECHLORINATION

Current Dechlorination Regulations

U.S. Regulations

Regulations For Residual Chlorine Concentration. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has
established Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for total residual chlorine (TRC) concentrations permissible in receiving
waters, to protect aquatic life and water quality. These concentrations are based on acute and chronic toxicity effects for
aquatic life. Under the acute toxicity criterion, the 1-hour average chlorine concentration of the stream should not exceed
19 g/L more than once every three years, on the average. Under the chronic toxicity criterion, the 4-day average
concentrations should not exceed 11 g/L more than once every three years, on the average.

Most states in the U.S. use 19 and 11 g/L as the acute and chronic criteria for TRC for receiving streams. Some
states have adopted a toxicity-based criterion as the water quality criterion for TRC. The state regulatory agencies require
water utilities to abide by the receiving water quality criterion while discharging chlorinated waters. In addition, the
regulatory agencies use WQC to develop maximum allowable chlorine concentrations while issuing general/individual
permits for discharge of chlorinated water into streams.

The permit processes used by state regulatory agencies to regulate chlorinated water discharge vary significantly
from state to state. California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Maryland and West Virginia have stringent regulatory
discharge limits for chlorinated waters. Chlorine discharge limits in all water releases into receiving streams must not
exceed 0.1 mg/L (or a more stringent limit) in these states. Other states have more than one general permit to regulate
various chlorinated water releases. However, these permits do not include all potable water discharges. Nebraska and
Texas regulate hydrotesting waters through a general permit or an administrative rule. Utah has administrative guidelines
for chlorinated water discharges. In many states, no general or individual permit program is in place for potable water
releases. Although permits are not required, utilities in these states are required to meet the water quality criteria of
receiving streams while discharging potable waters. Table 2 highlights selected states based on the severity of permit
processes for chlorinated water disposal.




Table 2. Status of permit program for chlorinated water release in the U.S.
Permit Requirement States
States regulating all chlorinated water discharges
through general permit, BMPs or individual permits.

California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Maryland
and West Virginia
States having multiple general permits. Colorado, Connecticut, Tennessee, Kentucky, South
Carolina, Wisconsin and Wyoming

States regulating hydrostatic test waters only. Hawaii, Nebraska, North Dakota and Texas

States with no general permits that may or may not
require individual permits for select discharges
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, New J ersey, New
Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and
Vermont

Associated Regulations to Chlorinated Water Releases in the U.S. In addition to residual chlorine concentrations, some
other water quality parameters must be monitored during disposal of chlorinated waters. For example, dechlorination of
chloramine residuals may result in the release of ammonia. USEPA has determined the maximum allowable acute and
chronic concentrations of ammonia based on the pH, temperature and the type of aquatic habitat present (warm vs. cold
water species) in receiving waters. Under the most stringent conditions, (cold water, pH of 9 at 30
o
C), a one-day average
total ammonia concentration must not exceed 0.58 mg/L as NH
3
and the four-day average must not exceed 0.08 mg/L as
NH
3
.

Most states have adopted the EPA criteria as the water quality standards for ammonia. Water utilities using
combined chlorine often maintain a residual chlorine concentration of less than 1.5 mg/L in potable waters, with a chlorine
to ammonia ratio of 4:1 to 5:1 by mass. This will result in a total ammonia concentration of approximately 0.4 to 0.5 mg/L,
which is less than the acute criterion of 0.58 mg/L for total ammonia under the worst-case scenario. A ten-fold dilution of
chloraminated water in the receiving stream will result in compliance with the chronic ammonia concentration criterion
(0.08 mg/L) under the most stringent conditions.

Hence, for the majority of dechlorination operations, ammonia released from chloramines is likely to be within the
regulatory requirements. However, some states may have regulations more stringent than the EPA criteria for selected
waters. Caution must be exercised in releasing dechloraminated water into receiving streams under such conditions.

Dechlorination using reducing agents such as sodium bisulfite and sodium metabisulfite may deplete oxygen
concentrations in receiving waters. Water quality standards for minimum dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations may vary
from state to state and by the type of water use. The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for certain fresh waters in
Oregon that provide for salmonid spawning, is as high as 11 mg/L. In contrast, DO concentrations as low as 2.5 mg/L are
permitted for certain waters in Arizona. However, in most cases, the minimum required DO concentrations for warm and
cold water streams, respectively, vary from about 5.0 to 6.0 mg/L and 6.0 to 9.0 mg/L.

Many dechlorinating agents produce hydrochloric and sulfuric acids while neutralizing chlorine. In most states,
receiving water pH standards vary with the use classification of the receiving streams. Most of the state water quality
standards require a receiving water pH between 6.0 and 8.5. In addition, many regulatory agencies require that the release
of chlorinated waters should not alter the pH of the receiving stream by more than 0.2 to 0.5 units.
Caution must be exercised in complying with ammonia, pH and DO regulations during dechlorination activities.

Canadian Regulations

Regulations For Residual Chlorine Concentration. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (1987) propose a water
quality criterion of 2 g/L of total residual chlorine for receiving streams. Many provincial regulatory agencies have
adopted this chlorine concentration as the WQC. However, the criteria for chlorine and chloramine concentrations are
currently being reviewed under the 1999 water quality guidelines.

The provinces of British Columbia and Ontario require all water releases to contain less than 2 g/L of chlorine.
In British Columbia, the regulatory discharge limit for intermittent flows is a function of the duration of the release as given
by the following equation:
TRC =[1074 (duration)
-0.74
] g/L,
Where, duration is the uninterrupted exposure period in minutes. The maximum concentration of total residual chlorine
should not exceed 100 g/L (0.1 mg/L) regardless of the exposure period.

Nova Scotia requires all new facilities to dechlorinate completely prior to discharge into receiving streams.
Existing water utilities must meet water quality criteria for receiving streams while discharging chlorinated waters.
Saskatchewan has a general permit for hydrostatic test water releases. Permissible chlorine concentrations are decided on a
case-by-case basis. Permit programs are not in place for other chlorinated water releases. New Brunswick recommends
release of chlorinated water into sanitary sewers. An individual permit is issued for chlorinated water releases to receiving
streams or storm sewers. Prince Edward Island uses groundwater with no chlorination for potable water supply. Hence, the
majority of the potable water releases do not have residual chlorine. Individual permits are issued when chlorinated water is
released after disinfection of new or repaired mains. Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec do not have a general permit for
potable water releases, but require all utilities to meet the discharge limit of 2 g/L through water treatment plant operating
permits. In Newfoundland, the residual chlorine concentration in released water should not exceed 1 mg/L.

Associated Regulations for Disposal of Chlorinated Water in Canada: In general, the water quality criteria for ammonia,
dissolved oxygen and pH in Canada are similar to those in the United States. In Newfoundland, the pH of the released
water should be between 5.5 and 9.0. In Saskatchewan, total ammonia concentrations in the receiving water can be as high
as 2.6 mg/L at pH 6.0 and 0
o
C to as low as 0.06 mg/L at pH 9.0 and 30
o
C.

Sources of Chlorinated Waters

Potential sources of chlorinated water releases were obtained from the participating utilities. Chlorine is present in
these waters as a result of disinfection of system components (water mains, storage facilities, etc.) or disinfection of potable
water. The concentration of chlorine present, and the amount of water released, depend on the source of the water release.
The releases can generally be classified into planned, unplanned and emergency releases.

Planned releases of chlorinated waters result from operation and maintenance activities such as disinfection of
mains, testing of hydrants, and routine flushing of distribution systems for maintenance. The volume, duration and chlorine
concentrations vary with the type of activity. For example, following repairs, water mains are disinfected with highly
chlorinated waters (50-300 mg/L). However, waters released from flushing activities generally contains less than 4 mg/L.
Although planned sources sometimes may contain high concentrations of chlorine, their discharges are generally easier to
control and hence, easier to dechlorinate.

Unplanned releases occur from activities such as main breaks, leaks and overflows. Unplanned releases in most
cases have lower chlorine concentrations (reflective of chlorine concentrations in the distribution system) than those in most
planned releases. Unplanned releases are harder to neutralize due to limitations in response time, staff availability and the
difficulty in containing these discharges.

Activities such as water main flushing in response to higher than allowable coliform counts, taste and odor
complaints from the public, and releases during fire fighting are examples of emergency releases of chlorinated waters.
Emergency sources of chlorinated waters are the most difficult types to dechlorinate, because of the extremely low
predictability of these events and limitations in the response time.

Table 3 categorizes sources that generate chlorinated waters according to varying TRC concentrations, durations
and flow rates. In developing these categories, low chlorine releases are defined as those containing less than 4 mg/L
chlorine. Flows greater than 500 gpm and lasting for more than a day are defined as high flows, and flows smaller than 50
gpm and lasting for less than 2 hours are classified as low flow releases. Remaining flows are considered moderate flow
releases.

Table 3. Sources of chlorinated water release
Characteristic of the release Source Activity
Planned, low chlorine, high
flow sources
Main dewatering (>24" diameter pipe inspection); Pumping plant and reservoir
maintenance (reservoir draining for maintenance); Standpipe cleaning; Aqueduct
dewatering; High pressure aqueduct releases; Treatment plant modifications
(draining of plants and clearwells).
Planned, low chlorine, moderate
flow sources
Main dewatering (<24" diameter new construction & maintenance); Pumping
plant/reservoir operation & maintenance (O&M) (new construction disinfection,
drain valve testing, dead end pumping to relieve excess pressure, reservoir
rehabilitation pipe flushing); Main flushing (due to taste and odor concerns, due
to Coliform Rule, preventative - to avoid water quality concerns, emergency
flushing, new cement lined pipes flushing); Temporary by-pass line flushing;
Hydrant testing; Planned distribution system maintenance (trench dewatering);
Treatment plant operational releases (filter to waste, filter backwash, sludge/water
from sedimentation basins).
Planned, low chlorine, low flow
sources
Pumping plant and reservoir O&M activities (maintenance or construction
related, tank freshening).
Planned, high chlorine,
moderate flow sources
Pumping plant and reservoir O&M activities (new construction disinfection);
Main flushing (following disinfection); Treatment plant new
construction/modification (plant disinfection).
Unplanned, low chlorine, high Pumping plant, reservoir activities (underground emergency scenarios); Water
flow releases main breaks.
Unplanned, low chlorine,
moderate flow releases
Pumping plant, reservoir O&M activities (reservoir overflow); Water main breaks
(smaller branches); Unauthorized hydrant opening.
Unplanned low chlorine, low
flow sources
Leakages (from reservoir altitude valves, underdrains, treatment plant basins and
temporary by-pass lines).
Passive Non-Chemical Methods for the Disposal of Chlorinated Water
Chlorine is a relatively unstable, moderately reactive element. In the environment, chlorine is neutralized upon
reaction with air, sunlight and other contacting surfaces. Furthermore, chlorine readily reacts with organic and inorganic
impurities in soil, paved surfaces, water and wastewater. Many utilities take advantage of these properties and dispose
chlorinated water passively by discharge into sanitary sewers, retention in holding tanks, or release to soil surfaces.

The advantage of dissipating chlorine passively is that such a process does not involve chemical addition. Hence,
utilities do not have to be concerned with the effects of neutralizing chemicals in receiving streams. Also, costs are
minimized, as well as health and safety concerns related to storage, transportation and handling of these chemicals are
avoided. A discussion of the effectiveness of various passive non-chemical methods for disposal of chlorinated water
follows.

Discharge of Chlorinated Waters in Sanitary Sewers
The release of chlorinated water into sanitary sewers is a very safe and effective means of disposing chlorinated
waters, in most cases. Most of the water utilities prefer this method as their first option for releasing chlorinated potable
waters. A very high demand exerted by sulfide and other inorganic/organic pollutants in sewage rapidly neutralizes
chlorine. In addition, since the water is not directly released to receiving streams, utilities do not have to be concerned with
meeting receiving water quality standards and discharge limits.

The availability of a sanitary sewer near the point of chlorinated water release, and the capacities of the sanitary
sewer/wastewater treatment plant to handle the additional load are the primary limitations associated with this method.
Potential upset of treatment plant operations due to the presence of chlorine must also be evaluated. Coordination with
sanitary system officials and caution to avoid potential cross-connection are required.

Discharge to Storm Sewers
Discharging chlorinated water into storm sewers may be an effective way to dissipate chlorine from some potable
water releases. However, storm waters are usually discharged into receiving streams or waters leading to streams. Also, the
impurities in storm water may not be sufficient to completely dechlorinate the water released.
Retention in Holding Tanks
The chlorine concentration in stored water gradually decreases with time due to aeration, reaction with
sunlight/surfaces of holding tanks. Some utilities in the United States and Canada store filter backwash water and main
disinfection water in holding tanks to allow for residual chlorine decay prior to discharge. Since dechlorination of super-
chlorinated water requires a large amount of chemicals, some utilities reduce the chlorine concentration by retention in
holding tanks, prior to adding dechlorination chemicals.

There are several limitations to this method. First, chlorine decay through natural reactions is extremely slow.
Decay of chlorine to meet regulatory discharge limits may take several hours to a few days. Second, activities such as
reservoir cleaning and large main dewatering produce a large volume of chlorinated water, requiring very large tanks for
storage. Also, it may be difficult and expensive to transport holding tanks to various dechlorination sites in the service area.

Land Application of Chlorinated Water
Organic and inorganic impurities in soil and pavements exert a significant amount of chlorine demand and rapidly
neutralize chlorine in waters. Hence, spraying chlorinated waters onto soils or pavements can be a very effective method for
disposing of chlorine-containing waters.

However, potential drainage of waters applied to land, particularly from recently cleaned roads and pavements,
into storm drains and receiving waters is a matter of concern. Land application of large volumes of water may lead to soil
erosion.

Discharge of Chlorinated Water for Groundwater Recharge
In some cases, chlorinated water, may be discharged to dry streambeds or to land for groundwater recharge. This
is an acceptable dechlorination practice if the water percolates before it reaches another body of water. Currently, no
standard practices have been developed for this activity. However, prior to any discharge, the area and the distance where
the discharge might travel must always be properly assessed. Efforts must also be coordinated with the local flood control
entity, where appropriate. During disposal of chlorinated water for groundwater recharge, dechlorination equipment should
be available for use, if necessary.

Discharging Through Hay Bales and Other Natural Obstructions
Backwash and planned water releases from the distribution system may be allowed to flow through hay bales or
other obstructions to dissipate chlorine prior to discharging into storm sewers and receiving waters. While the chlorine
demand exerted by these obstructions can be reasonably high, it may be difficult to achieve regulatory discharge limits in
some cases. Also, elaborate arrangements required to construct such barriers, practical difficulties in construction of such
barriers at various field discharge points, and potential soil erosion are some of the additional concerns in using this
technique.

Chemical Dechlorination

Whenever it is not possible to dispose of chlorinated waters safely by non-chemical methods, chlorine may be
neutralized using chemicals. Several solid, liquid and gaseous dechlorination chemicals are commercially available and are
widely used by water and wastewater utilities. This section describes the reactions of various chemicals with free and
combined chlorine, related water quality, health & safety issues, ease of use, cost and other issues related to the application
of the chemicals commonly used for dechlorination.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO
2
)
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a suffocating pungent odor. It is widely used in water and wastewater
treatment plants for dechlorinating backwash water and wastewater disinfected with chlorine. Sulfur dioxide reacts
instantaneously with free chlorine according to the following stoichiometry (1):
SO
2
+ H
2
O + HOCl SO
4
-2
+Cl
-
+ 3H
+

Sulfur dioxide Hypochlorous acid Sulfate

In the field, nearly 1.1 parts of SO
2
are required to neutralize 1 part of chlorine (2). SO
2
is an oxygen scavenger. It can
deplete dissolved oxygen in the discharge water and receiving stream. SO
2
can also reduce pH of water significantly.
Approximately 2.8 mg of alkalinity as CaCO
3
is consumed per milligram of chlorine reduced.

Sulfur dioxide is a toxic chemical subject to reporting requirements of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA). It has a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) rating of 2, 0 and 0 for health, fire and reactivity,
respectively. (Hazard ratings range from 0 to 4, with 0 indicating no hazard and 4 indicating extremely hazardous). It is an
extremely irritating gas. While it is suitable for use in facilities such as treatment plants and pumping stations, it is not best
suited for field applications.

Sodium Thiosulfate (Na
2
S
2
O
3
)
Sodium thiosulfate is a colorless, transparent monoclinic crystal widely used by municipalities for dechlorination.
It undergoes multiple reactions with free and combined chlorine, depending on solution pH (1,3). Reaction with chlorine
yields the following:
Na
2
S
2
O
3
+ 4HOCl + H
2
O 2NaHSO
4
+ 4HCl
Sodiumthiosulfate Hypochlorous acid Sodiumbisulfate Hydrochloric acid
Na
2
S
2
O
3
+ HOCl Na
2
SO
4
+S + HCl
Sodiumthiosulfate Hypochlorous acid Sodiumsulfate Hydrochloric acid
2Na
2
S
2
O
3
+ HOCl Na
2
S
4
O
6
+ NaCl + NaOH
Sodiumthiosulfate Hypochlorous acid Sodiumtetrathionate Sodiumchloride Sodiumhydroxide
The amount of thiosulfate required for dechlorination may vary with solution pH (3). Sodium thiosulfate is a
reducing agent. However, it scavenges less oxygen than sodium sulfite, bisulfite or metabisulfite.

Sodium thiosulfate is a skin, eye, nose and throat irritant. It has a NFPA Rating of 1,0, 0 for health, fire and
reactivity, respectively. An EPA toxicity study indicated that sodium thiosulfate is not very toxic to aquatic species. Sodium
thiosulfate may react slowly with chlorine under some conditions, and requires more time for dechlorination than most
dechlorination chemicals (4). Over-dechlorination with sodium thiosulfate may encourage thiobacillus and some other
bacterial growth in receiving streams, particularly during low flow conditions.

Sodium Sulfite (Na
2
SO
3
)
Sodium sulfite is another dechlorinating agent widely used by utilities. It is available in powder/crystalline and
tablet form. It undergoes the following reaction with free chlorine (3):
Na
2
SO
3
+ HOCl Na
2
SO
4
+ HCl
Sodiumsulfite Hypochlorous acid Sodiumsulfate Hydrochloric acid

On a weight-to-weight basis, approximately 1.775 parts of sodium sulfite are required to remove one part of
chlorine (5). Sodium sulfite is a reducing agent and is reported to scavenge more oxygen than sodium thiosulfate.

The major advantage of using sodium sulfite is that, it is available in tablet form. Many utilities find the tablets
easier to store, handle and apply as compared to solutions or powders. In addition, dechlorination tablets are very effective
for dechlorinating constant, low flow rate chlorinated releases.

Sodium Bisulfite (NaHSO
3
)
Sodium bisulfite is available as a white powder, granule or clear liquid solution. It is highly soluble in water.
Currently, many industries and wastewater utilities use sodium bisulfite solution for dechlorination. It undergoes the
following reactions with free chlorine:
NaHSO
3
+ HOCl NaHSO
4
+ HCl
SodiumBisulfite Hypochlorous acid Sodiumbisulfate Hydrochloric acid

On a weight-to-weight basis, approximately 1.45 parts of sodium bisulfite are required to dechlorinate 1 part of
chlorine. Sodium bisulfite is a good oxygen scavenger. Sodium bisulfite can cause skin, eye and respiratory tract irritation.
It is harmful if swallowed or inhaled. Sodium bisulfite may crystallize at room temperatures. It is highly viscous and
sometimes difficult to handle. Sodium bisulfite is highly corrosive and caution must be exercised in safely handling this
chemical. It has a NFPA rating of 1,0,1.

Sodium Metabisulfite (Na
2
S
2
O
5
)
Sodium metabisulfite is available as crystal, powder or solution. It reacts with chlorine as follows.
Na
2
S
2
O
5
+ 2HOCl +H
2
O 2NaHSO
4
+ 2HCl
Sodiummetabisulfite Hypochlorous acid Sodiumbisulfate Hydrochloric acid

Scavenging properties of sodium metabisulfite are comparable to that of sodium bisulfite. On a weight-to-weight
basis, approximately 1.34 parts of sodium metabisulfite are required to remove 1 part of free chlorine. Sodium metabisulfite
is an eye, throat, skin and lung irritant. The hazard ratings for sodium metabisulfite are 3,0,1.

Calcium Thiosulfate (CaS
2
O
3
)
Calcium thiosulfate is a clear crystalline substance, with little color, a faintly sulfurous odor and near neutral pH. It
reacts with free as well as combined chlorine. Calcium thiosulfate undergoes the following reactions with free chlorine (6).
CaS
2
O
3
+ 4HOCl +H
2
O CaSO
4
+ 4HCl + H
2
SO
4

Calciumthiosulfate Hypochlorous acid Calciumsulfate Hydrochloric acid Sulfuric acid
Approximately 0.99 and 0.45 mg of calcium thiosulfate is required to neutralize one mg of residual chlorine at pH
7.35 and 11, respectively. Calcium thiosulfate is not toxic to aquatic species. The96-hour LC
50
for fathead minnows is
greater than 750 mg/L. The NFPA hazard rating of calcium thiosulfate is 0,0,0.

One concern with using calcium thiosulfate is that dechlorination reactions using stoichiometric concentrations
require nearly five minutes for complete neutralization (6). Over-dosing of calcium thiosulfate may produce milky-colored
suspended solids, causing turbidity violations. Also, excess thiosulfate release may promote thiobacillus bacterial growth.

Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C)
Ascorbic acid has recently been used by several water utilities for dechlorination. The reactions with chlorine are
shown below:
C
5
H
5
O
5
CH
2
OH + HOCl C
5
H
3
O
5
CH
2
OH +HCl + H
2
O
Ascorbic acid

Hypochlorous acid Dehydroascorbic acid Hydrochloric acid

Approximately 2.5 parts of ascorbic acid are required to neutralize 1 part of chlorine. Ascorbic acid is not reported
to scavenge DO. Since ascorbic acid is weakly acidic, the pH of water may decrease slightly in low alkaline waters.
Caution must be exercised to prevent accidental inhalation or contact with the skin, eyes or lungs.

Sodium Ascorbate
In addition to ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate is also currently under evaluation by several utilities for
dechlorination. Sodium ascorbate undergoes the following reaction with free chlorine.

C
5
H
5
O
5
CH
2
ONa + HOCl C
5
H
3
O
5
CH
2
OH + NaCl + H
2
O
Sodiumascorbate Hypochlorous acid Dehydroascorbic acid Sodiumchloride

Approximately 2.80 parts of sodium ascorbate are required to neutralize one part of chlorine. Sodium ascorbate is
not reported to impact the DO or pH of the receiving streams. The pH of sodium ascorbate is approximately 7.0. The
chemical is very stable with a shelf life of at least one year in a dry state, if kept in a cool, dark place. However, once in
solution, the chemical degrades within a day or two.

Dechlorination Chemical Summary
Currently, sodium bisulfite, sodium sulfite and sodium thiosulfate are most frequently used by water utilities for
dechlorination. The choice of a particular dechlorination chemical is dictated by site-specific issues such as the nature of
water release, strength of chlorine, volume of water release, and distance from receiving waters. Sodium bisulfite is used by
some utilities due to its lower cost and higher rate of dechlorination. Sodium sulfite tablets are chosen by utilities due to
ease of storage and handling, and its ease of use for dechlorinating constant, low flow rate releases. Sodium thiosulfate is
used for dechlorination since it is less hazardous and consumes less oxygen than sodium bisulfite and sodium sulfite.
Ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate are used because they do not impact DO concentrations.

Knowledge on dechlorination efficiencies of various chemicals is incomplete. A comprehensive study evaluating
all the chemicals for various chlorinated water release scenarios is not currently available.

Field Methods for Residual Chlorine Measurement
Several methods such as water quality test strips, swimming pool test kits and orthotolidine indicator kits can be
used to measure TRC in the field. Many of these methods lack sensitivity required for ensuring regulatory compliance.

A colorimetric kit supplied by Hach company is widely used to monitor dechlorination in the field. The kit can
measure free or combined chlorine residuals at concentrations of 0 to 4.5 mg/L with a detection limit of 0.1 mg/L. In this
method, a pre-measured amount of reagent is added to the water sample, mixed well, and the sample analyzed for chlorine
concentration. A liquid crystal detector indicates the chlorine concentration in solution based on the intensity of the color
formed.

Field Test Data
Although limited information on the performance of chemicals is available, so far no study was found that
compared the efficiencies of dechlorination chemicals under identical conditions to determine the chemical of choice for
various dechlorination applications. So, field studies were performed during this project to obtain preliminary data on
dechlorination efficiencies of various chemicals. The field tests were conducted at Tacoma Waters, WA, Portland Bureau
of Water Works, OR, and EBMUD, CA.

In these studies, dechlorination efficiencies of the chemicals and other water quality impacts were evaluated. In the
Tacoma and Portland studies, a 1% solution of the dechlorination chemicals were introduced into water released from a
hydrant. In the EBMUD study, bags or dispensers containing tablets or powders of dechlorination chemicals were placed in
the flow path of hydrant water. At all three sites, the water used for the test originated from surface water sources rather
than from groundwater sources.

Field Dechlorination Tests at Tacoma Waters
Tacoma Waters uses free chlorine for disinfection. The field study evaluated the rate of dechlorination of water
released from a hydrant when stoichiometric amount of dechlorination agent was added. In addition, the effects of
overdosing and concurrent impact on water quality parameters were evaluated using twice the stoichiometric amount of
dechlorination chemicals.

Sodium metabisulfite, sodium thiosulfate, sodium sulfite, calcium thiosulfate, ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate
were used. Water from the hydrant was released through a fire hose 50 feet long and 6 inches in diameter. The flow rate
was adjusted to 300 gpm using a valve and a flow meter. The other end of the fire hose was connected to a diffuser to
facilitate mixing of chemicals with the flow. A 1% solution of each chemical was prepared in a polyethylene bucket and
introduced into the flow at the upstream side of the diffuser using an adjustable rate metering pump. Dechlorination
chemicals were fed either at concentrations just sufficient to neutralize all the chlorine in the water (stoichiometric amount)
or at concentrations resulting in 100% overdose for chlorine neutralization (twice the stoichiometric amount). Table 4
shows the amount of chemical used in each test. A pre-calibrated metering pump was used to verify rates prior to each
dechlorination test. Water released from the hydrant traveled approximately 500 feet and discharged into a storm sewer
leading to a holding pond. Results from the Tacoma field test are summarized below.

Table 4. Feed rate of 1% (w/v) dechlorination chemicals during field tests

Chemical Parts (mg) required
per part (mg) of
chlorine (@ pH 8.0)
Hydrant flow/
chlorine conc. (mg/L)
Feed rate @
stoichiometric
amount
(gpm)
Feed rate @ 100%
over dechlorination
(gpm)
Sodium
Thiosulfate
1.86 300 gpm, 1.0 mg/L 0.056 0.112
Sodium Sulfite 1.96 300 gpm, 1.0 mg/L 0.06 0.12
Sodium Bisulfite 1.61 300 gpm, 1 mg/L 0.048 0.096
Sodium
Metabisulfite
1.47 300 gpm, 1.0 mg/L 0.066 0.13
Calcium
Thiosulfate
1.19 300 gpm, 1.0 mg/L 0.036 0.072
Ascorbic acid 2.48 300 gpm, 1.0 mg/L 0.11 0.22
Sodium
Ascorbate
2.78 300 gpm, 1.0 mg/L 0.13 0.26

Residual Chlorine Concentrations. Figure 1 shows the chlorine concentrations at sampling points after the addition of
stoichiometric concentrations of dechlorination chemicals. Chlorine concentrations during the flow, when no chemicals
were added, are also shown.

The field study indicated that, when no chemical was added, free chlorine concentration in the water did not
decrease significantly. Chlorine concentrations decreased from 1.2 mg/L to approximately 1.0 mg/L after a travel of 450
feet (4 minutes, 10 seconds) in the semi-paved, asphalt road. When stoichiometric concentrations of dechlorination
chemicals were added, most of the chemicals neutralized chlorine instantaneously. Samples analyzed 2 feet downstream of
the diffuser contained less than 0.1 mg/L of chlorine. An exception to this trend was calcium thiosulfate. When calcium
thiosulfate was added, chlorine concentrations decreased to 0.2 mg/L within 2 feet and residual chlorine was reduced to less
than 0.1 mg/L after a travel of 200 feet.


When twice the stoichiometric concentration of chemicals was added, residual chlorine in all the tests (including
calcium thiosulfate) decreased to below 0.1 mg/L immediately (approximately 2 seconds).

Dissolved Oxygen. When no dechlorination chemical was added, the dissolved oxygen concentration of the released water
decreased from 11.08 to 10.81 mg/L (0.27 mg/L) after traveling 450 feet in one test, and from 10.4 to 10.3 (0.1 mg/L) in a
second test (data not shown). When stoichiometric amounts of dechlorination chemicals were added, the DO decreased by
1.18, 0.3, 0.55, 0.5 mg/L in the presence of sodium metabisulfite, sodium sulfite, sodium thiosulfate and calcium thiosulfate,
respectively. When, twice the stoichiometric amounts of dechlorination chemicals were added, the dissolved oxygen
concentration decreased by 1, 0.9, 0.9, 0.7 mg/L in the presence of sodium metabisulfite, sodium sulfite, sodium thiosulfate
and calcium thiosulfate, respectively. With the addition of stoichiometric concentrations of ascorbic acid and sodium
ascorbate, the DO of the water increased by 0.3 mg/L, after a travel of 450 feet. When twice the stoichiometric
concentrations of these chemicals were used, the DO decreased by 0.2 mg/L. The reasons for the trends observed using
either concentrations of ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate are not known.

In summary, results indicated that sodium metabisulfite had a greater impact (1.0 1.18 mg/L depletion) on the
DO concentrations of the water tested. Sodium sulfite, sodium thiosulfate and calcium thiosulfate decreased the DO
concentration by 0.3 to 0.9 mg/L, depending on the amount of dechlorination chemical used. Ascorbic acid and sodium
ascorbate had the least impact on the DO of the water tested.

pH. The initial pH of the hydrant water, prior to chemical addition, was between 8.8 and 9.0. Sodium metabisulfite, at
either concentration used, decreased the water pH about 0.8 units after a travel of 450 feet. After a travel of 450 feet,
ascorbic acid decreased the pH of the water by 0.3 and 0.6 units when stoichiometric and twice the stoichiometric amounts,
respectively, were used. The pH decreased by less than 0.1 units when sodium sulfite, calcium thiosulfate or sodium
ascorbate was used at stoichiometric or twice the stoichiometric amounts.

Field Dechlorination Studies at Bureau of Water Works, Portland

Figure 1. Chlorine concentrations at Tacoma City Water when
stoichiometric concentrations of dechlorination chemicals were used to
neutralize chlorine in potable water from a hydrant.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance (ft)
C
h
l
o
r
i
n
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
No Chemical Sodium Thiosulfate
Sodium Sulfite Sodium Metabisulfite
Calcium Thiosulfate Ascorbic Acid
Sodium Ascorbate
Portland Bureau of Water Works uses combined chlorine for disinfection. The tests conducted at Portland were
similar to those at Tacoma, except in the following aspects: Tests using all the chemicals, except sodium sulfite, were
conducted at stoichiometric concentrations only; a 100 feet hose, rather than a diffuser, was provided for mixing of
chemicals with the water; the released water traveled along a well paved surface for 1,000 feet prior to discharging into a
storm draining leading to a storage pond; a special feeder developed by the Bureau, rather than a metering pump, was used
for feeding the chemicals.

Samples were analyzed for residual chlorine concentrations and pH at the hydrant, and 2, 100, 500 and 1000 feet
downstream of the 100-foot long hose. The travel time for the water to reach the sampling points were 0 minutes, 24
seconds (100 feet); 3 minutes, 2 seconds (500 feet); and seven minutes, 10 seconds (1000 feet), respectively.

Residual Chlorine Concentrations. When no dechlorination chemical was added, the chlorine concentration decreased from
1.05 to 0.95 mg/L after 1,000 feet (Figure 2). This indicated that only a small amount (0.1 mg/L) of the chloramines
dissipated through chlorine demand of paved surfaces. Sodium bisulfite, sodium sulfite, ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate
neutralized all detectable chlorine to below 0.1 mg/L within 2 feet downstream of the mixing hose (approximately 2
seconds). Sodium thiosulfate neutralized more than 80% of the chlorine within 2 feet. However, chlorine concentrations
decreased below 0.1 mg/L (the discharge limit in most states) after about 500 feet (elapsed time 3 minutes, 2 seconds).
Calcium thiosulfate neutralized 60 % of the chlorine within 2 feet and neutralized 90 % of the chlorine after 1,000 feet
(elapsed time 7 minutes, 10 seconds).

pH. At concentrations used in this study, none of the chemicals appeared to affect the pH of the Portland Water Bureau
water appreciably.

Dechlorination Field Studies at EBMUD
EBMUD uses combined chlorine for disinfection. The purpose of the field study at EBMUD was to evaluate
dechlorination when chemicals were placed either as tablets or as powder within the path of the chlorinated water. The
following dechlorination chemicals were evaluated:
Exceltech D-Chlor Tablets (91.5% sodium sulfite)
Ascorbic acid (food grade, free white powder)
Sodium thiosulfate (photo grade 1/8 inch diameter granules)
Figure 2. Chlorine concentrations at Portland waters when stoichiometric
concentrations of dechlorination chemicals were added to neutralize
chlorine in potable water from a hydrant.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Distance (ft)
C
h
l
o
r
i
n
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
No Chemical Sodium Thiosulfate
Sodium Sulfite Sodium Bisulfite
Calcium Thiosulfate Ascorbic Acid
Sodium Ascorbate
Several series of field tests were conducted under different conditions. Only selected results are presented in this
report. Flow was discharged from a hydrant on EBMUDs water distribution system, through a fire hose and onto a fairly
level paved and curbed street close to the curb. The water flowed down the street, into a drop inlet 160 feet downstream.
The drop inlet led to an onsite storm drain system at EBMUDs wastewater treatment plant that flows into the headworks of
the plant.

Chlorine residual concentrations of the water upstream and downstream of the dechloramination chemical feed
points were measured using a Hach Chlorine Pocket Colorimeter. A Hydrolab Datasonde equipped with temperature,
dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) sensors was used to continuously log real time water
quality parameters.

Effect of Number of Tablets and Flow Rates. The test procedure consisted of initially placing a single D-chlor tablet, then
2, 4, 16, and 28 tablets in the water flow 10-feet downstream of the flow control valve and meter. The flow rates ranged
from 100 gpm up to 500+gpm. Samples were collected 150 feet downstream of the tablets. As shown in Figure 3, one
tablet effectively reduced the chlorine residual of the flow it came in contact with, to below 0.1 mg/L for 45 minutes at a
flow rate of 100 gpm. The tablet was not fully consumed, but became ineffective after approximately one hour.

When 12 tablets were placed across the flow of 100 gpm, the chlorine concentration decreased below detection
limit (0.1 mg/L) within five minutes. It remained below the detection limit even after 60 minutes. In the next test, initially a
flow rate of 300 gpm was maintained and 16 tablets were placed across the flow. Within five minutes the chlorine
concentration decreased to below detection limit. After 10 minutes, the flow rate was increased to 450 gpm. At this
increased flow rate, the residual chlorine concentration increased to values of 0.60 to 0.8 mg/L, well above the detection
limit of 0.1 mg/L (which is the allowable discharge limit in many locations), within 25 minutes (Figure 3). This indicates
that the flow rate of chlorinated waters can significantly impact the efficiency of dechlorination operations. Higher flow
rates may not provide sufficient contact time for dissolution of tablets into the stream. After approximately 40 minutes, the
number of tablets was increased to 20. This decreased the residual concentration to below detection limit within five
minutes. The increase in the number of tablets probably provided an enhanced contact area and better dissolution of the
tablets into the flow, resulting in a decrease in the residual chlorine concentrations.



Figure 3. Chlorine and DO concentrations when sodium sulfite tablets were
placed across the flow.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (minutes)
C
h
l
o
r
i
n
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
0
2
4
6
8
D
O

(
m
g
/
L
)
Chlorine, 1 tablet, 100 gpm
Chlorine, 12 tablets, 100 gpm
Chlorine, 16 tablets, 300 gpm
Chlorine, 28 tablets, 50 gpm
DO, 28 tablets, 50 gpm
450 gpm
20 tablets


No significant impact upon pH was observed in any of the tests. In the test where 1 tablet was placed across the
flow, the initial pH was 8.84. The pH after 60 minutes was 8.80. In the presence of 12, 16 or 28 tablets, the initial pH did
not change by more than 0.2 units. The average alkalinity of EBMUD water is about 26 mg/L as CaCO
3
.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were not measured when 1 or 12 tablets were placed across the flow. When 16 or
20 tablets were placed across a flow of 300/450 gpm, the initial dissolved oxygen concentration was 8.59 mg/L. No specific
trend was observed in the DO profile. When 28 tablets were placed across a flow of 50 gpm, the DO concentration
decreased significantly from 8.08 mg/L to 2.91 mg/L within 25 minutes. The larger number of tablets and a lower flow rate
maintained in this test as compared to the previous three tests, probably caused for the enhanced depletion of DO in the
water.

In summary, results from the test series indicated that, for a flow rate of up to 100 gpm for EBMUD water, one
Dechlor tablet maintained the residual chlorine concentration below the detection limit for 45 minutes. An increase in the
number of tablets increased the residual chlorine removal efficiency. However, an increase in flow rate to 450 gpm resulted
in an increase in residual chlorine concentrations to above detection (and compliance) limits within 25 minutes, even in the
presence of 16 tablets. Results also indicated that, when the flow rate was decreased (50 gpm) and the number of tablets
increased (28), the DO concentration decreased significantly.

Chlorine Profile Along the Flow Path. In this test, water quality was analyzed along the flow path, upon contact with
dechlorinating chemical. A flow rate of 100 gpm was maintained, and one or four tablets were placed across the flow.
samples were collected at the point of release and 40, 80, 120 and 160 feet downstream of the tablets. The residual chlorine
concentration in the water decreased with distance (Figure 4). One tablet was sufficient to remove chlorine to below 0.1
mg/L after 120 feet of travel under the test conditions.





The DO concentration decreased from 7.0 mg/L to 6.0 mg/L within 80 feet, when one tablet was placed across the
flow. The DO subsequently increased to 9.60 mg/L after traveling 160 feet. The pH decreased from 8.95 to 8.70 units
Flgure 4. Chlorine concentration when 1 or 4 tablets were placed along the
flow path. The flow rate of the EBMUD water was 100 gpm.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Distance (feet)
C
h
l
o
r
i
n
e

(
m
g
/
L
)
Chlorine, 1 tablet
Chlorine, 4 tablets
within 80 feet and decreased to 6.67 units after 160 feet. The reasons for the increase in DO concentration, and decrease in
pH, after a travel a distance of 80 feet, are not known. However, the trend was less pronounced when four tablets were
placed across the flow path. The DO concentration decreased from 9.26 mg/L to 9.05 mg/L after a travel of 80 feet and
increased to 9.66 mg/L after 160 feet. The pH decreased from 8.95 to 8.9 units after a travel of 80 feet and decreased to
8.75 units after 160 feet. In general, the initial decrease in DO may be due to the reaction of sodium sulfite. Subsequent
increase may have resulted after the exhaustion of the released sodium sulfite in the water.

Dechlorination Using Ascorbic Acid Powder/Sodium Thiosulfate Crystals. In these tests, 1 lb of the dry chemical in a
nylon bag was placed across a flow of 100 gpm. Both of the chemicals decreased the TRC to below 0.1 mg/L. However, in
both the cases, the chemical dissolved rapidly and escaped the bag. Excessive dissolution of ascorbic acid decreased the
water pH from 8.9 to 5.07. Dissolution of sodium thiosulfate did not significantly affect the pH or DO.
Summary of Tacoma, Portland and EBMUD field test results
The studies yielded the following:
All of the chemicals tested in solution, tablet or powder form were able to neutralize free and combined chlorine to
below 0.1 mg/L.
Stoichiometric concentrations of dechlorination chemicals in solution removed more than 90% of residual chlorine.
The DO concentration decreased by 1 mg/L when a stoichiometric amount of sodium metabisulfite was added.
A decrease in DO concentrations (~1.0 mg/L) was observed when twice the stoichiometric amounts of sodium
metabisulfite, sodium sulfite or sodium thiosulfite were used.
Reactions of sodium/calcium thiosulfate with chloramine were slower than those with free chlorine.
While ascorbic acid and sodium thiosulfate solutions neutralized chlorine effectively, when used in powder/crystal
form, they dissolved rapidly, causing water quality concerns.
Sodium sulfite tablets were very effective in dose control and dechlorination. One tablet was sufficient to
dechlorinate 2.0 mg/L of chloraminated water to below 0.1 mg/L for 45 minutes when water was released at 100
gpm.
An increase in the number of tablets to 28 decreased the DO concentration by 5 mg/L within 25 minutes at a flow
rate of 50 gpm.
An increase in flow rate from 100 to 450 gpm decreased the length of time that the residual chlorine concentration
was below the detection limit (0.1 mg/L) by more than 20 minutes.

Emerging Dechlorination Technologies
EBMUD has developed dechlorination mats/strips to facilitate effective contact between the flow and sodium
sulfite tablets during dechlorination. For dechlorination of discharges from trenches during main breaks, the tablets are
placed inside synthetic mesh fabric pockets sewn together in a grid or line. The dechlor mat or strip is laid across the flow
path or over the storm drain. As the discharged water flows over and around the tablets, chemical is released, which
destroys the chloramines.

Washington Suburban Sanitation Commission, MD has developed techniques such as Tablet/diffuser
dechlorinator, tablet/plastic pipe dechlorinator, tablet/hose monster cage to facilitate dechlorination using tablets under
various release situations.

The City of Salem, OR and Water and Wastewater Technologies, Inc, WA have developed venturi based
dechlorination devices to feed chemical solutions into the chlorinated water flow. These devices can be attached to the
downstream end of a hose connected to hydrants to dechlorinate the water released from hydrants. These devices can
handle a flow rate of 20 to 1,000 gpm.

Industrial Testing Systems, Inc. at Rock Hill, SC has developed chlorine-monitoring strips for measuring free and
combined chlorine at various range of concentrations. The advantages of this strip over the current field monitoring test
kits, as reported by the company, are that wide ranges of residual chlorine concentration (0.02 to 750 mg/L) can be
measured without any dilution and the strips are sensitive for measuring chlorine concentrations as low as 0.02 mg/L. This
method is useful in measuring residual chlorine concentrations in superchlorinated water without having to dilute the
samples.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE AND FLY SHEET EXAMPLE

A primary objective of this project was to develop BMPs / Standard Operating Procedures for various chlorinated
water release scenarios. It is also a goal to provide quick summary Fly Sheets to aid operationally focused management
staff and operators for disposal of chlorinated water generated by various activities. A sample Draft Flysheet for one such
scenario is provided in Figure 5 for one such scenario. As discussed throughout this report, dechlorination is still an
evolving practice. More data is required to develop BMPs and Fly Sheets for various dechlorination activities.
SUMMARY
The AWWARF manual summarizes available dechlorination information in a centralized manner. The
state/provincial permit processes for release of chlorinated waters vary significantly. However, utilities are required to meet
the water quality criterion of the receiving streams during such releases in all of the states and provinces. Several chemicals
are available for dechlorination. Chemicals such as sodium metabisulfite, sodium sulfite and sodium thiosulfate may
deplete DO of receiving streams under certain circumstances. Sodium metabisulfite and ascorbic acid may decrease the pH
of some waters. Field tests were conducted to evaluate the dechlorination efficiencies of various chemicals/forms and the
results are summarized in the report. A sample Fly Sheet to serve as a quick reference to operationally focused personnel
is attached (Figure 5). Finally, recommendations for further works required to develop BMPs are made in the report.

REFERENCE
1. Snoeyink, V.L. and Suidan, M.T. 1975. Dechlorination By Activated Carbon and Other Reducing Agents. In Water
and Wastewater Disinfection. J ohnson, J .D. (Ed). Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, MI (pp 339-358).
2. Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) 1986. Wastewater Disinfection. Manual of Practice FD-10. Alexandria,
Virginia.
3. General Chemical, 1988. Water Treatment Dechlorination. Product Bulletin. Parsippany, NJ .
4. White, G.C. 1999. Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New
York.
5. Bean, S.L. 1995. Dechlorination Alternatives. Environmental Protection, 6(5): 25-26.
6. Hardison, R.L. and Hamamoto, M. 1998. An Alternative Dechlorination Process. CWEA Annual Conference, Oakland,
CA.
c:\windows\desktop\davco\awwaresearchstudy\awwarf dechlor guides pollard.doc

FIGURE 5.
DRAFT FLYSHEET INDICATING CURRENT DECHLORINATION PRACTICE FOR CERTAIN PLANNED, LOW CHLORINE, MODERATE
FLOW RELEASES
Type of Release () Planned ( ) Unplanned
Anticipated Residual ( ) >4 mg/L () <4 mg/L
Type of Residual ( ) Free Chlorine () Combined Chlorine
Source of Water () Surface Water ( ) Groundwater
Turbidity ( ) High (>10 NTU) () Low (<10 NTU)
Discharge ( ) Large Volume (>500 gpm, >24 hours) () Low Volume (<500 gpm, <24 hours)
Type of Release () Hydrant ( ) Release to trench due to main break ( ) Pipe, tank draining

Suggested Dechlorination Methods
1. Dechlorination by Non-chemical Means
Method Benefits Concerns/Limitations
Discharge to sanitary sewer Does not involve chemicals.
Hence, no concern due to impact of
dechlorination chemicals.
Savings in chemical cost.
Sanitary sewer must be available nearby.
Permission may be required from sanitation district.
Cost of discharge to sanitary sewer should be evaluated.
Potential impact of chlorine to microorganisms in wastewater treatment plant should be
considered.
c:\windows\desktop\davco\awwaresearchstudy\awwarf dechlor guides pollard.doc
2. Dechlorination Using Chemicals.
If disposal by discharge to sanitary sewer is not feasible, dechlorination can be performed using chemicals. The chemicals are listed according to the order of
preference, based on the limited data currently available.
Chemical Form Feed Technique* Feed Rate of 10 g/L Solution Comments/concerns
Water Flow
Rate (gpm)
Chemical
Feed Rate
(l/minute)

Sodium
Ascorbate

Solution Any feed controlled delivery
system such as venturi-based units,
metering pumps or carboy on a
curb.
50
100
200
300
400
500
0.06
0.12
0.23
0.35
0.46
0.58
No known impact on water quality.
Sodium ascorbate is more expensive than most other
dechlorination chemicals.
Sodium ascorbate solution can not be stored for more
than a day or two.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) impact on receiving
streams should be evaluated.
* - A 10% overdose is included;
- Ascorbic acid is shown as the chemical of choice since it did not cause any water quality impacts in the field tests.
Water Quality Monitoring
Total Residual Chlorine: A pocket colorimeter (Hach Company) may be used to measure residual chlorine concentration in the water.
Dissolved Oxygen: Some of the chemicals may deplete DO concentrations. The DO concentration should be monitored using a probe.
pH: Overdosing with ascorbic acid and some other chemicals may deplete water pH. The discharge water pH must be monitored to minimize water quality
impacts.
Ammonia: None of the dechlorination chemicals have been reported to eliminate ammonia from water. Ammonia liberated from chloramines may exceed
allowable ammonia concentrations under certain extreme conditions. Caution must be exercised to avoid water quality impact due to ammonia concentrations.