Pilot Testing and Evaluation of Three Filtration Technologies for

the Eugene / Springfield Wastewater Treatment Plant

2009 PNCWA Annual Conference

Boise, ID
September 15, 2009

By:
Bill Bennett and Yan Seiner, P.E.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission

Onder Caliskaner, Ph.D., P.E, Steve Celeste, P.E., and Kevin Farthing, P.E.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Presentation Overview
§ Project Overview
§ Operational Perspective
§ Pilot testing systems
§ Pilot testing results
§ Questions
About MWMC
• Formed as a partnership between Eugene, Springfield,
and Lane County. Established in 1978 to serve as
recipient for EPA funding of new treatment facilities.

• City of Eugene operates and maintains treatment plant,

biosolids facility and lift stations.

• City of Springfield provides administrative support of

the regional wastewater program including
management of the Capital Improvements Program.
Eugene/Springfield WPCF

Current ADWF = 25 mgd

Design ADWF = 49 mgd
Design AWWF = 75 mgd

Treatment Processes:
§ Screening/Grit Removal
§ Primary Sedimentation
§ Selector Activated Sludge
§ Secondary Clarification
§ Chlorine Disinfection
§ Dechlorination
§ Willamette River Discharge
MWMC Facilities Plan
Cost-effective solution for regional for
wastewater needs through 2025.

Established in a joint effort between MWMC and

CH2M Hill.

Adopted in 2004

Tertiary filtration one of ten major capital

improvement projects.
Tertiary Filter Project

From MWMC Facilities Plan:

§Phase 1: 11 mgd filtration capacity

§Year 2025: 33 mgd filtration capacity

§Comply with effluent TSS limits

§Produce Class A recycled water

§Placeholder for future design

Project Team
Operation and Engineering
Maintenance, City of
•Yan Seiner, City of Springfield,
Eugene MWMC Project Manager
•Bill Bennett, Filtration Pilot •Onder Caliskaner, Kennedy
System O&M Lead Jenks, Tertiary Filtration / Pilot
•Steve Barnhardt Testing Process Lead

•Rick Clark •Kevin Farthing, Kennedy Jenks,

Pilot Testing Staff Engineer
•Kim Olsen
•Steve Celeste, Kennedy Jenks,
•Dennis Gabrielson Tertiary Filtration Project Manager
•Matt Hays
•Chris Jeffress
•Tim Bridgeford
Project overview
Approach

Step 1. Filtration technology alternatives evaluation/selection

Outcome: Select three technologies for pilot testing
Step 2. Manufacturer selection for pilot testing: request for information
process
Outcome: Select one manufacturer for each selected
technology
Step 3. Conduct pilot testing
Outcome: Evaluate technology alternatives
Step 4. Preliminary design
Outcome: Select technology upon which to base design
Step 5. Design
Step 6. Bidding
Step 7. Construction
Project objectives
Comply with permit
requirements
Comply with Class A recycled
water requirements
Minimize energy demands
Minimize chemical use
Minimize impacts to other
processes
Flexible operations
Maintainable
Expandable
Minimize footprint
Project Overview
Simplified flow diagram for Effluent TSS
Removal
Project Overview
Simplified flow diagram for Class A
Recycled Water
Tertiary Pilot Filter Testing
An Operational Perspective
Eugene, Oregon

July – November 2008

 Pilot Filter Testing: Expectations
Meet early on with consulting engineers:
§ Determine types and number of filters to be tested.

§ The number of test filters offered by vendors is limited and

scheduling needs to be done well in advance of the project.

§ Contracts will need to be negotiated with the vendors. Test filters

are not free.

Have a goal of what information you want to get from the tests.
• Solids Removal.

• Ease of operation.

• Maintenance time, repair costs.

• Responsiveness of the vendors.

 Pilot Test: Filter Site

Close to source of water to be treated.

Large enough to accommodate filters to be tested.

 Pilot Test: Water Source

Process stream used for the pilot test should

be the same as what will be used for the
permanent installation.
 Pilot Test: Power Supply

A power supply sufficient for all filters, pumps, and

ancillary equipment will be needed.
Filter manufacturers will be able to supply data for their
units.
 Pilot Test: Daily Checks
FILTER #1: DAILY CHECK SHEET

Date:____________________ Time:__________________

Test Number_____________ Op’s Initials:____________

Local Panels Turbidimeter

If reading
Particle Counter Determine Frequency
Check for Clean lamp Drain and Flush
Clean zero, check Clean strainers
power and data and glass clean sample tubing as
lens for burned and tubing
displays under lamp collection cell required
out bulb.

Be Consistent with checks,

Sample Collection
TSS
Influent Effluent Effluent
Turbidity (Hand Meter)
corrections, and adjustments.
Influent Grab Effluent Secondary Effluent Channel
Composite Grab Composite
mg/l * 1 2 NTU NTU
mg/l mg/l mg/l

N/A

Influent Pump
Data Readouts Coordinate sampling with
Headloss Air Pressure Effluent
Flow Pressure Effluent Particle Size
gpm
(Goal <2” change)
(Goal 40 psi)
(Goal 5 psi) NTU
equipment checks.

Sample Flow Rates

Filter Flow
(Timed measurement with graduated cylinder)
Effluent Turbiditmeter
(Goal 400-600ml/min)
Effluent Particle Size
(Goal 100 ml/min)
(If filter is not up to setpoint, shut unit down and
clean inlet strainer.)
Document findings.

Comments:
 Pilot Test: On Line Solids Meters
§ Turbidity Meters
• Require routine cleaning.
• Flow rate adjustments
need to be made based on
vendor/consultant guide-
lines.

§ Particle Counters
• Problematic with frequent
plugging.
• Flow rates were
recommended, but
difficult to maintain.
 Pilot Test: Sampling
Composite Samples
• Allow for 24 hour sampling.
• 15-30 minute intervals
recommended.
• Lab results can be compared to
electronic data.

§ Grab Samples
• Taken at time of equipment
check.
• Results can be compared to
on-line meters at time of
sample.
• Designate specific sample
points.

§ All Samples can be stored

and tested later.
 Pilot Test: Samples
§ Sample Containers
• One-liter bottles for grab
samples.
• Ten-liter bottles for
composites.
• Pre-labeled

§ Green Transportation for

delivery to lab.
 Pilot Test: Lab Tests
§ Turbidity Meter
• Additional data to augment
online meters.
• Use for composite and
grab samples.
• Hint: Pour sample into
vials and allow to reach
room temperature before
running samples. Cold
sample will fog the glass.

§ Suspended Solids
• Standard test as used for
plant effluent.
• Volume for lab tests may
need to be adjusted when
doing PE or upset testing.
Pilot Test: Primary Effluent Testing
§ PE/Secondary Effluent
• PE diluted to ~50 mg/l to
simulate high flow conditions.
• Possible use of filters is to
reduce effluent suspended
solids to meet 85% removal
and mass load requirements.

§ Dilution
• PE and SE mixed in injection
chamber of off-line chlorine
contact chamber.
• 4” Chlorine line used to move
PE from aeration basins to
filters.
• Suspended solids probe used
to measure solids level and
make dilution at the contact
chamber.
 Pilot Test: Plant Upset Testing
§ Mixed Liquor/Secondary Effluent
• ML diluted to ~25 mg/l to simulate upset
of secondary treatment process.
• Possible use of filters is to reduce
effluent suspended solids during a plant
upset to meet permit limits.

§ Dilution
• ML and SE mixed in injection chamber
of off-line chlorine contact chamber.
• 4” Chlorine line used to move ML from
channel by secondary clarifiers to
filters.
§ Suspended solids probe used to adjust
flows to reach target.
• Dilution not an exact science.
 Pilot Test: Experience Gained
§ Plan Ahead
• Samplers or other
equipment may have a long
delivery time.
§ Know Your Limitations
• Staffing requirements may
be greater than anticipated.
– A student or intern to check the
filters and/or run lab samples
would be an option.
§ Separate filters from
ancillary equipment
• Problems with online meters
or other equipment may not
be indicative of filter
performance.
Pilot Study Results - Outline

§ Objectives of pilot filter studies

§ Pilot testing program and scope

§ Pilot test program data / results

§ Summary of performance results

Pilot Filter Testing Program
Objectives
Principal objective:
§ Evaluate performance of filters with specific consideration
of the recycled criteria and NPDES requirements

Specific Objectives of the Pilot Testing Program:

§ Determine/Confirm design criteria
§ Evaluation of the filters’ reliability, operational and
maintenance requirements
§ Determination of the backwash requirements
Pilot Filter Testing Program
Scope
Testing of the following three filter technologies:
§ Granular – Continuous Backwash Up-flow (Blue Water Technologies)

§ Compressible Medium Filter (Schreiber)

§ Disk Filter (Aqua Aerobics Systems)

at the following three filtration rates:

§ Average filtration rate

§ Design filtration rate

§ Peak design filtration rate

for the following conditions:

§ Secondary effluent filtration without chemical addition

§ Secondary effluent filtration with chemical addition

§ Primary effluent filtration and upset simulation testing

Pilot Test Program
Net testing : 20 weeks
§ Total of 31 tests for each pilot filter system
§ Each test is between 2 and 7 days
§ 25 tests for secondary effluent filtration without chemical
addition : about 14 weeks
§ Two tests for chemical addition : approximately three
weeks
§ One test for simulation of upstream upsets: approximately
one week
§ Three tests for primary effluent filtration: Approximately 10
days
Pilot Filter Units

Aqua Aerobic
Systems cloth disk
filter

Schreiber
compressible media
filter

Blue Water
Technologies granular
media filter
Pilot Cloth Disk Filter
Pilot Upflow Continuous Backwash
Granular Filter
Pilot Compressible Medium Filter
 Pilot Filters – Design Criteria
Hydraulic Loading Rate,
Medium Properties
Filtration gpm/ft2
Surface
Area, Medium
ft2 Increased Effective Porosity Compres Media
Average Design Depth,
Design Size % ratio % Type
inches

Continuous 12 3.5 5 6-6.5 60 0.95 40 N/A Sand

Backwash mm
Granular Filter
Compressible 2.25 20 30 35-40 30 0.17(a) 85 5-40 Synthetic
Medium Filter

Cloth Disk 12 3.25 6 7 0.2 10 µM N/A Pile

Filter Cloth
Evaluation of Filtration Technologies
Performance Criteria
Turbidity / TSS removal

Headloss development

Backwash reject ratio

Chemical aid requirements

Particle size distribution modification

 Turbidity and TSS Requirements/Objectives

Parameter Objective
Daily Average <2
Turbidity (NTU) Not to exceed more than 5% of the time 5
Cannot exceed at all times 10

TSS (mg/l) Monthly Average <~4-5

Daily Maximum < ~ 10 - 15

MWMC Compressible Medium Filter Turbidity Removal
Performance
Influent and effluent turbidity values for CMF
between 07-14-2008 and 07-21-2008

8.00

7.00
6.00
Turbidity,

5.00
NTU

4.00
3.00

2.00

1.00
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time, min
Pilot Filter Testing Program
Summary of Average Effluent Turbidity Results
Average Influent and Effluent Turbidity Values
(without chemical addition)
Cloth Disk Filter Granular Filter Compressible Medium Filter Influent Turbidity

4.5

3.5
Turbidity, NTU

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Test No
Pilot Filter Testing Program
Summary of Average Effluent Turbidity Results

Secondary Effluent Filtration (no chemical addition)

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00 Influent
NTU

2.50 Cloth Disk

Granular Media
2.00
Comressible Media
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fraction under
Pilot Filter Testing Program - Summary of Average Influent
and Effluent Turbidity Results

Average Influent and Effluent Turbidity Values (no chemical)

Influent Cloth Disk Filter Granular Filter Compressible Medium Filter

3.50
2.99 3.05
2.85
3.00
2.62

2.50
Turbidity, NTU

2.00 1.72
1.62 1.65 1.71 1.61
1.44 1.45 1.461.57
1.50 1.31
1.27
1.02
1.00

0.50

0.00
Overall Average Average filtration Design filtration rate Increased design
rate filtration rate
Summary of Turbidity Results
Secondary Effluent Filtration without Chemical addition

Class A recycled water turbidity requirements are expected to be

achieved with all three filtration technologies tested for average
secondary effluent turbidities up to approximately 5 NTU without
chemical addition

The turbidity removal performance of the three filters was observed to

be similar. Average turbidity removal efficiency was approximately
50 to 55 percent for all three filters

Average observed effluent turbidity values were less than 1.8 to 2.0 NTU
for all three filtration technologies for the majority of the tests
Pilot Filter Testing Program
Average TSS (composite samples) Results for Individual Test

Average Influent and Effluent (Composite) TSS Values

(without chemicals addition)
Cloth Disk Filter Granular Filter Compressible Medium Filter Influent TSS

18
16
14
12
TSS (mg/L)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Test Number
Pilot Filter Testing Program
Overall Average TSS (composite samples) Results

Average Influent and Effluent Composite TSS Values

12
11.22

10

8
TSS, mg/l

3.51
3.45
4
2.87

0
Influent Cloth Disk Filter Granular Filter Compressible
Medium Filter
Summary of TSS Results
Secondary Effluent Filtration without Chemical addition
Future discharge TSS concentration requirements are expected to be
achieved with all three filtration technologies for secondary
effluent TSS values up to approximately 25 mg/L without chemical
addition.

The average effluent TSS was less than 5 mg/L for all three filters for
the majority of the tests during normal plant operating conditions.

The TSS removal performance of the three filters was observed to be

similar. The removal performance of CDF appears to be
approximately 15-20 percent higher compared to CMF and GCBF.

Without chemical addition, average TSS removal efficiency was

between 60 and 70 percent.
 Summary of Backwash Water Ratio Results
Average Backwash Water Ratio for Secondary Effluent
Filtration Tests without Chemical Addition For 10 mgd average plant
CDF UGCBF CMF flow:
% 2 Backwash Reject Ratio
30.0% means 0.2 MGD returned to
headworks : average plant
25.0% flow increases to 10.2 mgd
Backwash water ratio, %

20.0%

% 15 Backwash Reject Ratio

15.0%
means 1.5 MGD returned to
10.0%
headworks : average plant
flow increases to 11.5 mgd
5.0%

0.0%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Test No
Summary of Backwash Results
Secondary Effluent Filtration without Chemical addition
Backwash water ratio was observed to be between 1 percent and 5
percent for CMF and CDF for most tests. Average BWR was around
3 – 4 percent.

Backwash water ratio for GCBF was observed to be significantly higher

compared to CMF and CDF. Average BWR was approximately 25
percent.

For actual installation with similar loading conditions, backwash water

ratio is expected to be between 1 percent and 2 percent for CMF
and CDF.

For actual installation with similar loading conditions, backwash water

ratio is expected to be between 10 percent and 15 percent for
GCBF.
MWMC Cloth Disk Filter Headloss Development

Headloss development for Cloth Disk Filter

2 2
07-10-2008 (filtration rate 3.2 gpm/ft - 6.0 gpm/ft )

5.15

4.95

4.75
Pressure, ft

4.55

4.35

4.15

3.95

3.75
850 950 1050 1150 1250 1350
Run time
 MWMC Compressible Medium Filter Headloss
Development

Headloss development versus time for CMF between

09-08-2008 and 09-15-2008

headloss, ft

7.0
6.0
5.0
Headloss,
ft

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Time, min
Summary of Headloss Results
Secondary Effluent Filtration without Chemical addition

Headloss development (through the medium) varies significantly

between the three filtration technologies:

§ CDF: Headloss development ranged between 0.4 feet and 0.9 feet with
an average value of approximately 0.7 feet.

§ CMF: Headloss development ranged between 0.6 feet and 4.2 feet with
an average value of approximately 1.6 feet.

§ GCBF: Headloss development ranged between 1.2 feet and 4.3 feet with
an average value of approximately 2.3 feet.
Secondary Effluent Filtration with Chemical Addition
Cloth Disk Filter

Influent and effluent turbidity values for CDF with chemical addition
9-22-2008
InfluentTurbidity Effluent Turbidity
No chemical addition Successful chemical Unsuccessful chemical
8 addition addition
7
6
Turbidity,

5
NTU

4
3
2
1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time, (every 30 seconds)
Chemical addition tests
Cloth Disk Filter - Impacts on headloss development

Headloss development for Cloth Disk Filter

09-22-2008 (chemical addition)

5.35

5.25

5.15
Headloss, ft

5.05

4.95

4.85

4.75
850 950 1050 1150 1250 1350
Run time
Summary of Chemical Addition Results

Turbidity removal efficiency increased to 70-75 percent with chemical

addition for all three filters.

TSS removal efficiency increased to 80-85 percent with chemical

addition for all three filters.

With chemical addition, compliance with Class A recycled water

requirements is expected for secondary effluent turbidity values
up to approximately 8 NTU.

With chemical addition, compliance with effluent TSS concentration

requirements of 10 mg/L is expected for secondary effluent TSS
values up to approximately 40 mg/L.
Summary of Chemical Addition Results

Filtration removal efficiency increases with successful chemical

addition, but it was observed to decline typically after 1 to 3 hours
of chemical addition.

Backwash Water Ratio increased significantly for CMF and CDF (e.g., 5
to 10 times) as a result of chemical addition.

Medium blinding was observed to be a typical operational problem with

chemical addition.

Chemical addition should be exercised only to meet recycled water

requirements when necessary for a short period (e.g., one hour)
during one filtration cycle.
Evaluation of Filtration Performance
Particle Size Distribution Modification

Especially important to ensure required

disinfection efficiency

The removal of particles between ~ 5 and

15 to 20 micron in size is crucial to
increase disinfection efficiency
Upflow Granular Continuous Backwash Filter
Effect of Chemical Addition on Particle Size Distribution

Effluent particle size distribution versus time for CBGF (with

chemical addition 50-10-20 ppm)

80000
Chemical addition started Chemical dose increased
70000
60000
Particle Count

50000
40000
Chemical dose decreased
30000
20000
10000
0
9/13/08 9/13/08 9/14/08 9/14/08 9/15/08 9/15/08 9/16/08 9/16/08 9/17/08
12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM
Time

2-5 Micron, Count 6-10 Micron, Count 11 - 20 Micron, Count 21 > Micron, Count
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

Bill Bennett
[email protected]
(541) 682 - 8618

Onder Caliskaner
[email protected]
(916) 858 - 2738
Upset Simulation Turbidity Results for CDF

Influent and effluent turbidity values for CDF

upset testing with MLSS
InfluentTurbidity Effluent Turbidity

100.00

80.00
Turbidity,
NTU

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time, min
Upset Simulation Turbidity Results for CMF

Influent and effluent turbidity values for CMF

upset testing (spiked with MLSS)
InfluentTurbidity Effluent Turbidity

100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Turbidity,

60.00
NTU

50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time, min
Upset Simulation Turbidity Results for UGCBF

Effluent turbidity versus time for BWT

upset testing (spiked with MLSS)
EffluentTurbidity Influent Turbidity

100

80
Turbidity,
NTU

60

40

20

0
39736 39737 39738 39739 39740 39741 39742 39743
Time, min
 Primary Effluent Filtration TSS Results
Primary Effluent Filtration
Influent and Effluent TSS Values

45.00
38.4
40.00
35.00 32.50 30.8
30.00
TSS, mg/l

25.00
18.4 20.8
20.00 16 16
13.2 12.8
15.00
9.60 10.30 8.80
10.00
5.00
0.00
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Influent Cloth Disk Filter

Granular Filter Comressible Medium Filter

 Summary of Results
Primary Effluent Filtration Tests
For primary effluent filtration, the filters’ removal performances were
comparable.

TSS removal efficiencies were observed to range between 40 percent

and 75 percent for the three filtration technologies. The removal
performance of CMF appears to be approximately 10 percent
higher compared to CDF and GCBF.

For primary effluent filtration, the BWR ratios were observed to be

between 15 and 20 percent for CDF and CMF. The BWR ratio was
approximately 25 percent for GCBF.