Final Project Soft

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 24

EIILM H-4

GREEN MANAGEMENT (TECHNOLOGY)


GUIDED BY:
DR. L.R. GUHA

WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
Trickling Filter

RUNNER’S Group
02/04/2009

What is wastewater? List of water treatment technologies. Trickling Filter.


BOD & COD. Merits & Demerits of Trickling Filter. Technologies suitable for
W.B. ‘C’ program of the Trickling Filter.
What is wastewater?
We consider wastewater treatment as a water use because it is so interconnected with
the other uses of water. Much of the water used by homes, industries, and businesses
must be treated before it is released back to the environment.

If the term "wastewater treatment" is confusing to you, you might think of it as "sewage
treatment." Nature has an amazing ability to cope with small amounts of water wastes
and pollution, but it would be overwhelmed if we didn't treat the billions of gallons of
wastewater and sewage produced every day before releasing it back to the environment.
Treatment plants reduce pollutants in wastewater to a level nature can handle.

Wastewater is used water. It includes substances such as human waste, food scraps, oils,
soaps and chemicals. In homes, this includes water from sinks, showers, bathtubs,
toilets, washing machines and dishwashers. Businesses and industries also contribute
their share of used water that must be cleaned.

Wastewater also includes storm runoff. Although some people assume that the rain that
runs down the street during a storm is fairly clean, it isn't. Harmful substances that
wash off roads, parking lots, and rooftops can harm our rivers and lakes.

The major aim of wastewater treatment is to remove as much of the suspended solids as
possible before the remaining water, called effluent, is discharged back to the
environment. As solid material decays, it uses up oxygen, which is needed by the plants
and animals living in the water.

"Primary treatment" removes about 60 percent of suspended solids from wastewater.


This treatment also involves aerating (stirring up) the wastewater, to put oxygen back
in. Secondary treatment removes more than 90 percent of suspended solids.
List of waste water treatment technologies

• Activated sludge systems[1]


• Constructed Soil Filter
• Advanced Oxidation Process
• Aerated lagoon
• Aerobic granular reactor
• Aerobic treatment system
• Anaerobic clarigester
• Anaerobic digestion
• API oil-water separator
• Anaerobic lagoon
• Bead Filter
• Belt press
• Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels
• Bioreactor
• Bioretention
• Biorotor
• Bioroll
• Biolytix
• Carbon filtering
• Cesspit
• Chlorine disinfection
• Combined sewer
• Composting toilet
• Constructed wetland
• Dissolved air flotation
• Distillation

De-salination

• Electrocoagulation
• Electrodeionization
• Electrolysis
• Electro-Fenton process
• Expanded granular sludge bed digestion
• Facultative lagoon
• Fenton's reagent
• Flocculation & sedimentation
• Fluidized Bed Biofilter
• Flotation process
• Froth flotation
• Fuzzy Filter
• Humanure (composting)
• Imhoff tank
• Iodine
• Ion exchange
• Living machines
• Membrane bioreactor
• Nanotechnology
• NERV (Natural Endogenous Respiration Vessel)
• N-Viro
• Ozone and Ultrasound
• Parallel plate oil-water separator
• Recirculating Sand Filter
• Reed bed
• Retention basin
• Reverse osmosis
• Rotating biological contactor
• Sand filter
• Septic tank
• Sequencing batch reactor
• Sewage treatment
• Stabilization pond
• Submerged aerated filter
• Treatment pond
• Trickling filter
• Ultrafiltration (industrial)
• Ultraviolet disinfection
• Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket digestion
• Upflow Sludge Blanket Filtration (USBF)
• Wet oxidation
Trickling filter

Image 1: A schematic cross-section of the contact face of the bed media in a trickling
filter

A trickling filter consists of a fixed bed of rocks, gravel, slag, polyurethane foam,
sphagnum peat moss, or plastic media over which sewage or other wastewater flows
downward and causes a layer or film of microbial slime to grow, covering the bed of
media. Aerobic conditions are maintained by splashing, diffusion, and either by forced
air flowing through the bed or natural convection of air if the filter medium is porous.
The process mechanism, or how the removal of waste from the water happens, involves
both absorption and adsorption of organic compounds within the sewage or other
wastewater by the layer of microbial slime. Diffusion of the wastewater over the media
furnishes dissolved air, the oxygen which the slime layer requires for the biochemical
oxidation of the organic compounds and releases carbon dioxide gas, water and other
oxidized end products. As the slime layer thickens, it becomes more difficult for air to
penetrate the layer and an inner anaerobic layer is probably formed. This slime layer
continues to build until it eventually sloughs off, breaking off longer growth into the
treated effluent as a sludge that requires subsequent removal and disposal. Typically, a
trickling filter is followed by a clarifier or sedimentation tank for the separation and
removal of the sloughing. Other filters utilizing higher-density media such as sand, foam
and peat moss do not produce a sludge that must be removed, but require forced air
blowers and backwashing or an enclosed anaerobic environment.

The terms trickle filter, trickling biofilter, biofilter, biological filter and
biological trickling filter are often used to refer to a trickling filter.

These systems have also been described as roughing filters, intermittent filters, packed
media bed filters, alternative septic systems, percolating filters, attached growth
processes, and fixed film processes.

The treatment of sewage or other wastewater with trickling filters is among the oldest
and most well characterized treatment technologies.
Types

The three basic types of trickle filters are used for:

• the treatment of small individual residential or rural sewage


• large centralized systems for treatment of municipal sewage
• systems applied to the treatment of industrial wastewater.

Septic system leach field

This is the simplest form of waste liquid disposal system, typically using pipes buried in
loose sand or gravel to dissipate the liquid outflow from a septic tank. Liquid
purification is performed by a biofilm which naturally forms as a coating on the sand
and gravel in the absorption field and feeds on the dissolved nutrients in the waste
stream.

Due to the system being completely buried and generally isolated from the surface
environment, the process of waste breakdown is slow and requires a relatively large
surface area to absorb and process liquid wastes. If too much liquid wastes enter the
field too quickly, the wastes may pass out of the biofilm before waste consumption can
occur, leading to pollution of groundwater.

In order to prolong the life of a leaching field, one method of construction is to build two
fields of piping side-by-side, and use a rotating flow valve to direct waste into one field
at a time, switching between fields every year or two. This allows a period of rest to let
the microorganisms have time to break down the wastes built up in the gravel bed.

In areas where the ground is insufficiently absorptive (fails the percolation test) a
homeowner may be required to construct a mound system which is a special engineered
waste disposal bed of sand and gravel mounded on the surface of the ground with poor
liquids absorption.

Leach field dosing

Generally it is better if the biofilm is permitted a period of time to rest between liquid
influxes and for the liquids to be evenly distributed through the leaching bed to promote
biofilm growth throughout the pipe network. Typically flows from septic systems are
either small surges (handwashing) or very large surges (clothes washer emptying),
resulting in highly erratic liquid outflow into the field and uneven biofilm growth
concentrating primarily around the field inlet and dropping off in the outer reaches of
the piping system.

For this reason it is common for engineered mound systems to include an electrically
powered dosing system which consists of a large capacity underground storage tank and
lift pump after the septic tank. When the tank fills to a predetermined level, it is emptied
into the leaching field.

The storage tank collects small outflows such as from handwashing and saves them for
dosing when the tank fills from other sources. During this fill period the field is able to
rest continuously. When full, the discharge dose fills out the entire field completely to
the same degree of flow, every time, promoting an even biofilm growth throughout the
system.

Dosing systems have maintenance requirements over traditional non-powered surge


systems. The pump and float system can break down and require replacement, and the
dosing system also needs electricity. However, the system can be designed so that in the
event of power failure the storage tank overflows to the field operating in the traditional
surge-flow manner until power is restored or repairs can be done.

Soil Compaction issues

The biofilm is most productive if the absorption field is loosely packed, to permit easy
air infiltration down into the biofilm bed. Consequently the land over the leaching field
is often a restricted area where large vehicles cannot be allowed to drive, because the
heavy weight will compact the bed, and potentially cause system failure due to hindering
of biofilm growth.

One method to help prevent compaction of the field is to place a U-shaped cover over
gravel trenches in the bed, with a dosing pipe suspended above the bed by the cover.
Any weight from above is passed to the sides of the trench keeping the bed directly
under the cover free from compaction.

Sewage treatment trickle filters

Onsite sewage facilities (OSSF) are recognized as viable, low-cost, long-term,


decentralized approaches to sewage treatment if they are planned, designed, installed,
operated and maintained properly (USEPA, 1997).

Sewage trickling filters are used in areas not serviced by municipal wastewater
treatment plants (WWTP). They are typically installed in areas where the traditional
septic tank system are failing, cannot be installed due to site limitations, or where
improved levels of treatment are required for environmental benefits such as preventing
contamination of ground water or surface water.

Sites with a high water table, high bedrock, heavy clay, small land area, or which require
minimal site destruction (for example, tree removal) are ideally suited for trickling
filters.

All varieties of sewage trickling filters have a low and sometimes intermittent power
consumption. They can be somewhat more expensive than traditional septic tank-leach
field systems, however their use allows for better treatment, a reduction in size of
disposal area, less excavation, and higher density land development.

Configurations and components

All sewage trickling filter systems share the same fundamental components:

• a septic tank for fermentation and primary settling of solids


• a filter medium upon which beneficial microbes (biomass, biofilm) are promoted
and developed
• a container which houses the filter medium
• a distribution system for applying wastewater to be treated to the filter medium
• a distribution system for disposal of the treated effluent or percolation ponds.

By treating septic tank effluent before it is distributed into the ground, higher treatment
levels are obtained and smaller disposal means such as leach field, shallow pressure
trench or area beds are required.

Systems can be configured for single-pass use where the treated water is applied to the
trickling filter once before being disposed of, or for multi-pass use where a portion of the
treated water is cycled back to the septic tank and re-treated via a closed-loop. Multi-
pass systems result in higher treatment quality and assist in removing Total Nitrogen
(TN) levels by promoting nitrification in the aerobic media bed and denitrification in the
anaerobic septic tank.

Trickling filters differ primarily in the type of filter media used to house the microbial
colonies. Types of media most commonly used include plastic matrix material, open-cell
polyurethane foam, sphagnum peat moss, recycled tires, clinker, gravel,sand and
geotextiles. Ideal filter medium optimizes surface area for microbial attachment,
wastewater retention time, allows air flow, resists plugging and does not degrade. Some
residential systems require forced aeration units which will increase maintenance and
operational costs.

Regulatory approvals

Third-party verification of trickling filters has proven them to be a reliable alternative to


septic systems with increased levels of treatment performance and nitrogen removal.
Typical effluent quality parameters are Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total
suspended solids (TSS), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and fecal coliforms.

The leading testing facility in the United States is the Massachusetts Alternative Septic
System Test Center, a program of the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program. Testing
conducted here includes the stringent Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) where
systems are tested in triplicate over two years, and the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program which is funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and includes stress testing as well as evaluation of nitrogen removal over
14 months. Systems are approved for installation by local, state and federal regulations
and controls.
Fig: A typical complete trickling filter system
Industrial wastewater treatment trickle filters

Wastewaters from a variety of industrial processes have been treated in trickling filters.
Such industrial wastewater trickling filters consist of two types:

• Large tanks or concrete enclosures filled with plastic packing or other media.

• Vertical towers filled with plastic packing or other media.

The availability of inexpensive plastic tower packings has led to their use as trickling
filter beds in tall towers, some as high as 20 meters. As early as the 1960s, such towers
were in use at: the Great Northern Oil's Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota; the Cities
Service Oil Company Trafalgar Refinery in Oakville, Ontario and at a kraft paper mill.

The treated water effluent from industrial wastewater trickling filters is very often
subsequently processed in a clarifier-settler to remove the sludge that sloughs off the
microbial slime layer attached to the trickling filter media (see Image 1 above).

Currently, some of the latest trickle filter technology involves aerated biofilters which
are essentially trickle filters consisting of plastic media in vessels using blowers to inject
air at the bottom of the vessels, with either downflow or upflow of the wastewater.

BOD & COD:


Wastewater quality indicators

Wastewater quality indicators such as the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and
the chemical oxygen demand (COD) are essentially laboratory tests to determine
whether or not a specific wastewater will have a significant adverse effect upon fish or
upon aquatic plant life.

Wastewater biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand

Any oxidizable material present in a natural waterway or in an industrial wastewater


will be oxidized both by biochemical (bacterial) or chemical processes. The result is that
the oxygen content of the water will be decreased. Basically, the reaction for biochemical
oxidation may be written as:

Oxidizable material + bacteria + nutrient + O2 → CO2 + H2O + oxidized


inorganics such as NO3 or SO4

Oxygen consumption by reducing chemicals such as sulfides and nitrites is typified as


follows:

S-- + 2 O2 → SO4--
NO2- + ½ O2 → NO3-

Since all natural waterways contain bacteria and nutrient, almost any waste compounds
introduced into such waterways will initiate biochemical reactions (such as shown
above). Those biochemical reactions create what is measured in the laboratory as the
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD).

Oxidizable chemicals (such as reducing chemicals) introduced into a natural water will
similarly initiate chemical reactions (such as shown above). Those chemical reactions
create what is measured in the laboratory as the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).

Biochemical Oxygen Demand or Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a


chemical procedure for determining how fast biological organisms use up oxygen in a
body of water. It is used in water quality management and assessment, ecology and
environmental science. BOD is not an accurate quantitative test, although it could be
considered as an indication of the quality of a water source.

BOD can be used as a gauge of the effectiveness of wastewater treatment plants. It is


listed as a conventional pollutant in the U.S. Clean Water Act.

Typical BOD values

Most pristine rivers will have a 5-day BOD below 1 mg/L. Moderately polluted rivers
may have a BOD value in the range of 2 to 8 mg/L. Municipal sewage that is efficiently
treated by a three-stage process would have a value of about 20 mg/L or less. Untreated
sewage varies, but averages around 600 mg/L in Europe and as low as 200 mg/L in the
U.S., or where there is severe groundwater or surface water infiltration. (The generally
lower values in the U.S. derive from the much greater water use per capita than other
parts of the world.)

The BOD5 test

BOD measures the rate of oxygen uptake by micro-organisms in a sample of water at a


temperature of 20°C and over an elapsed period of five days in the dark.

There are two recognized methods for the measurement of BOD.

Dilution method

To ensure that all other conditions are equal, a very small amount of micro-organism
seed is added to each sample being tested. This seed is typically generated by diluting
activated sludge with de-ionized water. The BOD test is carried out by diluting the
sample with oxygen saturated de-ionized water, inoculating it with a fixed aliquot of
seed, measuring the dissolved oxygen (DO) and then sealing the sample to prevent
further oxygen dissolving in. The sample is kept at 20 °C in the dark to prevent
photosynthesis (and thereby the addition of oxygen) for five days, and the dissolved
oxygen is measured again. The difference between the final DO and initial DO is the
BOD. The apparent BOD for the control is subtracted from the control result to provide
the corrected value.

The loss of dissolved oxygen in the sample, once corrections have been made for the
degree of dilution, is called the BOD5. For measurement of carbonaceous BOD
(cBOD), a nitrification inhibitor is added after the dilution water has been added to the
sample. The inhibitor hinders the oxidation of nitrogen.

BOD can be calculated by:

• Undiluted: Initial DO - Final DO = BOD


• Diluted: ((Initial DO - Final DO)- BOD of Seed) x Dilution Factor

BOD is similar in function to chemical oxygen demand (COD), in that both measure the
amount of organic compounds in water. However, COD is less specific, since it measures
everything that can be chemically oxidised, rather than just levels of biologically active
organic matter.

Manometric method

This method is limited to the measurement of the oxygen consumption due only to
carbonaceous oxidation. Ammonia oxidation is inhibited.

The sample is kept in a sealed container fitted with a pressure sensor. A substance that
absorbs carbon dioxide (typically lithium hydroxide) is added in the container above the
sample level. The sample is stored in conditions identical to the dilution method.
Oxygen is consumed and, as ammonia oxidation is inhibited, carbon dioxide is released.
The total amount of gas, and thus the pressure, decreases because carbon dioxide is
absorbed. From the drop of pressure, the sensor electronics computes and displays the
consumed quantity of oxygen.
The main advantages of this method compared to the dilution method are:

• simplicity: no dilution of sample required, no seeding, no blank sample


• direct reading of BOD value
• continuous display of BOD value at the current incubation time.

Furthermore, as the BOD measurement can be monitored continuously, a graph of its


evolution can be plotted. Interpolation of several graphs on a similar water may build an
experience of its usual evolution, and allow an estimation of the five days BOD after as
early as the first two days of incubation.[1]

History of the use of BOD

The Royal Commission on River Pollution, which was established in 1865 and the
formation of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal in 1898 led to the selection in
1908 of BOD5 as the definitive test for organic pollution of rivers. Five days was chosen
as an appropriate test period because this is supposedly the longest time that river water
takes to travel from source to estuary in the U.K. In 1912, the commission also set a
standard of 20 ppm BOD5 as the maximum concentration permitted in sewage works
discharging to rivers, provided that there was at least an 8:1 dilution available at dry
weather flow. This was contained in the famous 20:30 (BOD:Suspended Solids) + full
nitrification standard which was used as a yardstick in the U.K. up to the 1970s for
sewage works effluent quality.

Both the BOD and COD tests are a measure of the relative oxygen-depletion effect of a
waste contaminant. Both have been widely adopted as a measure of pollution effect. The
BOD test measures the oxygen demand of biodegradable pollutants whereas the COD
test measures the oxygen demand of biogradable pollutants plus the oxygen demand of
non-biodegradable oxidizable pollutants.

The so-called 5-day BOD measures the amount of oxygen consumed by biochemical
oxidation of waste contaminants in a 5-day period. The total amount of oxygen
consumed when the biochemical reaction is allowed to proceed to completion is called
the Ultimate BOD. The Ultimate BOD is too time consuming, so the 5-day BOD has
almost universally been adopted as a measure of relative pollution effect.

There are also many different COD tests. Perhaps, the most common is the 4-hour COD.

It should be emphasized that there is no generalized correlation between the 5-day BOD
and the Ultimate BOD. Likewise, there is no generalized correlation between BOD and
COD. It is possible to develop such correlations for a specific waste contaminant in a
specific wastewater stream, but such correlations cannot be generalized for use with any
other waste contaminants or wastewater streams.
Merits of Trickling Filter: -

Economic Considerations
While direct economic comparison to other treatment processes can
only be made on a case-by-case basis, some general comparisons can be
made.

• The containment vessel for bio-towers does not need to be constructed


to hold the weight of the wastewater, as do activated sludge tanks.
Vessels are often built of low-cost, pre-cast concrete panels or bolted
steel plates.

• Power consumption for bio-towers is limited to pumping wastewater


and re-circulated wastewater. No aeration power is needed (with the
exception, in certain cases, of ventilation fans.)

• Maintenance for bio-towers is limited to the distributor arm and


pumps. Blowers, air diffusers, return sludge pumps, and associated
electrical equipment and controls are not needed.

• Less operator labor is needed to monitor, sample, and make


adjustments to the process for the simpler trickling filter.

• Odor containment, if desired, is accomplished with the simple


addition of a dome cover to the bio-tower tank.

Demerits of Trickling Filter: -


Trickling filters are packed with rocks, on the surface of which bacteria are allowed to
grow, while wastewater is trickled over through nozzles, allowing for consumption of
dissolved organics by bacteria. The relative effectiveness in BOD removal of trickling
filters is relatively low compared to other secondary treatment systems.

In tests in Switzerland, the trickling filter could treat waste water containing
ammonium, nitrate, phenol and other hazardous contaminants such as PAH. As no
experiments could be done in India, long-term performance remains unknown

In India, the trickling filter technology is not recognized as an applicable solution to


gasifier waste water problems yet.
Some facts to be known about water condition in W.B:
Water For People was awarded a prestigious Grainger Award by the U.S. National
Academy of Engineering (NAE) in February during a Washington, DC, gala for its
innovative work in arsenic removal from potable water in the West Bengal region of
India, where millions of people are at risk from naturally occurring arsenic prevalent in
groundwater supplies. Members of the development team included Prof. Arup K.
SenGupta, Ph.D., John E. Greenleaf, Lee M. Blaney, Owen E. Boyd, and Arun K. Deb.

Dr. SenGupta and Lehigh University partnered in the submission of the award
application. He and his research assistants built a model of the filters used in West
Bengal, India, so that NAE could test the filter under laboratory conditions. They
worked with Bengal Engineering & Science University in India to develop the technology
used by Water For People in West Bengal, India.

In the system, water is hand-pumped into a fixed-bed column, where it passes through
activated alumina or hybrid anion exchanger (HAIX) to remove arsenic. After passing
through a chamber of graded gravel to remove particulates, it’s ready to drink. Each unit
serves about 300 households. The system is used in over 160 locations in West Bengal,
India, providing arsenic-safe potable water to nearly 170,000 villagers.

Technologies Available for Arsenic treatment that might be


suitable for West Bengal:
The technologies under review perform most effectively when treating arsenic in the
form of As(V). As (III) may be converted through pre-oxidation to As(V). Data on
oxidants indicate that chlorine, ferric chloride, and potassium permanganate are
effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V). Pre-oxidation with chlorine may create
undesirable concentrations of disinfection by-products. Ozone and hydrogen peroxide
should oxidize As(III) to As(V), but no data are available on performance.

Coagulation/Filtration (C/F), is an effective treatment process for removal of As(V)


according to laboratory and pilot-plant tests. The type of coagulant and dosage used
affects the efficiency of the process. Within either high or low pH ranges, the efficiency
of C/F is significantly reduced. Alum performance is slightly lower than ferric sulfate.
Other coagulants were also less effective than ferric sulfate. Disposal of the arsenic-
contaminated coagulation sludge may be a concern especially if nearby landfills is
unwilling to accept such a sludge.

Lime Softening (LS) operated within the optimum pH range of greater than 10.5 is
likely to provide a high percentage of As removal for influent concentrations of 50 µg/L.
However, it may be difficult to reduce consistently to 1 µg/L by LS alone. Systems using
LS may require secondary treatment to meet that goal.
Activated Alumina(AA) is effective in treating water with high total dissolved solids
(TDS). However, selenium, fluoride, chloride, and sulfate, if present at high levels, may
compete for adsorption sites. AA is highly selective towards As(V); and this strong
attraction results in regeneration problems, possibly resulting in 5 to 10 percent loss of
adsorptive capacity for each run. Application of point-of-use treatment devices would
need to consider regeneration and replacement.

Ion Exchange (IE) can effectively remove arsenic. However, sulfate, TDS, selenium,
fluoride, and nitrate compete with arsenic and can affect run length. Passage through a
series of columns could improve removal and decrease regeneration frequency.
Suspended solids and precipitated iron can cause clogging of the IE bed. Systems
containing high levels of these constituents may require pretreatment.

Reverse Osmosis (RO) provided removal efficiencies of greater than 95 percent when
operating pressure is at ideal psi. If RO is used by small systems in the western U. S.,
60% water recovery will lead to an increased need for raw water. The water recovery is
the volume of water produced by the process divided by the influent stream (product
water/influent stream). Discharge of reject water or brine may also be a concern. If RO
is used by small systems in the western U. S., water recovery will likely need to be
optimized due to the scarcity of water resources. The increased water recovery can lead
to increased costs for arsenic removal.

Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR) is expected to achieve removal efficiencies of 80


percent. One study demonstrated arsenic removal to 3 µg/L from an influent
concentration of 21 µg/L.

Nanofiltration (NF) was capable of arsenic removals of over 90%. The recoveries
ranged between 15 to 20%. A recent study showed that the removal efficiency dropped
significantly during pilot-scale tests where the process was operated at more realistic
recoveries. If nanofiltration is used by small systems in the western U. S., water recovery
will likely need to be optimized due to the scarcity of water resources. The increased
water recovery can lead to increased costs for arsenic removal.

Point of Use/Point of Entry (POU/POE)The 1996 SDWA amendments specifically


identify Point-of-Use (POU) and Point-of-Entry (POE) devices as options that can be
used for compliance with NPDWRs. POU and POE devices can be effective and
affordable compliance options for small systems in meeting a new arsenic MCL. A
Federal Register notice is being prepared by EPA to delete the prohibition {§141.101} on
the use of POU devices as compliance technologies. Because of this prohibition, few field
studies exist on the application of POU and POE devices. One such case study was
performed by EPA, in conjunction with the Village of San Ysidro, in New Mexico
(Rogers 1990). The study was performed to determine if POU Reverse Osmosis (RO)
units could satisfactorily function in lieu of central treatment to remove arsenic and
fluoride from the drinking water supply of a small rural community of approximately
200 people. A RO unit, a common type of POU device, is a membrane system that
rejects compounds based on their molecular properties and characteristics of the reverse
osmosis membrane. The RO units removed 86% of the total arsenic.

Prospective Technologies
Ion Exchange with Brine Recycle. Research recently completed by the University of
Houston (Clifford) at McFarland, CA and Albuquerque, NM has shown that ion
exchange treatment can reduce arsenic (V) levels to below 2 µg/L even with sulfate
levels as high as 200 mg/L. Sulfate does impact run length, however; the higher the
sulfate concentration, the shorter the run length to arsenic breakthrough. The research
also showed the brine regeneration solution could be reused as many as 20 times with
no impact on arsenic removal provided that some salt was added to the solution to
provide adequate chloride levels for regeneration. Brine recycle reduces the amount of
waste for disposal and the cost of operation.

Iron (Addition) Coagulation with Direct Filtration. The University of Houston


(Clifford) recently completed pilot studies at Albuquerque, NM on iron addition
(coagulation) followed by direct filtration (microfiltration system) resulting in arsenic
(V) being consistently removed to below 2 µg/L. Critical operating parameters are iron
dose, mixing energy, detention time, and pH.

Conventional Iron/Manganese (Fe/Mn) Removal Processes. Iron


coagulation/filtration and iron addition with direct filtration methods are effective for
arsenic (V) removal. Source waters containing naturally occurring iron and/or
manganese and arsenic can be treated for arsenic removal by using conventional Fe/Mn
removal processes. These processes can significantly reduce the arsenic by removing the
iron and manganese from the source water based upon the same mechanisms that occur
with the iron addition methods. The addition of iron may be required if the
concentration of naturally occurring iron/manganese is not sufficient to achieved the
required arsenic removal level.

EPA Research Activities


EPA' s Office of Research and Development(ORD) is in the process of funding three
arsenic treatment research activities. First, a field study will be conducted to evaluate
the effectiveness of eight full scale drinking water treatment plants to remove arsenic
from their source water on a sustained basis for six to twelve months. The processes
included in this field study will be two large system technologies, conventional
coagulation/ filtration, and lime softening, and two small system technologies, ion
exchange and the iron/manganese, oxidation/filtration process. These evaluation
studies will also include characterization and quantification of the residuals produced by
each process. A second project will consist of laboratory and pilot plant studies to
characterize the kinetics of oxidation of arsenic III to arsenic V by various oxidants and
oxidation processes. And finally, a workgroup meeting is being planned for February,
1998 to review the state of the science of existing and developing drinking water
treatment technologies effective for arsenic removal. Future work will entail additional
full scale field studies on other small system treatment alternatives, such as activated
alumina treatment, residuals characterization and management studies, and treatment
cost and evaluation studies.

Issues
Coagulation/Filtration and Lime Softening:

• Not appropriate for most small systems--high cost, need for well trained
operators, and variability in process performance
• CF & LS alone may have difficultly consistently meeting a low-level MCL. IE may
be useful as a polishing step.
• Disposal of sludge may be a problem
Activated Alumina:

• Lack of availability of F-1 alumina. Testing of substitute not yielding same


results.
• Chemical handling requirements may make this process too complex and
dangerous for many small systems
• AA may not be efficient in the long term, as it seems to lose significant adsorptive
capacity with each regeneration cycle
• Highly concentrated waste streams-disposal of brine may be a problem

Ion Exchange:

• Highly concentrated waste by-product stream- disposal of brine may be a


problem. Brine recycling might reduce the impact.
• Sulfate levels affect run length
• Recommended as a BAT primarily for small, ground water systems with low
sulfate and TDS and as the polishing step after filtration for low-level options

Reverse Osmosis/Nanofiltration:

• Extensive corrosion control could be required for low-level option--ability to


blend would be limited
• Water rejection (about 20-25 percent of influent) may be an issue in water-scarce
regions

Electrodialysis Reversal:

• Water rejection (about 20-25 percent of influent) may be an issue in water-scarce


regions
• May not be competitive with respect to costs and process efficiency when
compared with RO and NF, although it is easier to operate

Point of Use/Point of Entry:

• Adopting a POU/POE treatment system in a small community requires more


recordkeeping to monitor individual devices than does central treatment.
• POU/POE systems require special regulations regarding customer
responsibilities, water utility responsibilities, and the requirement of installation
of the devices in each home obtaining water from the utility.
Tirupur Water and Wastewater Treatment Project, India

Water treatment plant capacity

185 million litres/day

Plant type

Conventional rapid gravity filter with Lamella clarifier

Wastewater treatment plant capacity

15 million litres/day (expandable to 30mld)

Plant type

Secondary treatment level - activated sludge

Footprint

5.2 hectares

Estimated cost

$220 million

Tirupur Area Development Project announced

1991

In 2006, the recently completed Tirupur water system – the first public-private
partnership project in the history of India’s water sector – gained a distinction in the
industrial category of the Global Water Awards, being highly commended by the judges.

The project involved the construction of two new treatment works, ultimately providing
the area with a daily supply of 185 million litres of potable water and the capacity to
treat 30 million litres of domestic sewage.

In addition to the plants, the scheme also required the construction of an intake
structure downstream of the Bhavani-Cauvery river confluence, 55km of transmission
pipeline, a system of 25 reservoirs, a master balancing reservoir and a distribution and
sewer network.

PROJECT FUNDING

Project funding was a mixture of debt and equity, an approach which involved a number
of sources including public money, various commercial interests, financial institutions
and international funding agencies. Assistance came from the Infrastructure Leasing
and Financial Services (IL&FS) and from the US Agency for International Development
(USAID) with loan guarantees over 30 years for $25 million (US). The project came in
on its $220 million budget.
BACKGROUND

Tirupur is located in Tamil Nadu state and is India’s largest producer of cotton knitwear.
With over 2,500 textile businesses located within a 25-mile radius, earning some $1
billion, the region – one of the most economically dynamic in Southern India – accounts
for over 75% of the entire country’s knitwear exports.

Water is essential to the industry and historically groundwater and tankers have been
extensively used to overcome the city’s lack of supply. However, the industry has itself
heavily polluted the groundwater with chemical dyes; it has been said – and not entirely
frivolously – that the colour of the regions water varies with the mood of Paris fashions.

With the groundwater having become progressively more saline and contaminated, by
1990 the need to address the situation had become of pressing regional importance and
steps began which ultimately led to the instigation of the project.

While the need for an improved water system was clear, the challenge was to finance it.
Ultimately, this required the formation of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to access
commercial funding and implement the project. In 1995, the New Tirupur Area
Development Corporation Limited (NTADCL) was formed for the role and subsequently
began the process of international competitive tendering.

Since the municipal area also lacked an organised system of drainage, sewage collection
or treatment, it was decided to address both this and the provision of potable water, as
part of the Tirupur Area Development Project. An associated wider scheme of works also
encompasses additional local infrastructure requirements including roads,
telecommunications and power.

THE PROJECT

The project itself was split into three separate contracts, two awarded on a engineer,
procure and construct (EPC) basis and one to Operate and Manage (O&M) the finished
facility.

Construction began in October 2002 and the main civil /mechanical work was
completed by December 2004. Pipeline testing began in March 2005. The water
treatment plant commissioning followed the next month and the Tirupur Municipality
began receiving project water on alternate days in October 2005, after a two month trial
period. The wastewater treatment plant was originally scheduled for completion in
October 2005, but was delayed until February 2006 by a heavy monsoon and floods.

Once fully operational, the system will service nearly 1,000 textile units and over 1.6
million residents in Tirupur and its surrounding areas. A daily total of around 125
million litres of water will be supplied to the knitwear dyeing and bleaching industry, 25
million litres to the Tirupur municipality, which includes 60,000 slum dwellers and 35
million litres will be shared between the region’s remaining rural towns, villages and
settlements.
Sanitation provision within the scheme includes 88 of the city’s designated slum areas.
The water treatment plant was built to a conventional design, using a rapid gravity filter
with a lamella clarifier to provide the 185 million litres per day capacity.

The wastewater facility takes domestic sewage only and uses an activated sludge system
to achieve secondary treatment standards. The plant discharges into Noyyal river.
Initially built with a capacity of 15 million litres per day, its design allows eventual
expansion to double that, when sewer provision is extended to the remaining 15 of the
town’s 52 wards.

Although the construction elements of the project were implemented in two parts, their
execution was effectively simultaneous. The EPC I work involved building the water
intake, the transmission pipeline from the river to Tirupur and the master balancing
reservoir, while the EPC 2 contract, covered the main feeder pipelines and distribution
networks, overhead and ground level storage tanks and the sewerage network in the
Tirupur town area.

Once the construction work was completed and the master balancing reservoir linked to
the distribution network, Mahindra Water Utilities' 30 year Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) contract came into effect.
Members of Runner’s Group: -
 Arunava Roy (Group Leader).
14
 Sujata Kabiraj
91
 Gaurav kumar Verma
31
 Kunal kumar
45
 Tuhinangshu Kar
98
 Rajesh Bin
64
 Somnath Das
85
 Khusboo Verma
41
 Tamal Chakraborty
96
 Anusha Gangwar
11
 Haldhar Prasad
33
 Dewanshu Kumar
30
 Palash Paul
59
 Swarup Roy
95
 Kuldeep kumar Ram
44
 Rohit Mahato
67
 Niraj Kumar Singh 58

Bibliography:-
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickling_filter

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemical_oxygen_demand

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_waste_water_treatment_t
echnologies

 http://www.eng-consult.com/arsenic/treat1.htm

 http://ww.pennnet.com/display_article/293300/20/ARTCL/non
e/none/1/W-... - 61k - 2007-04-01

You might also like