You are on page 1of 9

Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection Processes

Andrew Salveson
1
, Eva Steinle-Darling
1


1. Carollo Engineers, Walnut Creek, CA

Email: asalveson@carollo.com

ABSTRACT
Water shortages, better economics, and improved public acceptance is leading to increased
indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR) projects. Distinctly missing from
these projects are clear regulations for how to protect public health in these applications. The
State of California has draft regulations for IPR that are well followed within California. Texas is
in the process of drafting their own set of guidelines. Recent work by the WateReuse Research
Foundation, as part of project 11-02, included a detailed evaluation of public health risk and
treatment requirements to produce potable water from wastewater. As part of 11-02, a user-
friendly excel based program was developed to guide the planning and analysis of advanced
technologies for potable reuse. The details of this work are presented here.
KEYWORDS: Direct Potable Reuse, Indirect Potable Reuse, IPR, DPR, pathogens
THE PROBLEM
Water shortages, better economics, and improved public acceptance is leading to increased
indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR) projects. Distinctly missing from
these projects are clear regulations for how to protect public health in these applications. The
State of California has draft regulations for IPR that are well followed within California. Texas is
in the process of drafting their own set of guidelines. Recent work by the WateReuse Research
Foundation, as part of project 11-02, included a detailed evaluation of public health risk and
treatment requirements to produce potable water from wastewater. As part of 11-02, a user-
friendly excel based program was developed to guide the planning and analysis of advanced
technologies for potable reuse. This tool, presented here, allows for user input on treatment
targets, but highlights scientifically based starting points. This tool then allows the user to piece
together a treatment train to meet the listed targets, including warnings if insufficient treatment is
provided. The tool is titled Integrated Treatment Train Toolbox for Potable Reuse (IT3
PR
),
developed by Carollo Engineers as part of WateReuse Research Foundation (WRRF) Project 11-
02.
Figure 1 IT
3
PR Toolbox



3279
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.
TREATMENT OVERVIEW
Potable reuse treatment trains can involve a number of components, which can include the
conventional wastewater treatment plant, tertiary treatment technologies (filtration and
disinfection), advanced processes which can include membranes and advanced oxidation,
national treatment processes (environmental buffers) and final drinking water treatment. The
various components of treatment do not all need to be utilized, only what is needed to provide a
high quality potable water. Optimization and use of existing treatment with the supplement of
advanced processes is recommended.
The environmental buffer is an important component of IPR, as it provides a measure of
treatment and provides what the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) calls response
retention time, which is the time needed to respond to water quality problems. For some
locations, groundwater contamination or the lack of a groundwater basin eliminates the ability to
use groundwater recharge as an environmental buffer. For other locations, a surface water
reservoir is not available to likewise use as an environmental buffer. The result is an inability to
implement IPR. For such cases WRRF 11-02 is developing criteria to safely implement DPR.
REGULATORY SUMMARY
By 2016, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) must conclude on the viability of
DPR in California. Critical information is being developed and analyzed by CDPH to allow for
the proper decision and approach to DPR. Those key projects include WRRF projects 11-10, 11-
01, 11-02, 12-06, and other yet to be started WRRF projects. As of this date, no regulations exist
for DPR, however, DPR will be regulated similarly to IPR, but with the addition of increased
monitoring, engineered storage, and additional treatment.
In the absence of clear regulatory guidelines for DPR at this time,
and in light of recent public health research on IPR, the industry is
differing to a recently completed expert analysis conducted by the
National Water Research Institute (NWRI) as part of WRRF Project
11-02. The NWRI report, Examining the Criteria for Direct Potable
Reuse, concluded that a wastewater must undergo a series of
treatment barriers before potable water consumption that result in the
following pathogen reduction levels:
Virus Reduction 12-log
Protozoa Reduction (as measured by Cryptosporidium
reduction) 10 log
Salmonella Reduction (as measured by total coliform reduction) 9 log
The removal targets for trace pollutants, such as the ubiquitous trace organic compounds
(TOrCs), potential endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs)is less clear. The State of California
has set advanced oxidation requirements of 0.5-log reduction for 1,4-dioxane (an oxidizable
organic compound) and set a target of 10 ng/L of the carcinogen and disinfection byproduct n-
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). As part of WRRF 11-02, the project team has set some targets
as follows:
Figure 2 NWRI Expert Report
3280
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.
Reduction of TOrCs 90%;
Reduction of EDCs, as measured by the estradiol equivalence (EEQ) criteria 90%; and
10 ng/L of NDMA.
TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS MODELING WITH IT
3
PR
First, the decision must be made whether to treat the wastewater effluent to a potable water
standard before introduction to the WTP or to treat the water to an acceptable raw water standard
before introduction to the WTP. Second, if a utility is considering the co-mingling of advanced
treated wastewater effluent with another water supply (other surface water in this case), there is
the pathogen reduction benefit of dilution. This example analysis includes both the value of
dilution and the value of treatment provided by a downstream UF/chlorination drinking water
plant. No environmental buffer is used in this example, though the tool allows for such use.
Looking at appropriate treatment, different treatment trains can be employed to attain the target
pathogen and pollutant levels. These include the conventional and now widely used tertiary
treatment of microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and UV/H
2
O
2
(UV AOP). The MF
component should be replaced with ultrafiltration (UF) to provide a more robust barrier to
pathogens. There are two considerable drawbacks to the UF/RO/UV AOP approach; cost and
brine. Thus, alternate approaches to creating potable water from wastewater have been
implemented and are the focus of WRRF 11-02. These alternative trains often employ UF
membranes, ozone, biofiltration, and UV. For this first round of DPR treatment analysis, the
following treatment trains are suggested:
Train #1 - WWTP tertiary effluent, UF/RO/UV AOP;
Train #2 - WWTP tertiary effluent, UF, O
3
, biologically active filtration (BAF), and UV
AOP.
IT
3
PR model output worksheets are attached(Attachment A). Table 1 summarizes the levels of
pathogen treatment and trace pollutant treatment for each treatment train. Both treatment trains
far exceeded the performance requirements, with the added value that Train #2 is a non-RO train
and thus does not create RO brine issues.
Recommendations based upon this analysis include:
1) The high level of treatment documented in Tables 1 and 2 suggest that treatment could be
reduced in several ways and still provide high quality potable water. This includes the use
of MF instead of UF, the elimination of membranes ahead of ozone entirely, or the
elimination of the high dose UV system that is currently used as the final polishing
treatment step ahead of a drinking water treatment plant.
2) The large buffer in treatment capacity analyzed here allows for higher regulatory
confidence in water quality, and thus would potentially reduce the level of engineered
storage and advanced monitoring that may normally be employed for DPR.

3281
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.
Table 1 IT
3
PR Model Output
Treatment
Train
Log
Removal
Virus
Log
Removal
Protozoa
Log
Removal
Bacteria
EEQ
Removal,
%
TOrC
Removal,
%
NDMA
Concentration,
ng/L
1 13 12.5 15 99.5 99.0 4.0
2 18 13.5 20 99.8 94.4 7.9

Table 2 Combined Treatment for DPR using OVSD Tertiary Effluent
Treatment Process Virus Protozoa Bacteria
WWTP - Primary through Secondary Treatment

1.2
a,b
1.3
c
WWTP Tertiary Filtration 0 1.0 1.0
WWTP UV Disinfection 2
d
5
d
5
d

Train 1/Train 2 (from Table 1) 13.0/18.0

12.5/13.5

15/20

Treatment at Drinking Water Plant - Ultrafiltration 3.5 4 4
Treatment at Drinking Water Plant Chlorination
e
3.0
f
0.0
h
6.0
Dilution at the Drinking Water Plant (minimum ratio of
River Water to Purified Recycled Water is 5:1)
g

0.7 0.7 0.7
Total 23.4/28.4 24.5/25.5 31.7/36.5
Treatment Goal per WRRF 11-02, inline with current
CDPH Draft Regulations for IPR
12.0 10.0 10.0
(a) Francy et al, 2012 (see Table 2). (b) USEPA 1986 (see table 2-3). (c) Rose et al., 2004. (d) EPA
UVDGM credits for 100 mJ/cm
2
. (e) Assumes water temperature of 20 deg C. (f) Conventional
treatment in full compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule and its amendments (USEPA
1989, 1998, and 2006). (g) Assumed based upon an annual AWTP flow is 6,000 acre-feet per year,
which is 5.35 mgd. (h) No credit given due to low Cryptosporidium removal.


3282
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.
AttachmentA

3283
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

FigureA1IT
3
PRInputScreenshot

3284
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

FigureA2IT
3
PRTreatTrain1PerformancePredictions

3285
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

FigureA3IT
3
PRTreatTrain2PerformancePredictions

3286
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

FigureA4IT
3
PRTreatmentTrainComparison

3287
WEFTEC 2013
Copyright 2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

You might also like