You are on page 1of 3

R

WATER TREATMENT

A REVIEW OF NEW DRINKING WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA


M Muntisov, M Chapman, G Finlayson, N Johnston, M Green
Abstract This paper reviews the performance of new drinking water technologies in Australia based on the authors combined experience. The technologies reviewed include DAFF, Microfiltration, Ozone/BAC, ACTIFLO, MIEX and UV. Introduction Australians have a tradition of being quick to adopt new technology. This approach is also evident in the Water Industry especially in recent times where there has been an emphasis on efficiency at least cost and on water quality risk reduction. Technology which promises these outcomes has been sought after. A number of new drinking water treatment technologies have been introduced to Australia over the last fifteen years or so. This paper reviews a selection of these technologies based on the experience of the authors and assesses how successful they have been and their likely application into the future.

Figure 1. One of Australias first DAF plants at Richmond, NSW.

terms of filtered water turbidity begins to deteriorate when the feed turbidity exceeds around 100 NTU. In one case, early filter breakthrough or shortened filter run times were encountered when a high raw water colour (> 100 HU) occurred with elevated turbidity (> 50 NTU). Operational problems which have Dissolved Air Flotation/Filtration been encountered include inadequate (DAFF) coagulation control due to unstable pH adjustment, insufficient flash mixing, The DAFF process has been the rapid deterioration of filtered water undoubted success story in drinking turbidity upon DAF failure, and water treatment in Australia over the last mudballing due to excessive polymer dose 15 years. The DAFF process has proven and inadequate backwash rates. itself to be highly suitable to treat Australias organic-rich surface waters, DAFF plants are sensitive to polymer especially those that are susceptible to algal dose and in many cases it is not used. The activity. operating power cost of around 100 kWhr/ML is higher The process has proven to be compared to cost-effective because of the sedimentation/filtration (of the typical co-location of the filter order of 50 kWhr/ML) but this and flotation processes in the same can be offset by a generally more tank. It has therefore been very stable start/stop operation which popular with Design and means advantage can be taken of Construct contractors seeking to low cost overnight power and less achieve specified outcomes at the operator attendance is often lowest possible price. It is particpossible. ularly attractive for Australian conditions where source reserCare is needed in providing voirs are often subject to algal sufficient depth between float events. layer and the top of the filter bed and in the layout of backwash The majority of DAFF plants draw their source water from Figure 2. Typical small scale microfiltration plant (4 ML/d). launders to avoid air entrainment impoundments, although there are examples of run-of-the-river plants including Ulverstone (Tas), Red Cliffs (Vic), Shepparton (Vic), West Bank (Qld). The authors have been involved in more than 30 DAFF plants in Australia. From this experience, we note that process problems with DAFF plants are usually rare. However problems are known to have occurred at Hamilton (Vic), West Bank (Qld) and Myponga (SA). Operating experience has indicated issues related to turbidity constraints on the source water. Plant performance in
20 WATER FEBRUARY 2003

W A T E R

T R E A T M E N T

into the filter bed and short filter run times. There is also a practical limitation on DAF cell length of around 15 metres to avoid excessively long hydraulic float removal. There is an increasing trend towards mechanical rollers for float removal which are more efficient and produce less wastewater. The DAFF process has been successfully operated with powdered activated carbon doses up to 50 mg/L. Particle removal efficiencies are good with about 2 to 3 log removal Figure 3. The Edenhope Ozone/BAC plant. in the 2 to 10 micron ranges which On the other hand, the membrane is relevant for Cryptosporidium and Giardia physical life guarantees may be realistic removal. Overall the DAFF process is a viable based on the experience of some early cost-effective process under many installations of Memtecs. An example is Australian conditions. However it is the Meredith (Vic) plant whose important to understand raw water quality membranes lasted seven years compared variability and coagulant requirements to with the guarantee of five years. The actual guarantee agreement is very ensure optimum design. important and a key issue. Microfiltration The authors view on how to Australia was somewhat of a proving implement a microfiltration project to ground for microfiltration through the account for these issues is set out in development of high volume membrane Finlayson (2001). It is important to technology by Australian company understand the raw water quality and Memtec Ltd. coagulation requirements to ensure correct The steady decline in the cost of membrane selection and appropriate membrane systems, largely due to membrane area is provided. improved technology, in conjunction with In summary, major advantages of this the apparent robustness of the membrane technology include minimal operation filtration process has contributed to attendance, limited or no coagulant usage microfiltration gaining defacto, preferred in some applications and greater than 4 technology status for smaller remote log removal of particles in the 2 to 10 water supply systems. micron range. Disadvantages include How successful has microfiltration higher power usage (of the order of 200 been? kWhr/ML), membrane replacement costs, There is no doubt that microfiltration chemical cleaning requirements and the produces excellent particle removal under need for coagulants in coloured water. all feed conditions. However, it is clear Our view is that microfiltration will that microfiltration is also still a technology gain in popularity and usage as prices in development as evidenced by a number continue to decline due to technology of examples of installed plants which were developments, increased competition and unable to achieve required net filtered as the issues discussed above are progreswater production and which produce high sively resolved by membrane suppliers. levels of cleaning chemical waste. The technology is particularly relevant as These issues remain problems today as the focus on water quality risk reduction is evidenced by the retrofitting of increases. membranes to achieve capacity of plants, The development of oxidant-resistant for example at Romsey (Vic) and Tumut membranes and large volume submerged (NSW). configurations (eg Bendigo (Vic)) will also The decline in membrane capacity with increase the attractiveness of microfiltime is one area that, in the authors tration. opinion, the membrane suppliers do not yet fully understand under the complete Ozone/BAC The first municipal ozone Biological range of conditions that can be encounActivated Carbon (BAC) plant built in tered. Australia was at Edenhope (Vic) in 1997 Key issues include fouling by silica, to treat a lake supply subject to chronic manganese and soluble iron, and the blue-green problems (Muntisov et al, optimisation of backwashing and cleaning 1998). Since then it has become increasprocesses.

ingly popular in treating similar supplies with toxin risks or ones where ongoing tastes and odours are an issue. Other examples include Trentham (Vic), Noosa (Qld), Bendigo (Vic), Hamilton Island (Qld) and Caloundra-Maroochy (Qld - under construction). The experience with ozone/BAC appears to be that it produces an aesthetically pleasing treated water. Long term organics removal through the process varies between 10 and 25% depending on the site. The process will generally reduce chlorination by-product formation, although care is needed in waters with high bromide concentrations as brominated species may predominate (Kostakis & Nicholson, 2001). The life of the activated carbon beds remains unresolved as the plants are only in their first years of operation. The carbon at the Edenhope plant was replaced after about 3 1/2 years of service primarily at the request of a later D&C contractor installing a small reverse osmosis plant after the ozone/BAC process. Information on ozone by-product formation, particularly bromate, in actual operating plants is limited. The privately operated plants generally have a bromate limit of 0.02 mg/L in the contract. The authors believe that the use of ozone/BAC will increase in Australia, as utilities strive to produce aesthetically pleasing water to their customers and to reduce the risks associated with algal toxins or pesticides.
MIEX The Magnetic Ion Exchange (MIEX) process was originally developed by the CSIRO. The process is very efficient in removing certain organics from water (Bourke & Slunjski, 1999). There are two full-scale plants in Australia, the 112 ML/d Wanneroo plant (WA) and the 2.5 ML/d Mt Pleasant plant (SA). Figure 4 shows a process schematic of the Wanneroo plant. At Wanneroo a comparison over 6 months between the existing conventional plant and the MIEX-enhanced process (MIEX ahead of the conventional plant) found (Smith, 2002): The MIEX process used 45% less alum; MIEX process reduced the Filterable Organic Carbon (FOC) by a further 24%; The MIEX product water produced less total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) (56% less than conventional product water); and
WATER FEBRUARY 2003 21

W A T E R

T R E A T M E N T

The MIEX product water had a lower chlorine demand (on average 18% less). Some of the key technical challenges associated with MIEX are resin recycle efficiency and disposal of the waste stream. At Wanneroo the resin loss in the proving period was 4.2 L per ML treated and the wastes are discharged to the ocean (Smith et al., 2002). Cost data is not yet publicly available from the two plants. Therefore the costeffectiveness of the MIEX process is not yet able to be fully evaluated at this time. The attractiveness of MIEX is mainly in applications where organics removal is important and may increase if guidelines for TTHMs were to be lowered. MIEX does not remove algal taste and odour compounds.
ACTIFLO ACTIFLO is a patented ballasted flocculation process that offers high-rate clarification. It uses dosing of a microsand (100 - 150 micron) to weigh down the formed floc to accelerate the settling process. ACTIFLO clarifiers have been operated at up to 80 m/hr. This compares with conventional clarifier rates of up to 3 m/hr and DAF rates of around 10 m/hr. There are no drinking water applications of ACTIFLO in Australia but the process has been used for treating wastewater effluents at Shepparton (Vic) and wastewater storm flows at Beenleigh (Qld). The experience at Shepparton treating a highly organic algal-laden lagoon effluent shows that the ACTIFLO clarifiers could operate effectively at up to 40 m/hr. However, microsand losses and polymer use was higher than expected. Further, the experience there showed the importance of appropriate filtration design following the ACTIFLO process as carryover of polymer can occur. ACTIFLO may find application on high solids feed waters where land area is limited. Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection UV has been used on small supplies in Australia for many years. The installations have typically suffered from being undersized or not appropriate for the water quality being treated and do not have a long term disinfectant residual. As a result UV has a history of failing to meet basic microbiological criteria (E.coli and Total Coliforms) reliably. Recently it has been found that UV is effective in inactivating Cryptosporidium and Giardia at relatively modest dose rates (Bukhari & Clancy, 2002).
22 WATER FEBRUARY 2003

Figure 4. The Wanneroo MIEX Process Schematic (Smith et al, 2002).

This treatment efficacy is formally recognised in the USA with up to 3 log inactivation credit for Cryptosporidium and up to 4 log credit for Giardia (Scharfenaker, 2002) but this is not yet the case in Australia. There are no known applications of UV specifically for Cryptosporidium control in Australia, but there are in New Zealand. Care is needed in selection of transmissivity value at the design stage and in provision of correct automatic lamp sleeve cleaning technology, UV dose monitor and lamp failure detection equipment. Duty/standby arrangements are important because there is no active disinfectant residual. The authors view is that UV offers a very cost-effective means of mitigating Cryptosporidium risks in the right applications. Raw water quality and the distribution arrangement is important. Cold waters with low algae, turbidity, iron and colour levels, and systems with short detention times to customers are the most suitable. UV is best applied to filtered water.
Conclusions Based on the experience of the authors: The DAFF water treatment process has been successfully applied to Australian waters and is best suited to reservoir waters with high algae and moderate to high colour and turbidity. Microfiltration use is growing and will continue to grow although there remain technical issues which need to be managed carefully. Ozone/BAC has found a niche in the Australian market and will continue to be used particularly on waters subject to algal problems such as tastes, odours and toxins.

MIEX is very effective at reducing organics and will find application where this is important. ACTIFLO may find application with high solids feed waters where land area is limited. UV has significant potential as a costeffective means of reducing Cryptosporidium risks. It is best suited to filtered water conditions or raw waters with consistently low iron, turbidity and colour.
References
Bourke, M and Slunjski, M. MIEX DOC Process Launched in Western Australia, Water, November/December 1999 Bukhari, Z and Clancy, J. Medium Pressure UV for Oocyst Inactivation, Journal AWWA Vol 91, No. 3, March 2002 Finlayson, G. Real World Implementation of Microfiltration, AWA 19th Federal Convention, Canberra, April 2001 Kostakis, C and Nicholson, B.C. Impact of Ozone on Disinfection By-products: Comparison of Three Surface Waters with Differing Character, CRC for Water Quality & Treatment, Research Report No. 9, November 2001 Muntisov, M., McMillan, R. and Archer, H. Australias First Ozone/BAC Drinking Water Treatment Plant, AWWA Watertech Conference, Brisbane, 1998 Smith, P., Botica, C., Long, B and Allender, B. Design, Construction, Commissioning and Operation of the Worlds First Large Scale MIEX Water Treatment Plant. AWWA Convention, New Orleans, 2002 Smith, P. Personal Communication, 2002 Sharfenaker, M. Draft LT2 ESWTR Out of the Box Journal AWWA, Vol 91, No. 2, February 2002

The Authors Mike Muntisov. Mike Chapman, Greg Finlayson and Nigel Johnston are members of the Water Technology Team in GHD Melbourne. Mike Green is with GHD Perth.

You might also like