Resurrection of an abandoned 23 MLD Sewage Infested Surface Water Treatment Plant (WTP) by Disinfection at High Lime and Neutralization

by CO2 at Hosur, India

NEERI-Nagpur-India-February-9-2011 Er. Dr. S. Saktheeswaran, (Ph. D, UK), MRSPH (London) 0091-9380352434 sonykuty@vsnl.com

The Bangalore Metropolis, India

The Pennaiar River for surplus sewage of Bangalore Water and the Dam

The Pennaiar River for surplus sewage of Bangalore Water and the Dam

Statement of The Problem

Water source to the WTP is a river water impoundment The river water has flows only in July-September Upstream population discharges non point untreated sewage The benthos of impoundment bears the brunt of this pollution In summer months of March-June, the pollution is heightened and exceeds the self purification limit The result is aquatic organisms became devoid of aerobic state in the upper layers and algae started decaying and water stinking.

The 23.5 MLD capacity WTP was not designed to handle this
To add to the woes, the ground water availability at the site was at nearly 200 m depth and the public could not afford drawing it be deep wells on a domestic scale. It resulted in exodus.

The Raw Water Quality in the Dam in High Summer Times

Appearance Appearance after 24 hours Odour Odour after 24 hours Turbidity, NTU Total hardness as CaCO3 Calcium as CaCO3 Magnesium as CaCO3 Iron total as Fe Manganese as Mn Alkalinity Phe / total CaCo3 Greenish Greenish Algal Foul stench 13 to 20 Sodium as Na Potassium as K Total Dissolved Solids Iron total as Fe Manganese as Mn Oxygen absorbed, 4 Hours BOD COD Chloride as Cl Sulphate as SO4 85 to 95 7 to 10 630 to 670 0.24 to 0.52 Nil to trace

320 to 350
180 to 210 81 to 85 0.24 to 0.50 Nil to trace

5.6 to 6.8
14 to 18 48 to 65 150 to 170 40 to 52 40000 to 80000

0 / 380 - 450 Fecal coliform / 100 ml

Treatment Options Chosen Option The options considered were 1 Heavy pre-chlorination, SMBS, lime clariflocculation-rapid sand filtration, post chlorination, Copper sulphate use in the impoundment,

3 Micro strainers for algae filtration and existing treatment,

4 DAF followed by existing treatment,

5 Upstream spin klin disc filters & UF membranes,

6 High Lime followed by ammonia stripping and carbonation.

No.

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Choice

1. Prechlorintion 1. Chlorination of combined with decaying organisms ammonia can result implies potential THM Heavy in chloramines formations and prechlorintion, 2. Chloramines result carcinogens. SMBS, lime in lower 2. Precise control of 1 clariflocculation concentrations of chlorine dosages is No -rapid sand disinfection negated in this filtration, post byproducts outskirts of the city chlorination 3. Chloramines do not 3. Leaks of chlorine gas tend to react with may affect the effort organic compounds by public who are and less of taste and already upset odor complaints

No.

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Choice

1. Elimination of fresh 1. If Cu concentrations Copper growth of algae appear in raw water, sulphate use 2. Ease of application there is no way of No. in the by dosing from a removal in the WTP impoundment boat 2. The dosing will not be 3. Saving at least the precise & exceed future impoundment

No.

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Choice

Micro strainers for algae filtration and existing treatment

1. Micro strainers can eliminate algae 2. The downstream treatment can be easier 3. Toxicity from chemical dosages is avoided

1. Micro strainers may not deal with algal lysis 2. Decaying algal stench No cannot be removed 3. Basic problem of foul odour remains

No.

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Choice

1. DAF can be effective in floating DAF followed out algae by existing 2. Algal scum can be treatment put through filter press 3. Resulting cake can be composted

1. Decaying algal stench cannot be removed 2. No guarantee of complete algal removal 3. Dependence on prechlorintion continues

No

No.

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Choice

High lime, CO2, and rapid sand filter and post chlorination

1. High ph disinfects microbes & microbes 2. It removes colour, stench, NH4 and PO4 3. No danger of THMs due to prechlorintion

1. Sludge from high lime has to be addressed 2. Need to store and use CO2 in containers 3. Ambient levels of ammonia to be monitored

Yes

No.

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Choice

Spin klin filters, UF membranes, existing treatment

1. Spin klin filters & UF can eliminate algae 2. Avoiding dosing of chemicals

1. Dependence on the Next single vendor for ever best. 2. Basic problem of foul odour remains

Existing Treatment Process / Facility

Cascade and Prechlorintion Lime Polyelectrolyte Clariflocculation, rapid sand filter & chlorination

Retrofitted Treatment Process / Facility

Cascade No prechlorintion High Lime pH 11 Polyelectrolyte

Clariflocculation,

NH3 air stripping

Carbonation

Rapid sand filter & chlorination

The Supplied Vs the Desirable

The Supplied Vs the Desirable

The water that was delivered from the WTP - foul odourous & coloured Rejected by public Put up with by industry Silent testimony by nearby Banyon

Reasons for Abandoning Public Water Supply for 2 years

Algal stench in treated water Foul odour upon storage Knowledge of sewage pollution The tolerance - basic strength of India
What was Really Needed

Learn from USA and Namibia and Singapore Excess Lime and recarbonation A pity this was not used for 2 years

The unused Gantry

Proposed to install a slotted SS tray deck over the tank sidewalls for direct placement of Lime bags

Inlet water line will be elevated to rain the water on pierced Lime bags to drain Lime solution into tanks below

Old agony and present ecstasy

Absence of algal stench Presence of fresh odour Absence of algal colour Presence of clarity Absence of foulness on storage Absence of colour in boiled rice Absence of itching on bathing Lathering on cloth washing is enhanced Aesthetic willingness to drink

Silent testimony by nearby Banyon

Sequential Water Quality During Treatment

Test Results for sample codes as under Parameters Raw water Greenish Algal 13 730 2 920 After high lime, NH3 stripping & carbonation After rapid sand filtration & chlorination Drinking Water Standards of . unobjectionable unobjectionable 1 950 1 - 10 500 - 2000

Appearance Odour Turbidity, NTU Total Dissolved Solids

Clear and colourless Pleasant

pH
Alkalinity phe. as CaCO3 Alkalinity total as CaCO3 Total hardness as CaCO3 Calcium as Ca Magnesium as Mg Ammonia as NH3 Phosphate as PO4 Oxygen absorbed, 4 Hours BOD TOC Fecal coliform / 100 ml

7.30
0 400 290 80 20 14.96 5.2 5.6 7 50.99 50,000

7.31
0 680 540 210 4 4.5 0.07 0.6 nil 14.50 2,000

7.23
0 630 515 200 3 nil nil 0.2 nil 1.50 Nil

6.5 to 9.2
No mention 200 - 600 200 600 75 - 200 30 - 150 No mention No mention No mention No mention No mention Nil

Relative Merits / Demerits of Chlorination Vs High Lime Neutralization

No 1 2 Parameters Colour Odour Prechlorintion Reverses on storage beyond 6 hours Repulsive decaying odour persists High Lime - Carbonation Does not reverse even after a week Decaying odour is completely gone

3
4 5 6

Keeping quality
Fecal coliform TDS Phosphate

Worsens on storage of even a day

50 mg/l as Cl for elimination No appreciable increase No change

No deterioration even after a week

200 mg/l as CaO for elimination Increases by about 200 mg/l Is eliminated

7
8 9 10 11 12

Magnesium
Calcium Handling Rejects Ambience Byproducts

No change
No change Hazardous No solid wastes Disturbing due to chlorine escapes Possibility of THM and carcinogens

Is almost eliminated
Increase by about 130 mg/l Relatively safer Sludge with high pH Pleasant and fresh No risk of THM and carcinogen

13

Heavy metals

Cannot be removed

Can be precipitates as their oxides

Applicability to the Disinfection Aspect of Raw Waters

The fact that raw surface waters are increasingly getting polluted by non point faecal sources as raw sewage, open defecation and disposal of rotting vegetables etc into river courses cannot be denied. It is necessary to refer to the status of pathogens in some major river waters in India

Introspection Whereas we all accept that raw water sources should be first disinfected to become free of pathogenic coli forms, is it going to be all right to dump chlorine gas at high concentrations as 50 to 100 mg/l in raw waters and compound the issues of chlorine-decaying organics interactions with potentials of formation of THMs and carcinogens ? There is so much being written and debated on disinfection by products especially on chlorination and do we add over 50 mg/l of chlorine gas without ant concerns? Whereas we all agree that sanitation systems need to be enhanced to prevent the ingress of pathogenic & faecal organisms, is it easy to achieve it in such a vast country as India? What are we going to do by continuing to build conventional WTPs of mere prechlorintion, lime clarification, rapid sand filters and post chlorination?

Conclusion
It is high time to recognize that technologies like the high Limecarbonation have a significant role to play in our national programme particularly in surface water sourced WTPs and it is high time these are standardized by institutions as NEERI and

pollution control Boards under a central grant funding from the

GOI. It is already late considering that tenders for Agra city WTP was invited with river Yamuna as source with lot of fanfare but has been quietly hibernating for long.