AWWA Alt Disnfec Fro THM Removal

American Water Works Association
RESEARCH FOUNDATION
TM
Case Studies
of Modified
Disinfection
Practices for
Trihalomethane
Subject Area:
Water Treatment
and Operations
CASE STUDIES OF MODIFIED DISINFECTION PRACTICES
FOR TRIHALOMETHANE CONTROL
Prepared by:
Dennis B. George
V. Dean Adams
Sam A. Huddleston
K. Larry Roberts
M. Brett Borup
Center for the Management, Utilization
and Protection of Water Resources
Tennessee Technological University
Cookeville, Tennessee 38505
Prepared for:
AWWA Research Foundation
6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235
May 1990
Published by the AWWA Research Foundation,

DISCLAIMER
This study was funded in part by the American Water Works

Association Research Foundation (AWWARF). AWWARF assumes no
responsibility for the content of the research study reported in
this publication, or for the opinions or statements of fact
expressed in the report. The mention of tradenames for
commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or
endorsement of AWWARF. This report is presented solely for
informational purposes.
Although the research described in this document has been funded

in part by the United States Envionmental Protection Agency
through a Cooperative Agreement, CR-811335-01, to AWWARF, it has
not l>een subjected to Agency review and therefore does not
necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
Copyright 1990
by
American Water Works Association Research Foundation
Printed in U.S.
ISBN 0.89867-515-4
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ..................... V
LIST OF FIGURES ..................... vii
FOREWORD ....................... xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................... xiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................... XV
INTRODUCTION ...................... 1
METHODOLOGY ....................... 3
SELECTION CRITERIA ................. 3
WATER TREATMENT PLANT DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTION
PROCEDURE .................... 5
Case Study Participant Questionnaire ..... 5
Water Treatment Site Visits .......... 6
Economic Analysis ............... 6
ALTERNATIVE DISINFECTANTS/PREOXIDANTS ....... 7
CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS .............. 9
CASE STUDIES ...................... 11

CHLORAMINES .................... 11
Chloramine Drinking Water Systems 16
Economic Analysis of Chloramine Plants .... 56
Advantages and Disadvantages ......... 66
CHLORINE DIOXIDE ................. 68
Water Treatment Plant Description and
Performance ................. 73
Economic Analysis for Chlorine Dioxide .... 105
Advantages and Disadvantages ......... ill
OZONE ....................... 113
Performance ................. 118
Economic Analysis for Ozone .......... 144
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE ............... 149
Performance ................. 152
Economic Analysis for Potassium Permanganate . 171
COMBINED THM CONTROL PROCESSES ........... 176
Performance ................. 176
Economic Analysis for Combined Processes . . . 188
iii
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................. 191
CHLORAMINE SYSTEMS ................. 191
CHLORINE DIOXIDE SYSTEMS .............. 193
OZONE SYSTEMS ................... 194
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE SYSTEMS ........... 196
COMBINED THM CONTROL PROCESSES ........... 197
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 199

CHLORAMINES .................... 199
CHLORINE DIOXIDE .................. 200
OZONE ....................... 201
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE ............... 202
REFERENCES ....................... 203
ABBREVIATION LIST .................... 213
APPENDICES ....................... 215
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Case Study Findings .......... xvi
2 Case Study Selection Criteria .......... 4
3 Water Source for Each Utility .......... 7
4 Case Study Participants ............. 10
5 Chloramine Species That can Exist as a Function
of pH ..................... 12
6 Chloramine Species That can Exist as a Function of
Chlorine to Ammonia (C12 :NH3 -N) Ratio ..... 13
7 Mean Values of Raw Water Quality Parameters for
Utilities That Converted to Chloramines .... 52
8 Mean Values of Finished Water Quality Parameters
Before and After Conversion to Chloramines . . 53
9 Mean Values for Bacteriological Quality Data in the
Distribution System Before and After use
of Chloramines ................ 54
10 Average Chemical use Data for Utilities Prior to and
After the Initiation of Chloramine Treatment . 55
11 Capital Costs for Conversion to Chloramines at Ann
Arbor ..................... 56
12 Operation and Maintenance Cost Increase for
Ann Arbor ................... 57
13 Capital Costs for the Contra Costa Water District,
Ralph D. Bollman Plant ............ 58
14 Operation and Maintenance Costs at the Contra
Costa Water District, Ralph D. Bollman Plant . 59
15 Capital Costs for Chloramine Conversion at
Miami, FL ................... 60
16 Operation and Maintenance Costs for Chloramines at
Miami, FL ................... 60
17 Capital Costs for Chloramines at the Carrollton
Plant, New Orleans, LA ............ 61
18 Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Carrollton
Plant, New Orleans, LA ............ 62
19 Capital Costs at the Lower Otay Filtration Plant . 63
20 Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Lower Otay
Filtration Plant ............... 63
21 Capital Costs for Conversion to Chloramines at
Terrell, TX .................. 64
22 Operation and Maintenance Costs at Terrell, TX . . 65
Utilities That Converted to Chlorine Dioxide . 102
Before and After Conversion to Chlorine Dioxide 103
25 Mean Values of Chemical Use Data Before and After
Conversion to Chlorine Dioxide ........ 104
26 Bacteriological Quality Throughout Kentucky River
Station Water Treatment Plant in November 1983
Prior to C102 Treatment Trials and in December
1983 With C1O2 Treatment ........... 93
Table Page
27 Capital Equipment and Costs for Change to Chlorine
Dioxide at Bristol County Water Authority's Child
Street Treatment Plant ............ 105
28 Operation and Maintenance Costs at Bristol County
Water Authority's Child Street Treatment Plant . 106
29 Operation and Maintenance Costs at Centralia . . . 107
30 Capital Costs at the Alfred Merritt Smith Facility 108
31 Operation and Maintenance Costs at the Alfred Merritt
Smith Facility ................ 109
32 Operation and Maintenance Costs for the
Kentucky-American Water Company's Kentucky River
Station .................... 110
Utilities That Converted to Ozone ....... 141
Before and After Conversion to Ozone ..... 142
Conversion to Ozone .............. 143
36 Origin of Ozone System Outages at Monroe Water
Treatment Plant ................ 139
37 Capital and Start-up Costs for Belle Glade's Water
Treatment Plant to Convert to Ozone Treatment . 145
38 Capital Costs at Monroe's Water Treatment Plant to
Convert to Ozone Treatment .......... 146
Utilities That Converted to Potassium
Permanganate ................. 168
Before and After Conversion to Potassium
Permanganate ................. 169
Conversion to Potassium Permanganate ..... 170
42 Operation and Maintenance Costs for Columbia ... 171
43 Capital Costs at the Sweeny Water Treatment Plant,
Wilmington, NC, to Install Potassium Permanganate
Treatment ................... 173
44 Operation and Maintenance Costs at Sweeny Power Water
Treatment Plant, Wilmington, NC, for use of
Potassium Permanganate ............ 174
Utilities That Converted to Combined Oxidation
Processes ................... 185
Before and After Conversion to Combined Oxidation
Processes ................... 186
47 Mean Values for Chemical Use Data Before and After
Conversion to Combined THM Control Processes . 187
48 Capital Costs at Medina, Ohio .......... 188
49 Operation and Maintenance Costs at Medina, OH . . 189
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Geographical Distribution of Identified Water
Treatment Plants in the United States That
Changed Disinfection Practices ........ 8
2 Flow Schematic of Ann Arbor Water Treatment
Plant ..................... 18
3 Monthly Average Turbidity Levels in Finished
Water at the Ann Arbor Water Treatment
Plant ..................... 20
4 Variation of Monthly Average pH Levels in the
Finished Water at the Ann Arbor Water
Treatment Plant ................ 20
5 Quarterly Average Total Trihalomethane
Concentrations in Ann Arbor's Distribution
System .................... 22
6 Heterotrophic Plate Counts Within Ann Arbor's
Distribution System .............. 22
7 Flow Schematic of Contra Costa Water District's
Ralph D. Bollman Water Treatment Plant .... 24
Concentrations in the Contra Costa County,
Ralph D. Bollman Distribution System ..... 27
9 Heterotrophic Plate Counts Within Contra Costa
County Distribution System .......... 27
10 Flow Schematic of Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority's John E. Preston Water Treatment
Plant ..................... 30
11 Flow Schematic of Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority's Hialeah Water Treatment Plant ... 31
12 Monthly Average Total Trihalomethane Concentrations
in the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority's
Preston and Hialeah Water Treatment Plants . . 33
13 Cumulative Occurrence of Positive Coliform Bacteria
in the Miami-Dade Distribution System ..... 34
14 Flow Schematic for the Carrollton Water Treatment
Plant ..................... 37
15 Total Trihalomethane Concentrations in New Orleans'
Carrollton Distribution System ........ 39
16 Bimonthly Average Total Coliform Bacteria Counts in
Finished Water From the New Orleans' Carrollton
Water Treatment Plant ............. 39
17 Flow Schematic of San Diego's Lower Otay Filtration
Plant ..................... 42
18 Total Trihalomethane Concentrations in the City of
San Diego's Lower Otay Water Distribution
System .................... 45
19 Weekly Average Heterotrophic Plate Count in the
City of San Diego's Lower Otay Water Distribution
System .................... 45
20 Flow Schematic of City of Terrell's Water Treatment
Plant ..................... 48
vii
Figure Page
21 Quarterly Average Total Trihalomethane Concentrations
in Terrell's Water Distribution System .... 50
22 Chlorine Gas-sodium Chlorite Generation Scheme . . 74
23 Flow Schematic of Bristol County Water Company's
Child Street Treatment Plant ......... 75
24 Quarterly Total Trihalomethane Concentrations in the
Bristol County Child Street Water Treatment Plant
25 Flow Schematic of Centralia Water Treatment Plant . 80
26 Monthly Average Quantity of Chlorine Used Each day
at the Centralia Water Treatment Plant .... 82
27 Flow Schematic of Las Vegas Valley Water District's
Alfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility . 84
28 Monthly Average Quantity of Chlorine Dioxide Used
Each Day at the Las Vegas Valley Water District's
Alfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Plant . . 87
in the Alfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Plant
30 Flow Schematic of Kentucky-American Water Company's
Kentucky River Station ............ 90
31 Quarterly Total Trihalomethane Concentrations in the
Kentucky-American Water Company, Kentucky River
Station's Water Distribution System ...... 95
32 Flow Schematic of Mobile Water Treatment Plant . . 99
in the Mobile Water Distribution System .... 101
34 Ozone Reaction Pathway .............. 114
35 Flow Schematic of Bay City Water Treatment Plant . 119
36 Monthly Average Ozone Dosage at the Bay City Water
Treatment Plant ................ 122
37 Average Total Trihalomethane Concentrations in the
Bay City Water Distribution System ...... 122
38 Monthly Average Free Chlorine Residual in the Bay
City Water Treatment Plant's Effluent ..... 124
39 Average Flow Rate Treated at the Belle Glade Water
Treatment Plant ................ 127
40 Flow Schematic of Belle Glade Water Treatment
Plant ..................... 129
41 Weekly Average Total Trihalomethane Concentrations
in the Belle Glade Water Distribution System . 131
42 The Monroe Water Treatment Plant's Ozone Contact
Chamber .................... 135
43 Monthly Average Ozone Dosage at the Monroe Water
Treatment Plant ................ 136
44 Total Trihalomethane Concentrations in the Monroe
Water Distribution System ........... 136
45 Flow Schematic of Columbia Water Treatment Plant . 153
Vlll
Figure Page
46 Flow Schematic of the Illinois-American Water
Company's Illinois River Water Treatment
Plant, Peoria ................. 156
47 Monthly Average Potassium Permanganate Dosage at the
Illinois-American Water Company's Illinois River
Treatment Plant ................ 158
Concentrations in the Illinois River Treatment
Plant's Water Distribution System ....... 158
49 Flow Schematic of the Shelbyville Water Treatment
Plant ..................... 161
in Shelbyville's Water Distribution System . . 162
51 Flow Schematic of Wilmington's Sweeney Water
Treatment Plant ................ 164
in Wilmington's Water Distribution System . . . 166
53 Flow Schematic of Chesapeake Water Treatment
Plant ..................... 177
54 Average Trihalomethane Concentrations Prior to
and After Air Stripping at the Chesapeake Water
Treatment Plant ................ 179
in the Chesapeake Water Distribution System . . 179
56 Flow Schematic of Medina Water Treatment Plant , . 182
in the Medina Water Distribution System .... 184
IX
FOREWORD
This report is part of the on-going research program of the AWWA

Research Foundation. The research described in the following
pages was partially funded by the Foundation in behalf of its
members and subscribers in particular and the water supply
industry in general. Selected for funding by AWWARF's Board of
Trustees, the project was identified as a practical, priority
need of the industry. It is hoped that this publication will
receive wide and serious attention and that its findings,
conclusions, and recommendations will be applied in communities
throughout the United States and Canada.
The Research Foundation was created by the water supply industry
as its center for cooperative research and development. The
Foundation itself does not conduct research; it functions as a
planning and management agency, awarding contracts to other
institutions, such as water utilities, universities, engineering
firms, and other organizations. The scientific and technical
expertise of the staff is further enhanced by industry volunteers
who serve on Project Advisory Committees and on other standing
committees and councils. An extensive planning process involves
many hundreds of water professionals in the important task of
keeping the Foundation's program responsive to the practical,
operational needs of local utilities and to the general research
and development needs of a progressive industry.
All aspects of water supply are served by AWWARF's research
agenda: resources, treatment and operations, distribution and
storage, water quality and analysis, economics and management.
The ultimate purpose of this effort is to assist local water
suppliers to provide the highest possible quality of water,
economically and reliably. The Foundation's Trustees are pleased
to offer this publication as contribution toward that end.
Historically, chlorination has been the primary mode of
disinfection used throughout the world. Chemical reactions
between chlorine and certain organic compounds present in water
have produced trihalomethanes (THM), which in 1979 were regulated
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) due to
their potential carcinogenic risk. Since 1979, the water utility
industry within the United States has used and evaluated various
alternative treatment strategies to produce a drinking water that
satisfies microbiological and THM maximum contaminant levels
established by state and federal regulatory agencies. This
report identifies the major alternative disinfectants and
preoxidants that have been used in the United States and
documents the experiences of 20 water treatment systems in
controlling THMs.
Richard P. McHugh (/ Q_J>mes F. Manwaring, P.E

Chairman, Board of Trustees Executive Director
AWWA Research Foundation AWWA Research Foundation
XI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report are indebted to the cooperation and

participation of the following water treatment utilities that
were involved in this project:
Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant, Ann Arbor, MI,
Las Vegas Valley Water District, Boulder City, NV,
Illinois American Water Company, Peoria, IL,
Bay City Water Treatment Plant, Bay City, MI,
Belle Glade Water Treatment Plant, Belle Glade, FL,
Bristol County Water Authority, Bristol, RI,
Centralia Water Treatment Plant, Centralia, IL,
Chesapeake Water Treatment Plant, Chesapeake, VA,
Columbia Power and Water, Columbia, TN,
Contra Costa Water District, Concord, CA,
Kentucky-American Water Company, Lexington, KY,
Medina Water Treatment Plant, Medina, OH,
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority Dept., Miami, FL,
Mobile Water Service System, Mobile, AL,
City of Monroe Water Filtration Plant, Monroe, MI,
City of San Diego Water Utilities Dept., LaMesa, CA,
Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA,
Shelbyville Power, Water & Sewer System, Shelbyville, TN,
Terrell Water Treatment Plant, Terrell, TX,
Sweeney Water Treatment Plant, Wilmington, NC.
In addition, the advice and help provided by the Project Advisory
Committee (PAC) and AWWARF project officer, Deborah Brink, was
sincerely appreciated. The PAC consisted of Stephen A. Hubbs,
Research Engineer, Louisville Water Company, KY; Richard H.
Moser, Vice President, American Water Works Service Company; and
Benjamin W. Lykins, Jr., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Drinking Water Division, Water Engineering Research Laboratory.
The authors would be remiss if they failed to acknowledge the
hard work of Laura Buenning, who edited this manuscript, to
Sandra Pigg who typed the manuscript as well as assisted the
editor in producing a camera ready copy and to Mary Williford who
contributed to proofing and formatting the document. Their
efforts are appreciated.
Xlll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In the United States, at least 185 water treatment plants have

altered their disinfection processes to control trihalomethane
(THM) formation within their water treatment systems since 1979.
Of these identified plants, 72 percent used chloramines; 11
percent used chlorine dioxide; 8 percent converted to ozone; and
5 percent used potassium permanganate. A vast amount of
knowledge and experience has been accrued by operators and
administrators at each of these water treatment plants concerning
the implementation and operation of their particular THM control
strategy.
To learn from their experiences, 20 water treatment plants
throughout the United States were requested to provide design
information, cost data, and performance data on the THM control
strategy they employed. Criteria used in the selection of these
20 plants included: the historical use of chlorine for
disinfection; a minimum of one year experience using an
alternative treatment process for THM control; and a minimum
drinking water production of 1 mgd (3,785 m3/d). Consideration
was also given to the type of water supply treated (i.e.
riverine, impounded surface water, or groundwater) and the water
quality data available. Each utility involved in the case study
was asked to complete a questionnaire that requested the
following information and data:
1) plant design and production;
2) necessary engineering modifications to implement the
THM control strategy;
3) system performance data before and after the treatment
conversion;
4) analytical water quality control assurance programs (if
any); and
5) capital, operational, and maintenance costs associated
with the treatment change.
Each of the water treatment plants in the case study were visited
to acquire additional documentation of the system's performance.
In addition, information was obtained on problems encountered
with the THM control strategy used and the associated remedial
action taken. Statistical analysis was performed on the finished
water quality data to ascertain significant treatment effects on
drinking water quality. Based on the data and information
provided by each utility, the following results were obtained.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A summary of the findings of this study is presented in Table 1.

The following discussion presents the major study results,
including system performance and problem areas.
xv
TABLE 1
Summary 6f Case Sfeiidy Findings
Potassium
Chloramines Chlorine Dioxide Ozone Permanganate
(Attributes)
Characterization/Description A combination of A strong oxldant. A strong oxldant. Simple to use; potassium

ammonia and chlorine. Generated in a reactor Primarily generated by permanganate is blended
with Na chlorite and forcing air through an with water and added to the
chlorine gas. electrical field. O3 formed influent stream.
from molecular oxygen
and atomic oxygen.
Trihalomethane (THM) control Less than 50 pg/L Less than 100pg/L Less than lOO>g/L Less than 100/jg/L
Very effective. If am Effective oxidation of Extremely effective 30% to 40% reduction of
monia present, chlorine organic precursor oxidation of organic THM. Used only if minor
reacts more quickly with It compounds. precursor compounds. THM control Is required.
than with organic
precursor compounds.
Disinfection capabilities Lower disinfectant A powerful disinfectant. A powerful disinfectant. Minimal disinfection
x potential than chlorine, capability.
<H- chlorine dioxide or ozone.
Bactericidal Yes Yes- Yes- Post-chlorination necessary

Post-chlorination Post-chlori nation for effective control.
necessary for control in necessary for control in
the distribution system. the distribution system.
Removal of inorganic compounds Does not oxidize Effectively removes iron, Oxidizes inorganic Primary use is for oxidation
inorganic compounds or manganese and sulfites. compounds efficiently. of inorganic compounds,
and/or taste and odor problems taste and odor causing Primary use has often such as Iron, manganese,
(especially iron, manganese, compounds. been control of taste,
sulfite) odor and color problems.
Yes - not as effective as No
Residual disinfection power Yes No
chlorine
Disadvantages Disinfection requires long Dissociates to com A sophisticated system; If reaction time too short,
contact times or a greater pounds that react with requires operators that manganese dioxide
concentration to obtain iron in blood, causing understand the system. precipitate (black, slimy
required kill. May cause hemolytic anemia; strictly Greater capital and particles that stain
hemolytlc anemia in regulated. Indirectly pro operational costs than household fixtures and
dlalyzed uremic patients; duces an odor similar to other alternatives studied. clothing) can enter water
prior notification required. kerosene or cat urine. distribution system.
Incremental treatment costs Savings of $18.66 ($4.93) Savings of $6. 71 ($1.77) Additional costs Additional costs
to additional costs to additional costs Of $28.21 ($7.45) of $2.24 ($0.59)
compared to chlorine Of $9.64 ($2.55). of $14.68 ($3.88). to $55.15 ($14.57). to $18.36 ($4.85).
[$/milgal ($/l,OOOm3)]
Chloramines
Water Treatment Systems
The study included six water treatment plants that converted from
chlorination to chloramination. Four conventional water
treatment plants with coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation
and filtration, and two lime softening plants were evaluated.
Five of the plants treated surface water and one (Miami-Bade
Water and Sewer Authority) treated groundwater. Terrell, Texas,
owned and operated the smallest system (3.6 mgd, 9.5m3/niin) that
converted to chloramines. The largest production flow rate was
the combined flow of the John E. Preston and Hialeah water
treatment plants operated by the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority (165 mgd, 434 m3/:min) . The number of years of
chloramine use ranged from 3 to 9.
Anhydrous ammonia was the major form of ammonia used by the water
treatment plants. Ammonium chloride was used by Terrell, Texas,
and ammonium hydroxide was used by San Diego County's Lower Otay
plant. The ratio of chlorine to ammonia by weight (mg Cl 2/L:mg*
NH3 -N/L) employed at the plants varied from 3:1 to 5:1 with
average finished water pH levels ranging from 7.9 to 10.1.
Monochloramine was the dominate chloramine species prevalent in
the finished water. Only two of the six water treatment systems
studied (Contra Costa Water District's Ralph D. Bollman plant and
San Diego County's Lower Otay plant) allowed a free chlorine
residual to exist for any time period prior to ammonia addition.
The remaining plants maintained a combined chlorine residual
throughout their systems.
Water Treatment System Performance
Chloramines were easily adapted to existing water treatment
systems. In this study, the water treatment plants that
converted from chlorine disinfection to chloramines produced a
finished water that contained average total trihalomethane (TTHM)
concentrations within the distribution systems of less than 50
/ig/L (9 to 40 jug/L) . In addition, due to the elimination of
breakpoint chlorination and therefore free chlorine residual, a
reduction in taste and odor complaints occurred.
Bacterial counts in the distribution systems of each plant were
maintained within state and federal maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs). With the persistent combined chlorine residual in the
distribution systems, heterotrophic plate counts (HPCs) were
lower than or equivalent to levels previously obtained with
chlorination by all the utilities. Even though Miami-Dade Water
and Sewer Authority's John E. Preston and Hialeah water treatment
plants produced a drinking water that satisfied bacteriological
regulations, an increase in the frequency of positive coliforms
detected in the distribution system did occur.
The conversion to chloramination was relatively inexpensive with
the total capital, and incremental operation and maintenance
xvii
costs ranging from a savings of $18.66/mil gal ($4.93/1000 m3 ) to
an increased cost of $9.64/mil gal ($2.55/1000 m3 ) . Fifty
percent of the plants experienced costs savings and two water
treatment systems had an incremental increase in costs of
approximately $3.50/mil gal ($0.92/1000 m3 ) .
Problems Areas
In November of each year, the Miami-Bade water utility used
breakpoint chlorination for a two to three week period to control
positive bacteria counts. This once-a-year breakpoint
chlorination also controlled nitrification of excess ammonia in
the water distribution system. Contra Costa Water District also
maintained a free chlorine residual of 0.5 to 0.7 mg/L through
the filters for about one hour each night to control biological
growth. San Diego County's Otay plant would prechlorinate once a
week for 18 hours to control biological growth in the
sedimentation basins.
Few problems were encountered with public notification of the
water treatment plant's conversion to chloramines and the
potential adverse affects of chloramines with hemodialysis and
acute toxicity to aquatic life. A few students attending a
university served by the Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant reported
fish kills during the first year of chloramine use.
Chloramination does not oxidize THM organic precursor material.
Therefore, to prevent THM formation, excess ammonia addition was
necessary to combine with chlorine which existed in those
instances where more chlorine was added in the distribution
system.
Another problem faced by the utilities was the corrosiveness of
ammonia. Corrosion was noted on chemical feed equipment. In
addition, chloramines were suspected to increase the destruction
rate of rubber parts in pipe gaskets and residential plumbing.
Chlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide (C1O2 ) is an unstable gas that must be generated
on-site for use. Each of the five water treatment utilities that
changed from chlorination to chlorine dioxide plus
postchlorination used ClOj generators that reacted gaseous
chlorine with sodium chlorite under a vacuum. Existing
chlorination equipment was retrofitted for C102 production.
Four of the five water treatment plants were conventional systems
and the Las Vegas Valley Water District's Alfred Merritt Smith
Water Treatment Facility was a direct filtration plant. Four
plants treated water from reservoirs and Kentucky-American Water
Company's Kentucky River Station treated Kentucky River water.
Daily drinking water production rates ranged from 3.4 mgd (8.9
xviii
m/min) from the Centralia, Illinois, water treatment plant to
175 mgd (460 m3/min) from the Alfred Merritt Smith Water
Treatment Facility.
Chlorine dioxide was capable of controlling TTHMs to less than
100 M9/L at all the water treatment systems studied, ranging from
approximately 50 to 90 M9/L- In addition, certain utilities
employed C1O2 to reduce iron and manganese in the raw water. The
inability to maintain adequate disinfection within certain areas
of the utilities' distribution systems caused all the systems
studied to use C1O2 predisinfection and postchlorination.
The costs associated with C1O2 treatment varied from a cost
savings of $6.71/mil gal ($1.77/1000 m3 ) where the utility was
charged merely $100 for the C1O2 generator, to an increase of
$14.68/mil gal ($3.88/1000 m3 ) . Four water treatment utilities
experienced an increase in costs of $1.78/mil gal ($0.47/1000
m3 ) , $4.03/mil gal ($1.06/1000 m3 ) , $5.39/mil gal ($1.43/1000 m3 ) ,
and $14.68/mil gal ($3.88/1000 m), respectively.
Problem Areas
During C1O2 treatment, odors were produced within the water
distribution system of one utility that forced the utility to
abandon C1O2 treatment. These odors were described as petroleum-
like, kerosene-like or similar to cat urine odors. Certain
utilities noted an occurrence of these odors in rooms with new
carpeting. Another problem observed by some utilities was an
increase in deterioration of metal parts and rubber products that
were in contact with the C1O2 solution. Corroded parts were
replaced with corrosion resistant materials. Furthermore, some
laboratory personnel indicated that the chlorine dioxide,
chlorite and chlorate residual test procedures were complex, and
that they lacked confidence in the results.
Ozone
During the period of this study, virtually all the full-scale
ozone generators in operation employed the corona discharge
method for ozone production. Each of the three water treatment
systems studied used air (not oxygen) for ozone generation.
Ozone was not used primarily for disinfection, but was used for
taste and odor control in two of the three water treatment
systems. The Belle Glade Water Treatment Plant employed ozone
for the oxidation of organic compounds in the raw water. Maximum
total trihalomethane potential (MTP) in the raw water to this
plant averaged 808 p>g/Ij, with measured concentrations exceeding
1,200 M9/L n several occasions.
xix
Each of the three water treatment systems treated lake water.
The design hydraulic capacity of the plants ranged from 8 mgd (21
m3/min) to 40 mgd (105 m3/min) .
In general, the ozone treatment systems helped control drinking
water TTHM concentrations to less than 100 fJ.g/L. The variable
raw water quality, however, necessitated the control of the ozone
dosage and contact time in the contact basin in order to achieve
the desired degree of TTHM reduction. Through ozone oxidation of
organic and inorganic compounds, less chlorine was required for
disinfection, which also limited THM formation.
Ozonation oxidized taste- and odor-causing compounds to levels
where consumer complaints regarding these historic problems were
virtually nonexistent. In one treatment system, color compounds
were reduced from 67 pcu to an average of 3.3 pcu.
In two of the three ozone treatment systems, improved solids-
liquid separation occurred, thereby reducing particulate loads to
the filters. This, in conjunction with biological control in the
filters, produced longer filter runs and improved turbidity
removal. Seasonal increases in water temperature and pressure
drops within filters, however, caused changes in oxygen partial
pressures that initiate the release of oxygen from the saturated
aqueous phase to the gaseous phase. This created air binding in
some filters.
The ozone systems were very reliable with little down time. The
additional costs for ozone treatment were $28.21/mil gal
($7.45/1000 m3 ) , $29.08/mil gal ($7.68/1000 m3 ) and $55.15/mil
gal ($14.57/1000 m3 ) .
Problem Areas
During system start-up, two of the utilities experienced problems
with the air preparation units which were producing an air stream
with a dew point greater than -40 C. This caused an ozone system
failure. Once the appropriate dew point (<-40 C) was maintained,
few system shut-downs occurred. The ozone attacked rubber
products. This problem was resolved by using silicone rubber.
On occasion at one plant, incomplete oxidation of organic
compounds increased the postchlorine demand. This also resulted
in greater THM formation. TTHM levels, however, did not exceed
100 ,Mg/L. In addition, another system experienced increased
concentrations of brominated trihalomethanes due to ozonation of
elevated bromide levels in the raw water.
xx
Potassium Permanganate
Four water treatment systems were studied that used potassium
permanganate for controlling THM levels in their drinking water.
Potassium permanganate (KMnO4 ) was used not only to oxidize THM
precursors, but also to control iron, manganese and/or taste and
odor problems. All of the plants included in the study were
conventional water treatment systems, and average daily
production ranged from 8 to 20 mgd (21 to 53 m3/min).
KMnO4 was normally mixed in tanks and pumped via chemical feed
pumps to the suction side of the raw water low-lift pumps.
Permanganate has biocidal properties, but is not an approved
water disinfectant. Therefore, KMnO4 was not used for this
purpose and postchlorination was practiced. A principle
advantage of KMn04 treatment was that it allowed the point of
chlorination to be moved to postchlorination where more THM
precursor had been removed by other unit processes, thus
producing lower THM levels.
The addition of potassium permanganate to the influent stream
with subsequent postchlorination successfully helped reduce
running quarterly average TTHM levels to below 100 ng/L,. Most of
the plants experienced a 40 percent reduction in quarterly TTHM
concentrations in their drinking water. In addition, KMnO4 did
oxidize iron and manganese in the raw water treated, and a
reduction in color at one plant was measured. One utility also
noted a decrease in taste and odor complaints once KMnO4
treatment was started. In general, the permanganate oxidation of
organic and inorganic matter reduced chlorine demands. A major
advantage of KMn04 treatment was the ease of adaptation to an
existing water treatment system. Total costs for equipment,
installation, operation and maintenance ranged from $2.24/mil gal
($0.59/1000 m3 ) to $18.36/mil gal ($4.85/1000 m3 ) , which
reflected the tremendous difference in KMnO4 treatment system
design and installation, chemical costs and raw water quality.
Problem Areas
Operators must be somewhat knowledgeable of the reaction kinetics
occurring with permanganate oxidation of organic and inorganic
compounds. Sufficient contact time must be provided to oxidize
the targeted compound and form manganese dioxide precipitate
prior to clarification. Manganese that passed through the water
treatment system caused black water problems in the distribution
system. This was controlled in one system by flushing of
affected water lines once a year.
xxi
Combined THM Control Processes
Several utilities have used a combination of THM control pro
cesses to achieve desired TTHM concentrations in their finished
drinking water. The combined processes evaluated were chlorine
dioxide plus chlorination followed by air stripping plus
ammoniation (Chesapeake, Virginia water treatment plant), and
potassium permanganate plus chlorine dioxide plus chlorine
(Medina, Ohio water treatment plant).
Chesapeake Water Treatment Plant treated about 7 mgd (18 m3/min)
and added 0.20 to 3.98 mg/L of C1O2 at the raw water lift
station. Chlorine was added prior to filtration at dosages
ranging from 5.50 to 20.27 mg/L, with an average daily dosage of
approximately 9 mg/L. After filtration the water flowed to a
clearwell with a 4.3 hour detention time and then to air strip
ping towers. In 1986, aqueous ammonia was included in the
treatment train after the air stripping towers to further inhibit
THM .formation.
Medina Water Treatment Plant was a 4 mgd (11 m3/min) f lime-soda
ash softening water treatment plant with upflow solids contact
units (accelators) followed by sedimentation and rapid sand
filtxation. Potassium permanganate was added to the influent of
the accelator, and C102 was added to the accelator effluent.
Postchlorination was used to maintain desired disinfection levels
in the finished water and throughout the distribution system.
At Chesapeake's plant, air stripping removed more than 70 percent
of the TTHMs in the water applied to the towers. Quarterly TTHM
levels in the product water were reduced from a mean of 245 M9/L
to '62 Mg/L. Similarly, the mean running average decreased from
214 jug/L to 61 M9/L. Furthermore, coliform bacterial levels were
maintained at <1 colony/100 mL, and an improvement in finished
water turbidity occurred.
Once THM control processes were fully operational in the Medina
Water Treatment Plant, average TTHM levels in the finished water
decreased from 110 Mg/L to 44 Mg/L. Due to the high pH of the
lime-soda ash system, C1O2 alone (without KMnO4 ) only reduced
average TTHM concentrations to 94 M9/L. In addition, raw water
color was reduced from 19 to 0 pcu and taste and odor complaints
decreased.
Cost data were not available for the Chesapeake Water Treatment
Plant. The total 1988 annual cost increase for the implementa
tion of C1O2 and potassium permanganate at the Medina plant was
$40,036, which was $52.73/mil gal treated ($13.93/1000 m3 ) .
xxn
Problem Areas
In Chesapeake's water distribution system, odors similar to
kerosene were reported during periods when C102 was used. These
odors were also associated with a drop in water pH and occurred
more frequently in buildings with new carpeting.
The C1O2 generating system in the Medina Water Treatment Plant
required maintenance and replacement of some metal parts because
of the corrosive nature of C102 . Metal needle valves on the
generating system, constructed of high-grade stainless steel,
were specially ordered. Medina Water Treatment Plant personnel
also expressed lack of confidence in the residual C1O2 analytical
test procedure, i.e. N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPD) -
ferrous ammonium sulfate (FAS) titration method.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Each THM control strategy should be tested on-site to determine

its effectiveness prior to full scale implementation. The
treatment objectives must be well delineated prior to selection
of a THM control strategy. For example, is the objective of the
treatment strategy to control THM levels, or to control THMs and
to disinfect, or to oxidize inorganic compounds as well as
control THM levels and provide a desired degree of disinfection?
Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations
are presented.
Chloramines
* For many waters, chloramines appear to be effective at reducing
THM levels in the finished water to less than 50 nq/L.
* To meet microbiological regulations, it is recommended that
chlorine be added to the water initially with sufficent contact
time to provide a degree of disinfection and not exceed a
desired level of THMs in the product water. Ammonia is added
to inhibit further formation of THMs. The concentrations of
chlorine and chloramines, and the corresponding contact times
to achieve the desired level of microbiological and THM control
should be determined by laboratory testing.
* It may be necessary to have excess ammonia in the finished
water to combine with any chlorine added to the water within
the distribution system.
* Increased monitoring for coliform bacteria and HPC within the
distribution system should be conducted especially in warmer
climates.
* Utilities treating warm water must be aware of potential
microbiological growth in the distribution system. If excess
ammonia is present in the distribution system, nitrification
may occur and thereby create nitrite and nitrate problems.
Furthermore, the frequency of positive coliform bacterial
counts may increase.
xxm
* Periodic breakpoint chlorination to provide a free chlorine
residual in the distribution system may be required to control
biological activity. The frequency of chlorination will be
site specific and may be once/week, once/month, once/year
depending on the system.
* Utilities must have a good public notification program,
informing hospitals and dialysis centers of the possible
interferences of chloramines with hemodialysis, and commercial
and private fish owners of the toxicity of chloramines to
aquatic life.
* The utility should implement a testing program to determine
degradation of rubber parts in gaskets and residential
plumbing.
Chlorine Dioxide
* Pilot or full scale testing of the process should be conducted
to determine the possible reduction in THM levels and the
potential for the creation of odor problems within the water
distribution system. If odor problems persist, an alternative
treatment strategy may need to be considered.
* Chlorine dioxide does not effectively oxidize organic
precursors at pH levels greater than eight; therefore, under
these conditions alternative control strategies may need to be
considered.
* Utilities should determine the efficiency of the chlorine
dioxide generator and limit the amount of excess chlorine in
the effluent stream. Excess chlorine will react with organic
precursors and form THMs, thereby possibly limiting the ability
of the treatment strategy to control THMs to within a desired
level.
* Chlorine dioxide should be added at the raw water pump station
or the headworks of the plant to oxidize THM organic
precursors.
* With chlorine dioxide treatment, postchlorination or
postchloramination is required to provide adequate control of
biological activity in the distribution system.
* Chlorine dioxide is corrosive and corrosion-resistant materials
should be used in the generator and any contact surfaces.
* Sodium chlorite solutions can destroy rubber products;
therefore, rubber products should be tested in sodium chlorite
solutions prior to installation.
Ozone
* The utility must determine the objectives to be achieved by
ozonation.
* On-site testing should then be conducted to assess the
appropriate ozone concentration and contact time necessary to
satisfy these objectives.
* It is important that the air drying system produce an air
stream with a dew point less than -40 C.
xxiv
* It is recommended that the tubular corona cells be about 5 ft
(1.5 m) long. This length tube can easily be handled and
normally has a more uniform dielectric than longer tubes.
* In the United States, postchlorination or postchloramination is
required to provide adequate disinfection in the water
distribution system.
* Since ozone reacts with hypochlorite ion, chlorine should be
applied after the ozone residual has dissipated.
* If an increase in bromide concentrations in the raw water
occurs, ozonation of the raw water may enhance the formation of
brominated trihalomethanes. Therefore, monitoring the raw water
bromide ion concentration is recommended to determine periods
of brominated THM formation.
* Furthermore, on-site testing of rubber products that come in
contact with the ozone should be conducted prior to purchase
and installation.
Potassium Permanganate
* If the desired reduction in finished water THM levels is less
than or equal to approximately 40 percent, potassium
permanganate should be considered as a treatment alternative.
* Potassium permanganate should be added at the raw water intake.
This normally provides sufficient time to form manganese
dioxide particles which can be removed in the sedimentation and
filtration units.
* Postdisinfection by chlorine or chloramines is necessary.
* Chlorination and addition of potassium permanganate should not
occur at the same location in the treatment train. This will
enhance THM formation.
xxv
INTRODUCTION
According to the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act

(PL99-399) the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) must place into action National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs), requiring disinfection for all public water
systems. Historically, chlorine has been the primary
disinfectant used throughout the world. In 1979, the second
amendment to the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NIPDWRs) established MCLs on THMs, which are
suspected carcinogens. THMs are formed by the chemical reaction
of an organic precursor and chlorine. An anticipated lowering of
the THM MCL (Lykins et aJL. 1987) has caused the water utility
industry to reevaluate alternative disinfectants and preoxidants
to reduce THM concentrations in the product water.
Since 1979, water utilities have gained tremendous experience and

knowledge concerning the use of alternative disinfectants and
preoxidants to produce a finished water that complies with state
and federal drinking water regulations. This guidance manual
provides water utilities and water treatment design engineers
with case studies of alternative disinfection or treatment
practices that have been implemented to comply with the NIPDWRs
and state drinking water regulations. The manual identifies the
major treatment alternatives employed in the United States, as
well as their benefits, problem areas and costs.
METHODOLOGY
The first objective of the study was to delineate the various

alternative treatment schemes that have been used within the
United States and Canada to enable water utilities to comply with
federal and state drinking water regulations. Eight Canadian
water utilities were contacted. Each of the utilities
was in compliance with Canadian and provincial drinking water
regulations (< 350 M9/L) and, therefore, had not altered its
disinfection process. Consequently, none of the Canadian
utilities were included in the case studies. A list of state
drinking water regulatory agencies was obtained, and personal
contact was made with officials from 40 out of 50 agencies. A
total of 11 states reported no changes in disinfection practices.
A follow-up letter was sent to those state drinking water
agencies that reported utilities that had changed from
chlorination to an alternative treatment. The plant information
gathered from responses to this letter was condensed and
organized on a "Plant Information Form" (PIF) (Figure A.I,
Appendix A).
The PIF was organized for easy transfer of plant information to a

computer database. Literature citations of particular water
treatment plants that had been studied by other researchers were
referenced and included in the database for the specific plant.
The survey identified 185 water treatment plants that had altered
disinfection practices to comply with federal and state drinking
water regulations (Table A.I, Appendix A).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Within each alternative disinfectant or oxidant group or both,

plants were evaluated based on the criteria listed in Table 2.
Based on the selection criteria, the list of water treatment
plants identified as potential candidates for the study was
TABLE 2
Case Study Selection Criteria
Criteria Comments
Water quality data Consideration was given to the

length of the historical record,
quality control and assurance,
analytical methods, and plant
performance data available from
literature and pilot plant studies.
Raw water source Riverine, impounded surface water
and groundwater sources were
considered.
Number of years chlorine Must have a historical record of
disinfection used chlorine use.
Number of years alternative Plants must have a minimum of one
disinfection or preoxidation process year experience using alternative
used treatment and a maximum of 7 years.
Daily production Drinking water production must be
greater than 3.78-106 L/d (1 mgd).
Trihalomethane reduction Plants utilizing processes that
produced the most significant
reduction in trihalomethanes were
favored.
Treatment plant flow scheme Water treatment trains must have
been typical of other treatment
systems employed in the industry.
Plant geographical location Consideration was given to the
geographical distribution of the
water treatment plants to include
differences that may be attributed
to climate, topography, regional
water quality, etc.
Financial records The utility must have been able to
provide financial information
delineating capital, operation and
maintenance costs prior to and after
the process change.
Willingness to participate in the
study
reduced to 40 plants. Each was contacted by telephone, and plant
personnel were asked another series of questions. This
information was evaluated with respect to the selection criteria,
and a final set of 20 water treatment plants was selected.
WATER TREATMENT PLANT DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTION PROCEDURE
Case Study Participant Questionnaire
To expedite the gathering and transfer of information from each

utility, a comprehensive questionnaire was developed (Appendix B)
in which the utilities were requested to provide available data
and information describing their system design and operation
prior to and after conversion to an alternative disinfectant or
oxidant. Areas included in the questionnaire were
(1) plant daily average hydraulic and water quality data;
(2) the types and daily average amounts of chemicals used
and points of application within the treatment train;
(3) capital, operational and maintenance costs associated
with the plant conversion to an alternate disinfectant
or oxidant;
(4) problems the utility had encountered with the new
treatment, and the remedial action taken;
(5) benefits associated with the alternative treatment
process;
(6) system design prior to and after changing the
disinfection process;
(7) laboratory quality control and assurance procedures;
and
(8) source water, water quality and hydrology.
The bulk of the data was obtained from the water treatment
plant's monthly performance sheets. The database for each water
treatment plant extended either through the spring or into the
summer of 1987. System design data and information and source
water hydrology were requested to provide descriptive information
for other utilities to compare with their system.
Water Treatment Site Visits
The primary objective of the site visits was to get the

information required to fully describe the plant performance
before and after changing to an alternative disinfectant or
oxidant and the expenses associated with that change. All data
received prior to and during the site visits were entered into
computer files for each utility.
The Statistical Analysis System developed by the University of

North Carolina was used to analyze complete data sets.
Performance data collected prior to the water treatment change
were statistically compared with data obtained after the
treatment change.
Economic Analysis
Each of the water treatment plant participants was asked to

provide data for the actual costs associated with the change from
chlorination to the selected alternative. In the case study
participant questionnaire (Appendix B), the economic section
included capital, operation and maintenance costs. The capital
expenditures reported were for equipment such as chemical
feeders, pumps, tanks, buildings, and generators. These
expenditures included costs for installation and the engineering
required to place the system on-line. Operation and maintenance
costs associated with the treatment change included chemical
costs, equipment maintenance costs, power costs, administrative
costs, and labor costs. All utilities reported changes in
chemical costs. Maintenance and power costs varied with the
alternative used. Few utilities reported administrative costs
associated with the implementation of alternatives. Labor costs,
however, ranged from no increased costs to 2 additional hours per
day. All costs were adjusted to 1988 dollars using water utility
cost indexes from ENR (1988).
ALTERNATIVE DISINFECTANTS/PREOXIDANTS
The major chemical treatment alternatives used in order to comply

with the THM regulation were (1) chloramines, (2) chlorine
dioxide, (3) ozone, and (4) potassium permanganate. Of the 185
plants identified, which have changed to a disinfectant other
than chlorine, 72 percent used chloramines; 11 percent used
chlorine dioxide; 8 percent had converted to ozone; and 5 percent
were using potassium permanganate. Figure 1 shows the
geographical distribution of the water treatment plants. As
expected, the majority of plants that had THM problems were
treating surface water supplies (Table 3). Approximately 20
percent of the water treatment systems, however, did treat only
TABLE 3
Water Source for Each Utility.
Number of
Source plants
River 69
Reservoir/lake 40
Groundwater 36
Groundwater/reservoir 12
Groundwater/river 5
River/reservoir 9
Not reported 14
TOTAL 185
groundwater sources, and an additional nine percent treated

combined surface and groundwater supplies. Of the 136 surface
water sources treated, 40 percent were mainly lakes or reservoirs
and 59 percent were primarily riverine systems.
3 chloramine
systems
oo
5 chloramine
systems 76 chloramine
systems
identified
if Chlorine dioxide
0 Chloramine
4 chloramine systems
+ Ozone
3 chloramine
^ Potassium permanganate systems
-j- Combined processes
FIGURE 1. Geographical Distribution of Identified Water Treatment Plants in the

United States That Changed Disinfection Practices to Comply With State and Federal
Drinking Water Regulations (as of February 1987).
CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS
Each of the water treatment plants studied (20) had good records
of system performance before and after implementing a new
oxidation or disinfection process or both. Since the use of
chloramines was the major alternative employed by utilities, it
was not difficult to study water treatment plants that provided
diversity in geographic location, water production, raw water
source, years of experience using chloramines, and treatment
schemes. The number of utilities to select from were more
limited with respect to the remaining treatment alternatives.
Nonetheless, a representative sample of each of the alternative
treatment processes was obtained (Table 4).
TABLE 4
Case Study Participants
Flow*
Alternative Utility State Years
use* Water Treatment
treatment (mgd) source type
Chloramines Ann Arbor 40 Michigan 6 River/GW Softening
(groundwater)
Contra Costa 90 California 9 River Convent i ona I
Co. (Ralph D.
Boll man,
Concord)
Miami-Dade 165 Florida 5 GW Softening
(John E.
Preston,
Hialeah)
New Orleans 124 Louisiana 5 River Conventional
(Carrol Iton)
San Diego 15 California 6 Reservoir Convent i ona I
County (Otay)
Terrell 3.6 Texas 3 Reservoir Convent i ona I
Chlorine Bristol 4 Rhode 4 Reservoir Convent i ona I
dioxide County Island
(Bristol)
Centrali a 3.4 Illinois 2 Reservoir Conventional
Las Vegas 175 Nevada 5 Reservoir Direct
(Alfred f i Itration
Merritt
Smith)
KY - American 40 Kentucky 3 River Conventional
Water Co.
(Lexington)
Mobile Water 40 Alabama 4 Reservoir Convent i ona I
Service
Center
Ozone Bay City 40 Michigan 6 Lake Softening
Belle Glade 5.5 Florida 2 Lake Softening
Monroe 18 Michigan 5 Lake Conventional
Potassium Columbia 10 Tennessee 4 River Conventional
perman
ganate
Illinois- 20 I llinois 1 River Conventional
American
Water Works
Co. (Peoria)
Shelbyville 8 Tennessee 4 River Convent i ona I
City of 9 North 3 Reservoir Convent i ona I
Wilmington Carolina
(Sueeney)
Combined Chesapeake 10 Virginia 3 River Convent i ona I
THM control
processes
Medina Water 2 Ohio 2 Reservoir/GW Softening
* irrVmin = 2.628 x mgd

+ Number of years alternative treatment used.
10
CASE STUDIES
CHLORAMINES
Chloramines have been used in water treatment since the early

1900s (Race 1918a; Race 1918b; White 1986; Dice 1985; Wolfe et
al. 1984; Shull 1981; Brodtmann and Russo 1979). With the advent
of the NIPDWRs, a renewed interest in chloramines occurred
because their use is a viable alternative for THM control (Wolfe
et al. 1984; Norman et al. 1980; Shull 1981; Sacks 1984; White
1986). Other advantages of using chloramines for disinfection
include
(1) increased residual stability;
(2) reduction in odor problems caused by chlorination; and
(3) least expensive of major alternatives (Wolfe et al.
1984) .
However, potential disadvantages of chloramines are

(1) formation of organic chloramines from organic nitrogen,
which are poor biocides;
(2) acute toxicity of chloramines to aquatic life;
(3) interference with hemodialysis; and
(4) less disinfection capability than chlorine (Wolfe et
al. 1984).
Hypochlorous acid (HOC1), formed from the reaction of chlorine
with water, reacts with ammonia or organic nitrogen in the water
to produce chloramines according to the following reactions
(Viessman and Hammer 1985; Wolfe et al. 1984; Norman et al. 1980;
Shull 1981):
HOC1 + NH3 -> H2O + NH2 C1 (1)
HOC1 + NH2C1 -* H2O + NHC1 2 (2)
HOC1 + NHC1 2 -* H20 + NC13 . (3)
The species of chloramines present in water is dependent on pH
(Table 5), amount of chlorine relative to ammonia-nitrogen (Table
6) and temperature. In a pH range of 4.5 to 8.5, monochloramine
(NH2C1) (Eq. 1) and dichloramine (NHC12 ) (Eq. 2) can exist in
11
different proportions. Monochloramines form rapidly in a pH
range of 7 to 9 and at a chlorine to ammonia nitrogen weight
ratio (C1 2 :NH3-N) of 5:1 or less (Wolfe et al. 1984).
Trichloramines (NC13 ) (Eq. 3) can only occur in potable water
after breakpoint chlorination (Wolfe et al. 1984). Chloramine
reaction times are significantly retarded below 50 F (10 C),
which can influence chemical application point selection (White
1986) . A large majority of utilities operate at a low C1 2 :NH3-N
ratio (3:1 to 4:1), which favors the formation of
monochloramines. Several utilities operate at higher ratios of
6:1 to 7:1, where dichloramine is the dominant chloramine form,
thereby increasing disinfection efficiency and reducing ammonia
usage (Trussell and Kreft 1984). Dichloramines or trichloramines
in drinking water, however, may cause taste and odor problems at
concentrations of 0.8 mg/L and 0.02 mg/L, respectively (White
1986). Normally, product water from treatment plants has a pH
ranging from 6 to 9 with monochloramines as the dominant species
(White 1986).
TABLE 5
Chloramine Species That can Exist as a Function of pH
pH range Chloramines
species
>8.5 monochloramines
4.5 to 8.5 monochloramines
dichloramines
4.4 to 4.5 dichloramines
<4.4 dichloramines
trichloramines
12
Controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of chloramines as
a microbiocidal agent (Brodtmann and Russo 1979; Wolfe et al.
1984; White 1986; Hoff and Geldreich 1981). In 1978, EPA labeled
chloramines a secondary disinfectant (White 1986). However, the
effectiveness of chloramines under experimental conditions is
apparently less than in drinking water treatment plants where
results show coliform bacterial counts have been maintained
within the MCL of 1 colony/100 mL (Hoff and Geldreich 1981; Wolfe
et al. 1984; Dice 1985; Shull 1981; Brodtmann and Russo 1979;
Norman et al. 1980; Hubbs et al. 1981; Soade 1984; Sacks 1984;
Gianatasio 1985; Thompson and Ameno 1987).
TABLE 6
Chloramine Species That can Exist as a Function of Chlorine to

Ammonia (mg Cl2/L:mg NH3 -N/L) Ratio
Chlorine:ammonia-N Chloramines
ratio (mg Cl2/L:mg NH3-N/L) species
<5:1 monochloramines
5:1 to 7.6:1 monochloramines
dichloramines
>7.6:1 monochloramines
dichloramines
trichloramines
Ammonia can be commercially obtained in one of three basic forms:

a pure liquid (anhydrous ammonia), dissolved in water (aqueous
ammonia) and dry ammonium salts (Norman et al. 1980; Trussell and
13
Kreft 1984; Sacks 1984; White 1986). Anhydrous ammonia is
essentially pure ammonia and can be stored and transported
similarly to the way chlorine cylinders are transported (Trussell
and Kreft 1984). Anhydrous ammonia appears to be the primary
form of ammonia used by water utilities due to its low cost, ease
of handling and the fact that suppliers often provide or lease
storage facilities (Trussell and Kreft 1984).
Aqueous ammonia, typically called "aqua ammonia," can be provided

in solutions of 20 to 30 percent ammonia (Trussell and Kreft
1984). Aqua ammonia has been used primarily for its ease of
handling (Soade 1984; Trussell and Kreft 1984). It should be
noted, however, that in solutions of about 30 percent ammonia,
the vapor pressure is such that ammonia can be lost as a vapor
during high temperature conditions (>100 F, 38 C). In these
cases, aqua ammonia is stored in low-pressure tanks (Trussell and
Kreft 1984).
The major form of solid ammonium salt used in the water utility
industry has been ammonium sulfate (Trussell and Kreft 1984) .
Existing dry chemical feed facilities can be used to apply
ammonium salts (Norman et al. 1980; Sacks 1984; Soade 1984). The
hygroscopic nature of ammonium sulfate, however, has caused
problems with feeding the chemical (Sacks 1984).
Water utilities using chloramines have employed various patterns

for the addition of ammonia and chlorine in the treatment process
(Norman et al. 1980; Vogt and Regli 1981; Trussell and Kreft
1984; White 1986). The options for the order of application
include:
(1) prechlorination upstream a substantial distance (10 to
120 min) from ammonia application;
(2) preammoniation and mixing of ammonia before application
of chlorine; and
(3) concurrent addition of chlorine and ammonia (White
1986).
14
Incorporation of free chlorine from the headworks through the
filter, where ammonia is added to produce a chloramine residual
for distribution, allows for primary disinfection by chlorine,
reduced chlorine demand in the finished water and longer lasting
chloramine residual (Soade 1984; Trussell and Kreft 1984; White
1986; Thompson and Ameno 1987). Some utilities have been able to
provide up to 2 hours of free chlorine contact and still meet the
0.10 mg/L THM MCL (Norman et al. 1980; Vogt and Regli 1981;
Trussell and Kreft 1984) . Several utilities, however, have added
ammonia and chlorine at the same location and have maintained a
combined residual throughout the entire treatment process and
distribution system (Soade 1984; Trussell and Kreft 1984; White
1986). Several variables influence the selection of ammonia
application point, including the desired THM level and the raw
water quality with respect to bacteriological and THM formation
characteristics (Trussell and Kreft 1984; White 1986). Ammonia
is typically added in the flash mix or after the filters, and the
point of chlorine application can vary from system to system
(Trussell and Kreft 1984). Once added, the ammonia will stay in
its original form until it reacts with chlorine; thus, excess
ammonia can be added and carried throughout the system until
chlorine is added (Trussell and Kreft 1984; White 1986).
Excess ammonia in the finished water may be biologically

nitrified to nitrite (NO2") and ultimately nitrate (NO3") (White
1986; Kreft et al.. 1985) . This nitrification process has been
suspected as the cause of a rapid drop in total chlorine and
ammonia concentrations and increases of nitrite concentrations in
storage reservoirs and distribution systems (Means et al. 1986;
Sloan 1984). In the seven decades of chloramines use at Denver,
nitrification problems have not been experienced (Dice 1985).
Nitrification, however, is especially possible in warm waters.
Furthermore, nitrifying bacteria are not recovered by
heterotrophic plate count (HPC) techniques (Means et al. 1986).
Nitrite should be monitored whenever total chlorine and ammonia
levels drop. One possible method to prevent this problem is to
15
minimize free ammonia by adjusting the C12 :NH3-N ratio and
maintain adequate combined residual (0.5 to 1 mg/L) (Means et al.
1986; White 1986).
The following main items must be considered when converting from

free to combined chlorine:
(1) change in chlorine application point;
(2) change in chlorine residual analyses; and
(3) alterations to chlorination control equipment (Trussell
and Kreft 1984).
The need for consideration of these factors arises from the

differences in chemistry between free and combined chlorine. In
general, there are numerous combinations, from no free chlorine
residual within the treatment and distribution systems to free
residual until distribution (Sacks 1984; Trussell and Kreft 1984;
White 1986). Another factor that may influence the point of
chlorine application is the conversion to chloramines early in
the treatment train, resulting in lower chlorine usage that could
pay for all or most of the costs associated with conversion,
including the amortization of equipment (Norman et al. 1980;
Trussell and Kreft 1984).
Chloramine Drinking Water Systems
Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Ann Arbor Water

Treatment Plant was a lime-softening plant. Water was obtained
from two sources; 85 percent was surface water from the Huron
River, and 15 percent was from wells. As shown in Table 7, page
52, the plant treated a hard (average 279 mg CaC03/L) , low
turbidity (average 5 NTUs) surface water. The surface water was
pumped approximately one mile (1.6 km) from a water impoundment
to the water treatment plant. The overall plant capacity was 50
mgd (131 m3/roin), which was divided between two plants; one plant
16
was capable of treating 22 mgd (58 m3/min) , and the other had a
capacity to treat 28 mgd (24 m3/min) .
Lime was added to the water as it entered the rapid mix chambers.
The water flowed to the flocculators and then to the primary
settling basins (Figure 2). Following these primary basins, well
water was added as split treatment and for pH control. Carbon
dioxide was injected at this point. In the secondary rapid mix
chamber, a polymer was added. The water flowed into a
flocculator and then to a clarifier. The clarified water was
applied at an average rate of 1.0 gpm/sq ft (0.04 m3/min«m2 ) to
rapid sand filters containing 20 to 30 in (51 to 76 cm) of sand.
The filters were rated at 2 gpm/sq ft (0.08 m3/min«m2 ) .
Phosphate and sodium hypochlorite were added immediately prior to
filtration. Following filtration, sodium silicofluoride was
introduced along with postchlorination. The final total chlorine
residual at the plant was 4.0 mg/L. The finished water was sent
to a 6 mil gal (22,710 m3 ) reservoir from which it was
transported to the distribution system by gravity or pumps. The
average daily pumping from the water treatment system was
approximately 15 mgd (45 m3/min) (Table 8, page 53) with a daily
maximum of about 36 mil gal (136,260 m3 ) .
After 1978, chlorine was added at the raw water pump station for
disinfection, and 1.5 to 3.5 mg/L potassium permanganate (KMnO/;) ,
injected at the pump station, was used for taste and odor
control. MTP of the untreated water normally varied from 250 to
600 M9/L. TTHM levels in the finished water averaged 105 Mg/L
before the change to chloramines. The THM formation may have
been enhanced by the addition of chlorine and KMnO4 at the same
location (Ficek and Boll 1980). In addition, the high pH level
of the finished water (9 to 10.8) may have increased the rate of
THM formation (Umphres et al. 1981; Amy et al. 1985; Trussell and
Umphres 1978; Fleischacker and Randtke 1983; Babcock and Singer
1979; Kavanaugh et al. 1980; Rook 1976).
17
C2) POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
STEERC LIAE
FARA POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
VELLS
FLUCRIDE
HYPOCHLCRITE
OR CHLORINE
CO
DISTRIBUTION
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON

CATIONtC
LIAE PDLY/1ER
FIGURE 2. Flow Schematic of Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant. Ammonia

Sulfate Addition was Initiated in September 1981, and Anhydrous Ammonia
was Added in April 1982.
In September 1981, ammonium sulfate was introduced at the primary
rapid mix chamber to react with the free chlorine and thereby
reduce THM concentrations. Ammonium sulfate is hygroscopic,
i.e., it absorbs moisture in the air, making it extremely
difficult to feed. Therefore, this means of ammoniation was only
practiced from September through December of 1981 and was
discontinued because it was a time-consuming operation. From
April 1982 through 1987, liquid anhydrous ammonia was fed through
a converted, existing chlorinator at the raw water pump station
(Figure 2). Plant operators attempted to maintain a chlorine-to-
nitrogen weight ratio of 3:1, which provided approximately 0.25
mg/L residual of free ammonia. The only equipment purchased was
a day tank for the ammonia and a pump to transport the liquid
ammonia from the bulk storage tank (which was donated by the
vendor) to the day tank. The day tank sat on a scale that was
owned by the utility.
System performance. Table 8, page 53, presents the quality of

the finished water prior to and after the conversion to
chloramines. In the summers of 1976 and 1977, 44 to 70 months
prior to conversion to chloramines, the water treatment plant
treated flows that exceeded the plant capacity of 28 mgd (74
m3/min). During the same period, coagulant was not added because
of interference with the performance of the recalcination unit
that reclaimed lime. The hydraulic overload in conjunction with
the lack of coagulant caused turbidity levels in the product
water to exceed the MCL of 1 NTU on three occasions (Figure 3).
With plant expansion to 50 mgd (131 m3/min) and the continuous
use of coagulant, no MCL violations occurred. Due to the polymer
addition, the finished water turbidity improved to a monthly
average generally less than 0.20 NTU, primarily as a result of
better coagulation and flocculation of particulates. The data
provided by the plant also indicates a history of lowering the
desired pH of the finished water (Figure 4).
19
1.8-
1.6-
f MH
'-e
* 1.2H
»3 i.o-
e
O)
2 0.8-
_>- 0.6-
I 0.4^
0.2-
Jon Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan i Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
0.0 -t- -I- -tn -I- rl- -t- -h -T- rt- -1—
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (month)
FIGURE 3. Monthly Average Turbidity Levels in

Finished Water at the Ann Arbor Water
Treatment Plant Prior to and After Conversion
to Chloramines (September 1981).
11.0
1981
10.5-
9.5-
c
2 9.0-
8.5-
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
8.0 —I—I——I——I—i——h———I———r \—H- -i— —rf —i—
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (month)
FIGURE 4. Variation of Monthly Average pH

Levels in the Finished Water at the Ann Arbor
Water Treatment Plant Prior to and After the
Conversion to Chloramines (September 1981).
20
Since the conversion to chloramines, TTHM concentrations in the
finished water were reduced to approximately 15 M9/L (Figure 5)
while still providing product water with <1 total coliform
bacteria/100 mL. HPCs within the distribution system were
generally less than 20 counts/mL (Figure 6). In the summer of
1986, SM agar was changed to R2A agar. The incubation
temperature and time was changed from 35 C for 48 hours to 28 C
for 168 hours. During this assay transition period, the HPC
increased to 319 counts/mL. Comparison testing of the old HPC
method and the new R2A procedure strongly supported the
hypothesis that higher bacterial counts were obtained with the
use of the more sensitive R2A methodology. On the average, R2A
recoveries were 30 times the levels recovered using the HPC agar.
In addition, the rise in bacterial count coincided with a drop in
the combined chlorine concentrations from a monthly average of
approximately 3.5 to 3.1 mg/L. The bacterial count was reduced
to less than 10 by increasing the final combined chlorine
concentration that left the plant to 4.0 mg/L.
The decrease in threshold odor number (TON) from an average TON

of l.l to 0.3 is misleading since no serial dilutions were made.
Taste and odor problems resulting from free chlorine residual in
the distribution system also diminished with the use of
chloramines.
Alkalinity and hardness increased slightly due to a change in

operational procedures. Also, since chloramine is ineffective in
removing color, a corresponding increase in the color level of
the finished water occurred (Table 8, page 53).
Problem areas. The introduction of gaseous ammonia into the raw

water stream softens the water, resulting in a precipitation of
salts that cause a scale to form around the injector. Since most
aquarium dealers were aware of the use of chloramines and the
toxic effects of chloramines to fish, very few effects were
experienced by the commercial fish industry in the community.
21
1000
June 1986
Change to
R2A Aqar
to
CO
-30 ' -10 ' 10 ' 30 ' 50 '70

10 20 30 40 so eo 70 -50 '
-30 -20 -10 0 Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
Time (month)
Time (month)
FIGURE 5. Quarterly Average Total FIGURE 6. Heterotrophic Plate Counts

Trihalomethane (TTHM) Concentrations (HPC) Within Ann Arbor's Distribution
in Ann Arbor's Distribution System System. The HPC Procedure was Altered
Prior to and After the Conversion to in the Summer of 1986 to Employ R2A
Chloramines (September 1981). Agar, Which was More Sensitive to
Heterotrophic Organisms.
Fish losses, however, were reported by students attending the
local university, who most likely did not take appropriate
precautions to remove residual chloramines from the water before
using it in their aquariums.
Contra Costa Water District, Ralph D. Bollman Water Treatment

Plant
Water treatment system description. The Contra Costa Water

District (California), Ralph D. Bollman Water Treatment Plant
began operation in 1968. The raw water source for the plant was
the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta. Flow from the river
delta was pumped into Mallard Reservoir (capacity 1,000 mil gal,
13.8 mil m3 ) , where it was held until treatment. The water was
moderately hard (94 mg CaCO3/L) with an average pH of 8.1 and an
average turbidity of 29 NTUs (Table 7, page 52). The quality of
the water was dependent upon the rainfall and snowpack in
northern California. During normal precipitation, minor
saltwater intrusion occurred in the fall and winter months, when
chloride ion concentrations may have reached 100 mg/L. In dry
years, chloride ion concentrations have reached 150 to 200 mg/L
from July through December. During a severe drought condition in
1977, the chloride ion concentration was nearly 300 mg/L.
Prior to the summer of 1985, the design capacity of the plant was
80 mgd (210 m3/min) . A plant upgrade in 1985 increased the
capacity to about 90 mgd (237 m3/min) . The plant had been
producing an average of 31 mgd (81 m3/min). The treatment system
consisted of prechlorination; alum coagulation; flocculation;
sedimentation; high-rate, dual-media filtration;
postchlorination; and pH control (Figure 7).
Drought conditions in 1977 resulted in a saltwater intrusion and

a sharp increase in THM levels, particularly the bromide-
containing compounds. During this period the raw water contained
23
CHLORINE
LIAE
POWDER ACTIVATED CARBON
FLUORIDE
FILTER AID
CAUSTIC SODA
FLUORIDE
POVDER ACTIVATED CARBON
ALUA
COAGULANT AID
CHLORINE 3) COAGULANT AID
FLOC AID
SEDIAENTATION
BASINS
INTAKE
PUAPS
DISTRIBUTION
ANHYDROUS AAAONIA
ADDED AFTER THE FILTERS
SEPTEABER 19B1
FIGURE 7. Flow Schematic of Contra Costa Water District's Ralph D. Bollman Water
Treatment Plant. Anhydrous Ammonia was Added in September 1981.
nearly 1 mg bromide/L. Treated water had TTHM levels of 275
75 percent of which was bromoform.
In September 1981, a chloramination system was installed at the

plant to reduce THM levels (Figure 7) . A small amount of
chlorine was added to the raw water as a coagulant aid (0.75
rog/L) , which produced no residual after rapid mixing. Chlorine
was also added prior to the filters in an amount sufficient to
produce a 0.75 mg/L residual in the filter effluent. Ammonia was
then applied in the 96 in (2.44 m) filtered-water line at a
dosage rate of approximately 0.2 mg/L or at a 3.75:1 ratio of
chlorine to ammonia by weight. Dosages were controlled by an
ammoniator.
The ammonia could have been added at any one of three points in
the effluent line. The location of ammonia addition was adjusted
to allow a minimum free chlorine contact time of 10 min. Normal
free chlorine contact times ranged from 30 to 45 min. Ammonia
gas was fed through diffusers made of 1/2 in (1.27 cm) stainless
steel. Originally, the diffusers had 1/8 in (0.32 cm) holes in
the upstream side of the stainless-steel pipe. These holes
became caked with calcium carbonate within 1 year. As a result,
the diffusers were modified by placing 1/8 in (0.32 cm) holes on
the downstream side of the diffuser.
Since chloramination began, it has also been a standard practice

to add enough chlorine, for about one hour each night, to the
influent water to produce a 0.5 to 0.7 mg/L residual in the
filters. This practice was used to reduce the amount of algal
growth in the sedimentation basins and filters.
System performance. TTHM levels have been reduced significantly

by the process change to chloramines (Table 8, page 53) . During
a six-month period in 1985, TTHM levels increased when the state
of California required the plant to stop using chloramination
because of some problems experienced by dialysis patients in
25
southern California. In general, TTHM levels in the distribution
system were maintained below 50 ng/L since the process was
initiated (Figure 8).
During the period of chloramination, an improvement in raw water

quality occurred. Significant reductions in hardness (82 mg
CaCO3/L) , chloride (45 mg/L) and alkalinity (60 mg CaCO3/L)
concentrations in the finished water resulted from improved raw
water quality (Table 8, page 53). It was projected that if the
water quality had stayed the same, the introduction of
chloramines would have reduced THMs by about 50 percent.
The bacteriological quality of the chloraminated water showed

some general improvement over chlorinated water (Table 9, page
54). Total coliform levels remained nearly undetectable in the
distribution system (<2.2 cfu/100 mL) after chloramination was
initiated. HPCs were lower after chloramination, an average of
21 counts/mL compared with an average of 39 counts/mL (Table 9,
page 54). Although only 15 percent of the bacteriological
samples collected before chloramination showed a chlorine
residual, 95 percent of the samples collected after
chloramination had a combined chlorine residual. The data also
demonstrated that prior to the use of chloramines, HPCs indicated
much higher levels of microorganisms during the warmer months
(Figure 9).
Chlorine-like odor complaints have been virtually eliminated by

the change to chloramination. However, in the summer of 1984,
several treatment plants that used the same raw water source and
used chloramines as their only disinfectants experienced taste
and odor problems caused by algae. Taste and odor problems were
not experienced at the Contra Costa plant even though algae were
present in the raw water. This was most likely due to the
significant free chlorine contact time at the plant.
26
to
-J
20
-20 -10 W 20 50 40 so 60 TO 20 30 40
Tim« (month) Time (month)
FIGURE 8. Quarterly Average FIGURE 9. Heterotrophic Plate Counts

Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) (HPC) Within Contra Costa County
Concentrations in the Contra Distribution System Prior to and After
Costa County, Ralph D. Bollman Conversion to Chloramines (September
Distribution System Prior to and 1981).
After Conversion to Chloramines
(September 1981).
Problem areas. Hemodialysis patients are very susceptible to
health problems that may be caused by chloramines. On one
occasion, a local hospital removed a treatment step from the
purification process, and chloramines reached the dialysis
equipment undetected. Several patients suffered anemia for a
short time until the operator at the hospital corrected the
problem. This problem occurred even though the water district
had worked very closely with the hospital for six months prior to
the start-up of chloramination. To help eliminate this problem,
the state of California specified a treatment train for all
hospitals and hemodialysis units and instituted an inspection
program for these facilities.
Chloramination has caused an increase in the amount of chlorine

required to clean storage reservoirs in the distribution system.
Enough chlorine must be added to the reservoirs to reach
breakpoint chlorination. Prior to chloramination, this required
about 4 gal of 12 percent chlorine/mil gal of reservoir water (4
m3/mil m3 ) . With chloramination, more than 12 gal of 12 percent
chlorine/mil gal of reservoir water were required (12 m3/mil m3 ) .
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority's John E. Preston and

Hialeah Water Treatment Plants
Water Treatment System Description. The Miami-Dade Water and

Sewer Authority's Hialeah and John E. Preston water treatment
plants were adjacent to one another and had interconnected raw
and finished water supplies. The two plants employed essentially
the same treatment sequence. The Hialeah and Preston plants
served the northern part of the Miami, FL area.
The Hialeah plant began operation in 1925 and was upgraded to a

treatment capacity of 60 mgd (158 m3/min) , which was its average
production rate. The Preston plant, which began operation in
1968, has a capacity of 165 mgd (434 m3/min) and an average
28
production of 58 mgd (152 m3/min) . In 1987, the Preston plant
was producing about 75 mgd (197 m3/min) .
Most of the raw water for both plants was taken from the
Northwest Wellfield, which tapped the Biscayne Aquifer west of
Miami near the Everglades. The water from these wells, which had
an average depth of 90 ft (27 m), contained low bacterial levels
(HPC - 7 counts/mL or less and no coliforms), but was colored (47
pcu) and hard (250 mg CaCO3/L) (Table 7, page 52).
In both plants, the raw water was softened and filtered (Figures
10 and 11). In the Hialeah plant, the raw water passed through a
sand trap before it was treated. In both plants, fluoride and
activated silica were added to the water as the first step in
treatment. Activated silica aided in the agglomeration of the
calcium carbonate floe produced in the softening process. After
activated silica addition, lime was added to the water. The
average dosage in the Hialeah plant was 170 mg/L, whereas the
average lime dosage in the Preston plant was 198 mg/L. In the
Hialeah plant, the water passed through mechanical flocculators
and clarifiers for softening. In the Preston plant, the water
passed through one-stage, upflow softening units. After
clarification, the water in both plants was recarbonated to a pH
of 9 and disinfected. It then passed through rapid sand filters
with a design filter rate of 4 gpm/sq ft (0.16 m3/min«m2 ) .
Hialeah had a high-pressure system that pumped water directly to
customers and a low-pressure system that transported water to
ground storage to provide water during peak demand periods. The
Preston plant pumped water to a 20 mil gal (75,700 m3 ) reservoir
that was interconnected with the Hialeah distribution system.
Average TTHM levels produced by the systems were 228 jitg/L. In
November 1981, the disinfectant was changed from chlorine to
monochloramine to control THM concentrations within the
distribution system. The only change to the plants was the
addition of anhydrous ammonia feeders at the point of chlorine
addition (Figures 10 and 11).
29
ANHYDROUS AAAONIA
ADDED AT CHLORINE
CONTACT BASIN IN
CHLORINE U
NOVEMBER 1981
RECARBONATING
BASIN
CONTACT
BASIN
(3) FUJORIDE
RECARBONATING
CONTACT BASIN
BASIN
SOFTENING LNITS
co
o
RAW
RAPID WATER
SAND
FILTERS
DISTRIBUTION
(T) ACTIVATED SILICA

D LIAE
FIGURE 10. Flow Schematic of Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority's

John E. Preston Water Treatment Plant. Anhydrous Ammonia was Added
in November 1981.
LIAE SLUDGE , CLARIFIER ,
RECIRCULATION r^H O }—^
OJFUUQRIDE
ACTIVATED SILICA
U)
RECARBCMATINC
BASIN
RAPID CONTACT
SAND «a—————
FILTERS BASIN
PUflPS
OURINE
ANHYDROUS AAAONIA
ADDED TO OLORINE
CONTACT BASIN IN
NOVEflBER 1981
FIGURE 11. Flow Schematic of Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority's

Hialeah Water Treatment Plant. Anhydrous Ammonia was Added in November
1981.
System performance. Since the change to monochloramine, the
average TTHM concentrations dropped from 217 to 35 fJ-g/L at
Preston (Figure 12) . An overall average reduction in TTHM levels
from 228 to 27 /Ltg/L was achieved with chloramination (Table 8,
page 53) . Each November, breakpoint chlorination was practiced
to purge the distribution system of nitrifying bacteria.
Breakpoint chlorination was continued for two to three weeks.
The monthly average TTHM concentrations during November
occasionally exceeded 100
Positive coliform counts, sometimes noted in the distribution

system, appeared to increase in frequency after chloramination of
the drinking water was initiated (Figure 13) . The utility
contended that bacteriological sampling conditions were far from
ideal and a potential for sample contamination existed (Sloan
1984) . In general, however, the plant produced a water that
complied with the state's bacterial MCL (total coliform bacteria
level of 1 cfu/100 mL or less) . Weekly HPCs were conducted to
monitor the entire bacteriological quality of the water in the
distribution system. The persistence of chloramines decreased
the average HPC from 7 to 4 counts/mL (Table 9, page 54). The
HPC ranged from <1 to 265 counts/mL after chloramination was
employed. The most noticeable change in the finished water
quality was an increase in color from a monthly average of 4 to 5
pcu prior to the chloramination to an average of 15 to 18 pcu
(Table 8, page 53). This color increase resulted from the
elimination of breakpoint chlorination.
The elimination of breakpoint chlorination also resulted in a

decrease in chlorine use. The dosage decreased from an average
of 15.2 mg/L to 5.9 mg/L (Table 10, Page 55). Although the raw
water contained 1 to 1.5 mg/L of ammonia, it was necessary to add
approximately 0.5 mg/L to achieve the desired chlorine-to-ammonia
weight ratio of 3:1.
32
240- 240 -i
210- 210-
180- 180-
150- 150-
O>
120- 120-
90- 90-
CJ
U)
60- 60-
30- 30-
-10
Jan Jan Jan Time (month)
Time (month)
a. Preston Plant Finished Water b. Hialeah Plant Finished Water

Monthly Average TTHM Concentrations. Monthly Average TTHM Concentrations.
FIGURE 12. Monthly Average Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) Concentrations in the Miami-
Dade Water and Sewer Authority's Preston and Hialeah Water Treatment Plants. Finished
Water Prior to and After Conversion to Chloramines (November 1981).
LEGEND
Before Chloramine Disinfection
o After Chloramine Disinfection
00
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 50

TIME (Month)
FIGURE 13. Cumulative Occurrence of Positive Coliform Bacteria in the Miami-
Dade Distribution System Prior to and After Conversion to Chloramines (November
1981) .
Statistical analysis of the data (Table 8, page 53) showed an
increase of finished water pH, 9.0, and a slight decrease in
turbidity, 0.27 NTU, since the change to chloramines. Although
the changes in these variables are statistically significant,
they are relatively small and were attributed to changes in plant
operations.
Problem areas. Management personnel reported no significant

problems related to the change. Occasionally, positive coliform
analyses were found at locations where a combined chlorine
residual of 2 to 3 mg/L persisted. HPCs were performed weekly
and indicated good control of bacterial quality.
In order to address the problem of positive plate counts and the

related problem of nitrifying bacteria growth in the system, the
utility reverted back to free chlorine (breakpoint chlorination)
once a year. The practice was continued for 2 to 3 weeks, during
which time the color dropped and the THM concentrations rose.
This practice controlled the problem.
One potential problem was the effect of the chloramines on

certain health care practices, kidney dialysis in particular.
The machines used in dialysis are sensitive to the type of
chlorine in the water. In order to counteract this potential
problem, the utility developed a specified procedure through
which it contacted all dialysis centers in the city prior to a
change to chloramines.
The degradation of rubber gaskets and seals was another problem

caused by chloramines. This was not reported in all localities
using chloramines, but Miami received complaints from customers
and regularly inspected all rubber fittings.
35
Carrol 1 ton Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Carrollton Water

Treatment Plant was a conventional plant that supplied water to
the city of New Orleans, LA. The plant, built in 1906 and last
upgraded in 1984, treated an average of 124 mgd (326 m3/n»in) .
Raw water for the Carrollton plant was withdrawn from the
Mississippi River at two multiport intakes. Water from the
Industrial Avenue intake traveled 3,600 ft (1,097 m) to the plant
through two 60 in (1.52 m) steel pipes; water from the Oak Street
intake traveled 4,100 ft (1,250 m) through two 48 in (1.22 m)
cast iron pipes to a low lift station and 3,000 ft (914 m)
through one 60 in (1.52 m) pipe to the plant.
The raw water was turbid (157 NTU) with an average hardness of
159 mg CaCO3/L and an alkalinity of 102 mg CaCO3/L (Table 7, page
52) . Prior to 1981, average TTHM concentrations were 100 /ug/L
and ranged from 44 to 205
Permanganate, fluoride and polyelectrolyte were added to the

water at the raw water intakes (Figure 14) . Permanganate was
added to oxidize natural organic compounds that cause taste and
odor problems; the polyelectrolyte was intended to agglomerate
suspended solids. Detention time was approximately 20 min
between the intakes and the plant. At the plant, lime was added
to soften the water, and ferrous sulfate was used as a coagulant
for solids removal. The water passed through one of two
treatment trains, both consisting of slow mechanical mix
flocculation units, settling basins with mechanical sludge
removal, disinfection, and settling reservoirs (Figure 14) . Once
the water exited the settling reservoir, polyphosphates were
added to prevent calcium carbonate scaling. The water was
filtered through rapid sand filters at rates up to 2 gpm/sq ft
(4.9 m3/m2 -sec). The filtered water entered a clearwell from
36
POTASSIUA PERAANGANATE
FLUORIDE FLOCCULATI ON
-T i e.
POLYELECTROLYTE
SETTLING
-r ———o BASINS
RAW
WATER
PUAPING3
STATION
LIAE
FERROUS
SULFATE
(3) CHLORINE
POLYPHOSPHATE (4
SETTLING RESERVOIRS
U>
-J
ANHYDROUS AAAONIA
ADDED AT SETTLING
RESERVOIR IN
OCTOBER 1981
CHLORINE
(WHEN NECESSARY)
DISTRIBUTION
RAPID SAND
FILTERS
HIGH
PRESSURE
PUAPS
FIGURE 14. Flow Schematic for the Carrollton Water Treatment

Plant. Anhydrous Ammonia was Added in October 1981.
which it was pumped to the distribution system. Total detention
time in the plant was approximately 20 hours.
In October 1981, chloramination of the water was introduced to

control THM production. Ammoniators were added just upstream of
the point of chlorine addition (Figure 14). The average ratio of
C12 to ammonia was 5:1, and the final pH averaged about 10.
Monochloramine was the predominant chloramine formed at this pH.
System performance. Free chlorine reacting with natural organics

in the water produced a monthly average TTHM of 100 M9/L- After
the conversion to monochloramines, the concentration of TTHMs in
the distribution system decreased to an average of 9 Mg/L (Table
8, page 53). Maximum TTHM levels were reduced from 205 to 112
jzg/L, and monthly average values did not exceed 32 M9/L after
1981 (Figure 15). There were instances of positive coliform
bacteria counts in the filters and areas close to chloramine
addition. Positive coliform counts also occurred within the
distribution system after mains were flushed. Apparently,
coliform organisms were loosened by the flushing action, and the
chloramine, effective but relatively slow in disinfecting action,
did not have time to kill them. The plant was able to control
these bacterial perturbations in the finished water quality and
produced a water that complied with the state's MCL for total
coliform bacteria (<1 count/100 mL) (Figure 16). Furthermore,
chloramination significantly decreased HPCs from a monthly
average of 32 counts/mL to approximately 5 counts/mL (Table 9,
page 54).
The average total amount of chlorine used each day decreased from
5,632 Ib to 3,706 Ib (2,557 kg to 1,683 kg) (Table 10, page 55).
This decrease was attributed to the decline in production rate
from 122 to 119 mgd (321 to 313 m3/min) and the decrease in
chlorine dosage from 5.1 to 3.5 mg/L. Prior to the use of
chloramines for disinfection, certain distribution lines at dead
ends had zero free chlorine residual. Since chloramination, the
38
IU
9-
8- Oct 1981
0 7
0 7'
•x.
"c 6~
o
o
BactTneria *•m i
CO
vo 3 3-
£
•2
2-
1-
?
0-
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 6b -40 -20 0 20 40 60 8(
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
Time (month) Time (month)
FIGURE 15. Total Trihalomethane FIGURE 16. Bimonthly Average Total

(TTHM) Concentrations in New Orleans' Coliform Bacteria Counts in Finished
Carrollton Distribution System Prior Water From the New Orleans' Carrollton
to and After Conversion to Chloramines Water Treatment Plant Prior to and
(October 1981). After Conversion to Chloramines
(October 1981).
level of total chlorine residual in the most distant distribution
lines was always greater than 1 mg/L.
An increase in finished-water hardness (118 mg as CaCo3/L) ,

alkalinity (61 mg CaCO3/L) and pH (10.1) (Table 8, page 53) was
primarily due to an increase in lime dosage. The plant continued
to produce drinking water that contained an average turbidity
less than 0.20 NTU.
Problem areas. Plant personnel reported no major problems

associated with the use of chloramines. The occasional, positive
total coliform counts were believed to have resulted from
sampling error and appeared to have been remedied. HPCs
decreased with chloramination.
City of San Diego's Lower Otay Filtration Plant
Water treatment system description. The Lower Otay Filtration

Plant, located in San Diego County, CA, began operation in 1916
and was upgraded several times, including modification for the
use of chloramines. The raw water source for this plant was
complex. The plant took water from Lower Otay Lake (about an
1,100-acre, 445 ha, surface area). Lower Otay Lake was the last
in a series of three reservoirs (Morena, Barrett, and Lower Otay)
that collected runoff from a watershed in southern San Diego
County. Water in Lower Otay Lake was supplemented by "treated
aqueduct water." This aqueduct water was treated by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
treatment plant at Lake Skinner in Riverside County, CA, and
delivered by an aqueduct maintained by the San Diego County Water
Authority. MWD water was a blend of Colorado River and
California State Water Project water.
In recent years obtaining enough treated aqueduct water from MWD

during high demand periods has, at times, been a problem. When
this occurred, water was obtained from San Diego's Miramar
40
Filtration Plant, and the blend of water received by the Lower
Otay plant could have been any combination of Lower Otay lake
water, Miramar Filtration Plant water and MWD water. The Miramar
Filtration Plant received its raw water from the MWD, so its
characteristics were very similar. The Miramar plant used
ammonium sulfate to produce chloramines.
The water treated by the Lower Otay Filtration Plant was hard
(168 mg CaCO3/L) with an average alkalinity of 132 mg CaC03/L,
turbidity of about 3 NTU and a pH near 8 (Table 7, page 52).
The design capacity of the plant was 15 mgd (39 m3/min). Actual
flows through the plant averaged 17.4 mgd (46 m3/min) an(j ranged
from 7.5 to 30 mgd (19.7 to 78.9 m3/min).
Flocculation and sedimentation occurred in a Walker solids

contact reactor (Figure 17). Ferric chloride coagulant was added
along with sodium hydroxide to adjust the pH. During the period
1975 through 1987, an average of 20 mg/L of sodium hydroxide was
added to the water. Prior to 1981, an average of 15 mg/L of
ferric chloride was added before the solids contactor. After
1981, an average of 8 mg/L ferric chloride (August 1981 - July
1987) was added. This decrease in coagulant dosage was due to
the low turbidity (averaged 3.2 NTU) raw water and a change in
the mode of filtration from rapid sand pressure filters, prior to
1981, to mixed media gravity filters. Before August 1981, the
Lower Otay Filtration Plant used free chlorine residual for
disinfection. Chlorine gas was applied at the lake inlet and
prior to the plant's Walker Process Reactor. Enough chlorine was
added to the water to produce a 2.0 to 3.0 mg/L free residual in
the plant effluent. Chlorine was also used by MWD in the treated
aqueduct water. The treated aqueduct water was rechlorinated and
then released into the distribution system.
Several changes in the oxidant used in the system resulted from

taste and odor problems that occurred during portions of the year
and from excessive TTHM levels (175 Mg/L)• In August of 1981,
41
>rj 2ND SAN DIEGO AQUEDUCT hXLtSS l-LUtf SPILLS IU LAKtl '
^ TREATED AQUEDUCT VATER J,
» V
X M ^
I-1 / ^
CD
r4 4 /
u., /T7\
/ 2 o \ (SI
\ fi •<
the plant was modified to use a chlorination/chloramination
treatment scheme. In this process, enough chlorine gas was added
to the water after the Walker Process Reactor to produce a free
residual of 1.5 to 2.0 mg/L after 0.5 to 1.0 hours contact time
in the filters. Ammonium hydroxide was then added to the filter
effluent to convert the free chlorine to chloramines. The
treated aqueduct water, which had a chlorine residual of 0.0 to
0.5 mg/L, was treated with simultaneous applications of chlorine
and ammonium hydroxide to produce a chloramine concentration of
1.5 to 2.0 mg/L. The process significantly reduced the THM level
in the treated water; however, periods of THM levels in excess of
the standard were still experienced.
In February 1983, the Lower Otay plant switched to the use of

chloramines throughout the facility. Chlorine and ammonium
hydroxide were added simultaneously to the plant influent in
quantities great enough to produce a chloramine residual of 1.5
mg/L in the plant effluent. In November 1984, MWD began to use
chloramines. The treated aqueduct water had chloramine residuals
of 0.8 to 1.5 mg/L with 0.1 to 0.3 mg/L excess ammonia.
Therefore, chlorine and ammonium hydroxide addition to this water
was rarely necessary.
From late December 1984 until June 1985, the use of chloramines
was suspended by both the MWD and the Lower Otay plant under the
direction from the California State Department of Health Services
because of reported problems at some dialysis centers. In
September 1986, the Lower Otay plant switched back to a
chlorination/chloramination scheme. At this time, dissolved
manganese was entering the plant because of anoxic conditions
that had developed in Lower Otay Lake. Free chlorine was added
prior to the Walker reactors to oxidize the manganese and control
odor problems. Chlorine contact time was approximately 140 min.
Ammonium hydroxide was added to the effluent from the Walker
reactors to convert all of the free chlorine to chloramines
(Figure 17).
43
Ammonium hydroxide was fed in a 25 percent solution. The
ammonium hydroxide dosage was determined by the amount of
chlorine used. Operators adjusted the ammonium hydroxide dosage
rate to 70 to 75 percent (by weight) of the chlorine dosage.
In addition to chloramination, several other modifications have

been made at the plant. In August 1981, provisions were also
made £or the addition of clay and powdered activated carbon (PAC)
at the lake intake. Clay dosages ranged from no addition to 43
mg/L, with an average dosage of 10.8 mg/L. PAC was added during
periods of excessive odor problems caused by algal growth in
Lower Otay Lake. These problems occurred two or three times per
year during which time approximately 4.0 mg/L of PAC was added at
the lake intake.
In addition, potassium permanganate was added sporadically at the

lake intake for odor control. Dosages ranged from 0.0 to 1.0
mg/L (1987 through 1988) with an average dosage of 0.7 mg/L. The
potassium permanganate dosage was determined by applying a dosage
of 0.5 mg/L whenever the odor of the lake water exceeded a
threshold odor number (TON) of 2 and, then, determining the TON
of the effluent. If the effluent TON exceeded 1.4, then the
potassium permanganate dosage was increased daily in steps of 0.2
mg/L until the odor problem was eliminated or the feed system's
capacity was reached.
System performance. TTHM levels were significantly reduced by

the conversion to chloramination from an average concentration of
175 to 80 Mg/L (Table 8, page 53). THM levels exceeded the 100
Mg/L MCL during periods when the plant was not allowed to use
chloramines or during periods when free chlorine was used to
eliminate other problems (Figure 18). Once chlorine and ammonia
were added simultaneously at the headworks, TTHM levels ranged
from 20 to 40
44
Sfr
H ft Monthly Average TTHM
vo y o cn~ i3 a 55
00 (D D) 3 o o o o o
H rt
— o D
• o P.
H p.
O* (0
C 10 o
(D ft O o
3
CO O CO O
H- 3 (D
O
cn o ft O
^ « n rt
rt 0) (D P> P>
O ^T ^ rt H
(D H-
3 O O H
ft
CO H-
fl^ 3"
H- H- J»
O « 3 H
9
H- ft ft
rt (D 3* 0>
(D O (D ft
CO
P O 0)
H-3
B, ft (5
H) O
CO ft M)
ft (D
Weekly Average HPC (cfu/mL)
ai 09 IO o K) (M
o O o o O O
Chlorine dosage decreased from approximately 6 mg/L (prior to
1981) to approximately 3 mg/L. Coliform bacteria counts were
always less than 2.2 cfu/100 mL. After an initial increase in
HPCs, the levels dropped to an overall average concentration of 7
counts/mL, which was comparable to previous levels (Figure 19).
The product water turbidity averaged 0.18 NTU. The plant

continued to produce a finished water with an average hardness of
approximately 200 mg CaC03/L, an average alkalinity of 120 mg
CaCO3/L and a pH of 8 (Table 8, page 53).
In general, chloramine use made it much easier to maintain a

residual in areas that had caused problems in the past, such as
standpipes and dead-end mains. Since the use of chloramines was
initiated, storage reservoirs and standpipes were occasionally
rechlorinated when tests showed low residual levels.
Rechlorination was accomplished by using calcium hypochlorite and
mixing via air injection. This method produced a small volume of
water with free chlorine residual rather than chloramines.
Problem areas. Several problems with the chloramination

equipment were identified by plant personnel. The Hypalon™
parts of the feed pump that come into contact with the 25 percent
ammonium hydroxide solution used at this plant had only a 3 to 4
month lifetime. Parts made of other materials had even shorter
lives. In addition, provisions were necessary to control ammonia
fumes resulting from ammonium hydroxide off-loading. Venting
off-gas through a bucket of water helped to eliminate this
problem. It should also be noted that 25 percent ammonium
hydroxide solutions become volatile at near atmospheric-level
pressures when subjected to the elevated temperatures that occur
in storage tanks and feed lines during summer months. Several
solutions to this problem were attempted at the Lower Otay plant.
As an interim solution, a soaker hose was placed on the storage
tank and the feed line was wrapped with a cloth. This reduced
temperatures so that the ammonium hydroxide stayed in the liquid
46
form and the feed pump could operate properly. A more permanent
solution was to reduce the pressure head loss through the feed
line and to use a sheet metal shield over the feed line. This
problem would probably not be experienced with ammonium hydroxide
solutions of less than 25 percent.
Once chloramination was initiated, a biological growth began to

build on the weirs and walls of the settling basins. Finished
water quality was not affected, but as this growth sloughed off,
it could influence filtration runs. To control biological
growth, occasional prechlorination was conducted. The chlorine
was fed at normal levels (approximately 6 mg/L) in the influent
channel for about 18 hours. THM levels were not appreciably
affected by this practice.
City of Terrell Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Terrell, Texas water

treatment plant was first put into service in 1958. Major
expansion of the settling basins was completed in 1972, and two
additional filters were placed in operation in 1974. The plant
currently treats an average flow of 3.4 mgd (8.9 m3/niin) of
impounded surface water by coagulation, sedimentation and
filtration (Figure 20).
The surface water impoundment was shallow with an average depth

of 10 ft (3 m). The lowest opening at the intake was only 23 ft
(7 m) below normal pool level. Turbidity in the impoundment
varied from 20 to 305 NTU with high turbidity occurring during
the late spring and summer months. The source water was soft
(hardness of 47 mg CaCO3/L) (Table 7, page 52). At a pH of 7.7,
the source water was considered aggressive (Aggressiveness Index
about 10).
Blue-green algal blooms were believed to cause taste and odor

problems with the product water. Potassium permanganate (KMn04 )
47
SODIUA SILICOFLUORIDE
LIAE
POST-CHLORINE
PRE-CHLORINE
POLYAER
POLYAER
KAn04
00
COPPER SULFATE
HIGH
SERVICE
PUAP
STATION
AAAONIUA CHLORIDE
ADDED AT FLASH AIX
IN NOVEABER 1983
V
DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 20. Flow Schematic of City of Terrell's Water Treatment Plant. Ammonium
Chloride (NH4C1) was Added to the Water at the Flash mix in November 1983.
was introduced at the raw water pump station to oxidize taste-
and odor-causing compounds. In addition, copper sulfate was
added around raw water intakes to control algae growth.
A cationic polymer, added at the pump station, was the coagulant.

Prior to March 1984, alum had been the primary coagulant.
Polymer dosages from 6 to 16 mg/L were less costly than alum
dosages ranging from 30 to 147 mg/L, with an average dosage of 70
mg/L.
Adeguate mixing and flocculation of the coagulant with the

colloidal particles occurred within the pipeline from the pump
station to the headworks of the plant, thereby negating the need
for operating the flash mix unit. The suspension was transported
to clarifiers and then to multimedia filters. Total hydraulic
retention time through the plant was approximately 9 hours.
Prechlorination was practiced prior to November 1983, followed by

postchlorination after the filters. TTHM levels during this
period .averaged 146 M9/L and ranged from 86 to 222 M9/L- The
addition of ammonium chloride (NfyCl) at the flash mixer was
initiated in November 1983 (Figure 20). An existing dry alum
slaker was used to feed the chemical to the water. Plant
operators attempted to maintain a chlorine-to-nitrogen weight
ratio of 4:1. About three times per year, ammoniation was
stopped and breakpoint chlorination was conducted. The frequency
of treating the water by breakpoint chlorination was normally
based on the occurrence of taste and odor problems.
System performance. Ammoniation of the water, initiated in

November 1983, reduced TTHM levels from an average of 146 /ug/L to
an average concentration of 35 /ig/L. Generally, the levels were
less than or equal to 16 M9/L (Figure 21). Taste and odor
problems in the fall 1986, month 36, caused the plant to use
breakpoint chlorination, producing a TTHM level of 163 Mg/L.
Combined chlorine residual on top of the filters was 2 to 3 mg/L,
49
250
Breakpoint
Chlorination
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10

Time (month)
FIGURE 21. Quarterly Average Total Trihalomethane (TTHM)

Concentrations in Terrell's Water Distribution System
Prior to and After Conversion to Chloramines (November
1983) .
50
with a minimum of 0.5 mg/L remaining in the distribution system.
After the change to chloramines, the quantity of chlorine used in
the water treatment system decreased from an average of 4,703
Ib/month to 3,908 Ib/month (2,135 to 1,774 kg/month) which
corresponded to an average decrease in chlorine dosage of 6.6
mg/L to 4.5 mg/L, respectively.
With the substitution of polymers for alum and the reduced

chlorine addition, less base (lime or soda ash) was required for
pH control; an equivalent of approximately 24,700 Ib (11,218 kg)
lime per month was reduced to 8,900 Ib/month (8,041 kg/month).
The pH of the product water significantly increased from an
average value of 7.9 to 8.4.
The plant produced a finished water that had a turbidity ranging

from 0.5 to 2.6 NTU and averaged 0.6 NTU (Table 8, page 53). No
statistical difference occurred between turbidity values measured
prior to and after the change to chloramines.
Prior to the use of chloramines, some locations within the water

distribution system did not have sufficient chlorine residual to
comply with the 0.5 mg/L state requirement. Since the addition
of ammonia, this problem has not existed. Coliform data in the
distribution system were <1 cfu/100 mL.
Problem areas. Complaints were received from bait houses with

dying minnows and also from residential and commercial aquarium
owners with dying fish. No documentation exists on the type and
frequency of the complaints. Within the plant, the major problem
was corrosion of the dry ammonium chloride feeders. To remedy
this problem, the plant converted to gaseous ammonia in February
1990.
51
TABLE 7
Mean Values of Raw Water Quality Parameters for Utilities That Converted to Chloramines
Contra Costa Miami-Dade

Uater District Water and Sewer New Orleans San Diego County
Ann Arbor Ralph D. Bollman Authority Carrol Iton Lower Otay Terrell
12/75-11/86 1/77-5/87 11/75-4/87 7/76-12/86 7/77-1/87 11/81-12/86
Alkalinity 208 66 230 102 132 45

(mg CaC03/L)
Chloride 39 65 -. .- 10
(mg/L)
Color (pcu) 34 47
Ul
Hardness 279 94 250 159 168 47
(mg CaC03/L)
Iron (mg/L) 0.20 1.0 -- 0.09 0.02
PH 8.0 8.1 7.3 7.9 8.0 7.7
Temperature ( F) 55 75 63 72 --
Turbidity (NTU) 5.0 29.0 0.5 157.0 3.2 83.0
* Time period for water quality database

+ Groundwater supply
--No data reported
TABLE 8
Mean Values of Finished Water Quality Parameters

Before and After Conversion to Chloramines
Contra Costa
Water District Miami-Dade
Ralph D. Water and New Orleans San Diego
Ann Arbor Boll man Sewer Authority Carrol Iton Lower Otay Terrell
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
2/75-9/81 9/81- 1/77- 9/81- 11/75- 11/81- 7/76- 10/81- 7/77- 8/81- 11/81- 11/83-
11/86 9/81 5/87 11/81 4/87 10/81 12/86 8/81 1/87 11/83 12/86
63+ 51* 44*

Alkalinity 53 68.0 60.0* 45 56 61* 119 127* 59
(mg CaC03/L)
-- 101.0 45.0* -- 89.0 -. -- --
Chloride (mg/L)
w ** ** 2.7**
Total chlorine 1.3 3.7 -- 0.8 2.5 3.5 1.3 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.9
residual (mg/L)
4.1* -- -- 4.8 16.4* -- -- --
Color (pcu) 2.4
142* 82* 76* 188 204 43 47
Hardness 112 123 92 112 118*
(mg CaCCyL)
135* 3.4*
Flow (mgd) 14.8 15.1 23.7 31.5* 112 122 119 15.8 19.2* 2.8
3.0* -- -- -- -- --
Odor (TON) 1.1 0.34* 3.7
9.3+ 8.5* 9.0* 8.4*
pH 9.9 8.4 8.6 9.9 10.1* 8.2 8.0* 7.9
25+ 47* 27* 35*
TTHM (/ig/L) 105 67 228 100 9* 175 80* 146
Turbidity (NTU) 0.52 0.28 0.06 0.06 0.40 0.27* 0.19 0.17 0.32 0.18* 0.66 0.59
* Time period for finished water quality database

+ A significant difference at 95% confidence level
** Free chlorine residual
*-No data reported
TABLE 9
Mean Values for Bacteriological Quality Data in the Distribution
System Before and After Use of Chloramines
Contra Costa
Water District Miami-Dade San Diego
Ralph D. Water & Sewer New Orleans County
Ann Arbor Bollman Authority CarrolIton Lower Otay Terrell
12/75- 9/81- 1/77- 9/81- 11/75- 11/81- 7/76- 10/81- 7/77- 8/81- 11/81-
,£ 11/83-
9/81 11/86 9/81 5/87 11/81 4/87 10/81 12/86 8/81 1/87 11/83 12/86
Total coliform <1 <1 <2.2 <2.2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2.2 <2.2 <1 <1
count (tap)
(cfu/100ml)
Heterotrophic -- 43 39 21 74 32 5* -- 7
plate count
(cfu/ml)
distribution
* Time period for bacteriological quality database

+ Instances of positive coliform bacteria counts did occur in the distribution lines after flashing during the first year of chloramine
--No data reported use
TABLE 10
Average Chemical Use Data for Utilities Prior

to and After the Initiation of Chloramine Treatment
Contra Costa
Water District Miami-Dade San Diego
Ralph D. Water & Sewer New Orleans County
Ann Arbor Boll man Authority Carrollton Lower Otay Terrell
12/75- 9/81- 1/77- 9/81- 11/75- 11/81- 7/76- 10/81- 7/77- 8/81- 11/81- 11/83-
9/81 11/86 9/81 5/87 11/81 4/87 10/81 12/86 8/81 1/87 11/83 12/86
Ul ..
Ammonia 142 71 587 685 309 85
(Ib/day)
Ammonia (mg/L) -- 1.13 0.26 0.51 0.69 1.8 3.0
554* 526 462 14,198 6,643* 5,632 3,706* 843 416 154 127
Total chlorine 370
(Ib/day)
4.4* 2.7 1.8* 15.2 5.9* 5.1 3.5 6.4 2.6* 6.6 4.5*
Chlorine dosage 3.0
(mg/L)
2.2* .. .. 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0
Permanganate 1.8
dosage (mg/L)
* Time period for chemical use database

+ Significant difference at 95% confidence level
--no data reported
Economic Analysis of Chloramine Plants
The six chloramine utilities incurred capital costs for storage,

handling and application facilities for ammonia. The operation
and maintenance costs, however, were low, and a savings in
chemical costs often resulted from reduced chlorine dosages.
Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant
Ann Arbor converted to chloramines in September 1981, by adding

ammonia sulfate at the primary rapid mix chamber. For the
implementation of anhydrous ammonia in April 1982, a 2,000
pound/day (908 kg/day) chlorinator was converted to ammonia
application, and a pump and day tank were purchased. An outside
ammonia storage tank was provided by the supplier. Ammonia use
was monitored by placing the day tank on an existing scale.
Table 11 presents capital costs incurred as a result of the
conversion to chloramines. The labor requirements increased by
2.3 h/wk, and time required for laboratory analyses increased by
1.5 h/wk. In addition, an ammonia dosage of 1.0 mg/L combined
TABLE 11
Capital Costs for Conversion to Chloramines at Ann Arbor
Adjusted
Item Cost 1988 costs
Chlorinator conversion kit $ 700 $ 847

Day storage tank $ 560 $ 678
Pump $ 380 $ 460
Hose, valves, fittings $ 712 $ 862
Total $2 ,352 $2 ,847
Annual amortized capital cost* $ 248
* Cost factor - 1.21

+ Amortization based on 20 year life and six percent compound
interest
56
with a chlorine dosage increase of 1.1 mg/L comprised all
increases in chemical costs. The permanganate dosage remained
the same, and other operational and maintenance (O&M) costs were
negligible (Table 12). The total annual capital and O&M costs
for the conversion were $20,712. This translates to an increase
in treatment costs of $3.74/mil gal ($0.99/1000 m3 ) , including
all capital, operational and maintenance costs.
TABLE 12
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Increase for Ann Arbor
Unit Annual Adjusted

Item cost cost 1988 cost
Labor (2.3 h/wk)* $12.75/h $ 1,525 $ 1,555

Lab time (1.5 h/wk)* $ 5.50/h $ 429 $ 438
Chlorine (9.2 Ib/mil gal, $ 0.25/lb $12,710 $12,710
1.1 kg/1000 m3 ) ($ 0.55/kg)
Ammonia (8.34 Ib/mil gal, $ 0.125/lb $ 5,761 $ 5,761
1.0 kg/1000 m3 ) ($ 0.275/kg)
Annual 1988 O&M total $20,464
* Wage cost factor - 1.02
Contra Costs Water District/ Ralph D. Bollman Water Treatment

Plant
The necessary changes for conversion to chloramines in September

1981 were designed and installed by plant personnel at the Ralph
D. Bollman Plant. The process changes required the purchase and
installation of an ammoniator, diffusers and piping (Table 13).
In addition, the three diffusers were constructed from 1/2 in
(1.27 cm) stainless steel. A 625 gal (2.37 m3 ) anhydrous ammonia
storage tank was provided at no cost to the utility, although
installation was necessary.
57
The operation and maintenance costs related to the change
included the chemical cost of anhydrous ammonia and ammoniation
system maintenance. Also noted was a reduction in chlorine
dosage of 1.1 mg/L, which would result in a savings in chemical
costs (Table 14).
The conversion of the Ralph D. Bollman Plant to chloramines

resulted in an annual savings of $6,082 (1988 dollars). This
savings reduced treatment costs by $0.53/mil gal ($0.14/1,000 m3 )
(1988 dollars).
TABLE 13
Capital Costs for the Contra Costa Water District,

Ralph D. Bollman Plant
Adjusted
Item Cost 1988 cost
Ammoniator $ 4,000 $ 5,240

Storage tank (no charge)
Diffusers and piping $ 8,000 $10,480
Total $12,000 $15,720
Annual amortized capital cost* $ 1,370

* Cost factor = 1.31
+ Amortization based on a 20 year life and 6 percent compound
interest rate
58
TABLE 14
Operation and Maintenance Costs

at the Contra Costa Water District, Ralph D. Bollman Plant
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
Ammonia (0. 26 mg/L) $ 0.36/lb $10 ,000

($0.79/kg)
Chlorine (- 1.1 mg/L) $ 0.17/lb -$17 ,932
($0.37/kg)
Maintenance (16 hours/year) $30.00/h $ 480
Annual 1988 O&M total -$ 7 ,452
The Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority, John E. Preston and

Hialeah Water Treatment Plant
The Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority converted the John E.

Preston and Hialeah plants to chloramines in November 1981, by
adding anhydrous ammonia to the treatment process. The point of
chlorination also served as the point of ammoniation. The
authority purchased eight direct-feed ammoniators and two 15,000
gal (57 m3 ) anhydrous ammonia storage tanks (Table 15).
Engineering and installation were performed by Miami-Dade County
personnel, who indicated that minimal service was required for
the ammoniators and storage tanks.
The operation and maintenance costs (Table 16) included the cost
for the ammonia dosage of 0.5 mg/L. The chlorine dosage was
reduced from an average of 15.2 mg/L to 5.9 mg/L, resulting in a
substantial chemical cost savings. As mentioned, the ammonia
system required minimal service. Reduction in chemical costs
resulted in a treatment cost savings of $957,189 or $18.84/mil
59
gal ($4.98/1,000 m3 ) . The annual amortized cost was $8,988. The
increase in annual treatment costs due to capital expenditures
was $0.18/mil gal ($0.05/1000 m3 ) . Therefore, the utility
experienced an overall reduction in capital and O&M costs of
$18.66/mil gal ($4.93/1,000 m3 ) .
TABLE 15
Capital Costs for Chloramine Conversion at Miami, FL
Unit Adjusted*
Item cost Cost 1988 cost
Eight ammoniators $ 8,929 $71,432 $ 93,576

Two 15,000 gal $ 3,600 $ 7,200 $ 9,432
(57 m3 ) anhydrous
ammonia tanks
Total $78,632 $103,008

+ Amortization based on a 20 year life and 6 percent compound
interest rate
TABLE 16
Operation and Maintenance Costs for Chloramines at Miami, FL
Unit Adjusted
Item cost 1988 cost
Ammonia (0.51 mg/L) $0.125/lb $ 27,015

($0.275/kg)
Chlorine (-9.29 mg/L) $0.25/lb -$984,204
($0.55/kg)
Annual 1988 O&M total -$957,189
60
City of New Orleans, Carrol1ton Water Treatment Plant
The conversion of the Carrollton Water Treatment Plant to

chloramines consisted of adding anhydrous ammonia just upstream
of the point of chlorination. A 10,000 gal (38 m3 ) anhydrous
ammonia storage tank and three ammoniators were purchased (Table
17). Engineering costs and installation of piping and equipment
are also given in Table 17. One preexisting building was used to
house some of the ammoniation equipment.
TABLE 17
Capital Costs for Chloramines at the Carrollton Plant,
New Orleans, LA
Adjusted*
Item Cost 1988 cost
Ammonia storage tank $30,000 $39,300

Three ammoniators $12,000 $15,720
Engineering $10,000 $13,100
Piping and installation $10,000 $13,100
Total $62,000 $81,220

+ Amortization based on 20 year life and 6 percent compound
interest rate
The chemical costs comprised all of the operation and maintenance

costs (Table 18). The chlorine dosage dropped from an average of
5.1 mg/L to 3.5 mg/L. In addition, the ammonia dosage was 0.68
mg/L, and the permanganate dosage was 0.55 mg/L.
The total annual capital and O&M expenditures for the conversion
to chloramines was $149,568. This equaled a $3.20/mil gal
($0.85/1000 m3 ) increase in treatment costs for the conversion to
chloramines.
61
TABLE 18
Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Carrollton Plant,

New Orleans, LA
Unit
Item cost 1988 cost
Ammonia (0.68 mg/L) $0.125/lb $ 33,182

($0.275/kg)
KMn04 (0. 55 mg/L) $1.25/lb $268,383
($2.75/kg)
Chlorine (-1.63 mg/L) $0.25/lb -$159,078
($0.55/kg)
Annual 1988 O&M total $142,487
City of San Diego's Lower Otay Filtration Plant
The Lower Otay Filtration Plant was converted to chloramines in

August 1981. The conversion was designed and implemented by
plant personnel and included the purchase of an 8,000 gallon (30
m3 ) fiberglass storage tank, a feed pump and fixtures (Table 19).
The pump was a duplex head, 0 to 500 gpd (0. to 1.9 m3/d)
metering pump, and the fixtures included feed lines, valves, poly
vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, EPDM or Viton O-rings, and Teflon™
seats. Installation costs were included in the capital
expenditures.
The operation and maintenance costs included increased chemical

costs, electricity and pump maintenance (Table 20). The ammonia
was added in the form of ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) at 1.82 mg/L.
Because ammonium hydroxide is a base, the use of sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) was reduced by 14.6 mg/L. In addition, the chlorine
dosage was reduced from 6.4 to 2.6 mg/L. The potassium
permanganate dosage, however, increased from 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.
Pump maintenance items included diaphragms, gaskets, poppets,
drive belts, and miscellaneous items.
62
TABLE 19
Capital Costs at the Lower Otay Filtration Plant
Adjusted
Item Cost 1988 cost
Fiberglass $13,000 $17,030

storage tank
Metering pump $ 1,500 $ 1,965
Fixtures $ 300 $ 393
Installation $10,000 $13,100
Total $24,800 $32,488
interest rate
TABLE 20
Operation and Maintenance Costs for the
Lower Otay Filtration Plant
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
Ammonia (1.82 mg/L) $0.04/lb $ 4 ,559

hydroxide ($0.09/kg)
KMn04 (0.49 mg/L) $1.08/lb $ 33 ,137
($2.38/kg)
Chlorine (-3.8 mg/L) $0.16/lb -$ 38 ,071
($0.35/kg)
NaOH (-14.6 mg/L) $0.14/lb -$127 ,989
($0.3 I/kg)
Electricity $1.08/day $ 394
Pump $400/yr $ 400
Annual 1988 O&M total -$127 ,570
63
The change to chloramines at the Lower Otay Filtration Plant
resulted in an annual capital and O&M cost savings of $124,738.
Based on an average daily flow of 20.57 mgd (54 m3/min) , the cost
for treatment was reduced by $16.61/mil gal ($4.39/100 m3 ) . The
major area of cost reduction was in the reduced use of sodium
hydroxide and chlorine.
Terrell Water Treatment Plant
The city of Terrell applied dry ammonium chloride (NH4C1) with an

existing dry alum slaker. In addition, provisions were made to
feed permanganate at the raw water intake for taste and odor
control. The required permanganate application equipment was a
feeder, a mixing vat (preexisting), a mixer, and two chemical
metering pumps. Plant personnel installed these items. These
items and their associated costs are presented in Table 21.
TABLE 21
Capital Costs for Conversion to Chloramines at Terrell, TX
Adjusted*
Item Cost 1988 cost
Permanganate feeder $3,000 $3, 390

Mixer $ 720 $ 814
Two metering pumps $ 800 $ 904
Installation $ 250 $ 283
Total $4,770 $5, 391
Annual amortized capital cost* $ 470
+ Amortization based on 20 year life and a six percent compound
interest rate
64
Items contributing to operation and maintenance costs of the
conversion to chloramines included chemical costs, maintenance
item costs and labor costs (Table 22). Ammonium chloride (34
percent NH3 ) was applied at 3.0 mg/L, reducing the chlorine
dosage by 2.1 mg/L. Also, permanganate was added for taste and
odor control at an average dosage of 1.0 mg/L. Maintenance items
included maintenance on feeders (permanganate and ammonium
chloride); maintenance on the mixer, metering pumps and tanks;
and labor costs for these items. In addition, labor requirements
for operation increased by 1 hour per day. The total annual
capital and O&M expenditures resulting from conversion to
chloramines were $12,071. Based on an average daily flow of 3.43
mgd (9.02 m3/roin), the resulting increase in treatment costs was
$9.64/mil gal ($2.55)/1000 m3 ) .
TABLE 22
Operation and Maintenance Costs at Terrell, TX
Unit Adjusted
Item cost 1988 cost
NH4C1 (2.96 mg/L) $0.22/lb $ 6,800

($0.48/kg)
KMn04 (1.0 mg/L) $1.25/lb $ 3,263
($2.75/kg)
Chlorine (-2.13 mg/L) $0.25/lb -$ 5,560
($0.55/kg)
Lime (-2.5 mg/L) $0.06/lb -$ 1,566
($0.13/kg)
Maintenance items $524/year $ 535
Maintenance labor $360/month $ 4,406

Labor (1 h/day) $10/h $ 3,723
Annual 1988 O&M cost $11,601
65
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Each chloramine system successfully reduced TTHM concentrations

in the distribution system to less than 50 M9/L, with average
TTHM values ranging from 9 to 40 M9/ L - In addition, the coliform
bacteria levels within the distribution system have remained
within the required MCL, and in most cases the HPC levels have
decreased. Other advantages experienced by the utilities studied
are as follows:
* A persistent combined chlorine residual was maintained within
the water distribution system;
* Taste and odor problems in the distribution system, which were
associated with free chlorine, were reduced;
* Adaptation of chloramine treatment processes to existing water
treatment plants was accomplished with relative ease, using
existing equipment and facilities; and
* The conversion to chloramination was relatively inexpensive
with total costs ranging from a savings of 18.66/mil gal
($4.93/1000 m3 ) to an increased cost of $9.64/mil gal
($2.55/1000 m3 ) . Three of the plants experienced costs
savings. In addition to the utility that experienced a $9.64
cost increase, two of the water treatment systems experienced
increased costs of approximately $3.50/mil gal ($0.92/1000 m3 ) .
Disadvantages
Disadvantages associated with the use of chloramines that should

be considered by utilities when evaluating treatment
alternatives, are as follows:
* Greater CT (disinfectant concentration X contact time) values
are required for disinfection with chloramines compared to
chlorine (Wolfe et al. 1984);
* Nitrifying bacteria can oxidize residual ammonia in the
distribution system to nitrite especially in warm water;
66
combined chlorine residual does not appear to completely
control nitrite formation;
* Ineffective control of algal growth occurs in sedimentation
basins and filters;
* Notification must be given to hospitals and dialysis units
concerning potential interferences of chloramines with
hemodialysis;
* Chloramines cause acute toxicity to aquatic life;
* Chloramination does not oxidize THM precursor material;
therefore, if chlorine is added in the distribution system to
maintain disinfection, excess ammonia must be added at the
plant to combine with the free chlorine or THMs will be formed;
* Taste and odor problems may occur because of chloramines'
limited oxidation of taste and odor compounds or algae;
* Liquid ammonium hydroxide will vaporize as the liquid
temperature increases, creating transport problems;
* Ammonia can cause corrosion of equipment as ammonium chloride
is added to water; and
* Chloramines are suspected of increasing the destruction rate of
certain types of rubber parts in pipe gaskets and residential
plumbing.
67
CHLORINE DIOXIDE
Certain utilities in North America and Europe have implemented

chlorine dioxide (C1O2 ) as an alternative to meet the THM
regulation (Monscvitz and Rexing 1981; McVeigh et al. 1985;
Lykins and Griese 1986; Aieta and Berg 1986). The application of
C1O2 in potable water treatment is effective for taste and odor
control, decolorization, iron and manganese oxidation, organic
oxidation, enhanced coagulation-filtration, in-plant control of
biofouling, and disinfection (Miller et al. 1978; Hedberg et al.
1978; Masschelein 1985; Aieta and Berg 1986). The use of C102 as
the primary disinfectant followed by free chlorine or chloramines
for distribution residual is a common and effective alternative
treatment practice for THM reduction (USEPA 1981; Masschelein
1985; Aieta and Berg 1986). This method of treatment has the
benefit of pretreatment with a strong oxidant-disinfectant while
achieving precursor reduction prior to addition of a residual
disinfectant. In addition, the delay in chlorination can further
reduce THM levels in the product water (Vogt and Regli 1981;
Masschelein 1985; Lykins and Griese 1986; White 1986; Werdehoff
and Singer 1987).
Chlorine dioxide is an unstable gas that, like ozone, must be

generated on-site (Aieta and Berg 1986; White 1986). C1O2 does
not react with water to the extent that chlorine does; however,
it is volatile and can be easily removed by aeration (Aieta and
Berg 1986; White 1986). Facilities for the application of C1O2
should be designed to reduce the volatilization of the gas out of
solution (White 1986). An aqueous solution of C1O2 is subject to
photodecomposition, but the rate of decomposition is low compared
with the loss by volatility. Chlorine dioxide is considered to
be a powerful oxidant; but in the pH range associated with water
treatment (6 to 9), the full oxidation strength of C102 is
typically not utilized (Montgomery 1985; Aieta and Berg 1986;
White 1986). Chlorine dioxide will not hydrolyze in water as
chlorine does. It exists as a dissolved gas in the 2 to 10 pH
68
range (Aieta et al. 1984; Aieta and Berg 1986; White 1986). The
following equations define the reduction of C102 in aqueous
solutions:
C102 + 5e~ + 2H20 -» Cl" + 40H" (4)

C1O2 + e" -* C1O2" . (5)
Equation 4 is the complete reaction traditionally used to

describe C1O2 in water (Montgomery 1985). However, the reaction
that often occurs in water is described by equation 5. The
oxidizing power of this agent is pH-dependent. In the pH range
associated with water treatment, equation 5 is the predominant
reaction. C1O2 does dissociate in alkaline solutions to chlorite
(C102~) and chlorate (C1O3~) (Masschelein 1985; Aieta and Berg
1986):
2C102 + 20H" -» C102 " + C103" + H20 . (6)
This reaction proceeds at a significant rate at an alkaline pH or

when C1O2 is present in high concentrations (Aieta and Berg
1986) . C1O2", however is also an effective oxidant and will be
consumed in the following oxidation-reduction reaction (Aieta and
Berg 1986):
C102" + 4H+ + 4e" -> Cl" + 2H20 . (7)
This reaction occurs at much slower rates than the parent

material in water treatment (Aieta and Berg 1986). An estimated
50 to 70 percent of the C1O2 dosage will immediately appear as
C102", and the remainder as chloride (Aieta et al. 1984; Miltner
1976). C102 will continue to degrade in the distribution system,
and, under these conditions, no chlorate will be found (Aieta and
Berg 1986).
There is some concern about the by-products of C1O2 decomposition

because little is known about their health effects (Condie 1986;
69
Lykins and Griese 1986) . C1O2/ C1O2" and C1O3" have been
implicated as a cause of hemolytic anemia, methemoglobinemia and
other hematological effects, with C1O2" identified as the most
potent. If the recommended total residual oxidant level of less
than 1.0 mg/L is maintained, no adverse health effects are
anticipated (Cotruvo and Vogt 1985; Lykins and Griese 1986;
Condie 1986).
Chlorine dioxide oxidizes iron and manganese (Masschelein 1979).

In reactions with iron and manganese, C1O2 and C1O2" will react to
form the chloride ion as well as insoluble compounds of iron and
manganese. Both reactions favor a neutral-to-alkaline pH range
(Aieta and Berg 1986).
The oxidation reaction of C102 with organics results in fewer

volatile and nonvolatile organics (Aieta and Berg 1986). C1O2
appears to be more selective than does chlorine in the type of
compounds with which it will react, as evidenced by the lower
demand for C1O2 versus chlorine (Aieta and Berg 1986; Rav-Acha
1984). Chlorine dioxide has been found to be effective in
reducing taste and odor problems resulting from phenolic
compounds (Aieta and Berg 1986; White 1986; Walker et al. 1986).
Chlorine dioxide reactions with humic and fulvic substances do

not produce THMs (Noack and Doerr 1978; Mallevialle et al. 1978;
USEPA 1981; Colclough et al. 1983; Aieta and Berg 1986). C1O2
produces from 1 to 25 percent of total organic halides (TOX)
compared with chlorine under similar conditions in reactions with
humic substances (USEPA 1981; Brauch et al. 1981; Chow and
Roberts 1981; Fleischacker and Randtke 1983; Hubbs and Holdren
1986). Investigations indicated that C102 reacted with THM
precursors to render them unreactive to THM formation by as much
as 50 percent (Aieta and Berg 1986; Brauch et al. 1981).
Therefore, the amount of THM precursors subject to post-
chlorination is reduced. Pretreatment dosages of C1O2 are
typically 30 to 50 percent of the required prechlorination dosage
70
(Aieta and Berg 1986; Rosenblatt 1978). Postchlorination dosages
required to maintain a residual are generally higher than before
the change to C102 (Aieta and Berg 1986).
Chlorine dioxide is equal or superior to free chlorine as a

biocide (Augenstein 1974; Berg et al. 1980; Varma et al. 1985;
White 1986; Berg et al. 1985; Aieta and Berg 1986). C102 is
effective on a variety of organisms at concentrations of 1 to 5
mg/L, even in the presence of suspended matter (Aieta and Berg
1986). A report from a water treatment utility, however,
indicated that C1O2 was less effective during periods of extreme
turbidity (>100 NTU) and that treatment was changed during those
periods to produce an acceptable finished water (Oliver 1988).
During periods of high turbidity, an increase in taste and odor
problems and a decrease in disinfection efficiency occurred. The
problem could have been related to an increase in organic matter
rather than suspended matter, which has been found to decrease
the effectiveness of C102 (McCarthy 1945). In general, most
studies found that
(1) C1O2 is an effective bactericide;
(2) C1O2 is unaffected by pH in the 6 to 8.5 range;
(3) C1O2 is rapid in inactivation; and
(4) C1O2 is equal or superior to chlorine on a mass-dosage
basis (Aieta and Berg 1986).
Furthermore, C1O2 is effective for biofilm control, but appears
to be less effective than chlorine in certain cases (Aieta and
Berg 1986) . As for protozoa, C1O2 is more effective than
chlorine against Naegleria gruberi cysts, especially at higher pH
levels (Aieta and Berg 1986; Sproul et al. 1983; Chen et al.
1985). The CT values (concentration of disinfectant in mg/L
times the contact time in minutes), however, required for 99
percent inactivation of this cyst were higher (5.5 mg/L»min) than
typically employed in water treatment for disinfection by
chlorine. As for its viricidal properties, C1O2 is effective and
comparable to free chlorine for several viral species (Aieta and
Berg 1986; Harakeh and Butler 1981; Berg et al. 1980; Smith and
71
McVey 1973) . The following rating of disinfectant biocidal
efficiency has been developed by White (1986):
03 > C1O2 > hypochlorous acid > hypochlorite ion > (8)
dichloramine > monochloramine
All C1O2 for drinking water treatment is generated with sodium

chlorite. Most generation techniques use the oxidative process
in which chlorine (gas or liquid) is mixed with a sodium chlorite
solution (Aieta and Berg 1986; Aieta et al. 1984; Masschelein
1984; Jordon et al. 1980). C1O2 is formed primarily by the
following two methods (Symons et al. 1978; Miller et al. 1978):
2 NaC102 + C12 -» 2 NaCl + 2 C1O2 (9)

5 NaC102 + 4 HC1 -> 4 C102 + 5 NaCl + 2 H2O . (10)
The objective in generation of C1O2 is to produce a solution with

the highest purity and the greatest yield (White 1986; Aieta and
Berg 1986) . Purity is the ratio of C1O2 to the total of all
chlorine oxidative compounds as determined by the following
relationship (White 1986):
P = C1O2/[C1O2 + C12 + NaClO2 ] X 100 percent . (11)
Yield is defined as the amount of C1O2 generated as a percent of

the theoretical amount (White 1986). If a gas chlorinator is
used, the chlorinator effluent must be at pH 3.5 or lower and
contain at least 500 mg/L chlorine to accomplish a complete
reaction (Symons et al. 1978). This condition is typically
achieved by setting the chlorine-to-sodium chlorite ratio at 1:1
in order to provide excess chlorine. When excess chlorine is not
desired, the chlorine-to-sodium chlorite ratio is set at the
theoretical 1:3 ratio, and acid can be added to maintain the
critical pH of 3.5 or lower (Symons et al. 1978). The most
recent development in generation technology is one that reacts
gaseous chlorine with sodium chlorite under a vacuum (Aieta and
72
Berg 1986; White 1986). This method incorporates a gas eductor,
similar to a chlorine gas vacuum system, to remove the C1O2 from
the reaction chamber (Figure 22). With this system, pH control
is not necessary. Gas chlorine-sodium chlorite systems can
produce C102 solutions with yields in excess of 95 percent with
less than 5 percent excess chlorine over the entire production
range (Aieta et al. 1984; McVeigh et al. 1985; Walker et al.
1986; White 1986). In most cases, existing chlorination
equipment can be retrofitted for the production of C1O2 .
Water Treatment Plant Description and Performance
Bristol County Water Authority's Child Street Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Bristol County Water

Authority was located in Rhode Island and served a population of
about 50,000 people in three towns. The Child Street Treatment
Plant was built in 1903 with additions in 1921, 1947, and 1975 to
treat the Kickemuit Reservoir supply, which was fed by three
other reservoir flows. The reservoirs had a total storage
capacity of 460 mil gal (1.74 x 106 m3 ). The Child Street
Treatment Plant provided approximately 75 percent of the demand
for Bristol County, with the other 25 percent coming from an iron
and manganese removal plant using pressure sand filters to treat
groundwater. Also, an interconnection was in place with the East
Providence, RI, distribution system to supplement demands. Raw
water was withdrawn and treated in a conventional alum
coagulation, rapid sand filtration system rated at 4.2 mgd (11.0
m3/min) with an average production of 3.4 mgd (8.9 m3/min)
(Figure 23). The Kickemuit Reservoir spillway elevation was 4.2
feet (1.28 m), and the reservoir was subject to saltwater
intrusion when high winds, high tide and low water levels in the
reservoir occurred simultaneously. Problems with saltwater
intrusion, however, were limited and only a few days in duration.
73
CHLORINE EDUCTOR
DIOXIDE
SOLUTION
TO PROCESS EDUCTOR
WATER SUPPLY
REACTION
ZONE
FEED RATE
METERS
CHLORINE
CHLORITE
SUPPLY GAS
SUPPLY
FIGURE 22. Chlorine Gas-sodium Chlorite Generation Scheme

(Aieta and Berg 1986).
74
4) LIAE (5) CHLORINE
POWDERED CHLORINE FLUORIDE
C-9
ACTIVATED
ALUft CARBON
COAGLI-ANT AID
LIftE
KICKEAUIT
RESERVOIR RAPID
PRETREATflENT SETTLING SAND
CLARIFIER BASIN FILTERS
-0
Ul
(NOT ADDED AFTER CHLORINE DIOXIDE

CHLORINE DIOXIDE ADDED AT PRETREATrtENT DISTRIBUTION
TREAT/VENT BEGAN) CLARIFIER FEBRUARY 1983
FIGURE 23. Flow Schematic of Bristol County Water Company's Child

Street Treatment Plant. Chlorine Dioxide was Added Prior to the
Pretreatment Clarifier in February 1983.
Water from Kickemuit Reservoir was highly colored (87 pcu) with
low alkalinity (17 mg CaCO3/L) , low turbidity (2 NTU) and
significant amounts of iron (0.6 mg/L) and manganese (0.19 mg/L)
(Table 23, page 102) . In addition, the plant also produced a
finished water with occasional taste and odor problems.
Furthermore, the maximum total trihalomethane potential (MTP) of
the raw water, which was occasionally in excess of 3000 p.g/'L,
caused the utility to seek alternative treatment processes to
comply with state drinking water regulations.
One of the criteria for selecting an alternative THM control

strategy was that the treatment scheme must also oxidize iron and
manganese. Typically, chlorine, alum, coagulant aid, and lime
were added at the raw water intake (Figure 23) . Adding potassium
permanganate at the low-lift pump station and moving the point of
chlorination to just before the rapid sand filters reduced the
TTHM levels by 45 percent from 227 to 125
During the summer of 1982, a plant trial using chlorine dioxide

resulted in a THM reduction of 64 percent from 210 to 76
with finished water MTPs in the range of 1000 to 2000
Based on the results of the trial run, chlorine dioxide was
applied before the pretreatment clarifier and chlorine was
applied at the clearwell (Figure 23) . This mode of treatment
began in February 1983. Chlorine dioxide was applied at 1 to 2
mg/L to provide approximately 0.1 mg C1O2/L residual in the
effluent of the pretreatment clarifier. The clarifier 's
hydraulic detention time was approximately 3.75 hours at average
flows. Also, the chlorine dioxide dosage was controlled to
maintain the total residual oxidants (chlorine dioxide, chlorite
and chlorate) below recommended levels (1 mg/L) (Cotruvo and Bogt
1985; Lykins and Griese 1986; Condie 1986) .
Chlorine dioxide was produced by a proprietary generator (Rio

Linda Chemical Company) from a 25 percent sodium chlorite
solution and chlorine gas in stoichiometric quantities under a
76
vacuum. An additional detention time of 5.5 hours was provided
in the settling basin where PAC was added for taste and odor
control. Lime was added to adjust pH and alkalinity just before
filtration. The rapid sand filters were hydraulically loaded at
2 gpm/sq ft (0.08 m3/min«m2 ) . Chlorine and fluoride were added
in the clearwell, which provided 25 min of detention time in the
clearwell before distribution.
System performance. Pretreatment of the raw water with chlorine

dioxide was implemented in February 1983, with dosages of 1 to 2
mg/L at the influent to the pretreatment clarifier. The TTHM
levels in the drinking water were reduced significantly from an
average of 112 M9/L before the use of chlorine dioxide to 53 M9/L
after the change (Figure 24). These data present the average of
TTHM measurements obtained from samples collected from the Child
Street Treatment Plant and three locations within the
distribution system. Chlorine dioxide also oxidized iron and
manganese from raw water levels of 0.65 mg/L iron and 0.15 mg/L
manganese to average finished water levels of 0.043 mg/L iron and
0.037 mg/L manganese (Table 24, page 103).
With the use of chlorine dioxide, the average chlorine dosage

requirements were significantly reduced from 4.1 mg/L to 3.2 mg/L
(Table 25, page 104). Correspondingly, the residual chlorine in
the finished water was also significantly reduced from 1.1 to
0.8 mg/L.
The raw water color increased significantly from an average of 74

pcu, prior to using chlorine dioxide, to an average of 101 pcu
after this treatment was implemented. The treatment system was
capable of controlling the increase in color and producing a
product water with slightly less color (4.7 pcu) than achieved
before the chlorine dioxide treatment (5.1 pcu). In addition,
the plant continued to produce a water with an average turbidity
of 0.57 NTU and odor of 1.8 TON.
77
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Time (month)
FIGURE 24. Quarterly Total Trihalomethane (TTHM)
Concentrations in the Bristol County Child Street Water
Treatment Plant Distribution System Prior to and After
Conversion to Chlorine Dioxide (February 1983).
78
Problem areas. During the summer of 1986, the system experienced
a bad taste and odor problem. Several alternatives, including
extra PAC, did not alleviate the problem, and the cause was never
identified. The problem disappeared after a time. The only
other problem mentioned by the plant staff was a concern about
the analytical procedure for residual C102 , in which they had
little confidence.
Centralia Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Centralia Water

Treatment Plant began operation in 1925 and was modified in 1975.
The raw water source for the plant was Raccoon Lake, which had a
surface area at medium pool of 700 acres (283 ha), a mean depth
of 3.9 ft (1.19 m) and a maximum depth of 13 ft (3.96 m).
The plant was designed to treat an average flow of 6 mgd (15.8

m3/roin) and a peak flow of 9 mgd (23.7 m3/min) . The average flow
at the Centralia plant was 3.77 mgd (9.91 m3/min). The recorded
maximum daily flow was 4.5 mgd (11.8 m3/m i n ) • Water from Raccoon
Lake was pumped to the plant through a 6,800 ft (2,073 m), 24 in
(61 cm) cast-iron pipe.
Liquid alum was added at the plant in a water meter pit (Figure
25). Alum feed rate ranged from 525 to 3,100 Ib/d (238 to 1,407
kg/d) with an average of about 900 Ib/d (409 kg/d). The
resultant average alum dosage was 28 mg/L. A cationic polymer
was added to the water as it flowed into the flocculation basins.
The approximate polymer dose was 1.5 mg/L. Flocculated water
flowed into two 50 ft (15.2 m) square upflow contact clarifiers
and onto six mixed-media filters. The filters were composed of
18 in (45.7 cm) of granular activated carbon (GAC) over 18 in
(45.7 cm) of sand. GAC was changed in two of the filters each
year. Chlorine, hydrofluosilicic acid and liquid caustic soda
were added to the filtered water. Treated water was pumped into
two 750,000 gal (2,839 m3 ) clearwells that provided a 3 hour
79
FUJORIOE
SODIUA HYDROXIDE
CHLORINE
POTASSIUA
PERAANGANATE
FILTERS
CLEAR DISTRIBUTION
WELL
05
O
> ALUA
CHLORINE
NOTE: CHLORINE NOT

ADDED AT RAPID OLORINE DIOXIDE
ftlX WITH CHLORINE ADDED AT RAPID AIX
DIOXIDE
NOVEMBER 1984
FIGURE 25. Flow Schematic of Centralia Water Treatment Plant. Chlorine

Dioxide Treatment was Initiated in November 1984.
detention time at the design average flowrate. Water was then
delivered to Centralia and 10 other small towns in the area.
Prior to June 1982, chlorination occurred at the low-lift pump

station at Raccoon Lake. During this time, TTHM levels were as
high as 250 ng/l>. Prechlorination was discontinued, and the use
of potassium permanganate was initiated. Potassium permanganate
dosage, as determined by a demand test, initially reduced TTHM
levels to below 170 p.q/L. After working with the system, it was
not possible to consistently maintain the THM level below the 100
MCL.
Occasional TTHM levels that violated standards prompted the

utility to make further process changes. In November 1984, the
plant switched to the use of chlorine dioxide as a primary
disinfectant (Figure 25) . Chlorine dioxide was generated on-site
using a 25 percent sodium chlorite solution and chlorine from
existing chlorine cylinders. The sodium chlorite solution was
stored in 55 gal (208 L) drums. Sodium chlorite concentration in
the feed stream was 0.75 mg/L; the chlorine dosage was 5 mg/L.
This provided a 2.3 mg C102/L residual in water leaving the
plant. Design and installation of the chlorine dioxide system
was done by city personnel with the assistance of the vendor.
The ratio of sodium chlorite to chlorine used in the system was
suggested by the vendor. Chlorine dioxide dosages were measured
at the plant using a procedure from a Hach manual.
System performance. Since the implementation of the chlorine

dioxide system, TTHM levels were consistently below 50 p,g/~L. In
addition to the decline in TTHM levels, the available data showed
no major changes in product water quality (Table 24, page 103).
Enough chlorine was added to maintain a 0.5 mg/L residual

throughout the system. A statistical analysis indicated that the
process changes reduced chlorine use by about 10 percent (Figure
26) . Furthermore, the potassium permanganate dosage was
81
400
100
-30 -20 -10
Time (month)
FIGURE 26. Monthly Average Quantity of Chlorine Used

Each day at the Centralia Water Treatment Plant Prior to
and After Conversion to Chlorine Dioxide (November 1984).
82
decreased from an average of 2.0 to 1.2 mg/L (Table 25, page
104) .
Problem areas. The change to chlorine dioxide was effective. No

major problems were reported at this plant. A serious potential
problem was experienced at a nearby plant that used a similar
chlorine dioxide process. A small amount of sodium chlorite that
remained in a drum was emptied into a nearly empty fluoride drum,
causing an explosion.
Las Vegas Valley Water District's Alfred Merritt Smith Water

Treatment Facility
Water treatment system description. The Las Vegas Valley Water

District's Alfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility began
operation in 1971 with a design capacity of 200 mgd (526 m3/min).
The contact flocculation plant was upgraded in 1983 to a direct
filtration plant in order to accommodate a design flow of 400 mgd
(1,051 iti3/:min) . The system produced between 130 and 180 mgd (342
and 473 m3/min). The treatment system before and after the
upgrade is shown in Figure 27. The plant was operated by the Las
Vegas Valley Water District, one of the five water-user
contractors that received water from the project.
The raw water intake for the plant was located in Lake Mead at a
depth of approximately 160 ft (48.8m). The raw water was hard
(319 mg CaC03/L) with average turbidity less than 1 NTU (Table
23, page 102). The total dissolved solids concentration ranged
from 548 to 1,029 mg/L. Historically, the mixing associated with
thermal destratification of Lake Mead caused taste and odor
problems. Recently, higher lake levels have reduced the taste
and odor problems.
Raw water was pumped from a 12 ft (3.6m) diameter by 1422 ft

(433 m) long formed concrete-lined tunnel through approximately
3,300 ft (1,006 m) of reinforced concrete pressure pipe to the
83
SULFUR DIOXIDE
ALUA 7) CHLORINE
3) CARBON
AIX
DISTRIBUTION
—£>
CHAABER
DIVERSION PUAPING
00 AODE PLANT
CARBON
6)CHLORINE
SODIUA SILICATE
CHLORINE DIOXIDE SODIUA HYDROXIDE
CHLORINE ADDED AT PUAPING PLANT
NOTE: CHLORINE SEASONALLY I OCTOBER TO
NOT ADDED VITH AARCH) IN OCTOBER 1984
CHLORINE DIOXIDE
FIGURE 27. Flow Schematic of Las Vegas Valley Water District's Alfred Merritt Smith
Water Treatment Facility. Seasonal Chlorine Dioxide Treatment Began in October
1984.
treatment plant. An aeration channel was employed during part of
the year to strip out taste- and odor-causing compounds and to
increase the dissolved oxygen concentration when the raw water
was oxygen-deficient during lake stratification. PAC was added
at the head end of the aeration channel during two or three
months of the year when taste and odor problems were severe.
During this period, the water was dechlorinated by the addition
of sulfur dioxide and up to 15 mg PAC/L were added. PAC addition
controlled taste and odors but had no significant impact on THM
precursor removal. Prior to plant upgrade, alum and
polyelectrolyte were added to the water in a mixing chamber. The
average alum dosage was about 6 mg/L. The average
polyelectrolyte dosage was about 0.3 mg/L. After the upgrade, no
polyelectrolyte was needed. The alum dosage also decreased to
about 4 mg/L. This was believed to be the result of the addition
of 0.5 mg/L ferric chloride, which produced an 80 percent
coagulant cost saving. Before 1983, dual-media filters,
consisting of 20 inches (51 cm) of anthracite coal (0.60 to 0.70
mm) over 10 inches (25 cm) of filter sand (0.45 to 0.50 mm), were
operated at a filtration rate of 5 gpm/sq ft (0.20 m3/roin«m2 ) .
After plant upgrade, multimedia filters, consisting of 20 inches
(51 cm) anthracite coal, 9 inches (23 cm) silica sand and 1.5
inches (3.8 cm) high-density sand, were operated at a filtration
rate of approximately 5 to 7.5 gpm/sq ft (0.20 to 0.31
Effluent from the filters was chlorinated before entering a 12

mil gal (45,420 m3 ) clearwell. Chlorine was added to the treated
water to maintain a chlorine residual of 1.25 mg/L in the initial
storage reservoirs. This level of chlorination generally
provided the necessary residual throughout the distribution
system; however, chlorine could have been added at several
chlorination stations throughout the distribution system with
similar results.
85
Retention times in the water distribution system of up to 10
days, during winter months, contributed to TTHM levels exceeding
the 100 M9/ L MCL. For this reason, provisions were made to add
chlorine dioxide to the raw water influent when the plant was
upgraded in 1982. Due to insufficient personnel, the operating
staff was unable to place the chlorine dioxide generating system
into service for a sustained operating period until October 1984.
Because of this plant's seasonal water quality problems, chlorine

dioxide was used only three to six months of the year, October to
March. During this period, between 0.2 and 1.0 mg/L of chlorine
dioxide (average dosage of 0.5 mg/L) was added near the raw water
influent and the effluent was postchlorinated. Enough C1O2 was
added to the raw water to satisfy the demand and leave no
chlorine dioxide in the effluent. During the remaining 6 to 9
months of the year, chlorine was added instead of chlorine
dioxide. The influent water could also have been dechlorinated
by the addition of sulfur dioxide prior to the aeration channel.
Chlorine dioxide was generated from a 19 percent sodium chlorite

solution, which was assayed upon arrival at the plant. The
generators, designed by Fischer & Porter, were 95 to 98 percent
efficient. Chlorine dioxide use is plotted in Figure 28.
System performance. Finished water TTHM concentrations before

and after the plant conversion to C102 are shown in Figure 29.
The two highest TTHM concentrations, approximately 70 and 76
jug/L, occurred when C10 2 was not used. During the months from
October to March, chlorine dioxide treatment reduced maximum TTHM
levels in the distribution system from more than 100 Mg/L to
about 50 jug/L or less. Because of the variability of the TTHM
concentration in the distribution system (2 to 108 /xg/L) , no
statistical difference in the average TTHM concentration was
observed (Table 24, page 103).
86
L9
Hg( L i
O Monthly Average Daily Chlorine Dioxide Use (Ib/day)
CD OJ H (M
O
n cn Q O
O
H-<
rt re M
rtiQ
ft) CD N)
en cn 00
3
fu O
rt M
3*
X S
M H-0
5! CD O> 3
fl> rt
rt cr
(D S a M
tn *<
a>
CD w n>
0) D 0) l-j
rt H- O 0)
3 cn
CD rt (D
i
o
0) cn rt rt
H-
rt > rt rt
M) (D
O
(D M)
a
o ^d i-3 H- Quarterly Average TTHM (yttg/L)
H- !•{ n 3 H
0)
O H- (D o
X O 0) rt
o." rt £T
3 (D W
(D rt
o 3 > to
o rt M (D VD
3 0) ft
3 cr
o p> CD 0)
o a. 3 O
rt > 3 (D d
O i-h rt 0)
cr rt (D ^•^ *l
(D fl> D i-3 rt -HU
tn H- H (D 3
<D
H rt n rt
rt rt-
^o 3*
CO (D H-
o > o
£ 3 o <
tn rt H- 3 (D
(D H-rt o
O CT (D
0 3 3
H) rt (D 10 H
0) i-s
3" cn rt 0) ^
CD rt o
H ft ^ H-rt
O (D O 0)
3 3 H1
cn
3
(D
An additional benefit of C102 treatment of the raw water was the
control of taste and odor problems at the plant. However, when
the operators tested the application of C1O2 to the final
effluent, hundreds of odor complaints were received.
Because of the low raw water turbidity (0.24 NTU), very little
reduction in turbidity occurred through the treatment plant, and
the finished water turbidity levels averaged 0.18 NTU (Table 24,
page 103). Furthermore, a decrease in hardness levels in the
finished water resulted from lower hardness levels in the raw
water due to higher lake levels.
Algae was observed on the filters with the use of C102 and C1 2 .
This algal growth increased head loss through the filters and
possibly resulted in shorter filter runs.
Problem areas. A chlorine dioxide generation system was

constructed using glued PVC pipes. The sodium chlorite and
chlorine dioxide dissolved the solvent used to glue the pipe
together. Most of the glued joints that were used in the
construction of the system had to be replaced with threaded
joints. Furthermore, feed equipment had to be made of better
than 312 stainless steel to resist corrosion. It was also
important to avoid contact between sodium chlorite solutions and
any organic compounds such as rubber gaskets.
Care was also necessary in order to purchase sodium chlorite

solutions of adequate quality. In particular, plant personnel
discovered that sodium chlorite specifications must designate a
solution with lower-than-normal amounts of suspended material.
After initial problems were worked out, the chlorine dioxide

generating system used at this plant was very reliable and
efficient. Intermittent use of the system posed no problems and
provided significant benefits.
88
Kentucky-American Water Company's Kentucky River Station
Water treatment system description. The Kentucky River Station

of the Kentucky-American Water Company began operation in 1958.
Since then, it has been expanded several times, with the most
recent expansion occurring in 1982. Raw water for the plant was
withdrawn from the Kentucky River. The plant has a design
capacity of 40 mgd (105 m3/mm) and an average production of 28.1
mgd (74 m3/rain) . The minimum flow observed was 3.9 mgd (10
m3/min) , and the maximum flow observed was 40.5 mgd (106 m3/min).
The Kentucky River Station provided approximately 75 percent of
the water for the Kentucky-American Water Company's consumers.
Prior to 1984, a dosage of 5 to 7 mg/L of chlorine was combined
with the influent water to maintain a residual throughout the
treatment train. At the rapid mix basins, a cationic polymer was
added as the primary coagulant and alum was used as a coagulant
aid when needed. The pH was adjusted with lime for optimal
coagulation conditions. Following rapid mixing, the water was
transported to 10 Aldrich units (hydrotreators) (Figure 30). The
Aldrich units were circular steel structures with two separate
compartments. The center section of the unit was an open chamber
with mechanical mixers where flocculation and sedimentation
occurred. Clarified water flowed to the outer edge of the unit
where it passed through Neptune Micro-floe™ mixed-media filters.
The filters consisted of silica gravel, garnet sand and
anthracite. Each of the hydrotreators was capable of purifying 4
mgd (10.5 m3/min) . The water was then chlorinated and
fluoridated, the pH was adjusted, and the water was stored in a
clearwell before distribution.
Bromide and iodide ions, if present in the raw water, are

oxidized by free chlorine to species that can participate in THM
formation reactions (Stevens and Symons 1977). Bromide has been
shown to enhance the formation of THMs (Cooper et al. 1985;
Minear and Morrow 1983). Therefore, utilities treating water
containing high bromide concentrations in the presence of organic
89
CHLORINE DIOXIDE
TREATAENT BEGAN IN
AAGNAFLOC (2J JANUARY 1964
3) CHLORINE
FLUORIDE CHLORINE
CAUSTIC SODA POLYAERS
ALUA
LIAE
POTASSIUA
PERrtANGANATE
RAW VATER LINE TO RESERVOIR NO.4
FIGURE 30. Flow Schematic of Kentucky-American Water Company's Kentucky River Station,
Chloride Dioxide Treatment Began in January 1984.
precursor material can anticipate greater THM formation with
chlorination. In July 1980, THM analysis of water samples
collected throughout the Kentucky-American water distribution
system showed an average TTHM level of 125 ng/L with only 37
percent of the total being chloroform. Once the utility
recognized that bromide in the Kentucky River was aggravating the
THM levels in the finished water, the water treatment scheme was
altered to reduce trihalomethanes.
In November 1983, a chlorine dioxide generating system (Rio Linda

Chemical Company), capable of producing 670 Ib (304 kg) of
chlorine dioxide per day, was installed at the plant (Figure 30).
Chlorine was fed from existing chlorine cylinders. Initially,
sodium chlorite was received in 55 gal (208 L) drums of 37
percent by weight solution, which was diluted to 25 percent
before addition. Later bulk storage tanks were installed, and 25
percent by weight sodium chloride solution was received and
stored in bulk. Sodium chlorite solutions were preferred over
the dry power forms for two reasons:
(1) the dry powder is a strong oxidizing agent that poses a
hazard if spilled and inadvertently mixed with acids,
oils or greases; and
(2) the mixing of the dry form into a solution would
require one employee to spend half a day on that alone
(Combs 1985).
Actual feed rates of chlorine and sodium chlorite were
established, based on C102 yield analysis. After having
determined the oxidized chlorine species in a generator product
stream, the yield was calculated as follows (Aieta et al., 1984):
(C102 )
Yield = ————————————:—————————————:——x 100 , (12)
(C102 ) + (C102 ) + 67.45 (C103 )
83.45
where C1O2 , C1O2" and C1O3" concentrations are in units of mg/L and
the ratio
67.45
83.45
91
is the molecular weight ratio of chlorite ion to chlorate ion.
A trial run was conducted during December 1983 and January 1984.
The chlorine dioxide dosage, fed at the rapid mix basin, ranged
from 0.6 to 1.25 mg/L. This amount was adjusted to provide a
C1O2 residual of approximately 0.1 mg/L in the water prior to
filtration and to insure that no residual left the plant in the
finished water. During this trial period, THM levels were
reduced by approximately 60 percent. Hundreds of complaints,
however, about chlorinous- or petroleum-like odors were reported.
The utility made an unsuccessful effort to identify the cause of
the odors. Although the test run did reduce THM levels, customer
complaints concerning the odor made it necessary to use chlorine
dioxide only during periods when excessive THM production
occurred.
Potassium permanganate was added to the raw water in December

1983 to control ClO2-related odors. Complaints decreased from 44
calls on December 11 to only three on December 13. Provisions
were made to feed potassium permanganate at the river intake.
KMnO4 provided some biological control and, therefore, less C102
was required. This allowed the point of chlorination to be moved
from the rapid mix basins to the top of the filters. Using this
technique, the application of chlorine dioxide at the rapid mix
basins was required only one to two quarters throughout the year
when THM levels became excessive. The addition of potassium
permanganate also offset the recurring odor problems in the
distribution system. Potassium permanganate was fed into the raw
water even in the absence of C1O2 .
System performance. A concern during the ClO2-trial period was

the consistently higher bacteriological counts throughout the
treatment system than had been experienced with chlorination
(Table 26). The product water bacteriological quality, however,
always complied with state regulation (<1 total coliform/100 mL).
The HPC and R2A media also indicated good biological control. A
deterioration in bacteriological quality of the raw water,
92
TABLE 26
Bacteriological Quality Throughout Kentucky River Station

Water Treatment Plant in November 1983 Prior to C1O2
Treatment Trials and in December 1983 With C1O2 Treatment
Bacteriological Quality
Noncoliform/ Heterotrophic Plate Count

Coliform R-2A Media
(counts/100 ml) (counts/ml)
Nov. Dec. Nov. Dec.
Plant Eff. 100 ml sample* <1/<1 4/<1 9 15

Plant Eff. 1000 ml sample* 5/<1 18/<1
Filter Effluent 4/<1 8/<1 29 44
Settled Influent 74/<1 156/<1 7 71
Treated 164/<1 373/<1 124 78

Raw (Kentucky River) 566/36 4237/2226 200 190
* Non coliform are bacterial colonies that do not exhibit a metallic sheen during the membrane filtration
coliform analysis (U.S. EPA 1978).
+ Volume of water sample filtered through membrane filter.
93
occurring in December, probably contributed to the increased
bacterial counts. In December, after portions of the
distribution system were flushed to control odors, distribution
system bacteriological quality improved tremendously. In early
January, however, there was a surge in the number of samples with
high coliform counts while C1O2 was being used. In addition,
biological monitoring of the water treatment system indicated
that settled water and filtered effluent samples were three to
five times more likely to test positive for coliform growth
during chlorine dioxide usage (0.6 to 1.26 mg/L C102 dose),
compared with prechlorination (5 to 7 mg/L C1 2 dose) . Therefore,
postchlorination was implemented to provide consistent biological
control in the distribution system.
THM levels (Figure 31) decreased substantially with chlorine

dioxide treatment, from an average of 140 to 90 M9/L- The
average running quarterly THM concentration decreased from 102 to
76
The average daily amount of chlorine did not change significantly

with the conversion to C102 : 1,137 Ib/d (516 kg/d) compared with
1,040 Ib/d (477 kg/d). With the increase in flow from an average
of approximately 26 to 32 mgd (68 to 84 m3/rain) , however, the
chlorine dosage has declined from 5.1 to 3.9 mg/L, since chlorine
dioxide and permanganate were used (Table 25, page 104).
Lime addition increased the hardness in the finished water an

average of about 11 mg CaCO3/L. However, variation in both raw
water hardness and alkalinity throughout the year accounted for
the significant differences in concentrations observed in these
parameters when statistically comparing periods of C102 treatment
with chlorine treatment (Table 24, page 103). During periods
when THM control processes were needed, the monthly mean hardness
values of the raw water varied from 164 to 176 mg CaC03/L; during
chlorination periods, the average raw water hardness varied from
127 to 145 mg CaC03/L. The plant continued to produce a finished
94
200
LEGEND
Quarterly Average
o Running Quarterly
Average
20
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Time (month)
FIGURE 31. Quarterly Total Trihalomethane (TTHM)
Concentrations in the Kentucky-American Water Company,
Kentucky River Station's Water Distribution System
Prior to and After the use of Chlorine Dioxide (January
1984) .
95
water with an average final turbidity of 0.27 NTU and a pH of
approximately 8.0.
Problem areas. When the chlorine dioxide generator was first

installed, tests indicated more than 95 percent efficiency. The
level of efficiency decreased slightly, but yields of
approximately 90 percent were still obtained. It was necessary
to take the generator out of service about once a week to clean
the media with a mild acid. The media was replaced twice in the
four years.
The sludge in the hydrotreator exerted a chlorine dioxide demand.

Initially, when the chlorine dioxide generator was started, a
feed rate of 2.5 mg/L was required to produce a residual of 0.1
mg/L in the filter-applied water. After two days, the rate was
cut to 1.25 mg/L, which produced the same residual in the filter-
applied water.
Odor problems occurred even though no chlorine dioxide could be

identified in the plant effluent. Customers described odors as
strongly chlorinous, petroleum-like or kerosene-like. A great
deal of effort was made to identify the cause of these odors, but
no conclusions could be reached. Pretreatment with potassium
permanganate seemed to eliminate many of the problems. The
Kentucky-American Water Company found the odor situation
intolerable. This problem, in conjunction with the poor
biological control capabilities of ClOj, has forced the utility
to investigate other disinfection alternatives to replace C1O2 .
Several analytical methods for chlorine dioxide, chlorate and

chlorite identification were studied by the utility, including
the amperometric method recommended by the Rio Linda Chemical
Company, amperometric method 410B (Standard Methods. 15th
Edition). The method recommended by Rio Linda, a more elaborate
version of the 410B amperometric method, was found to give good
results but was far too time-consuming and too technical for use
96
by a water treatment plant operator as a routine operating tool.
It could not be adequately used to analyze finished water because
chlorine interfered with its results. The titration was also
found to be difficult. The 410C DPD method was chosen as the
procedure of choice, although it does not allow for the
determination of chlorates.
Mobile Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Mobile Water Treatment

Plant had a capacity of 60 mgd (158 m3/min) and an average daily
production of 40 mgd (105 m3/min) . Because maximum daily
production had exceeded 50 mgd (131 m3/min) , the city was in the
process of building a new plant.
Raw water for the Mobile plant was taken from Big Creek Lake, a
3,600 acre (1,457 ha) reservoir that was built in the central
western part of Mobile County solely to supply water to Mobile.
The lake can supply approximately 100 mgd (263 m3/min).
Water quality data for Big Creek Reservoir is shown in Table 23,
page 102. Despite the fact that Big Creek Lake was a low-
turbidity source (5.0 NTU), several problems existed. The water
was strongly aggressive with an average calcium concentration of
only 2.9 mg CaCO3/L, a bicarbonate concentration of 4 mg CaC03/L
and a pH of 6.0. The water color was also moderately high (48.5
pcu) .
Water was pumped approximately 12 mi (19.3 km) from Big Creek

Lake to the treatment plant through two 60 in (152 cm) pipes.
The capacity of the pump station was 100 mgd (263 m3/min). At
the plant, the raw water emptied into a 20 mil gal (75.7 x 103
m3 ) ground level storage basin. The water was pumped from the
storage basin to the plant where its pH was raised by lime
addition. The raw water treatment included coagulation by alum
addition, flocculation, sedimentation, and rapid sand filtration
97
(Figure 32). The water was then disinfected and pumped into a 1
mil gal (3,705 m3 ) on-site storage tank before entry into the
Prior to 1983, the disinfectant was chlorine, applied as both a

pre- and postdisinfectant. The prechlorination dosage was
applied to the water as it was taken from the storage reservoir
and again after the low head pumps (Figure 32). The average
prechlorination dosage was 3.6 mg/L. The postchlorination dosage
was 3.4 mg/L.
The main problem experienced with the finished water was THM
levels exceeding the 100 /ng/L MCL. The average concentration in
the distribution system was 124 /xg/L. The THM problem was
aggravated by maintaining the pH at a high level to counter
corrosion. The high pH led to a higher yield of THM from the
reaction between the chlorine and the natural color. The pH
could not be reduced below 9.0 during warm weather because of the
development of a severe red water (rust) problem.
The city addressed the problem with a two-pronged approach.

After an extensive feasibility study conducted in 1981-82,
chlorine dioxide replaced chlorine as the predisinfectant. The
chlorine dioxide dosage depended upon the temperature of the raw
water, the demand of the raw water for chlorine dioxide and the
residence time of the water in the treatment plant. The C1O2
dosage ranged from 0.5 to 0.85 mg/L. The goal was to achieve a
residual of 0.1 mg/L through the filters. No data were available
on the concentrations of chlorine dioxide products: chlorite
ions and chlorate ions. Another feasibility study indicated that
by using orthophosphate for corrosion control a lower pH finished
water could be produced, thereby reducing THM formation in the
distribution system. The required dosage of zinc orthophosphate
was 0.7-1.0 mg/L.
98
CHLORINE DIOXIDE
TREATAENT BEGAN
IN JANUARY 1983 EHLORINE DIOXIDE! (3) LIAE
Line
Amn
POLYAER
FLOCOU-
FLASH —O SETTLING —L—t> SAND
LATION BASINS FILTERS
fHX BASINS
INTAKE
PUAPING
STATIONS LIftE
FLUORIDE
CHLORINE
POLYPHOSPHATE
CLEAR
WELL
DISTRIBUTION
HIGH
o
SERVICE
punre
FIGURE 32. Flow Schematic of Mobile Water Treatment Plant. Chlorine
Dioxide Treatment Began in January 1983.
System performance. Since the 1983 change was made, the average
THM concentration in the distribution system fell from a monthly
average of 124 to 72 pq/L. The monthly average THM
concentrations varied widely, but a general downward trend was
noted after the change occurred (Figure 33).
Monthly average finished water color also varied widely

throughout the historical record. The average color
(approximately 1.2 pcu), however, did not change significantly
since implementation of the new process.
As expected, the main change in chemical dosages was in chlorine.

The prechlorination dosage fell from 3.6 to 0.48 mg/L, and
chlorine was fed to the chlorine dioxide generator instead of
being directly fed to the water. The postchlorination dosage
decreased from 3.4 to 3.0 mg/L.
The alum dosage increased from a monthly average of 21.8 mg/L to

24.8 mg/L (Table 25, page 104). Increased dosages were needed in
the period directly after the change, during which the raw water
turbidity levels rose. The increase was not related to the
change. Table 24, page 103, demonstrates that the monthly
average turbidity levels increased slightly from 0.50 NTU to 0.56
NTU. Similarly, a change in lime dosage occurred that was
unrelated to the use of C102 . Pre- and postlime dosages used for
corrosion control have essentially been reversed. The prelime
dosage has been increased from 4.7 to 10.3 mg/L, and the postlime
dosage has been decreased from 13.9 to 5.7 mg/L.
Problem areas. Management personnel report only one problem

related to the conversion to chlorine dioxide treatment. Several
complaints were made about extremely disagreeable odors that
smelled like "diesel fuel" originating from the potable water.
In all cases, complaints originated from homes or businesses in
which new carpet was installed. The utility, however, could not
attribute the odor complaints to C102 alone.
100
30
-30 -20 -10 0
Time (month)
FIGURE 33. Monthly Average Total Trihalomethane (TTHM)
Concentrations in the Mobile Water Distribution System
Prior to and After Conversion to Chlorine Dioxide
(January 1983) .
101
TABLE 23
Mean Values of Raw Water Quality Parameters for Utilities

That Converted to Chlorine Dioxide
Kentucky- American
Las Vegas Valley Water Company
Bristol County Water District Kentucky River
Child Street Plant Centralia Alfred Merritt Smith Station Mobile
1/80-12/85* 1/83-6/87 3/75-9/86 2/81-1/87 7/79-3/87
Alkalinity 17 50 130 66 6
(mg CaCOj/L)
Color (pcu) 87.0 .. -- 48.5
45 98 315 141 --
Hardness
(mg CaC03/L)
1.39 0.033 0.29 --
Iron (mg/L) 0.6
0.21 0.003 0.26 --
Manganese 0.19
(mg/L)
pH 6.8 7.5 7.9 7.7 6.0
Temperature (°F) .. 61.0 70.0
Turbidity (NTU) 2.1 10-300 0.30 46.0 5.0
* Time period for raw water quality database

--No data reported
TABLE 24

Before and After Conversion to Chlorine Dioxide
Bristol County Las Vegas Valley Kentucky-American

Child Street Water District Water Company
Plant Centralia Alfred Merritt Smith Kentucky River Station Mobile
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
1/80- 2/83; 1/83- 12/84- 3/75- 10/84- 2/81- 1/84- 7/79- 1/83-
2/83 12/85 12/84 6/87 10/84 9/86 1/84 1/87 1/83 3/87
Alkalinity 22 21 90 127 130 68 71 20 12*

(mg CaC03/L)
Residual chlorine 1.1 0.8 2.0-2.2** 1.2 1.2 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.4+
(mg/L)
Color (pcu) 5.1 4.7 2.4 3.3 -- -- 1.2 1.2
w
Hardness (mg CaCCyL) -- 57 100 325 273 146 161
Flow (mgd) 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.7 89 126+ 26.3 29.7* 34.4 35.5
Iron (mg/L) 0.033 0.043 <0.05 0.017 0.005 -- 0.06
Manganese (mg/L) 0.054 0.037 0.003 0.001
pH 7.3 7.3 8.0-8.3** 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.1 9.2 8.1*
TTHM (;tg/L) 112 53* 180 50 62 45 103 70 124 72*
TTHM running average 103 74
Turbidity (NTU) 0.51 0.57 0.5 0.25 0.18 0.24 0.25 0.50 0.56*
* Time period for finished water quality database

** Value range is given due to insufficient data
*-No data reported
TABLE 25
Mean Values of Chemical Use Data Before and After Conversion to Chlorine Dioxide
Bristol County Las Vegas Valley Kentucky-American

Child Street Water District Water Company
Plant Centralia Alfred Merritt Smith Kentucky River Station Mobile
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
1/80; 2/83- 1/83- 12/84- 3/75- 10/84- 2/81- 1/84- 7/79- 1/83-
2/83 12/85 12/84 6/87 10/84 9/86 1/84 1/87 1/83 3/87
Alum dosage (mg/L) 30.9 28.6 28 6 4 -- -- 21.8 24. 8+

Permanganate dosage 2.0 1.2+ -- -- -- 0.41
(mg/L)
Chlorine dosage (mg/L) 4.1 3.2 6.2 5.5 2.6 2.3 5.1 3.9* 7.0 3.5*
Lime dosage (mg/L) 18.7 16. 0+
Sodium chlorite (mg/L) -- 1.72 0.75 -- 0.70 -- 1.55 -- O.Swinter
1 . Osummer

-- No data reported
Economic Analysis for Chlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide generators were common capital cost items for

the five utilities that converted to chlorine dioxide. Operation
and maintenance costs, however, depended on specific application.
In February 1983, the Child Street Treatment Plant began treating

its raw water with chlorine dioxide. Capital expenditures
included a chlorine dioxide generator, sodium chlorite handling
equipment (mixing tank, barrel lift, mixer) and a block building
(Table 27). Cost data included installation labor, piping and an
application vault. The use of 0.97 mg/L potassium permanganate
was discontinued. In addition, the chlorine dosage was reduced
by 0.9 mg/L. Sodium chlorite was added to the water at a
concentration of 1.72 mg/L. The chlorine dioxide system required
an estimated 2 hours per week labor for the operation of the
generation facilities and an estimated 16 hours per year for
equipment maintenance, including cleaning of rotameter and
replacement of parts (needle valves, o-rings, etc.) (Table 28).
TABLE 27
Capital Equipment and Costs for Change to Chlorine Dioxide at

Adjusted
Item Cost 1988 cost
Rio Linda generator $10,779 $12,180
Sodium chlorite
handling equipment $ 3,191 $ 3,606
Block building $20,521 $23,189
Total $34,491 $39,975
interest rate
105
TABLE 28
Operation and Maintenance Costs at Bristol County Water

Authority's Child Street Treatment Plant
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
NaClO2 (1.72 mg/L) $ 1.25/lb $22,907

($ 2.75/kg)
Chlorine (-0.9 mg/L) $ 0.25/lb -$ 2,397
($ 0.55/kg)
KMnC-4 (-0.97 mg/L) $ 1.25/lb -$12,204
($ 2.75/kg)
Labor (2 h/wk) $13.77/h $ 1,432
Maintenance (16 h/yr) $13.77/h $ 220
Replacement parts $200/yr $ 200
The combined capital costs and operation and maintenance costs

egualed $13,556 for an overall increase in treatment costs of
$10.61/mil gal ($2.80/1000 m3 ) , based on an average daily flow of
3.5 mgd (9.2 m3/min) . McVeigh et al. (1985), however, indicated
that the change to chlorine dioxide treatment resulted in a
$3.56/mil gal ($0.84/1000 m3 )increase in treatment costs over the
previous use of permanganate. By converting this cost using ENR
cost factors (cost factor = 1.13), the equivalent 1988
increase in treatment costs was $4.03/mil gal ($1.06/1000 m3 ) .
The items included and the extent of amortization were not
indicated in the McVeigh et al. (1985) cost estimate, and a
direct comparison was impossible.
Centralia Water Treatment Plant
The change to chlorine dioxide at Centralia in December 1984

included the purchase and installation of a potassium
permanganate feeding system (June 1982) and a chlorine dioxide
generator purchased at a discount price of $100 from the Calgon
106
Corporation. Because the permanganate system was already in
place, the chlorine dioxide generator was the only capital cost
considered. Based on a cost factor of 1.10, the 1988 cost of the
generator was $110. A 20 year life amortization yielded an
annual cost of $10 at six percent interest. Design and installa
tion of the chlorine dioxide generation system was performed by
city personnel with assistance from the Calgon Corporation. A 25
percent sodium chlorite solution was fed directly from 55 gal
(208 L) drums; no storage or mixing facilities were required.
Installation cost data were not available.
Approximately 2 mg/L potassium permanganate were used before the

implementation of chlorine dioxide. After the implementation of
chlorine dioxide, this dosage was reduced to 1.22 mg/L. In
addition, the chlorine dosage was reduced by approximately 10
percent to 5.5 mg/L. The generation of chlorine dioxide involved
the addition of 0.75 mg/L sodium chlorite, with appropriate
amounts of chlorine. Chemical costs associated with the change
are presented in Table 29. Based on the discount price of the
chlorine dioxide generator and the reduction in chemical costs,
the Centralia Treatment Plant experienced an estimated treatment
cost savings of $6.71/mil gal ($1.77/1000 m3 ) .
TABLE 29
Operation and Maintenance Costs at Centralia
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
NaC102 (0.75 mg/L) $0.50/lb $ 4,224

($1.10/kg)
Chlorine (-0.7 mg/L) $0.25/lb -$ 1,971
($0.55/kg)
KMn04 (-0.8 mg/L) $1.25/lb -$11,310
($2.75/kg)
Annual 1988 O&M cost -$ 9,057
107
Alfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility
The Las Vegas Valley Water District made provisions for the
seasonal use of chlorine dioxide in 1982. The implementation of
chlorine dioxide was part of a much larger plant upgrade. The
capital items required for the conversion included six storage
tanks, fourteen pumps, eight chemical feeders, one control
system, and one softening system. In addition, the engineering
cost was 15 percent of the project cost, and the installation
cost was 5 percent of the total cost (Table 30).
TABLE 30
Capital Costs at the Alfred Merritt Smith Facility
Adjusted*
Item Cost 1988 cost
Complete system $372,000 $420,360

Engineering (15 percent
of total) $ 69,600 $ 78,648
Installation (5 percent $ 23,000 $ 25,990
of total)
Total $464,000 $524,998
cost"1"
Annual amortized capital $ 45,769
* Cost factor =1.13
interest rate
Although the use of chlorine dioxide is seasonal, costs were

prorated over a 12 month period. The average daily dosage of
sodium chlorite was 0.7 mg/L, based on a 12 month period. In
addition, chlorine use was also decreased by 0.25 mg/L.
Maintenance costs for the ClO2 system were approximately
$3,500/year, based on six years of experience at the plant (Table
31). Based on the amortized capital costs and annual operation
and maintenance costs, the annual increase in treatment costs for
chlorine dioxide was $81,680. The average increase in treatment
108
costs, based on an average daily flow of 126 mgd (331
was $i.78/mil gal ($0.47/1000 m3 ) .
TABLE 31
Operation and Maintenance Costs at the
Alfred Merritt Smith Facility
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
NaCl02 (0.7 mg/L) $0.50/lb $56,383

($1.10/kg)
Chlorine (-0.25 mg/L) $0.25/lb -$23,972
($0.55/kg)
Maintenance cost $ 3,500
Kentucky River Station, Kentucky-American Water Company
The Kentucky River Station changed to chlorine dioxide in January

1984, after having completed engineering studies at the plant.
The capital cost consisted of the purchase of a chlorine dioxide
generator (650 Ib/d, 295/kg/d), two mixing tanks and mixers, a
metering pump, jet pump, two filament-wound tanks, and two
stainless-steel centrifugal pumps. The $18,000 total cost also
included installation. Based on a cost factor of 1.13, the total
capital cost was $20,340 (1988 dollars). Amortization of this
total for 20 years at six percent interest yielded an annual cost
of $l,773/year. The average sodium chlorite dosage (based on 12
months) was 1.55 mg/L. The chlorine dosage was reduced by 1.2
mg/L. An estimated total workload of 31 hours per week for a
maximum of 6 months was experienced by operators, analysts and
maintenance personnel to operate and maintain the C1O2 system.
The associated costs for these operation and maintenance items
are presented in Table 32.
109
TABLE 32
Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Kentucky-

American Water Company's Kentucky River Station
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
NaCl02 (1.55 mg/L) $0.50/lb $69,124

($1.10/kg)
Chlorine (-1.2 mg/L) $0.25/lb -$26,758
($0.55/kg)
Three employees
(744 hours/year) $15/h $11,160
The combined annual expenditure for amortized and operation and

maintenance costs was $55,299. Increased treatment costs from
amortization of capital costs were $0.17/mil gal ($0.05/1000 m3 ) ,
and the increase from operation and maintenance costs was
$5.22/mil gal ($1.38/1000 m3 ) . The combined increase in
treatment costs was $5.39/mil gal ($1.43/1000 m3 ) (1988 dollars).
Chemical and personnel costs were significant considerations in
the process change.
Mobile Water Treatment Plant
The city of Mobile addressed the problem of THM formation with

chlorine dioxide studies from 1981 to 1982. Shortly thereafter,
the plant was converted to chlorine dioxide on a plant scale.
While selecting a method to best provide chlorine dioxide
capabilities at the Mobile plant, the city decided to initiate a
service contract with a vendor for the C1O2 generation equipment
as well as the chemical, electrical and maintenance costs of the
generation system. The service cost was $280,000 in 1987, and by
applying a cost factor of 1.02, the projected 1988 cost was
$285,600. The chlorine dosage at the plant was reduced from 7.0
110
to 3.5 mg/L. Based on a chlorine cost of $0.25/lb ($0.55/kg) and
a flow of 35.5 mgd (93.3 m3/min), the annual reduction in
chlorine cost was calculated to be $95,368 (1988 dollars). The
actual increase in annual treatment costs was $190,232, which
would increase the cost by $14.68/mil gal ($3.88/1000 m3 ) .
Advantages
Chlorine dioxide reduced TTHM levels in the water distribution

systems studied to below 100 ng/l>, ranging from approximately 50
to 90 /ug/L. Other advantages derived from the use of chlorine
dioxide are as follows:
* Chlorine dioxide and postchlorination provided adequate
drinking water disinfection;
* Historic taste and odor complaints were reduced;
* Chlorine dioxide was successful in removing color-causing
compounds;
* Iron and manganese oxidation were achieved with chlorine
dioxide;
* Chlorine demands decreased because of the oxidation of
inorganic and organic compounds by chlorine dioxide; and
* Chlorine dioxide generating systems were very reliable.
Disadvantages
One disadvantage of chlorine dioxide was its inability to

maintain a residual within the water distribution system. This
resulted in increased frequency of positive coliform bacteria
counts. Postchlorination was used to control bacterial counts in
the distribution system. The treatment costs associated with
chlorine dioxide varied from a cost savings of $6.71/mil gal
($1.77/1000 m3 ) ($100 generator cost) to an increased cost of
$14.69/mil gal ($3.88/1000 m3 ) . The following must also be
considered when using chlorine dioxide:
111
* Chlorine dioxide, chlorite and chlorate have been implicated as
a possible cause of hemolytic anemia, methemoglobinemia and
other hematological disorders;
* Chlorine dioxide imparted an odor in the finished water that
was characterized as smelling like kerosene or cat urine, in
locations that had new carpeting installed;
* Chlorine dioxide and sodium chlorite dissolved the solvent used
to hold PVC pipe together;
* Chlorine dioxide was corrosive, and care was taken to use
corrosion-resistant materials, such as stainless steel, ceramic
and titanium washers;
* Sodium chlorite solutions destroyed rubber products;
* Sodium chlorite specifications required a solution with a
lower-than-normal amount of suspended material;
* Chlorine dioxide treatment did not control algal growth in
sedimentation basins;
* Water treatment laboratory personnel believed that the chlorine
dioxide, chlorite and chlorate residual test procedures were
too complex, and lacked confidence in their test results; and
* Increased coliform counts occurred within the distribution
system which has been controlled with postchlorination.
112
OZONE
The continuous use of ozone in water treatment dates back to 1906

when Nice, France used ozone for the disinfection of drinking
water (Rice et al. 1981; White 1986). Ozone is produced from
oxygen in air or pure oxygen by means of electrical energy. It
is one of the most powerful oxidizing agents available for
practical application to water and wastewater and has three
distinct applications: (1) as a bactericide, (2) as a viricide
and (3) as a strong oxidant (Miller et al. 1978; Rice et al.
1981; White 1986; Rice 1986). Furthermore, ozone does not impart
tastes or odors to the water. Other benefits exist for the
application of ozone to drinking water treatment, such as
microflocculation, enhanced suspended solids removal and
pretreatment for biological activated carbon (Rice et al. 1981;
Maier 1978; Gerval 1978; Degremont 1979; Rice 1986). Ozone,
however, does not provide a disinfection residual and must, in
most cases, be followed with a residual disinfectant, such as
chlorine.
A triatomic allotrope of oxygen, ozone is a highly reactive gas

formed by electrical discharge in the presence of oxygen-
containing gas (Miller et al. 1978; Degremont 1979; Montgomery
1985; White 1986; Rice 1986):
3O2 + energy » 2O3 . (13)
Once ozone enters solution, it follows two basic modes of

reaction via a base-catalyzed radical pathway: direct oxidation,
which is relatively slow and selective; and indirect oxidation or
auto-decomposition to the hydroxyl radical (OH-)/ which is fast
and nonselective in its oxidation of organic compounds (Figure
34) (Hoigne and Bader 1976; Gurol 1985; Gordon and Pacey 1986).
The rate of ozone decomposition is a complex function of
temperature, pH, ozone concentration, type and concentration of
organic solutes, and type and concentration of inorganic
113
constituents (Hoigne and Bader 1976; Hoigne and Bader 1975a;
Hoigne and Bader 1975b; Gurol 1985; Gordon and Pacey 1986).
Conditions of low pH favor direct oxidation reactions of ozone,
and conditions of high pH or high concentrations of organic
matter favor the auto-decomposition of ozone via the hydroxyl
radical (Gurol 1985; Montgomery 1985). In general, lower pH
values encourage better disinfection. Higher pH values, however,
enhance the oxidation of phenols (Degremont 1979).
Ozone has received considerable attention for THM control. The

mechanisms of THM control by ozone include (1) the oxidation of
precursor to forms that do not participate in THM formation
reaction and (2) relocation of the point of chlorine addition
further downstream in the treatment train where the precursor
concentration has been reduced. In certain cases, preozonation
has resulted in higher THM levels (LePage 1985; Rice et al.
1981).
Direct oxidation of substrate

Products
03 Slow, selective
Radical formation Radica| OXJdation

Fast, nonselective
^ Products
C0 23 -
and '
HC0 3- Radical consumption CO •
and'
FIGURE 34. Ozone Reaction Pathway (Montgomery 1985; Hoigne and

Bader 1976)
114
An increase in brominated halomethanes has been attributed to
ozonation (de Greef et a1. 1978). The formation of hypobromous
acid (HOBr) from bromide ion (Br~) occurs with ozonation (Rook
1976). HOBr may react with organic precursors and produce
bromoform (CHBr3 ) (Helz et al. 1978, Haag and Hoigne 1983).
Following the formation of CHBr3/ chloride ion may interact with
CHBr3 to form dlbromochloromethane (CHBr2Cl) by nucleophilic
displacement (de Greef et al. 1978). Work by de Greef et al.
(1978) demonstrated that ozonation of water produced a decrease
in Br" and a corresponding increase in CHBr3 , and CHBr2Cl. Rook
et al. (1978), however, observed no apparent formation of
bromoform in actual full scale ozone treatment situations even
though bromide was present.
Ozone reacts to destroy both hypochlorous acid (HOC1) and C1O2

(Rice et al. 1981, White 1986). Ozonation of solutions of C1O2
or sodium chlorite produces chlorate (Rice et. al. 1981). The
dimerization of C1O2 to C12O4 is the first step in the ozonation
process and occurs very rapidly. When hypochlorite reacts with
ozone, 77 percent of the chlorine is found as Cl" and 23 percent
is converted to chlorate ion (White 1986).
Historically, the primary use of ozone in the U.S. has been for
taste and odor control, while in Europe it has been used
primarily for disinfection. A major advantage of ozone is the
short contact time required for a desired degree of disinfection
(Rice et al. 1981; Prendiville et al. 1983; Rice 1986). Rice
(1985) reports that a dissolved ozone concentration of 0.4 mg/L
and a minimum of 4 min contact time will inactivate 99.9 percent
of poliovirus types I, II and III. This standard has been
accepted by France and the World Health Organization. Ozone is
also effective in disrupting the metabolic process of many algae
by oxidizing essential organic components (Rice et al. 1981; Rice
1986). After ozonation, the prevention of biological growth
within the distribution system requires the application of a
115
disinfectant that can maintain a residual (Degremont 1979; Rice
et al. 1981).
Soluble iron and manganese can be oxidized by ozone (Degremont

1979; Rice et al. 1981; Rice 1986; White 1986). Other inorganic
ions, such as cyanides, sulfides and nitrites, are also subject
to oxidation by ozone. The degree of oxidation is dependent upon
the specific compound present, the amount of ozone used and the
reaction conditions (Rice et al. 1981; Rice 1986). The organic
nature of most color in water is amenable to removal by ozone
(Tuorila et al. 1980; Rice et al. 1981; Rice 1986). Furthermore,
taste- and odor-causing compounds are removed to various degrees
by ozone, depending on the characteristics of the compounds
(Degremont 1979; Tuorila et al. 1980; Rice et al. 1981; Rice
1986). As for the myriad of organic compounds present in water
supplies, the extent of oxidation by ozone varies. For example,
phenols are readily oxidized by ozone; however, many highly
halogenated compounds and pesticides are not oxidized at all by
ozone during water treatment (Degremont 1979; Rice et al. 1981;
Lee and Hunter 1985; Glaze 1986; Rice 1986).
The reaction of low dosages (1 to 5 mg/L) of ozone with organics

may be responsible for an increase in chlorine demand,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
MTP, and THM formation (Lepage 1977; Hoigne 1978; Mallevialle et
al. 1978; Symons and Stevens 1978; Glaze 1986; White 1986).
Because of the complex chemical, physical and biological
variability of natural waters, the performance of ozone should be
expected to vary from situation to situation (Hoigne 1978;
Mallevialle et al. 1978; Rice et al. 1981; Glaze 1986; White
1986). Also of interest to water treatment personnel dealing
with the oxidation reactions of ozone are ozonation by-products
and their health effects (Rice et al. 1981; Glaze 1986). The
by-products of incomplete oxidation of organic compounds can
include organic peroxides, unsaturated aldehydes, ketones,
organic acids, or epoxides (Glaze 1986; White 1986). Treatment
116
of dissolved organic material in water treatment with ozone can
have two effects on that material:
(1) dissolved organics can be converted to more highly
oxygenated materials that can flocculate; and
(2) these materials can be made more biodegradable,
enhancing biological activity (Rice et al. 1981).
The objective of ozonation should be clearly defined to establish
operational parameters (Degremont 1979).
Ozonation in water treatment requires three basic systems: (1)

ozone generators and auxiliaries, (2) ozone contactors and
auxiliaries and (3) process and protective controls (LePage
1981).
Virtually all large-scale generators incorporate the corona

discharge method for the production of ozone (Degremont 1979;
LePage 1981; Rice 1986). These processes may differ by corona
cell configuration, operation voltage, operation frequency,
cooling method, and air preparation (Degremont 1979; LePage 1981;
Rice 1986). Ozone production depends mainly on the geometry of
the generator, the dielectric properties, the current frequency,
the dryness of feed gas, the pressure, the desired ozone
concentration in the carrier gas, and the process temperature
(Degremont 1979). The geometry, dielectrics and operating
frequency in a given generator are chosen by the manufacturer and
are largely unchangeable. An increase in gas flow through the
generator will typically increase the production of ozone. But
as the 03 concentration in the carrier gas increases, production
decreases. Since the ozone yield is decreased with increased
temperature and dew point, it is necessary to provide process
cooling and feed-gas (air or oxygen) preparation systems. The
use of oxygen as a feed gas allows higher O3 productions (by a
factor of 2), larger ozone concentrations, smaller generators,
and lower energy consumption (Uhlig 1978; Degremont 1979).
Nonetheless, ozone is produced from air in the majority of cases.
117
Bay City Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Bay City Water Treatment

Plant obtained water from Saginaw Bay, an arm of Lake Huron. The
raw water treated was moderately hard (average 136 mg CaCO3/L)
with an average turbidity of approximately 12 NTU (Table 33, page
141). The bay was large, relatively shallow and received urban
and agricultural runoff. Water quality changed rapidly because
of changing wind currents and the shallow depth of the bay.
These water quality changes caused frequent taste and odor
problems particularly in the spring, summer and early fall. The
old water treatment plant was a lime-soda ash softening facility
that practiced breakpoint chlorination to control severe taste
and odor problems.
In November 1978, a new facility was placed in service that

treated the same source water but had the capability to utilize
ozone or activated carbon for taste and odor control. The new
plant used the same low-lift station previously employed by the
old plant. The intake was about 2 mi (3.2 km) out into the bay
and lay about 18 to 25 ft (5.5 to 7.6 m) below the surface,
depending on the time of year and bay level. The treatment
system consisted of screening for removal of floatable materials,
ozonation with 1000 Ib/d (454 kg/d) capacity and 30 min contact
time, lime-soda ash softening primary and secondary solids
contact clarification, dual-media filtration with design
hydraulic loading of 2 gpm/sq ft (0.08 mVmin-m2 ) , chlorine
disinfection and fluoridation (Figure 35). The new facility had
a design capacity of 40 mgd (105 m3/min) and produced a daily
average flow of about 10 mgd (26 m3/min).
Aluminum sulfate was the coagulant used prior to May 1982. Since
May 1982, the primary coagulant used at the plant has been ferric
chloride.
118
CHLORINE
DISTRIBUTION
HIGH
SERVICE
PUAPING
INTERMEDIATE
PUAPING
RAPID
SAND
FILTERS
FERRIC
FERRIC CHLORIDE
CHLORIDE
LIAE
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
RAPID
SAND
FILTERS
———0 OZONE
RAV
WATER
AETER
FIGURE 35. Flow Schematic of Bay City Water Treatment Plant.

The ozonation system consisted of four components: (1) air
preparation (2) electrical power supply, (3) ozone generator, and
(4) ozone contactor. Air was treated to remove particulate
matter and moisture. Prior to compression, the air passed
through inlet prefilters. The compressor blower was a
centrifugal, one-stage, water-sealed blower with a 30 hp (22.4 W)
motor. The blower delivered a minimum of 230 scfm (6.5 cubic
meter/min) of air at a discharge pressure of 12 psig (82,736
pascal). After the compressor, a water separator removed any
excess water contained in the air stream. The air then passed
through a refrigeration dryer that reduced the dew point of the
air leaving the compressor to approximately 4°C. From the
refrigeration dryer, the air moved through a regenerative type
dryer that employed molecular sieves and activated alumina to
further reduce the dew point to below -40°C. The normal
operating dew point was between -60 and -70°C.
The initial recommended dew point was only -23°C which created
problems with dielectric failure during system startup. The
operating dew point was lowered as described previously (-40°C)
to prevent moist air from entering the generator cell, thereby
causing dielectric failure.
An in-line particle filter prevented transport of desiccant fine

particles to the ozone-generating cells. The four ozone
generator units each had a capacity to continuously supply 250 Ib
(114 kg) of one percent by weight concentration ozone every 24
hours. Each unit contained 102 horizontal, water-cooled
dielectrics. The glass dielectrics were surrounded by a
stainless-steel tube. Each tube was 108 in (2.7 m) long. The
cooling water requirement was approximately 50 gpm (11 m3/hour)
for each generator. The power supply to the ozone generator was
a 60 Hz fixed frequency, variable-voltage system.
The ozonated air passed to the contact chamber, which employed a

co-current/countercurrent gas diffusion system. Each of the two
120
contact chambers was 105 ft (32 m) long, 29 ft (8.8 m) wide and
15 ft (4.6 m) deep, with a water depth of 14 ft (4.3 m). The
ozone-rich air fed through the bubble-type diffusers was evenly
divided between the four bays of the contacting side of the
chamber. The hydraulic detention time in the contacting side was
40 min at 12 mgd (31.5 m3/min) , 17 min at 20 mgd (52.6 m3/min) .
Off-gas from each of the contacting chambers was vented through
PVC pipe to the atmosphere above the highest point of the plant.
Once the water traveled through the contacting chamber, it flowed
into a detention basin. The detention chamber provided time for
the oxidation of organic compounds and disinfection of the raw
water. Dissolved ozone residual was monitored halfway down the
length of the detention chamber using an ozone analyzer. A
signal from the ozone analyzer (Model #17L2112A1, Fischer &
Porter, Warminster, PA) was transmitted to the plant's
microprocessor, which adjusted the ozone generators output to
maintain the desired ozone residual.
System performance. Ozone was incorporated into the water

treatment system primarily to oxidize taste- and odor-causing
compounds. The average ozone dosage was 1.43 mg/L (Figure 36).
This strong oxidant, however, has provided an additional benefit
of maintaining THM levels in the finished water below 100 M9/L,
(Table 34, page 142) while the MTP of the bay water increased
from 105 M<?/L in August 1980 to 444 Mg/L in December 1986 (Figure
37). Historically, the primary THM forms were chloroform and
dichlorobromomethane. Recently, however, less than 15 percent of
the TTHM present in the finished water was chloroform, and more
than 40 percent was dibromochloromethane. Since September 1986,
a larger amount of bromoform had been present in the water
indicating that the ozone was reacting with elevated bromide
levels in the raw water to produce HOBr. HOBr subsequently
reacted with organic precursors to form brominated halomethanes.
Because taste and odor control was achieved through ozonation,

the daily amount of chlorine used within the system decreased
121
500
450-
400-
LEGEND
EJ Quarterly Avg.
o Maximum Total THM
3501 Potential (MTP)
O) 300-
250-
<U
o>
200-
150-
to
100-
50-
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
0.0 -i—•—i——h———I———ri——r-»—r-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (month) Time (month)
Sept 1979
S.pt 1979
FIGURE 36. Monthly Average Ozone FIGURE 37. Average Total Triha1omethane
Dosage at the Bay City Water Treatment (TTHM) Concentrations in the Bay City
Plant. Water Distribution System With Ozone
Treatment.
from an average of 325 to 224 Ibs/day (148 to 102 kg/d). The
plant attempted to maintain 0.6 to 0.8 mg/L free chlorine
residual in the finished water. Ozone treatment of the raw water
reduced the chlorine demand, thereby resulting in a higher final
free chlorine residual (Figure 38) while using less chlorine
(Table 35, page 143). The state drinking water regulations
required a trace of chlorine to be present in the farthest
location within the distribution system. At times, zero chlorine
residual existed at certain locations in the pipe network. If
the chlorine dosage at the plant was increased to compensate for
this chlorine demand, an increase in TTHMs occurred. Therefore,
THM control apparently may have resulted from the limitation of
chlorine and not complete oxidation of the organic precursor.
A significant improvement in product water turbidity was observed

(Table 34, page 142). From September 1979 to May 1986, the
average fresh water turbidity has averaged 0.1 NTU. Since 1982,
however, the finished water turbidity averaged 0.05 NTU. This
may have been the result of enhanced microflocculation with ozone
and better coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation with iron
salts than with aluminum salts.
Filtration efficiency decreased from an average of 94 to 38 mil

gal/acre»ft of head loss (2,884 to 1,166 mil liters/ha«m). This
efficiency decrease could be a result of the increase in
turbidity removal and oxygen binding caused by oxygen release
from supersaturated water during rapid increases in water
temperature and changes in partial pressures. This oxygen
release periodically caused flotation of floe above the filters.
Problem areas. An initial problem occurred with the high voltage

electrical system supplied with the ozone units. The system's
design voltage of 23,000 volts was reduced to 18,000 volts to
prevent "burn-out" of the glass dielectrics. Increased system
stability was achieved by redesigning the current-flow scheme and
123
1.8
1.6-
Sept
*w 1.2
a:
1.0-
.
o
iro.s-
0)
o>
2
(D
^0.6
0.2 H
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan JanjJan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan J
0.0 I I I I I I I I II h I I I il I I
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (month)
FIGURE 38. Monthly Average Free Chlorine Residual in the
Bay City Water Treatment Plant's Effluent Prior to and
After Conversion to Ozone (September 1979).
124
removing the transformers from the system to control the
generator.
Problems with dielectrics were resolved by preparing an air

stream to the ozonators with a more stable dew point. The
initial recommended dew point was -23°C, but no means were
provided to control or measure it. Dielectric failure was
believed to occur because of moist air entering the generator
cell. To obtain a lower dew point, a different type of freon was
put in the refrigerant dryer, and the type of desiccant in the
dryer towers was changed to achieve a dew point less than -40°C.
The new media configuration consisted of a base of 200 Ib (91 kg)
of aluminum balls, 100 Ib (45 kg) of 4A molecular sieve and 300
Ib (136 kg) of H151 activated alumina. The lower, more stable
dew point also increased ozone production.
Glass dielectrics were cleaned with soapy water and air dried.
This preventive maintenance procedure, however, left dirt on the
dielectric, that heated up and burned through the glass. To
alleviate this problem, a final alcohol rinse was added to the
cleaning method. The operators also wore gloves to prevent
smudges on the glass.
When the desiccant drying towers were pulled for routine

maintenance, 9 of the 18 electrodes were discovered to be broken.
The manufacturer attributed the failure to an improper desiccant
level in the tower and excessive moisture in the gas stream. If
the electrodes failed during operation, ozone production could be
disrupted by moist air flowing to the generator. Frequent
pitting of the dielectric tubes and arching across the glass
dielectric to the stainless-steel sheath made it necessary to
replace some of the stainless-steel tubes inside the generator.
Because of space restrictions, this mandated the removal of the
generator cover from the opposite unit.
125
Operating problems overall, however, have been minimal. The
problems with the dielectrics were mitigated with the replacement
of the desiccant to achieve lower dew points.
At the time of this research, the ozone contact time in the

detention chamber was in excess of 45 min. Because of the
instability of ozone and the location of the residual ozone meter
probes half the distance along the length of the detention
chamber, the monitoring of ozone residual in the detention
chamber was very difficult. Consequently, the sample point for
the residual ozone was moved to the inlet of the detention
chamber.
As mentioned earlier, a problem existed with the release of

oxygen from the supersaturated water because of partial pressure
changes as the water passes through the filters. This has
contributed to lower filtration efficiency.
Belle Glade Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Belle Glade Water

Treatment Plant provided potable water to the town of Belle
Glade, FL. The plant had a peak capacity of 8.0 mgd (21 m3/roin).
It produced an average of 3.92 mgd (10 m3/roin) , but the flow
varied widely with the season (Figure 39) because of a high
transient population.
Raw water for the Belle Glade plant came from Lake Okeechobee, a
large, shallow lake, subject to frequent water quality variations
because of the nature of the surrounding area. The soils in the
area were peaty and high in natural organic matter. Changes in
the weather, seasonal variations and agricultural drainage from
the intensely cultivated area surrounding the lake caused the
soluble organic matter in the raw water to vary widely. The
color in the raw water averaged between 59 to 74 pcu but had been
as great as 500 pcu. The TOC averaged 20 to 30 mg/L but
126
5500
LEGEND
n Raw Flow
o Finished
5000-
2000
-25 -20 -15 -10 -505 15 20 25
Time (month)
FIGURE 39. Average Flow Rate Treated at the Belle Glade
Water Treatment Plant Prior to and After the Conversion to
Ozone Treatment (September 1984).
127
increased up to 75 mg/L during summer agricultural drainage
periods. With the high soluble organic concentrations, the MTP
of the raw water averaged 808 jug/L. In addition, the underlying
rock was limestone, which, combined with the natural organic
acids in the water, caused high hardness and mineral content.
Since 1983, the average monthly raw water hardness was 242.5 mg
CaCO3/L, while the average maximum concentration has been 512 mg
CaCO3/L (Table 33, page 141). The lake was also high in algal
and bacterial concentrations.
The water treatment plant provided softening, coagulation,

flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection (Figure
40). Prior to the treatment change, 30 to 60 mg/L of alum and 15
to 50 mg/L of chlorine (breakpoint chlorination) were added to
the water as it entered the plant. The chlorine was added for
algal and bacterial growth control as well as for color
bleaching. The alum was added for color removal (coagulation)
but did not work well because the pH was raised to 10.5. Lime,
polymer and recycled-softening sludge were added in a flashmix
basin. Because the excess lime-softening method was used, the pH
was 10.5. The polymer was used to agglomerate the calcium
carbonate particles formed in the softening process. The water
was then flocculated, settled, recarbonated and fluoridated.
When necessary after settling, the water was chlorinated again to
avoid bacterial growth in the filters, and then was filtered
through sand filters. It was chlorinated again, if necessary, to
provide residual disinfection and stored in a ground level
storage tank prior to distribution.
This treatment scheme was altered by replacing the first two

chlorination application points with ozone (Figure 40). The
objectives of the ozone application were to bleach the color,
control the growth of organisms in the plant, oxidize musty and
obnoxious taste and odor compounds, and oxidize THM organic
precursors. The average monthly dosage of ozone was 9.5 mg/L,
128
FUJORIDATION
IRECARBONATION
QROUd STORAGE
DISTRIBUTION
CLARIFICATION.
SLUDGE REAOVAL
TREATED
WATER
6) OUORINE
FIGURE 40. Flow Schematic of Belle Glade Water Treatment Plant. Ozone Treatment
Began in September 1984.
with a range from 4.9 to 15 mg/L. Postchlorination was used to
maintain a residual in the distribution system.
System performance. As a result of ozonation, the quality of the

finished water improved dramatically (Table 34, page 142). One
of the most obvious changes was in the aesthetic quality of the
water. Before the change, the city was plagued by complaints
concerning color, taste and odor. Since the change, these
complaints have been virtually nonexistent. Color decreased from
67 pcu to an average of 3.3 pcu, significantly less than the 4.0
pcu achieved through breakpoint chlorination. The color was more
variable with higher maximums under the breakpoint chlorination
system than under the ozone system. The raw color was highly
variable with peaks occurring in the summer when agricultural
activity was the highest. The THM data correlated with raw color
data.
A long-term study of THM formation, required by the state

regulatory authority and continued by Belle Glade, showed that
the initial (instantaneous) TTHM concentrations dropped from an
average of 643 ng/L to 60 M9/L, whereas the 7 day TTHM
concentrations (MTP) dropped from an average of 808 to 232 M9/L
(Figure 41). Prior to the change, the actual measured TTHM
concentrations exceeded 1,200 M9/L on several occasions.
Although significant reductions in finished water THM levels
resulted from ozonation, no significant changes were measured in
total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations (Table 34, page 142).
The operation of the softening system was not changed

significantly, but its efficiency improved. The average lime
dosage changed slightly, but the change was not statistically
significant (Table 35, page 143). The average polymer dosage
increased from 0.04 to 0.08 mg/L. The average finished hardness
dropped, however, from 158 to 141 mg CaCO3/L and the calcium
hardness from 139 to 122 mg CaCO3/L. The probable cause for this
decrease was that the water was recarbonated before distribution.
130
1500
LEGEND
n Avg. Instaneous TTHM
o Avg. Maximum Total
THM Potential (MTP)
-10 I 0
Jan Jan Jan
Time (month)
FIGURE 41. Weekly Average Total Trihalomethane (TTHM)

Concentrations in the Belle Glade Water Distribution System
Prior to and After use of Ozone (September 1984) and Maximum
Total Trihalomethane Potential (MTP).
131
Even though high pH was destructive to ozone, the reduction in
the finished water pH from 9.7 to 7.8 after the conversion to
ozonation was not to minimize ozone decomposition, but to control
the precipitation of calcium in the distribution system, as a
result of the lime-softening process.
A significant decrease in finished water turbidity occurred once

ozonation was begun with a final average turbidity of 0.20 NTU
(Table 34, page 142). The drop in turbidity may have been due to
several factors, including microflocculation and an increase in
the polymer dosage. The increase in polymer dosage was
associated with a corresponding decrease in the average alum
dosage from 48 to 42 mg/L (Table 35, page 143).
Problem areas. The principal operator of the plant reported no

serious problems associated with the change to ozone. Some minor
maintenance problems occurred with the ozonators. For example,
filters had to be installed in the seal water system of the air
compressor, the steel sleeves in the dryers had to be replaced
with stainless steel and a few pin holes have developed in the
dielectric sleeves. These problems were resolved, and the system
has operated reliably since installation. No quality-related
water problems were apparent.
Monroe Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Monroe Water Treatment

Plant was an 18 mgd (47 m3/min) coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, and filtration system. The plant was first put
into operation in 1924 and was expanded in 1948 and 1972. The
intake for the system was located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km)
into the shallow extremities of the western basin of Lake Erie.
The raw water had a low average turbidity of 10 NTU and was
moderately hard with an average hardness of 121 mg CaCO3/L (Table
33, page 141). The raw water alkalinity and pH averaged 87 mg
CaCO3/L and 7.8, respectively. At times the water was moderately
132
aggressive, and zinc orthophosphate and lime were added to
inhibit corrosion.
The raw water quality was affected by wind direction and

velocity. Because of the shallow depth of water and uneven
bottom, frequent strong winds caused violent wave action that
disturbed the bottom sediments and produced high turbidities
(1,200 NTU maximum). These conditions also created objectionable
odors. Furthermore, raw water quality was affected by spring and
occasional mid-winter runoffs and odorous compounds produced by
algae and actinomycetes during the summer. Odor control efforts
included application of PAC, clarification with alum and
intermediate chlorination with contact time prior to filtration.
These efforts were successful until the increase in flow rate
decreased the chlorine contact time. At this time the
intermediate chlorination was discontinued, and the city decided
to employ ozonation to control taste- and odor-causing compounds.
The ozone system was placed on-line in May 1979.
The ozonation system was contained in one bi-level structure

measuring 38 ft x 46 ft (11.6 m x 14.0 m). Equipment housed in
the upper level included two ozone generators and their
auxiliaries; off-gas recirculation blowers; ozone generator and
contactor control systems; electrical distribution center; and
air and ozone monitoring and measuring equipment. The contact
chamber was located in the lower level.
The two ozone generators were high-frequency corona discharge

units. Each was rated at 225 Ibs (102 kg) of ozone per day at
concentrations of 1 percent by weight. Each unit contained 42
dual-cooled tubular corona cells and was rated at about 75
percent of actual capacity. Each tube was about 5 ft (1.5 m)
long. The feed gas to the ozonators was air.
Air treatment prior to the ozone generator included passage

through an inlet prefilter before compression, which raised the
133
air temperature to approximately 149°C. The air temperature was
reduced by a water-cooled after-cooler. The dew point was
lowered to 20°C by a refrigerant dryer and finally to -50°C to
-100°C by transporting the air through molecular sieves and
silica gel. Carryover of desiccant to the corona cells was
prevented by passing the dried air through a 10 /urn particle
filter (LePage 1981).
The contact chamber consisted of a countercurrent gas-diffused,

positive-pressure, recirculating contactor that consistently
yielded inlet-to-outlet efficiency from 93 to greater than 99
percent. The operating contactor depth was 14 ft (4.3 m), and
the detention time was approximately 10 min at a flow of 18 mgd
(47 m3/roin). The carrier gas blowers maintained 1.8 psig (12,410
pascal) pressure above the water in all stages of the contactor.
The ozone gas stream was diffused into the water through a system
of 352 porous aluminum oxide diffusers.
The contactor had two passes with three stages in each pass.
Sixty to 70 percent of the ozonated air was diffused in the first
stage of pass 1, and the remaining 30 to 40 percent was
introduced in the second stage of pass 1 (Figure 42). The
exhaust air from pass 1, containing approximately 0.1 percent
ozone, was collected, recompressed and recycled to pass 2, where
it was diffused into water not yet ozonated (LePage 1981).
System performance. The raw water was treated with an average

ozone dosage of 1.2 mg/L and a maximum of 3.1 mg/L. During the
period of March through May of each year, taste- and odor-causing
compounds did not appear to create problems in the finished
water. Ozonation was normally discontinued during this period
(Figure 43).
The primary objective for ozone treatment of the raw water was
taste and odor control. Since ozonation was started, taste and
odor complaints have decreased from a high of 100 in one day to
134
Gaa Flow
Vent Control ler-
U)
Inlet
oooooo Outlet
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
PASS 2 PASS 1
FIGURE 42. The Monroe Water Treatment Plant's Ozone Contact Chamber (LePage 1981).
9€T
Monthly Average Ozone Dose (mg/L)
a
M
(jj
o
(0 3
o
33 3
0) rt
rt CT
(D H
1-3 >
<
ro ro
h{
rt o
3 iQ
(D (D
rt o
N
nj o
M3
O) (D
3
rt D
• O
w
(D
t-3 D Average TTHM
n H-
ID en
o> rt
rt n
(D cr
3 (2
rt rt 0)
rt •
O
3 O
3 H
cn o
rt
cn H' PJ
rt 3 H-
(D
3 rt t^
cr i-$
s: (D H-
H-
rt 3 f
cr O H
3 O
O h< g
N O (D
O (D rt
3 cr
(D
fu 3
rt (D
(D
"^3
•^
zero. In addition, a slight reduction in chlorine demand
resulted, and the chlorine dosage dropped from an average
4.1 mg/L to 2.9 mg/L (Table 35, page 143), which produced an
average free chlorine residual of 0.7 mg/L leaving the plant. As
more chlorine was added to determine the demand, it was
discovered in many instances that the chlorine demand following
ozonation was greater than levels measured prior to ozonation.
Destruction of chlorine by ozone may have contributed to this
increase in chlorine demand. Total oxidants in the effluent from
the ozone contact chamber, however, were normally 0.02 mg/L and,
therefore, would have only caused a slight reduction in chlorine.
The increased chlorine demand may have resulted from the partial
oxidation of complexed organic compounds by ozone which produced
by-products that were more susceptible to chlorine oxidation.
Similarly, in certain instances, ozonation appeared to have
enhanced THM formation. TTHM concentrations in the finished
water prior to ozonation in 1979 were about 60-80 /Ltg/L. With
ozonation, TTHM concentrations have averaged 70 M9/L and have
exceeded 100 [ig/L on certain occasions (Figure 44) . Chloroform
was the primary halomethane present in the product water and
dichlorobromomethane was the next abundant THM species.
Bromoform was normally not detected in the finished water and
dibromochloromethane was present in low concentrations (< 7
M9/L) . During the period when ozone was not used, the average
TTHM level measured in the distribution system was 44 Mg/L (Table
34, page 142). Because of the variability in the data and the
limited amount of TTHM data, this difference in average
concentrations was not statistically significant. Ozone may have
altered the structure of certain organic compounds thereby
increasing the reaction between the resultant organic compounds
in the effluent from the ozone contact chamber and chlorine.
This resulted in an increase in chlorine demand and THM
concentrations in the finished water.
Partial disinfection of the water resulted from ozone treatment.

An ozone dosage of less than 1.5 mg/L and a contact time of 20
137
min reduced the concentration of total coliform bacteria (3,430
cfu/100 mL) by 99.8 percent (LePage 1986). During the same
period, an average of 88 percent of the total bacteria (average
470 cfu/mL) was destroyed.
Ozone treatment did not significantly improve the product water

turbidity, which averaged approximately 0.2 NTU prior to and
after ozonation (Table 34, page 142). A decrease in average alum
dosage from about 25 to 19 mg A1 2 (S04 ) 3/L, however, did occur.
Furthermore, greater filter run lengths were achieved when the
raw water was ozonated: an average of 88 hours compared with 58
hours. Similarly, the average Filter Index was 1,087 mil
gal/acre*ft of head loss (33,356 mil liters/ha»m) with ozonation
and 366 mil gal/acre*ft of head loss (11,231 mil L/ha»m) without
ozone treatment. Consequently, less water on a percentage basis
was needed for backwashing the filters. The turbidity, applied
to the filters when the ozonators were switched off, averaged 0.8
NTU, which was significantly greater than the turbidity applied
to the filters when the water was ozonated (0.5 NTU). Therefore,
the better alum coagulation and sedimentation may have been
caused by ozonation. Monroe Water Treatment Plant did not
experience the release of oxygen from the oxygen-supersaturated
water during the filtration process that was observed at Bay
City. The raw water, however, was not ozonated during the cold
weather period of late February through April. Once ozonation
commenced in June, no water temperature shifts existed to cause a
release of oxygen. On occasion, head loss through the filters
resulted in partial pressure changes that created inhibitory gas
binding in the filters. This was rarely a problem since filters
were normally backwashed every 96 hours.
Cyanide oxidation by ozone was an additional benefit.

Occasionally, cyanide, originating from the steel mills, was
present in the raw water. Ozone rapidly oxidized cyanide to a
less toxic form, cyanate, which was destroyed by hydrolysis. The
138
ozone generators automatically adjusted output to satisfy the
increased oxidant demand caused by the cyanide.
Since placing the ozone system on-line in May 1979, the system
has been very reliable (LePage 1986). The system was shut down
from the late winter through May (when ozone was not needed) for
routine inspection and maintenance. Unanticipated outages of the
ozone system during the first four years of operation amounted to
708 hours of a possible 32,544 service hours, only a two percent
downtime (Table 36). Twenty-nine percent of the process
TABLE 36
Origin of Ozone System Outages at Monroe Water Treatment Plant*

(LePage 1986)
Total
Number of outage Percent Reliability
outages hours of total factor (%)
Ozone generators 7 179 16.7 99. 4

Air prep system 2 299 4.8 99. 1
Off -gas rejection 3 10 7.1 99. 9
Control systems 4 33 9.5 99. 9
Dew-point
hygrometer 12 127 28.6 99. 6
Contact chamber 2 3 4.8 99. 9
Unrecorded origin 6 20 14.3 99. 9
High room ozone

concentration 37 14.3 99.9
* April 15, 1979, through December 31, 1982; 1,356 days = 32,544
hours
139
interruptions were caused by malfunctions in the dew point
hygrometer that monitored the dew point of the feed gas to the
ozone generators. The air preparation equipment was down twice
for a total lost production time of approximately 300 hours.
This failure resulted from one drying tower that did not heat
properly during regeneration and, therefore, could not produce
sufficiently dried air. The problem was resolved by complete
renewal of the desiccant. During the next two years, only 10
outages occurred for a total downtime of 296 hours. In the
seventh year of operation, only one outage occurred, which shut
down the ozonation system for 61 hours. The system has continued
to improve and has been extremely reliable. No system outages
occurred during 1986, 1988 and 1989.
Problem areas. The Monroe Water Treatment Plant experienced no

major problems with the ozone system. As mentioned, most of the
interruptions in ozonation were caused by a malfunction in the
dew point hygrometers. Approximately 42 percent of the total
outage hours (708 hours) during the first four years were spent
repairing two failures in the air preparation system. Both of
these types of failures caused an automatic shutdown of the ozone
system because the proper dew point of less than -40°C was not
measured or achieved. These problems with air preparation and
monitoring were all remedied.
As expected, at start-up, problems with some degradation of

rubber products by ozone were observed. All rubber material that
came in contact with the ozonated water was replaced with
silicone rubber.
140
TABLE 33
Mean Values of Raw Water Quality Parameters

for Utilities That Converted to Ozone
Monroe
Bay City Belle Glade Ozone off
6/74-5/86 9/82-8/86 10/76-2/87"1" 5/79-2/87
Alkalinity (mg 101 155 87 90

CaC03/L)
Calcium (mg 172 35 38
CaC03/L)
Chloride (mg/L) 19 22
Color (pcu) 10 67
Hardness (mg 136 229 121 129
CaC03 /L)
Noncarbonate 34 38
hardness
(mg CaC03/L)
pH 8.1 7.7 7.8 7.7
MTP (/ig/L) 233 808
Total organic 20.9
carbon
(mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU) 11.5 10.1 13.1

*- No data reported
+ Overall average raw water quality from October 1976 through February 1987
** Raw water quality after ozone on-line when generating system was off
141
TABLE 34

Before and After Conversion to Ozone
Bay City Belle Glade Monroe

Before After Before After Ozone 0z°Ae
6/74; 9/79- 8/82- 9/84- off*
On
9/79 5/86 9/84 8/86 5/79-2/87 5/79-2/87
Alkalinity (mg CaCOj/L) 70 57++ 52 42**

76 75
Calcium (mg CaC03/L) 139 122++ 38++
40
Color (pcu) <5 <5 4.0 3.3++ -- --
Filter Index (HG/acre/ft 93.5 38.0++ .. .. 366 1086++

head loss)
Filter Run (Hours) -- -- 58 88++
Flow (mgd) 11.1 9.7++ 3.7 3.9 7.0 7.2

Hardness (mg CaCCs/L) 114 106++ 158 141 ++ 129++
134
Magnesium (mg CaC03/L) -- -- 8.3 8.4

pH 8.5 8.4 9.7 7.8++
7.1 7.1
TOC (mg/L) 11.1 12.0 -- --
TTHM (jig/L) -- 67 643 60++

44 70
HTP ((ig/L) 808 236++ -- --
Turbidity applied to -- -- 0.8 0.5++
filters (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU) 0.4 0.1 ++ 0.4 0.2++

0.2 0.2

+ Period after ozone on-line when generating system was off (normally March through May)
** Period after ozone on-line when generating system was on (normally June through February)
++ Significant Difference at 95% confidence level
*- No data reported
142
TABLE 35
Mean Values of Chemical Use Data Before

and After Conversion to Ozone
Bay City Belle Glade Monroe
Before After Before After Ozone Ozone On

6/74- 9/79- 8/82- 9/84- off+ 5/79;#
9/79* 5/86 9/84 8/86 5/79- 2/87
2/87
*** 42.5++
Alum (mg/L) 23.2 20.5 48.4 27.9 19.6++
(6.2)
Lime (mg/L) -- 179 195 8.9 5.7++
19.3 9.4++
Chlorine dosage (mg/L) 3.4 2.7++ 4.1 2.9++
Ozone dosage (mg/L) 1.44 -- 9.4 1.2
Polymer (mg/L) -- 0.05 0.08++ ..

+ Period after ozone on-line when generating system was off
** Period after ozone on-line when generating system was on
++ Significant difference at 95% confidence level
*- No data reported
*** Alum was used from September 1979 to April 1982. Average ferric chloride dosage
which has been used as the coagulant since April 1982 is shown in parentheses.
143
Economic Analysis for Ozone
Capital expenditures associated with the acquisition and

installation of ozone generators were the major costs borne by
the three ozone utilities. Operation and maintenance costs
included power requirements for ozone generation. Increased
chemical costs, however, were not typically incurred, and a
savings in chemical costs could result from reduced oxidant or
coagulant dosages.
Bay City Water Treatment Plant
In September 1979, Bay City began using a new 40 mgd (105 m3/min)
water treatment plant utilizing ozone treatment. The total
capital cost of the ozone system installed was $1,250,190, which
was equal to a 1988 cost of $1,962,798 (cost factor = 1.57). In
addition, Bay City reported that total costs for the ozone system
was $2.20/lb ($4.85/kg) of ozone. These costs included power
requirements, operating labor, repair labor, supervision,
materials, supplies, insurance, and amortization of the capital
costs. Based on a cost factor of 1.21, the expected 1988 O&M and
capital costs would be $2.65/lb ($5.84/kg) of ozone. At an
average flow rate of 10 mgd (26 m3/min) f the average ozone dosage
of 1.4 mg/L would cost $115,356 (1988 dollars) annually. In
addition, the chlorine dosage was reduced by 101 Ib/d (46 kg/d),
resulting in a savings of $9,216 per year (chlorine = $0.25/lb or
$0.55/kg). The expected annual increase in treatment costs would
be $106,140 (1988 dollars), and the cost increase per million
gallons would be $29.08 ($7.68/1000 m3 ) .
Belle Glade Water Treatment Plant
The city of Belle Glade converted to ozone in 1985 for color

removal, disinfection, taste and odor control, and THM control.
In addition to the ozone-generating system, the capital items
required for start-up were installation, prestart-up training,
144
lab tests, start-up and refining, and poststart-up assistance
(Table 37). The operation and maintenance costs include
maintenance items for the generating system, power costs and
increased personnel costs. The estimated total maintenance cost
averaged $4,000/year. Power requirements for the generator were
estimated at 89,913 kwhr/month for an average monthly cost of
$5,700. Typical items included in this cost were gaskets and
dielectrics for the generator. In addition, labor requirements
increased after the conversion to ozone. Two hours per day were
needed for operation of the generation system. Sixteen hours per
year were required for maintenance of the generating system
(cleaning, replacement of dielectrics). Based on a labor cost of
$15/hour, the yearly expenditure for the increase in labor
requirements would be $11,190.
TABLE 37
Capital and Start-up Costs for Belle Glade's

Water Treatment Plant to Convert to Ozone Treatment
Adjusted
Item Cost 1988 cost
Ozone generator $585,000 $620,100

Installation $ 55,000 $ 58,300
Training, prestart-up $ 4,500 $ 4,770
Lab test $ 5,200 $ 5,512
Start-up $ 8,900 $ 9,434
Assistance $ 3,000 $ 3,180
poststart-up
Total $661,600 $701,296
Annual amortized capital and

start-up costs* $ 61,139

interest rate
After converting to ozone, the chlorine dosage at Belle Glade was

reduced from 19.3 to 9.4 mg/L. Based on an average flow of
145
3.9 mgd (10 m3/min) and chlorine costs of $0.25/lb ($0.55/kg),
the 9.9 mg/L reduction would result in a savings of $3,523. The
estimated total yearly increase in operation and maintenance
costs was $17,367, and the estimated total increase in treatment
costs was $78,506, an average flow weighted cost of $55.15/mil
gal ($14.57/1000 m3 ) .
Monroe Water Treatment Plant
In February 1979, the Monroe Water Treatment Plant converted to

ozone treatment for taste and odor control. The total capital
cost in 1974 was $711,800 (Table 38). Ozone system costs were
reported to be $79,858 for 1985. Amortization and insurance
comprise more than half of the annual operating costs for the
ozone system. In addition, electrical power was the second most
costly operating expense. Other operation and maintenance items
include supplies, parts, contract work, and system maintenance
costs. Based on a cost factor of 1.06, the expected 1988 annual
ozone system costs (capital and O&M) were $84,650.
TABLE 38
Capital Costs at Monroe's Water Treatment Plant
to Convert to Ozone Treatment
1974
Item costs
Earthwork $ 5,800
Bearing caissons $ 26,000
Concrete tank and $111,000
substructure
Superstructure housing $ 39,000
Ozone equipment $270,000
Ozone distribution $ 25,000
and recycling equipment
Piping and valves $235,000
Total $711,800
146
In addition, the chlorine dosage was reduced by 1.2 mg/L, and the
alum dosage was reduced by 6 mg/L. Based on a chlorine cost of
$0.25/lb ($0.55/kg) and an alum cost of $0.03/lb ($0.07/kg), the
chemical cost savings would be $6,575 and $3,945, respectively.
Therefore, the estimated total increase in treatment costs as a
result of ozonation was $74,130, and the increase in treatment
costs per million gallons was $28.21 ($7.45/1000 m3 ) .
Advantages
In general, with sufficient contact time, ozonation of raw water

helped control the TTHM formation to less than 100 jug/L for the
systems studied. Furthermore, ozone oxidized taste- and odor-
causing compounds to levels where consumer complaints regarding
these historic problems were virtually nonexistent. Additional
advantages of ozonation were as follows:
* Ozone generation and treatment systems were very reliable;
* Ozone was an excellent bactericide;
* Color-causing compounds were readily oxidized by ozone;
* Chlorine demand was reduced by ozonation thereby limiting THM
formation;
* Ozone improved the coagulation and flocculation of colloidal
particles;
* Ozone has a high oxidation potential that has applications for
oxidizing organic matter and inorganic matter.
Disadvantages
If the appropriate contact time and dosage values are not used in
the design and operation of an ozone treatment system, the
process may enhance the formation of THMs by degrading complex
organic compounds to compounds that are more susceptible to
chlorination. This phenomenon possibly occurred at one of the
water treatment plants studied. Bay City's water treatment
147
system experienced an increase in brominated trihalomethanes due
to a probable reaction of ozone with increased levels of Br" in
the raw water to form HOBr which subsequently reacted with
organic precursors. Furthermore, seasonal increases in water
temperature and pressure drops within the filters can cause
changes in oxygen partial pressures that initiate the release of
oxygen from the saturated aqueous phase to the gaseous phase.
This has created air binding in the filters. When using ozone
other possible considerations are as follows:
* The air preparation system must provide a gas feed to the
generator with a stable dew point of less than -40°C;
* Ozone treatment involves an additional process with high
capital and operation and maintenance costs ($28.21/mil gal to
$55.15/mil gal, $7.45/1000 m3 to $14.57/1000 m3 , respectively);
* Ozone should be tested on a site specific basis due to the
complex chemistry of the oxidant;
* Ozone degraded rubber products, but using silicone rubber
resolved this problem; and
* The incomplete oxidation of organic compounds by ozone or
reactions between ozone and hypochlorite ion may increase
postchlorine demand.
148
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE
Over the past 30 years, potassium permanganate (KMnOJ

historically has been used for taste and odor control and iron
and manganese removal (Hamilton 1974; Kotter 1978; Singer et al..
1980; Ficek and Boll 1980; Moyers and Wu 1985). More than 250
water utilities in North America, and more than 30 water
utilities in Europe, have used KMnOA (Kotter 1978). Permanganate
is not regarded as one of the primary preoxidizing agents in
water treatment (Kotter 1978). KMn04 has, however, been used to
effectively control THM levels in finished drinking water (Kotter
1978; Singer et al. 1980; Blanck 1979; Ficek and Boll 1980;
Colthurst and Singer 1982; Moyers and Wu 1985; McGuire and Meadow
1988) .
The oxidation potential of KMnO<, ranks just below hydrogen

peroxide but above several chlorine species (i.e. chlorine
dioxide, chlorine or hypochlorite). Other properties of KMnO4 in
water treatment include:
(1) KMnOA is a powerful oxidizing agent and readily reacts
with ferrous ion, manganous ion, sulfide, cyanide,
phenols, and other taste and odor compounds;
(2) KMnOA kills and prevents the growth of a wide spectrum
of algae and microorganisms;
(3) KMn04 forms insoluble manganese dioxide upon reduction,
which can benefit coagulation and sedimentation;
(4) KMnOA can be easily fed and monitored; and
(5) KMn04 does not impart tastes and odors to the finished
water (Weber 1972).
Any residual KMnO4 reaching the distribution system will reduce

to manganese dioxide colloidal particles that can be deposited in
the lines or blacken the water. The permanganate ion, MnOA ",
imparts a characteristic pinkish-purple color to a water, and
therefore, a visual inspection can indicate the presence of KMnO<,
concentrations as low as 0.25 mg/L (Dice and Beer 1983). As
149
KMnO4 reacts, the water changes color from pink or purple
(indicating MnO4~) to yellow or brown (indicating MnO4 ) depending
on relative concentrations. Residual KMn04 can be measured by
amperometric titration using phenylarsine oxide (PAO) similar to
residual chlorine determination (Beck 1968; Singer et al. 1980).
Permanganate and free chlorine present in the same sample will
still oxidize stoichiometric amounts of PAO, thus the
determination of a strong oxidant must be made in the absence of
other strong oxidants in order to prevent interference (Beck
1968).
KMnO4 has been used as a means for preoxidation of organic

precursors to THM formation (Symons and Stevens 1978). In this
capacity, KMnO4 oxidizes THM precursors and forms an insoluble
precipitate, manganese dioxide, which can adsorb THM precursors,
enhance coagulation and be removed during subsequent
sedimentation or filtration (Colthurst and Singer 1982). In the
pH range of 6.5 to 9, the reaction between KMnO4 and organic
precursors is (Ficek 1978)
KMn04 + H2O + precursors -» CO2 + H20 + MnO2 . (14)
The rate and extent of oxidation by KMn04 are proportional to the

KMn04 dosage, with higher dosages characterized by more rapid
kinetics and greater reductions in THMs (USEPA 1981; Singer
et al. 1980). The reactivity of KMnO4 in water is influenced by
pH, with KMnO4 more effective at alkaline or neutral levels
(Singer et al. 1980; Montgomery 1985; Knocke et al. 1987). The
reaction of KMnOA with inorganic compounds is often rapid and
reported in seconds or minutes. Conversely, the oxidation of
organics is often measured in hours (>2 hours), with some
compounds resisting oxidation (Weber 1972; Gifford et al. 1988;
Montgomery 1985). In a complex water, KMnO4 will often exhibit
different reaction characteristics, depending on the relative
concentrations in the water (Knocke et al. 1987).
150
The reported range of KMnO4 dosages typically used in water
treatment is 0.1 to 5 mg/L (Bowen 1983; Montgomery 1985).
Several investigators have reported that KMnO4 is relatively
ineffective in reducing THM formation at the dosages employed in
water treatment (Lange and Kawczynski 1978; Singer et al. 1980;
USEPA 1981; Kreft et al. 1985). The use of KMnOA , however,
allows the point of chlorination to be shifted to a post-
treatment mode where more precursor material has been removed by
other unit processes, thus producing lower THM levels. The
addition of KMnO4 and free chlorine simultaneously at the same
location can enhance formation of THMs (Ficek and Boll 1980).
With the relocation of the point of chlorination, the most
effective means of THM control by KMnO4 is to
(1) add KMnO4 to raw water as early in treatment as
possible (raw intake or flash mix) and allow the
completion of the reaction; then
(2) coagulate and settle; and finally
(3) chlorinate the finished water (Ficek and Boll 1980;
Montgomery 1985).
Permanganate has biocidal properties; however, because of its

poor performance in disinfection, KMn04 is typically not used for
this purpose (Degremont 1979). A large reduction in coliform
counts has been observed in raw waters after KMn04 treatment
(Hamilton 1974). In studies using Missouri and Mississippi River
waters, significant reductions in total coliform (99.37 to 100
percent) and heterotrophic plate counts (80.46 percent) were
obtained using from 0.51 to 1.1 mg KMn04/L with detention times
on the order of 30 min to 10 hours (Blanck 1983). In another
study, however, only about a two-log reduction was noted in about
30 min using up to 16 mg KMnO4/L in a water low in dissolved
organic matter (Cleasby et al. 1964) . KMnO4 has also been used
as a water-main disinfectant for tanks and newly laid lines
(Hamilton 1974; Kotter 1978; Degremont 1979). However, it is not
effective for the final disinfection of treated water (Kotter
1978; Degremont 1979). Furthermore, KMn04 has been used
151
successfully as an algicide in raw water reservoirs and in
treatment plant processes (Kotter 1978).
Columbia Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Columbia, TN water

treatment plant began operation in 1955 and was renovated and
expanded in 1967, and in 1987. It was a conventional plant with
a present design capacity of 15 mgd (39 m3/roin) and an average
daily production of 8 mgd (21 mV^in) . The source of the raw
water was the Duck River, which was moderately hard (141 mg
CaC03/L) , had an average alkalinity of 121 mg CaCO3/L and an
average turbidity of 20 NTU (Table 39, page 168). The water was
pumped approximately 3,000 ft (914 m) from the river to the
headworks of the plant through a 24 in (61 cm) diameter pipe.
Prior to switching in May 1984 from prechlorination to
prepotassium permanganate the major problems observed were high
TTHMs (up to 120 M9/L) and taste and odor problems.
With prepotassium permanganate treatment, KMnOA was mixed in

tanks and pumped via chemical feed pumps to the suction side of
the raw water low-lift pumps at dosages of 0.1 to 3 mg/L
(summer), with the average dosage being about 1 to 1.5 mg/L. The
dosage or demand of KMnO,, was determined by visual observation of
the characteristic pink color. Both alum and lime were added at
the flash mix; typical dosages were 15 to 30 mg/L and 0 to 30
mg/L, respectively. After flocculation, the water moved through
the clarifier, which included tube settlers, and was transported
to mixed-media filters (Figure 45). The filters were operated at
2 gpm/sq ft (0.08 m3/min«m2 ) . The water was chlorinated at
approximately 3.5 mg/L on top of the filters. The filtered water
was postchlorinated to maintain a chlorine residual of 2.5 to 3
mg/L upon leaving the plant. This level of chlorine residual was
necessary to maintain a free residual of 0.5 mg/L within the
152
POTASS ILIA PERAANGANATE
REPLACED CHLORINE AT RAV VATER
INTAKE IN AAY 1984
CHLORINE
FILTER AID (OPTIONAL)
LIAE (OPTIONAL)
CHLORINE
2) CHLORINE (OPTIONAL)
ALUft
Ul FLOCCULATION ——C» CLARIFICATION

U)
PIMP
STATION
3) LIftE
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON (OPTIONAL)
FIGURE 45. Flow Schematic of Columbia Water Treatment Plant. Potassium Permanganate
Treatment Replaced Chlorine at the Raw Water Intake in May 1984.
distribution system, more than 20+ mi (32 km) from the plant.
The actual time the water was within the plant was 5 to 6 hours
at 8 mgd (21 m3/min) with an additional 4 hours retention within
the clearwell.
System performance. General product-water quality data are given

in Table 40, Page 169. Except for THM concentrations, no
statistically significant differences in product-water quality
occurred once the plant started using KMnO4 . The plant produced
a moderately hard water with an average turbidity of about 0.2
NTU and pH of 7.6. Permanganate, however, did reduce the running
quarterly average TTHM concentrations from 103 /ig/L (prior) to
61 fJ.g/'L (post) (Table 40, page 169) . After switching to KMn04 ,
the amounts of chlorine used increased from a total of 241 Ib/d
(109 kg/d) to 290 Ib/d (132 kg/d), resulting in a corresponding
increase in the chlorine residual leaving the plant from 2.1 to
2.7 mg/L. The higher chlorine residual was needed to satisfy
chlorine demands within the distribution system.
Problem areas. Because of the simple adaptation of KMnO<,

treatment to the plant, few problems developed with operating the
process. The plant received few complaints, and the changeover
was beneficial in reducing THM levels to well below 100 ng/~L.
Illinois-American Water Company, Peoria
Water treatment system description. The Illinois-American Water

Company has served the Peoria District since 1869 and has
provided water to an estimated population of 125,000 people
requiring an average of 16 to 24 mgd (42 to 63 m3/roin) of potable
water. The system was supplied by five sources: (1) Illinois
River Treatment Plant, (2) Main station wells, (3) Dodge Street
wells, (4) Griswold Street wells, and (5) San Koty Treatment
Plant.
154
Groundwater comprised up to 65 percent of the total water
produced each day. During the summer, 50 percent of the total
flow was groundwater. The Illinois River Treatment Plant was
originally constructed in 1959 to treat 10 mgd (26 m3/ndn). The
traveling screen intake on the Illinois River was approximately
160 mi (257 km) downstream of Lake Michigan and was subject to
occasional flooding. Water from the Illinois River was treated
by coagulation, sedimentation and filtration at the Illinois
River plant at an average rate of 7.1 mgd (19 m3/rain) (Figure
46). The flow was seasonal, and the monthly average ranged from
3.4 to 11.6 mgd (9 to 30 m3/min) .
Raw water from the Illinois River was hard (282 mg CaCO3/L) with
an average alkalinity of 202 mg CaC03/L and a turbidity of 62 NTU
(Table 39, page 168). The raw water was odorous, and contained
color-producing compounds, and iron and manganese levels that
normally exceed recommended contaminant levels of 0.3 mg/L and
0.05 mg/L, respectively. TTHM concentrations in the finished
water averaged 79 jug/L and ranged from 52 to 134 M9/L- To comply
with drinking water regulations, potassium permanganate was added
to the raw water, and chlorine was introduced prior to filtration
(Figure 46). The use of permanganate was seasonal. It was
typically used from April to November when raw water conditions
enhanced the formation of THMs (Figure 47). When permanganate
was not added, prechlorination was moved to the inlet of the
flocculation basins.
Cationic polymers were added in-line before the flocculation

basins, approximately 300 ft (91 m) from the raw water intake.
At the inlet to the flocculation basins, potassium permanganate
was added at 1 mg/L along with alum. The flocculation basins
provided approximately 1.7 hours detention time at average flow.
Lime was added for pH adjustment at the influent to the
clarifiers, which provided 7.35 hours detention time at average
flow. Before filtration, chlorine was added at a dosage of 4 to
7 mg/L. The flow could have been split and directed to either
155
POTASSIUM PERAANGANATE
REPLACED CHLORINE AT INFLUENT
TO FUXXULATORS IN AUGUST 1986
CATIONIC POLWER
CHLORINE
DISTRIBUTION
4}CHJQRINE
5} POWDERED CARBON
H
cn
AAIN WELL
ALORICH
FILTERS
o
STATION
FIGURE 46» Flow Schematic of the Illinois-American Water Company's Illinois River
Treatment Plant, Peoria. Potassium Permanganate Treatment Began in August 1986.
the outside Aldrich Units (Perifliters) or the GAC filters. PAC
can be added to the Aldrich Units for taste and odor control.
An Aldrich Unit provided both sedimentation and filtration. The

inner, 75 ft (23 m) diameter zone was a sedimentation basin, and
the outside perimeter zone was a filter. The filter media
consisted of 30 in (76 cm) of carbon over 12 in (30 cm) of graded
gravel. Each filter was designed to treat 5 mgd (13 m3/min) at 2
gpm/sq ft (0.08 m3/min«m2 ) . A unit could provide in excess of 3
hours detention time at 5 mgd (13 m3/min).
Part or all of the flow could have been directed to the GAC
filters located in the control building. The filters had a total
surface area of 2,336 sq ft (217 m2 ) and contained 30 in (76 cm)
of GAC, 9 in (23 cm) of silica sand, 4.5 in (11 cm) of garnet
sand, 3 in (8 cm) of garnet gravel, and 7 in (16 cm) of silica
gravel. When operated at 3 gpm/sq ft (0.12 m3/min*m2 ) , the
indoor filtration capacity was 10 mgd (26 m3/min). Chlorine was
added to the filtered water at an average of 2 mg/L before
storage in the 1 mil gal (3,785 m3 ) clearwell. Before
distribution, treated Illinois River water could have been
combined with chlorinated and fluoridated water from the Main
Well Station.
System performance. The beginning of the available historical

data record presents THM concentrations in drinking water samples
that were collected at a location where the plant product water
was combined with groundwater from the Main Well Station.
Consequently, THM levels in the plant's finished water were
diluted by the groundwater. Nevertheless, the system performance
data indicate that TTHMs were reduced from 79 to 48 M9/L after
treatment modification (Figure 48).
The addition of permanganate did reduce the prechlorine average

dosage from 6.3 to 4.2 mg/L (Table 41, page 170). Because KMn04
was only used seasonally, the average chlorine dosage during
157
891
Monthly Avg. Potassium Permanganate Dose (mg/L)
3
D>
rt
I- rt
SSoc!
rt o 3
• O CO rt
O PI 31
^ ^x3 Quarterly Average TTHM
O
rt M
P-
P> O 3 rt
co ^ rt3"
CO - (D
p-rt CO
c o H
CD
&> rt
rt H- 31
(D (D 3 P>
o 3
n H- O
(D d
0> Mi D 01
3 rt H-
^Q (D 01 W
(li 1 rt H- (D
3
0) rt H- (D
rt V cr hj
(D (D
•— C
> 01
a <D
en 3
CO (D
rt CO 3
rt rt (u 1-3
(D ft O
p-rt
CD O P)
a\ 3 M
(0
periods when permanganate was used was 4.2 mg/L compared with 6.3
mg/L before the change to permanganate.
Potassium permanganate treatment produced the same low levels of

iron and manganese, 0.02 mg Fe/L and 0.01 mg Mn/L, obtained by
chlorination (Table 40, page 169). Furthermore, the plant
continued to produce a water with turbidity levels less than 0.20
NTU. The color of the finished water, however, was significantly
lower after the implementation of permanganate, and the growth of
algae was reduced on nonenclosed treatment basins.
Problem areas. The application of potassium permanganate to the

treatment process at the Illinois River Treatment Plant caused a
slight increase in filter coliform counts. Remedial action was
taken to increase the prefilter chlorine dosages to maintain a
minimum residual of 0.2 mg/L in the filtered water.
Shelbyville, Tennessee, Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Shelbyville Water

Treatment Plant began operation in 1965 and was upgraded in 1974.
The raw water source was from the Duck River, approximately 27 mi
(435 km) below Normandy Dam. The conventional treatment system
had a design capacity of 4.5 mgd (12 m3/min) and produced about 3
mgd (7.9 m3/roin). The raw river water passed through a traveling
screen to the pump station. The water was then pumped through
two 14 in (35.6 cm) lines approximately 1,000 ft (305 in) to the
headworks of the plant.
The Duck River had moderately hard water ( 105 mg/L CaC03 ) with
an average pH of 7.4 and a turbidity of 20 NTU (Table 39, page
168). Some seasonal taste and odor problems were reported by
customers. These problems were associated with noxious algal
production in Normandy Lake. Beginning in 1978, KMn04 was used
for taste and odor control on an irregular basis. Another
problem was the high TTHMs produced, averaging 90 Mg/L and
159
ranging from 15 to 144 M9/L. In 1984, the treatment plant was
changed from prechlorination (at the intake) to prepotassium
permanganate addition (Figure 49). Dry potassium permanganate
was mixed with water in a 150 gal (568 L) reinforced fiberglass
tank and pumped by chemical feed pumps to the low-lift intake
pumps. KMnO4 was added at a concentration range of 0.5 to 2.0
mg/L with a mean value of about 0.8 mg/L. The required dosage
was determined visually, and a water sample was amperometrically
titrated to determine residual permanganate and permanganate
demand (Beck 1968, Carus Chemical Company).
Alum was added at the rapid mix basin at dosages ranging from 22
to 55 mg/L (average 38 mg/L). Powdered activated carbon (PAC)
had also been added at the rapid mix basin on occasions when
taste and odor problems were not properly mitigated with the
addition of KMnOA . Carbon was fed on a controlled basis at about
50 to 130 Ib/day (23 to 59 kg/d) during these problem periods.
After flocculation, the water moved through the settling basins
(approximately 3 hours retention time) onto the multimedia
filters. The settled water was chlorinated at the top of the
filters and a residual of approximately 2 mg/L was maintained.
The filters were hydraulically loaded at 2 gpm/sq ft (0.08
m3/roin«m2 ) and backwashed upon 6 ft (1.8 m) of head loss.
Postchlorination of the filtered water prior to the clearwell
raised the chlorine residual to about 2.4 mg/L upon leaving the
plant. There was an approximate 40 min retention period in the
clearwell prior to distribution.
System performance. Once permanganate was used, the production

of TTHMs decreased from an average of 90 M9/L to an average of 53
Mg/L (Figure 50) . During the same period of time, the amount of
chlorine used increased (Table 41, page 170), contributing to the
slight decrease in pH from 6.9 to 6.7. A corresponding
significant increase in free C1 2 residual was observed within the
plant after sedimentation and in the distribution system (Table
40, page 169).
160
POTASSIUrt PERAANGANATE
REPLACED OUQRINE AT RAV
WATER INTAKE IN AAY 1984
CLEAR DISTRIBUTION
SEDIAENTATIGN ————————O-
VO1.
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
CHJQRINE
FLUGRIDE
SODA ASH
SOOIUn HEXAAETAPHDBPHATE
FIGURE 49. Flow Schematic of the Shelbyville Water Treatment Plant. Potassium
Permanganate was Added to the Raw Water, Beginning in May 1984.
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Time (month)
FIGURE 50. Monthly Average Total Trihalomethane (TTHM)
Concentrations in Shelbyville's Water Distribution
System Prior to and After use of Potassium Permanganate
(May 1984).
162
Fewer taste and odor complaints were received by the utility
since the use of permanganate. Without prechlorination at the
low-lift pump station, however, the growth of algae increased in
the sedimentation basins. Nonetheless, no significant changes in
product water quality occurred with potassium permanganate
treatment. The plant produced a moderately hard (103 mg
CaC03/L), low turbidity (0.1 NTU) drinking water.
Problem areas. The treatment change was very beneficial in

reducing THM levels. No major problems had occurred since the
changeover. Periodic maintenance of the sedimentation basins was
necessary to control algae.
City of Wilmington's Sweeny Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Wilmington, NC, Sweeny

Water Treatment Plant was a conventional coagulation,
sedimentation and filtration system (Figure 51) that had a
monthly average production of approximately 8.5 mgd (22 m3/min).
Filters were hydraulically loaded at 2 gpm/sq ft (0.08
m3/min«m2 ) .
The plant was first placed on-line in the early 1940s. The water
supply was an impounded river, 40 ft (12 m) deep, located 23 mi
(37 km) from the plant. The hydraulic residence time within the
force main from the pump station to the plant headworks was
approximately 8 hours. The water treatment plant treated a low
turbidity (1.6 to 32.0 NTU), moderately hard (78 to 358 mg
CaC03/L) , low alkalinity (6.0 to 37.6 mg CaC03/L) , and low pH
(5.4 to 6.7) water (Table 39, page 168). Caustic was added to
finished water to adjust the pH to between 7.0 and 7.4; the
finished water, however, remained aggressive. Prior to May 1984,
quarterly average TTHM levels in the drinking water ranged from
64 to 141 ng/L, with running averages from 102 to 105 jug/L. The
primary THM form was chloroform. Potassium permanganate addition
at the raw water low-lift pumps was initiated in May 1984 to
163
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON OURINE
RAV
VATER
RAV
RAPID
VATER ——If——J-0- SEDIMENTATION
INTAKE
nix
POTASSIUA PERAANGANATE
ADDED TO RAV VATER IN AAY 1904
CLEAR CLEAR
WELL WELL
FIGURE 51. Flow Schematic of Wilmington's Sweeney Water Treatment

Plant. Potassium Permanganate Treatment Began in May 1984.
lower the TTHM levels below 100 M9/L- Prior to the use of
permanganate, the raw water was chlorinated at the raw water pump
station. Prechlorination was eliminated, and chlorine was added
to the water before filtration and after the storage tank to
maintain a final chlorine residual of 1.1 to 1.8 mg/L (Figure
51). No chlorine booster stations existed within the
distribution system, and the plant attempted to maintain a 0.03
mg/L free chlorine residual at the farthest end of the pipe
system (approximately 7 mi [11 km]). At times the free residual
dropped to zero because of long residence periods in the pipe
resulting from no water demand.
After one year of KMnO4 use, the plant began to add 6 mg of PAC
per liter of water treated to remove taste- and odor-causing
compounds. The PAC dosage was determined primarily by the amount
of available storage.
System performance. During the three-year period of KMnOA use,

average dosages were generally between 2 and 2.25 mg/L. Based on
the plant operational records, it appeared that no permanganate
had been used since April 1987, when the plant started the
addition of chlorine dioxide to the water after filtration.
Quarterly TTHM data varied throughout the period of available

record (Figure 52). No statistically significant difference was
computed between average quarterly TTHM concentrations obtained
prior to (98 M9/L) and during (88 M9/L) the use of KMn04 (Table
40, page 169). The running TTHM average, however, did decrease
significantly when KMn04 was used (Figure 52) . Prior to the use
of KMnO4 , the mean running TTHM average was approximately 104
/xg/L. Once KMnO4 was used, the mean running average was 85 M9/L-
After permanganate was added to the raw water, the prefilter
chlorine dosage significantly decreased from a mean concentration
of 3.2 to 1.6 mg/L. In order to achieve a free residual at the
farthest point in the distribution system, the chlorine dosage at
165
200
LEGEND
ISO-
a Quarterly Avg. TTHMs
o Running Avg. TTHMs
160-
0, 140 H
120-
0)
O)
2
0)
80-
D
13
o 60-
40-
20-
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan

H— -H— -H- ————I—
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Time (month)
Concentrations in Wilmington's Water Distribution System
Prior to and After use of Potassium Permanganate (May
1984) .
166
the clearwell was increased from a mean concentration of 0.8 mg/L
to an average of 1.5 mg/L.
Manganese levels in the raw water ranged from 0.07 to 0.88 mg/L.
Manganese concentrations in the finished water were less than or
equal to 0.05 mg/L, and yet manganese oxide particles were
observed within the pipes.
Problem areas. Manganese oxide particulates, which can cause a

clogging and sloughing problem, were discovered in copper lines
throughout the plant. Furthermore, periodic complaints were
received concerning black particulates in drinking water. A
pipe-flushing program helped reduce these complaints.
167
TABLE 39
Mean Values of Raw Water Quality Parameters for Utilities

That Converted to Potassium Permanganate
Illinois-American Water
Company Wi Imington
Columbia Peoria Shelbyville Sweeny
4/81-8/87* 8/84-7/87 5/81-2/87 1/80-6/87
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L) 121 202 95 18
Color (pcu) 11.3 -- 126
Hardness (mg CaCOj/L) 141 282 105 20

00
Iron (mg/L 0.14 1.86 0.29 0.63
Manganese (mg/L) 0.05 0.08 0.54
Odor (TON) 13.7 -- --
pH 7.9 8.1 7.4 6.6
Temperature (°F) 64.7 55.4 60.4 66.1
Turbidity (NTU) 20 62 20 20

--No data reported
TABLE 40
Mean Values of Finished Water Quality Parameters Before

and After Conversion to Potassium Permanganate
Illinois-American
Water Company Wilmington
Columbia Peon" a Shelbyville Sweeny
Before ^ After Before After Before After Before After

4/81-5/84 5/84-8/87 8/84-8/86 8/86-7/87 5/81-5/84 5/84-2/87 1/80-5/84 5/84-6/87
Alkalinity (mg CaC03 /L) 109 114 196 200 69 78 23 24
Free Chlorine residual 2.1 2.7 1.4 1.2 2.4 2.9 1.9 1.8
(mg/L)
-- -- 0+ -- --
Color (pcu) 0.88 1.1 1.1
20*
Hardness (mg CaCO,/L) 143 157 308 296 102 103 28
8.2+
10 Flow (mgd) 7.3 7.5 7.0 7.5 2.9 2.8 8.7
Iron (mg/L) 0.009 0.008* 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Manganese (mg/L) -- -- 0.01 0.01 0.043 0.032 -- 0.03
Manganese (distribution -- -- -- -- 0.042 0.048 -- --

system) (mg/L)
6.7+
PH 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 6.9 7.2 7.2
Turbidity (NTU) 0.22 0.21 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.25 0.19
53+
TTHM (^g/L) 99 68 79 48 90 98 88
TTHM (/ig/L) running 103 61 -- .. -- -- 104 85

4 quarter average

+ Significant difference at 95% confidence interval
--No data reported
TABLE 41
Mean Values of Chemical Use Data Before and After Conversion to Potassium Permanganate
Illinois-American
Water Company Wilmington
Columbia Peoria Shelbyville Sweeny
Before t After Before After Before After Before After

4/81-5/84 5/84-8/87 8/84-8/86 8/86-7/87 5/81-5/84 5/84-2/87 1/80-5/84 5/84-6/87
Alum (mg/L) 18 19 42 50 38 38
Lime (mg/L) 14.2 9.6*
Prechlorine dosage (mg/L) 2.7 3.5* 6.3 4.2* -- -- 3.2 1.6*
Postchlorine dosage 1.2 1.1 2.0 2.0 -- -- 0.8 1.5*

(mg/U)
Chlorine dosage (mg/L) 4.0 4.6 8.3 6.2* 2.3 3.6* 4.1 3.1*
Corrosion inhibitor 1.8 1.5

(mg/L)
Permanganate dosage 0.74 -- 0.64 0.63 0.79 -- 1.7

(mg/L)

•»• Significant difference at 95% confidence level
--No data reported
Economic Analysis for Potassium Permanganate
Potassium permanganate applications at the four selected

utilities required little or no capital expenditure. Some water
treatment plants utilized existing equipment or facilities.
Columbia Water Treatment Plant
In May 1984, the city of Columbia converted its treatment train

to include permanganate. Included in the conversion was the
purchase of a permanganate feeder with required piping and
valves. The capital costs for these items were estimated to be
$3,300. Based on a cost factor of 1.09, the 1988 cost would be
$3,597. Amortization of the capital expenditures over 20 years
at six percent interest would result in an annual cost of $314
(1988 dollars). Operation and maintenance costs also include 3
h/wk for labor, a 0.65 mg/L increased chlorine dosage and a 0.75
mg/L permanganate dosage. These costs are presented in Table 42.
TABLE 42
Operation and Maintenance Costs for Columbia
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
KMn04 (0.75 mg/L) $1.25/lb $21,119

($2.75/kg)
Chlorine (0.65 mg/L) $0.25/lb $ 3,719
($0.55/kg)
Labor (3 hours/week) $15/hour $ 2,346
Combining amortization capital costs and operation and

maintenance costs resulted in an annual expenditure of $27,498
171
Based on an average daily flow of 7.5 mgd (20 m3/min) , the
increase in treatment costs would be $10.02/mil gal ($2.65/1000
m3 ) .
Illinois-American Water Company, Peoria
The Illinois River Station converted from prechlorination to

prepotassium permanganate in August 1986. The use of existing
equipment at the plant allowed a cost-effective conversion. A
permanganate feeder and splitter box, estimated to cost $4,000,
were already present in the plant, and so these associated costs
were not included in the treatment-cost calculations. The only
costs resulting from the use of potassium permanganate were
chemical costs. Power, labor and maintenance costs were
insignificant. A permanganate dosage of 0.42 mg/L (based on 12
months) would cost $12,119 (1988 dollars) per year, based on a
permanganate cost of $1.25/lb ($2.75/kg). A decrease in the
chlorine dosage of 1.0 mg/L, however, would result in an annual
savings of $5,992, based on a $0.25/lb ($0.55/kg) chlorine cost.
Thus, the net annual increase in chemical costs was $6,127. The
total treatment cost increase at an average flow of 7.5 mgd (20
m3/min) would be $2.24/mil gal ($0.59/1000 m3 ) .
Shelbyville Water Treatment Plant
The city of Shelbyville plant personnel designed and implemented

permanganate addition at the raw water intake in 1984. Capital
items required for the conversion included two tanks, three
pumps, two mixers, and plumbing and electrical supplies. The
permanganate was pumped via an existing chlorination line to the
raw water pump station. In addition, it was necessary to provide
a post-chlorination line for the effluent from the settling
basin. The cost associated with the purchase of these items was
$1,835 in 1984. Based on a cost factor of 1.09, the equivalent
1988 cost would be $2,000. The annual amortized cost would be
$175 based on a 20 year life and six percent interest. Operation
172
and maintenance costs were minimal and limited to changes in
chemical costs for chlorine and permanganate. Because of the
prior use of permanganate, the cost estimate was based on the
0.16 mg/L potassium permanganate dosage increase. The increase
in permanganate usage would result in an annual cost of $1,705
(1988 dollars). In addition an increase in the chlorine dosage
of 1.22 mg/L would produce an annual cost of $2,600. Based on
capital, operation and maintenance costs, the annual expenditures
would be $4,480 (1988 dollars) for an increase in treatment costs
of $4.38/mil gal ($1.16/1000 m3 ) .
City of Wilmington's Sweeny Water Treatment Plant
The Sweeny Water Treatment Plant was converted to a permanganate

treatment mode in May 1984 by adding permanganate to the raw
water intake approximately 23 mi (37 km) from the treatment
plant. The conversion required a new building, a chemical feeder
and piping materials. The capital costs associated with the
conversion are presented in Table 43.
TABLE 43
Capital Costs at the Sweeny Water Treatment Plant, Wilmington,

NC, to Install Potassium Permanganate Treatment
Adjusted
Item Cost 1988 cost
Building $ 2,010 $ 2,191

Chemical
feeder $ 3,475 $ 3,788
Materials $10,000 $10,900
Piping $ 375 $ 409
Total $15,860 $17,288
+ Amortization based on 20 year life and six percent annual
interest rate
173
The operation and maintenance costs for the conversion to
potassium permanganate include chemical costs, operation of the
permanganate system, and maintenance of the permanganate system
(Table 44). Based on the total annual increase in treatment
costs (capital & O&M) of $54,937 (1988 dollars), the increase in
treatment costs would be $18.36/mil gal ($4.85/1000 m3 ) .
TABLE 44
Operation and Maintenance Costs at Sweeny Power Water Treatment

Plant, Wilmington, NC, for use of Potassium Permanganate
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
KMn04 (1.74 mg/L) $1.25/lb $54 ,292

($2.75/kg)
Chlorine (-0.94 mg/L) $0.25/lb -$ 5 ,866
($0.55/kg)
Labor
Two-hour/day operation $6/h $ 4 ,380
Two-hour/week operation $6/h $ 624
Annual 1988 O&M cost $53 ,430
Advantages
A major advantage of the potassium permanganate treatment process

was the ease of adaptation to an existing water treatment system.
Total incremental costs for equipment, installation, operation,
and maintenance ranged from $2.24/mil gal ($0.59/1000 m3 ) to
$18.36/mil gal ($4.85/1000 m3 ) . Permanganate successfully
reduced running average TTHM levels below 100 ng/L. Most plants
in this study experienced a 40 percent reduction in quarterly
174
TTHM concentrations in their drinking water. Other advantages of
using potassium permanganate were as follows:
* Permanganate oxidized taste- and odor-causing compounds;
* Iron and manganese were oxidized by permanganate;
* Oxidation of organic and inorganic matter by permanganate
reduced chlorine demand; and
* Algal growth was reduced with permanganate treatment.
Disadvantages
A sufficient contact time and permanganate dosage must be

provided to oxidize the targeted compounds and form Mn02
precipitate prior to clarification. Problems occurred in water
distribution lines with manganese precipitates, which slough off
and cause black water. Furthermore, improper permanganate CT
values for a particular water chemistry may limit the oxidation
of precursor material prior to chlorination and thereby inhibit
the decrease in THMs. Additional problems associated with
permanganate treatment are as follows:
* The addition of permanganate and chlorine at the same location
in the treatment train can enhance TTHM formation; and
* An increase in biological growth in settling basins and filters
was experienced with the pretreatment of raw water with
potassium permanganate (inadequate biological control).
175
COMBINED THM CONTROL PROCESSES
Certain utilities installed a combination of several processes to

achieve lower THM objectives. The combined processes evaluated
in the study were (1) chlorine dioxide plus chlorination followed
by air stripping plus ammoniation, and (2) potassium permanganate
plus chlorine dioxide plus chlorine. Each process was added to
the treatment train, and its effectiveness was evaluated before
the next process was added.
The City of Chesapeake, Virginia Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The Chesapeake Water

Treatment Plant was placed in operation in 1980 and treated an
average daily flow of approximately 7.4 mgd (19 m3/min) of
surface water by conventional coagulation, sedimentation and
filtration (Figure 53). The raw water was withdrawn from a river
that was increasingly subjected to saltwater intrusion because of
tidal action. Groundwater was used to supplement surface water
when chloride concentrations in the surface water were more than
1,000 mg/L. The plant was treating a moderately aggressive, low-
turbidity (<10 NTU) water (Table 45, page 185). The average
daily production from the plant was approximately 7 mgd (18
m3/min). The MTP of the finished water was 500 to 600 M9/L-
During August 1983, C1O2 was employed full scale to reduce THM
levels. Possible locations for C1O2 addition to the water were
at the raw water pump station, and before and after the
filtration process (Figure 53). The efficiency of chlorite
conversion to C1O2 was 95 percent for the intake generator and 91
percent for the plant generator. At the intake, the C1O2 :C1 2
ratio was 11.7:1, whereas the plant's ratio was 5.8:1, indicating
that the intake generator had a better chlorine conversion
efficiency. Low C1O2 dosages (0.5 to 1.3 mg/L) were tested from
176
AUUft (2
LlftE POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
NON-IONIC POLYAER
CH.QRINE DlOXIOe
ADDITION BEGAN
IN AUGUST 1983
LIAE
CH-CRINE
RAV
WATER
© FUUORIDE
AIR STRIPPING TOWERS
BEGAN OPERATION IN 19B5
FIGURE 53. Flow Schematic of Chesapeake Water Treatment Plant With

Alternative THM Control Processes.
1981 to 1983. Total chlorine dioxide levels were monitored in
the product water. Chlorite and chlorate were not routinely
measured, but chlorite was approximately 70 percent of the total
ClO2 concentration. Bacterial problems with the use of C1O2 made
chlorination necessary and it was applied before and after
filtration. Filters were hydraulically loaded at 2.6 gpm/sq ft
(0.11 m3/roin»m2 ) . The filtered water flowed to a 2 mil gal
(7,570 m3 ) clearwell with a 4.3 hour residence time, followed by
air stripping towers that removed approximately 75 to 85 percent
of the TTHM and other volatile compounds. In 1986, aqueous
ammonia was added to the treatment train after the air stripping
towers to further inhibit the formation of THMs in the product
water.
System performance. Full-scale chlorine dioxide use at the plant

was initiated in August 1983. Prior to this, lower C1O2 dosages
(average 0.8 mg/L) were tested. C1O2 treatment before filtration
was tested and stopped when a degradation of filter water quality
was observed. Formation of oxidized mineral precipitates within
the filters and subsequent breakthroughs were believed to be the
cause of the problem. Average chlorine dioxide dosages at the
raw water lift station varied from 0.2 to 4 mg/L (Table 47, page
187). Use of postfiltration C1O2 treatment was somewhat erratic
and was not employed to any great extent.
Chlorine was added prior to filtration at dosages ranging from

5.5 to 20 mg/L, with an average daily dosage of approximately 9
mg/L (±3.9 mg/L). Even with the use of C1O2 at the low-lift pump
station, a relatively high chlorine demand existed prior to
filtration. Volatile compounds, which included THMs, were
removed from the water by air stripping. Air stripping alone
removed more than 70 percent of the TTHMs in the water applied to
the towers (Figure 54). The residual free chlorine remaining in
the finished water was combined with ammonia.
178
800 soo
LEGEND
700-
o Stripping Tower Influent
o Stripping Tower Effluent
600-
LEGEND
to Quarterly TTHM
o Running Average
ID
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 -50 -40 -30 -20 -JO 0
"ox 23ji985 TIME (days) Time (month)
I
FIGURE 54. Average Trihalomethane FIGURE 55. Quarterly Average Total

(THM) Concentrations Prior to and After Trihalomethane (TTHM) Concentrations
Air Stripping at the Chesapeake Water in the Chesapeake Water Distribution
Treatment Plant. System Prior to and After the use of
C1O2 , Air Stripping and Chloramines
(August 1983).
The use of C102 , air stripping and chloramines drastically
reduced TTHM levels within the distribution system (Figure 55).
Quarterly TTHM levels were significantly reduced from a mean of
245 to 62 M9/L (Table 46, page 186). Similarly, the mean running
average was decreased from 214 to 61 M9/L TTHMs.
No significant difference was observed in bacteriological data

prior to and after implementing C1O2 treatment. All bacterial
levels were <1 colony/100 mL. Furthermore, an improvement in
finished water turbidity levels occurred (Table 46, page 186).
Problem areas. A problem that occurred with the use of C1O2 was
the inability to maintain a residual in the distribution system,
necessitating the use of postchlorination. When C1O2 was used
alone, bacterial regrowth was noted in the distribution lines.
C1O2 application prior to the filters degraded the filter water

quality. The operators believed that the filter performance was
affected by formation of a precipitate within the filter.
Another problem associated with the use of C1O2 was an apparent
kerosene odor at the end of distribution system. It appeared to
be associated with a drop in water pH and buildings with new
carpet.
City of Medina, Water Treatment Plant
Water treatment system description. The city of Medina, OH,

water treatment plant provided potable water for a population of
16,000. The plant was originally built in the 1930s to treat
water from the North Branch Rocky River and was modified in 1967
to the present capacity of 4 mgd (11 m3/min) . The raw water for
the Medina Water Treatment Plant came from Lake Medina, a 100
acre (40 ha) storage reservoir that received water from the Rocky
River and a groundwater well. Groundwater provided approximately
five percent of the total flow. Lake Medina was built in 1967 as
a storage reservoir for water from both sources and to maintain a
180
consistent water supply with respect to volume and quality.
Access to Lake Medina was limited to fishing from the shoreline.
All other uses were prohibited. Raw water was pumped from Lake
Medina to a 4 mgd (11 m3/min) , lime-soda ash softening plant with
upflow solids contact units (accelators) followed by
sedimentation and rapid sand filtration (Figure 56). The plant
was operated at an average daily production of 2 mgd (5 m3/ndn).
Water from Lake Medina was hard (221 mg CaCO3/L) with low color
19 pcu) and turbidity (3.6 NTU) (Table 45, page 185). The raw
water intake at Lake Medina was approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) from
the main plant. Alum was added at an average dosage of 18.7 mg/L
just before the upper accelator where lime and soda ash were
added at 80.5 and 22.3 mg/L, respectively. Approximately 50
percent of the flow was split and directed to the lower
accelator, and the effluent was combined with the effluent of the
upper accelator before sedimentation. The upper accelator
provided 2 hours detention time at 2 mgd (5 m3/min) , whereas the
lower accelator provided an additional 2 hours for 50 percent of
the flow. The hydraulic detention time through the settling
basin was 2 hours before the flow entered the filters, which were
loaded at 1 gpm/sq ft (0.04 m/min»m2 ) . A possible location for
the addition of phosphate, fluoride and chlorine was prior to
filtration. Chlorine was added before the clearwells, providing
an additional detention time of 1.5 hours before distribution.
Chlorination of the water produced an average TTHM concentration

of 110 M9/L. Two treatment strategies were implemented for the
control of THMs: chlorine dioxide treatment with
postchlorination and potassium permanganate, chlorine dioxide
treatment with postchlorination.
System performance. THM control began in October 1984 and

consisted of adding chlorine dioxide at the effluent of the upper
accelator at an average concentration of 0.9 mg/L (Figure 56).
Chlorine dioxide reduced TTHM formation to below the 100 jug/L MCL
181
(3) PHOSPHATE
FLOURIDE
CHLORINE DIOXIDE
ADDED IN OCTOBER 1984 50 7. FLOW
SPLIT
OUTSIDE
SETTLING
BASIN
POST CHLORINE (4
POTASSIUA
oo PERAANGANATE
ADDED IN NOVEABER
LOV SERVICE
1985 NORTH CLEAR VELLS
PUAPS
DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 56. Flow Schematic of Medina Water Treatment Plant. Chlorine

Dioxide Treatment was Initiated in October 1984, and Potassium
Permanganate was Introduced to the Treatment Train in November 1985.
(Figure 57). Adding potassium permanganate (0.9 mg/L average) to
the influent of the upper accelator and increasing the chlorine
dioxide dosage to 1.0 mg/L in November 1985 reduced TTHM levels
significantly as compared with chlorine dioxide treatment or
chlorination (Figure 57). The average TTHM concentration
decreased from 110 to 94 M9/L with chlorine dioxide treatment and
decreased to an average of 44 jug/L with chlorine dioxide
potassium permanganate treatment (Table 46, page 186). Lack of
THM control by chlorine dioxide probably resulted from the
dissociation of chlorine dioxide to chlorite and chlorate at a
high pH. Permanganate oxidation kinetics, however, are more
rapid at high pH Revels.
The average postchlorine dosage prior to the use of chlorine

dioxide was 1.3 mg/L; but, the dosage increased to an average of
about 2.2 mg/L once chlorine dioxide was used (Table 47, page
187). Furthermore, the average chlorine residuals at the plant
tap and in the distribution system were significantly greater
during the prechlorine dioxide period as compared with the period
when chlorine dioxide was used (Table 47, page 187). The
increase in chlorine dosage could be a result of the
ineffectiveness of chlorine dioxide to oxidize reduced materials
at high pH levels as well as higher postchlorination dosages
often required in combination with the application of chlorine
dioxide (Aieta and Berg 1986). Permanganate addition resulted in
a decrease in the postchlorination dosage required to maintain
equal residuals between these periods. The permanganate provided
more oxidant capacity, allowing lower chlorine dosages.
Raw color was reduced from 19 pcu to 0 pcu in the finished water.
Furthermore, taste and odor complaints were reduced since the
implementation of potassium permanganate and chlorine dioxide.
The plant produced a water that had a turbidity of 0.2 NTU and
ranged from 0.2 to 0.3 NTU in the distribution system (Table 46,
page 186). The finished water hardness was reduced from
approximately 220 mg CaCO3/L (raw water) to approximately 117 mg
183
200
1984 Nov. 1985

Chlorine Chlorine Dioxide Plus
Dioxide Potassium Permanganate
Treatment Treatment
J an
-30 -20 0 10
Time (month)
Concentrations in the Medina Water Distribution System Prior to
and After Chlorine Dioxide Treatment (October 1984) and Chlorine
Dioxide Plus Potassium Permanganate Treatment (November 1985).
184
CaC03/L using a lime dosage of 70 to 90 mg/L and a soda ash
dosage of 6 to 34 mg/L.
Problem areas. Plant personnel had difficulty placing the

chlorine dioxide system on line. The chlorine dioxide generating
system required maintenance and replacement of some metal and PVC
parts because of the corrosive nature of chlorine dioxide. Metal
needle valves on the generating system, constructed of high-grade
stainless steel, were specially ordered.
Plant personnel expressed concern and a lack of confidence in the

residual chlorine dioxide analytical procedure used. The N,N-
diethyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPD) - ferrous ammonium sulfate (FAS)
titration method was the analytical procedure recommended by the
state for C1O2 residual determination.
TABLE 45
Mean Values of Raw Water Quality Parameters for Utilities That

Converted to Combined Oxidation Processes
Chesapeake Medina
3/80-7/87* 7/80-5/87
Alkalinity 20 128
(mg CaC03/L)
Color 175 19
(pcu)
Hardness 140 221
(mg CaCO3/L)
Magnesium — 16
(mg/L)
PH 6.4 8.1
Temperature ( F) 64 —
Turbidity (NTU) 7.8 3.6

— No data reported
185
TABLE 46
Mean Values of Finished Water Quality Parameters Before

and After Conversion to Combined Oxidation Processes
Chesapeake Medina
Post
Before t After Before C102 KMn04/Cl02
3/80-8/83 8/83-7/87 7/80-10/84 10/84-5/87
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L) 22 22 37 28*
Color (pcu) 3.0 5.0 19 0
Flow (mgd) 7.0 6.8 2.0 2.1

Hardness (mg CaC03/L) 130 106 116 117
Magnesium (mg/L) 10.3 10.8
pH 7.9 7.1* 9.6 9.4+
TTHM (^g/L) 245 62* 110 44*

TTHM running 4 quarter average 214 61* ..
(/ig/L)
TTHM air stripping
tower
Influent 241
Effluent 58
Turbidity (NTU) 0.72 0.44* 0.17 0.16
(finished water)
Turbidity (NTU) 0.27 0.24*
(distribution system)

--No data reported
186
TABLE 47
Mean Values for Chemical Use Data Before and After

Conversion to Combined THM Control Processes
Chesapeake Medina
After
Before t After Before C102 KMn04/Cl02
3/80-8/83 8/83-7/87 7/80-10/84 10/84-5/87
Alum Dosage (mg/L) .. 18.7 17.5
Free chlorine residual (plant) 3.0 2.4* 2.9 1.6**

(mg/L)
2.5+ 3.2 1.9
Total chlorine residual
(plant) (mg/L)
Free chlorine residual .. 1.9 1.1
(distribution) (mg/L)
Chlorine dosage pre (mg/L) 1.7 2.0 3.4 0.6
Chlorine dosage prefilter 3.7 5.45 ..
(mg/L)
Chlorine dosage post (mg/L) 6.9 2.4 1.3 2.2
Chlorine dosage (mg/L) 12.3 9.9 4.6 2.8
Chlorine dioxide residual .. 0.003

(mg/L)
Chlorite residual (mg/L) -- 0.7
Chlorine dioxide predosage 0.8 1.9 1.0

(mg/L)
Chlorine dioxide prefilter 0.9 0.5 0
dosage (mg/L)
Chlorine dioxide post dosage 0 1.3 -.
(mg/L)
Chlorine dioxide dosage 1.7 3.7 1.0
(mg/L)
Potassium permanganate (mg/L) .. 0.9
Lime dosage (mg/L) .. 79 90
Soda ash dosage (mg/L) -- 31.6 6.5

+ Free chlorine residual existed from August 1983 to August 1986. Ammonia was not used during that period.
Combined chlorine residual has been used since August 1986 when ammonia addition began.
** Significant difference at 95% confidence level
187
Economic Analysis for Combined Processes
Economic data for the process modifications made to Medina's

water treatment plant are provided. Generalities in the
application of combined processes are not possible. No cost data
was provided by personnel from the city of Chesapeake's water
treatment plant.
City of Medina, Ohio, Water Treatment Plant
The city of Medina initiated chlorine dioxide treatment in

October 1984 and added permanganate treatment in November 1985
when chlorine dioxide was unable to produce acceptable THM
levels. Items purchased for the conversion to chlorine dioxide
include the Rio Linda chlorine dioxide generator, associated
materials and installation (Table 48). Among the items purchased
for the 1985 implementation of permanganate was a permanganate
feeding system.
TABLE 48
Capital Costs at Medina, Ohio
Adjusted*
Item Cost 1988 cost
Chlorine
dioxide generator $6,000 $ 6,540
Installation $2,000 $ 2,180
Permanganate
system $1,600 $ 1,696
Total $9,600 $10,416
Annual amortized capital cost"1" $ 9,908
* Cost factors = 1.09 (1984), 1.06 (1985)
+ Amortization based on 20 year life and six percent annual
interest
188
The operation and maintenance costs (Table 49) include chemical
costs, operator time, lab time, and replacement parts (such as
in-line filters and needle valves, etc.).
The total annual cost increase (capital and O&M) for the
implementation of chlorine dioxide and permanganate was $49,036.
Based on an average daily flow of 2.08 mgd (5.6 m3/ndn), the
annual 1988 cost per million gallons was $52.73 ($13.93/1000 m3 )
TABLE 49
Operation and Maintenance Costs at Medina, Ohio
Unit Annual
Item cost 1988 cost
NaCl02 , 80% (1.61 mg/L) $ 1.94/lb $19,487

($ 4.27/kg)
KMn04 (0.87 mg/L) $ 1.25/lb $ 6,886
($ 2.75/kg)
Chlorine (-1.78 mg/L) $ 0.25/lb -$ 2,818
($ 0.55/kg)
Operator time (1 h/d) $16.50/h $ 6,023

Lab time (1.5 h/d) $16.50/h $ 9,034
Replacement parts $43/month $ 516
189
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In the United States, 185 water treatment plants in 40 states

were identified that had altered their treatment schemes by
converting to an alternative disinfectant or preoxidant in order
to provide their customers with a product that satisfied all
state and federal drinking water THM regulations. The primary
alternatives employed were (1) chloramines, (2) chlorine dioxide,
(3) ozone, and (4) potassium permanganate. Of these plants, 72
percent were chloramine systems, 11 percent chlorine dioxide, 8
percent ozone, and 5 percent potassium permanganate systems.
Twenty of the 185 plants were studied to document their
experience and plant performance prior to and after the
alternative treatment was implemented. Participating in the case
studies were six chloramines systems, five chlorine dioxide
systems, four potassium permanganate systems, three ozone
systems, and two systems that used combined THM control
processes.
Each of the water treatment plants had successfully lowered TTHM

concentrations in the drinking water to below 100 Mg/L-
Furthermore, all systems studied produced a drinking water that
complied with state and federal coliform bacteria limits. In
most cases, an improvement in HPC resulted from the conversion.
In general, the conversion to an alternate disinfectant or
preoxidant provided secondary benefits by reducing taste and odor
complaints from customers. Furthermore, each water utility
changed its treatment processes to offer its customers the best
product for the least expense. Specific conclusions and
observations for each treatment alternative studied are presented
in the following sections.
CHLORAMINE SYSTEMS
Chloramination was easily adapted to existing plants, using

existing equipment and facilities. The ratio of chlorine-to-
191
ammonia dosage used by the plants varied from 3:1 to 5:1 by
weight. The conversion to chloramination by three of the plants
resulted in a water treatment cost savings of as much as
$18.66/mil gal ($4.93/1000 m3 ) . A water treatment facility
producing an average of 3.43 mgd, however, experienced a $9.64/
mil gal ($2.55/1000 m3 ) increase in costs due to the use of
ammonium chloride and potassium permanganate. Two water
treatment plants had an average cost increase of approximately
$3.50/mil gal ($0.92/1000 m3 ) .
Chloramine systems were the only treatment systems that

consistently reduced average TTHM levels to less than or equal to
50 /ig/L. Average TTHM concentrations ranged from 9 to 40 M9/ L -
During the same period, persistence of a combined chlorine
residual in the distribution system lowered HPC from levels
previously obtained with chlorination. Because of the
elimination of free chlorine in the distribution system, a
reduction in taste and odor complaints occurred.
Hemodialysis patients are quite susceptible to the health

problems that may be caused by chloraminated water if it is not
properly pretreated prior to dialysis. Utilities had no major
problems notifying hospital dialysis units of the potential
interferences of chloramines with hemodialysis. Similarly, the
procedure on the notification of home and commercial fish owners
of the acute toxicity of chloramines to aquatic life was well
documented.
Another factor to consider is the fact that chloramination fails

to destroy the organic precursors to THM formation.
Consequently, utilities that introduced free chlorine in the
distribution system provided excess ammonia in the finished water
to combine with chlorine. Periodic breakpoint chlorination was
used to control biological growth in the distribution system and
basins in three plants. Of the six utilities in the study, only
two (Ralph D. Bollman Water Treatment Plant and the Lower Otay
192
Filtration Plant) allowed a free chlorine residual to exist for a
time period prior to ammonia addition. With an anticipated state
and federal regulation of disinfectant CT (disinfectant
concentration X contact time) requirements to achieve a 99
percent kill of pathogens (bacteria, 99.9 percent Giardia. 99.99
percent viruses), utilities using chloramines should consider
providing a free chlorine contact time prior to ammonia addition.
It should also be noted that an accelerated deterioration of

certain rubber products may be caused by chloramines. In
addition, ammonia can cause corrosion of equipment.
CHLORINE DIOXIDE SYSTEMS
Chlorine dioxide systems investigated in this study produced

chlorine dioxide through the reaction of sodium chlorite with
chlorine. Plant operators and supervisors found chlorine dioxide
generation systems to be very reliable. Sodium chlorite,
however, destroyed rubber products. Furthermore, sodium chlorite
and C1O2 dissolved the solvent used to hold PVC pipe together at
the Las Vegas Valley Water District's Alfred Merritt Smith Water
Treatment Facility. The Alfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment
Facility also experienced corrosion caused by C1O2 and steps were
taken to use corrosion resistant materials, such as stainless
steel, ceramics and titanium. In general, the total costs for
treating the raw water with C102 ranged from about $2.00/mil gal
($0.54/1000 m3 ) to $15.00/mil gal ($3.96/1000 m3 ) . One utility
was given a generator and experienced a cost savings of $6.71/mil
gal ($1.77/1000 m3 ) .
Chlorine dioxide normally was added to the raw water at the

headworks of each plant. Water treatment systems using C1O2 to
oxidize organic precursors were able to maintain average TTHM
levels within the distribution systems below 100 M9/L, ranging
from 50 to 90 /ng/L. Increased coliform bacterial counts within
the Kentucky-American Water Company, Kentucky River station's
193
distribution system, however, forced the utility to
postchlorinate to provide adequate residual disinfection.
Furthermore, increased algal growth was observed in the
sedimentation basins and entering the filters. This increase in
biomass created an increased head loss through the filter.
Chlorine dioxide provided utilities with additional advantages by

oxidizing iron, manganese, color-causing compounds, and taste and
odor compounds. In addition, C1O2 oxidation of organic and
inorganic compounds decreased chlorine demands and thereby
reduced chemical costs.
Public health concerns included the possible cause of hemolytic

anemia, methemoglobinemia and other hematological effects by C1O2
and its by-products, chlorite and chlorate. Control of the C1O2
dosage to less than or equal to 1 mg/L was imperative.
Three water treatment systems studied experienced odor problems

when C1O2 was used. These odors were described as smelling like
kerosene and cat urine. At Mobile, residual chlorine dioxide or
by-products apparently produced an odor when faucets were turned
on in locations where new carpeting had been installed. One
utility experienced a similar problem and found the situation
totally unacceptable and converted from C1O2 to another THM
control alternative.
OZONE SYSTEMS
The three ozone systems studied were very reliable. Each system
employed corona discharge units for the generation of ozone. The
feed-gas stream was air. It was important that the air
preparation system produce air with a dew point less than -40°C.
Failure to provide the corona discharge units with an air stream
having a dew point less than -40°C caused arching and damage to
the dielectric. In addition, ozone did degrade rubber products;
therefore, silicone rubber and other nonreactive materials were
194
used in locations that came into contact with ozone. Costs for
changing to ozonation varied from approximately $28 to $55/mil
gal ($7.45/1000 m3 to $14.57/1000 m3 ) . The lower costs were
achieved by plants where THM control was not the primary
objective for ozonation, rather ozone was added primarily for
taste and odor control. Therefore, it appeared that costs would
be greater than $30/mil gal ($7.90/1000 m3 ) and possibly closer
to $55/mil gal ($14.57/1000 m3 ) for water treatment plants using
ozone to achieve large reductions in THM levels.
Only one of the water treatment systems studied employed ozone

for the purpose of reducing THM levels in the finished water.
Ozone was used successfully for taste, odor and color control.
THM control was a secondary benefit in two of the water treatment
systems. In general, ozone reduced chlorine demand by oxidizing
inorganic and organic compounds. Because of a decrease in
chlorine demand and the state residual chlorine regulation of
only a trace amount in the distribution system, two of the water
treatment systems were able to maintain average TTHM levels below
100 M9/L« Increases in chlorine usage at one of the facilities
resulted in increases in THM concentrations. In another plant,
incomplete oxidation of complex organic compounds occasionally
produced higher THM levels in the finished water than occurred
without ozonation. Bay City experienced an increase in
brominated trihalomethanes due to ozonation of bromide ions in
the raw water and subsequent reactions between HOBr and organic
precursors.
Partial disinfection of the water resulted from ozone treatment.

An ozone dosage of 1.5 mg/L and a contact time of 20 min reduced
total coliform (3,430 cfu/100 mL) by 99.8 percent. During the
same period, 88 percent of the HPC bacteria were destroyed.
Ozone reduced the required alum dosage by improving coagulation,

flocculation and sedimentation at the Monroe Water Treatment
Plant. The Monroe facility also experienced an increase in
195
average Filter Index values from 366 mil gal/acre«ft (11,231 mil
liters/ha«m) of head loss without ozonation to 1,087 mil
gal/acre*ft (33,356 mil liters/ha-m) of head loss with ozonation.
Release of oxygen from supersaturated water caused flotation of
floe above the filters and occasional air binding within the
filter at the Bay City Water Treatment Plant.
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE SYSTEMS
Water treatment plants using potassium permanganate adapted this

process to the existing treatment systems with little effort.
Most plants in the study mixed potassium permanganate with water
in tanks and pumped the concentrated solution via chemical feed
pumps to the suction side of raw water low-lift pumps. Costs for
implementing permanganate treatment ranged from about $2 to
$18/mil gal ($0.50/1000 m3 to $4.80/1000 m3 ) . Sufficient contact
time and chemical dosage must be provided to oxidize the targeted
compounds and form Mn02 precipitate prior to clarification.
Problems occurred when manganese precipitates in the water
distribution system sloughed off and caused black water at the
customers's tap at the Wilmington's Sweeney Water Treatment
Plant.
Permanganate oxidized organic precursors and thereby reduced the

running average TTHM levels in the distribution system by
approximately 40 percent to less than 100 yug/L. Improper
potassium permanganate dosage and contact time for a particular
water chemistry may limit the oxidation of precursor compounds
prior to the chlorination and thereby limit the decrease in THMs.
Taste and odor complaints were reduced with permanganate

treatment. Furthermore, permanganate provided an additional
benefit by oxidizing iron and manganese in the raw water and
thereby reducing color problems and scaling. Through the
oxidation of organic and inorganic compounds, permanganate
196
lowered the chlorine demand of the water and reduced the annual
amount of chlorine used at two water treatment plants.
Even though permanganate was reported to control biological

growth, the Shelbyville Water Treatment Plant experienced
increased growth in settling basins and filters. Therefore, no
biocidal advantage was seen with permanganate treatment at this
plant.
COMBINED THM CONTROL PROCESSES
Two of the study's water treatment systems were able to control

TTHM levels below 100 M9/L with a combination of processes (i.e.
chlorine dioxide plus chlorination followed by air stripping and
ammoniation or potassium permanganate plus chlorine dioxide and
postchlorination) . For the plant employing air stripping, even
with the addition of chlorine dioxide at the raw water intake
station, a high chlorine demand existed prior to filtration.
Chlorination before filtration and air stripping of the filter
water successfully removed more than 70 percent of the TTHMs
applied to the tower. Air stripping was the primary mechanism
for THM removal. Further THM formation was inhibited by the
addition of ammonia to combine with residual free chlorine.
Average quarterly TTHM concentrations within the distribution
system were reduced from 245 to 62
The other water treatment system was a lime softening plant.

Chlorine dioxide, which was added to the effluent of the initial
upflow solids contact units, only reduced TTHM concentrations in
the finished water from an average of 110 to 94 /xg/L. Chlorine
dioxide and potassium permanganate (added to the influent of the
initial upflow solids contact units) decreased average TTHM
levels to 44 /xg/L. Because of the high pH levels (9.4) resulting
from the lime-softening process, chlorine dioxide alone was
ineffective at reducing THM concentrations. At high pH (> 7) ,
chlorine dioxide readily dissociates to chlorite and chlorate,
197
weaker oxidants. Permanganate oxidation kinetics were more rapid
at the high pH. Consequently, the addition of potassium
permanganate greatly enhanced the oxidation of THM precursors.
Each of the added unit processes provided the utility with the
many advantages and disadvantages cited previously for each
specific process. The combination of the processes achieved a
desired finished drinking water quality that could not be
produced when each process was individually applied. The cost of
the potassium permanganate plus chlorine dioxide plus chlorine
system was approximately $53/mil gal ($14/1000 m3 ) , which was
within the cost range for the ozone systems studied.
198
RECOMMENDATIONS
Through the experiences of the twenty utilities participating in

this study, the water industry can obtain a better understanding
of the benefits, possible problem areas and costs associated with
the conversion from chlorination to an alternative treatment
practice to control THM levels in drinking water. Each THM
control strategy should be tested on-site to determine its
effectiveness prior to full scale implementation. The treatment
objectives must be well delineated prior to selection of a THM
control strategy. For example, is the objective of the treatment
strategy to control THM levels, or to control THMs and to
disinfect, or to oxidize inorganic compounds as well as control
THM levels and provide a desired degree of disinfection? Based on
the findings of this study the following recommendations are
presented.
CHLORAMINES
* For many waters, chloramines appear to be effective at reducing

THM levels in the finished water to less than 50 M<?/ L -
* To meet microbiological regulations, it is recommended that
chlorine be added to the water initially with sufficent contact
time to provide a degree of disinfection and not exceed a
desired level of THMs in the product water. Ammonia is added to
inhibit further formation of THMs. The concentrations of
chlorine and chloramines, and the corresponding contact times
to achieve the desired level of microbiological and THM control
should be determine by laboratory testing.
* It may be necessary to have excess ammonia in the finished
water to combine with any chlorine added to the water within
the distribution system.
* Increased monitoring for coliform bacteria and HPC within the
distribution system should be conducted especially in warmer
climates.
199
* Utilities treating warm water must be aware of potential
microbiological growth in the distribution system. If excess
ammonia is present in the distribution system, nitrification
may occur and thereby create nitrite and nitrate problems.
Furthermore, the frequency of positive coliform bacterial
counts may increase.
* Periodic breakpoint chlorination to provide a free chlorine
residual in the distribution system may be required to control
biological activity. The frequency of chlorination will be site
specific and may be once/week, once/month, once/year depending
on the system.
* Utilities must have a good public notification program,
informing hospitals and dialysis centers of the possible
interferences of chloramines with hemodialysis, and commercial
and private fish owners of the toxicity of chloramines to
aquatic life.
* The utility should implement a testing program to determine
degradation of rubber parts in gaskets and residential
plumbing.
CHLORINE DIOXIDE
* Pilot or full scale testing of the process should be conducted

to determine the possible reduction in THM levels and the
potential for the creation of odor problems within the water
distribution system. If odor problems persist, an alternative
treatment strategy may need to be considered.
* Chlorine dioxide does not effectively oxidize THM precursors at
pH levels greater than eight; therefore, under these
circumstances alternative control strategies may need to be
considered.
* Utilities should determine the efficiency of the chlorine
dioxide generator and limit the amount of excess chlorine in
the effluent stream. Excess chlorine will react with organic
precursors and form THMs, thereby limiting the ability of the
treatment strategy to control THMs to within a desired level.
200
* Chlorine dioxide should be added at the raw water pump station
or the headworks of the plant to oxidize THM organic
precursors.
* With chlorine dioxide treatment, postchlorination or
postchloramination is required to provide adequate control of
biological activity in the distribution system.
* Chlorine dioxide is corrosive and corrosion-resistant materials
should be used in the generator and any contact surfaces.
* Sodium chlorite solutions can destroy rubber products;
therefore, rubber products should be tested in sodium chlorite
solutions prior to installation.
OZONE
* The utility must determine the objectives to be achieved by

ozonation.
* On-site testing should then be conducted to assess the
appropriate ozone concentration and contact time necessary to
satisfy these objectives.
* It is important that the air drying system produce an air
stream with a dew point less than -40°C.
* It is recommended that the tubular corona cells be about 5 ft
(1.5 m) long. This length tube can easily be handled and
normally has a more uniform dielectric than longer tubes.
* In the United States, postchlorination or postchloramination is
required to provide adequate disinfection in the water
* Since ozone reacts with hypochlorite ion, chlorine should be
applied after the ozone residual has dissipated.
* If an increase in bromide concentration in the raw water
occurs, ozonation of the raw water may enhance the formation of
brominated trihalomethanes. Therefore, monitoring the raw water
bromide ion concentration is recommended to determine periods
of brominated THM formation.
201
* Furthermore, on-site testing of rubber products that come in
contact with the ozone should be conducted prior to purchase
and installation.
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE
* If the desired reduction in finished water THM levels is less

than or equal to approximately 40 percent, potassium
permanganate should be considered as a treatment alternative.
* Potassium permanganate should be added at the raw water intake.
This normally provides sufficient time to form manganese
dioxide particles which can be removed in the sedimentation and
filtration units.
* Postdisinfection by chlorine or chloramines is necessary.
* Chlorination and addition of potassium permanganate should not
occur at the same location in the treatment train. This will
enhance THM formation.
202
REFERENCES
Aieta, E.M. and J.D. Berg. 1986. "A Review of Chlorine Dioxide
in Drinking Water Treatment." Journal AWWA. 78(6):62-72.
Aieta, E.M., P.V. Roberts and M. Hernandez. 1984.
"Determination of Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorine, Chlorite and
Chlorate in Water." Journal AWWA. 76(1):64-70.
Amy, G.L., P.A. Chadik, Z.K. Chowdhurry, P.A. King and W.J.
Cooper. 1985. "Factors Effecting the Incorporation of Bromide
Into Brominated Trihalomethanes During Chlorination." In Water
Chlorination; Chemistry , Environmental Impacts and Health
Effects, ed. R.L. Jolley et al. , Vol. 5, 907-923. Chelsea, MI:
Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Augenstein, H.W. 1974. "Use of Chlorine Dioxide to Disinfect
Water Supplies." Journal AWWA. 66(12)716-719.
Babcock, D.B. and P.C. Singer. 1979. "Chlorination and
Coagulation of Humic and Fulvic Acids." Journal AWWA. 71(3):149-
152.
Beck, A.G. 1968. "An Instrumental Method for Determination of
Residual Permanganate and Permanganate Demand." Water and Wastes
Engineering. 5(12):42-43.
Berg, J.D., E.M. Aieta and P.V. Roberts. 1980. "Comparison of
Viral and Bacterial Indicators of Disinfection in Wastewater With
Chlorine Dioxide." In Water Chlorination: Chemistry.
Environmental Impacts and Health Effects, ed. R.L. Jolly et al.,
Vol. 3, 711-722. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc.
Berg, J.D., J.C. Hoff, P.V. Roberts and A. Martin. 1985.
"Disinfection Resistance of Legionella pneumophila and
Escherichia coli Grown in Continuous and Batch Cultures." In
Water Chlorination; Chemistry. Environmental Impacts and Health
Effects, ed. R.L. Jolley et al., Vol. 5, 603-614. Chelsea, MI:
Blanck, C.A. 1983. "Total Coliform Reduction During Treatment
of Mississippi River Water Using Potassium Permanganate." In
Proceedings AWWA WOTC XI. 309-318, Norfolk, VA.
Blanck, C.A. 1979. "Trihalomethane Reduction in Operating
Water Treatment Plants." Journal AWWA. 71(9):525-528.
Bowen, R. 1983. "Taste and Odor Control." In Water Treatment
Plant Operation, K.D. Keri, Project Director, Vol. 1, 373-412.
California State University, Sacramento, School of Engineering
and Applied Research and Design Center.
203
Brauch, H.J., G. Baldauf and H. Sontheimer. 1981. "Studies on
the Formation of Organic Chlorine Compounds When Treating Humic
Acid Waters With Chlorine Dioxide." Sonderdruck aus von Wasser,
56:25.
Brodtmann, N.V. and P.J. Russo. 1979. "The Use of Chloramines
for Reduction of Trihalomethanes and Disinfection of Drinking
Water." Journal AWWA. 71(l):40-42.
Chen, Y.S.R., O.J. Sproul and A. Rubin. 1985. "Inactivation of
Naegleria gruberi Cysts by Chlorine Dioxide." Water Research.
19:783-790.
Chow, B.M. and P.V. Roberts. 1981. "Halogenated By-product
Formation by Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorine." ASCE Journal of
Environmental Engineering Division, 107:EE4.
Cleasby, J.L., R.E. Baumann and C.D. Black. 1964. "Effectiveness
of Potassium Permanganate for Disinfection."
Journal AWWA. 56(4):466-474.
Colclough, C.A., J.D. Johnson, R.F. Christman and D.S.
Millington. 1983. "Organic Reaction Products of Chlorine
Dioxide and Natural Aquatic Fulvic Acids." In Water
Chlorination: Chemistry. Environmental Impacts and Health
Effects, ed. R.L. Jolley et al. , Vol. 4, 219-229. Ann Arbor, MI:
Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc.
Colthurst, J.M. and P.C. Singer. 1982. "Removing Trihalomethane
Precursors by Permanganate Oxidation and Manganese Dioxide
Adsorption." Journal AWWA. 74(2):78-83.
Combs, L.S. 1985. "In-Plant Treatment Experience With Chlorine
Dioxide." Kentucky-American Water Company Report, Lexington, KY.
Condie, L.W. 1986. "Toxicological Problems Associated With
Chlorine Dioxide." Journal AWWA. 78(6):73-78.
Cooper, W.J., R.G. Zike and N.S. Steinhauer. 1985. "Bromide
Oxidant Interactions and THM Formation: A Literature Review."
Journal AWWA. 76(12):55-61.
Cotruvo, J.A. and C.D. Vogt. 1985. "Regulatory Aspects of
Disinfection." Water Chlorination: Environmental Impact and
Health Effects, Volume 5. R.L. Jolley, R.J. Bull, W.P. Davis,
S. Katz, M.H. Roberts, Jr., and V.A. Jacobs, ed. Lewis
Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
de Greef, E., J. Hrubec and J.C. Morris. 1978. "Ozone and
Halogenated Organic Compounds." In NATO-CCMS Conference on
Oxidation Techniques in Drinking Water. Drinking Water Pilot
Project Report 11 A. Advanced Treatment Technology, ed. W. Kuhn
and A. Sontheimer, 309-326, Karlsruhe. Federal Republic of
Germany. EPA Report EPA-570/9-79-020, USEPA Office of Drinking
Water, Washington, D.C.
204
Degremont. 1979. Water Treatment Handbook. New York: Halsted
Press, John Wiley and Sons, 1186 p.
Dice, J.C. 1985. "Denver's Seven Decades of Experience With
Chloramination." Journal AWWA. 77(1):34-37.
Dice, J. and C. Beer. 1983. "Reservoir Treatment Solves Short
Filter Runs." Public Works. 114(5):78-79.
ENR. 1988. "Second Quarterly Cost Report: Water and Power."
McGraw-Hill, Inc. 25(220):75-76.
Ficek, K.J. and J.E. Boll. 1980. "Potassium Permanganate: An
Alternative to Prechlorination." Aqua. 7:153-156.
Ficek, K.J. 1978. "Potassium Permanganate for Iron and
Manganese Removal and Taste and Odor Control." In Water
Treatment Plant Design for the Practicing Engineer, ed. R.L.
Sanks, 461-479. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Inc.
Fleischacker, S.J. and S.J. Randtke. 1983. "Formation of
Organic Chlorine in Public Water Supplies." Journal AWWA.
75(3):132.
Gerval, R. 1978. "Ozonation of Raw Water Before Treatment in
Drinking Water Plants." Presented at the Ozone Tech. Symposium,
Los Angeles, CA.
Gianatasio, J.M. 1985. "Experience at Tampa, Florida Using
Combined Chlorine to Control THM Production." Presented at the
North Carolina AWWA/WPCA Joint Technical Conference, Charlotte,
NC.
Gifford, J.S., D.B. George, V.D. Adams and D. Potter. 1988.
"Investigation of Trihalomethane Control Methodologies for Direct
Filtration Systems." In Proceedings AWWA Annual Conference.
Orlando, FL.
Glaze, W.H. 1986. "Chemistry of Ozone, By-products and Their
Health Effects." In Proceedings AWWA Annual Conference. 1-15,
Denver, CO.
Gordon, G., and G.E. Pacey. 1986. "An Introduction to the
Chemical Reactions of Ozone Pertinent to Its Analysis." In
Analytical Aspects of Ozone Treatment of Water and Wastewater f
ed. R.G. Rice, L.J Bollyky and W.J. Lacy, 41-52. Chelsea, MI:
Gurol, M.D. 1985. "Factors Controlling the Removal of Organic
Pollutants in Ozone Reactors." Journal AWWA, 77(8):55-60.
Haag, W.R. and J. Hoigne. 1983. "Ozonation of Bromide-
Containing Waters: Kinetics of Formation of Hypobromous Acid and
Bromate." Environ. Sci. and Technology. 17:261-267.
205
Hamilton, J.J. 1974. "Potassium Permanganate as a Main
Disinfectant." Journal AWWA. 66(12):734-735.
Harakeh, M. and M. Butler. 1981. "Inactivation of Viruses in
Municipal Effluent by Chlorine Dioxide." In Viruses and
Wastevater Treatment, ed. M. Goddard and M. Butler. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Hedberg, T., B. Josefsson, C. Ross, B. Lindgren and T. Nemeth.
1978. "Practical Experience With Chlorine Dioxide and Formation
of By-products." In NATO-CCMS Conference on Oxidation Techniques
in Drinking Water. Drinking Water Pilot Project Report 11 A.
Advanced Treatment Technology, ed. and comp. W. Kuhn and H.
Sontheimer, 481-509, Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany. EPA
Report EPA-570/9-79-020, USEPA Office of Drinking Water,
Washington, D.C.
Helz, G.R., R.Y. Hsu and R.M. Block. 1978. "Bromoform
Production by Oxidative Biocides in Marine Waters." In
Ozone/Chlorine Dioxide Oxidation Products of Organic Materials,
ed. R.G. Rice and J.A. Cotruvo, Intl. Ozone Association, Vienna,
VA, pp 68-76.
Hoff, J.C. and E.E. Geldreich. 1981. "Comparison of the
Biocidal Efficiency of Alternative Disinfectants." Journal AWWA,
73(1):40-44.
Hoigne, J. 1978. "Note on the Haloform Formation Potential of
Pre-ozonized Water." In NATO-CCMS Conference on Oxidation
Techniques in Drinking Water, Drinking Water Pilot Project Report
11 A. Advanced Treatment Technology, ed. and comp. W. Kuhn and H.
Sontheimer, 327-330, Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany. EPA
Report EPA-570/9-79-020, USEPA Office of Drinking Water,
Washington, D.C.
Hoigne, J. and H. Bader. 1976. "Role of Hydroxyl Radical
Reactions in Ozonation Processes in Aqueous Solutions." Water
Research, 10:377-386.
Hoigne, J. and H. Bader. 1975a. "Ozonation of Water: Role of
Hydroxyl Radicals as Oxidizing Intermediates." Science, 190:782-
784.
Hoigne, J. and H. Bader. 1975b. "Identification and Kinetic
Properties of the Oxidizing Decomposition Products of Ozone in
Water and Its Impacts on Water Purification." Presented at the
Second International Ozone Symposium, International Ozone
Institute, Montreal, Canada.
Hubbs, S.A., D. Amundsen and P. Olthius. 1981. "Use of Chlorine
Dioxide, Chloramines, and Short-term Free Chlorination as
Alternative Disinfectants." Journal AWWA. 73(2):97-101.
206
Hubbs, S.A. and G.C. Holdren. 1986. "Chloro-Organic Water
Quality Changes Resulting from Modification of Water Treatment
Practices." AWWA Research Foundation, American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO.
Jordon, R.W., A.J. Kosinski and R.J. Baker. 1980. "Improved
Method Generates More Chlorine Dioxide." TA 1053-C. 10:44,
Wallace and Tiernan Div., Pennwalt Corp., Belleville NJ.
Kavanaugh, M.C., A.R. Trussell, J. Comer and R.R. Trussell.
1980. "An Empirical Kinetic Model of Trihalomethane Formation:
Applications to Meet the Proposed THM Standard." Journal AWWA,
72(10) 1578-582.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. "Using
Alternative Oxidants to Remove Dissolved Manganese From Waters
Laden With Organics." Journal AWWA. 79(3):75-79.
Kotter, K. 1978. "Experience With Potassium Permanganate." In
NATO-CCMS Conference on Oxidation Techniques in Drinking Water,
Drinking Water Pilot Project Report 11 A, Advanced Treatment
Technology, ed. and comp. W. Kuhn and H. Sontheimer, 528-543,
Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany. EPA Report
EPA-570/9-79-020, USEPA Office of Drinking Water, Washington,
D.C.
Kreft, P., M. Umphres, J. Hand, C. Tate, M.J. McGuire and R.R.
Trussell. 1985. "Converting From Chlorine to Chloramines: A
Case Study." Journal AWWA. 77(l):38-45.
Lange, A.B. and E. Kawczynski. 1978. "Controlling Organics: The
Contra Costa County Water District Experience." Journal AWWA.
70(11):653-659.
Lee, Y.S. and Hunter, J.V. 1985. "Effect of Ozonation and
Chlorination on Environmental Protection Agency Priority
Pollutants." In Water Chlorination; Chemistry. Environmental
Impacts and Health Effects, ed. R.L. Jolley et al., Vol. 5, 1515-
1526. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc.
LePage, W.L. 1986. "Ozonation Equipment at Monroe Water Works:
A Profile of Reliability." Presented at the Spring Conference
IOA Panamerican Committee, Perrysburg, OH.
LePage, W.L. 1985. "A Treatment Plant Operator Assesses
Ozonation." Journal AWWA. 77(8):44-48.
LePage, W.L. 1981. "The Anatomy of an Ozone Plant." Journal
AWWA, 73(2):105-111.
Lykins, B.W., R.M. Clark and R.J. Miltner. 1987. "Synthetic
Organic Chemical Removal by Granular Activated Carbon."
Presented at the AWWA Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO.
207
Lykins, B.W. and M.H. Griese. 1986. "Using Chlorine Dioxide for
Trihalomethane Control." Journal AWWA. 78(6):88-93.
Maier, D. 1978. "Micro-flocculation by Ozone." In NATO-CCMS
Conference on Oxidation Techniques in Drinking Water. Drinking
Water Pilot Project Report 11 A. Advanced Treatment Technology.
ed. and comp. W. Kuhn and H. Sontheimer, 394-417, Karlsruhe,
Federal Republic of Germany. EPA Report EPA-570/9-79-020, USEPA
Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C.
Mallevialle, J. Y. Lava, M. Lefebvre and C. Rousseau. 1978.
"The Degradation of Humic Substances in Water by Various
Oxidizing Agents: Ozone, Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide." In Ozone
and Chlorine Dioxide Oxidation Products of Organic Materials, ed.
R.G. Rice and J.A. Cutruvo. Cleveland: Ozone Press Intl.
Masschelein, W.J. 1985. "Experience With Chlorine Dioxide in
Brussels, Part 3: Operational Case Studies." Journal AWWA.
77(1):73-80.
Masschelein, W.J. 1984. "Experience With Chlorine Dioxide in
Brussels: Generation of Chlorine Dioxide." Journal AWWA P
76(1):70-76.
Masschelein, W.J. 1979. Chlorine Dioxide Chemistry and
Environmental Impact of Oxychlorine Compounds. Ann Arbor, MI:
Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc.
McCarthy, J.A. 1945. "Chlorine Dioxide for the Treatment of
Water Supplies." Journal NEWWA. 59:252.
McGuire, M.J. and R.G. Meadow. 1988. "AWWARF Trihalomethane
Survey." Journal AWWA. 80(l):61-68.
McVeigh, J.R., R.G. Lee and D.L. Kelleher. 1985. "Chlorine
Dioxide Use in Pretreatment for Control of Trihalomethane
Generation." In Proceedings AWWA Annual Conference. 825-840.
Washington, D.C.
Means, E.G., K.N. Scott, M.L. Lee and R.L. Wolfe. 1986.
"Bacteriological Impact of a Changeover From Chlorine to
Chloramine Disinfection in a Water Distribution System." In
Proceedings AWWA Annual Conference. 77-79, Denver, CO.
Miller, G.W., R.G. Rice, C.M. Robson, R.L. Scullin, W. Kuhn and
H. Wolf. 1978. An Assessment of Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide
Technologies for Treatment of Municipal Water Supplies —
Executive Summary. EPA Report EPA-600/8-78-018. Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH. 68 p.
Miltner, R.j. 1976. "Measurement of Chlorine Dioxide and
Related Products." In Proceedings AWWA WQTC, San Diego, CA.
208
Minear, R.A. and C.M. Morrow. 1983. Raw Water Bromide; Levels
and Relationship to Distribution of Trihalomethanes in Finished
Drinking Water. Prepared for Office of Water Research and
Technology, Washington, D.C. Research Report No. 91, Water
Resources Research Center, The University of Tennessee at
Knoxville.
Monscvitz, J.T. and D.J. Rexing. 1981. "A Pilot Study of
Chlorine Dioxide use to Reduce Total Trihalomethanes." Journal
AWWA, 73(2):94-96.
Montgomery, J.M. 1985. Water Treatment Principles and Design.
New York: Wiley Interscience. 696 p.
Moyers, B. and J.S. Wu. 1985. "Removal of Organic Precursors by
Permanganate Oxidation and Alum Coagulation." Water Research.
19(3):309-314.
Noack, M.G. and R.L. Doerr. 1978. "Reactions of Chlorine,
Chlorine Dioxide, and Mixtures Thereof With Humic Acid: An
Interim Report." In Water Chlorination: Chemistry.
Environmental Impacts and Health Effects, ed. R.L. Jolley et al.,
Vol.2, 49-58. Ann Arbor, MI: Science Publ., Inc.
Norman, T.S., L.L. Harms and R.W. Looyenga. 1980. "Use of
Chloramines to Prevent Trihalomethane Formation." Journal AWWA.
72(3):176-180.
Oliver, E. 1988. Personal Communication. Water District No.
1, Johnson County, KS.
Prendiville, P.W., D.G. McBride and G.F. Stolarik. 1983.
"Ozonation-Direct Filtration of Los Angeles Drinking Water."
Ozone World Congress, International Ozone Association,
Washington, D.C.
Race, J. 1918a. Chlorination of Water. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Race, J. 1918b. "Chlorination and Chloramines." Journal AWWA,
10(3):63.
Rav-Acha, Ch., 1984. "The Reaction of Chlorine Dioxide With
Aquatic Organic Materials and Their Health Effects." Water
Research. 18(11):1329-1342.
Rice, R.G. 1986. "Application of Ozone in Water and Wastewater
Treatment." In Analytical Aspects of Ozone Treatment of Water
and Wastewater. ed. R.G. Rice, L.J. Bollyky and W.J. Lacy, 413.
Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc.
209
Rice, R.G. 1985. "Preozonation in Drinking Water Treatment:
Nondisinfection Applications of Ozone." In Water Chlorination;
Chemistry. Environmental Impacts and Health Effects, ed. R.L.
Jolley et al., Vol. 5, 1215-1228. Chelsea, MI: Lewis
Publishers, Inc.
Rice, R.G., C.M. Robson, G.W. Miller and A.G. Hill. 1981. "Uses
of Ozone in Drinking Water Treatment." Journal AWWA,
73(1):44-57.
Rook, J.J. 1976. " Haloforms in Drinking Water." Journal AWWA,
68(3):168-172.
Rook, J.J., A.A. Gras, B.C. Vander Heijden and J. deWee. 1978.
"Bromide Oxidation and Organic Substitution in Water Treatment."
Journal Environmental Sci. Health, A13:91-116.
Rosenblatt, D. 1978. "Chlorine Dioxide: Chemical and Physical
Properties." In Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide Oxidation Products of
Organic Materials, ed. R.G. Rice and J.A. Cotruvo. Cleveland,
OH: Ozone Press International.
Sacks, R.S. 1984. "Ann Arbor Controls Trihalomethanes."
Journal AWWA. 76(7):105-108.
Shull, K.E. 1981. "Experience With Chloramines as Primary
Disinfectants." Journal AWWA. 73(2):101-104.
Singer, P.C., J.H. Borchardt and J.M. Colthurst. 1980. "The
Effects of Permanganate Pretreatment on Trihalomethane Formation
in Drinking Water." Journal AWWA. 72(11):573-578.
Sloan, G. 1984. "Recent Experiences With Chloramines in Miami."
In Proceedings AWWA Seminar, Chloramination for THM Control;
Principles and Practices. 95-115, AWWA Annual Conference, Dallas,
TX.
Smith, J.E. and J.L. McVey. 1973. "Virus Inactivation by
Chlorine Dioxide and its Application to Storm Water Overflow."
In Proceedings ACS Annual Meeting f 13(2):177.
Soade, B.A. 1984. "Experience With Chloramine Treatment in San
Diego." In Proceedings AWWA Seminar. Chloramination for THM
Control: Principles and Practices. 83-94. AWWA Annual
Conference, Dallas, TX.
Sproul, O.J., Y.S.R. Chen, J.P. Engel and A.J. Rubin. 1983.
"Comparison of Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide for the Inactivation
of an Amoebic Cyst." Environmental Technology Letters. 4:335.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
1981. APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Washington, D.C. (15th ed. 1981).
Stevens, A.A. and J.M. Symons. 1977. "Measurement of
Trihalomethane and Precursor Concentration Changes." Journal
AWWA. 69(10):546-554.
210
Symons, J.M., J.K. Carswell, R.M. Clark, P. Dorsey, E.E.
Geldreich, W.P. Heffrman, J.C. Hoff, O.T. Love Jr., L.J. McCabe
and A.A. Stevens. 1978. "Ozone, Chlorine Dioxide, and
Chloramines as Alternatives to Chlorine for Disinfection of
Drinking Water." In Water Chlorination; Chemistry.
Environmental Impacts and Health Effects, ed. R.L. Jolly et al.,
Vol. 2, 555-560. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc.
Symons, J.M. and A.A. Stevens. 1978. "Physical-chemical
Pretreatment for the Removal of Precursors." In NATO-CCMS
Conference on Oxidation Techniques in Drinking Water. Drinking
Water Pilot Project Report 11 A. Advanced Treatment Technology,
ed. and comp. W. Kuhn and H. Sontheimer, 195-213, Karlsruhe,
Federal Republic of Germany. EPA Report EPA-570/9-79-020, USEPA
Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, J.C. and J.J Ameno. 1987. "Preventing the Formation
of Trihalomethanes in Florida Groundwater." Journal AWWA.
79(1):38-42.
Trussell, R. and P. Kreft. 1984. "Engineering Considerations of
Chloramine Application." In Proceedings AWWA Seminar
Chloramination for THM Control; Principles and Practices, 47-75.
AWWA Annual Conference, Dallas, TX.
Trussell, R.R. and M.D. Umphres. 1978. "The Formation of
Trihalomethanes." Journal AWWA. 70(11):604-612.
Tuorila, H., T. Pyysalo, T. Hirvin and A.K. Vehvilainen. 1980.
"Characterization of Odours in Raw and Tap Water and Their
Removal by Ozonation." Vatten. 36(3):191-199.
Uhlig, G. 1978. "Production of Ozone From Oxygen." In
NATO-CCMS Conference on Oxidation Techniques in Drinking Water,
Drinking Water Pilot Project Report 11 A, Advanced Treatment
Technology, ed. and comp. W. Kuhn and H. Sontheimer, 339-353,
Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany. EPA Report
EPA-570/9-79-020, USEPA Office of Drinking Water, Washington,
D.C. USEPA. 1978. National Organics Monitoring Survey (NOMS).
Tech. Support Div., Office of Water Supply, Cincinnati, OH.
Umphres, M.D., A.R. Trussell, C.H. Tate and R.R. Trussell. 1981.
"Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water." Water/Engr. and Management.
128(4):R65-R74.
USEPA. 1978. "Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the
Environment." EPA-600/8-78-017 Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA,
Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 1979. "Ozone, Chlorine Dioxide, and Chloramines as
Alternatives to Chlorine for Disinfection of Drinking Water."
Water Supply Research, Office of Research and Development USEPA,
Cincinnati, OH.
211
USEPA. 1981. "Treatment Techniques for Controlling
Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water." EPA-600/2-81-156. Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 289 p.
Varma, M.M., G. Torrence, R.C. Chawla and H. Okrend. 1985.
"Relative Disinfection Potentials of Chlorine and Chlorine
Dioxide in Drinking Water." In Water Chlorination; Chemistry,
Environmental Impacts and Health Effects, ed. R.L. Jolley et al..
Vol. 5, 635-650. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Viessman, W. Jr. and M.J. Hammer. 1985. Water Supply and
Pollution Control. 4th Ed. New York: Harper and Row, Publ.
797 p.
Vogt, C. and S. Regli. 1981. "Controlling Trihalomethanes While
Attaining Disinfection." Journal AWWA. 73(1)33-40.
Walker, G.S., F.P. Lee and E.M. Aieta. 1986. "Chlorine Dioxide
Treatment for the Control of Taste and Odor." Journal AWWA.
78(3):84-93.
Weber, W.J., Jr. 1972. Physicochemical Processes for Water
Quality Control. New York: Wiley Interscience. 640 p.
Werdehoff, K.S. and P.C. Singer. 1987. "Chlorine Dioxide
Effects on THMFP, TOXFP, and the Formation of Inorganic
By-products." Journal AWWA. 79(9):107-113.
White, G.C. 1986. Handbook of Chlorination. 2nd edition. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc. 1070 p.
Wolfe, R.L., N.R. Ward and B.H. Olson. 1984. "Inorganic
Chloramines as Drinking Water Disinfectants: A Review." Journal
AWWA. 76(5):74-88.
212
ABBREVIATION LIST
BOD biochemical oxygen demand

COD chemical oxygen demand
CT chemical concentration multiplied by contact time
ENR Engineering News Record
GAG granular activated carbon
HPC heterotrophic plate count
MCL maximum contaminant levels
MTP maximum total trihalomethane potential
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NIPDWR National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
PAC powder activated carbon
PAO phenylarsine oxide
PIF Plant Information Form
PVC poly vinyl chloride
THM trihalomethane
TOG total organic carbon
TON threshold odor number
TOX total chlorinated organics
TTHM total trihalomethane
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WTP water treatment plant
UNITS OF MEASURE
°C - degree Celsius
°F - degree Fahrenheit
cfu - colony forming units
gal - gallon
gpm - gallons per minute
ft - feet
h - hour
ha - hectare
Hz - hertz
in - inches
L - liters
mg - milligram
mgd - million gallons per day
mi - mile
mil - million
mL - milliliters
NTU - nephelometric turbidity units
pcu - platinum cobalt units
psig - pounds per square inch gauge
scfm - standard cubic feet per minute
W - watt
wk - week
/xg - micrograms
213
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Figure A.I. Plant Information Form
PLANT INFORMATION FORM
UTILITY: (enter plant name, city, state, phone) __
STATE:
AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION (MGD):
AGE OF PLANT: YEAR OF LAST UPGRADE:
TREATMENT TRAIN: (1) conventional (2) direct filtration (3) other (explain)
YEARS ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT USED:
SEASONAL PROBLEMS: (1) NO

(2) YES (Explain)
WATER SOURCE: (1) river (2) reservoir or lake

(3) ground water (4) combination (explain)
PARAMETERS MONITORED: > required by state:

(1) NO
(2) YES (explain)
frequency > required:

(1) NO
(2) YES (explain) _
CERTIFIED OPERATORS: (1) NO

(2) YES (explain)
FINANCIAL RESOURCES: (1) NO

(2) YES (explain)
WATER COSTS:
REFERENCE(S):
216
Table A.I. Water treatment plants (WTPs) that have changed disinfection practices to comply with state and
federal drinking water regulations (Feb. 26, 1987).
ALTERNATIVE YEARS
TREATMENT USED MGD UTILITY
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 3 Mt. Vernon Water Department, Mt. Vernon, OH
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 6 12 Hamilton Water Department, Hamilton, OH
Chlorine Dioxide , post Chlorination 2 1 .15 City of Whitehall, WI
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 7 12 .9 Galveston County Water Authority, Texas City, TX
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 7 13 .7 McAllen, TX
Chlorine Dioxide , post Chlorination 3 32 Evansville Water & Sewage, Evansville, IN
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 4 4 Bristol County, RI
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 3 3 .2 Chester Metro WTP, Ft. Lauren, SC
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 5 175 Alfred Merritt Smith WTP, Las Vegas, NV
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 3 40 KY- American Water Company WTP #1, Lexington, KY
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 2 4 .5 Lancaster County Water & Sewage Authority, SC
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 4 40 Mobile Water Service Ctr, Mobile, AL
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 3 46 Akron Water Department, Akron, OH
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 3 11 .3 City of Amsterdam, NY
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 3 2 .8 Westerville Water Department, Westerville, OH
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 16 6 .7 Newark Water Department, Newark, OH
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 2 3 .4 Centralia, IL
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination Rend Lake Conservancy District, IL
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 1+ 4 .7 Carbondale , IL
Chlorine Dioxide, post Chlorination 15 6 .8 Portsmouth Water Department, Portsmouth, OH
Chloramines 7 86 Austin, TX
Chloramines 7 3 .8 North Alamo Water Supply Corp., Edinburg, TX
Chloramines 2 80 City of Charleston, SC
Chloramines 7 331 City of Houston (2 WTPs), TX
Chloramines 7 0 .1 North Milam Water Supply Corp., Cameron, TX
Chloramines 7 1 .8 Breville, TX
Chloramines 5 160 Alexander Orr Jr. WTP, Miami, FL
Chloramines 7 1 .6 Sharyland Water Supply Corp., Mission, TX
Chloramines 7 312 Dallas, TX
Chloramines 2 1 Plaquemine Parish Water Works , Dalcour , LA
Table A.I. (cont.)
ALTERNATIVE YEARS
Chloramines 7 1.5 Brownfield, TX

Chloramines 3 12 City of Orangeburg, SC
Chloramines 7 3.9 Edinburg , TX
Chloramines 7 1.7 Mackenzie Municipal Water Authority, Silverton, TX
Chloramines 50 79 Philadelphia Suburban Water Co., PA
Chloramines 7 0.4 Dennis on, TX
Chloramines 7 37.8 Amarillo Municipal Water System, Amarillo, TX
Chloramines 7 0.4 Galveston County WCID #8, Alta Loma, TX
Chloramines 7 2.4 City of Nederland, TX
Chloramines 7 24.6 Beaumont, TX
Chloramines 7 20.5 Bell County WCID #1, Killeen, TX
Chloramines 16 Aberdeen, SD
Chloramines 7 1.3 City of Port Neches , TX
Chloramines 2 40 Rinconda WTP - Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. , CA
Chloramines 7 39.6 Fairfax County Water Authority - Old Lorton, VA
00 Chloramines 5 50 Hillsboro River WTP, Tampa, FL
Chloramines 7 1.4 Military Highway Water Supply Corp., Progreso, TX
Chloramines 7 105 North Texas Municipal Water District, Wylie, TX
Chloramines 1.7 Burleson, TX
Chloramines 7 1.7 Johnson County Rural Water Supply, Cleburne, TX
Chloramines 3 3 Plaquemine Water Works, Belle Chasse, LA
Chloramines 7 1.3 Groves, TX
Chloramines 7 3.6 City of Weslaco, TX
Chloramines 7 0.2 Aspermont , TX
Chloramines 7 0.1 City of Rule, TX
Chloramines 7 2.9 City of Palestine, TX
Chloramines 9 90 Contra Costa County District, Concord, CA
Chloramines 7 4.5 Huntsville, TX
Chloramines 5 10.3 TRA-Tarrant County Water Project, Arlington, TX
Chloramines 1 11 Monroe WTP, Bloomington, IN
Chloramines 7 3.9 Ennis, TX
Chloramines 7 4 TRA- Huntsville WTP, Huntsville, TX
Chloramines 1 550 Metro Jensen WTP, Los Angeles, CA
Table A.I. (cont.)
ALTERNATIVE YEARS
Chloramines 1 400 Metro Diemer WTP, Los Angeles, CA

Chloramines 1 400 Metro Weymouth WTP, Los Angeles, CA
Chloramines 8 12 Huron, SD
Chloramines 1 240 Metro Skinner WTP, Los Angeles, CA
Chloramines 7 3.6 City of Mission, TX
Chloramines Denver Water Department, Denver, CO
Chloramines 7 11.1 City of Temple, TX
Chloramines 1 75 Metro Mills WTP, Los Angeles, CA
Chloramines 7 121 Fort Worth, TX
Chloramines 10 4 Capital City Water Company, Jefferson City, MO
Chloramines 7 6.58 City of Nolagdoches, TX
Chloramines 7 8.3 Bay town Area Water Authority, Bay town, TX
Chloramines 7 0.2 City of Palmer, TX
Chloramines 3 3.6 Terrell, TX
Chloramines 7 0.1 Frankston Rural Water Supply Corp., Frankston, TX
I—
10j Chloramines 1 1.5 St. James Parish WTP #2, Bacherie, LA
vo Chloramines 7 24.3 City of Waco, TX
Chloramines 7 0.2 Knox City, TX
Chloramines 7 15.7 Brownsville Public Utility Dist. , Brownsville, TX
Chloramines 7 16.6 Odessa, TX
Chloramines 3 34 Boca Raton Public Utility, FL
Chloramines 2 30 City of Columbia (Lake Murray) , SC
Chloramines 7 7.9 Sherman, TX
Chloramines 5 60 Hialeah WTP/(John E. Preston WTP), Miami, FL
Chloramines 2 3 Fort Gordon WTP, Gordon, GA
Chloramines 7 0.4 Crosbyton, TX
Chloramines 17 97 City of Greenville (3 WTPs) , SC
Chloramines 7 4 Plainview Public Water System, Plainview, TX
Chloramines 6 40 Ann Arbor, MI
Chloramines 7 8.8 Dallas County Park Cities MD, Dallas, TX
Chloramines 7 18.7 Laredo Water Works System, Laredo, TX
Chloramines 7 14 Longview, TX
Chloramines 7 0.08 Bois D'Arc Municipal Utility Dist., Bonham, TX
Chloramines 3 0.5 Plaquemine Water Works, Bointe-A-La-Hache, LA
Table A.I. (cont.)
ALTERNATIVE YEARS
Chloramines 7 0.8 Hitchcock, TX

Chloramines 7 2.4 Grapevine , TX
Chloramines 7 1 City of Webster, TX
Chloramines 3 10.5 Algiers WTP, New Orleans, LA
Chloramines 7 0.01 Cottonwood Hills Estates, Ft. Worth, TX
Chloramines 35 72 City of Columbia (Canal) , SC
Chloramines 7 0.2 Palmer, TX
Chloramines 5 165 John E. Preston WTP/(Hialeah WTP), Miami, FL
Chloramines 7 76.3 Corpus Christi, TX
Chloramines 7 1.5 City of Lamarque, TX
Chloramines 2 7 Palm Beach County Utility, FL
Chloramines 7 0.02 Bistone Municipal Water Supply Dist. , Mexia, TX
Chloramines 7 7.6 Corsicana, TX
Chloramines 7 2.1 GBRA-Port Lavaca, Port Lavaca, TX
Chloramines 2 1.9 City of Weatherford, TX
Chloramines 5 124 Carrollton WTP, New Orleans, LA
Chloramines 7 24 Abline (3 WTPs) , TX
Chloramines 1.4 Effingham, IL
Chloramines 7 12.2 Calves ton, TX
Chloramines 7 1 City of Nassau Bay, Houston, TX
Chloramines 7 8.4 Bay town , TX
Chloramines 7 10.4 City of Port Arthur, TX
Chloramines 7 40 Fairfax County Water Authority, Occoquan WTP, VA
Chloramines 7 2.1 Brehman , TX
Chloramines 5 15 Morris Bridge WTP, Tampa FL
Chloramines 7 3.5 City of San Benito, TX
Chloramines 7 32 Fairfax County Water Authority - New Lorton, VA
Chloramines 7 115 Kansas City, MO
Chloramines 7 3 Mt. Pleasant, TX
Chloramines 7 0.1 HCO FWSD #27, Bay town, TX
Chloramines 7 2.1 Nueces County WCID #3, TX
Chloramines 7 0.8 City of Slaton, TX
Chloramines 7 4.4 Clear Lake City Water Association, Houston, TX
Chloramines 7 0.6 Rocrett Water Supply Corp., Red Oak, TX
Table A.I. (cont.)
ALTERNATIVE YEARS
Chloramines 3 2 Plaquemine Water Works , Port Sulphur , LA

Chloramines 7 13.7 City of Mcallen, TX
Chloramines 7 40 Arlington, TX
Chloramines 30 Jefferson Parish Water Department, LA
Chloramines 7 7.3 Denton, TX
Chloramines 2 2 Plaquemine Water Works , Buras , LA
Chloramines 7 9.8 Harlington City Water Board, Harlington, TX
Chloramines (& pre- Chlorine once/month) 6 15 Otay WTP, Chilavista, CA
Chloramines 1.5 Charleston, IL
Chloramines 51 St. Paul Water Utility, St. Paul, MN
Chloramines 2 25 Penitencia WTP-Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. , CA
Chloramines 15 30 Lincoln, NE
Chloramines 1.8 Kinkaid-Reeds Creek Conservancy District, IL
Chloramines 1.6 Marion, IL
Chloramines 2 City of Fairmont, MN
Chloramines, post Chlorination 3 60 Nashville Water System WTP #1, Nashville, TN
Chloramines, post Chlorination 3 36 Nashville Water System WTP #2, Nashville, TN
Chloramines (pre-Cl2 each night @ 6hr) 6 90 Miramari WTP, San Diego, CA
Chloramines (pre-Cl 2 once/week @ 24hr) 6 95 Alvarado WTP, La Mesa, CA
Chloramines 6 60 Louisville Water Company WTP #2, Louisville, KY
Chloramines 8 240 Louisville Water Company WTP #1 , Louisville , KY
Ozone, post Chlorination 0.5 Mills - Wardwell, WY
Ozone, post Chlorination 16 1.2 North Tarry town, NY
Ozone, post Chlorination 4 6 Rockwood, TN
Ozone, post Chlorination 6 40 Bay City, MI
Ozone, post Chlorination 2 5.5 Belle Glade, FL
Ozone, post Chlorination 5 4 City of Newport, RI
Ozone, post Chlorination 3.5 Saratoga, WY
Ozone, post Chlorination 2 2.5 Berea Water Department, Berea, OH
Ozone, post Chlorination 13 0.1 Strasburg, PA
Ozone, post Chlorination 6 7.5 Kennewick, WA
Ozone, post Chlorination 4 1.5 Village of Potsdam, NY
Ozone, post Chlorination 5 18 Monroe, MI
Ozone, post Chlorination 36 1.2 Whiting Water Department, Whiting, IN
Table A.I. (cont.)
ALTERNATIVE YEARS
Ozone, post Chlorination Rawlins, WY

Ozone, post Chlorination 1 8 Rocky Mount WTP, NC
Permanganate, post Chlorination 4 10 Columbia, TN
Permanganate, post Chlorination 6 4 American Water Works Company, Manus River Plant, CT
Permanganate, post Chlorination 1 88 Hemphill WTP, Atlanta, GA
Permanganate, post Chlorination 4 8 Shelbyville, TN
Permanganate, post Chlorination 1 9 Willmington Sweeny WTP, NC
Permanganate, post Chlorination 7 18 Am. Water Works Co., East River WTP, Davenport, IA
Permanganate, post Chlorination 13 6 John Glenn WTP, Monroe, NC
Permanganate,
____ _0 ____, post Chlorination 2 20 American Water Works Co., Peoria WTP, Peoria, IL
Permanganate, post Chlorination 1 48 Chattahoochee WTP, Atlanta, GA
Other (C102 /Air Stripping/Chloramines) 3 10 Chesapeake WTP, Chesapeake, VA
Other (KMn04 experimentation) 0 4.8 Richmond, IN
Other (KMn04/C102 /Cl2 ) 4 8 City of Menasha, WI
Other (KMn04/C102 /Cl2 ) 1 2 Medina Water, Medina, OH
tO Other (KMn0 4 /C102 /Cl2 ) 4 2.8 Christiana WTP, (near) Newark, DE
to
to Other (moved Chlorine to clarifier) 2.5 Taylorville, IL
Other (moved Chlorine to clarifier) 1.6 Summerfield-Lebanon-Mascoutah Water Commission, IL
Other (moved Chlorine to clarifier) 6.3 Rock Island, IL
APPENDIX B
CASE STUDY PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE
INTRODUCTION TO SURVEY
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to produce a guidance manual
for the water utility industry, presenting case studies of current
changes in water treatment practices that are being use to comply
with drinking water regulations. The manual will contain
performance data, cost data, advantages and disadvantages
associated with each of the alternative pre-oxidation and/or
disinfection practices evaluated.
SCOPE OF PROJECT
Changes in federal and state drinking water regulations have
forced water utilities to evaluate and, in many circumstances
alter, treatment practices. In order to comply with drinking water
regulations, utilities have changed disinfection practices, added
chemical oxidants to oxidize trihalomethane precursors, altered the
points of disinfection, used combinations of these alternatives and
others. Implementation of these alterations may or may not have
created problems with overall system performance and produced
additional cost.
Enclosed is a series of questions concerning the operation,
performance, analytical support, and financial records of the
_______________ Water Treatment Plant. Please provide as much
detailed information as possible. If data and/or information are
not available for a specific question, please indicate at the
appropriate space and proceed to the next question. Please indicate
section number and corresponding question number when using extra
paper to complete the answer.
IN ORDER TO HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROPERLY MANAGE AND EVALUATE
THE DATA AND INFORMATION RECEIVED, PLEASE MAIL ALL INFORMATION
GATHERED IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO TENNESSEE
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (SELF ADDRESSED LABEL ENCLOSED) WITHIN TWO
WEEKS FROM THE DATE THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS RECEIVED. A followup site
visit will be made after all the information provided through the
questionnaire is evaluated.
Should you have any questions about the intended meaning of any
question please do not hesitate to contact Dr. George, Dr. Borup,
Dr. Roberts, or Dr. Adams at 615/372-3507. Your participation in
this project is greatly appreciated.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN SURVEY
The following departments within your water utility may be
involved in the data acquisition phase of the project;
1. ENGINEERING - see Sections I and II
223
2. WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS - see Section II and V
3. LABORATORY - see Section III
4. FINANCIAL and/or BUSINESS - see Section IV
5. PUBLIC RELATIONS - see Section V
224
INFORMATION AND DATA REQUIRED:
SECTION I
Engineering
IP THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE WITHIN THE
TIME FRAME SPECIFIED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, THIS
INFORMATION CAN BE GIVEN TO THE PROJECT PERSONNEL DURING THE SITE
VISIT.
1. Please provide a summary (table, if possible) of the MAJOR

DESIGN SPECS FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, before utilizing
pre-oxidants and/or alternative disinfectants to comply with
drinking water regulations. Summary should include;
a. physical dimensions of each unit process,
b. hydraulic retention times,
c. velocity gradient (G) values and Gt values or ranges,
d. clarifier overflow rates,
e. filtration media depths and type,
f. filtration rates
g. type of raw water intake structure (i.e. multi-port
withdrawal, others)
h. size, type, and length of pipeline from raw water
intake to treatment plant.
2. Please provide engineering specifications for pre-oxidation
and/or alternative disinfection processes modifications made
to comply with drinking water regulations.
3. Please provide information on any additional plant
modifications made since changing the treatment processes to
comply with drinking water regulations.
4. Please provide water treatment flow schematics BEFORE and
AFTER treatment process change.
225
SECTION II
Water Treatment Plant Operations

MOST OF THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SECTION MAY BE AVAILABLE
ON THE PLANT'S MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORTS AND COPIES OF THOSE
REPORTS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
1. Please provide copies of the plant's daily average, maximum

and minimum quantity of raw water treated each month for a
period of_3_ years prior to and _3_ years after the pre-
oxidation and/or disinfection treatment change to comply with
drinking water regulations. This data may be provide on the
plant's monthly performance sheets (Table 1).
2. Please provide copies of the plant's daily average, maximum
and minimum quantity of finished product water pumped each
month during the period of _3_ years prior to and_3_ years
after the treatment change to comply with drinking water
regulations. This data may be provided on the plant's monthly
performance sheets (Table 1).
3. Is the raw source water affected by saltwater intrusion?
YES__ NO__
If answer to 3 is YES, during what times of the year has
saltwater intrusion normally affected treatment performance
for the period of _3_ years prior to and _3_ years after the
treatment change to comply with drinking water regulations?
4. Water treatment
a. Please list the types of chemical oxidants and
disinfectants used to treat the water at the plant and
their respective purposes for the period of _3_ years
prior to and _3_ years after the treatment change to
comply with drinking water regulations.
b. Please provide copies of the plant's daily average,
maximum and minimum amounts of chemical oxidants and
disinfectants added to the water for each month during
the period of _3_ years prior to and _3_ years after the
treatment change to comply with drinking water
regulations. This information may be provided on the
plant's monthly performance reports (Table 1).
c. Describe the methods used for determining the appropriate
dose of each chemical oxidant and disinfectant.
d. On a flow diagram of the plant, identify the points of
input of each chemical oxidant and disinfectant into the
treatment train.
226
e. Please provide any other general comments on water
treatment during the period of _3_ years prior to and _3_
years after the treatment change to comply with drinking
water regulations.
5. Please provide the quantity and source of water that is not
treated by the water treatment plant and is added to the
treated product water to meet demands (i.e. ground water).
6. Chemicals added to the distribution system
a. Please list the types and purposes of each chemical
oxidant and/or disinfectant (if any) added to the product
water in the distribution system.
b. Please provide copies of the plant's daily average,
maximum and minimum amounts of chemical oxidants and/or
disinfectants and their respective chemical dosages added
to product water in the distribution system for each
month during the period of _3_ years prior to and _3_
years after the treatment change to comply with drinking
water regulations.
c. Describe the method(s) by which the chemical dose is
(was) determined.
d. Please provide any general comments on chemical oxidant
and/or disinfectant addition to the water in the distri
bution system.
227
SECTION III
Laboratory Data
MOST OF THE DATA REQUESTED IN THIS SECTION SHOULD BE PRESENTED ON
THE PLANT'S MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORTS.
1. Please provide copies of the daily average, maximum and

minimum values of the raw water source quality for each month
during a period of _3_ years prior to and _3_ years after the
treatment change from chlorination to pre-oxidation and/or an
alternative disinfectant to comply with drinking water
regulations. Parameters that should be included, if data are
available are
a. Microbiology (i.e. total coliforms, standard plate
count, any algal problems, etc.)
b. Organic compounds (i.e. maximum trihalomethane
formation potential, total organic carbon (TOC),
pesticides, volatile organics, other organic
pollutants)
c. Inorganic constituents (i.e. turbidity, pH,
conductivity, temperature, color, odor, alkalinity,
minerals and trace metals, free CO2 , hardness, etc.)
Most of these data should be presented on the plant's monthly

performance reports.
minimum values of the finish product water quality for each
month during a period of _3_ years prior to and _3_ years
after the treatment change to comply with drinking water
regulations. Parameters that should be included, if data are
available, are
count, any algal problems, etc.).
b. Organic compounds (i.e. trihalomethanes, total organic
carbon, total organic halides (TOX), pesticides,
volatile organics, other priority organic pollutants).
minerals and trace metals, free CO2 , hardness,
disinfectant residuals, etc.).
Most of these data should be presented on the plant's monthly
performance reports.
minimum values of the product water quality in the
distribution system for each month during a period of _3_
228
years prior to and _3_ years after the treatment change to
comply with drinking water regulations. Parameters that
should be included, if data are available, are
count, any algal problems, etc.);
b. Organic compounds (i.e. trihalomethanes, total organic
carbon, total organic halides, pesticides, volatile
organics, other organic pollutants);
minerals and trace metals, free C02 , hardness,
disinfectant residuals, etc.).
Water quality control - please provide the following
information:
a. Utility uses state certified laboratories YES__ NO__
b. Utility maintains own certified laboratory YES__ NO__
If answer to 4.b is YES, answer the following questions.

If your laboratory has a quality assurance plan, merely send a copy
of the plan instead of answering the following questions
c. Please list parameters that the laboratory is certified
to analyze.
d. Do you spike samples YES__ NO__;
at what frequency: every_____samples
e. Do you analyze duplicate samples? YES__ NO__;
at what frequency: every____samples
f. If your laboratory analyzes PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
SAMPLES would you please provide these results
indicating TRUE, MEASURED, AND 95% C.I. values for a
period of _3_ years prior to and _3_ years after the
treatment change to comply with drinking water
regulations. If measured values were not acceptable,
please provide a brief statement on what was done to
improve the accuracy of the analysis.
g. Briefly outline the procedures for collecting,
handling, and storing samples.
229
SECTION IV
FINANCIAL RECORDS
1. If you have installed any new equipment (tanks, pumps,

feeders, piping, or other) in conjunction with your pre-
oxidation and/or disinfection process change, please list:
a. The individual pieces of equipment;
b. The cost of each piece of equipment;
c. The cost (if any) of the engineering design of the new
system.
d. The cost of the installation of the equipment,
e. The amortization rate and period for each piece of
equipment.
2. If you used any existing equipment to implement the treatment
process change, please list the individual pieces of equipment
and estimate the costs for each of the items stated in
question (1) above.
3. Please provide any information on operational costs associated
with the pre-oxidation and/or disinfection process change:
a. The chemicals used for the period of _3_ years prior to
and _3_ years after the treatment change to comply with
drinking water regulations and the monthly average
daily costs associated with each chemical during that
time period;
b. The electrical power needed to run any equipment
associated with the change and the daily average costs
of electricity required to operate each piece of
equipment for each month during the _3_ years period
after the change in treatment process;
c. Manpower costs associated with the operation of the
plant _3_ years prior to and _3_ years after the pre-
oxidation and/or disinfection process change;
d. Other operational costs associated with the alteration
of the water treatment processes.
4. If the utility has incurred any additional maintenance costs
associated with the treatment process change, please provide
a. A description of the maintenance required;
b. The type of materials (gaskets, tools, lubricants,
other) required and their associated costs;
c. Any administrative costs associated with the additonal
maintenance;
d. The manpower costs associated with each maintenance
item ;
e. Other maintenance costs.
230
SECTION V
Operational Problems
1. What operational problems (if any) have developed within the
plant and/or the distribution system since the water treatment
scheme has been altered?
What remedial action has been taken?
Did the pre-oxidation and/or disinfection processes changes have

any effect on prior operational problems.
YES NO
If your answer is YES, please explain what the prior problem was
and how it was resolved.
2. If possible, please provide documentation of the types of

public complaints (if any) prior to and after the pre-
oxidation and/or disinfection treatment change.
3. Please provide any general comments on operational conditions
that existed prior to and since implementation of the new
treatment process to achieve drinking water requirements.
231
SECTION VI
ONLY PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING REQUESTED INFORMATION IF IT IS READILY

AVAILABLE AND TIME PERMITS.
1. Raw water source hydrology - if data are available

a. Please provide data (if available) on the daily
average, maximum and minimum river flow or reservoir
fluctuations for each month during the period of _3_
years prior to and _3_ years after the pre-oxidation
and/or disinfection treatment change to comply with
drinking water regulations.
b. Please detail the year and duration (month to month) of
any drought or extreme precipitation conditions during
the period of _3_ years prior to and _3_ years after
the treatment change to comply with drinking water
regulations.
c. Is there an upstream impoundment? __YES __NO
If the answer to 3.c is YES,
1) How far upstream is the impoundment located?
2) What is the trophic status? oligotrophic __
mesotrophic__ eutrophic___
3) What is the average hydraulic retention time?
_____ days
e. Please provide any other general comments on source
water hydrology during the period of _3_ years prior to
and _3_ years after the treatment change to comply with
drinking water regulations.
232
Figure B.I Statement of Willingness to Participate
The ______________________________________ is willing

(Utility's Name)
to fully participate in the American Water Works Research Foundation funded

project entitled Case Studies of Current Disinfection Practices, which was
awarded to the Center for the Management, Utilization and Protection of Water
Resources (Center), Tennessee Technological University. The Utility will do its
utmost to provide the Center with the data and information requested to fulfill
the objectives of the project.
Signature of Date
233
RESEARCH FOUNDATION
TM
6666 W.Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235

(303)794-7711
1 P-7.5C-90574-5/90-CM ISBN 0-89867-515-4

AWWA Alt Disnfec Fro THM Removal

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AWWA Alt Disnfec Fro THM Removal

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

American Water Works Association

Published by the AWWA Research Foundation,

This study was funded in part by the American Water Works

Although the research described in this document has been funded

LIST OF TABLES ..................... V

LIST OF FIGURES ..................... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................... xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................... XV

CASE STUDIES ...................... 11

RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 199

REFERENCES ....................... 203

ABBREVIATION LIST .................... 213

APPENDICES ....................... 215

This report is part of the on-going research program of the AWWA

Richard P. McHugh (/ Q_J>mes F. Manwaring, P.E

The authors of this report are indebted to the cooperation and

In the United States, at least 185 water treatment plants have

A summary of the findings of this study is presented in Table 1.

Characterization/Description A combination of A strong oxldant. A strong oxldant. Simple to use; potassium

Bactericidal Yes Yes- Yes- Post-chlorination necessary

Each THM control strategy should be tested on-site to determine

According to the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act

Since 1979, water utilities have gained tremendous experience and

The first objective of the study was to delineate the various

The PIF was organized for easy transfer of plant information to a

Within each alternative disinfectant or oxidant group or both,

Water quality data Consideration was given to the

WATER TREATMENT PLANT DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTION PROCEDURE

Case Study Participant Questionnaire

To expedite the gathering and transfer of information from each

Water Treatment Site Visits

The primary objective of the site visits was to get the

The Statistical Analysis System developed by the University of

Each of the water treatment plant participants was asked to

The major chemical treatment alternatives used in order to comply

groundwater sources, and an additional nine percent treated

FIGURE 1. Geographical Distribution of Identified Water Treatment Plants in the

Case Study Participants

* irrVmin = 2.628 x mgd

Chloramines have been used in water treatment since the early

However, potential disadvantages of chloramines are

Chloramine Species That can Exist as a Function of Chlorine to

Ammonia can be commercially obtained in one of three basic forms:

Aqueous ammonia, typically called "aqua ammonia," can be provided

Water utilities using chloramines have employed various patterns

Excess ammonia in the finished water may be biologically

The following main items must be considered when converting from

The need for consideration of these factors arises from the

Chloramine Drinking Water Systems

Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant

Water treatment system description. The Ann Arbor Water

POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON

FIGURE 2. Flow Schematic of Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant. Ammonia

System performance. Table 8, page 53, presents the quality of

FIGURE 3. Monthly Average Turbidity Levels in

FIGURE 4. Variation of Monthly Average pH

The decrease in threshold odor number (TON) from an average TON

Alkalinity and hardness increased slightly due to a change in

Problem areas. The introduction of gaseous ammonia into the raw

-30 ' -10 ' 10 ' 30 ' 50 '70

FIGURE 5. Quarterly Average Total FIGURE 6. Heterotrophic Plate Counts

Contra Costa Water District, Ralph D. Bollman Water Treatment

Water treatment system description. The Contra Costa Water