Jeffrey L. Oxenford and Benjamin W. Lykins Jr.
This article is based on papers presented at a 1989 conference on the design and use of
granular activated carbon (GAC) systems. The conference was cosponsored by the AWWA
Research Foundation and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Topics covered include
reasons for the use of GAC, alternatives to CAC, determining system size, design
considerations, cost considerations, case histories, and current and future research.
A conference on the design and use of This article is a synopsis of that
granular activated carbon (GAG) was conference and discusses some of the
cosponsored May 9-10, 1989, by the major points a utility should consider
AWWA Research Foundation (AWWARF) when evaluating GAC. The information
and the US Environmental Protection presented here comes directly from the
Agency (USEPA) in Cincinnati, Ohio. manuscripts prepared for the conference
Twenty-one US experts presented papers presentations.*
that focused on practical issues asso-
ciated with GAC system design and use. Why use GAG?
Table 1 lists the speakers and the topics Water utilities are faced with many
discussed. problems in trying to produce the highest
The 19 77 carbon
tetrachloride spill on
the Kanawha River
and the Ashland oil
spill on the Ohio Riuer
highlight theproblems
faced by utilities that
use surface water
so24rces.
58 MANAGEMENTAND OPERATIONS
Copyright (C) 1991 American Water Works Association
quality water. Contaminated water
sources, taste and odor episodes, and
chemical spills are a few of these prob-
lems. The 1977carbon tetrachloridespill
on the Kanawha River and the recent
Ashland oil spill highlight the problems
faced by utilities that use surface water
sources. During the Ashland oil spill,
approximately 1 mil gal of fuel oil was
discharged into the river. Utilities along
the path of the spill were forced to shut
down their intakes and even to import
water from other sources. Although these
two spills gained national prominence,
such incidents are far from uncommon.
From 1983 through 1985 an average of
72 spills per year were reported along the
Ohio River. In 1986 there were 46, and in
1987 there were 35. It is important to
remember that many spills go un-
reported.
One way of dealing with this potential
threat is the development of an early
warning system. The Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission has de-
veloped an early warning system that
involves 11 water utilities and two
industrial companies that take daily
*The complete manuscripts are available
as Conference Proceedings: Design and
UseofGranularActivatedCarbon-Prac-
tical Aspects (catalog no. 90570) from
A WWA Research Foundation, 6666 W.
Quinsy Ave., Denver, CO 80235.
JOURNALAWWA
water samples and monitor for 22 organic packed-tower aeration. GAG was spe-
chemicals:Although this isa usefuitool, cified as the BAT for all these additional
it is limited to a relatively small number compounds.
of compounds compared with the myriad GAC may also be considered as the
potential contaminants produced and BAT for the removal of radon-222, or-
transported along the river. Utilities ganic mercury, and disinfection by-prod-
need a barrier, which GAG can provide, ucts (DBPs). Although the analysis for
for protection against these potential radon-222 is still pending, it is unlikely
contaminants. that GAC adsorption will be considered
New regulations are also pushing util- the BAT for this contaminant because it
ities toward the use of GAC. The 1986 is not cost-effective and the potential
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water accumulation of high levels of radioactive
Act required that the USEPA set maxi- particles in the carbon could make it a
mum contaminant levels for 83 com- health hazard. Organic mercury removal
pounds by 1989 and for 25 additional is feasible, but this contaminant has not
contaminants to be regulatedevery three been found in drinking water in the
years after that. The USEPA must also United States. DBPs are receiving the
specify the best available technology most attention for potential treatment
(BAT) for removing these contaminants. by GAG. Some major issues that need to
Contaminants include volatile and syn- addressed before GAG can be used for
thetic organic compounds, disinfection DBP control are (1) precursor versus by
by-products, radionuclides, and inor- product removal, (2) the role of biolog
ganic compounds. ically activated carbon in a standard
In 1987, regulations were enacted for A new concern that setting, (3) the level of pretreatment
volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). The required prior to GAG treatment, and (4)
best available technologies for seven of may affect the use of the difficulty of predicting the perfor
the eight VOCs are GAC adsorption and GAC is the handling mance for removal of naturally occurring
packed-tower aeration, GAG is not con- organic material.
sidered the BAT for removal of vinyl and disposal of spent A new concern that may affect the use
chloride because of its poor adsorption carbon. Problems muy of GAG is the handling and disposal of
characteristics. Packed-tower aeration spent carbon. Problems may arise as the
is the only BAT that is accepted for this arise as the amount of amount of chlorine on the carbon in-
compound. Regulations that were pro- creases. Reactivation may lead to the
posed in May 1989 further expanded this chlorine on the carbon production of dioxins and furans. It has
list of syntheticorganiccompounds to35 increases. recently been discovered that ground-
and included many compounds that were water supplies can contain radon gas.
not volatile enough to be removed by which can build up on the carbon and
render the carbon a low-level radioactive
waste. GAC may also be treated as a
TABLE 1 hazardous waste based on the results of
the Extraction Procedure toxicity test or
and IISC ofgra&h nrti vat
- the newer Toxicity Characteristic Leach-
Topic Speaker and Affiliation ing Procedure. Although this potential
toxicity does not look as if it will be a
Opening Remarks Rtck Karlin. AWWARF
E. Ttmoth!: Opplt. I‘SEPA problem, new regulations could turn it
Orerwew of Regulatory Impact on GAC ttse Strvr Clark, I’SEPA into one. Individual states may also
Why I’se GAC’ A lltihty’s Vtewpomt Richard Mtller, Cmcmnatr Water Works change the requirements based on the
Predtctivr Twls Francis DtGtano. t’nwersity of North Carolma contaminants removed. The Colorado
Panel Discussion: Predtctive Tools-How Well
Do They Achwr Then Coals?
Department of Health hasdeclared GAC
Moderator Francis DiGiano. I’nivcrsity of North Carolina used for the removal of regulated com-
Isotherms Vernon Snncyink, 1Iniversity of Illinois pounds at one water treatment facility
Mimcolumns Scott Summers, Ilniversity of Cincinnati
John Crittenden, Michigan Technology tlnivcrsity
to be a hazardous waste. This type of
Mathematical Medeling
J’dot Columns Richard Miltner, IISEPA decision will affect the handling of the
Alternattres to GAC John Dyksen. Village of Ridgewood spent carbon in addition to the costs for
Destgn Constderations Bill!: Kornegay, Engineering Scirnce Inc. disposal and reactivation. The state of
Operation Considerattons John Watson, Western Pennsylvania Water Co.
Wayne Schuliger. Calgon Corp.
Ohio requires that reactivated carbon be
Reacttvatton
Cost Jeff Adams, IJSEPA tested for priority pollutants: once the
Curtenr USEPA Research Robert Clark, IrSEPA reactivated carbon meets that standard,
Current AWWARF Research Jeff Oxenford. AWWARF it is listed on the Ohio approved chem-
Removal of Taste and Odor David Kittredge, Manchester Water Works icals list.
Evaluatton of GAC for THM Removal Michael McCuire. Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
Taste and Odor, Furl Spills Removal Mike Burns, Western Pennsylvania Water Co.
What are the alternatives to GAG?
VOC and Pesticide Removal loseph Baier. Suffolk County Although GAC is effective for remov-
Design for Total Organic Carbon Removal Jack Dehlarro. Cincinnati Water Works
European Experiences Scott Summers. University of Cincinnati
ing a wide variety of organic chemicals
Panel Discussion: Perspective on Research Need from drinking water, some utilities have
Moderator Jack DeMarcr). Cincinnati Water Works chosen to use alternative technologies.
tiniversity Perspertive Walter Web. Universits of Michigan Common reasons for choosing an alter-
Consultant Perspective Billy Kornegay. Engineering Science Inc.
Regulatory Perspective Steve Clark. ITSEPA
native include difficulties with carbon
Utility Pcrspectictive lohn Dvksen. Village of Ridgewed handling, space limitations, short life of
GAC for removing some compounds,
high capital and operating costs, and
JANUARY 1991 JEFFREY L. OXENFORD & BENJAMIN W. LYKINS JR. 59
Copyright (C) 1991 American Water Works Association

Utilities should
consider predicting the
performance of GAC
before constructing a
full-scale system.
disposal and regeneration costs. Some
unknown operating factors can also
influence a utility’s choice of an alterna-
tive technique. Common concerns about
GAC includedesorptionof contaminants,
competitive effects, the effects of back.
washing on GAC performance and loss,
and bacterial growth.
Several alternative technologies have
been investigated, depending on the
application, and include conventional
treatment, powdered activated carbon
(PAC), oxidation, aeration, synthetic
adsorbents, and reverse osmosis. One
alternative that has been investigated
for improving the removal of DBP
precursors is the optimization of con-
ventional treatment. Up to 50 percent
removal of DBP precursors can be
achieved by pH adjustment, a change of
coagulant, a higher coagulant dosage,
and improved mixing conditions. The
effectiveness of conventional treatment
for the removal of specific synthetic
organic chemicals (SOCs) depends on
the extent to which they are attracted to
particulate material. SOCs that are hy-
drophobic are generally more amenable
to removal by conventional treatment.
PAC is often used when dealing with
short-term contamination, e.g., taste and
odor episodes and chemical spills. The
PAC may remove SOCs but is generally
less efficient than GAC,
60 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Copyright (C) 1991 American Water Works Association
Oxidation and advanced oxidation
processes (AOPs) are currently being
explored for their ability to remove a
variety of organic contaminants. Oxida-
tion processes include treatment with
potassium permanganate, chlorine diox-
ide, hydrogen peroxide, or ozone. Ozone
has been the most widely tested oxidant
for the removal of organics from drinking
water. The rate of oxidation depends on
several factors, including the type of
compound to be oxidized, nature of com-
peting substances, ozone dosage, pH,
alkalinity, and contact time. Ozone may
also affect the removal of certain SOCs
by oxidizing them intosmaller molecules
that are amenable to treatment by aera-
tion or biologically enhanced activated
carbon adsorption.
AOPs involve the generation of hy-
droxyl radicals to improve water purifi-
cation. Examples of these types of
processes include ozone at high pH,
ozone-hydrogen peroxide, ozone-ultra-
violet radiation (UV), UV-hydrogen
peroxide, and hydrogen peroxide with
the addition of a catalyst. As a result,
oxidation may be considered for the
treatment of many compounds that were
not previously amenable to conventional
oxidation. Most of the recent work has
focused on the removal of low-molec-
ularweight solvents from groundwater.
For surface water applications, AOPs
are being considered for disinfection and
control of DBPs as well as oxidation of
taste- and odor-producing compounds.
Aeration has been effectively used for
the removal of taste-andodor-producing
compounds as well as certain organic
compounds. The effectiveness of this
technique can be estimated from the
Henry’s law coefficient, which describes
the relative tendency for a compound to
separate between gas and liquid phases.
Potential air quality problems may arise
from emission of contaminated exhaust
air, which may have to be treated.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is currently
being evaluated for removal of organics
from drinking water. This technique
should be effective for SOCs that have
molecular weights greater than 120,
Bench-scale studies have indicated high
removals of carbamate pesticides and
trihalomethane (THM) precursors. Pre-
treatment is usually needed before water
enters an RO system to prevent mem-
brane fouling. Concern has recently
been expressed about the concentration
of contaminants in the RO system’s
reject water.
How is full-scale performance
predicted?
Because of the expense and time
required to construct a full-scale GAG
system, utilities should consider pre-
dicting the performance of GAC before
starting any construction. Predictive
tools are useful in estimating the service
time of GAC. These tools, however, are
not always totally reliable, and there are
advantages and disadvantages to each.
Pilot columns. The most accurate tech-
nique for predicting the performanceof a
full-scale GAC system is to use pilot
columns. Pilot columns have the same
flow rate, type of carbon, and influent
water as the full-scale contactor that is
to be designed. The only significant
difference between a pilot column and a
full-scale contactor is that the pilot col-
umn has a smaller diameter and, thus,
uses less carbon But if the pilot column
has too small a diameter, wall effects
will cause an invalid prediction. Pilot
columns are usually made of glass with
a diameter of l-6 in. Data from three
locations (Cincinnati, Ohio; Jefferson
Parish, La.; Wausau, Wis.) show break-
through profiles from pilot columns that
are identical to those of the full-scale
systems. The major disadvantage of pilot
columrts is the expense of the column
system and the time required to predict
the performance of a full-scale system.
Small-scale columns. Small-scale col-
umns use small GAC particles and col-
umn sizes to shorten the operation time
to a small percentage of that of the pilot
column. The GAC used in these columns
is crushed until it is an appropriate size
for the small columns, which can only be
a few inches in length and contain a few
grams of carbon. Two studies have
shown that carbon processed in this
fashion has thesameadsorption capacity
as the original GAG. Advantages of the
small-scale columns include: (1) assess-
ment of both the adsorption capacity and
kinetics, (2) low capital and operational
costs, and (3) elimination of the need to
use numerical models. One of the major
disadvantagesof thesmall-scalecolumns
is that they cannot predict the impact of
background organic matter. A small-
scale column has shown up to 50 percent
less adsorption capacity than a pilot
column in the presence of background
organics.
Mass transfer medals. Mass transfer
models may be used to predict process
performance and reduce the amount of
bench and pilot data that are required
for design. However, the applicability
and limitations of the mass transfer
models must be recognized, and the
amount of bench-scale or pilot data that
are required to obtain model parameters
must be considered. Mass transfer mod-
els have been compared with pilot data
by evaluating adsorption analyses con
ducted on several water sources in the
United States and West Germany. Four
mathematical models were compared
with the fixed-bed data: (1) the multi-
component equilibrium column model,
(2) the homogeneous surface diffusion
model, (3) the pore diffusion model
(PDM). and (4) the pore and surface
diffusion models (PSDM).
JOI’RNAL AWWA
 In order to predict GAG performance
for the removal of SOCs, either the
PSDM or the PDM is used, depending on
the characteristics of the water that is
being analyzed. The PDM can be used
for oneor two weakly adsorbing SOCs or
several SOCs at low concentrations,
depending on whether time-variable or
time-independent Freundlich-Kand pore
diffusivity are used. The PSDM with
time-independent Freundlich-Kand SUT-
face and pore diffusivities can be used
when several SOCs are present at high
concentrations. The mass transfer pa-
rameters that have been determined
from previous case studies can be used
for model predictions if the character-
istics of the water matrix are similar to
those of the case study. If they are not
similar, the mass transfer parameters
have to be determined. In predicting the
removal of dissolved organic carbon, the
PDM should be used,
Adsorption isotherms. Adsorption iso-
therms have been used extensively to
describe adsorption behavior and to
estimate the adsorption capacity of acti-
vated carbon in various types of processes
for removing organics from water. Iso-
therms can be used to (1) select the best
carbon among the alternatives, (2) esti-
mate the life of carbon in an adsorber,
and (3) test the remaining adsorption
capacity of a carbon adsorber. Isotherm
capacities can be used directly or by
incorporating them into a kinetic model
to predict adsorber performance. The
conventional isotherm test has been
compared with pilot column results at
Jefferson Parish, La. A good estimate of
the capacity of the pilot columns was
achieved for dichloroethane, but the
estimates for trichloroethylene (TCE)
and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) were not
as good. The isotherms showed four to
five times higher capacity for TCE and
PCE than achieved with the pilot col-
umns, because the compet itive effects of
background organics in isotherm tests
are not the same as in column tests.
Predictive tools can provide an under
standing of how GAC will respond under
the various conditions expected in actual
installations. The ideal practical use of
these tools is getting reliable estimates
of service time to ensure that treatment
goals are met by sizing GAC adsorption
and reactivation facilities properly. A
perfect predictive tool may never be
developed, so some degree of uncertainty
must be accepted.
What other information
does the utility need?
The basic process considerations for
the design of a GAC system are similar
to those required for other types of
environmental design projects. It is
important to know the design flow and
to obtain a detailed water analysis. The
required removal efficiency that must be
JANUARY 1991
Copyright (C) 1991 American Water Works Association
achieved to meet the MCL should also be
determined. It is important not only to
characterize the regulated organics but
also the nonregulated naturally occur-
ringorganics becauseof theimpact they
may have on adsorption. A review of the
physical and chemical properties of the
water can give insight into the most
feasible methods for pre- and posttreat-
ment steps in order to improve efficiency
and cost.
In taste and odor removal systems, the
carbon beds are usually relatively shal-
low and serve as a filter-adsorber. The
carbon life in these systems is so long
that efficient carbon removal and regen-
eration systems are seldom used. How.
ever, because of more stringent regula-
tions and the need to control VOCs.
SOCs, and DBPs, treatment require-
ments will change. Deepbed GAC col-
umns may be required to achieve the
goals mandated in the regulations. More
stringent requirements will also increase
the carbon usage rate so that effective
design will become more important. In
addition, efficient transport, storage, and
regeneration systems will have to be
designed.
The bed depth for an adsorption col-
umn is usually selected from an economic
analysis of the adsorption process after
the mass transfer zone (MT?!) or critical
empty bed contact time(EBCT) has been
determined. This entails calculation of
the capital and maintenance costs for
adsorbers of various depths. The actual
bed depth must be significantly greater
than the MT2 to achieve a high degree of
exhaustion and reduce the carbon usage
rate. If the MTZ is too long, it may not be
feasible to operate to a high degree of
exhaustion in parallel adsorption sys-
tems, and series or pulsed-bed adsorbers
should be used. The carbon usage rate
will be lower in a properly designed
series or pulsed-bed system, but the
capital costs will be higher.
Potential problems associated with
the design of an adsorption system are
filling the carbon column to a desired
level and maintaining it at that point,
backwashing, removing the carbon,
transport, and regeneration. In systems
that regenerate carbon, it is often desir-
able to remove the support medium and
JEFFREY
place the carbon directly on a support
plate. This practice normally entails the
use of nozzles to retain the carbon,
collect the treated water, and distribute
the backwash water. Nozzle failures
have been a problem in some applications
and should be thoroughly evaluated.
Controlling the depth of thecarbon in
deep-bed contactors is difficult because
of expansion and compaction during
operation. Any graded medium will
permanently expand after being placed
in a filter. When carbon is first placed in
a bed and backwashed, an expansion of
approximately 8 percent will result. The
problem of controlling the depth of the
bed is further complicated by the fact
that the bed compacts during operation.
A filter bed will compress proportionately
with an increasing loss of head, Filter
bed sagging, shrinkage, and cracking
may result.
When backwashing carbon, it is im-
portant toexpand thecarbon bed without
incurring a carbon loss and to allow the
bed to settle in a stratified state so that
the adsorption wave front will be main-
tained and the carbon usage optimized.
If the backwash is turnedon toofast, the
carbon will rise as a plug. This can
result in damage to, or destruction of,
internal parts of a tank.
It is important toconsider theoptimum
degree of expansion to discharge par-
ticulates while not causing excessive
medium loss. Normal attrition losses are
from 0.5 to 0.75 in, per year in a typical
sand replacement unit. Keeping track of
the depth of the medium may indicate
whether a problem exists in backwash.
ing. Filter plants must also make ad-
justments for temperature when back-
washing. A reasonable guide for GAC
filters is a 0.5.gal/sq ft/min adjustment
for every 3 to 5°F change in water
temperature.
Important parts of any maintenance
program are the visual inspection of the
filter and an active monitoring program.
Inspections should focus on the physical
aspects of the backwash as well as
checking the filter beds for cracking, sag
ging, mounding, or mudballs and seeing
how uniformly the filter is being back-
washed. If pressure vessels are used, the
steel lining needs to be routinely checked.
I.. OXENFORD & BENJAMIN W. LYKINS JR. 61
The life of the lining is a function of the
frequency of GAC changeout and back-
washing. The underdrains also need
routine inspection. Because GAG can be
used as a filtration and an adsorption
medium, operating criteria are needed
for both cases. Effective monitoring is
the key to optimum performance. Tut=
bidity and head loss can be used for
filtration criteria. The threshold odor
number or the concentration of specific
target analytes can also be used. The
standard iodine number can be used to
give an indication of the remaining
adsorption capacity.
Carbon is normally transported in a
slurry. The slurry concentrations are
typically l-3 lb/gal, and the transport
methods include pumps, eductors, blow
cases, and gravity. The choice of method
depends on the application; however, it
is always advisable to use eductors to
transport the carbon away from the
quench tank, which receives the hot
regenerated carbon from the regenera.
tion furnace. The transport of GAG can
result in major attrition losses, so the
system must be designed with care.
Velocities must be greater than the
minimum transport velocity but should
not be high enough to contribute to
attrition.
The stricter requirements of the
SDWA amendments will lead to an
increase in carbon usage rates. When
GAC was used for taste and odor removal,
GAC changeout was required only every
two to five years. When GAG is applied
for some of the less strongly adsorbed
compounds, changeout will be much
more often. This may make the use of
on-site reactivation a more attractive
option. Currently only four of the ap
proximately 150plantsin North America
that use GAG have on-site reactivation.
The rest of these facilities use GAG on a
one-time basis and then most send the
spent carbon back to the manufacturer.
This carbon is then reactivated and used
for other purposes. In Europe, carbon
usage rates have traditionally been
higher. Europeans, however, have fa-
vored custom off-site reactivation even
when carbon usage rates exceed 5,000
lb/d. After reactivation the carbon is
returned to the water treatment plant
62 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Copyright (C) 1991 American Water Works Association
for reuse. Makeup carbon is usually
lo-15 percent by weight.
What are the costs of GAC?
The cost of a GAG system is greatly
affected by economies of scale. Estimates
reveal that systems 210 mgd may find it
more cost-effective to use concrete grav-
ity postfilter adsorbers than steel pres-
sure contactors. For smaller systems,
steel pressure contactors are more likely
to be the least expensive. Economies of
scale have a large effect on cost of
concrete adsorbers in the range of l-20
mgd and for steel contactors up to 1 mgd.
The depth of these contactors is also
important to cost considerations. Shal-
lower contactors are less expensive to
build than deep contactors, but the
resulting decrease in EBCT requires
that the carbon be replaced or reactivated
more often. Thus, cost estimates should
balance EBCT, depth of the contactor,
and carbon replacement costs.
Carbon reactivation or replacement
costs may represent >50 percent of the
cost of a GAC treatment system. Signif-
icant cost savings are often realized by
reactivating the GAC rather than re.
placing with virgin carbon, Cost esti-
mates indicate that when spent carbon
quantities are ~3 x 10” lb/year, infrared
technology is likely to be more cost-
effective. Fluid-bed reactivation is more
cost-effective for larger systems. In
general, capital costs account for 23-40
percent of the total reactivation costs.
Makeup carbon to replace the losses
during reactivation can range from 18 to
35 percent. Other major costs include
labor, power, and maintenance materials.
Using GAC contactors in series opera-
tion can greatly extend the bed life of
GAG. One investigation estimated that
in-series operation treated about 40
percent more water than a single con-
tactor. Bringing adsorbers on line only
when they are needed to meet target
effluents can also increase the GAC’s
bed life by minimizing adsorption of
background organicg. Blending of ef-
fluents from two or more contactors can
also increase bed life. Small systems can
reduce their treatment costs through
utilization of regional or commercial off.
site carbon reactivation instead of on-
Carbon losses aye the
major element of
operating costs. As a
result, steps have
been taken to
minimize losses in
GAC systems.
- ported directly to the filter, eliminating
site facilities or replacement with virgin
carbon. In a study at Manchester, N.H.,
costs for regional reactivation were
assessed as being 35-60 percent less
than virgin carbon replacement.
Case studies
Five case studies of experiences with
GAG use in pilot- or full-scale systems
are summarized here.
Manchester (N.H.) Water Works. Man-
chester IYater Works uses GAC for the
removal of tastes and odors and color.
The utility has an average daily demand
of 15.7 mil gal and uses Lake Massabesic
as its sole source of water. GAG is used
in four parallel IO-mgd filters located
after sand filtration. At typical plant
flows, the EBCT is approximately 15
min. Carbon is reactivated on-site using
a 500 lb/h fluidized-bed reactivation
furnace. This furnace was purchased
and studied originally under a coopera-
tive agreement with USEPA.
When to reactivate GAC for taste and
odor control is not as clear-cut a decision
as for SOC control. Reactivation fre-
quency at the Manchester utility was
developed to provide the best practical
solution, taking feasibility and cost into
account. Reactivation is on a four-year
schedule. Each year one of the carbon
beds is taken out of service, reactivated,
and kept out of service for that year. It is
held out of service as a backup in case a
major event requires maximum GAC
adsorbability.
A major problem with spent GAC is its
extremely aggressive nature. Spent GAG
contains organochlorides, organic acids,
chlorides. and sulfates. Rapid deteriora-
tion and failure were observed when
304, and sometimes 316. stainless steel
was exposed to waste streams with a
low pH (2-3) and elevated temperatures.
Sodium hydroxide is now added to the
scrubber feed and steam feedwater sup-
plies. Corrosion was alsoobserved in the
carbon-steel regeneration tank when
spent carbon was allowed to remain
there for 120 days. The tanks were
subsequently lined with a fiberglass
polyester material. Ceramic epoxy coat.
ings arc used for protection against
corrosion at elevated temperatures. Both
coating materials have proved to be
effective. The most important factor in
the successful operation of the reactiva-
tion unit is a sound preventive main-
tenance program, Manchester Water
Works performs a complete equipment
overhaul prior to starting its system.
Uptime of the reactivation system has
consistently exceeded 95 percent.
Carbon losses are the major element of
operating costs for treatment systems
using GAC. As a result, steps have been
taken to minimize losses. Each eduction
transport results in carbon losses of 1-2
percent. so reactivated carbon is trans-
JOllRNAL AWWA
transport to a storage tank. Another step
taken was to decrease the eductor mo-
tive water head, thereby reducing
abrasion and subsequent attrition of the
medium.
Carbon from reactivation has proved
to be equal or superior to virgin GAC for
all parameters tested at Manchester.
These included total organic carbon
(TOC), THMs, THM formation potential,
and color. A reduction in the mean
particle diameter was noticed after
reactivation. Makeup virgin carbon of 8
x 16 mesh is used to offset losses and
increases the average mean particle
diameter.
Pennsylvania-American Water Company.
The Pennsylvania-American Water
Company operates two drinking water
treatment facilities along the Mononga-
hela River. The river upstream of the
plant is heavily industrialized, with
various spills and discharges causing
serious taste and odor problems. In 1974,
the system experienced four severe epi-
sodes of contamination, which included
introduction of coal tar-petroleum,
naphthalene, and phenol into the river.
Naphthalene and phenol were not com-
pletely removed using the normal treat-
ment for spills, conventional water treat-
ment processes, and PAC. Therefore,
GAC was installed as a filter-adsorber.
Existing rapid sand filters were retro-
fitted with 30 in. of GAC to be used for
filtration and adsorption.
The GAC was installed to remove
routine tastes and odors and to be a final
barrier against sudden increases of
organics in the raw water. PAC is used
as the first line of defense. These plants
were the first to be affected by the recent
Monongahela River oil spill. The plants
were shut down until the majority of the
oil had passed. When reopened, the plants
used PAC at doses of BOO-l,000 lb/mil
gal to protect the GAC. In 1985, benzene
levels ~80 pg/L were observed. Low
levels of benzene that were not removed
by the PAC were observed to break
through the GAC after the first day.
Some desorption of benzene was ob-
served. Desorption was also observed
after a spill of naphthalene in 1988.
The GAC at these facilities is leased
from a carbon supplier. When negotiating
the lease, the utility specified a variety of
conditions in regard to the GAC. Re-
cently, requirements for the handling of
spent GAC were specified to limit liabil-
ity. The lease calls for the replacement
of the carbon every four years. The
iodine number is used to monitor its
capacity. Once the iodine number reaches
half its virgin capacity, the GAC is re-
placed. To date, the GAC has never met
this criterion before the four-year lease
has expired.
Suffolk County, N.Y. Suffolk County is a
community that depends solely on
groundwater for a population of 1.5
JANUARY 1991
Copyright (C) 1991 American Water Works Association
million people. Nineteen pesticides and
53 organic compounds have been identi-
fied throughout the county, with the
most prevalent beingaldicarb, 1,2-dichlo-
ropropane, PCE, TCE, and l,l,l-trichlo-
roethane. The USEPA and New York
state drinking water guidelines have
caused 15 percent of existing community
supply wells and 25 percent of private
wells to be classified as unpotable. GAC
has already been installed at a variety of
locations, and 30 to 40 new installations
are expected. The GAC has been used in
20,000-lb filters, most commonly ar-
ranged in parallel. Parallel flow is desir-
able to minimize head loss, because the
wells were not originally designed to
handle additional head loss. A reduction
in well capacity of 28 percent was ob-
served for parallel flow into two 20,000-
lb adsorbers and a 40 percent reduction
for series flow. Series flow, however,
permitted an increase in column life
ranging from 40 to 110 percent. With
series operation, the treatment plant
operator had a greater degree of security,
not having to worry when contaminants
broke through the first column.
During eight years of operation, a
variety of difficulties was encountered
with GAC operation. Initially, carbon
loading was difficult because of a lack of
proper equipment and related carbon
losses. With regard to operation, failure
of the underdrain system, freezing of the
columns, and corrosion of the filters
were observed. Before each rebedding,
the columns were inspected. A program
of regular maintenance, including sand-
blasting, cleaning, and resurfacing
(epoxy), was needed to preserve the life
of the column. Each system requires its
own set of operating and maintenance
guidelines.
Various operational safeguards were
used at Suffolk County. Carbon was
added to the columns as a slurry for ease
of transport and to remove the air that is
trapped in the pores. Carbon was left
undisturbed in a filled column for at
least one day to allow for complete
saturation. New carbon was backwashed
to remove all fines that were produced as
the result of abrasion. The water used
for transport and backwashing was free
of contamination. To prevent the wave
front from being upset, backwashing
was kept to a minimum. Bacteria and
contaminants were monitored to ensure
proper operation.
Metropolitan Water District. Metropol-
itan Water District of Southern Cali-
fornia (MWD) carried out a pilot study
on the ability of GAC to remove THMs.
A 6-gpm glass and stainless-steel GAC
contactor was used to study various
THM treatment goals (total THMs of 5,
10, 20, and 50 pg/L). Rapid small-scale
column tests (RSSCTs), a technique for
simulating pilot- or full-scale studies,
were used to evaluate GAC performance
JEFFREY
at other utilities. The simulated distri-
bution system (SDS) test was used dur-
ing this study to simulate, in the lab-
oratory, the THM concentration expected
in MWD’s distribution system.
The study concluded that, for MWD’s
water, GAC would be an expensive
means of THM control. Capital costs
would range from $730 to $3,900 million
depending on an SDSTHM treatment
goal of 50 or 5 pg/L (based on a capacity
of 2,970 mgd), respectively, and could
raise the consumer’s annual water bill
from 40 to 210 percent. Water from other
utilities was also used in this evaluation
and, for all utilities involved, the cost of
GAC implementation could range from
$0.30 to $3.06/1,000 gal based on an
SDSTHM concentration of 20 pg/L.
The study showed that there was a
nonadsorbable fraction of SDSTHM and
that for all GAC options tested 5 pg/L
SDSTHMs would break through. The
study also evaluated TOC and UV as
surrogates for SDSTHMs. Both TOC
and UV were good surrogates for the
waters tested. It should be stressed,
however, that these relationships should
be evaluated for each individual water.
The RSSCTs were shown to be an
economical means for estimating pilot-
scale breakthrough profiles for some
waters, but for others they may be
inadequate.
Cincinnati Water Works. Construction
began on Mar. 16, 1989, for a 175-mgd
GAC system at the Cincinnati Water
Works (CWW) that includes downflow
gravity GAC adsorption and on-site
multiple hearth reactivation. Pilot
studies were previously conducted on
both GAC adsorption and regeneration.
Some of CWW’s most important expe-
riences involved implementing the full-
scale system.
While designing and constructing its
GAC system, CWW discovered that one
of the most important steps is toestablish
early contacts with state regulators. To
satisfy environmental regulations, per-
mits are required for many aspects of
facility design and installation. State
approval was required in order to use
reactivated carbon in contact with water
served to the public. A variety of tasks
and analyses was required in order for
reactivated carbon to be placed on Ohio’s
approved chemical list.
The design for the multiple hearth
reactivation included the use of an
afterburner with high temperature ca-
pability. The afterburner was used to
ensure flexibility to meet unusual spill
conditions and future air pollution regu-
lations, even though all existing regula-
tions can be satisfied with an afterburner
operated at a lower temperature.
In addition, the initial design included
the use of fuel oil as an alternative to
natural gas. The use of fuel oil was
questioned because of concerns about
L. OXENFORD & BENJAMIN W. LYKINS JR. 63

Research is needed to
correlate small-scale test
results with full-scale
performance, plus work
on the basic mechanisms
affecting GAC.
sulfur oxide emissions. Fuel oil was
subsequently dropped from the design.
A final issue concerned residuals man
agement. This is becoming extremely
important because of the stringent re-
quirements under the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act. Reactivation of
GAC causes the production of carbon
fines. Whenever possible, these fines
should be recycled into the incinerator
or afterburner zones to minimize the
amount of fines and reduce the residuals
management problem, Care must also be
taken to make sure that these fines are
not present in the finished water deliv-
ered to the distribution system. A back-
wash-to-waste capability for removing
carbon fines was included in the filter
design.
Current research
The USEPA and AWWARF have been
actively conducting research on GAC.
The USEPA research effort has focused
on developing feasible treatment tech-
nologies for regulated contaminants. Its
approach for GAC consistsof evaluating
the process kinetics on the bench, scaling
up for evaluation at the pilot scale, and
making field-scale evaluations. Recent
efforts have focused on predicting GAC
usage rates with adsorption models and
the scaleup of minicolumn data. The
following types of data have been col-
lected by USEPA: (1) adsorption capacity
by isotherms, (2) minicolumn break-
through curves, (3) laboratory-generated
adsorption rate data by differential
column batch reactor and short-bed
adsorber studies, (4) pilot-column break-
through curves, (5) full-scale break-
through curves, and (6) model-predicted
full-scale GAG use rates based on iso-
therm capacity data, rate data taken
either from laboratory studies or litera-
ture correlations, minicolumn brcak-
Copyright (C) 1991 American Water Works Association
through curves? pilot-column break-
through curves, and full+cale operation.
The USEPA evaluated cost and per-
formanceof CAC in a series of field-scale
studies. Nine utilities participated in
cooperative efforts: Cincinnati, Ohio;
Manchester, N.H.; Jefferson Parish, La.;
Evansville, Ind.: Miami, Fla.; Hunting
ton, W.Va,; Beaver Falls, Pa.; Passaic
Valley and Little Falls, NJ.; and Phila.
delphia, Pa. Other field studies evaluat-
ing the removal of contaminants from
groundwater were conducted at Suffolk
County, N.Y.; California’s San Joaquin
Valley; and Wassau. Wis.
The AWWARF has been evaluating
techniques for removal of regulated
contaminants through a series of re-
search projects. The focus of AWWARF’s
work has been on how utilities can use
GAC or other technologies in a cost-
effective manner and what factors need
to be considered for design and operation.
Nine research projects are in progress or
have been completed:
* Activated Carbon in Drinking Water
Technology, a joint report with the
Netherlands Waterworks Testing and
Research Institute(KIWA), which summa-
rized the Dutch experiences with GAC;
l GAC Filter-Adsorbers, which in.
vestigated the benefits of using GAG to
replace the filter media of a conventional
system instead of building a new system
specifically for GAC;
l Prediction of GAC Performance
IJsing Rapid Small-Scale Column Tests;
l Optimization and Economic Eval-
uation of Granular Activated Carbon for
Organic Removal, which studied the
ability of GAC to reduce THMs below
predicted regulatory levels:
l Consistent SOC Removal bv GAC
Adsorption Under Dynamic Conditions,
which evaluated the performanceof GAG
for removal of SOCs under real-world
perturbations and operating conditions;
l Optimum Backwash of Dual Media
Filters and Granular Activated Carbon
Filter Adsorbers With Air Scour, to
develop design and operation guidelines
for backwashing;
l Microbial Activity on Filter-Ad-
sorbers, to develop guidelines for maxi-
mizing biodegradation on GAC without
affecting filter performance:
l Development of a Standardized
Protocol for the Evaluation of Granular
Activated Carbon, todetermine the best
technique or evaluation criteria for test-
ing GAC; and
* Effect of Metals on Thermal Regen-
eration of Granular Activated Carbon, to
evaluate the effect of accumulation of
metals on adsorption capacities and
multiple regenerations.
Research needs
Significant advances have been made
in the design and operation of GAC
systems, but many questions still need
to be addressed. For example, what are
the effects of varying water quality,
backwashing, prechlorination, and com-
petitive adsorption on the capacity of
GAC? Can bacterial growth enhance the
removal of organic matter or lead to
degradation of the microbial quality of
the water? Will the buildup of radio-
nuclides, metals, and organics on GAC
cause the GAC to be a hazardous waste?
What will be the legal status of spent
GAC and reactivated GAC? Can reacti-
vated GAG be safely used in water
treatment operations?
Additional research is needed tocorre-
late the results of small-scale tests with
actual full-scale performance, as well as
continued work on the basicmechanisms
affecting GAC to further enhance the
predictive ability. A dual approach to
research is needed, whereby intermediate
conclusions from basic research are fed
into design models, and feedback from
these models then identifies basic re-
search needs.
Monitoring protocols need to be estab.
lished for theevaluation of GAC capacity
in order to assure compliance with stan
dards. Research is needed to determine
the frequency of sampling, especially as
the end of the bed life is approached,
Research is also needed to determine
how best to collect samples to catch
breakthrough.
Little data exist in the literature on
GAC regeneration. Studies are needed
that report the influence of gas composi.
tion, time, and temperature for the vari-
ous types of regeneration systems and
spent carbons. Also, what effect will
regeneration have on the formation of
dioxins and related compounds when
GAC is used to treat chlorinated or-
ganics? Is it possible to use alternative
regeneration processes like supercritical
fluids and steam?
For effective design, research is needed
to determine the effectiveness of various
vessel linings, different materials of
construction, and backwash procedures
for cleaning deep-bed systems without
causing undue carbon loss or structural
damage. Also, transport systems need to
be improved to minimize carbon losses.
About the authors:
Jeffrey 1~.Oxenford is
a project manager with
the A WWA Research
Foundation, 6666 W.
Quincy Ave., Denver,
CO 80235. He is a
graduate of Warren
x FI Wilson College, Swan-
nanoa, 1Y.C. (IgA/, and of the University
of North Carolina at Charlotte (MSE) and
isa memberofACS. Benjamin W. Lykins
Jr. is chief of the Systems and Field
Evaluatiom Branch, US Environmental
Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther
King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268.