Ohio AWWA City of Alliance Selection of UV Oxidation for Taste & Odor treatment

Said Abou Abdallah, Terry Keep and Dr. Dean ReynoldsOhio AWWA

September 20, 2012

The City of Alliance's Solution for Taste and Odor Treatment

2

WATER STRESS IN AN

INTERCONNECTED WATER SUPPLY

Sources of contaminants in our water supply:

- Industrial discharge

- Agricultural runoff

- Chemical releases

- Municipal Wastewater

InjectionWell

ExtractionWell

Nutrients increase in Algae Blooms Taste & Odour, Algal Toxins

3

EXAMPLES OF MICROPOLLUTANTS

Nitrosamines (e.g. NDMA) Disinfection byproducts

Pesticides & Herbicides Metaldehyde, Atrazine, Isoproturon, others

Petroleum Additives Including MTBE

Pharmaceuticals & Personal Care Products Includes potential endocrine disruptors

Taste & Odour CompoundsSeasonal occurrences of MIB, geosmin and others

Algal ToxinsChronic and acute effects from cyanobacteria-derived toxins

4

TASTE & ODOUR, ALGAL TOXINS

Seasonal algae blooms occur in surface waters

Decaying algae blooms result in MIB, geosmin, algal toxins, other T&O compounds

Earthy/musty, fishy, swampy, grassy tastes & odours at low ppt concentrations

Difficult to remove with conventional technologies

T&O episodes compromise public confidence in the safety of the water

5

COMPOUNDS GENERATED BY SOME CYANOBACTERIA

Geosmin

2-Methylisoborneol (MIB)

GSM and MIB can be detected by sensitive individual down to 4 ng/L (ppt)

[Geosmin] have been measured > 3000 ng/L

Aesthetics: T&O cmpds

Cylindrospermopsin (CYN)

Microcystin-LR (MC-LR) [MC]~1800ug/L meas drng bloom

Public Health: Cyanotoxins

WHO s

et li

mit

at 1

µg/L

USEPA a

dded C

NTX to

the

CCL

6

TASTE AND ODOUR TREATMENT STRATEGIES

• Potassium Permanganate– Limited Effectiveness

• Powdered Activated Carbon– Messy PAC & Sludge Handling, no Performance Guarantee

• Granular Activated Carbon– Frequent & Expensive Change-outs, no Performance Guarantee

• Ozone– Complicated System & Carcinogenic by-product (Bromate)

• UV-Oxidation– Simple, Effective for T&O with Simultaneous Disinfection,

Guaranteed Performance for life of system

7

UV / H2O2 FOR TASTE AND ODOUR TREATMENT

UV Advanced Oxidation: Using UV and Hydrogen Peroxide to destroy trace organic contaminants in water by:

UV-Photolysis

UV-Oxidation

8

UV-PHOTOLYSIS

Chemical bonds arebroken by UV light

9

UV-OXIDATION

Hydrogen peroxide

Hydroxylradical

Chemical bonds arebroken by hydroxyl radicals

Planning and Engineering Approach to the Final Design

11

Planning and Engineering Approach to the Final Design

o UV Oxidation System Feasibility Studyo UV Oxidation System Procuremento UV Oxidation System Final Design Documentso Design Criteria:

• UVT 92%

• Turbidity < 0.06 NTU

• TOC < 3 mg/l

• Nitrates < 1 mg/l

• pH 6.7 – 6.9

• Average Flow 5.5 MGD/10.0 MGD Max

12

UV Oxidation System Feasibility Study

• Actual Costs of using Powered Activated Carbon (PAC)

• UV Oxidation Process

• Electrical Costs

• Hydrogen Peroxide Cost

• Chlorination Cost

• Equipment Manufacturer's Variations

• Design Requirements

• Non-Cost factors

13

UV Oxidation System Feasibility Study

• PAC (Powder Activated Carbon) System Capabilities and Limitations

• Type of PAC used

• Impact on Other Treatment Processes

• Operational Difficulties

• Future Limitations

14

Actual PAC CostsMonthDays/Month

Average Influent MIB Concentration

Flow PAC Cost / MG / day PAC Cost

June, 2010 30 125.53 3.2 $27.76 $2,665.23

July, 2010 31 86.50 3.7 $14.82 $1,700.29

August, 2010 31 23.07 3.5 $17.50 $1,899.18

September, 2010 30 25.90 3.4 $14.89 $1,519.20

October, 2010 31 112.33 3.2 $131.74 $13,068.90

November, 2010 30 326.63 3.0 $422.42 $38,017.41

December, 2010 31 549.46 3.2 $559.86 $55,538.10

January, 2011 31 967.06 3.3 $521.49 $53,348.20

February, 2011 28 911.53 3.3 $535.70 $49,498.78

March, 2011 31 125.67 3.2 $513.44 $50,933.69

April, 2011 30 11.05 3.2 $72.31 $6,941.88

May, 2011 31 4.65 3.7 $22.18 $2,544.50

12 Months Total         $277,675.37

Actual Costs of PAC Treatment

15

PAC Actual vs. UV Ox ProjectionsMonth and YearAverage Influent

MIB ConcentrationAverage Flow

(MGD)Actual PAC Costs

Projected PAC/UV Ox Costs

June, 2010 125.53 3.2 $2,665.23 $2,665.23

July, 2010 86.50 3.7 $1,700.29 $1,700.29

August, 2010 23.07 3.5 $1,899.18 $1,899.18

September, 2010 25.90 3.4 $1,519.20 $1,519.20

October, 2010 112.33 3.2 $13,068.90 $13,068.90

November, 2010 326.63 3.0 $38,017.41 $27,000.00

December, 2010 549.46 3.2 $55,538.10 $48,087.57

January, 2011 967.06 3.3 $53,348.20 $57,364.10

February, 2011 911.53 3.3 $49,498.78 $52,469.39

March, 2011 125.67 3.2 $50,933.69 $29,760.00

April, 2011 11.05 3.2 $6,941.88 $6,941.88

May, 2011 4.65 3.7 $2,544.50 $2,544.50

12 Months Total     $277,675.37 $245,020.24

PAC Actual vs. UV Ox Projected

16

MIB Concentration vs. PAC and UV Ox

17

UV Oxidation System Feasibility Study: Findings

• Procurement Recommendations for UV Oxidation System

• Capital Costs and Operation & Maintenance Costs

• Non-Cost Factors (Vendor Experience)

• Impact on Water Users – Water rate, water quality

• Schedule of Implementation

18

UV Oxidation System Procurement• Traditional Design vs. Pre-selection

• Variations with Manufacturer’s Designs

• UV Oxidation Equipment Essential and Critical for Taste and Odor

• UV Oxidation Equipment Represents Significant Project Cost

• Multiple Available Strategies

• Balancing Qualifications/Experience and Costs

• Early Procurement Prevents Duplications and Delays

19

UV Oxidation System Procurement: Key Considerations

• Tight Procurement Documents

• Scope of Equipment

• Warranty

• Proposal Information

• Operating Parameters

• Capital Cost Analysis vs. Present Worth Analysis

• Bidding Conditions

• Decision Analysis and

Weighting

20

UV Oxidation System: Procurement • Bid items

• Clear and specific

• Bid Requirements

• Financial Stability

• Experience and Past Performance

• Demonstration of successful Operations

• Equipment Service and Support

• Equipment Characteristics and Flexibility

• Future Capacity

• Operations and Complexity

21

UV Oxidation System: Procurement

• Cost Factors:

• Capital Cost

• O&M Cost

• Common Cost Parameters

• Energy Cost

• Chemical Cost

• Interest rates

• PW period

22

UV Oxidation System: Effective Integration of Quality and Cost

• Designed to meet the Client and Project Goals

• Balanced between Cost and Non-Cost Factors

• Qualifications/Experience Emphasis

• Broad Spectrum of Evaluation

23

UV Oxidation System:Final Design Documents

• Design Documents to Allow the Installation of the Procured Equipment

• UV Oxidation Units

• Hydrogen Peroxide Feed and Storage System

• Chlorine Feed System

• Future Provisions

• Performance Testing

24

UV Oxidation System:Final Design Documents

• Two 30-Inch Diameter Reactor in Series

• Cooling System for Use During Filter Backwash Operations

• Operator Input During Chlorine Trouble Times

• Dedicated Automatic Chlorinator for UV Ox Operation

• System Bypass During Non- Taste and Odor Season

25

UV Oxidation System:Final Design Documents

• Hydrogen Peroxide System

• One 3,000 Gallon Hydrogen Peroxide Bulk Storage Tank

• Two Day tanks with Duplex Feed pump System

• Double Containment Piping

• Chlorine Feed System Capacity Upgrade

• New Chlorine Evaporator

• Dedicated Chlorinator for UV Ox

• Use of Liquid Chlorine with Back-up Gas Manifolds

• Re-training of personnel on use of new Chlorine System

26

UV Oxidation System:Final Design Documents

• Future Chloramination

• Provisions for Feed System

• Provisions for Multiple Monitoring Locations

• Implementation Schedule

• Construction Project Bidding in September/October 2012

• Construction NTP November 2012

• Substantial Completion September 20132013

• Performance Testing by December 2013

SWIFT ECT 16L30” UV Reactor

30” Reactor

On line UV Transmittance Monitor

28

QUESTIONS?

Terry KeepECT Sales ManagerTrojan Technologies

[email protected]

Said AbouAbdallah, PE | Associate Vice PresidentMalcolm Pirnie | The Water Division of ARCADIS216.781.6177 said.abouabdallah @arcadis-us.com