Upload
city-of-san-angelo-texas
View
644
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Progress Report
August 2, 2011
San Angelo City Council
2
Agenda1. Overall project progress
2. Radioactivity in the environment
3. Single use Ion Exchange treatment update
4. Pipe loop study
5. Ground water treatment facility site location
6. Other treatment options
7. Questions
3
OVERALL PROJECT PROGRESS
5
Project Element Status
Transmission Main *In design*Scheduled to advertise September 2011
Well Field Piping *Design complete *In advertisement phase
Pump Station, Well Field, Electrical
*In design*Scheduled to advertise April 2012
Treatment *TCEQ approval of single use ion exchange *Additional testing and evaluations
RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT
7
Radioactivity Is Ubiquitous in the Environment
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
Lantern Mantle
Glazed Zircon
Building Tiles
Gypsum Granite Soil Beans Teeth Bone
Rad
ium
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (p
Ci/
g)
8
Radioactivity Is Ubiquitous in the Environment
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
Untreated Hickory Water
EPA Drinking Water Limit
Medical (Spa) Water
Mineral Water
Wine Beer Milk
Rad
ium
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (p
Ci/
L)
9
Safety Considerations
Not Required OSHA-Required Recommended
10
150’ = 15 Story Building
Soil
Environmental Impact of Pipe Break
Hickory water can pass through soil without approaching regulatory limit
11
Impact on Policies and Procedures
Soil, water, pipe scale samples
Radiation survey instruments
Documents, forms, etc.
Guidefor
Documenting Pipe Breaks
12
Case Study
Central TX Granite Distribution pipe Glazed salt shaker Vaseline glass
SINGLE USE ION EXCHANGE UPDATE
14
Simplified Pilot Testing Process Flow Diagram
15
Results Summary Single use ion exchange is effective in removing
radium, however, breakthrough occurred more frequently than what was originally estimated using desktop models.
Two of the three media proved to be effective
16
Single-Use Media Capital Cost
COSA Well Field COSA Well FieldDowex RSC WRT Z-88
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
RevisedPreliminary
Cos
t in
$
Mill
ions
17
Single-Use Media O&M Cost
COSA Well Field COSA Well FieldDowex RSC WRT Z-88
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
RevisedPreliminary
Cos
t in
$
Mill
ions
PIPE LOOP STUDY
19
Pipe Loop Study
Purpose: Evaluate pipe scale and radionuclide deposition using various pipe materials, pipe velocities, and phosphate concentrations.
20
Preliminary Results & Observations of Pipe Loop Study
Parameter Result
Scale Formation Mortar-lined>FRP>PVC
Flow Velocity No apparent effect on scale formation
Treatment LocationNo measurable adverse effect on having treatment downstream of pipe
O&M Periodic pipe pigging may be desirable
GWTF SITE LOCATION
22
Groundwater Treatment Facility Location
Two locations are considered for the groundwater treatment facility (GWTF)
• Hickory well site
• COSA Water Treatment Plant
Several factors should be considered when evaluating the locations of the GWTF
Decision should be based on what is best for COSA
23
Factors Affecting Treatment LocationCity Well Field
Capital Cost √
O&M Cost √
Chemical deliveries & logistics √
Reduced potential for pipe scale √
Ease of treatment monitoring and controls
√
Personnel requirements √
Flexibility to use other treatment technologies
√
Human health and the environment
√ √
24
Results of Groundwater Treatment Facility (GWTF) Location Evaluation
Based on the following factors: • Capital Cost
• O&M Cost
• Operational efficiency
• Treatment options
We recommend that the GWTF be located at the San Angelo Water Treatment Plant
OTHER TREATMENT OPTIONS
26
Single-Use Media NPV Cost Comparison
Preliminary Revised Preliminary RevisedDow RSC WRT Z-88
0
50
100
150
200
250
Cos
t in
$
Mill
ions
27
Why look at other treatment options? NPV analysis of pilot test results indicated that
additional treatment options may be viable Results indicated that Nanofiltration or Reverse
Osmosis (NF/RO) could become a more competitive option
NF/RO offer alternate disposal options thus reducing O&M costs.
NF/RO will improve overall City water quality
28
RO at COSA WTP (90% Recovery)
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
Preliminary Model Results
Co
st ($
Mill
ion
)
Capital
O&M
29
NPV of Treatment Technologies at COSA
Dow RSC WRT Z-88 RO0
50
100
150
200
250
Cos
t in
$
Mill
ions
30
NF/RO Treatment Update Conducted preliminary desktop membrane
models based on revised data• Nanofiltration
• Low energy Reverse Osmosis (RO)
• Brackish RO
Low-energy RO may provide good rejection and recovery while minimizing energy needs
Next steps: Membrane (RO) pilot plant investigation
31
Item Duration
Anticipated Start – August 2011
Pilot 6 Months
Design 8 Months
TCEQ Review 2 Months
Bid/Award 2 Months
Construction 15 Months
Construction Complete – July 2014
RO Membrane Schedule
32
Item Duration
Anticipated Start – September 2011
Design 12 Months
TCEQ Review 2 Months
Bid/Award 2 Months
Construction 13 Months
Construction Complete – February 2014
Single-Use Media Schedule
Questions & Answers
August 2, 2011
San Angelo City Council