laguna madre water district considers...
TRANSCRIPT
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
Laguna Madre Water District Considers DPR
…with help from the Bureau of Reclamation
Charles Ortiz & Carlos Galvan (LMWD)
Eva Steinle-Darling, Leon Allen, Hani Michel, and Andrew Salveson (Carollo)
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
2
Water Supply Analysis Demonstrates Need for the Project
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
2013 2015 2025 2040
Volume Available
in AFY
Projected Demands
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
3
Potential Shortfall
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
2013 2015 2025 2040
Volume Available
in AFY
Fully Curtailed Allocation
Projected Demands
Water Supply Analysis Demonstrates Need for the Project
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
4
Potential Shortfall
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
2013 2015 2025 2040
Volume Available
in AFY
Actual Allocation (2013)
Fully Curtailed Allocation
Projected Demands
Water Supply Analysis Demonstrates Need for the Project
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
5
Potential Shortfall
Potable reuse can fill the District’s supply gap through at least 2025 - at a lower cost
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
2013 2015 2025 2040
Volume Available
in AFY
Actual Allocation (2013)
Reuse Potential (PI WWTP)
Fully Curtailed Allocation
Projected Demands
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
6
Potential Shortfall
Potable reuse can fill the District’s supply gap through at least 2025 - at a lower cost
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
2013 2015 2025 2040
Volume Available
in AFY
Actual Allocation (2013)
Reuse Potential (LV WWTP)
Reuse Potential (PI WWTP)
Fully Curtailed Allocation
Projected Demands
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
7
Water Reclamation Reuse Opportunities
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
8
Non-Potable Reclaimed Water Use Opportunities
Port Isabel High School Sports Field
LagunaHeights
LagunaVista
PortIsabel
Little League Field & Animal
Shelter
LagunaHeights
PortIsabel
LagunaVista
RO
Plant
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
9
Issues With Non-Potable Reclaimed Water
• Cost equation just doesn’t add up:
1. Higher water quality than potable water � $$
2. Separate piping system required � more $$
3. Inefficient use of water:
• Limited number of potential users
• Seasonal use wastes water during off-season
4. But customers expect lower price
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
10
Potable Reclaimed Water Use Opportunities
• Cost equation makes sense:
1. Use existing water distribution system
2. Fully use all available water
3. Cost of improvements averaged over whole customer base
• Public perception:
– Higher water quality for all
– Public education
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
11
Potable Reuse:
Public Health Protection
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
12
Public Health Experts Agree, Potable Reuse Provides High Quality Safe
Water
National Research Council “Water Reuse, Potential for Expanding
the Nation’s Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater”, 2012
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
13
1. Process evaluation
2. Advanced monitoring
3. Detailed study of water quality
– Pathogens
– Trace chemicals
– Surrogate development
Carollo Team is Evaluating Public Health Protection at CRMWD RWPF
Ethinylestradiol
caffeine
Sponsored by:
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
14
What We Are Learning at the CRMWDRWPF
Finished (“New Raw”) Water has:
1. Minimal trace pollutants, 3 detections at ng/L level
2. No detected virus or protozoa <10-1 to 10-3 #/Liter
3. Very low DBP formation potential after RO
More Generally:
1. MF filtrate quality is less than conventional raw water
2. RO permeate quality exceeds raw water quality
3. AOP provides safety factor compared to raw water
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
15
Advanced Treatment Alternatives
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
16
Components of a Potable Reuse Study
1. Define treatment goals
2. Evaluate existing treatment capacity
3. Develop advanced treatment alternatives
4. Evaluate treatment alternatives for
– Meeting goals
– Cost
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
17
1. Define Treatment Goals
1. Pollutant Goals
– Meet all drinking water requirements at WTPs
– Meet unregulated contaminant goal levels
– TDS < 1,000 mg/L
2. Pathogen goals
– Comply with all drinking water regulations
– Meet TCEQ requirements for PR
3. Aesthetics
– Provide water that does not cause taste, color, or odor complaints down the road
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
18
2. Evaluate Existing Assets
1. Existing treatment at WTPs provides “treatment credit”
2. Pipeline from Port Isabel to Laguna Vista
– Available for transport
– Provides opportunity for chlorination
3. Reservoir No. 3
– Provides blending water
– Provides retention time
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
19
2. Evaluate WTP No. 1 Capabilities
ProcessMonitoring
Method
Pathogen LRCsPollutant Removal
V G C B
Conventional treatment with media Filtration
TT per LT2 2 2.5 3 0No significant
pollutant removal
Chloramines Disinfection
Residual 2 0.5 0 2+No significant
pollutant removal
Totals 4 3 3 2
ATS22ATS23ATS24
Slide 19
ATS22 How do they get 2 log virus with chloramines? Andy Salveson, 8/29/2014
ATS23 Can we do DPR and not use this plant? Andy Salveson, 8/29/2014
ATS24 Can we convert WTP No. 1 to a sequential chlorination facility, allow for free chlorine then chloramines? Andy Salveson, 8/29/2014
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
20
2. Evaluate WTP No. 2 Capabilities
ProcessMonitoring
Method
Pathogen LRCsPollutant Removal
V G C B
Conventional treatment
TT per LT2 0 0.5 0.5 0No significant
pollutant removal
Presedim. with Coagulation
TT per LT2 0 0.5 0.5 0No significant
pollutant removal
MF Membranes Turbidity 2 3 3 0Removes pollutants
stuck to particles
Chloramines Residual 0 0 0 0No significant
pollutant removal
Chlorine Residual 4 0 0 3Oxidation of some
pollutants
Totals 6 4 4 3
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
21
3. Advanced Treatment Alternatives
• Overall selection criteria:
– Pathogen attenuation:
• Virus
• Cryptosporidium
• Giardia
– Significant pollutant attenuation:
• Nitrate
• Metals
• Organics
– Salinity reduction to <1,000 mg/L
– Ancillary issues:
• Brine disposal
• Recarbonation requirements
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
22
3. Advanced Treatment Train Alternatives
Alternative
1. MF-RO-UV/AOP
2. MF-NF-UV/AOP
3. UF-O3-BAF-NF-Cl2
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
23
4. Evaluate Alternatives - Treatment Goals
AlternativePathogen LRCs*
V G C B
1. MF-RO-UV/AOP 17 14 14 15
2. MF-NF-UV/AOP 16 13 13 14
3. UF-O3-BAF-NF-Cl2 16 11 9 14
Goals 12 10 10 9
*includes credits obtained by WTP No. 1
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
24
4. Evaluate Alternatives - Treatment Goals
AlternativePathogen LRCs* Pollutant Removal
V G C B Salt CECs Nitrate
1. MF-RO-UV/AOP 17 14 14 15
2. MF-NF-UV/AOP 16 13 13 14
3. UF-O3-BAF-NF-Cl2 16 11 9 14
Goals 12 10 10 9
?
*includes credits obtained by WTP No. 1
Trains #1 and #2 meet goals.
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
25
4. Evaluate Treatment Trains - Cost
Scope of Supply from H2O Engineering(GE Backed Integrator)
UF (ZW1500, better virus removal) 1.48 MGD
RO (GE PRO-300, 75% recovery) 1.0 MGD
UV AOP Equipment (ETS) 1.0 MGD
Chemical Storage & Feed X
Backwash and Pumping X
Process Monitoring (Flow, pressure, pH, EC, TOC, UVT, UVI, DIT, Turbidity, Temperature)
X
PrepackagedSkid-mountedSystem Recommended to Reduce Cost
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
26
Item Unit Total
Process Equipment (UF, RO, UV AOP) LS $2,124,000
Advanced Monitoring (TOC, EC, chloramines) LS $50,000
Installation LS $117,000
Subtotal $2,291,000
Tanks LS $448,000
Electrical LS $100,000
Civil Site & Yard Piping LS $406,000
Building LS $673,000
Pump Station LS $244,000
Total Direct Cost $4,162,000
Installation/Indirect Costs $2,781,000
Total Project Cost $6,943,000
4. Evaluate Treatment Trains - Cost
$3M Savings compared to custom designed system
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
27
Advanced TreatmentFacility Site Selection
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
28
Initial Site Identified at PI WWTF
LagunaHeights
PortIsabel
LagunaVista
LagunaHeights
PortIsabel
LagunaVista
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
29
Alternative Site at WTP No. 2
PROPOSED
WRF 1 mgd
LagunaHeights
PortIsabel
LagunaVista
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
30
Advanced Water Treatment Facilities at WTP No. 2
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
31
Brine Outfall at WTP No. 2 Site is Feasible
Proposed Brine Outfall Alignment
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
32
WTP No. 2 Site Has Advantages
Evaluation Criterion
PI WWTFSite
WTP No. 2Site
Effluent available:Now2045
0.7 mgd0.9 mgd
0.7 mgd1.5 mgd
Space available Yes, but tight Yes
Brine DischargeCombined (new)
outfall with WWTFNew outfall
feasible
Cost Slightly higher Slightly lower
Caro
lloT
em
pla
teW
ate
rWave.p
ptx
33
Next Steps for LMWD
