Treatment of Microconstituents for Water Reuse and Drinking Water gApplications

Pacific Northwest Section AWWAPacific Northwest Section AWWAMay 6, 2009

Larry Schimmoller, P.E.

CH2M HILL’s Global Technology Leader for Water Reuse

Agendag• Definition of water reuse

• Treatment Technologies for microconstituents

• Case Studies:– Typical urban surface water supply– Planned Indirect Potable Reuse

• Sustainability

2

Water Reuse is the Recycling of Treated y gWastewater for Beneficial Use

Non-Potable ReuseMicroAgricultural Irrigation

Landscape Irrigation

Industrial Uses

Micro-constituents typically not a concern

Water

Recreational & Environmental Enhancement

Drinking water

Indirect Potable ReuseMore focusWater

Reclamation Plant

Drinking water source (reservoir, aquifer, etc..)

More focus on Micro-constituents

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Treatment Plant Effluent

3

Impact of Wastewater Discharges to Water Supplies

Under low flow conditions, water in Colorado and Sacramento Rivers may be 9%-17%9%-17% wastewater (Coss, 2007)

4

Advanced treatment options for Emerging C t i tContaminants

• Soil Aquifer Treatment (SAT)q ( )• Nanofiltration / Reverse osmosis• Granular activated carbon• UV - Advanced oxidation (UV-AOP)• Ozone and Ozone-UV

Soil Aquifer Treatment by Ri b k Filt tiRiverbank Filtration

Jörg Drewes (Colorado School of Mines)

TOC Removal During RBF and ARRTOC Removal During RBF and ARR

RBF ARR

8.0

10.0RBF Field

ARR Soil Columns

6.0

OC

(mg/

L)

2 0

4.0

TO

0.0

2.0

S. Platte PTMW2 PTW1 6 days 12 days 18 days 24 days(columninfluent)

RBF Field MonitoringPharmaceutical Compounds RemovalPharmaceutical Compounds Removal

1200S.PlatteRBF water PTW1

1000

g/L)

RBF water PTW1

600

800

entra

tion

(ng

400Con

ce

n.d. - 55 n.d. - 45

n.d. - <250

200

0Gemfibrozil Naproxen Ibuprofen

RBF - Field MonitoringPharmaceutical Compounds RemovalPharmaceutical Compounds Removal

450S.Platte

350

400

g/L)

RBF water PTW1

250

300

entra

tion

(ng

150

200

Con

ce

50

100

0Carbamazepine Primidone

Reverse Osmosis MembranesMembranes

Rejection of Microconstituents by RO is E ll tExcellent

• Generally greater than 99% for mostGenerally greater than 99% for most compounds

• Some compounds not well removed (e.g., NDMA)

What is UV Advanced Oxidation? Hydrogen peroxideOxidation?

• Definition: water treatment with the use of UV light (photolysis) in combination with hydroxyl radical (advanced

)

Hydrogen peroxide

Hydroxyl radical

oxidation)• UV light destroys photo-sensitive

compounds • Hydrogen peroxide fed upstreamHydrogen peroxide fed upstream• UV light converts H2O2 to OH. radical:

– hydroxyl radical = very powerful oxidant– effective at oxidizing emerging

Courtesy of Trojang g g

contaminants, like ozone, but no bromate is formed Oxidant Half-Cell Potential, Eo

redChlorine Dioxide 0.95VHypochlorite 1.64VP t 1 68VPermanganate 1.68VHydrogen Peroxide 1.78VOzone 2.08VHydroxyl Radical 2.85V

12

Source: Water Quality and Treatment , 5th Ed. p.12.3

How is UV-AOP Different from UV Disinfection?Disinfection?

• UV-AOP typically uses a dose in excess of 500 J/ 2 t d t i t i t (mJ/cm2 to destroy emerging contaminants (more

than 10 times greater than typical UV disinfection dose)dose)

• Consequently UV AOP requires more energy than• Consequently, UV-AOP requires more energy than UV disinfection and good water quality (low TSS and organics) is very important.and organics) is very important.

13

UV-Photolysis / UV-Oxidation Balance

2.0

UV-Oxidation 1,4-Dioxane

1 4

1.6

1.8

Pow

er D

raw UV-Photolysis

TCE

1.0

1.2

1.4

on p

er U

nit o

f

NDMA

0.6

0.8

l Log

Red

uctio

0.2

0.4

Che

mic

a

14

0.07 ppm H2O2 14 ppm H2O2 7 ppm H2O2 14 ppm H2O2 7 ppm H2O2 14 ppm H2O2

Removal of Emerging Contaminants by UV-AOP (Snyder et. al 2007)UV D 671 J/ 2 H2O2 D 5 /LUV Dose: 671 mJ/cm2 H2O2 Dose: 5 mg/L

90%

100%

70%

80%

oval

40%

50%

60%

erce

nt R

emo

10%

20%

30%Pe

0%

cetam

inoph

en

droste

nedio

neAtra

zine

Caffein

e

arbam

azep

ineDEET

Diazep

amDicl

ofena

cDila

ntin

Erthrom

ycin

Estriol

Estron

eFluo

xetin

eGem

fibroz

il

Hydroc

odon

eIbu

profen

Ioprom

ide

Meprob

amate

Naprox

enOxy

benz

one

Pentox

ifyllin

eProg

eteron

e

fameth

oxaz

oleTCEP

Testos

teron

eTric

losan

Trimeth

oprim

AceAnd

r

Car H M O P

Sulfam T T

Destruction of Nine Nitrosamines b UV AOPby UV AOP

4.5

5.0

5.0 mg/L of Hydrogen Peroxide Added to All Samples99.997%

99.999%

3.5

4.0

s)

NDMA NMEA NDEA

NDPA NPYR NMOP

NPIP NDBA NDPhA

NPIP

NMOP

NDPA

99.97%

99 99 %

99.99%

2.5

3.0

ruct

ion

(Log

s

NDPhA

NDEA

NPYR

NDBA

99.7%

99.9%Spiked RiverbankFiltration Water

1.5

2.0

Log

Des

tr

NDMA

NMEA

96.8%

99.0%

0.5

1.0

68.4%

90.0%

0.00 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Collimated Beam UV Dose (mJ/cm2)

Case StudiesCase Studies

• Prairie Waters Project (Aurora Colorado)Prairie Waters Project (Aurora, Colorado)– Drinking water project treating a typical urban

surface watersurface water

• Western Corridor Recycled Water Project (Southeast Queensland, Australia)– Planned Indirect Potable Reuse Project

17

Prairie Waters ProjectPrairie Waters Project

• Add sustainable water yield to Aurora’s water ysystem – “Drought Harden” Aurora’s existing system– Develop new supplies for new development

U i ti il bl t i ht t d li• Use existing available water rights to deliver no less than 10,000 af/yr of additional supply by 20102010

COLORADOAurora’s Water Supply System

VAIL

RIVER BASIN DENVER

AURORAAuroraReservoirQuincy

Griswold WTP

Wemlinger WTP

SOUTH PLATTERIVER BASIN

FAIRPLAYLEADVILLE

ReservoiryReservoir

RampartReservoir

Strontia SpringsReservoir

Homestake Reservoir

Turquoise

Jefferson Lake

FAIRPLAYLEADVILLE

COLORADO

Spinney Mountain ReservoirTwin Lakes

Turquoise Lake Cheeseman

Reservoir

ARKANSASRIVER BASIN

BUENA VISTA

COLORADO SPRINGS

PUEBLO

Pueblo

ROCKY FORD

Lake Meredith

Reservoir

Prairie Waters Project• 34 miles of 60-inch pipeline• 3 pumping stations

N th C• North Campus – Bank filtration– Aquifer Recharge and Recoveryq g y

• ARWPF– 50 mgd water purification facility

Public Health Protection•Nitrates•Nitrates•Pathogens•Organics•Micro-pollutants

Combining the Best of Natural and Engineered Purification StepsEngineered Purification Steps

Natural Treatment Softening UV-AOP Filters GAC Blending

Taste and Odor

Color

g g

TDS

Nitrate

PathogensPathogens

Organics

Micro-Pollutants

Results Demonstrate Effectiveness of Multiple Barrier ApproachMultiple Barrier Approach

200Raw South Platte RiverFollowing Riverbank FiltrationSoftened/Clarified Water

490 ng/L774 ng/L

150

on (n

g/L)

Softened/Clarified WaterUV-AOP EffluentGAC Effluent

100

Con

cent

ratio

0

50C

Detection Limit

0

Mecloc

yclin

eDem

ocloc

yclin

e

Monen

sinSali

nomyc

esTetr

acyc

line

Chlorte

tracy

cline

Oxytet

racyc

line

Sulfam

ethox

azole

Sulfath

iazole

Sulfad

imeth

oxan

eSulf

amera

zine

Erythro

mycin

Results Demonstrate Effectiveness of Multiple Barrier Approachp pp

1000

Average Concentration in South Platte RiverAverage Concentration following Riverbank FiltrationSoftened/Clarified WaterUV-AOPGAC Effluent

800

900

500

600

700

atio

n (n

g/L)

300

400

Con

cent

ra

0

100

200

Detection Limit

0

Bisphe

nol A

Caffein

eCarb

amaz

epine

Clofibr

ic Acid

Dichlor

prop

Diclofe

nac

Fenofi

brate

Gemfib

rozil

Ibupro

fenKeto

profen

Mecop

ropNap

roxen

Phena

cetin

ePrim

idone

Salicy

lic Acid

TCEP

TCIPP

TDCPP

Western Corridor Recycled Water ProjectRecycled Water Project - Background• Southeast Queensland hasSoutheast Queensland has

had the worst drought on record from 2001 – 2008

24

•Three new AWTPs•Nine storage tanks•12 pump stations

Tarong12 pump stations

•200 km of pipe•232 MLD (61 mgd) of purified recycled water supplies:

t l t

Aug 2007Jun 2008

Luggage PointWivenhoe Release

–two power plants–Wivenhoe Dam (if required)

Luggage Point

Gibson Island

Oct 2008

O l

Wacol

Bundamba

Oxley

GoodnaSwanbank

Key Design Criteria of Full-S l Pl tScale Plant

• Production capacity of 70 ML/d (18.5Production capacity of 70 ML/d (18.5 mgd)

• Provide multi-barrier treatment process

• Meet all water quality requirements– Meet all Australian drinking water guidelines – Total Nitrogen < 1.2 mg/L as N – Total Phosphorus < 0.13 mg/L– NDMA < 10 ng/L

26

NDMA 10 ng/L

Major Treatment Processes

FLOCCULATION/CLARIFICATION

SOLIDSPHOSPHORUS

ORGANICS

MICROFILTRATION SOLIDS

PATHOGENS

UV / ADVANCED OXIDATION

NDMAPATHOGENS

MICROCONSTITUENTS

REVERSE OSMOSISNUTRIENTS – N&P

ORGANICSTDS

PATHOGENSMICROCONSTITUENTS

SECONDARY TREATED

WASTEWATERFINISHED WATER

MICROCONSTITUENTS

27

Example Constituent Removal (based on pilot lt )results)

• Total nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen

TKN Nitrate Nitrogen

Nitrite Nitrogen

Total organic

Total Nitrogen

– Influent average 10 mg/L– Permeate average 1.2 mg/L– 88% removal

Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen organic nitrogen

Nitrogen

83% 88% 87% 94% 92% 88%

• Total phosphorus removal– Influent average 7.5 mg/L– Permeate average <0.01 mg/L– 99.9% removal

• NDMA Removal– Below detection limit

28

Luggage Point AWTP Sitegg gMembrane &

UV BuildingChemical

Building UV BuildingBuilding

Raw Water Storage

Flocculation / Clarification

C t if

29

ThickenerCentrifuge

Building

Luggage Point AWTPFlocculation / Clarification Reverse Osmosis

Microfiltration UV / Advanced Oxidation

30

E t FIndirect Potable Reuse:BALANCING COSTS AND

Excerpts From:

BALANCING COSTS ANDBENEFITSIWA World Water CongressIWA World Water CongressSeptember 2008Vienna

Larry Schimmoller – CH2M HILL Bill Bellamy – CH2M HILL Jason Curl – CH2M HILL

BackgroundBackground• Greater focus on sustainability throughout

societyy

• Intent of this paper is to compare two indirect potable reuse (IPR) treatmentindirect potable reuse (IPR) treatment trains with respect to cost, health, and environmental impact

32

Treatment Trains Evaluated

Treatment Train #1

Treatment Train #2

• Multiple barriers provided by each treatment train for removal of bulk organic matter, trace organics, and pathogens

33

• Disposal of RO concentrate required for Train #2

Triple Bottom Line AnalysisTriple Bottom Line Analysis

• Social– Health impacts: evaluated effectiveness of each treatment train

for removal of emerging contaminants, bulk organic matter, and pathogenspathogens

• Financial– Evaluated the capital cost, annual operating cost, and net

t l f h t t t t ipresent value of each treatment train

• Environmental– Evaluated greenhouse gas emissions produced by each plantEvaluated greenhouse gas emissions produced by each plant

34

Pharmaceutical and EDC Removal6

4

5

mov

al

2

3

Log

Rem

0

1

35

Train #1 - Coag/O3-BAC/GAC/UVTrain #2 - MF/RO/UV-AOP

NetPresent Worth (US Dollars)

$500

$600 O&M BldgConc HandlingSolids HandlingChemicals

$300

$400

ons

ChemicalsUVROGACMF

$200

$300

Mill

io MFO3/BACClarification

$0

$100

$0Train 1A -1/yr GAC Regen.

Train 1B -2/yr GAC Regen.

Train 1C -4/yr GAC Regen.

Train #2B -MF/RO/UV-

AOP

Train #2A -MF/RO/UV-AOP w/ZLD

36

CO2 EmissionsCO2 Emissions80,000

90,000

CO2 from GAC Regeneration

60,000

70,000

ric

tons

/yr)

CO2 from GAC Regeneration

CO2 from Electricity

40,000

50,000

issi

on (m

etr

20,000

30,000

CO

2 E

mi

0

10,000

Train 1A - Train 1B - Train 1C - Train #2B - Train #2A -

37

Train 1A 1/yr GACRegen.

Train 1B 2/yr GACRegen.

Train 1C 4/yr GACRegen.

Train #2B MF/RO/UV-

AOP

Train #2A MF/RO/UV-AOP w/ZLD

Major ConclusionsMajor Conclusions• Alternative treatment trains

should be considered for IPR applications (especially for

Social Equity

applications (especially for inland locations)– cost can be significantly

less

SustainableSolutions

less– environmental impact can

be substantially lesst t d t i f i il

EnvironmentEconomy

– treated water is of similar quality

• Alternative selected for

y

implementation should support the most sustainable approach

38

• Where TDS removal is required, RO treatment is necessary

Thank youThank you

Larry.Schimmoller@ch2m.com

39