Richard Miller Treatment Plant - Ohiowater.org

G R E A T E R C I N C I N N A T I
W A T E R W O R K S
Richard Miller Treatment Plant
A tradition of excellence

Project history
Driving forces
Feasibility
• Process
• Hydraulic
Design
Construction
Questions
2

Feasibility Study 1999-2000
Hydraulic Analysis and Process Location
Assessment 2001-2004
Preliminary Design and Master Planning 2005-2008
Advanced Oxidation Pilot 2007-2008
Final Design 2009-2010
Construction October 2010 – January 2013
Warranty Testing 2012-2013
3

1993 Milwaukee cryptosporidium outbreak
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT2ESWTR) and “BIN” classification
Vulnerability of source water to contamination
• Known and emerging contaminants
• Historic crypto data analysis
• Robustness of existing treatment barriers
• Multiple inactivation barriers
• Wastewater treatment plant
4

23%
Lake Michigan
33%
53%
Water plant
1
Water plant
2
Sewage tx
Intake 1
Sewage plume
Intake 2
Plants were meeting the existing regulations at that time
People not receiving water directly from Plant 2 also got infected due to
commuting for work, or other business and drank the water contaminated
with cryptosporidium
5

Disease (Cryptosporidium) outbreak in 1993 from drinking
water
Plants were meeting all drinking water regulations
• Nearly 400,000 became sick
• 100 - 150 deaths
Total estimated costs by Center for Disease Control
(2003)
• Total cost of illness – $96.2 M
o $31.7 M in medical costs
o $64.6 M in productivity costs
6

Cumulative Log Credit for Cryptosporidium
Coagulation
& Rapid
Settling
Conventional
Treatment
Reservoirs Secondary
Sedimentation
Sand
Filtration
< 0.15
NTU CFE
GAC
Filter
Clearwells
RA
W
7
Point of Bin
Determination
+ 3-log + 0.5-log 1
+ 0.5-log + 0-log
To
Distribution
System
Indicates that credit was
achieved using a physical
removal barrier.
6
5
4
3
Bin 4
Bin 3
Bin 2
2
1
0
Process
1
An additional 0.5-log credit may be available for < 0.15 NTU on individual filters.
7

•Higher the crypto #s, greater the treatment required
8

Spore concentrations
100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
Ohio First Second Sand GAC Finished
RAW LMEF FLIN GACI WSW CW1E
River Settling Settling Filters Filters Water
Spores are a type of microorganism. We see that spores are reduced through
treatment, but their presence in the finished water is an indication that treatment is
not 100% effective at their removal.
9

Upstream Wastewater
plants
Mixing and dilution
Chlorine resistant
microbes
EDC, PPCPs, etc.
10

Option
Option 1: Current treatment process with an
additional coagulation step*
Total Annual
Cost ($M)**
0.5
Option 2: Post GAC – Ultraviolet 1.8
Option 3: Micro Filtration (MF) 21
Option 4: Ultra Filtration (UF) 16
Option: Post sand-filter UF and Post-GAC UV 20
*Option 1 was piloted at GCWW. The option did not show significant benefit
when tested on our water.
**1998 dollars developed by USEPA, LT2 Cost and Technology Document.
$ includes operating costs and capital at 6% over 20 years. $ does not
include site complexity, engineering fees, etc.
11

Radio
IR
Visible
Light
UV X-Rays
• Ultraviolet (UV) light is
a naturally occurring
form of light
UV-A UV-B UV-C
Vacuum
UV
• In water treatment, UV
is a physical disinfection
process that does not
use any chemicals
300nm
200nm
• UV covers a range of
light wavelengths
Germicidal Range
Electromagnetic Spectrum
• UV light in low doses
inactivates diseasecausing
microbes
12

Protozoa &
Bacterial Spores
Organism
Cryptosporidium
Bacillus subtilis
UV
(40 mJ/cm2)
Cl2
(1 mg/L &
24 hours)
UV & Cl2
Good Poor Good
Good Poor Good
Toxoplasma gondii Good Poor Good
Bacteria
E. Coli Good Good Good
Mycobacterium terrae Fair Good Good
Viruses
Adenovirus Poor Good Good
MS-2 Poor Good Good
PRD-1 Fair-Poor Good Good
13

Four potential locations were investigated
Possible locations for UV were evaluated. Energy
costs, lamp types and other factors were evaluated
considering water quality, reliability, and flexibility to
run under different operational scenarios
14

Relative Benefit
Cost & Cost Benefit ($k)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
7,000
5,000
3,000
1,000
-1,000
-3,000
Reliability
Water Quality
Flexibility
Maintenance
Operation
GCWW used a
cost-benefit
model to select
the best options
considering cost
benefit, and total
annualized cost
reliability, and
flexibility, water
quality, operation,
and maintenance
Cost Benefit
0
Effluent of Each
contactor
After GAC in
New Bld
3 4
Alternative
-5,000
Total Anualized Cost
15

Wedeco
Medium Pressure, 5-lamp
Reactor (Calgon)
designed for 4-log
(99.99%) crypto
inactivation
16

8 validated reactors
for 4-log crypto
MP (max flow 35
mgd/reactor)
5-lamp configuration
guaranteed lamp,
sleeve & ballast life
Guaranteed power
costs
17

Max headloss at design
flow (240-mgd)

158 feet
111 feet
19

Facility Construction
Process Engineering
Instrumentation, Control, and
Programming
22

Final Design
Construction
Notice to proceed
UV Site Work
Substantial completion
Validation review
Reactor Factory testing
Regulatory Approval
Operational Readiness Testing
Functional Demonstration Testing
Site Acceptance Testing
Warrantee Testing
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2010 2011 2012 2013
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
23

Impact on current operation
• Partial plant shutdowns (Yard piping and facility tieins)
• Maintaining Plant Operation during construction
• Chemical deliveries
24

Construction Constraints
• May 1 through September 30, no construction
activities that would reduce plant production below
240 MGD
• Seal wells/CCW lines – no more than one out at a
time to keep plant at half capacity (~120 MGD)
• Filter Water Weir Chamber – Max 2 shutdowns, max
30 hours each
• WW Recovery Basin/WW Return Pump Station – max
3 shutdowns, max 24 hours each
29

OEPA/DEFA State Revolving Loan Funding for project
Questions/Comments?
UV Bld. w/solar panels
GAC bld.
Cl2 bld.
30

Construction $ = $320,000
Offset the energy consumption of
the facility in an environmentally
sound manner.
The capacity is 45 KW, which will
represent one of the larger such
installations in the state.
The solar panel system will offset $20,000
per year in energy costs.
31

UV Submittals' review from the Vendor
(Calgon Corporation)
• Dose control & monitoring strategies
• Startup issues, safety (Hg spills)
Review of Validation Report
• Reactor validation
• Hydraulics and dose distributions
• Monitoring equations and algorithms
34

Any questions?
42