City Council May 15, 2012 Hickory Update
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

City Council May 15, 2012 Hickory Update






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



4 Embeds 81 48 23 9 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

City Council May 15, 2012 Hickory Update City Council May 15, 2012 Hickory Update Presentation Transcript

  • Agenda1. Overall project progress2. Groundwater (GW) Treatment & Disposal Alternatives3. Surface Water Treatment Plant Assessment4. Updated treatment costs & schedule5. Questions 2
  • Well Field Piping Completed design: June 28, 2011 Bids Received: August 12, 2011 Contractor: Price Construction, LTD NTP: October 4, 2011 Current Status: Construction is 95% complete 3
  • Transmission Main Completed design: August 12, 2011 Bids Received: September 23, 2012 Contractor: Oscar Renda Contracting Delay in approval and release of funds by TWDB NTP: January 23, 2012 Current status: Construction activities are underway 4
  • Booster Pump Station & Well Field Completed design: February 29, 2012 Design approved by TCEQ & TWDB: April 2012 Bids Received: May 1, 2012 Contractor: Archer Western Construction LLC Status: COSA Approval NTP: June 11, 2012 pending final approval and release of funds by TWDB 5
  • Groundwater Treatment Ion Exchange (IX) pilot testing 100% complete Reverse Osmosis (RO) pilot testing 95% complete Surface Water Treatment Plant Assessment completed for incorporation of new facilities Final design will commence upon selection of treatment/disposal alternative 6
  • Groundwater Treatment Background Single-use Ion Exchange (IX) • Previous pilot testing for groundwater indicated that single use ion exchange is a viable technology for removing radium • Pilot tests showed that O&M costs were higher than what was suggested by the manufacturers • Results suggested evaluating other treatment technologies like RO Reverse Osmosis • Pilot Plant investigations started in January 2012 7
  • Treatment Alternative 1: Single-UseIon Exchange (IX) Pretreatment Ion Exchange (IX) Phosphate Finished Water (99% Recovery) Well Granular Spent Disposal to Media Resin Licensed Facility Filter 8
  • Treatment Alternative 2: Reverse Osmosis (RO) Pretreatment 3-Stage RO Post Treatment Acid Antiscalant Finished Water (90% Recovery) CO2 Cartridge Excellent Filters Water QualityWell Granular Brine to Media Air Calcite Treatment/ Filter Stripper Contactor Disposal 9
  • Preliminary RO Results Summary Excellent membrane performance All three (3) RO membranes tested produced good results which allows good competition All membranes tested maintained radium below 1 pCi/L in the treated water 10
  • Comparison of Radium at the Point of Entry Using RO and Single-Use IX IX Effluent RO EffluentCombined TCEQ Limit Ra 5 (pCi/L) 0 Time 11
  • GW Treatment/Disposal Alternatives1. Single-Use Ion Exchange (IX) with spent media to an approved landfill2. Reverse Osmosis (RO) with Brine to: a. Deep well injection b. Land application (mixing with WWTP Effluent) c. Single-Use Ion Exchange (IX) 12
  • 2a. Brine Disposal/ Deep Well Injection Inject RO brine into deep underground aquifer Location of injection wells needs to be identified Test well needs to be constructed and piloted at anticipated full scale capacity prior to approval (approx 18 months)
  • 2b. Brine Disposal / Land Application  Brine is pumped to storage pond at wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)  Brine blended with WWTP effluent  Mixture is land applied
  • 2c. Brine Disposal/ IX Brine Treatment  Single-use IX used to treat RO brine  Treated concentrate sent to sewer  Resin disposed of at a low-level radioactive waste site
  • Incorporation of Hickory GW intoExisting SWTP Investigated incorporation of Groundwater Treatment Facilities to expedite design once a treatment alternative is selected Evaluated existing plant conditions with respect to regulations, reliability, performance & hydraulics Conducted a blending study to investigate compatibility of the Surface Water & Ground Water 16
  • Estimated Construction Costs Comparison for a Treatment Capacity of 6 mgd 2a. RO / Deep 2b. RO / Land 1. IX 2c. RO/IX Well Inj. ApplicationAlternativeCapital Cost(millions) $23.4 $61.0 $65.0 $39.8Annual O&M(millions) $3.3 $2.4 $1.8 $2.2NPV O&M Costs(millions) $92.3 $68.5 $51.1 $62.2Total NPV Cost(millions) $115.7 $129.5 $116.1 $102.0Note: Costs in millions and are for 2012 dollars, assuming a discount rate of 3% and a project life o30 years starting in 2014, with a capacity of 6 mgd and no expansions.
  • Anticipated Schedule RO/ Deep RO / Land IX RO / IX Well ApplicationAnticipated Start June 2012Deep Well Full Scale PilotDesign & Operation (Approvalneeded by TCEQ, TWDB) --- 18 --- ---Design (Expedited) 8 11 11 9TCEQ / TWDB Review 2 2 2 2Bid/Award/NTP 2 2 2 2Construction 12 – 15 15 - 18 15 - 18 15 - 18 24 - 28 48 - 51 30 - 33 28 - 31Total time months months months months 18
  • Treatment Alternative Evaluation Summary Reverse Ion Exchange Osmosis with (IX) Brine (IX) TreatmentCapital costs ✓Annual O&M ✓Net present value ✓ ✓Schedule ✓ ✓Treated water quality ✓Water recovery ✓Price fluctuations/competition ✓
  • Capital Cost to Add 3 MGD Capacity in 2014 Reverse Osmosis with Ion Exchange IX of BrineAdditional Wells, piping,civil, electrical etc $14.5 $14.5Booster Pump StationUpgrade $0.4 $0.4Treatment $6.0 $11.1Total Cost $20.9 $26.0Note: Estimates are given in millions for 2012 dollars.Additional engineering & management is estimated at 12% and is included in the estimate
  • Recommended SWTP Improvements Chemical storage and feed facilities for joint use between GW and SW facilities New clearwell as the existing clearwell is reaching its service life Facilities to recycle filter backwash washwater to the head of the surface WTP will conserve an average of 0.3 MGD (100 MG/year) Raw water blending and flow split structure to handle the different source waters 23
  • Costs for Major Recommended SWTP Improvement Estimated Costs Alternative Clearwell $3.9 Backwash handling facilities $3.4 Flow blending split structure $2.9 New control/lab building $2.4Note: Estimates are given in millions for 2012 dollars. Additional engineering &management is estimated at 15% and is included in the estimate