6/24/2014
Presented By: Philip Markwed
Project Location
1
6/24/2014
Introduction
 Standing Rock Rural Water System
 ± 8,000 users
 Two existing WTPs
 Ft. Yates (lime softening)
 Wakpala (conventional)
 ARRA Funding
 New WTP
 3 mgd (initial construction)
 5 mgd (future expansion)
Proposed Core Facilities
2
6/24/2014
Indian Memorial Intake
WTP Design Considerations
Missouri
River Water
Recarbonation
•Media Filters
•MF/UF
Clarification
Primary
Disinfection
Filtration
Softening
•Pebble Lime
•Hydrated Lime
•NF/RO
•Chlorine Gas
•Sodium Hypochlorite
•Onsite Generation
3
6/24/2014
Softening Considerations
S ft i
NF/RO Softening
Li
S
ft i
Lime
Softening
(Advantages)
 Consistency



No lime purity issues
 Slaking temp
Minimal process upsets

Split treatment
No recarbonation step
(Advantages)
 Integrated with clarification




 Reduces building footprint
Operator experience
Lower capital equipment costs
No concentrate disposal
Reduced plant influent flows
 Reduced pumping costs
Softening Considerations
DensaDeg
g
 High rate process




 Rise rate: 6.0-15.0 gpm/sf
 Reduces building footprint
Higher equipment cost
 Generally more expensive
Little competition
Integrated sludge recycle
 Solids inventory
Tube settlers
Solids Contact Basin
 Loading Rate: 1.75 gpm/sf

Larger footprint
 Competition

 Generally less expensive
Similar process at Ft.
Yates WTP
4
6/24/2014
DensaDeg Process
Ultimate Capacity
Detention Times @ 1900 GPM






1900 gpm (per train)
2 treatment trains
Rate: 9.93 gpm/ft.²
Rapid Mix: 2.1 min. detention time
Reactor : 6.9 min. detention time
Clarifier: 20.2 min. detention time
DensaDeg Process
5
6/24/2014
Lime Feed Alternatives
Hydrated vs. Paste Slaker vs. RDP Slaker
(20 year evaluation**)
Hydrated Lime
Year
NPV
NPV/TN
Capital Cost
$
$
Operating Cost
Chemical
Maintenance
(546,000.00) $ (776,745.25) $
(0.0264) $
(0.0375) $
Cash Flow
(136,485.25) $ (1,459,230.49)
(0.0066) $
(0.0704)
Paste Slaker (pebble lime)
Year
Capital Cost
NPV
$
NPV/TN $
Operating Cost
Chemical
Maintenance
(552,500.00)
(552
500 00) $ (535
(535,382.96)
382 96) $
(0.0329) $
(0.0319) $
(272,970.49)
(272
970 49) $
(0.0163) $
Cash Flow
(1,360,853.45)
(1
360 853 45)
(0.0810)
RDP Slaker (pebble lime)
Year
NPV
NPV/TN
Capital Cost
$
$
Operating Cost
Chemical
Maintenance
(643,500.00) $ (535,382.96) $
(0.0383) $
(0.0319) $
(44,995.14) $
(0.0027) $
Cash Flow
(1,223,878.10)
(0.0729)
** Based of an interest rate of 6% and inflation rate of 3%. Capital cost consists of equipment costs plus an installation cost estimated at 30% of equipment costs
RDP Tekkem Slaker
Lime Silo: 7,500 ft³ (70 tons CaO)
Lime Feeder: 5,100 lbs./hr
Lime Slaker: 200 gallon batch size
Dosing Pumps: 257 lb./day Ca(OH)₂ each


3 pumps: 2 distribution, 1 standby
5 GPM max
6
6/24/2014
Lime Feed Photos
Lime Feed Photos
7
6/24/2014
Recarbonation






TOMCO2 PSF
Compound loop control system
26 ton liquid CO2 storage tank
60 lb/hr max feed rate
6 lb/hr min feed rate
CO2 feed channel
p
y)
 3 min detention ((ultimate capacity)
Reactor channel
 3 min detention (ultimate capacity)
Filtration Considerations
Media Filters
 2 to 4 gpm/sf
 Requires 575 sf filtration
area initially
 Requires 975 sf filtration


area ultimately
Requires additional 0.5
log giardia and 2 log virus
removal/inactivation
Susceptible to
pretreatment
MF/UF Membranes
 35 to 50 gfd
 538 sf/module (Pall)
 Requires 138 modules





initially
Requires 276 modules
ultimately
q
Requires
no additional
giardia removal/inactivation
Typically requires 4-log
virus inactivation
Tolerate turbidity spikes
Backwash volume &
frequency
8
6/24/2014
Membrane Procurement
Base Bid






2,100 gpm (24 hrs) @ 60°F
1,500 gpm (24 hrs) @ 35°F
Minimum of 3 skids (N-1)
Cleaning Period ≥ 35 days
10% additional module
space on skids
Max flux for Pall



Alternate Bid

Max flux for Pall



70 gfd @ 60°F
50 gfd @ 35°F
Max flux for Siemens & GE


50 gfd @ 60°F
36 gfd @ 35°F
50 gfd @ 60°F
36 gfd @ 35°F
Max flux for Siemens & GE


35 gfd @ 60°F
25 gfd @ 35°F
Pall Corp. was the lowest responsive bidder
Pall Microfiltration Membranes
Microza Module UNA-6203
Membrane Material
 PVDF (hydrophobic)
 0.1 µm nominal pore size
Membrane Type
 Hollow-Fiber
 “Outside-In”
 6,350 fibers per module
 538 ft²
ft of filter area per module
 69 modules per skid (76 allowable)
Driving Force
 Pressure
Hydraulic Mode of Operation
 Dead-End (Deposition)
9
6/24/2014
Disinfection Considerations
Chlorine Gas vs. Bulk Sodium Hypochlorite
vs. Onsite Generation
yp
(20 year evaluation)
Analysis
Onsite #1
Onsite #2
Onsite #3
NPV
($483,535.37) ($556,798.19) ($651,212.59)
NPV/LB Cl2
($1.60)
($1.85)
($2.16)
Bulk Sodium
Gas Chlorine Gas Chlorine
Hypochlorite
($972,322.26)
($3.23)
(150#)
(2000#)
($575,178.50) ($263,734.48)
($1.91)
($0.87)
Gas Chlorine



Lowest cost
Operators familiar with system
Rural area
Secondary Disinfection: Chloramines
Final Process Schematic
Missouri
Ri
W
t
River
Water
RDP Lime Feed
DensaDeg
Recarbonation
Chlorine Gas
Chloramine
MF Buffer
Basin
MF Membranes
Distribution
System
10
6/24/2014
Drilled Piers
11
6/24/2014
Grade Beams & Void Forms
Structural Slabs & Steel
12
6/24/2014
Precast Architectural Concrete Walls
DensaDeg System Construction
13
6/24/2014
DensaDeg System Construction
DensaDeg System Construction
14
6/24/2014
Pall MF System Construction
Pall MF System Construction
15
6/24/2014
Pall MF System Construction
LIDAR Scan of Completed WTP
16
6/24/2014
Questions?
17

Fairmont WTP (Kosmatka)

Procurement Listing - City of Springfield, Ohio