indirect potable reuse at cottonwood water and sanitation district
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Indirect Potable Reuse at Cottonwood Water and Sanitation District

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35

Indirect Potable Reuse at Cottonwood Water and Sanitation District - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 164 Views
  • Uploaded on

Indirect Potable Reuse at Cottonwood Water and Sanitation District. Rick Arber, Ben Johnson Richard P. Arber Associates Pat Mulhern MRE. Types of Reuse. Agricultural & Industrial. Exchanges Recycle-process, cooling. Municipal. Urban Landscape Irrigation Indirect Potable Use

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Indirect Potable Reuse at Cottonwood Water and Sanitation District' - wilkinson


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
indirect potable reuse at cottonwood water and sanitation district

Indirect Potable Reuse at Cottonwood Water and Sanitation District

Rick Arber, Ben Johnson

Richard P. Arber Associates

Pat Mulhern

MRE

agricultural industrial
Agricultural & Industrial
  • Exchanges
  • Recycle-process, cooling
municipal
Municipal
  • Urban Landscape Irrigation
  • Indirect Potable Use
  • Direct Potable Reuse
slide11
CWSD….
  • Formed in 1981
  • 1200 Acres of residential and commercial development
  • Slow development in 1980s
  • Rapid development in 1990s
slide12
Water Supplies
      • Deep wells (Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe, Laramie Fox Hills)
      • Cherry Creek alluvium
  • Wastewater
      • ACWWA Lone Tree Creek WWTP
slide13
Deep Wells
    • 995 acre Feet
    • Fe, Mn, H2S
  • Alluvial Water
    • 141 acre feet senior rights
    • 585 acre feet junior rights
    • Upstream discharges (Pinery, Parker, Stonegate)
slide14
Deep Wells
    • non-renewing
    • draw down/capacities
    • require treatment
  • Alluvial Wells
    • renewable
    • high capacity
    • require treatment
alternatives
Alternatives
  • Deep Wells
    • Non-renewing; eventual depletion
    • Additional wells need with draw down
    • Limited production
    • Treatment required
alternatives17
Alternatives
  • Dual Distribution $$$
  • Import Groundwater $$$
alternatives18
Alternatives
  • Reuse

Renewable supply

Extend deep groundwater

Greater production

centralized vs decentralized treatment
Centralized vs. Decentralized Treatment
  • Capital cost 10% less for centralized treatment.
  • O&M cost similar for centralized treatment and decentralized.
  • Centralized treatment easier to operate.
slide21
Average daily demand 2 mgd
  • Maximum daily demand 6 mgd
treatment
Treatment
  • Cartridge Filters
  • UV?
  • Anti-scalant
  • Nanofiltration
  • Degassifier
  • pH adjust
  • Alkalinity
  • Chlorine
indirect potable reuse
Indirect Potable Reuse
  • Multiple Barriers
    • WWTP/AWT
    • Alluvium (3000 ft.,~ 1.5 years travel)
    • Membrane water treatment (100%)
    • Final disinfection
concentrate disposal
Concentrate Disposal
  • Cherry Creek Basin
    • PO4
  • Split Flow
    • ACWWA WWTP (base flow)
    • Irrigation
objectives
Objectives
  • Evaluate effectiveness of NF on raw water
  • Determine design criteria
  • Evaluate fouling potential
  • Evaluate feed, permeate, and concentrate water quality
  • Select appropriate membrane
pilot testing plan
Pilot Testing Plan
  • Three month duration
    • Test different membranes
  • Sample water quality 6 times
    • At beginning and end of each membrane test
  • Operate at 83% recovery
    • 2.0 gpm permeate
    • 0.5 gpm concentrate
performance
Performance
  • Tested two membranes
    • Osmonics
    • Filmtec (2 month test)
  • Added anti-scalant chemical(Pro Treat)
    • Potential for sulfate precipitation reduced
  • No significant fouling was observed
results
Results
  • Both membranes performed well
    • Osmonics tighter - higher driving pressure
    • Filmtec looser - lower contaminant rejection
  • Average Rejection
    • TDS
      • Osmonics 68% Filmtec 62%
    • Hardness
      • Osmonics 84% Filmtec 69%
    • TOC successfully rejected by both membranes (BDL)
project costs
Project Costs
  • Treatment
    • $9.3 million
  • Ancillary facilities
    • $2.3 million
public education program
Public Education Program
  • Consultant
  • Literature
  • CDPHE involvement
  • Public meetings
schedule
Schedule
  • Predesign underway
  • Design 2003
  • Construct 2004
  • Start up 2005
conclusions
Conclusions
  • NF effective in removing TOC
  • Multiple barriers provide public health protection
  • Indirect potable reuse is viable, cost effective water supply for CWSD
  • Public support is needed
ad