Arsenic in OU-Powerpoint Presentation

Arsenic in OU-Powerpoint Presentation - POISON POISON In r...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: POISON!!! POISON!!! In r Water http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/09/09142001/arsenichands.jpg 1 Arsenic Removal from the Arsenic University of Oklahoma University Water Supply Paul Gerber April 2004 Collin Martin John Siska 2 Background • OU has high arsenic levels (48 ppb) in OU wells that need to be treated wells • EPA says limit needs to be 10 ppb by EPA January 2006 January • Current limit is 50 ppb 3 Our Purpose • Evaluate effectiveness of alternative Evaluate technologies technologies • Determine which technology is best suited • Perform cost evaluation of the best Perform technologies technologies 4 The History of Arsenic Occurs naturally in rocks and soil, water, air, and plants and animals. It can be further released into the environment through natural activities such as volcanic action, erosion of rocks, and forest fires http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/As/key.html 5 Uses of Arsenic PAST Insecticides Herbicides Paints Dyes CURRENT Wood preservative Production of glass Electronics Medicine 6 Effects of Arsenic How Arsenic Enters the Body •From the food we eat every day •By drinking water containing arsenic or eating food cooked in this water •By breathing air containing it •Arsenic is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream 7 Known Health Effects • Thickening and discoloration of the skin • Stomach pain • Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (300 to 30,000 • • ppb) Numbness in the hands and feet Direct skin contact may cause redness and swelling Large oral doses (above 60,000 ppb in food or water) can cause death 8 Where is it? Ryker, S.J., Nov. 2001, Mapping arsenic in groundwater: Geotimes v.46 no.11, p.34-36. 9 OU’s Wells with Arsenic Average Arsenic Content 48 ppb 10 10 CH2M Hill Group Results Assumed City of Norman and OU were one entitiy Assumed entitiy • CH2M Hill recommendation does not apply strictly to the CH2M University of Oklahoma University • New Wells and Blending – Capital Investment: $9.2 Capital – NPC: $35,000,000 11 11 POE & Associates 2002 Results • Purchase all potable water from the City of Norman • Cost: $100,000 + Water Purchase Cost – Based on $4.00/1000 Gallons – Changing water connections • Potable wells • City of Norman City 12 12 Past Engineering Group Results Civil Engineering Group 2001 • 3 MGPD Ion Exchange • Capital Investment: $2,179,000 – NPC: $17,079,000 Chemical Engineering Group 2003 • 1.6 MGPD Ion Exchange • Capital Investment: $2,000,000 – NPC: $3,100,000 – Based on $1.14/1000 Gallons 13 13 Sources of Water • Westheimer Airport (North Campus) Wells – – – High in Arsenic (30-50 ppb) Must be Treated Very Soft (30 mg/L) Water • OKC (Purchased) Water – Low in Arsenic, but Expensive – Soft (60 mg/L) Water • South Campus Wells – – – Currently Used for Irrigation 2 ppb Arsenic Very Cheap, but Very Hard (340 mg/L) Water 14 14 Water Treatment Processes • Water Purchase • Nanofiltration • Microfiltration • Polyelectrolyte Enhanced Ultrafiltration • Reverse Osmosis • Ion Exchange 15 15 Water Purchase • Buy potable water Buy • directly from OKC at $0.98 per thousand gallons. gallons. Pay $0.05 per Pay thousand gallons to transmit this water to OU from OKC through Norman. Norman. 16 16 Water Purchase • Pros – No Initial Investment – No Significant Construction Needed • Cons – Dependence on OKC and Norman for Water – High Water Cost 17 17 Membrane Separation • A mixture is separated • Allows one component to move through faster than others • Separated into a retentive and a permeate stream Feed Water Membrane Retentive (Waste Water) Permeate (Treated Water) 18 18 Nanofiltration, Microfiltration and Nanofiltration, Ultrafiltration Ultrafiltration • Nanofiltration membranes are Nanofiltration capable of removing arsenate because of their small pore size. because Restricted diffusion • Microfiltration’s pore size is too large pore to remove arsenate. • Ultrafiltration’s membrane pore sizes membrane are small enough to block the polymer that is bounded to the arsenate. arsenate. 19 19 Polyelectrolyte Enhanced Polyelectrolyte Ultrafiltration Ultrafiltration • Polymers (long-chain molecules) with a cationic (positive chain charge) head group charge) Water soluble • • Biodegrade easily 20 20 Polyelectrolyte Enhanced Polyelectrolyte Ultrafiltration Ultrafiltration • The polymer used is a The polyelectrolyte of opposite charge to the target ion (Arsenate). (Arsenate). • Pollutant ions bind to the Pollutant polymer polymer – Electrostatic attraction Electrostatic • Polymer complexes are retained Polymer by the membrane in the waste stream. stream. • Uncomplexed iions (water ons molecules) pass through the membrane to the treated stream. stream. H2AsO4- • But polymer is expensive… 21 21 Reverse Osmosis Pressure Membrane 22 22 Reverse Osmosis 23 23 Reverse Osmosis • Pros – No Chemicals Needed for Normal Operation – Low Maintenance, Easy to Operate • Cons – Very Expensive (Membrane) – High Pumping Costs – Creates a lot of Waste (Reject Water) 24 24 25 25 Ion Exchange 26 26 Ion Exchange • Pros – Inexpensive to Start-Up and Operate – Removes Virtually All Arsenic from the Water • Cons – – – Resin must be Regenerated/Replaced Risk of Arsenic Breakthrough Produces a lot of Waste (but much less than RO) 27 27 Detailed Calculations • Water Systems Integration • Economic Analysis of Treatment Options • Basis of Calculations (unless otherwise Basis specified): specified): – – – – 0.75 MGPD (520 gpm) Potable Demand Today 1% Annual Growth in Water Demand 1% Inflation 5% Discounting for Net Present Cost Calculations 28 28 Water Systems Integration • North Campus Treatment Facility North Integration Integration • South Campus Well Integration 29 29 Options 1. Buying all water from OKC (WP) 2. Treating all north campus water (IX) 3. Blending treated water with south Blending campus water (IX + SC) campus 4. Blending purchased water with Blending south campus water (WP + SC) south 5. Treating South Campus Water Treating Directly for Hardness Directly 30 30 Water Sources and Costs Water per 1000 gallons per • $1.030 OKC $1.030 OKC • $0.791 Ion Exchange • $0.085 South Campus North Campus OKC O.U. South Campus 31 31 North Campus 32 32 North Campus F a c ilit y Pum ps G a t e v a lv e s R e lie f v a lv e C h eck v a l v es M e te rs M e t e r v a u lt E lb o w s 9 0 T c o n n ect o r s P ip e S C D 8 0 ( 1 f o o t) 8 " V ar i a b l e D r i v es C o n t ro l l e rs # P a rts 1 2 5 1 3 2 1 7 4 400 2 2 C o st / P ar t $300, 000 $15, 200 $2, 700 $ 525 $1, 650 $5, 100 $3, 200 $ 315 $ 475 $36 $7, 500 $2, 000 T o ta l O p er at i n g E x p e n s e s C o s t ( $/ y r ) Pum p Pow er U t ilit ie s T o ta l C o s t $300, 000 $30, 400 $13, 500 $525 $4, 950 $10, 200 $3, 200 $2, 205 $1, 900 $14, 400 $15, 000 $4, 000 $400, 280 $23, 389 $1, 700 $25, 089 T o t a l: 33 33 South Campus Wells South 2, 10 and 11 2, 34 34 South Campus Wells South • 11 Wells Total, with Flowrates of 12 – 282 gpm 11 Flowrates of Well GPM 1 16 2 160 3 25 4 50 5 55 6 16 7 50 8 35 9 10 11 12 218 282 35 DEQ Test Results S.C. Well 10 Test Ran Total Alkalinity TDS Nitrates Hardnes Chloride Sulfite Conductance g/L m /L m /L s m /L m /L m /L UMHOS/cm g g g g g Test Results 337 418 1.44 Limts i None 500 10 342 None 10 250 25.1 150 743 None Ph Arsenic ppb 7.28 6.5 - 8.5 2 10 36 36 South Campus Wells: 2, 10, & 11 37 37 Cost of Integrating South campus C 901 8" PVC PIPE in feet Tee 90 Elbow Pipe and Fittings Trenching in feet Meter Vault Re-classifying w ells Up-grading w ells 10032 2 5 $19.10 $340.00 $209.00 191611.2 680 1045 10032 1 1 3 3 $0.85 $5,075.00 $3,700.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 Total 8527.2 5075 3700 1500 3000 $215,138 Operating Expenses Maintenance Pump Pow er Wells Total Cost ($/yr) $4,500.00 $21,204.00 $25,704.00 38 38 However, Using the South Campus Wells However, Increases Irrigation Costs Increases • Due to deeper wells and royalties • Increases cost by $0.31/1000 gal • Maximum cost per year $46,872 • Minimum cost per year $33,480 • Average Value per year $40,176 39 39 Augmenting with South Campus Source Oklahoma city Ion Exchange South Campus Wells 2,10,11 Cost/1000 gallon $1.030 $0.791 Average Cost Average 50-50% Cost 66-33% $0.558 $0.438 $0.715 $0.556 $0.085 40 40 University Water Cost University 150 mg/L Hardness 150 Y ear 1 5 10 15 20 Year 1 5 10 15 20 500 g p m p u rc h a s e C ost P u r c h ase / S a v i n g s S . C 6 6/ 33% p e r Y ear IX / S . C . 6 6/ 33% S a v in g s w it h IX & S .C . $86, 421 $93, 582 $103, 373 $114, 188 $126, 134 $146, 300 $158, 422 $174, 997 $193, 305 $213, 529 $135, 644 $146, 883 $162, 250 $179, 225 $197, 976 1000 gpm purchase Purchase / Savings Cost S.C 66/33% per Year IX / S.C. 66/33% Savings with IX & S.C. $165,940 $179,689 $198,488 $219,255 $242,194 $280,915 $348,598 $456,577 $598,001 $783,232 $260,453 $323,207 $423,320 $554,443 $726,182 $281, 944 $305, 305 $337, 247 $372, 530 $411, 505 $541,368 $586,224 $647,556 $715,305 $790,141 $195, 523 $211, 723 $233, 874 $258, 342 $285, 371 $375,428 $406,535 $449,067 $496,050 $547,948 41 41 Water Cost Mixing 33% of Water South Campus Wells South Water Consumption 520 gpm $450, 000 $400, 000 Cost per year $350, 000 $300, 000 100% Purc has e $250, 000 33% mix of S. C. $200, 000 33% S . C. 66% I / X $150, 000 $100, 000 $50, 000 $0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ti me i n Ye a rs 42 42 University Water Cost University 200 mg/L Hardness 200 Y ear 500 gpm p u rc h a s e C ost P u rc h a s e / S .C . S a v in g s 5 0 /5 0 % per Year IX / S . C . 5 0 /5 0 % S a v in g s IX / S .C . 1 5 10 15 20 $ 2 8 1 ,9 4 4 $ 3 0 5 ,3 0 5 $ 3 7 2 ,5 3 0 $ 3 7 2 ,5 3 0 $ 4 1 1 ,5 0 5 $ 1 5 2 ,6 0 6 $ 1 6 5 ,2 5 0 $ 1 8 2 ,5 3 9 $ 2 0 1 ,6 3 6 $ 2 2 2 ,7 3 2 $ 1 2 9 ,3 3 8 $ 1 4 0 ,0 5 5 $ 1 5 4 ,7 0 8 $ 1 7 0 ,8 9 4 $ 1 8 8 ,7 7 3 $ 1 1 9 ,8 9 5 $ 1 2 9 ,8 2 9 $ 1 4 3 ,4 1 2 $ 1 5 8 ,4 1 6 $ 1 7 4 ,9 8 9 $ 1 6 2 ,0 4 9 $ 1 7 5 ,4 7 6 $ 1 9 3 ,8 3 5 $ 2 1 4 ,1 1 4 $ 2 3 6 ,5 1 5 Y ear 1000 g p m p u r ch ase C ost P u r c h ase/ S .C . Sa vi ngs 5 0/ 5 0% p e r Y ear IX / S . C . 5 0/ 50% Sa vi ngs IX / S .C . 1 5 10 15 20 $ 541, 368 $ 586, 224 $715, 305 $715, 305 $ 790, 141 $248, 3 46 $268, 9 23 $297, 0 58 $328, 1 37 $ 361, 3 38 $230, 213 $285, 680 $374, 170 $490, 068 $ 641, 867 $311, 155 $386, 125 $505, 727 $662, 376 $ 867, 546 $293, 022 $317, 301 $350, 498 $387, 167 $ 428, 803 43 43 Water Cost Mixing 50% of Water South Campus Wells Water Consumption 520 gpm $450, 000 $400, 000 Cost per year $350, 000 $300, 000 100% Purc has e $250, 000 50% mix wit h S. C. $200, 000 50% S. C. and 50% I / X $150, 000 $100, 000 $50, 000 $0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ti m e in years 44 44 North/South Campus Time Line Time in Months Steps in Process 3 Initiating Proposal 3 Prepare and Present to Regents 3 Selection for Bid Process 3 Re-Submission to Regents 18 Construction Complete after Regents Approval 30 Total Time 45 45 Treating South Campus Water Treating Hardness Directly Hardness • Use Ion Exchange – Most widely used method of hardness Most correction correction – Much cheaper than membrane processes – Cationic Exchange Resin – Will attract ions such as calcium and Will magnesium magnesium – Use of NaCl or KCl for treatment Use KCl 46 46 Treating Water Hardness • 342 mg/L of hardness – 160 mg/L of sodium – For every liter (0.26 gallon) of water intake, For there would be 160 mg of sodium intake there – 1 cup of skim milk has about 125 mg sodium cup – Concerns about diet 47 47 Options for Water Hardness Potassium chloride as an alternative Does not damage vegetation, it is good for Does human consumption in the treated water human Waste does not have to go to the waste Waste treatment plant. treatment 48 48 Treating Water Hardness Directly • $11.7M Net Present Cost • Economically Unattractive 49 49 Economics of Water Treatment • Net Present Worth Treatment Process Net Comparison • Fixed Investment Comparison • Operating Cost Comparison • Uncertainty Analysis • Conclusions 50 50 Net Present Cost (Millions of $) Net Present Costs of Different T reatment Options 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 IX RO WP IX + SC 50:50 RO + SC 50:50 WP + SC 50:50 T re atme nt Option 51 51 Compar ison of Fixed Investments Fixed Investment (M illions of $) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 IX RO WP IX + SC 50:50 RO + SC 50:50 WP + SC 50:50 Tre atm e nt Option 52 52 Oper ating Cost vs. Oper ating Flow Rate $900,000 $800,000 Ion Exchange Operating Cost ($/yr) $700,000 Reverse Osmosis Water Purchase $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Average Potable Water D emand (MGPD ) 53 53 Project Cost Timeline $1,200,000 IX + SC Cos t s $1,000,000 WP + SC Cos t s $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 on st u ct io n $0 C Cost $800,000 Time (years) 54 54 Uncertainty Analysis a 1 Water Purchase + South Campus Wells 0.9 Ion Exchange + South Campus Wells Cumulative Probability 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 Cost ($) 55 55 Conclusion Depends on Recommendation, However… 14 Ion Exchange + South Campus 12 Water Purchase + South Campus Cost (Millions of $) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Cur r e nt Potable Wate r De m and ( M GPD) 2 56 56 Conclusions • Blend South Campus Water with Purchased Water at low Blend (<1.25 MGPD) Current Water Demands (<1.25 • Using Ion Exchange with South Campus Water for higher Using (>1.25 MGPD) Current Water Demands (>1.25 • Use 50:50 Blending Ratio to Achieve 200 mg/L Hardness Use (Moderately Hard) (Moderately • Resulting Water will be 5 ppb in Arsenic 57 57 Questions? 58 58 59 59 Appendix Slides 60 60 Ion Exchange Fixed Charges Columns Cos t/Ins tallation: $255,474.00, 23.7% Storage Tanks Cos t/Ins tallation: NaCl Initial Cos t (to firs t make up brine): $400,280.00, 37.2% $5,229.00, 0.5% $1,040.21, 0.1% $18,754.40, 1.7% $162,230.00, 15.1% $227,432.94, 21.1% $5,976.00, 0.6% Ins trumentation and Controls : Piping and Valves : Brine/NaOCl Pumps Purchas e/Ins tallation: Resin Purchase Cost: Proces s Integration/Facility Costs: 61 61 Ion Exchange Operating Costs (at 1.0 MGPD) $9,262.02, 3.3% $3,193.31, 1.1% $18,250.00, 6.5% $20,440.00, 7.3% $25,089.00, 9.0% $49,683.58, 17.8% NaCl Annual Cost (to maintain brine): NaOCl Annual Purchase Cost: Labor/Maintainence Costs: Sewage Disposal Cost: Royalties: $92,118.06, 33.0% Pump Electricity Costs: $61,116.13, 21.9% Process Integration/Facility Costs: City of Norman Transmission Costs: 62 62 Revese Osmosis Fixed Charges $400,280.00, 18.1% $59,480.00, 2.7% RO Sys tem Purchas e/Ins tallation: $36,645.00, 1.7% Ins trumentation and Controls : $9,177.20, 0.4% Piping and Valves : Pump Purchas e/Ins tallation: Proces s Integration/Facility Cos ts : $1,700,000.00, 77.1% 63 63 Reverse Osmosis Operating Costs (at 1.0 MGPD) $25,089.00, 6.1% $18,250.00, 4.4% Pump Electricity Costs: $20,440.00, 5.0% Royalties: Maintainence: $35,587.50, 8.7% $201,937.18, 49.2% $109,500.00, 26.7% Labor: City of Norman Transmission Costs: Process Integration/Facility Costs: 64 64 After Investment Water Costs $2.50 Ion Exchange Reverse Osmosis Cost ($/1000 gal.) $2.00 Water Purchase $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tim e line afte r Cons tr uction (yr s .) 65 65 After Investment Water Costs $1.80 IX + SC $1.60 RO + SC Cost ($/1000 gal.) $1.40 WP + SC $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tim e line afte r Cons tr uction (yr s .) 66 66 UF System Purchase/Installation PEUF Fixed Capital Costs Instrumentation and Controls Total Cost Piping and Valve Total Cost Engineering and Supervision: UF System Purchase/Installation, $39,430 Pump Purchase, Filters, and Accessories Total Cost Instrumentation and Controls Total Cost, $12,500 Pump Purchase, Filters, and Accessories Total Cost, $93,242 Piping and Valve Total Cost, $9,900 Engineering and Supervision:, $6,506 67 67 PEUF Operating Costs Annual Labor Cost ($/yr), $81,760 Pump Electricity Costs, $8,763 Royalties, $41,090 Maintanence, $82,125 Royalties Maintanence Raw Materials Pump Electricity Costs Annual Labor Cost ($/yr) Raw Materials, $722,470 68 68 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/31/2011 for the course CHE 4273 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '10 term at Oklahoma State.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online