Progress Report

August 2, 2011

San Angelo City Council

2

Agenda1. Overall project progress

2. Radioactivity in the environment

3. Single use Ion Exchange treatment update

4. Pipe loop study

5. Ground water treatment facility site location

6. Other treatment options

7. Questions

3

OVERALL PROJECT PROGRESS

5

Project Element Status

Transmission Main *In design*Scheduled to advertise September 2011

Well Field Piping *Design complete *In advertisement phase

Pump Station, Well Field, Electrical

*In design*Scheduled to advertise April 2012

Treatment *TCEQ approval of single use ion exchange *Additional testing and evaluations

RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT

7

Radioactivity Is Ubiquitous in the Environment

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

Lantern Mantle

Glazed Zircon

Building Tiles

Gypsum Granite Soil Beans Teeth Bone

Rad

ium

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (p

Ci/

g)

8

Radioactivity Is Ubiquitous in the Environment

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

Untreated Hickory Water

EPA Drinking Water Limit

Medical (Spa) Water

Mineral Water

Wine Beer Milk

Rad

ium

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (p

Ci/

L)

9

Safety Considerations

Not Required OSHA-Required Recommended

10

150’ = 15 Story Building

Soil

Environmental Impact of Pipe Break

Hickory water can pass through soil without approaching regulatory limit

11

Impact on Policies and Procedures

Soil, water, pipe scale samples

Radiation survey instruments

Documents, forms, etc.

Guidefor

Documenting Pipe Breaks

12

Case Study

Central TX Granite Distribution pipe Glazed salt shaker Vaseline glass

SINGLE USE ION EXCHANGE UPDATE

14

Simplified Pilot Testing Process Flow Diagram

15

Results Summary Single use ion exchange is effective in removing

radium, however, breakthrough occurred more frequently than what was originally estimated using desktop models.

Two of the three media proved to be effective

16

Single-Use Media Capital Cost

COSA Well Field COSA Well FieldDowex RSC WRT Z-88

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RevisedPreliminary

Cos

t in

$

Mill

ions

17

Single-Use Media O&M Cost

COSA Well Field COSA Well FieldDowex RSC WRT Z-88

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

RevisedPreliminary

Cos

t in

$

Mill

ions

PIPE LOOP STUDY

19

Pipe Loop Study

Purpose: Evaluate pipe scale and radionuclide deposition using various pipe materials, pipe velocities, and phosphate concentrations.

20

Preliminary Results & Observations of Pipe Loop Study

Parameter Result

Scale Formation Mortar-lined>FRP>PVC

Flow Velocity No apparent effect on scale formation

Treatment LocationNo measurable adverse effect on having treatment downstream of pipe

O&M Periodic pipe pigging may be desirable

GWTF SITE LOCATION

22

Groundwater Treatment Facility Location

Two locations are considered for the groundwater treatment facility (GWTF)

• Hickory well site

• COSA Water Treatment Plant

Several factors should be considered when evaluating the locations of the GWTF

Decision should be based on what is best for COSA

23

Factors Affecting Treatment LocationCity Well Field

Capital Cost √

O&M Cost √

Chemical deliveries & logistics √

Reduced potential for pipe scale √

Ease of treatment monitoring and controls

√

Personnel requirements √

Flexibility to use other treatment technologies

√

Human health and the environment

√ √

24

Results of Groundwater Treatment Facility (GWTF) Location Evaluation

Based on the following factors: • Capital Cost

• O&M Cost

• Operational efficiency

• Treatment options

We recommend that the GWTF be located at the San Angelo Water Treatment Plant

OTHER TREATMENT OPTIONS

26

Single-Use Media NPV Cost Comparison

Preliminary Revised Preliminary RevisedDow RSC WRT Z-88

0

50

100

150

200

250

Cos

t in

$

Mill

ions

27

Why look at other treatment options? NPV analysis of pilot test results indicated that

additional treatment options may be viable Results indicated that Nanofiltration or Reverse

Osmosis (NF/RO) could become a more competitive option

NF/RO offer alternate disposal options thus reducing O&M costs.

NF/RO will improve overall City water quality

28

RO at COSA WTP (90% Recovery)

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

Preliminary Model Results

Co

st ($

Mill

ion

)

Capital

O&M

29

NPV of Treatment Technologies at COSA

Dow RSC WRT Z-88 RO0

50

100

150

200

250

Cos

t in

$

Mill

ions

30

NF/RO Treatment Update Conducted preliminary desktop membrane

models based on revised data• Nanofiltration

• Low energy Reverse Osmosis (RO)

• Brackish RO

Low-energy RO may provide good rejection and recovery while minimizing energy needs

Next steps: Membrane (RO) pilot plant investigation

31

Item Duration

Anticipated Start – August 2011

Pilot 6 Months

Design 8 Months

TCEQ Review 2 Months

Bid/Award 2 Months

Construction 15 Months

Construction Complete – July 2014

RO Membrane Schedule

32

Item Duration

Anticipated Start – September 2011

Design 12 Months

TCEQ Review 2 Months

Bid/Award 2 Months

Construction 13 Months

Construction Complete – February 2014

Single-Use Media Schedule

Questions & Answers

August 2, 2011

San Angelo City Council