DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:
UV / AOP FOR INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE
1 2
Rory Morgan , Paul Swaim , Larry Schimmoller Cecile Bele
1. WaterSecure, Brisbane, QLD
2. CH2M Hill, Denver, USA
3. Veolia Water Services, Brisbane, QLD
ABSTRACT
The recycling of wastewater into potable supplies
has received only limited application in the past, due
to both public perception issues and also
technological limitations. Recent advances, in
particular in supplementary processes such as
Advanced Oxidation have removed the impediment
of technological limitation, and allow water to be
created that is of significantly better quality that
most traditional drinking water supplies.
In Brisbane, South East Queensland, three water
recycling facilities have been constructed as part of
the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme. The
Advanced Water Treatment Plants (AWTPs)
produce water equal to or better than Australian
Drinking Water Guidelines standard. To achieve
this water quality, a dual membrane approach is
utilised, with the RO permeate then passing through
an Ultraviolet Radiation / Advanced Oxidation
(UV/AOP) Process.
This manuscript discusses the design and
operational considerations associated with the
UV/AOP facility at the Luggage Point Advanced
Water Treatment Plant (AWTP).
INTRODUCTION
Previous papers (Morgan 2008) have detailed the
circumstances in South East Queensland which
realised the Western Corridor Recycled Water
Project. Once the determination to allow for Indirect
Potable Reuse was made, the process flow
requirements were established. UV / AOP was
included as a basic requirement for each plant due
to the following reasons:
1 – To provide an additional, verifiable barrier in
the multi-barrier process
2 – To remove microcontaminants, which in some
cases are not removed fully by RO, including:
NDMA (Nitrosodimethylamine) and other
Nitrosamines; 1,4-Dioxane and other solvent
compounds; Pesticides and Herbicides; Taste and
Odour causing compounds and algal toxins;
Endocrine-Disrupting compounds (EDCs);
Pharmaceutical and personal care compounds;
Synthetic organic chemicals and Voltaile organics.
2 3
Other forms of Advanced Oxidation are available
and were considered, however none were proven
on the scale of the project, within the economic
constraints.
UV/AOP
UV/AOP is, in simple terms, the incorporation of
Ultraviolet disinfection into an Advanced Oxidation
Process. By doing this, the UV/AOP provides three
highly effective methods of contaminant removal /
inactivation:
1. Photolysis
2. H2O2 oxidation
-
3. OH oxidation
-
The OH radicals are formed when H2O2 is
subjected to ultraviolet light.
DESIGN OF UV / AOP
The design principles of the UV/AOP system were
developed on previous installations, as has been
discussed in Swaim 2008, and modified for the
particular demands of the project.
The production capacity of the Luggage Point
AWTP is 70ML/d and the UV/AOP units are
coupled to dedicated RO units, in a 3 Duty / 1
Standby arrangement. As such each UV/AOP unit
is to treat 23.3ML/d. UV transmittance (UVT) is
monitored online, to allow dose control, while SBS
(Sodium Bisulfite) is dosed downstream to quench
Hydrogen Peroxide (Figure 1).
Due to the requirement of the UV/AOP system to
remove many compounds, two compounds are
typically selected. These are:
1 – NDMA
2 – 1,4-Dioxane
These indicator compounds are selected due to the
difficulty of their removal, but also because they can
be used to design the two principle components of
the UV/AOP system. NDMA is not impacted by
H2O2 or OH-, so can be used to size the UV
component of the UV/AOP. Meanwhile 1,4-Dioxane
removal relied almost exclusively on oxidation by
-
H2O2 and OH , so can be used to size the
Hydrogen Peroxide (Advanced Oxidation)
component.
World’s best practice, principally developed by the
California Health Department, was used in
establishing the required removal for the 2 indicator
contaminants:
1 – NDMA removed to > 1.2 Log Removals
2 – 1,4-Dioxane removed to > 0.5 Log Removals
Additional conditions established were a minimum
contnuous dose of 500mJ/cm2 and a continuous
online validation of 4 log virus removal.
A concentration limit of 10 ppt was also set for
NDMA.
FEEDWATER
The UV/AOP system was designed to treat the RO
permeate, and as such the following design
parameters were included:
- UVT > 95%
- Monochloramine 1-2mg/L (as Cl2)
The RO permeate provided the benefit that
automated cleaning mechanisms were not required.
UV REACTOR DESIGN
Trojan UVPhox units were utilised in triple-deck
arrangement. The units utilised Low Pressure, High
Output (LPHO) lamps operating at 254nm (Figure
2).
Each train therefore comprised six (6) 72 lamp
reactors representing a 5 Duty / 1 Standby
arrangement, for the design flow and
concentrations. Additionally each reactor of 72
lamps allows for up to 6 lamps to fail before going
offline.
Lamp aging is considered in the design with the
design power input based on the end of lamp life
power draw of the lamps, which was guaranteed to
exceed 12,000 hours.
The EEO (a measure of the amount of energy
required per log removal of the target contaminant –
in this case NDMA) selected was based on
previously validated results from the same units at
other facilities. The EEO is used to determined the
required number of lamps and required energy
input.
The Hydrogen Peroxide dose was selected based
on scavenging tests carried out on the feedwater,
and compared with rates used on similar projects.
At the minimum UVT of 95%, a dose rate of 6mg/L
was required (Figure 4).
The scavenging tests involve simulation of the
reactors at bench scale to determine background
-
demand of OH . It was found that background
demand was highly correlated to the concentration
of chloramine in the water.
Although similar reactors had been used and
validated on other projects, Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) analysis was carried out on the
reactor design to model the particular flow
conditions on the project. This was done to ensure
minimal short circuiting, and ensure all flow that
passed through the reactor received equivalent
dose (Figure 3).
H2O2 QUENCHING
The UV / AOP utilises only 15% of the applied
H2O2 dose, leaving approx 85% remaining in the
product water. This H2O2 must then be quenched.
Various quenching mechanisms are possible, but
the two commonly employed are quenching with
Sodium Hypochlorite or Sodium Bisulfite.
Quenching with Sodium Hypochlorite requires a
considerable quantity of Sodium Hypochlorite. It
was determined in bench scale testing that
approximately 18mg/L NaOCl was required (based
on 5mg/L H2O2 residual).
This was determined not to be feasible on account
of storage requirements, and also potential
generation of Chlorate, which was expected to
become and regulated water quality parameter
(although was not at the time).
The design therefore allowed for quenching of
H2O2 with Sodium Bisulfite. During initial operation
this quenching was not successful, as the reaction
between H2O2 and SBS did not proceed quickly
enough, and realised an extremely high Sodium
Hypochlorite demand (the plant requires a Free
Chlorine residual of 2mg/L). It was determined that
the addition of lime and consequent increase in pH
was slowing the reaction. Modifications were made
to dose the SBS further upstream, allowing some
reaction time before lime addition. Quenching was
then able to be carried out with approx 12-15mg/L
SBS.
VALIDATION
In establishing the multi-barrier process for these
AWTPs, it was determined that each barrier must
have Critical Control Parameters, that were to be
subject to validation, to ensure the integrity of the
barrier. For the UV/AOP, the parameter used are
the Present Power Ratio (PPR) and the Hydrogen
Peroxide dose. The PPR is a ration of the applied
power divided by the required power, and is
monitored continuously – it must always be greater
than 100%. The Hydrogen Peroxide dose rate is
also monitored continuously via a dedicated FIGURES
flowmeter, and this must always be above the
design value (of 6mg/L). SBS dose

OTHER OPERATIONAL ISSUES

Other operational issues observed in running the H2O2 dose Flow Monitoring
UV System
UV/AOP units were as follows:

- UVT meters required to be callibrated

regularly to ensure accurate measurement
Online UVT
- Monochloramine dose pre RO has a measurement Power Monitoring
significant impact on UVT (and hence required
power input)
Figure 1 : Process Flow Schematic UV/AOP
WATER QUALITY

All samples taken over the operational period have

shown NDMA and 1,4-Dioxane at below the limit of
detection. All other Australian Drinking Water
Guideline parameters have been met.

CONCLUSION

The UV / AOP system design for the Luggage Point

AWTP is into it’s second year of operations and has
proven to be reliable, and verifiable. It has assisted
in ensuring product water quality at all times
exceeds the stringent drinking water standards
applied.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Figure 2 : Trojan UVPhox System

The authors would like to thank the following:

WaterSecure - Owner of the Western Corridor

facilities
Veolia - Operator of the Luggage Point AWTP

REFERENCES

Morgan, R, Solley, D, Thew, R, Edge, D,

Schimmoller, L, 2008. Advanced Nutrient Removal
for Indirect Potable Reuse, Ozwater 2008.

Swaim, P, Morgan, R, Foster, L, Mueller, P,

Vorissis, M, Erdal, U, Carter, W 2008. Implementing Figure 3 : CFD Analysis Extract
and Effective UV Advanced Oxidation Process,
ACE Water Reuse Conference
Required H2O2 Dose

6
Dose Rate (mg/L)

0
94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%
UVT (% )

Figure 4 : Scavenging Test Results showing

required H2O2 dose