WEFTEC.

06

A Comparison of Operating Strategies Chlorine vs UV

Scott Hamby
City of Scotts Valley
700 Lundy Lane
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
ABSTRACT
City of Scotts Valley owns and operates a 1.5 mgd activated sludge wastewater
treatment plant. Currently about 0.3 mgd of the secondary effluent is diverted to the
recycled water facility.
Two chlorine disinfection alternatives (both using liquid sodium hypochlorite) and UV
disinfection were considered to all the facility to achieve high level (Title 22) disinfection
requirements from the recycled water facility. Alternatives were evaluated on the basis
of capital cost, operability, O&M costs, maximization of existing facilities, and potential
for future expansion. The existing sodium hypochlorite system was left in place for
effluent discharged to the receiving stream.
With two disinfection systems on site, the City was able to compare the actual operating
cost of both chlorine and UV.
KEYWORDS
Disinfection, UV Radiation, Sodium Hypochlorite
INTRODUCTION
The City of Scotts Valley owns and operates a 1.5 MGD activated sludge wastewater
treatment plant. The treatment process train includes influent bar screens with a washer
compactor, influent flow equalization with returned activated sludge, fine bubble
aeration, secondary clarification, and chlorine contact. Dewatered sludge is landfilled.
Currently about 75% of the plants 1.0 MGD flow is diverted to the recycled water
facility where it is filtered, disinfected and reused for landscape irrigation at local parks
and schools.
In 1996, the City entered into an agreement with the Scotts Valley Water District
(SVWD) where the district agreed to fund the construction of a recycled water facility at
the Citys wastewater treatment plant. The City owns and operates the recycled water
facility and is permitted by the California Regional Water Control Board to produce up to
1.0 MGD of recycled water. Recycled water must meet the States Title 22 regulations of
not to exceed 2.2 total coliform concentrations and not to exceed a daily average turbidity
of 2.0 NTU. The SVWD holds a permit to distribute the recycled water to its end users.

Copyright 2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

6396

WEFTEC.06

The recycled water facility uses a Tetra denitrification down-flow sand media tertiary
filtration system. Denitrification is achieved by adding methanol as a carbon source for
the remaining nitrifying bacteria to complete the process of turning nitrate to nitrogen
gas. Denitrification is a condition of the Citys permit as a portion of the Citys
watershed area flows to the densely populated non-sewered San Lorenzo Valley area.
As the Citys wastewater facility occupies a compact site adjacent to commercial and
residential development with little space for expansion, site constraints played a key role
in the planning process for the recently constructed recycled water facility. The City
evaluated disinfection alternatives, UV vs. chlorine (Sodium Hypochlorite, NaOCL).
The evaluation included capital costs, operability, O&M costs, maximization of existing
facilities and future expansion.
Chlorine California Department of Health Services (DOHS) guidelines recommend 5
mg/L residual for 120 minutes for unrestricted irrigation. The existing facility only
allowed for 45 minutes at 1.5 mgd. Existing basins could not be modified due to space
constraints.
ALTERNATIVE 1: SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE EXISTING
Existing off-line rectangular clarifiers (58,000 gallon capacity) would need to be
modified to handle an additional 26,000 gallons to meet the 120 minute contact time at 1
mgd as shown on Figure 1. This alternative was elimated because there was not enough
room to expand to 1.5 mgd.

Figure 1. Alternative 1 Sodium Hypochlorite Existing

Alternative 2: NaOCl New
Construct new NaOCL 84,000 gallon contact basin adjacent to the new TTP as shown
on Figure 2 Both alt. 1 & 2 would require a 3000 gallon NaOCL tank and 3000
gallon Sodium Bisulfite tank. Designed for 10 mg/L residual!
Copyright 2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

6397

WEFTEC.06

Figure 2 Sodium Hypochlorite New

Alternative 3 UV
Construct UV channel adjacent to new TTP. Channel will be constructed to handle 1.5
mgd, however, only enough UV modules to treat 1.0 mgd as shown on Figure 3.

Figure 3. UV
EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

Copyright 2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

6398

WEFTEC.06

Cost:
Alternative 1) $757,000 capital, $100,000 annual O&M.
Alternative 2) $748,000 capital, $118,000 annual O&M.
Alternative 3) $830,000 capital, $100,000 annual O&M.
Constructability: Due to plant underground piping and the extensive modifications
needed to convert existing structures to accommodate NaOCL, UV represented the
smallest and simplest structure to construct. Same holds true for expandability.
Process Considerations: What is the most appropriate type of disinfection system
relative to the end use of the recycled water? Alts 1&2 utilize NaOCL. The main
concern is salt, especially sodium. The disinfection and de-chlorination both add to the
sodium content, degrading the recycled water quality.
Decision: For Scotts Valley, ultraviolet radiation was the clear choice.
METHODOLOGY
After the selection of the disinfection alternative the type of UV system was evaluated.

Medium Pressure Horizontal

Low Pressure - Horizontal
Low pressure Vertical

The medium pressure horizontal system was the industry standard at the time (1998), but
after a substantial amount of research and reference checks (this is where the product was
sold), Scotts Valley chose the vertical low pressure system. With the vertical system, all
electrical components are above the water surface, simplifying the maintenance of routine
lamp and ballast changes. The UV disinfection industry is highly competitive. Do your
homework and decide what the best application is for your process and have it written in
your projects specifications.
RESULTS
UV versus Chlorine:
Scotts Valley has concurrently used UV and chlorine for the past four years, we can
discuss the pros and cons of each, based on experience. Figure 4 shows the Chlorine
system and Figure 5 the UV system that has been installed

Copyright 2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

6399

WEFTEC.06

Figure 4: Scotts Valley Chlorine System

Figure 5. Scotts Valley UV System

Capital Cost:

Based on the Scotts Valley study, capital cost for UV ran about 9.5% more than a
chlorine system.
$748,000 for Chlorine
$830,000 for UV

Product Cost:

Chlorine, at a cost of $0.64 per gallon at 175 gallons per day equals $22.40/day
and $40,88087,600/year.
Electrical cost for UV is approximately $20,000/year
Copyright 2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

6400

WEFTEC.06

O & M:

O & M for the Chlorine system was projected to be 18% more than UV. Both
systems have ongoing maintenance needs that realistically balance each other out.
Real cost for the UV system has turned out to be far less than projected. Total
cost for the City to operate the UV system in fiscal year 2005/2006 was
approximately $30,000. This includes maintenance, lamp and ballast
replacement, and utility costs.
Any system will have maintenance issues; however, preventing leaks in a sodium
hypochlorite system is very difficult. Ongoing cleanup and corrosion of
equipment are inherent to liquid chlorine systems.
Depending on the system, usage, and water quality, maintenance of UV systems
will vary. In Scotts Valley UV lamp sleeves are cleaned every six months. We
have found that by cleaning the sleeves every six months that the acid bath is not
needed. Operators use an over the counter sulfamic and citrus acid based cleaner
(CLR). The cleaner is applied with a kitchen type scour sponge and wiped clean.
This every six month cleaning takes two operators a total of eight hours.

DISCUSSION
Foot Print:

If space is a consideration, UV requires much less real estate. Using less space for
the disinfection system results in more available space for future plant expansion.

Permitting:
Based on Scotts Valleys experience, this is where chlorine gets the nod

Chlorine disinfection is tried and true. Simple calculations will allow any
engineer to design a chlorine contact basin that can satisfy regulatory agencies.

Approved doesnt mean approved for UV?? The system installed for Scotts
Valley was approved (and we have a letter to prove it), but the installation was
not. A lot of time and money was spent on hydraulic and virus testing to get the
system, as installed, approved. During design, work with your permitting agency
to make sure that the system installation design is approved.

CONCLUSIONS
The combined chlorine/UV disinfection system was the best choice for Scotts Valley.
Information on both construction and operating costs have supported this decision.

Copyright 2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

6401

WEFTEC.06

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Author greatly acknowledges the support of Andrew Salveson and Gary Hunter in the
completion of this project.
REFERENCES
Hamby S. (2005) Scotts Valley Disinfection System, WEFTEC Pre-conference
workshop, WEFTEC 2006, Washington DC. October 2005.

Copyright 2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

6402