I'm aware that UV has been ...

I'm aware that UV has been used in the past (1990's) in two small central Australian communities (pop <100) where there was strong community resistance to chlorine dosing but I expect that the hurdles to UV are higher now and alternatives might be better.

Do you have a study design, evaluation criteria, risk assessment, community engagement plan etc' for this proposed demonstration project?  Address also the ethical aspects of experimenting on a community! 

Some specific factors to consider:

• fire flows - often even in small rural systems there are hydrants used for flushing and for firefighting which can cause very rapid increases in the flow rate. You need to be able to treat that full flow;
• detention time in the network, from UV to outlet.  UV is great for point of use where the lamps are always on and the flow is pretty constant. As a rule of thumb, the detention time to the tap, NOT to the meter, should be less than 2 hours.
• lamp warm up time - how do you propose to manage the required delay for the UV lamps to warm up before disinfection is effective?
• network depressurisation & maintenance downstream of UV.  Disinfection is required if there is any loss of network containment or pressure arising from operation, maintenance, repairs, new connections and network extensions.
• Operator risks - I've known technicians to override the UV lamp cut out safety switch when doing inspections and maintenance to "check that the lamps are working" and then suffer eye damage. You'll need to address "safety in design" aspects. 

UV disinfection has an important role and I like the technology, but in this application I suspect that, at best, it should be used in conjunction with technology that provides a  residual disinfectant.

Regards, Harry