Case Studies Assessing Low-Cost, In-Place Technologies at Small Water Systems


                CASE STUDIES ASSESSING LOW-COST, IN-PLACE
                 TECHNOLOGIES AT SMALL WATER SYSTEMS
                              ' Prepared for
       THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS
                      1911 NORTH FORT MYER DRIVE
                       ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209
                                  By
                   THE GREELEY-POLHEMUS GROUP, INC.
                         105 SOUTH HIGH STREET
                   WEST CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA 19382
                                  and
                         MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
                       11832 ROCK LANDING DRIVE
                               SUITE 400
                     NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA 23606
                               JULY 1992
REPRINTED WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE
DRINKING WATER AEMINISTRATORS

-------

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Report Case Studies Assessing Low-Cost. In-Place Technologies at Small Water Systems was
prepared for the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). The project was directed
by G. Wade Miller, former Executive Director ASDWA, and Vanessa M. Leiby, Executive Director ASDWA
The project was greatly assisted by the In-Place Technology Steering Committee. The Committee members
included:
David Schnare, Ph.D., Assistant to the Director
U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water

Donna Cirolia
Manager, Industry and Government Relations,
Culligan International Company

Joseph Harrison
Technical Director
Water Quality Association

Ben Smith, P.E., Acting Branch Chief
Drinking Water Standards Division
U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water

Marc Parrotta, Environmental Engineer
Drinking Water Standards Division
U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water
David Breau, P.E., Acting Manager
Drinking Water Program
Maine, Department of Human Services

Allen Hammer, P.E.
Director, Division of Water Supply Engineering
Virginia Department of Health

Dan Houck, P.E.
President
D.H. Houck Associates, Inc.

Barbara Wysock, Environmental Engineer
Technical Support Division
U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water

Andrew Caraker
Vice President
ECOS, Inc. .
Funding for this project was provided by members of the Water Quality Association including:
Culligan International Company, Northbrook, II; EcoWater Industrial Systems, Middletown, OH- Autotroi
Corporation, Milwaukee, WI; ESSEF Corporation, Chardon, OH; Kinetico, Incorporated, Newbury OH-
Ametek, Sheboygan, WI; K&N Plastics, Elk Grove Village, IL; Atlantic Filter Corporation, West Palm Beach'
FL; Trojan Technologies, London, Ontario, Canada; Cuno, Inc., Meridien, CT; Fleck Controls Inc
•Brookfield, WI; Teledyne Water Pik, Fort Collins Co., Geerts Soft Water, Inc., Battle Creek, MI; Rayne of
Santa. Cruz, Inc. Santa Cruz, CA; Urbana Soft Water Service, Urbana, OH; Structural Fibers, Elgin, IL; Water
Inc., El Segundo, CA; Water Resources International, Phoenix, AZ; Hawkins Water Tech, Inc., Middlebury
_IN; Vetter's Inc., Washington, LA.

This Report was prepared by The Greeley-Polhemus G roup, Inc. Assistance was provided by Malcolm
Pirnie Inc. J

-------

-------
                 CASE STUDIES ASSESSING LOW-COST, IN-PLACE
                   TECHNOLOGIES AT SMALL WATER SYSTEMS
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Section

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS  	
 SECTION 1
 INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2
SITE SELECTION
SECTION 3
WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION
                                              	:	  i
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	
                                                                                  IV
                      		•.		  1
       1.1 GENERAL	
       1.2 SCOPE OF WORK	'.'.'.'.'.'.	
       1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT  '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.	  *
      2.1 INITIAL SURVEY  	
      2.2 WATER SYSTEM SELECTION	  3

             2.2.1 Selection Process	
             2.2.2 Selected List	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.	    7
                             	•••	  8
      3.1  GENERAL	
                                     	  8
            3J..I Green Cove Condominiums	
            3.1.2 Pineloch Sun Beach Club	
            3.1.3 Lima Brighton Elementary School	' '   	
            3.1.4 Fruitland Domestic Water Co.          	
            3.1.5 Lost Lake Camp  	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.	" "	  [j
            3.1.6 Darboy Sanitary District		
            3.1.7 Readsboro Water Treatment Facility	'.'.'.'.'.	  	  p
            3.1.8 Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.     	  p
            3.1.9 Taycheedah  Correctional Facility	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.	  13

      3.2 REASON FOR INSTALLATION
      3.3 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES .....'.'.'.'.'.	   -
                                              	 ~1 ^
            3.3.1 Pressure Filtration Units	                            ,.-
            3.3.2 Bag and Cartridge Filter Units  	'.'.'.'.'.','.'.'.'.'.'.'.	  m
            3.3.3 Ion Exchange Units	  	  .,..
            3.3.4 Reverse Osmosis Units	  •>

-------
       3.4  EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT PROCESS	77. ...   22

              3.4.1  Traditional Approach	 .   23
              3.4.2  Lease Purchase	   24
              3.43  In-House Purchase  	   25

       3.5  VENDOR TREATMENT GUARANTEES  	   26
       3.6  STATE/LOCAL/ENGINEER/MANUFACTURER ROLE	   28

              3.6.1  State Role	   29
              3.6.2  Local/Third Party Role  	   29
              3.6.3  Consulting .Engineer Role	;	   30
              3.6.4  Manufacturer Role  	.-...•;•	 :r....:.-..:.-. ;-.   31
       3.7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
                                                                                    31
             3.7.1 Existing Procedures	  31
             3.7.2 Suggested O&M Practices   	  35

       3.8 WATER SYSTEM COSTS	  39

SECTION 4
CONCLUSIONS	  42

SECTION S
RECOMMENDATIONS	  44

APPENDIX A
WATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS	A . !
       A.I GREEN COVE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                  A- 1
             A.LL Installed Treatment System . . . ......	     A - 1
             A.1.2 Raw Water Intake	A . 1
             A.1.3 Low Service Pump Station	A _ j
             A.1.4 Treatment System	•           A - ">

      A.2 PINELOCH SUN BEACH CLUB	A _ 4

             A.2.1 Installed Treatment System	A - 4

      A.3 LIMA BRIGHTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  	A - 5

             A.3.1 Prior Water System	         A _ 5
             A.3.2 Installed Water System	         A - 5
      A.4 FRUITLAND DOMESTIC WATER COMPANY  .
                                                                                  A -6
             A.4.1 Water System	A . 6
             A.4.2 Water Treatment System .	A . 7

-------
        A.5 LOST LAKE CAMP	                           A  „
                                                               •	f\ - o

               A.5.1  Prior Water System	        A  g
               A.5.2  Filtration Options	'"-'  "	A * g
               A.5.3  Selected Water System	A   in

        A.6 DARBOY SANITARY DISTRICT	                        A  in
                                                               *.	A - 1U

            -  A.6.1  Existing Water System  	          A
               A.6.2  Installed Water Treatment System  	.	*.'.'.'!     A - 11

        A.7 READSBORO WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ,	. . ; . . . . . ,. : ........: .... .  .,  A . 13

               A.7.1 Existing Water System  	      "     A   ,
             .  A.7.2 Water Treatment System	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.	A - 13
        A.8  BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES, INC.
                                                                                       A- 15
               A.8.1 Installed Treatment System	          A  ,fi
               A.8.2 Pretreatment System	' ' ''	A - 16
               A.8.3 Reverse Osmosis System	   	A  17
               A.8.4 Post-treatment System	^   	A - 19

       A.9 TAYCHEEDAH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY	         A . 19

               A.9.1 Installed Water System	            A  .g

TABLES

Table 1: Information Available from Owners/Operators, Manufacturers, Engineers
Table 2: Information Available from State Officials
Table 3: Water  System Profile
Table 4: Reasons for Installation of Treatment Technologies
Table 5: Treatment Technologies
Table 6: Water System Costs
                                            111

-------
                                       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

          The Small Systems  Low-Cost Technology Initiative began in 1988  by the  U.S.  Environmental

  Protection  Agency (EPA) to  ensure  that  low-cost  treatment technologies  are  available and that the

  technologies are acceptable to state regulators and small water systems. In 1990, the  In-Place Technology

  Committee was formed to document that low-cost technologies are in-place at small water systems and working

  as  designed.  The Committee  included  members of EPA, the Association of State  Drinking  Water

  Administration (ASDWA) and the .Water Quality Association (WQA). ..The Committee,-working through

  ASDWA, began an investigation of several case studies of small water systems. The Report Case Studies

  Assessing Low-Cost. In-Place  Technologies at Small Water Systems pr^mc the results of investigations of

  nine small water systems that have installed low-cost technologies in an effort to comply with the requirements

  of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

         A review of small water systems throughout the United States was performed by ASDWA, members

 of the WQA and the Water and  Wastewater Equipment Manufacturing Association (WWEMA)  and state

 regulators.  Nine small water systems were selected from this list to represent a range  of possible in-place

 treatment technologies, and a range of system sizes and ownership  types.  The selected nine small  water

 systems include:

               Green Cove Condominiums, Oak Harbor, Ohio
               Pineloch Sun Beach Club, Ronald, Washington
               Lima Brighton Elementary School, Howe, Indiana
               Fruitland Domestic Water Company, Crawford, Colorado
               Lost Lake Camp, Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon
               Darboy Sanitary District, Appleton,  Wisconsin
              • Taycheedah Correctional Facility,  Fon Du Lac, Wisconsin
               Readsboro Water Treatment Facility, Readsboro, Vermont
               Barrick Goldstrike Mines,  Inc., Elko, Nevada

        The nine systems represent different  installed  treatment technologies,  different ownership types,

several types of operation and maintenance strategies, and different approaches to improving the quality of

drinking water. Four systems.iailized.pressure.ffltration unjts;-two-systems utilized bag and cartridge nitration

units; two utilized ion exchange water  softeners; and two utilized reverse osmosis units. Note the Barrick

Goldstrike facility utilized both multi-media filters and a reverse osmosis unit. The water systems ranged in
                                                IV

-------
size from approximately 100 connections up to 800 connections. Six systems are community water systems,

two are non-transient non-community water systems and one is a transient non-community water system. Table

I presents a profile of the water system including the system location, number of connections, treatment

technology, ancillary features constructed as part of the installation, total project cost and treatment

technology cost.

The type of treatment technology and the extent of improvements installed at the small water systems

were dependent on the reason for installation and the financial strength of owner. Systems'that were only

improving their treatment process to meet SDWA requirements, generally installed only the treatment

technology and few other system improvements. Systems that were installing drinking water systems for new

or expanded communities provided more extensive improvements in addition to the treatment technology.

These latter systems also tended to be more financially secure, or as in the case of the Readsboro system,

received Federal and state grants for a substantial portion of the improvement cost.

Five of the systems investigated (Green Cove, Darboy, Readsboro, Barrick and Taycheedah) made

significant improvements to the water system in addition to the installation of the new treatment technology.

The additional improvements include substantial water plant buildings (as opposed to concrete block or.

wooden houses), new groundwater wells, transmission/distribution and storage facilities, and other

miscellaneous facilities. Each of these systems had the financial strength, either internally or with Federal/state*

assistance, to purchase these facilities. The Green Cove water system was installed for a new residential

development and the Darboy system was installed for expansion of .residential development. The Barrick

system was installed as part of a multi-million dollar expansion of a gold mine. The state correctional agency

supported the improvements to the Taycheedah facility. Readsboro, which internally does not have the

required financial strength, was able to purchase and install the required facilities with the support of Federal

and state grants and loans. In contrast, the other four facilities were existing water systems that apparently-

required only the addition of a treatment process to remove a specific contaminant. These treatment

technologies were installed within the existing system with minimal other improvements performed. The Lima

Brighton and Lost Lake systems were non-transient non-community and transient non-community water

-------
systems, respectively, and required limited improvements. In both cases the improvements were purchased

directly by the owner (Lakeland School Corporation and the U.S. Forest Service, respectively). The.Pineloch

and Fruitland Domestic water systems financed the improvements internally and therefore installed only the

facilities required to remove the specific contaminants.

In general, all of the water systems meet the goal of improving the quality of drinking water. The

treatment technologies installed at the water systems are .capable of reducing the level of the. contaminants

of concern to below state standards according to the results of finished water quality analysis and discussions

with state personnel. The three Culligan Multi-Tech1 pressure filtration systems are producing acceptable

finished water quality. Improvements to the operation of two of the systems (Readsboro and Barrick) could

be possible through operator training and changes in chemical additions. The HSI Canada system at Pineloch

is capable of producing acceptable water quality, according to the system owner and the manufacturer.

However, the system was having mechanical problems with one of the two filter units during the investigation

which resulted in high sulfide levels in the finished water since one of the units was not being backwashed.

The Fruitland Domestic and Lost Lake Camp water systems utilize bag and cartridge filtration units

to treat the surface water sources. The Fruitland Domestic system utilizes Filter Specialists, Inc. and

Brunswick Technetics filter units and the Lost Lake Camp system utilizes CUNO cartridge and 3M bag filters.

Both systems based their selection of the technology on the results of research performed at Colorado State

University, which indicated that the technology was appropriate for surface water sources. The performance

of the two systems is related to the quality of raw water entering the system. Raw water turbidity levels at the

Fruitland Domestic system range from 1 to 5 NTU during normal streamflow months and range from 8 to 10

NTU during high streamflow months; whereas raw water turbidity at Lost Lake Camp are consistently below

1.0 NTU. The results of finished water quality analyses obtained for the Fruitland Domestic system for 1991

indicate that monthly average turbidity levels ranged from approximately 0.3 to 0.4 NTU from August through

February and 0.6 to 1.1 •NTU-from March through'June: 'In'May 1991 the water system was in violation of
"CULLIGAN" is a registered trademark of Culligan International Company. "Multi-Tech" is a trademark of Culligan Internation:il
Company.
v:

-------
Colorado's turbidity standard of less than 1.0 MTU and in June the turbidity level approached the standard.
Operation and maintenance procedures used by the water system may have contributed to the violation of
turbidity levels. , ,
The Oregon Health Division considers that the Lost Lake Camp water system meets water quality
requirements based on the results of water quality analyses, performance of the water system and certification
from the National Sanitation Foundation, Colorado State University and the Colorado Department of Health
that the bag. filters are acceptable for giardia removal.
The Darboy and Taycheedah water systems installed Tonka Water Treatment and System Mario ion-
exchange units, respectively, to reduce levels of radium 226 and 228 from the incoming raw water. Both
systems are producing acceptable finished water quality according to the results of water quality analyses.
The two reverse osmosis units at the Lima Brighton Elementary School (Water Factory Systems) and
the Barrick Goldstrike Mines (Culligan) are also successfully removing high levels of nitrates and arsenic
according to the finished water quality analyses.
The approach used by the water systems for the procurement of the treatment technology was
dependent primarily upon the extent of required improvements and the ability and knowledge of the owner.
The systems that required significant additional improvements utilized a consulting engineer to develop plans,'"
specifications and bid documents to select and award contracts for installation of the required facilities. The
Green Cove, Pineloch, Darboy, Readsboro, Barrick Goldstrike and Taycheedah water systems utilized this
approach. In contrast, the Lost Lake Camp water system utilized a "lease purchase" approach, developed and
administered internally by the Forest Service. The Lima Brighton and Fruitland Domestic water systems
utilized an "in-house purchase" approach whereby the system owners working with assistance from state
regulators negotiated directly with system suppliers/manufacturers for the purchase and installation of the
treatment technologies.
Guarantees on the performance of the treatment equipment were required, by all, water systems
according to the plant operators/except the Fruitland Domestic system. The extent of the guarantees ranged
VII

-------
from a basic one-year parts and labor coverage to more sophisticated coverage of equipment performance and

serviceability.

Table I presents a summary of the available information on the total project cost and the treatment

technology cost for each of the nine water systems. Direct comparison of all the values shown is not possible

because the available information was not provided on a common basis. Estimates were made for some of

the costs to try to achieve a level basis for evaluation. The costs shown indicate that, in general, treatment

technologies can be installed for 'S200 per connection or less. However, if total project .costs are considered,

the cost per connection ranges from S50 to 58,220. These total project costs are not always considered in the

operation and maintenance costs for these facilities since project costs may be incorporated into the

development infrastructure costs (i.e., Green Cove), paid through capital funds (i.e., Lima Brighton, Lost Lake

Camp, Barrick Goldstrike and Taycheedah) or substantially offset by Federal and/or state grants (i.e..

Readsboro, Fruitland, Darboy). The total project costs will have to be considered for communities and water

systems that can not take advantage of these alternative financing arrangements.

The conclusions of the study are as follows:

1. The type of treatment technology and the extent of improvements installed at the water
system were dependent on the reason for installation and financial strength of the owner.
Systems that were responding to requirements of the SDWA, generally installed only the
treatment technology. Systems that were installed for new or expanding communities
provided more extensive improvements in addition to the treatment technology. These latter
systems also had greater financial strength to absorb the cost of improvements.

2. Water systems need adequate facilities, qualified operators, technical assistance and
adequate funding to meet requirements of the SDWA. Performance of the nine systems, even
with adequate facilities, was impacted by the level of operator training and qualifications.
Better qualified operators were able to adequately operate the facilities and recognize
problems and assess possible solutions. Less qualified operators may be capable of operating
the system but appeared- to lack the ability to identify and find solutions to water system
problems. The impacts on the finished water quality were most apparent for systems with
changing raw water quality.

3. Three techniques were utilized by the water system to evaluate, select and procure the
appropriate treatment technology. The selected technique was dependent primarily upon the
extent of required improvements and ability of the owner.-Systems that required significant
improvements in addition to the treatment technology utilized the "traditional approach",
relying on a consulting engineer to develop plans, specifications and bid documents to select
and award installation contracts. Systems that installed only the treatment technology utilized
the internally developed "lease purchase" approach or an "in-house purchase" approach. Each
VIll

-------
approach was appropriate for the facility to accomplish the required procurement. However,
the latter two approaches placed greater responsibility on the water system owners.

4. Guarantees on the performance of the treatment equipment were required by all the water
systems except Fruitland Domestic. The extent of guarantees ranged from basic one-year parts
and labor guarantees, to equipment performance and serviceability guarantees. Some systems
with engineering plans and specifications identified more restrictive guarantees on system
performance over time and individual components.

5. The relationship among the owners, state officials, engineers and manufacturers and their
roles in project development was dependent on the size and complexity of the proposed
improvements. Water systems that installed significant improvements relied on consulting
engineers to evaluate alternatives and develop plans, specifications and bid documents.
Responsibility for technical effectiveness and system performance rested with the consulting
engineers in this case. Water systems that installed only the treatment technology relied more
heavily on state officials and suppliers/manufacturers for alternatives evaluation, process
selection and performance. In this case, responsibility for technical effectiveness shifted to
state officials and manufacturers, at least that was believed by the owners.

6. Qualified water system operators are required to operate systems as well as to identify
problems and assess possible solutions. Problems not identified (i.e., washing out bag filters')
will not be fixed unless operators are qualified and can recognize the problems. Operators
require technical assistance on a periodic basis to properly operate and maintain the facilities.

7. Low-Cost, In-Place Treatment Technologies can be installed for S200 per connection or
less according to the costs identified for the nine systems. However, the total cost for all
required system improvements can be much greater depending on the condition and design
of the existing facilities. The total project costs have to be considered by communities and
water systems m assessing the feasibility and approach to installing system improvements
IX

-------
fa
o
I
CO
I
II S-*
£0
TREATMI
TECHNOL
COST
1
1 ^ W
m
II r" «-j
0
—


ANCILLARY
FEATURES


TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
(CONTAMINANT
!§
° ^
til
2?
Z ~
^^ *«^
N^ 2U
^^ *•• •"
LOCATION
(WATER SOURCE)
1

01
S
NOT AVAIL

Q
1



« in
Raw-water intake,
pumping station,
:arwells,lransmissicm
d dislribution system
•3 S
^
Pressure clarifier, dept
filler and GAC filler,
disinfection (turbidity,
bacteria, giardia)

o
.
5 ^^
o ~~^
(Jreen Cove
CondomlnlumH



S


§




o
c


Pressure sand filtration
disinfection (iron,
magnese, sulfide)

i

Ronald, WA
(old coal mine shaft)
(groundwaler)
PIneloch Sun lleacll
Club



8"


§




u
e
£

.S3
Packaged reverse osmos
(nitrates)
2 >.
SO sludenls & s
Non-transient
Non-communi
tn
Howe, IN
(groundwnicr)
Lima llrlghton
Klemenlury School
	 H



vt


S,




Raw waler inlake
modifications,
chlorinalion
modifications, piping

.
til
•Hi °"
re a
to •J^

1

Crawford, CO
(Crystal Creek)
(surface waler)
Krulllnnd Domestic
Waler Co.



R


|t




New filler house


Bag and cartridge filler
disinfection (lurbidily,
bacleria, giardia)
c
u
•z
8 5T
1 1
^-i 'sa
£
Ml. Hood National
I7oresl, I lood River, OR
(Ixist Lake)
(surface water)
•Ixisl Lake Camp
^


S"
£»


a



c. b
lundwater well, pum
talion, chlorination
ificalions, filter hou
,i w 8
0 E

Zeolite softeners
(radium 226 & 228,
hardness)
2£
|l
.2?
1
Applcton, Wl
(groundwaler)
a
fr
1



|l

S5
I




Raw water inlake,
ransmission main,
rage lank, filler bldg
ss road, bridge, sew;
line-extension
i 8
ca

Pressure clarifier, depth
filler, disinfection
(lurbidily, bacleria,
giardia)

sf
§

Readsboro, VT
(surface water)
Keadsboro Water
TrealmenI Facility



1*
S
^3
1
t_
o
z

ler building, storage
lank, piping
IT

Pressure clarifier, depth
filler and reverse
osmosis, disinfection
(arsenic, lurbidily)

1,1 00 employee
Noii-iransicm
Non-communil]

I-Iko, NV
(groundwaler)
llarrick (ioldslrlke
Mines, Inc.


:=
I
5

11
5^1
HI

II
•

111 nil will or well, brim
storage tank
s.

Ion exchange
disinfection (indium)

V.
p-

l-'ond (In 1 jtc. Wl
(piniuulwatcr)
Tiiyclitediih |
iirrrclioiuil Kiullilv 1

-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began a Small Systems Low-Cost

Technology Initiative with a mission to ensure that (a) low-cost technologies are available, and (b) the states

and public water systems will accept these technologies. In 1990, the Low-Cost Technology Initiative began

a public/private partnership venture in which the EPA, the Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators (ASDWA), and members of the Water Quality Association (WQA) joined together to

document that low-cost technologies are in-place and working as designed. ;

As part of this effort, ASDWA requested proposals to conduct a number of case studies of small water

systems that have installed low-cost technologies in an effort to comply with the requirements of the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In August 1991, The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. (GPG), entered into an

agreement with ASDWA to conduct several case studies of small water systems. GPG was supported by

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in this effort. The intent of this effort was to investigate and document the use of

treatment technologies in an attempt to identify effective, economical and efficient methods of solving small

water system problems. The results of the investigation (data and case study reports) are intended to assist'

state regulators in the evaluation and approval of thesejechnologies in their states.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

The Scope of Work involved the investigation of small water systems that have installed low-cost

treatment technologies to. achieve compliance with the SDWA. The intent was to document the technical

performance and the costs of each installation. The work efforts included an investigation of the selected

small water systems, assessment of the treatment technology, including the operation and maintenance

requirements, the performance of the systems - specifically their ability to meet SDWA requirements - and

the costs associated with installation and long-term operation. The work efforts also addressed the barriers

that were overcome to install the technology; the procurement process used; treatment guarantees provided

by the supplier; and the interaction with state and local officials and others.

-------
        The work plan included (1) the identification and confirmation of appropriate sites that were willing



 to participate in the investigation; (2) the development and distribution of a questionnaire to identify the types




 of information needed for the case studies; (3) on-site visits to meet with water system owners/operators and



 others (state regulators, manufacturers,  engineers,  etc.)  if available, to discuss the operation of the water



 system; (4)  development of case study reports that  describe the  results  of  the investigations;  and (5)



 development of this final report to compile the case study findings and highlight the strengths and weaknesses



 of the treatment technologies and their use at small water systems.          	 '



 1.3     ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT




        This report consists of five  sections and an  appendix.  Section 1 discusses the purpose of the work.



Section 2 presents the site selection process used to select the nine small water systems to be investigated.



Section 3 presents the evaluation of the selected small water systems.  Section 3 focuses on the treatment



technology, vendor treatment guarantees, treatment efficiency, relationship of the system to state, local



government, consulting  engineers,  suppliers  and  other interested parties, operation and  maintenance



requirements and capital and operating costs.




        The conclusions of the investigations are presented in Section 4 and recommendations are presented



in Section 5. Appendix A contains  a brief description of the small water systems in the study  including the



facilities  and water quality  prior to  improvements, the selected treatment technology and  the date of



installation.

-------
SECTION 2
SITE SELECTION

2.1 INITIAL SURVEY

The In-Place Technology Committee is one of five committees that comprise the Low-Cost Small

System Treatment Technology Initiative. The committee was formed to develop data on treatment

technologies that have been installed for small systems. The Committee developed a questionnaire on small

water system treatment technologies that was distributed to all the states. The survey was designed to obtain

information from states on small system treatment technologies and to document the efficacy and costs of the

treatment as well as why particular treatment systems were selected.

The states also submitted lists of successful small water systems that were working effectively and lists

of small water systems that did not perform adequately. The Water Quality Association (WQA) and the

Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturing Association (WWEMA) gathered additional information

from their members on small water systems. Based on the list of successful sites provided by the states and

information from WQA and WWEMA, the Committee selected potential sites for this study.

2.2 WATER SYSTEM SELECTION

GPG met with members of the Committee at the start of project activities to discuss the scope and'

objectives of the project and to review the sites selected for evaluation and the selection process. The results

of that meeting included the identification of the following water systems~for possible, inclusion in this study:

I- Gfeen C°ve Condominiums, Oak Harbor, Ohio
2. Pmeloch Sun Beach Club, Ronald, Washington
3. Lake Tuck Water System, Bellevue, Washington
4. "• Lima Brighton Elementary School, Howe, Indiana
5. Fruitland Domestic Water Company, Crawford, Colorado
6. Lost Lake Camp, Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon
7. St. John the Baptist Church and School, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin
8. Darboy Sanitary District, Appleton, Wisconsin
9. Taycheedah, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin
10. Readsboro Water Treatment Facility, Readsboro, Vermont
11. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., Elko, Nevada