Office of Water (4606)
Small System Regulatory
Requirements Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act
as Amended 1996
Fact Sheets for Existing and Future Rules
Case Studies:
Cost Estimates of Small System Compliance
-------
-------
Small System Regulatory Requirements
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act as
Amended in 1996
Fact Sheets for Existing and Future Rules
Case Studies: Cost Estimates of Small System Compliance
This document was prepared to support the deliberations of
the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's
Small Systems Implementation Working Group
Prepared for:
Peter Shanaghan, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official, Small Systems Implementation Working Group
Prepared by:
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
135 Beaver Street
Waltham, MA 02452
-------
-------
Pat Banegas
Jerry Biberstine
Mark Bugher
Michael Dimitriou
Jim Dunlap
Paul Felz
Bruce Florquist
Andrea Griese
J.W. Heliums
Christine Hoover
Leon Jacobs
Diane Kiesling*
Kirk Leifheit
Charles Maddox
Gary Morgan
Yvette DePeiza
John Scheltens
Peter Shanaghan
Dave Siburg
Blanca Surgeon
Curtis Truss
Michael Walsh
Bob Wendelgass
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
Small Systems Implementation Working Group Members
General Manager, Anthony Water and Sanitation District, New Mexico
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA)
West Virginia American Water Company, Huntington Division. National Association of Water
Companies (NAWC)
Aquasource North America
Owner, John Deere Dealership. National Rural Water Association (NRWA)
US EPA Region VIII, Denver, Colorado
Public Works Director, City of Rawlins. American Public Works Association (APWA)
Drinking Water Program, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. ASDWA
Utilities Management Specialist, Community Resource Group. Rural Community Assistance Program
(RCAP)
Office of the Consumer Advocate, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
(NASUCA)
Commissioner, Florida Public Service Commission
The Kiesling Group
Ohio EPA, Division of Drinking & Ground Water
Manager, Public Drinking Water Section, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC)
Engineer and Environmental Staff Director, USD A/Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Drinking Water Program
City Engineer, City of Hot Springs, South Dakota. NDWAC
US EPA Headquarters; Working Group's Designated Federal Official
Manager, Public Utilities District (PUD) #1 of Kitsap County, Washington. American Water Works
Association (AWWA)
Rural Community Assistance County Corporation, New Mexico. RCAP
Assistant Director, Springfield, Ohio. AWWA
President, Shorelands Water. NAWC
Pennsylvania State Director, Clean Water Action
* Due to other professional obligations, Ms. Kiesling withdrew from NDWAC and the working group during its early
deliberations.
-------
-------
Contents
Current SDWA Requirements 1
Stage 1 Disinfection By-Products Rule 2
Surface Water Treatment Rule 5
Total Coliform Rule 7
Lead and Copper Rule 9
Chemical Monitoring: Phase D/V 11
Radionuclides 13
Public Notification Rule 14
Consumer Confidence Reports 15
Future SDWA Requirements 16
Ground Water Rule 17
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 18
Arsenic 19
Radon 20
Radionuclides 21
Filter Backwash Recycling 22
Case Studies: Cost Estimates of Small System Compliance 23
Introduction 25
Summary Table 26
General Assumptions 27
Case #1 30
Case #2A 31
Case #2B 32
Case #3 33
Case #4A 34
Case #4B 35
Case #5A 36
Case #5B 37
Case #6 38
Sources 39
-------
Current SDWA Requirements
Stage 1 Disinfection By-Products Rule
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Total Coliform Rule
Lead and Copper Rule
Chemical Monitoring: Phase II/V
Radionuclides
Public Notification Rule
Consumer Confidence Reports
-------
Fact Sheet:
Stage 1 Disinfection By-Products Rule
• Effective Date—
- Published November 16, 1998
- Finalized December 16, 1998
- EPA is publishing an additional Federal Register notice making minor alterations to the rule including
changing the compliance dates to January 1st, therefore:
• Surface water and GWUDI systems serving 10,000 or more persons must comply by
January 1, 2002 (three years from promulgation)
• Surface water and GWUDI systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons and ground water systems must
comply by January 1, 2004 (five years from promulgation)
• Affected Systems—All CWSs and NTNCWSs that treat their water with a chemical disinfectant for either primary or
residual treatment. Certain requirements for chlorine dioxide also apply to TNCWSs.
• Basic Provisions—
- Maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) and maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for
disinfectants
• Chlorine
- MRDLG: 4 mg/L (as C12)
- MRDL: 4mg/L(asCl2)
• Chloramine
- MRDLG: 4 mg/L (as C12)
- MRDL: 4mg/L(asCl2)
• Chlorine dioxide (applies to TNCWSs)
- MRDLG: 0.8 mg/L (as C12)
- MRDL: 0.8 mg/L (as C12)
- Maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for disinfection
byproducts
• Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) MCL: 0.080 mg/L (sum of the concentrations of the following)
- Chloroform MCLG: 0 mg/L
- Bromodichloromethane MCLG: 0 mg/L
- Dibromochloromethane MCLG: 0.06 mg/L
- Bromoform MCLG: 0 mg/L
• Haloacetic acids (J^AAS) MCL: 0.060 mg/L (sum of the concentrations of
mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acids and mono- and dibromoacetic acids)
- Dichloroacetic acid MCLG: 0 mg/L
- Trichloroacetic acid MCLG: 0.3 mg/L
• Chlorite
- MCLG: 0.8 mg/L
- MCL: 1.0 mg/L
• Bromate
- MCLG: Omg/L
- MCL: 0.010 mg/L
-------
Fact Sheet:
Stage 1 Disinfection By-Products Rule (continued)
Treatment technique for disinfection byproduct precursors
• Systems that use surface water or GWUDI and use conventional filtration must remove specified
percentages of organic materials (measured as total organic carbon (TOC)), using either enhanced
coagulation or enhanced softening
The removal percentage for each system depends upon its source water TOC concentration and
alkalinity:
- if the system's source water contains >2.0-4.0 mg/L TOC:
» it must remove 35% of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is 0-60 mg/L
> > it remove 25 % of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is >60-120 mg/L
» it must remove 15% of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is > 120 mg/L
- if the system's source water contains >4.0-8.0 mg/L TOC:
» it must remove 45% of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is 0-60 mg/L
> > it must remove 3 5 % of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is >60-120 mg/L
» it must remove 25% of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is > 120 mg/L
- if the system's source water contains >8.0 mg/L TOC:
» it must remove 50% of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is 0-60 mg/L
> > it must remove 40% of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is >60-120 mg/L
» it must remove 30% of TOC if alkalinity (as CaCO3) is > 120 mg/L
- the rule provides alternate performance criteria when it is technically infeasible for systems to
meet these TOC removal requirements
» for systems practicing enhanced coagulation, alternative TOC removal percentages are
determined, based upon jar tests performed at least quarterly for one year
» systems practicing enhanced softening must meet one of the following three
performance criteria: 1) produce finished water with a specified ultraviolet
absorbence (SUVA) of < 2.0 L/mg-m; 2) remove a minimum of 10 mg/L magnesium
hardness (as CaCO3); or 3) lower alkalinity to less than 60 mg/L (as CaCO3).
- the rule also provides alternative compliance criteria for systems that meet certain water
quality and other criteria
Operator Certification: all systems regulated under this rule must be operated by an individual who meets
State-specified qualifications.
Monitoring Requirements:
• TOC and alkalinity paired samples, at a frequency of 1 sample/month/plant, required only for surface
water and GWUDI systems with conventional filtration treatment
- reduced to 1 sample/quarter/plant if:
» average TOC < 2.0 mg/L for 2 years
» average TOC < 1.0 mg/L for 1 year
• TTHMsandHAA5:
- Surface water systems serving 10,000 or more persons: 4 samples/plant/quarter
» reduced to 1 sample/quarter/plant if: 1) system has completed at least one year of
routine monitoring and 2) both TTHM and HAA5 running annual averages are no
more than 40 (ig/L and 30 (ig/L respectively
» revert to routine monitoring if TTHM concentration exceeds 0.060 mg/L or HAA5
concentration exceeds 0.045 mg/L
-------
Fact Sheet:
Stage 1 Disinfection By-Products Rule (continued)
- Surface water systems serving 500-9,999 persons: 1 sample/plant/quarter
» reduced to 1 sample/plant/year 1) system has completed at least one year of routine
monitoring; 2) both TTHM and HAAS running annual averages are no more than 40
(ig/L and 30 (ig/L respectively; and 3) annual average source water TOC level is no
more than 4.0 mg/L prior to treatment
- Surface water systems serving less than 500 persons: 1 sample/plant/year
» increase monitoring to 1 sample/plant/quarter if the annual sample exceeds the MCL
» return to routine monitoring if the annual average of quarterly samples is no more than
0.060 mg/L for TTHM and 0.045 mg/L for HAA5
- Ground water systems serving 10,000 or more persons: 1 sample/plant/quarter
» reduced to 1 sample/plant/year if 1) system has completed at least one year of routine
monitoring; 2) both TTHM and HAA5 running annual averages are no more than 40
(ig/L and 30 (ig/L respectively; and 3) annual average source water TOC level is no
more than 4.0 mg/L prior to treatment
- Ground water systems serving less than 10,000 persons: 1 sample/plant/year
» if the annual monitoring result exceeds the MCL, the system must increase monitoring
to 1 sample/plant/quarter
» return to routine monitoring if the annual average of quarterly samples is no more than
0.060 mg/L for TTHM and 0.045 mg/L for HAA5
» reduced to 1 sample/plant/3 years if: 1) system has completed at least 2 years of
routine monitoring and both the TTHM and HAA5 running annual averages are no
more than 40 (ig/L and 30 (ig/L respectively or 2) system has completed at least one
year of routine monitoring and both TTHM and HAA5 annual samples are no more
than 20 (ig/L and 15 (ig/L respectively
• Bromate: 1 sample/month/plant, required only for systems using ozone for oxidation or disinfection
- reduced to 1 sample/quarter/plant if the system can demonstrate average raw water bromide
concentration < 0.05 mg/L (based on annual average of monthly samples)
• Chlorite samples required for systems using chlorine dioxide for oxidation or disinfection:
1 sample/day/plant at entrance to distribution system
- 1 set of 3 samples/month at specified points in distribution system
» reduced to 3 samples/quarter if the chlorine concentration in all samples taken in the
distribution system is < 1.0 mg/L
• Chlorine and chloramines must be monitored at the same location and frequency as total coliform under
the total coliform rule
• Chlorine dioxide: 1 sample/day/plant, required only for systems using chlorine dioxide for oxidation or
disinfection
-------
Fact Sheet:
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Effective Date—December 31, 1990
Affected Systems—all Public Water Systems (PWSs) using surface water sources or groundwater sources under the
direct influence of surface water
Basic Provisions—
- Establishes criteria under which filtration and disinfection are required—systems must either provide filtration
or comply with the requirements to avoid filtration
• Criteria for avoiding filtration
- Source water quality conditions
» Low coliform
» Low turbidity
- Site-specific requirements
» Must have a watershed control program
» Annual on-site inspection
» Must not be the source of a water-borne disease outbreak
» Must comply with total coliform MCL
• Disinfection requirements for PWSs that do not provide filtration
- Treatment standards
» Treatment must be sufficient to ensure 99.9% inactivation or removal of Giardia
lamblia cysts
» Treatment must be sufficient to ensure 99.99% inactivation or removal of viruses
- Disinfection system must have either redundant components or an automatic shut-off
- Residual disinfectant concentration must be maintained above a certain level
• Disinfection requirements for PWSs that provide filtration
- Treatment standards
» Treatment must be sufficient to ensure 99.9% inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts
» Treatment must be sufficient to ensure 99.99% inactivation of viruses
- Residual disinfectant concentration must be maintained above a certain level
• Filtration—if the criteria to avoid filtration are not met, PWSs must provide one of the following
filtration treatments by June 29, 1993, or within 18 months of the failure to meet any of the criteria to
avoid filtration
- Conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration
- Slow sand filtration
- Diatomaceous earth filtration
- Other filtration technology, if the PWS demonstrates to the State that the alternative
technology is as effective as the technology listed above
-------
Fact Sheet:
Surface Water Treatment Rule (continued)
Establishes monitoring requirements for PWSs that use surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water
• Monitoring requirements for systems that do not provide filtration
- Fecal or total coliform density
» Systems serving < 500 people—1 sample/week
» Systems serving 501 to 3,300 people—2 samples/week
» Systems serving 3,301 to 10,000 people—3 samples/week
- Turbidity must be monitored every four hours
- Total inactivation ratios must be calculated daily
- Residual disinfectant concentration must be monitored continuously
• Monitoring requirements for systems that provide filtration
- Turbidity must be monitored every four hours
- Residual disinfectant concentration must be monitored continuously
Reporting and record keeping requirements
• PWSs that do not provide filtration must report the following to the State on a monthly basis
- Source water quality data
- Disinfection information
- Annual summaries of its watershed control program
- Waterborne disease outbreaks potentially attributable to the system
- Incidents of high turbidity
- Incidents of low disinfectant residual concentration
• PWSs that provide filtration must report the following to the State on a monthly basis
- Turbidity measurements
- Disinfection information
- Waterborne disease outbreaks potentially attributable to the system
-------
Fact Sheet:
Total Coliform Rule
Effective Date —December 31, 1990
Affected Systems —all PWSs
Basic Provisions —sets monitoring and compliance requirements for coliforms
- Sampling—all systems must have a written sample siting plan
• For Community Water Systems (CWSs), the number of samples is based on minimum service
population
- 25 to 1,000—1 sample/month*
- 1,001 to 2,500—2 samples/month
- 2,501 to 3,300—3 samples/month tn ^ , , , f ,
* LWSs serving 25 to 1,000people with no history of total
— J,JU1 tO4,lUU 4 SampleS/montn coliform contamination and a sanitary survey conducted in
- 4,101 tO 4,900 5 Samples/month the past five years that shows that the system is supplied
.„„,, ,-rir>r> x- i ; ,1 solely by a protected groundwater source and is free of
- 4,901 to 5,800—6 samples/month samtary defects may^ at the dlscretion ofthe State^ reduce
— 5,801 tO 6,700 7 Samples/month their monitoring (in no case may the State reduce the
- 6,701 tO 7,600—8 Samples/month monitoring frequency to less than 1 sample/quarter).
- 7,601 to 8,500—9 samples/month
- 8,501 to 12,900—10 samples/month
• Noncommunity water systems (NCWSs)
- Groundwater systems serving < 1,000 people must monitor once each calendar quarter
» The State may reduce this monitoring frequency to no less than 1 sample/year if a
sanitary survey indicates that the system is free of sanitary defects
- Ground water systems serving > 1,000 people must monitor at the same frequency as like-sized
CWSs
» The State may reduce this monitoring for any month the system serves fewer than
1,000 people (monitoring must occur at least annually)
- Surface water systems must monitor at the same frequency as like-sized CWSs, regardless of
size
- Ground water under the influence of surface water is treated as surface water
• Repeat samples
- Systems that collect > 1 sample/month must collect, within 24 hours, at least 3 repeat samples
for each total coliform-positive sample found
- Systems that collect < 1 sample/month must collect, within 24 hours, at least 4 repeat samples
for each total coliform-positive sample found
- Systems must continue to collect repeat samples as specified above until all samples are
negative or it is determined that the system has violated the MCL
- If a system that normally collects less than five routine samples/month has a positive sample, it
must collect at least five samples during the month immediately following the positive sample
- Any sample that tests total coliform positive must be analyzed for E. coll or fecal coliforms
-------
Fact Sheet:
Total Coliform Rule (continued)
Sanitary surveys—
• PWSs that collect fewer than five routine samples/month must undergo an initial sanitary survey by
June 29, 1994, for CWSs and June 29, 1999, for NCWSs
• Thereafter, systems must undergo another sanitary survey every five years, except that NCWSs using
only protected and disinfected ground water, as defined by the State, must undergo subsequent sanitary
surveys at least every 10 years after the initial sanitary survey
Public notification—systems that violate the total coliform MCL must undertake public notification
• All violations must be reported to the State no later than the end of the next business day
-------
Fact Sheet:
Lead and Copper Rule
Effective Date—December 7, 1992
Affected Systems—all CWSs and Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)
Basic Provisions—establishes a treatment technique that includes requirements for corrosion control treatment, source
water treatment, lead service line replacement, and public education; these requirements are triggered by lead and
copper action levels measured in samples collected at consumers' taps
- Monitoring and analytical requirements
• Number of sampling sites (1 sample per site)
- Standard monitoring (by population served)
» 3,301 to 10,000—40 sites
» 501 to 3,300—20 sites
» 101-500—10 sites
» 100—5 sites
- Reduced monitoring (by population served)
» 3,301 to 10,000—20 sites
» 501 to 3,300—10 sites
» 101-500—5 sites
» 100—5 sites
• Initial tap sampling—the first 6-month monitoring period for small (3,300 or fewer people) and
medium (3,301 to 10,000 people) systems shall begin on the following dates
- Medium—July 1, 1992
- Small—July 1, 1993
• Small and medium-size systems shall monitor during each 6-month monitoring period until
- The system exceeds the lead or copper action level and is therefore required to implement
corrosion control treatment
- The system meets the lead and copper action levels during two consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods, in which case the system may reduce monitoring
• Reduced monitoring—a small or medium-size water system that meets the lead and copper action
levels during each of two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods may reduce the number of samples
(see above) and reduce the frequency to 1 sampling or sample set per year taken in June, July, August,
or September
• Systems that exceed the lead or copper action level must monitor water quality parameters in addition
to lead and copper during the same period of exceedance
-------
Fact Sheet:
Lead and Copper Rule (continued)
Corrosion control treatment requirements
• Systems must complete corrosion control treatment steps unless they are deemed by the State to have
optimized corrosion control (i.e., been under the action level for two consecutive six-month monitoring
periods)
• Systems that exceed the action level must undertake corrosion control treatment steps, even if they have
been deemed to have optimized corrosion control
Source water treatment requirements—any system exceeding the lead or copper action level must implement
source water monitoring and treatment
Lead service line replacement requirements—any system that fails to meet the lead action level in tap samples
after installing corrosion control and/or source water treatment (whichever sampling occurs later), must replace
the lead service lines that continue to exceed the standard
Public education requirements—any system exceeding the lead action level must deliver public education
materials
• The requirements for NTNCWSs are not as stringent as those for CWSs
Record keeping requirements
• Systems must maintain original records on their premises for no less than 12 years
10
-------
Fact Sheet:
Chemical Monitoring: Phase II/V
Effective Dates—
- Phase II—January 30,1991
- Phase V—July 17, 1992
Affected Systems—
- In general, requirements apply only to CWSs and NTNCWSs
- Nitrate and nitrite requirements apply to all PWSs
- Fluoride requirements apply only to CWSs
Basic Provisions—Establishes monitoring and MCL or treatment techniques for 66 chemicals
- Phase II
• Effective 1/30/91
• Regulates 9 lOCs, 10 VOCs, 15 SOCs
• Promulgated Standardized Monitoring Framework (SMF)
- Standardized monitoring requirements for VOCs, lOCs, and SOCs
- 9 year compliance cycle comprised of three 3-year compliance periods
- First period: 1993-1995
» Phase II and IIB initial monitoring for all systems
- Second period: 1996-1998
- Third period: 1999-2001
» States specify year in which monitoring will be required
• SMF initial requirements
- lOCs
» Ground water-1 sample/3 years
» Surface water-1 sample/year
- VOCs/SOCs
» Surface water and ground water-four consecutive quarterly samples
• Subsequent monitoring
- lOCs
» Below MCL-same as initial monitoring
» Equal to or above MCL-quarterly samples until reliably and consistently below MCL
- VOCs
- SOCs
If detects-1 sample/quarter
If no detects and ground water system-1 sample/3 years
If no detects and surface water system-1 sample/year
If detects-sample quarterly
If no detects and service population > 3,300-sample twice in three years
If no detects and service population < 3,300-sample once in three years
11
-------
Fact Sheet:
Chemical Monitoring: Phase II/V (continued)
• Exceptions
- Asbestos-one sample every nine years
» If < MCL-monitor during first three years of next 9-year cycle
» If > MCL-monitor quarterly until reliably and consistently below MCL
- Nitrite-one sample for all PWSs
» If < 5 0% of MCL-State discretion
» If >50% of MCL-1 sample/quarter until reliably and consistently below MCL, then 1
sample/year
- Nitrate
» CWS/NTNCWS
-ground water-1 sample/year
—surface water-1 sample/quarter
» TNCWS-1 sample/year
» Increase from 1 sample/year to 1 sample/quarter if > 50% of MCL
» Reduce from 1 sample/quarter to 1 sample/year if four consecutive quarterly samples
are < 50% of MCL
• SMF allows waivers for contaminants other than nitrate and nitrite
Phase V
• Regulated 5 lOCs, 3 VOCs, 15 SOCs
• Adopted Phase II SMF requirements
- Standardized monitoring requirements for VOCs, lOCs, and SOCs
- 9 year compliance cycle comprised of three 3-year compliance periods
» First period: 1993-1995
— Phase V initial monitoring for systems having m 150 service connections
» Second period: 1996-1998
— Phase V initial monitoring for systems having < 150 service connections
» Third period: 1999-2001
— States specify year in which monitoring will be required
12
-------
Fact Sheet:
Radionuclides
Effective Date—original regulations promulgated in 1976, amended March 5, 1997
Affected Systems—all CWSs
Basic Provisions—
- Specifies MCLs and monitoring requirements for combined radium-226 & 228, gross alpha particle activity,
beta particle activity, and photon emitters
- Monitoring requirements
• For gross alpha particle activity, radium-226 & 228
- Initial monitoring
» Four consecutive quarterly samples
» Initial sampling to start within two years of the effective date of the regulation and be
completed within three years
» Gross alpha particle activity monitoring may be substituted for radium monitoring,
provided the measured gross alpha particle activity does not exceed 5pCi/L at a 95%
confidence level
- Subsequent monitoring
» Four consecutive quarterly samples must be taken at least once every four years
» Analysis of a single sample is acceptable (at the discretion of the State) if prior
sampling has established that the average annual concentration is less than half the
MCL
» More frequent monitoring may be required by the State for systems near mines or
other operations that may contribute alpha particle radioactivity
» CWSs must monitor as above within one year of the introduction of a new water
source
- Increased monitoring
» If the average annual MCL for gross alpha particle activity or total radium is
exceeded, monitoring at quarterly intervals shall be conducted until the MCL is no
longer exceeded
- Public notification
• If the average annual MCL for gross alpha particle activity or total radium is exceeded, the system
must notify the public and the State within 48 hours
13
-------
Fact Sheet:
Public Notification Rule
Effective Date—April 28, 1989
Affected Systems—all PWSs
Basic Provisions—designed to keep the public informed of incidents that may affect drinking water quality
- Requires systems to notify consumers when
• Violation of any drinking water regulation occurs
- MCL is exceeded
- Treatment technique is not adhered to
- Monitoring/reporting is not completed
• Variance or exemption (V & E) is granted or conditions of V & E are violated
- The system owner or operator must notify the public of an MCL violation
• By publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the affected area as soon as possible, and
no later than 14 days after the violation
• By mail or hand delivery within 45 days of the violation or failure
- The State may waive this requirement if it deems that sufficient action has been taken to
correct the violation or failure
• By mail every three months after the initial 45 day notification, for as long as the violation or failure
continues
- MCL violations for contaminants that may pose an acute risk to human health must be publicized through radio
and television within 72 hours of the violation
- Systems that fail to perform monitoring or comply with testing requirements under the SDWA, or are subject to
V & Es must
• Give notice in a daily newspaper of general circulation within three months of the violation
• Give notice by direct mail or hand delivery every three months for as long as the
V & E remains in effect
- NCWSs in violation or granted a V & E must notify customers by hand delivery (every three months) or
continuous posting in conspicuous places within the area served by the system (for as long as the violation
continues or the V & E remains in effect)
- A copy of the most recent public notice of any of the aforementioned topics must be given to new billing units
or new hookups prior to or at the time service begins
- The public notice must comply with certain requirements concerning appropriate content, language, and
explanations regarding specific chemicals
14
-------
Fact Sheet:
Consumer Confidence Reports
Effective Date—first reports are due between April and October 1999, by July 1 annually thereafter
Affected Systems—all CWSs
Basic Provisions—requires annual drinking water quality reports for customers
- Minimum requirements
• Reports must contain
- Identification of the water source
- Summary of susceptibility to contamination
- Instructions for obtaining the complete source water assessment
- Level of any contaminant found in local drinking water, with appropriate MCL
- Likely source of the contaminant
- Potential health effects of contaminants detected in violation of EPA Health Standards, with
description of system's actions to restore safe levels
- Educational statement for vulnerable populations about avoiding Cryptosporidium
- Educational information on nitrate, arsenic, and lead when detected > 50% of standard
- Phone numbers, including system's and SDWA hotline
• Report must be mailed to all customers
- Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people
• Need not mail their reports if the Governor of the State they are located in grants a waiver
• Required to inform their customers if the system will not be mailing the report
• Required to make the report available on request to the public
• Required to publish the report annually in one or more local newspapers
- CWSs that serve 500 people or fewer may meet their consumer confidence report obligations by
• Preparing an annual report
• Making it available upon request
• Providing notice of its availability at least once per year to each customer by mail, by door-to-door
delivery, by posting, or by any other authorized means
15
-------
Future SDWA Requirements
Ground Water Rule
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Arsenic (Amended)
Radon
Radionuclides (Amended)
Filter Backwash Recycling
16
-------
Fact Sheet:
Ground Water Rule
Effective Date—
- Proposed Ground Water Rule anticipated Spring, 1999
- Final Ground Water Rule anticipated November, 2000
- Ground Water Rule statutory deadline May, 2002
Potentially Affected Systems—all public systems using a ground water source
Basic Provisions—EPA is developing a ground water rule regulating disinfection and other components of ground
water treatment systems
- The ground water rule will probably address
• Appropriate use of disinfection
• Use of alternative approaches including
- Best management practices
- Control of contamination at its source
• Special needs of small systems
17
-------
Fact Sheet:
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Effective Date—due by November, 2000
Potentially Affected Systems—all CWS and NTNCWSs that add a disinfectant to the drinking water during any part
of the treatment process
Basic Provisions—proposed strengthening of microbial controls for small systems (those serving fewer than 10,000
people) by addressing the following
- Filter performance baseline
- Low-cost approaches to improve filter performance
- Disinfection benchmarking
- Cost and timing of implementation
- Need for technical assistance
18
-------
Fact Sheet:
Arsenic
Effective Date—
- Proposed Arsenic Rule due by January 1, 2000
- Final Arsenic Rule due by January 1, 2001
Potentially Affected Systems—currently, the arsenic MCL only applies to CWSs; the new MCL would also apply to
NTNCWSs
Basic Provisions—
- The SDWA requires EPA to set the MCL as close to a public health goal as feasible, taking into account
• Available treatment technologies
• Regulatory costs and benefits
• Sensitive subpopulations
- For the new standard, EPA must identify affordable small system technologies
- The carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects of arsenic are currently being studied
• The results of these peer-reviewed health studies will inform the rulemaking process
19
-------
Fact Sheet:
Radon
Effective Date—
- MCL Goal and National Primary Drinking Water Standard for radon must be proposed by August, 1999
- MCL Goal and Final MCL for radon must be published by August, 2000
Potentially Affected Systems—all PWS; no systems are currently regulated (the withdrawn 1991 proposed rule
applied to all PWSs)
Basic Provisions—EPA must develop a standard for radon in drinking water
- EPA does not currently regulate radon in drinking water
• EPA is developing a proposed regulation to reduce radon in drinking water
• The regulation is also likely to include provisions to reduce radon in indoor air
• EPA must publish an assessment of health risks posed by radon and an analysis of costs for possible
radon MCLs for public comment by February 1999
- Alternative MCLs (AMCLs) and multimedia mitigation programs
• If the MCL is "more stringent than necessary to reduce the contribution to radon in indoor air from
drinking water to a concentration that is equivalent to the national average concentration of radon in
outdoor air," EPA must establish an AMCL, linked to average outdoor radon levels
• If an AMCL is established, EPA must publish guidelines for State multimedia radon mitigation
programs
• States may develop multimedia mitigation programs to reduce radon levels in indoor air; EPA shall
approve these programs if they are expected to achieve equivalent or greater benefits than compliance
with the MCL
• If EPA approves a State program, PWSs within the State may comply with the AMCL
• EPA shall evaluate multimedia mitigation programs every 5 years
20
-------
Fact Sheet:
Radionuclides
Effective Date—
- Radionuclide standards must be ratified by November, 2000
- A final uranium standard must be in place by 2000
Potentially Affected Systems—current radionuclide standards apply to CWSs
Basic Provisions—EPA is revising the current radionuclides regulation and is setting a standard for uranium, as
required by the 1986 Amendments to the SDWA
- The SDWA calls for regulation of radionuclides and a review of regulations every 6 years
- In setting the new standards EPA is reviewing
• Health effects studies
• Occurrence data
• Treatment technology and analytical methods
- Revised standards must maintain or provide for greater protection of public health than old standards
21
-------
Fact Sheet:
Filter Backwash Recycling
Effective Date—due by August 2000
Potentially Affected Systems—all PWSs that backwash filters
Basic Provisions—governs the recycling of filter backwash within the treatment process of PWSs
- EPA has not developed specific regulatory options
- Potential options may include
• Banning the recycling of filter backwash
• Requiring that recycle flows be equalized
• Requiring that all recycle flows be treated to a specific level
• Requiring that all recycle flows be treated with a specific technology
22
-------
Case Studies:
Cost Estimates of Small System Compliance
-------
-------
Introduction
The following small system hypothetical case studies were developed by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC) Small Systems Working Group to estimate the costs small systems might incur to meet the requirements of the
1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The case studies are intended to accurately represent, to the
extent possible, the universe of typical small systems, based upon type of system, size of system, treatment used, and
contamination problems encountered.
After identifying the initial system characteristics, the workgroup helped to determine the regulations and corresponding
requirements that affected each system based on its particular characteristics. The costs associated with these various
requirements were then estimated using a variety of sources.
The systems described in this report range from a very small transient, noncommunity water system (TNCWS) to a
community water system (CWS) serving 3,100 people. A nontransient, noncommunity water system (NTNCWS) serving
160 people is included, as are CWSs with service populations of 500, 750, and 2,500.
The summary table on the following page provides a clear overview of the hypothetical systems and the cost burden for
each system based on its particular situation. The assumptions on which system costs are based are provided after the
summary table. Most assumptions used in the cost analysis are explained under "General Assumptions." Specific
treatment cost assumptions and additional assumptions related to Case 5 are found immediately after the "General
Assumptions" page.
The cost estimates provided in this report are intended to be as accurate as possible at a national level and are based on the
best available data sources. However, it should be noted that due to the unique characteristics of each small system, the
difficulty and complexity of pricing treatment alternatives, and the embedded assumptions in the estimates used to determine
final costs, the cost estimates should only be viewed as an approximation of the financial impact the 1996 Amendments to
the SDWA will have on small systems.
25
-------
Summary Table of Hypothetical Small System Case Studies
| System Type
Source
Population Households
Contaminant Levels
Treatment Performed
Annual Household Cost '
7% interest 10% interest
Case 1
Case 2 A
Case2B
Case 3
Case 4A
Case 4B
Case 5A
Case 5B
Case 6
TNCWS
CWS
CWS
NTNCWS
CWS
CWS
CWS
CWS
CWS
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Surface Water
Surface Water
Surface Water
Surface Water
GWUDISW
75
750
500
160
3,100
3,100
500
500
2,500
NA
250
167
NA
1,033
1,033
167
167
833
All contaminants well below
MCLs except for rads, which
are above 50% of the MCL.
Same as Case 1
Same as Case 1
Same as Case 1
Same as Case 1
Same as Case 1
System detects atrazine at
1.5 times the MCL. System
has corrosive water, causing
lead and copper
contamination.
System detects atrazine at
1.5 times the MCL. System
has corrosive water, causing
lead and copper
contamination.
System detects nitrate levels
moderately above the MCL.
System also has excessively
hard water.
Treatment already in place.
No additional treatment
necessary.
Same as Case 1
Same as Case 1
Same as Case 1
Same as Case 1
System has no existing
filtration. System needs to
install conventional filtration.
System has conventional
filtration. System needs to
retrofit to remove atrazine and
to install corrosion control.
System has no existing
filtration. System needs to
install conventional filtration,
remove atrazine, and control
corrosion.
System is currently using
direct filtration. System needs
to install treatment for nitrate
and may choose to treat for
hardness.
$8.21
$7.54
$14.89
$19.72
$6.87
SDWA Required Treatment
SDWA Treatment + Hardness Treatment
$128.95
$107.16
$454.86
See below.
$89.19
$151.32
$148.57
$108.25
$478.29
See below.
$96.82
$165.49
1 Since Case 1 and Case 3 are both noncommunity water systems (NCWSs), neither are serving households. Household costs are provided for comparative purposes only.
Due to annual variances in sampling requirements and treatment implementation, household costs for Cases 5 A, 5B, and 6 vary slightly from year-to-year. Due to this
variance, costs for each of these case studies were estimated annually for four years after the system detected a contaminant a nd/or installed filtration. However, in order to
present household cost information most clearly in this table, an average of the four annual household cost estimates for these specified systems was used. Interest rates are only
applicable to those systems that installed some type of treatment (Cases 4B, 5 A, 5B, 6).
Acronyms:
GWUDISW: Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level
-------
General Assumptions
1 Monitoring: It was assumed that all hypothetical systems in this study had achieved reduced monitoring status for most contaminants (exceptions include disinfection byproducts and
total coliform). This reduced monitoring schedule was assumed to be in effect unless contamination was reported.
2 Contaminant Detects: If a system experiences contamination, it was assumed that the resulting treatment would successfully reduce the contaminant concentration in the system's water
after one year, at which time the system would revert to the reduced monitoring schedule (except for systems faced with lead and copper contamination; see Cases 5A and 5B).
3 Laboratory Costs: No discount was built into laboratory analytical costs.
4 Sampling Wage: The labor rate for sampling conducted by all systems was assumed to be $14.50 per hour. This figure was taken from the Engineering News Record and was used after
consultation with Cadmus staff experienced with small water system operation.
5 Sample Delivery: It was assumed that all systems would use the complimentary courier services offered by most laboratories or would mail samples in, thus avoiding travel costs
associated with hand-delivering samples to a laboratory. Mailing fees were not accounted for in lab analysis costs.
6 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR): It was assumed that CCRs would be mailed separately from water bills since the workgroup expressed concern about whether systems would be
allowed to post notices in papers or be able to include the CCR with the bill (at minimum extra cost). The current postal rate of $0.33 for first-class mail was used. Systems that have a
business permit and pre-sort their mail, produce their own bar codes, and/or mail over 500 pieces may realize additional savings not reflected in this analysis.
7 Treatment Costs: Least-cost treatment method decisions were made by Cadmus staff and water treatment experts, often in consultation with available cost estimates provided by
Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies, SAIC, 1999. Capital, operation and maintenance, and disposal costs were considered in all least-
cost treatment decisions. Final decisions were also designed to reflect the most likely treatment based upon system size, system type, and the available disposal options.
8 Disposal of Waste Residuals: Disposal methods for specific treatment options were chosen on a least-cost basis. Least-cost determinations were based on total capital and operation and
maintenance costs. It should be noted that legal restrictions on disposal and site-specific limitations affect many treatment facilities and may necessitate the use of a more expensive
disposal option for some systems.
9 Cases 5A and 5B: Several specific treatment and disposal assumptions apply to Case 5A and Case 5B. Please see "Case 5 Treatment Costs" for details.
Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)
Cost formula per system of developing and distributing a CCR, assuming the report is mailed
separately from the bill.
Systems serving 500 or fewer
Prepare report
Specific Lead & Copper Assumptions
Lead and Copper sampling time (hrs/sample) 2.50
Costs to meet additional requirements (WQP's, education, etc.)
Submit annually to primacy agency
Store and make one copy available
Mail report as a separate item
Systems serving 501 to 3,300
Prepare report
Submit annually to primacy agency
Store and make one copy available
Mail report as a separate item
Labor Hours
14.00
0.25
0.25
1.00
Labor Hours
12.50
0.25
0.25
1.00
Per household CCR postage cost for systems serving 3,300 or less:
Cost
$203.00
$3.63
$3.63
$14.50
$224.76
Cost
$181.25
$3.63
$3.63
$14.50
$203.01
$0.33
Yearl
Year 2
$431.00
$216.00
Year 3
Year 4
Laboratory Costs
Total Coliform
Asbestos
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phase II/V lOCs
Phase II/V VOCs
Phase II/V SOCs
Lead and Copper
Radionuclides
Total Organic Carbon (TOG) & alkalinity
TTHM & HAAS
$216.00
$0.00
$20.00
$163.00
$20.00
NA
$208.00
$173.00
$1,754.00
$27.00
$234.00
$55.00
$223.00
Sampling, Household, and Lifecycle Assumptions
CWS sampling time (hrs/sample)1
Noncommunity water system (NCWS) sampling travel time (hrs/sample)2
NCWS preparation and sampling time (hrs/sample)3
System wage rate for all sampling and for CCR development (S/hr)
Water use per household per year (gpy/hh)
Number of people per household
Expected effective life of central water treatment plant (years)
Expected effective life of residuals monitor (years)
Expected effective life of turbidity meter (years)
Annualized cost for installation and maintenance of a residuals monitor4
Annualized cost for installation and maintenance of a turbidity meter5
0.75
1.50
0.25
$14.50
109,500
3.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
$500.00
$278.40
Chlorine/Chloramines6
Unit Costs for Grouped Analytes
Radionuclides
Gross Alpha and Beta
Radium 226 & 228 combined
Other
TOG
Alkalinity
TTHM
HAA5
Atrazme (SOC)
$70.00
$164.00
$41.00
$14.00
$72.00
$151.00
$98.00
$29.00
Important Note: While these laboratory costs are representative of
national averages, analytical costs faced by water systems may be
higher or lower depending upon the system's
location.
1 The sampling time for CWSs was determined after discussion with Cadmus staff familiar with small system operation. This sampling time reflects both preparation and sampling time
necessary to sample finished water as well as a minimum amount of additional travel, preparation, and sampling time to sample raw water at entry points, when necessary. Due to
variations in water quality, the number of entry points, and system type, actual sampling time will vary from system to system.
2:3 Both the travel time and the preparation and sampling time for NCWS sampling was determined after discussion with Cadmus staff familiar with small system operation. The travel
time estimate reflects the additional travel time necessary for non-CWS operations staff to take samples, as well as a minimum amount of additional travel time to sample raw water at
entry points when necessary. While travel time can be minimized by taking multiple samples in one trip, it was assumed that the same amount of preparation and sampling time was
needed for each sample. Due to variations in water quality, the number of entry points, and system type, actual sampling time will vary from system to system.
4'5 While some small systems may need to install both meters, many already have such meters in place, according to Cadmus staff familiar with small system operation. While new
regulations require continuous monitoring of turbidity and residuals, these meters also comply with such regulations. Thus, for some systems the additional costs imposed by these
meters may not apply.
6 Systems that disinfect may already have a chlorine residuals monitor installed (see notes 4 & 5). The monitor could allow the system to test its own chlorine, chloramine, and/or
chlorine dioxide concentrations as part of normal operations, rather than sending samples to a laboratory. Thus, systems with residual monitors may not incur the laboratory costs for
chlorine/chloramines accounted for in this analysis.
-------
Treatment Costs
1. Costs include all capital, operation and maintenance, and disposal costs.
2. All treatment costs were derived from cost information contained in Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies,
SAIC, 1999 except for the filter media retrofit estimate used in Case 5A and the annual GAC media replacement estimate used in Case 5B. Please refer to
specific case footnotes for additional underlying assumptions built into the treatment and disposal cost estimates provided by SAIC.
3. All treatment costs are in dollars per thousand gallons and were derived for service communities in three size categories: 25-500; 501-3,300; and 3,301-
10,000.
4. All treatment costs were converted from 1996$ to 1998$ using the Producer Price Index-Commodities (Finished Goods) from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
5. Since the costs faced by a system for a specific treatment vary by the size of the service population, the costs listed below are only applicable to the
specific systems mentioned. Any change in population assumptions will alter the final treatment cost. Please see "Case 5 Treatment Costs" for specific
information on additional treatments and how treatment costs for Cases 5A and 5B were altered to reflect the fact that they straddle two population
categories.
Treatment Technology
Anion Exchange (Case 6)
Cation Exchange (Case 6)
Conventional Filtration (Case 4B)
Conventional Filtration (Case 5B)
Soda Ash (Cases 5A and 5B)
Lime Softening (Case 6 (footnoted))
Disposal Method
POTW
POTW
Landfill after non-
mechanical dewatering
Landfill after non-
mechanical dewatering
No disposal necessary
Landfill after non-
mechanical dewatering
7%
$/kgal
$0.75
$0.57
$1.11
$3.28
$0.38
$1.21
interest rate
Annual household
cost ($/hh/yr)
$81.75
$62.13
$122.08
$359.15
$41.96
$132.98
10%
$/kgal
$0.82
$0.63
$1.29
$3.48
$0.39
$1.38
interest rate
Annual household
cost ($/hh/yr)
$89.38
$68.67
$141.70
$381.50
$43.05
$151.51
Treatment Cost Pricing Adjustment
Multiplier used to convert 1996$ to 1998$: 0.99543
Costs vary between Cases 4B and 5B for conventional filtration due to the system population served. Case 4B serves 3,100 people while
Case 5B serves 500 people.
POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works
-------
Case 5 Treatment Cost Assumptions
CASE 5A: Atrazine Treatment Assumptions
From communication with an engineer experienced in retrofits for atrazine contamination and Cadmus staff experienced with small system design, the
following train of assumptions were made:
1. Assuming the system treats approximately 109,500 gallons per household per year and serves a population of 500 (3 people per household), the
number of gallons treated per day is: 109,500 * ((500/3)7365) = 50,100. Systems must be designed to meet peak flows, however. Doubling the
amount treated per day is an accepted method to allow for peak flow. This results in the treatment of 100,200 gallons per day (69.6 gallons per
minute).
2. Cost estimates for the capital and labor costs involved in installing granular activated carbon (GAC) and making necessary structural alterations
to retrofit filter housings is priced by square footage of filter area, even though GAC media is priced in dollars per cubic foot. Assuming a
filtration rate of 3 gal/min/square foot and with the system needing to treat 69.6 gallons per minute, the system has approximately 23.2 square feet
of filter area (69.6 / 3 = 23.2). The cost range for retrofit of filters and GAC installation and replacement was quoted at $100 per square foot of
filter area for basic adjustments to $250 per square foot for a GAC retrofit involving significant structural changes.
3. The consulted engineer stated that a system of this size would likely have to make moderate structural changes to its treatment system during
the retrofit, such as replacement of the underdrains. As a result, an estimate of $150 per square foot of filter area was determined to be
representative of the cost a system of this type would incur. This results in an annualized cost of $150 * 23.2 = $3,480 for filter retrofit and annual
GAC media replacement (including removal of the spent media).
Assumption train leads to annual cost of: $3,480
CASE SB: Addition of GAC Assumptions
The price for GAC for a system of this size is approximately $30 per cubic foot for the media itself. Larger systems that order more GAC pay lower
prices for the media. The cost for a system of this type to have a supplier annually install and replace the GAC media and dispose of the spent GAC
was estimated to be $45 per cubic foot. This estimate of $45 per cubic foot of GAC was used to develop the final annualized cost. To determine how
many cubic feet of filter space a system of this type would have, it was assumed that filter depth was 2 feet. Using the filter area derived from the
assumptions made for Case 5A, the amount of GAC needed would be 46.4 cubic feet (23.2 * 2 = 46.4). The resulting annualized cost amounts to $45 *
46.4 = $2,088 for GAC media replacement.
Assumption train leads to annual cost of: $2,088
CASE SB: Conventional Filtration Assumptions
Conventional Filtration-Treatment
The cost estimates for conventional filtration were widely divergent for the two smaller population size categories; the community in Case 5B falls
squarely between these two categories. It was decided that to use one or the other cost estimate would unfairly represent the cost burden for
systems of this size. Systems with service populations of 25-500 incur a cost of $5.47 per 1,000 gallons of treated water (7% interest, 1996$) and
those with populations of 501-3,300 incur a cost of $1.12 per 1,000 gallons (7% interest, 1996$). Due to the complexity and number of cost
curves developed for the analysis of treatment and disposal costs, an analysis of printed cost curves or the use of equations was impractical.
Therefore, the two values were simply averaged to obtain the value ultimately used, $3.30 (7% interest, 1996$). An identical procedure was used
to obtain the cost estimate at 10% interest.
Conventional Filtration-Disposal
The least cost option for the disposal of conventional filtration residuals for most scenarios was to transport it directly to a landfill. However, while
least-cost estimates were used where valid, it was determined through conversation with Cadmus staff that disposal of conventional filtration
system sludge directly to a landfill without dewatering was unrealistic. Solids levels in the sludge would not be high enough for a landfill to accept
it directly. Thus, the second lowest cost option, landfilling after non-mechanical dewatering, was chosen.
CASES 5A and SB: Soda Ash Treatment
Similar to the above assumptions made regarding conventional filtration costs, an average of soda ash treatment estimates was taken. The cost at 7%
interest for the population range of 25-500 was $0.66 per 1,000 gallons (1996 $) while the cost for systems in the 501-3,300 range was $0.11, for an
average of approximately $0.39. The same process was used to calculate costs at a 10% interest rate. While it was assumed that 50% of the water
was treated with soda ash (see footnotes for Cases 5A and 5B), systems may need to add soda ash to a smaller or larger portion of their source water
to meet regulatory requirements, leading to correspondingly lower or higher chemical costs.
CASES 5A and SB: Lead and Copper—Additional Requirements
Along with the increased monitoring requirements that are required after detection of lead and copper contamination, a system must comply with
several other requirements as part of the Lead and Copper Rule. These additional requirements include public education, water quality parameters, and
other activities. Cost estimates for all of these additional activities are listed on the "General Assumptions" page and were provided by Cadmus staff
who wrote the 1999 Lead and Copper Rule Draft Information Collection Request.
29
-------
CASE #1
Type: TNCWS, ground water source
Treatment: No additional treatment necessary.
Characteristics: Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
All chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Radionuclides: above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population: 75 Number of Households: NA
Monitoring
Contaminant
Requirements
Lab cost per
sample
Annual lab
cost
Annual system
labor cost
Annual Cost
Total Coliform
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phase II/V lOCs
Phase II/V VOCs
Phase II/V SOCs
Lead and Copper
Radionuclides
Disinfection Byproducts
TOG & alkalinity
TTHM & HAAS
Chlorine/Chloramines
1 sample/quarter
NA
1 sample/year
None performed
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$20.00 $80.00 $101.50
$20.00 $20.00 $3.63
$181.50
NA
$23.63
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$205.13
Treatment
Cost per 1,000
gallons
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
Number of
households
Annual Cost
Adequate treatment assumed to be in place
$0.00
Other
Annual Cost
$0.00
TOTALS
Annual System Cost
Annual Cost per Household2
$205.13
$8.21
NCWSs were assigned a higher per-sample system labor time than CWSs (see "General Assumptions"). After consultation with Cadmus
staff familiar with small system operation, it was assumed that the nitrate sample could be taken during one of the quarterly samplings for total
coliform. Since sampling frequency varies between the two contaminants, sampling travel time (and its related costs) were only allocated to
total coliform (the contaminant requiring most frequent sampling). Thus, travel costs for nitrate were captured in the total coliform labor cost
estimate; nitrate labor costs only account for preparation and sampling time.
2 Household costs are presented here for comparative purposes only.
30
-------
CASE # 2A
Type: CWS, ground water source
Treatment: No additional treatment necessary.
Characteristics: Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
All chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Radionuclides: above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population: 750 Number of Households: 250
Monitoring
Contaminant
Total Coliform
Requirements
1 sample/month
Lab cost per
sample
$20.00
Annual lab
cost
$240.00
Annual system
labor cost
$130.50
Annual Cost
$370.50
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phase II/V lOCs
Phase II/V VOCs
Phase II/V SOCs
Lead and Copper
Radionuclides
1 sample/9 years
1 sample/year
None performed
1 sample/3 years
1 sample/3 years
1 sample/3 years
1 sample at 10 taps/3 years
4 consecutive quarterly
samples once every 4 years
$163.00
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$1,754.00
$27.00
$234.00
$18.11
$20.00
$69.33
$57.67
$584.67
$90.00
$234.00
$1.21
$10.88
$3.63
$3.63
$3.63
$120.83
$10.88
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$72.96
$61.30
$588.30
$210.83
$244.88
Disinfection Byproducts
Treatment
TOC & alkalinity
TTHM & HAAS
Chlorine/Chloramines
NA
NA
NA
Cost per 1,000
gallons
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
Number of
households
Adequate treatment assumed to be in place
Other
Consumer Confidence Report
TOTALS
Annual System Cost
Annual Cost per Household
NA
NA
NA
$1,598.97
Annual Cost
$0.00
Annual Cost
$285.51
$285.51
$1,884.48
$7.54
31
-------
CASE # 2B
Type: CWS, ground water source
Treatment: System is currently disinfecting. No additional treatment is necessary.
Characteristics: Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
All chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Radionuclides: above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population: 500 Number of Households: 167
Monitoring
Contaminant
Total Coliform
Requirements
1 sample/month
Lab cost per
sample
$20.00
Annual lab
cost
$240.00
Annual system
labor cost
$130.50
Annual Cost
$370.50
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phase II/V lOCs
Phase II/V VOCs
Phase II/V SOCs
Lead and Copper
Radionuclides
1 sample/9 years
1 sample/year
None performed
1 sample/3 years
1 sample/3 years
1 sample/3 years
1 sample at 5 taps/3 years
4 consecutive quarterly
samples once every 4 years
$163.00
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$1,754.00
$27.00
$234.00
$18.11
$20.00
$69.33
$57.67
$584.67
$45.00
$234.00
$1.21
$10.88
$3.63
$3.63
$3.63
$60.42
$10.88
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$72.96
$61.30
$588.30
$105.42
$244.88
Disinfection Byproducts
Treatment
TOC & alkalinity
TTHM & HAAS
Chlorine/Chloramines
NA
1 sample/year
1 sample/month
$223.00
$29.00
Cost per 1,000
gallons
$223.00
$348.00
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
$10.88
$130.50
Number of
households
Adequate treatment assumed to be in place
Other
Consumer Confidence Report
TOTALS
Annual System Cost
Annual Cost per Household
NA
$233.88
$478.50
$2,205.94
Annual Cost
$0.00
Annual Cost
$279.87
$279.87
$2,485.81
$14.89
32
-------
CASE # 3
Type: NTNCWS, ground water source
Treatment: No additional treatment necessary.
Characteristics: Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
All chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Radionuclides: above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population: 160 Number of Households: NA
Monitoring
Contaminant
Requirements
Lab cost per
sample
Annual lab
cost
Annual system
labor cost
Annual Cost
Total Coliform
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phase II/V lOCs
Phase II/V VOCs
Phase II/V SOCs
Lead and Copper
Radionuclides
Disinfection Byproducts
TOC & alkalinity
TTHM & HAAS
Chlorine/Chloramines
1 sample/quarter $20.00
1 sample/9 years $163.00
1 sample/year $20.00
None performed
1 sample/3 years $208.00
1 sample/3 years $173.00
1 sample/3 years $1,754.00
1 sample at 5 taps/3 years $27.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
$18.11
$20.00
$69.33
$57.67
$584.67
$45.00
$101.50
$0.40
$3.63
$3.63
$3.63
$3.63
$60.42
$181.50
$18.51
$23.63
NA
$72.96
$61.30
$588.30
$105.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
$1,051.62
Treatment
Cost per 1,000
gallons
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
Number of
households
Annual Cost
Adequate treatment assumed to be in place
$0.00
Other
| Annual Cost|
$0.00
Annual System Cost
Annual Cost per Household2
$1,051.62
$19.72
NCWSs were assigned a higher per-sample system labor time than CWSs (see "General Assumptions"). After consultation with Cadmus
staff familiar with small system operation, it was assumed that the total coliform, nitrate, and asbestos samples could be taken at the same
time as one of the quarterly coliform samplings. Since sampling frequency is so varied among the three contaminants, sampling travel time
(and its related costs) were only allocated to total coliform (the contaminant requiring most frequent sampling). Thus, system labor travel
costs for the nitrate and asbestos tests were captured in the total coliform cost estimate. It was assumed that IOC, VOC, and SOC sampling
could occur at the same time. Since these three tests have identical frequencies, the travel time was divided equally among them.
Household costs are presented here for comparative purposes only.
33
-------
CASE # 4A
Type: CWS, surface water source
Treatment: No additional treatment necessary.
Characteristics: Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
All chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Radionuclides: above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population: 3,100 Number of Households: 1,033
Monitoring
Contaminant
Total Coliform
Requirements
3 samples/month
Lab cost per
sample
$20.00
Annual lab
cost
$720.00
Annual system
labor cost
$391.50
Annual Cost
$1,111.50
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phase II/V lOCs
Phase II/V VOCs
Phase II/V SOCs
Lead and Copper
Radionuclides
1 sample/9 years
1 sample/year
None performed
1 sample/year
1 sample/year
1 sample/3 years
1 sample at 10 taps/3 years
4 consecutive quarterly
samples once every 4 years
$163.00
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$1,754.00
$27.00
$234.00
$18.11
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$584.67
$90.00
$234.00
$1.21
$10.88
$10.88
$10.88
$3.63
$120.83
$10.88
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$210.83
$244.88
Disinfection Byproducts
Treatment
TOC & alkalinity
TTHM&HAA5
Chlorine/Chloramines
1 sample/month
1 sample/quarter
3 samples/month
$55.00
$223.00
$29.00
Cost per 1,000
gallons
$660.00
$892.00
$1,044.00
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
$130.50
$43.50
$391.50
Number of
households
Adequate treatment assumed to be in place
Other
Consumer Confidence Report
Install and maintain turbidity meter
Install and maintain chlorine residuals monitor
TOTALS
Annual System Cost
Annual Cost per Household
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$5,769.97
A im u ill Cost
$0.00
Annual Cost
$543.90
$278.40
$500.00
$1,322.30
$7,092.27
$6.87
34
-------
CASE # 4B
Type: CWS, surface water source
Treatment: No existing filtration system. Must install conventional filtration system. No additional disinfection necessary.
Characteristics: Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
All chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Radionuclides: above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population: 3,100 Number of Households: 1,033
Monitoring „
Contaminant
Total Coliform
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phase II/V lOCs
Phase II/V VOCs
Phase II/V SOCs
Lead and Copper
Radionuclides
Disinfection Byproducts
TOC & alkalinity
TTHM & HAAS
Chlorine/Chloramine s
Treatment
Install & maintain conventional filtration1
Total System Treatment Costs
Other
Consumer Confidence Report
Install and maintain turbidity meter
Requirements
3 samples/month
1 sample/9 years
1 sample/year
None performed
1 sample/year
1 sample/year
1 sample/3 years
1 sample at 10 taps/3 years
4 consecutive quarterly
samples once every 4 years
1 sample/month
1 sample/quarter
3 samples/month
7% interest
10% interest
Lab cost per
sample
$20.00
$163.00
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$1,754.00
$27.00
$234.00
$55.00
$223.00
$29.00
Cost per 1,000
gallons
$1.11
$1.29
Annual lab
cost
$720.00
$18.11
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$584.67
$90.00
$234.00
$660.00
$892.00
$1,044.00
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
109.50
109.50
Annual system
labor cost
$391.50
$1.21
$10.88
$10.88
$10.88
$3.63
$120.83
$10.88
$130.50
$43.50
$391.50
Number of
households
1,033
1,033
Install and maintain chlorine residuals monitor
TOTALS
7% Interest
Annual System
Cost
Annual Cost per Household
10% Interest
Annual System
Annual Cost pe
Cost
r Household
Annual Cost
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$210.83
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$5,769.97
Annual Cost
$126,108.20
$146,375.59
Annual Cost
$543.90
$278.40
$500.00
$1,322.30
$133,200.47
$128.95
$153,467.86
$148.57
Assumptions provided: centralized system, one treatment plant, one entry point, 100% of total flow treated, discharge to landfill with non-
mechanical dewatering. Includes all capital, operation and maintenance, and disposal costs. Amortization based upon 7% and 10% interest
over 20 years. Source: Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies, SAIC, 1999.
35
-------
CASE # 5A
Type: CWS, surface water source
Treatment: System needs to retrofit current conventional filtration system to remove atrazine and to undertake corrosion control. No additional disinfection necessary.
Characteristics: System detects atrazine, a Phase II/V SOC, at 1.5 times the MCL. System has corrosive water, leading to lead and copper contamination.
All other chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
Radionuclides: above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population: 500 Number of Households: 167
Monitoring
Contaminant
Requirements
Lab cost per
sample
Annual lab
cost
Annual system
labor cost
Yearl
Annual Cost
Year 2
Annual Cost
Year 3
Annual Cost
Year 4+
Annual Cost
Total Coliform 3 samples/month
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos 1 sample/9 years
Nitrate 1 sample/year
Nitrite None performed
Phase II/V lOCs 1 sample/year
Phase II/V VOCs 1 sample/year
Phase II/V SOCs 1 sample/3 years
Atrazine 1 sample/quarter
Lead and Copper 1 sample at 5 taps in Year 1, the
year of exceedance
Sampling once at 20 taps after
treatment installed (Year 3)
1 sample at 5 taps/year from Years
4-7, then reduced
Additional Req's WQP, Public Ed., etc.
Radionuclides 4 consecutive quarterly samples
once every 4 years
Disinfection Byproducts
TOC & alkalinity 1 sample/month
TTHM&HAA5 1 sample/quarter
Chlorine/Chloramines 3 samples/month
Treatment
GAC retrofit and annual GAC replacement to remove atrazine1
Install corrosion control (CC)
1 . Addition of soda ash, 7% interest2
2. Addition of soda ash, 10% interest3
Total System Treatment Costs:
$20.00
$163.00
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$1,754.00
$98.00
$27.00
$27.00
$27.00
NA
$234.00
$55.00
$223.00
$29.00
Cost per 1,000
gallons
$0.38
$0.39
$720.00
$18.11
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$584.67
$392.00
$135.00
$540.00
$135.00
NA
$234.00
$660.00
$892.00
$1,044.00
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
109.50
109.50
$391.50
$1.21
$10.88
$10.88
$10.88
$3.63
$43.50
$181.25
$725.00
$181.25
$10.88
$130.50
$43.50
$391.50
Number of
households
167
167
1. 7% interest
2. 10% interest
Other
Consumer Confidence Report
Install and maintain turbidity meter
Install and maintain chlorine residuals monitor
TOTALS
Annual System Costs
Treatment Estimate 1, 7% interest
Treatment Estimate 2, 10% interest
Annual Costs per Household
Treatment Estimate 1, 7% interest
Treatment Estimate 2, 10% interest
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$555.63
$435.50
$316.25
$0.00
$0.00
$431.00
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$6,709.22
Yearl
Annual Cost
$3,480.00
$7,008.13
$7,190.16
$10,488.13
$10,670.16
Yearl
Annual Cost
$279.87
$278.40
$500.00
$1,058.27
Yearl
$18,255.62
$18,437.65
$109.32
$110.41
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$216.00
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$5,775.14
Year 2
Annual Cost
$3,480.00
$7,008.13
$7,190.16
$10,488.13
$10,670.16
Year 2
Annual Cost
$279.87
$278.40
$500.00
$1,058.27
Year 2
$17,321.54
$17,503.57
$103.72
$104.81
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$0.00
$0.00
$1,265.00
$0.00
$216.00
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$7,040.14
Year3
Annual Cost
$3,480.00
$7,008.13
$7,190.16
$10,488.13
$10,670.16
Year3
Annual Cost
$279.87
$278.40
$500.00
$1,058.27
Year3
$18,586.54
$18,768.57
$111.30
$112.39
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$316.25
$0.00
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$5,875.39
Year 4+
Annual Cost
$3,480.00
$7,008.13
$7,190.16
$10,488.13
$10,670.16
Year 4+
Annual Cost
$279.87
$278.40
$500.00
$1,058.27
Year 4 +
$17,421.79
$17,603.82
$104.32
$105.41
1 Estimate from communication with a P.E. from Howard R. Green Company, and from additional conversation with Cadmus staff familiar with small system design.
2:3 Assumptions provided: one treatment plant, two entry points, 50% of total flow treated, 50% of total flow blended. Figure includes all capital, operation and maintenance, and disposal costs
(it was assumed no waste would be produced by this process). Amortization based upon 7% and 10% interest over 20 years. The average of two cost estimates was used to more accurately
estimate costs. See "Case 5 Treatment Costs" worksheet for more information. Source: Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies, SAIC, 1999.
Note: Assuming the selected corrosion control treatment is effective, the system would return to a reduced monitoring schedulein Year 7. Reduced monitoring requires the system to take 1
sample at 5 taps every 3 years. From Year 5 until Year 7 however, the system must continue to take 1 sample at 5 taps per year.
-------
CASE # 5B
Type: CWS, surface water source
Treatment: System has no filtration system in place. System must install conventional filtration, remove atrazine, and control corrosion. No additional disinfection necessary.
Characteristics: System detects atrazine, a Phase II/V SOC, at 1.5 times the MCL. System has corrosive water, leading to lead and copper contamination.
All other chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
Radionuclides: above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population: 500 Number of Households: 167
Monitoring
Contaminant
Requirements
Lab cost per
sample
Annual lab
cost
Annual system
labor cost
Yearl
Annual Cost
Year 2
Annual Cost
Year 3
Annual Cost
Year 4+
Annual Cost
Total Coliform 3 samples/month
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos 1 sample/9 years
Nitrate 1 sample/year
Nitrite None performed
Phase II/V lOCs 1 sample/year
Phase II/V VOCs 1 sample/year
Phase II/V SOCs 1 sample/3 years
Atrazine 1 sample/quarter
Lead and Copper 1 sample at 5 taps in Year 1 ,
the year of exceedance
Sampling once at 20 taps after
treatment installed (Year 3)
1 sample at 5 taps/year from
Years 4-7, then reduced
Additional Req's WQP, Public Ed., etc.
Radionuclides 4 consecutive quarterly samples
once every 4 years
Disinfection Byproducts
TOC & alkalinity 1 sample/month
TTHM&HAA5 1 sample/quarter
Chlorine/Chloramines 3 samples/month
Treatment
Install conventional filtration system with GAC as filter media1
A. 7% interest
B. 10% interest
Additional cost of annual replacement of GAC2
Install corrosion control (CC)
1 . Addition of soda ash, 7% interest3
2. Addition of soda ash, 10% interest4
Total System Treatment Costs
$20.00
$163.00
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$1,754.00
$98.00
$27.00
$27.00
$27.00
NA
$234.00
$55.00
$223.00
$29.00
Cost per 1,000
gallons
$3.28
$3.48
$0.38
$0.39
$720.00
$18.11
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$584.67
$392.00
$135.00
$540.00
$135.00
NA
$234.00
$660.00
$892.00
$1,044.00
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
109.50
109.50
109.50
109.50
$391.50
$1.21
$10.88
$10.88
$10.88
$3.63
$43.50
$181.25
$725.00
$181.25
$10.88
$130.50
$43.50
$391.50
Number of
households
167
167
167
167
: A. 1 . 7% interest
B.2. 10% interest
Other
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$555.63
$435.50
$316.25
$0.00
$0.00
$431.00
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$6,709.22
Yearl
Annual Cost
$59,978.68
$63,710.28
$0.00
$7,008.13
$7,190.16
$66,986.81
$70,900.44
Yearl
Annual Cost
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$216.00
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$5,775.14
Year 2
Annual Cost
$59,978.68
$63,710.28
$2,088.00
$7,008.13
$7,190.16
$69,074.81
$72,988.44
Year 2
Annual Cost
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$0.00
$0.00
$1,265.00
$0.00
$216.00
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$7,040.14
Year3
Annual Cost
$59,978.68
$63,710.28
$2,088.00
$7,008.13
$7,190.16
$69,074.81
$72,988.44
Year3
Annual Cost
$1,111.50
$19.32
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$316.25
$0.00
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$1,435.50
$5,875.39
Year 4+
Annual Cost
$59,978.68
$63,710.28
$2,088.00
$7,008.13
$7,190.16
$69,074.81
$72,988.44
Year 4+
Annual Cost
Consumer Confidence Report
Install and maintain turbidity meter
Install and maintain chlorine residuals monitor
TOTALS
Annual System Costs:
Annual Costs per Household:
A.I.
B.2.
A.I.
B.2.
7% interest
10% interest
7% interest
10% interest
$1,058.27
| Year 1 |
$74,754.30
$78,667.93
$447.63
$471.07
$1,058.27
Year 2 |
$75,908.22
$79,821.85
$454.54
$477.98
$1,058.27
Year 3 |
$77,173.22
$81,086.85
$462.12
$485.55
$1,058.27
Year 4 + |
$76,008.47
$79,922.10
$455.14
$478.58
1 A conventional filtration system using granular activated carbon (GAC) can effectively remove atrazine while a conventional filtration system using mixed-media cannot. After
consultation with Cadmus staff familiar with small system operation, the cost for installation and maintenance of a conventional filtration plant with GAC as the filter media was
assumed to be the same as the cost for a similar system using mixed-media. See Note 2 for information on the additional cost due to annual GAC replacement. Assumptions
provided: centralized system, one treatment plant, one entry point, 100% of total flow treated, discharge to landfill with non-mechanical dewatering. Includes all capital, operation
and maintenance, and disposal costs. Amortization based upon 7% and 10% interest over 20 years. The average of two cost estimates was used to more accurately estimate costs (see
"Case 5 Treatment Costs"). Source: Evaluation of'Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies, SAIC, 1999.
2 GAC needs to be replaced approximately once per year, while mixed media filtration media generally lasts for the life of the plant. Thus, the cost for replacement of GAC once per
year was added to the conventional filtration cost estimate. It was assumed replacement would not begin until Year 2. Cost estimate based upon communication with a P.E. from
Howard R Green Company, and from additional communication with Cadmus staff familiar with small system operation.
3'4 Assumptions provided: one treatment plant, two entry points, 50% of total flow treated, 50% of total flow blended. Includes all capital, operation and maintenance, and disposal
costs (it was assumed no waste would be produced by this process). Amortization based upon 7% and 10% interest over 20 years. An average of two cost estimates was taken to more
accurately estimate costs (see "Case 5 Treatment Costs"). Source: Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies, SAIC, 1999.
Note: Assuming the selected corrosion control treatment is effective, the system would return to a reduced monitoring schedule in Year 7. Reduced monitoring requires the system
to take 1 sample at 5 taps every 3 years. From Year 5 until Year 7 however, the system must continue to take 1 sample at 5 taps per year.
-------
CASE # 6
Type: CWS, GWUDISW (alluvial wells along a major river)
Treatment: System is currently using direct filtration. System has recently experienced nitrate and hardness problems. It must treat for nitrate and may treat for hardness.
Characteristics: System detects levels of nitrate moderately above MCL and has excessively hard water.
All other chemical contaminant levels well below MCLs.
Total coliform levels are far enough below MCL to require minimal monitoring.
Radionuclides above 50% of MCL, but not above MCL.
Population 2,500 Number of Households: 833
Monitoring
Contaminant
Requirements
Lab cost per
sample
Annual lab
cost
Annual system
labor cost
Yearl
Annual Cost
Year 2
Annual Cost
Year 3
Annual Cost
Year 4 +
Annual Cost
Total Coliform
Chemical Monitoring
Asbestos
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phase II/V lOCs
Phase II/V VOCs
Phase II/V SOCs
Lead and Copper
Radionuclides
Disinfection Byproducts
TOG & alkalinity
TTHM & HAA5
Chlorine/Chloramines
2 samples/month
1 sample/9 years
1 sample/quarter for 1 year
1 sample/year thereafter
None performed
1 sample/year
1 sample/year
1 sample/3 years
1 sample at 10 taps/3 years
4 consecutive quarterly samples
once every 4 years
1 sample/month
1 sample/quarter
2 samples/month
$480.00
$741.00
$741.00
$741.00
$163.00
$20.00
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
1,754.00
$27.00
$234.00
$55.00
$223.00
$29.00
$18.11
$80.00
$20.00
$208.00
$173.00
$584.67
$90.00
$234.00
$660.00
$892.00
$696.00
$1.21
$43.50
$10.88
$10.88
$10.88
$3.63
$120.83
$10.88
$130.50
$43.50
$261.00
$19.32
$123.50
$0.00
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$210.83
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$957.00
$19.32
$0.00
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$210.83
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$957.00
$19.32
$0.00
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$210.83
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$957.00
$19.32
$0.00
$30.88
NA
$218.88
$183.88
$588.30
$210.83
$244.88
$790.50
$935.50
$957.00
$5,013.59
$4,920.97
$4,920.97 $4,920.97
SDWA-Related Treatment
Install anion exchange to treat for nitrate1
SDWA System Treatment Cost 7% interest
10% interest
Cost per 1,000
gallons
Water Use
(kgpy/hh)
Number of
households
Yearl
Annual Cost
Year 2
Annual Cost
YearS
Annual Cost
Year 4 +
Annual Cost
$0.75 109.50 833 $68,097.51 $68,097.51 $68,097.51 $68,097.51
$0.82 109.50 833 $74,453.28 $74,453.28 $74,453.28 $74,453.28
Additional Treatment Not Currently Required Under SDWA
Install cation exchange for hardness2'3
Additional System Cost 7% interest
10% interest
833 $51,754.11 $51,754.11 $51,754.11 $51,754.11
833 $57,201.91 $57,201.91 $57,201.91 $57,201.91
Other
Total Treatment Cost, with optional treatment 7% interest $119,851.62
Total Treatment Cost, with optional treatment 10% interest $131,655.19
Yearl
Annual Cost
Consumer Confidence Report $477.90
Install and maintain turbidity meter $278.40
Install and maintain chlorine residuals monitor $500.00
$1,256.30
TOTALS
Yearl
7% interest SDWA-Related Annual System Cost $74,367.40
SDWA-Related Annual Cost per Household $89.28
Annual System Cost, including treatment for hardness $126,121. 51
Annual Cost per Household, including treatment for hardness $151.41
10% interest SDWA-Related Annual System Cost $80,723.17
SDWA-Related Annual Cost per Household $96.91
$119,851.62 $119,851.62 $119,851.62
$131,655.19 $131,655.19 $131,655.19
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 +
Annual Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost
$477.90 $477.90 $477.90
$278.40 $278.40 $278.40
$500.00 $500.00 $500.00
$1,256.30 $1,256.30 $1,256.30
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 +
$74,274.78 $74,274.78 $74,274.78
$89.17 $89.17 $89.17
$126,028.89 $126,028.89 $126,028.89
$151.30 $151.30 $151.30
$80,630.55 $80,630.55 $80,630.55
$96.80 $96.80 $96.80
$137,925.08 $137,832.46 $137,832.46 $137,832.46
$165.58 $165.47 $165.47 $165.47
Annual System Cost, including treatment for hardness
Annual Cost per Household, including treatment for hardness
1>2 Assumptions provided: one treatment plant, two entry points, 50% of total flow treated, 50% of total flow blended, discharge to POTW. Includes all capital, operation and maintenance, and
disposal costs. Amortization based upon 7% and 10% interest over 20 years. Source: Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies, SAIC, 1999.
3 It was suggested that the cost for installing and operating lime softening for this system be compared to the cost for installing and operating cation exchange. According to the cost estimates
based on the source and assumptions listed in the previous footnote, lime softening is $1.22 per 1,000 gallons at 7% interest (assuming least cost disposal). This cost is nearly twice that of
cation exchange. For that reason, lime softening was ruled out as a treatment for hardness for a system of this size and type.
Note: The use of reverse osmosis can treat for both nitrate and hardness. However, according to the source and assumptions from footnote 1, the cost for this technology
exceeds the combined cost associated with the use of both anion and cation exchange for a system of this size and type.
-------
I Sources |
Treatment Costs
1. All treatment cost estimates were derived from Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies,
SAIC, 1999, except for the estimate for filter media retrofit in Case 5A and annual GAC media replacement in Case 5B.
2. Case 5A and Case 5B cost estimates concerning GAC filter media retrofit/replacement were supplied by Mark Dubin, P.E. (Howard R.
Green Company), through personal communication.
Laboratory Costs
1. Except where noted below, chemical monitoring cost estimates derived from the Draft Information Collection Request for Chemical
Monitoring Reform, Cadmus, April 1998.
2. Nitrate, total coliform, total organic carbon (TOC), alkalinity, TTHM, HAAS, lead and copper, chlorine/chloramines, and radionuclide
analytical cost estimates derived by averaging costs listed in a number of recent laboratory price schedules from a variety of independent
and State laboratories located across the country.
Other Costs
1. Lead and Copper Rule sampling time, public education, and water quality parameter cost estimates provided by Cadmus staff who
wrote the Leadand Copper Rule Draft Information Collection Request, Cadmus, 1999.
2. Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) cost estimates derived from the Consumer Confidence Report Information Collection Request,
Cadmus, August 1998, and from consultation with Cadmus staff experienced with CCR development.
3. Sampling times for CWSs and NCWSs estimated by Cadmus staff familiar with small system operation.
4. Wage rates for water treatment system staff from the Engineering News Record.
5. Effective life of turbidity monitor and its cost, including installation and operation, from Cadmus staff familiar with small system
operation.
6. Effective life of residuals monitor based on the experience of Cadmus staff familiar with small system operation.
7. Cost estimate of residuals monitor, including installation and operating costs, from personal communication with a P.E. from Howard
R. Green Company.
8. Effective life of central water treatment plant from Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point-of-Use andPoint-of-
Entry Treatment Units, Cadmus, September 1998. This assumption supported by the generally accepted life-cycle estimates made for
water treatment plants.
9. Average number of people per household based on Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point-of-Use andPoint-of-
Entry Treatment Units, Cadmus, September 1998.
10. Estimate of household water use per year based on Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point-of-Use andPoint-of-
Entry Treatment Units, Cadmus, September 1998, which is in agreement with AWWA's Water Inventory Database (1992).
11. All cost conversions to 1998$ made using the Producer Price Index-Commodities (Finished Goods), Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Series ID # WPUSOP3000, located at http://www. bh.gov.
39
------- |