United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/2-78-182
August 1978
Research and Development
Estimating Costs
for Water Treatment
as a Function of Size
and Treatment
Plant Efficiency
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-182
August 1978
ESTIMATING COSTS FOR WATER TREATMENT AS A
FUNCTION OF SIZE AND TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
Robert C. Gumerman
Russell L. Gulp
Sigurd P. Hansen
Culp/Wesner/Culp
Consulting Engineers
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contract No. CI-76-0288
Project Officer
Robert M. Clark
Water Supply Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, libro^/y
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research a'nd development is that necessary first step In problem
-x^ solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
^ searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
\J develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment
and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous water pollutant discharges
v from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of
l«A public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social,
•^ health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the
>- products of that research; a most vital communications link between the
r| researcher and the user community.
&Q
f^ The cost of water treatment processes which may be used for the
removal of contaminants Included In the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations Is of Interest to the EPA, State and local agencies, and
consulting engineers. This Interim Report presents construction and operation
and maintenance cost curves for thirty unit processes which are especially
applicable, either individually or in combination, for the removal of
contaminants contained in the Regulations.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This Interim Report discusses unit processes and combinations of unit
processes which are capable of removing contaminants included in the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards. Construction and operation and
maintenance cost curves are presented for 30 unit processes which are
considered to be especially applicable to contaminant removal. The Final
Report for this Project will include similar cost curves for over 100
unit processes.
For each unit process, conceptual designs were formulated, and
construction costs were developed for each conceptual design. Construction
costs were developed, and are presented in tabular format, in terms of eight
individual categories: excavation and sitework; manufactured equipment;
concrete; steel; labor; pipe and valves; electrical and instrumentation;
and housing. Construction costs are also plotted versus the most appropriate
design parameter for the process, such as square feet of surface area for
a filter, to allow maximum flexibility in their use.
Operation and maintenance requirements were determined individually
for three, categories: energy; maintenance material; and labor. Energy
requirements were determined separately for building requirements and
process requirements.
All costs are presented in terms of January, 1978 dollars, but a
discussion is included on cost updating. For construction cost, either of
the two methods may be used. One is to use indices which are specific to
the eight categories used to determine construction cost. The second is use
of an all encompassing index, such as the ENR Construction Cost Index.
Operation and maintenance requirements may be readily updated, or adjusted „
to local conditions, since labor requirements are expressed in hours per
year, and electrical requirements in kilowatt-hours per year.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. CI-76-0288 by
Culp/Wesner/Culp under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Zurheide-Herrmann, subcontractor, checked the validity of all the
construction cost data that were developed.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract ^
Figures vii
Tables ix
1. Scope i
2. Introduction 2
3. Purpose and Objectives 6
4. Treatment Techniques for Contaminant Removal 8
5. Cost Curves 25
a. Construction Cost Curves 25
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves 27
c. Updating Costs to Time of Construction 27
Package Pressure Filtration Plants 30
Package Gravity Filter Plants 38
Package Complete Treatment Plants 46
Conversion of Sand Filters to Carbon Contactor 53
Pressure Carbon Contactors 56
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Concrete Construction 66
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction 74
Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration - Handling and Transportation 83
Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration 90
Granular Activated Carbon 99
Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems 101
Ozone Generation Systems and Contact Chamber 113
On-Site Hypochlorite Generation 121
Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems 128
Ammonia Feed Facilities 134
Alum Feed Systems 145
Polymer Feed Systems 155
Rapid Mix 161
Flocculation 169
Gravity Filtration Structure 179
Filtration Media 187
Hydraulic Surface Wash Systems 191
Backwash Pumping Facilities 197
Reverse Osmosis 203
Ion Exchange Softening 213
Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal 226
Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal 233
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems 240
Pressure Filtration - Flows greater than 1 mgd 246
Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter 254
6. Example Calculation - Direct Filtration Plant 261
7. Example Calculation — Pressure Granular Activated Carbon Plant 270
Appendix A - Geographical Influence upon Building Related Energy 274
Appendix B - Estimating Costs for Granular Activated Carbon Systems 276
in Water Purification Based on Experience in
Wastewater Treatment
VI
-------
FIGURES
Numb er
1 Package Pressure Filtration Plants, Construction Costs
2 & 3 Package Pressure Filtration Plants, 0 & M Summary
4 Package Gravity Filter Plants, Construction Cost
5 & 6 Package Gravity Filter Plants, 0 & M Summary
7 Package Complete Treatment Plants, Construction Cost
8 & 9 Package Complete Treatment Plants, 0 & M Summary
10 Conversion of Sand Filter to Carbon Contactor,
Construction Cost
11 Pressure Carbon Contactor, Construction Cos:t
12 & 13 Pressure Carbon Contactors, 0 & M Summary
14 Gravity Carbon Contactors — Concrete Construction,
Construction Cost
15 & 16 Gravity Carbon Contactors —• Concrete Construction,
0 & M Summary
17 Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction,
Construction Cost
18 & 19 Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction,
0 & M Summary
20 Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration -~ Handling and
Transportation - Construction Cost
21 & 22 Off-Site Regional Carbon Reganeratlon - Handling and
Transportation - 0 & M Summary
23 Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration - 93
Construction Cost
24 & 25 Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration - 96 & 97
& 26 0 & M Summary & 98
27 Granular Activated Carbon, Material Cost 100
28 Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems, Construction Cost 106
29 & 30 Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems, Cylinder Storage, 109 & 110
0 & M Summary
31 & 32 Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems, On-SIte Storage 111 & 113
Tank and Rail Car Feed
33 Ozone Generation Systems:, Construction Cost 115
34 Ozone Contact Basin, Construction Cost 117
35 & 36 Ozone Generation Systems, 0 & M Summary 119 & 120
37 On-SIte Hypochlorlte Generation, Construction Cost 124
38 & 39 On-SIte Hypochlorlte Generation, 0 & M Summary 126 & 127
40 Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems, 130
Construction Cost
41 & 42 Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems, 132 & 133
0 & M Summary
43 Ammonia Feed Facilities, Construction Cost 136
vii
-------
FIGURES (Cont'd)
Number Page
44 & 45 Anhydrous Ammonia Feed Facilities, 0 & M Summary 140 & 141
46 & 47 Aqua Ammonia Feed Facilities, 0 & M Summary 143 & 144
48 Alum Feed Systems, Construction Cost 147
49 & 50 Liquid Alum Feed Systems, 0 & M Summary 151 & 152
51 & 52 Dry Alum Feed Systems, 0 & M Summary 153 & 154
53 Polymer Feed Systems, Construction Cost 157
54 & 55 Polymer Feed Systems, 0 & M Summary 159 & 160
56 Rapid Mix, Construction Cost 165
57 & 58 Rapid Mix, 0 & M Summary 167 & 178
59 Flocculation - Horizontal Paddle, Construction Cost 173
60 Flocculation - Vertical Turbine, Construction Cost 175
61 & 62 Flocculation - 0 & M Summary 177 & 178
63 Gravity Filtration Structure, Construction Cost 182
64 & 65 Gravity Filtration Structure, 0 & M Summary 185 & 186
66 Filtration Media, Construction Cost 190
67 Hydraulic Surface Wash Systems, Construction Cost 193
68 & 69 Hydraulic Surface Wash Systems, 0 & M Summary 195 & 196
70 Backwash Pumping Facilities, Construction Cost 199
71 & 72 Backwash Pumping Facilities, 0 & M Summary 201 & 202
73 & 74 Reverse Osmosis, Construction Cost 205 & 206
75 & 76, Revers.e Osmosis, 0 & M Summary 209 & 210
77 & 78
79 Ion Exchange — Softening, Construction Cost 216
80 & 81 Pressure Ion Exchange - Softening, 0 & M Summary 221 & 222
82 & 83 Gravity Ion Exchange - Softening, 0 & M Summary 224 & 225
84 Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal, 229
Construction Cost
85 & 86 Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal, 0 & M Summary 231 & 232
87 Activated Alumina — Fluoride Removal, Construction Cos.t 236
88 & 89 Activated Alumina - Fluoride Removal, 0 & M Summary 238 & 239
90 Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems, Construction Cost 242
91 & 92 Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems, 0 & M Summary 244 & 245
93 Pressure Filtration Plants, Construction Cost 249
94 & 95 Pressure Filtration Plants, 0 & M Summary 252 & 253
96 Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter, Construction Cost 257
97 & 98 Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter, 0 & M Summary 259 & 260
99 General Contractor Overhead and Fee Percentage vs. 265
Total Construction Cost
100 Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative Costs-Projects Less 266
Than $1,0.00,000
101 Legal, Fiscal,, and Administrative Costs-Projects 267
Greater Than $1,000,000
102 Interest During Construction-Projects Less Than $200,000 268
103 Interest During Construction-Projects Greater Than $200,000 269
viii
-------
TABLES
Number PaSe
1 Contaminants Included in the National Interim Primary 3
Drinking Water Regulations and the MCL's
2 Maximum Contaminant Level for Fluoride 3
3 Maximum Contaminant Levels for Coliform Organisms. 4
4 Most Effective Treatment Methods for Contaminant Removal 9
5 Matrix of Water Treatment Processes Useful in Meeting the IQ, 11, 12
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation
Maximum Contaminant Levels, with Maximum Raw Water
Concentrations (Ci) Shown
6 Percent Removal of Pesticides by Water Treatment 21
Processes
7 Package Pressure Filtration Plants, Conceptual Designs 31
8 Package Pressure Filtration Plants, Construction Cost 32
9 Package Pressure Filtration Plants, 0 & M Summary 35
10 Package Gravity Filter Plants, Conceptual Design 39
11 Package Gravity Filter Plants, Construction Cost 40
12 Package Gravity Filter Plants, 0 & M Summary 43
13 Package Complete Treatment Plants, Construction Cost 47
14 Package Complete Treatment Plants, 0 & M Summary 50
15 Conversion of Sand Filter to Carbon Contactor, 54
Construction Cost
16 Pressure Carbon Contactors, Conceptual Designs 57
17 Pressure Carbon Contactors, Construction Cost 58
18 Pressure Carbon Contactors, Construction Cost 59
19 Pressure Carbon Contactors, Construction Cost 60
20 Pressure Carbon Contactors, 0 & M Summary 63
21 Gravity Carbon Contactors.- Concrete Construction, 67
Construction Cost
22 Gravity Carbon Contactors — Concrete Construction, 68
Construction Cost
23 Gravity Carbon Contactors - Concrete Construction 71
0 & M Summary
24 Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction, 75
Conceptual Designs
25 Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction, 76
Construction Cost
26 Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction, 77
Construction Cost
27 Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction, 80
0 & M Summary
28 Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration, Handling and 84
Transportation, Construction Cost
29 Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration, Handling and 87
Transportation, 0 & M Summary
IX
-------
TABLES (Cont'd)
Number
Page
30 Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration, 91
Conceptual Design
31 Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration, 92
Construction Cost
32 Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration, 0 & M Summary 95
33 Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems - Cylinder Storage, 103
Construction Cost
34 Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems - On-Site Storage Tank 104
With Rail Delivery, Construction Cost
35 Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems - Direct Feed From Rail 105
Car, Construction Cost
36 Chlorine Feed Systems, 0 & M Summary 108
37 Ozone Generation Systems, Construction Cost 114
38 Ozone Contact Chamber, Construction Cost 116
39 Ozone Generation Systems, 0 & M Summary 118
40 On-Site Hypochlorite Generation, Construction Cost 123
41 On-Site Hypochlorite Generation, 0 & M Summary 125
42 Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems, 129
Construction Cost
43 Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems, 131
0 & M Summary
44 Anhydrous Ammonia Feed Facilities, Construction Cost 135
45 Aqua Ammonia Feed Facilities, Construction Cost 138
46 Anhydrous Ammonia Feed Facilities, 0 & M Summary 139
47 Aqua Ammonia Feed Facilities, 0 & M Summary 142
48 Liquid Alum Feed Systems, Construction Cost 146
49 Dry Alum Feed Systems, Construction Cost 147
50 Alum Feed Systems, 0 & M Summary 150
51 Polymer Feed Systems, Construction Cost 156
52 Polymer Feed Systems, 0 & M Summary 158
53 Rapid Mix G = 300, Construction Cost 162
54 Rapid Mix G = 600, Construction Cost 163
55 Rapid Mix G = 900, Construction Cost 164
56 Rapid Mix, 0 & M Summary 166
57 Flocculation - Horizontal Paddle G = 20, Construction Cost 170
58 Flocculation - Horizontal Paddle G = 50, Construction Cost 171
59 Flocculation - Horizontal Paddle G = 80, Construction Cost 172
60 Flocculation - Vertical Turbine, Construction Cost 174
61 Flocculation, 0 & M Summary 176
62 Gravity Filtration Structures, Conceptual Design 180
63 Gravity Filtration Structure, Construction Cost 181
64 Gravity Filtration Structure, 0 & M Summary 184
65 Filter Media and Gravel Underdrain Characteristics 188
66 Filtration Media, Construction Cost 189
67 Hydraulic Surface Wash Systems, Construction Cost 192
68 Hydraulic Surface Wash Systems, 0 & M Summary 194
x
-------
TABLES (Cont'-d)
Number Page
69 Backwash Pumping Facilities, Construction Cost 198
70 Backwash Pumping Facilities, 0 & M Summary 200
71 Reverse Osmosis, Construction Cost 204
72 Reverse Osmosis, 0 & M Summary 208
73 Pressure Ion Exchange Softening, Conceptual Design 214
74 Pressure Ion Exchange Softening, .Construction Cost 215
75 Gravity Ion Exchange Softening, Conceptual Design 218
76 Gravity Ion Exchange Softening, Construction Cost 219
77 Pressure Ion Exchange Softening, 0 & M Summary 220
78 Gravity Ion Exchange Softening, 0 & M Summary 223
79 Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal, Conceptual Design 227
80 Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal, Construction Cost 228
81 Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal, 0 & M Summary 230
82 Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal, Conceptual Design 234
83 Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal, Construction Cost 235
84 Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal, 0 & M Summary 237
85 Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems, Construction Cost 241
86 Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems, 0 & M Summary 243
87 Pressure Filtration Plants, Conceptual Design 247
88 Pressure Filtration Plants, Construction Cost 248
89 Pressure Filtration Plants, 0 & M Summary 251
90 Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter, Conceptual Design 255
91 Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter, Construction Cost 256
92 Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter, 0 & M Summary 258
93 Design Criteria - 10 mgd Direct Filtration Plant 261
94 Direct Filtration Cost Calculation 262
95 Annual Cost for Direct Filtration Example 264
96 Design Criteria - 15 mgd Pressure Granular Activated 270
Carbon Plant
97 Pressure Granular Activated Carbon Cost Calculation 262
98 Annual Cost for Pressure Granular Activated Carbon Example 273
XI
-------
I. SCOPE
This report is an Interim Report for the Project entitled, "Estimating
Costs for Water Treatment as a Function of Size and Treatment Efficiency".
This Interim Report describes the methods used to develop cost curves,
describes methods of updating the cost curves, and presents construction
and operation and maintenance curves: for 30 unit processes: useful for
removal of contaminants which are included in the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. The Final Report will include cost curves for
approximately 100 unit processes.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
The Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523) enacted on December 16, 1974
empowered the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to control the quality of the drinking water in public water systems by regu-
lation and other means. The Act specified a three stage mechanism for the
establishment of comprehensive regulations for drinking water quality.
1. Promulgation of National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
2. A study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) within two years of enactment on the human health effects
of exposure to contaminants In drinking water.
3. Promulgation of Revised National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations based upon the NAS report.
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations were promulgated
on December 24, 1975 and July 9, 1976, and became effective on June 24, 1977.
These Regulations were based on the Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards of 1962, as revised by the EPA Advisory Committee on the Revisions
and Application of the Drinking Water Standards, and are intended to protect
health to the maximum extent feasible using treatment methods which are
generally available and take cost Into consideration. The National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations contain maximum contaminant levels (MCL)
and monitoring requirements for 10 inorganic chemicals, 6 organic pesticides,
two categories of radionuclides, coliform organisms and turbidity. An Amend-
ment to the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations was proposed
on February 9, 1978. This amendment would establish regulations for total
trihalomethanes and establish treatment technique requirements for the control
of synthetic organic chemicals for community water systems serving a population
of more than 75,000. Secondary Drinking Water Regulations were proposed
by EPA on March 31, 1977.
A listing of the contaminants presently included in the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Standards,, along with, the MCL for each contaminant,
is shown In Tables 1 and 2, with the exception of coliform organisms. The
MCL for coliform organisms is dependent upon whether the membrane filter
technique or the fermentation tube technique is utilized, and the sample
size if the latter is utilized. Table 3 presents the MCL for coliform
organisms.
The Primary Regulations are devoted to contaminants affecting the health
of consumers, while secondary regulations include those contaminants which
primarily deal with aesthetic qualities of drinking water. The Interim
Primary Regulations are applicable to all public water systems and are
-------
TABLE 1
CONTAMINANTS INCLUDED IN THE
NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING
WATER REGULATION AND THE MCL'S
Contaminant MCL
Arsenic 0.05 mg/1
Barium 1.0 mg/1
Cadmium 0.01 mg/1
Chromium 0.05 mg/1
Lead 0.05 mg/1
Mercury 0.002 mg/1
Nitrate (as N) 10.0 mg/1
Selenium 0.01 mg/1
Silver 0.05 mg/1
Endrin 0.002 mg/1
Lindane 0.004 mg/1
Toxaphene 0.005 mg/1
2, 4-D 0.1 mg/1
2, 4, 5 - TP (Silvex) 0.01 mg/1
Methoxychlor 0.1 mg/1
Alpha Emitters
Radium - 226 5 pCi/1
Radium - 228 5 pCi/1
Gross Alpha Activity (Excluding radon and uranium) 15 pCi/1
Beta and Photon Emitters*
Tritium 20 pCi/1
Strontium 8 pCi/1
Turbidity 1 turbidity unit**
*Based upon a water intake of 2 liters/day. If gross beta particle activity
exceeds 50 pCi/1, other nucleides should be identified and quantified on the
basis of 2 liters/day intake.
**0ne turbidity unit based on a monthly average. Up to 5 turbidity units may
be allowed for the monthly average if it can be demonstrated that no interference
occurs with disinfection or microbiological determinations.
TABLE 2
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL FOR FLUORIDE
Temperature
OF PC MCL, mg/1
53.7. and below 12.0 and below 2.4
53.8 to 58.3 12.1 to 14.6 2.2
58-.4 to 63.8 14.7 to 17.6 2.0
63.9 to 70.6 17.7 to 21.4 1.8
70.7 to 79.2 21.5 to 26.2 1.6
79.2 to 90.5 26.3 to 32.5 1.4
-------
TABLE 3
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
FOR COLIFORM ORGANISMS
I. When the membrane filter technique is used the number of coliform
bacteria shall not exceed any of the following:
A. One per 100 milliliters as the arithmetic mean of all samples
examined per month;
B. Four per 100 milliliters in more than one sample when less than
20 are examined per month; or
C. Four per 100 milliliters in more than five percent of the samples
when 20 or more are examined per month.
II. When the fermentation tube method and 10 milliliter standard portions
are used, coliform bacteria shall not be present in any of the following:
A. More than 10 percent of the portions in any month;
B. Three or more portions in more than one sample when less than 20
samples are examined per month; or
C. Three or more portions in more than five percent of the samples
when 20 or more samples are examined per month.
III. When the fermentation tube method and 100 milliliter standard portions
are used, coliform bacteria shall not be present in any of the following:
A. More than 60 percent of the portions in any month;
B. Five portions in more than one sample when less than five samples
are examined per month; or
C. Five portions in more than 20 percent of the samples when five
or more samples are examined per month.
-------
enforceable by EPA or the States which have accepted primacy. Secondary
regulations are not Federally enforceable and are intended as guidelines
for the States.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Summary Report was delivered
to Congress on May 26, 1977, and, the full report, "Drinking Water and Health",
was delivered on June 20, 1977. The NAS Summary Report was also published
in the Federal Register, Monday, July 11, 1977. Based on the completed
National Academy of Sciences Report and the findings of the Administrator,
EPA will publish:
1. Recommended MCL's (health goals) for substances in drinking water
which may have adverse effects on humans. These recommended levels
will be selected so that no known or anticipated adverse effects
would occur, allowing an adequate margin of-safety. A list of
contaminants which may have adverse effects, but which cannot be
accurately measured in water, will also be published.
2. Revised National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. These will
specify MCL's or require the use of treatment techniques. MCL's
will be as close to the recommended levels for each contaminant
as is feasible. Required treatment techniques for those substances
which cannot be measured, will reduce their concentrations to a
level as close to the recommended level as is feasible. Feasibility
is defined in the Act as use of the best technology, treatment
techniques and other means which the Administrator finds are
generally available (taking costs into consideration).
On February 9, 1978, the EPA proposed to amend the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations by adding regulations for organic chemical
contaminants in drinking water. The proposed amendment consisted of two
parts:
1. A Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.10 mg/1 (100 parts per
billion) for total trihalomethanes (TTHM'S), including chloroform.
2. A treatment technique requiring the use of granular activated
carbon for the control of synthetic organic chemicals. Three
criteria which the granular activated carbon must achieve are:
an effluent limitation of 0.5 yg/1 for low molecular weight
halogenated organics (excluding trihalomethanes); a limit of
0.5 mg/1 for effluent total organic carbon concentration when
fresh, activated carbon is used; and the removal of at least 50
percent of influent total organic carbon when fresh activated
carbon is used.
These proposed amendments are initially applicable to community water
systems, serving a population of more than 75,000.
-------
III. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The principal purpose of this Project is to delineate water treatment
processes, or process combinations, which can remove one or more of the
contaminants included in the Interim Regulations, and then to develop con-
struction and operation and maintenance cost curves for the required unit
processes To facilitate the usefulness of the curves, separate curves
are being developed for flows ranging between 2,500 gpd and 1 mgd, and
between 1 mgd and 200 mgd. This separation was made because many processes
applicable to one range are not.applicable to the other range, and often
when a process is applicable to both ranges, the conceptual design of the
toTrea^nrTl Slgnl!fcantly• Additionally, the economy of scale inherent
to treatment of larger flows often causes a dramatic change in the slope
ot cost curves, commonly in the 1 to 5 mgd range.
Other objectives of the Project include a literature search on the
effectiveness of virus and asbestos removal by various unit processes, and
the development of cost curves for the identified processes. The Project
will also develop a computer program which can be used to update costs and
to determine the cost of various combinations: of unit process.
This Interim Report is being published to present a portion of the
information which has been developed to the present time. Cost curves for
30 unit processes are included in this; Interim Report, while the Final Report
will include cost curves for approximately 100 unit processes. The decision
^LTPrCTnCf an Interim Report was made by the EPA Water Supply Research Division,
MERL, following numerous requests from the EPA Regional Offices, State agencies
and consulting engineers for advance Information. The information presented '
in this Interim Report Is intended to be useful to the EPA, State and local
agencies, consulting engineers, and local elected officials. The cost curves
were developed to a high level of accuracy, and are Intended to allow cost
comparisons between alternative processes and combinations of processes.
They will also be useful for long range budget planning by utility managers.
This Interim Report includes a detailed discussion on a contaminant
by contaminant basis, of treatment processes: whicfi. can be usBd for the removal
of each. Following this discussion are the cost curves for 30 unit processes,
along with a description of the basic conceptual designs: used to develop
the curves.
-------
The processes were selected for inclusion in the Interim Report based
upon applicability to one or more of the following criteria:
1. Processes especially suitable for small water systems.
2. Processes which provide soluble organic removal.
3. Processes which provide disinfection.
4. Processes required for direct filtration.
5. Reverse osmosis and ion exchange processes.
6. Other curves completed to date.
The unit processes which are included in this Interim Report are:
1. Package Pressure 'Filtration Plants
2. Package Gravity Filtration Plants
3. Package Complete Treatment Plants
4. Conversion of Sand Filter to Carbon Contactor
5. Pressure Carbon Contactors
6. Gravity Carbon Contactors - Concrete Construction
7. Gravity Carbon Contactors — Steel Construction
8. Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration
9. Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration
10.. Granular Activated Carbon - Material Cost
11. Chlorine Feed Systems
12. Ozone Generating Systems
13. On-Site Chlorine Generation Systems
14. Chlorine Dioxide Feed Systems
15. Ammonia Feed Facilities
16. Alum Feed Systems
17. Polymer Feed Systems
18. Rapid Mix
19. Flocculation
20. Gravity Filtration Structure
21. Filter Media
22. Hydraulic Surface Wash
23. Backwash. Pumping
24. Reverse Osmosis
25. Ion Exchange - Softening
26. Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal
27. Activated Alumina - Fluoride Removal
28. Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems
29. Pressure Filtration - flows greater than 1 mgd
30. Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter
-------
IV. TREATMENT TECHNIQUES FOR CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
Basic Water Treatment Techniques
A variety of conventional water treatment techniques may be utilized
for the removal of contaminants considered within this Report. The techniques
which are applicable for each of the various contaminants are listed in Table
4, on a contaminant by contaminant basis. A detailed listing of unit processes
comprising each of these techniques is shown in Table 5. Also shown in
Table 5 are the MCL values for each contaminant as well as the highest initial
concentration (Ci) of the contaminant which can be reduced to the MCL by
a single pass through the particular treatment technique. If a single pass
will not reduce the contaminant concentration to less than the MCL, then
multiple steps of the same process, or two or more different processes in
series may be utilized. The techniques were selected based upon their ability
to reduce the initial contaminant concentration from a maximum of 10 times
the MCL, to less than the MCL.
As may be observed in Tables 4 and 5, the majority of the slightly
soluble inorganic constituents may be removed by conventional coagulation,
while highly soluble inorganics are generally removed by reverse osmosis
or ion exchange, and soluble organics are generally removed by adsorptive
interaction with, activated carbon. Although, these are generalizations, it
is important to recognize that there is a great degree of commonality between
many contaminants, and that most treatment techniques are applicable to
the removal of more than one contaminant. Following is a detailed discussion
on a contaminant by contaminant basis, of treatment techniques-and process
combinations which are listed in Tables 4 and 5.
ARSENIC - MCL =0.05 mg/1
Arseaic in water may be in either the trivalent (+3) form known as
arsenite (As02-) or the pentavalent (+5) form known as arsenate (AsOiT3).
Conversion of the trivalent form to the pentavalent form may be by biological
or chemical oxidation. Reduction of the oxidized form generally occurs by
anaerobic biological action. The trivalent form is more toxic than the
pentavalent form. Elemental arsenic is essentially insoluble in water, and
organic arsenic forms are rarely found. Arsenic contributions from natural
sources, generally only in certain portions of the western United States,
are due to leaching of native arsenic from rock formations and leaching of
mine tailings from copper, gold, and lead refining operations. Industrial
related contributors are from the afore mentioned refining operations,
pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides, and fossil fuel combustion.
-------
Contaminant
Arsenic:
Barium:
Cadmium:
Chromium:
Coliform Organisms:
Fluoride:
Lead:
Manganese:
Mercury:
Nitrate:
Organic Contaminants;
Radium:
Selenium:
Silver:
Sodium:
Sulfate:
Turbidity:
TABLE 4
MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT METHODS
FOR CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
Most Effective Treatment Methods
As+5 - Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6-8; Alum
coagulation, pH 6-7; Excess lime softening.
As+3 - Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6-8; Alum
coagulation, pH 6-7; Excess lime softening.
NOTE: Oxidation required before treatment for As+
Lime softening, pH 10-11; Ion exchange softening.
Ferric sulfate coagulation, above pH 8; Lime softening;
Excess lime softening.
Cr+3 - Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6-9; Alum
coagulation, pH 7-9; Excess lime softening.
Cr+° - Ferrous sulfate coagulation, pH 7-9.5.
Disinfection; Coagulation plus disinfection.
Ion exchange with activated alumina; Lime softening.
Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6-9; Alum coagulation,
pH 6-9; Lime softening; Excess lime softening.
Inorganic - Sedimentation/Filtration.
Organic - Alum coagulation, pH 9-9.6.
Inorganic - Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 7-8.
Organic - Granular Activated Carbon.
Ion exchange.
Powdered activated carbon; granular activated carbon.
Lime softening.
Se+'t - Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6-7; Ion exchange;
Reverse osmosis.
Se+6 - Ion exchange; Reverse osmosis.
Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 7-9; Alum coagulation,
pH 6-8; Lime softening; Excess lime softening.
Ion exchange; Reverse osmosis.
Ion exchange; Reverse osmosis.
Alum coagulation, filtration.
9
-------
TABLE 5
MATRIX OF WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES USEFUL IN MEETING THE NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS, WITH MAXIMUM RAW WATER CONCENTRATIONS (Ci) SHOWN
1 Item No
IA
IB
1C
HA
DB
THAI
|_1DA2
me
EVA
BTB
BC
YA
TB
vc
7IA1
WAI
WA3
HB
zic
ZDA
Substance
To Be Removed
Low Coliform Waters
Mod. Coliform Wafers
High Coliform Waters
Excessively High
Low Turbidity Waters
(Ci S 1 to 25 To)
Mod. Turbidity Waters
_{C! = 25 to 1,000 Tu)
High Turbidity Waters
{Ci = 1,000 Tu)
Arsenic, pentavolent
( Ci = 1.0 mg/l)
As 5(Ci = 1.0ma/l)
,P o n
Arsenic, trivalent
(Ci = 1.0 mg/l)
Arsenic, trivalent
Arsenic, trivalent
Barium
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium (CirO.l ma/I)
Cadmium (CirO.l mg/l)
Cadmium di as a
r X
Ferrous
Sulfate
3proved b;
1
Removed ceincldentally in processes sho
(Ci limited by
Removed coinc
aw-fi
dental
shed wo
X
y in pro
K.5-9.3
pH
6.7-8.51
ter blend i
esses sho
Removed eoincidentally In processes sh
CiiS
mg/l
Lime
Softening
Sto*e
wn under
mg/t
CislO.O
mg/l
g, so as n
Cl = 0i
mg/l
wn under
wn under
Ci:2.5
mo/I
Clsl.7
mg/l
pr
Adiu
Lower
<7.5
ms 1C,
X
ot to ex
X
ems 1C,
tmcnt
Raise
HB, or
>10.8
10-11
eed ba
8.5-11
8.0
UB. or
ems 1C, HB, or
X t>106
(X or X)
X
8.5-
11.3
Mixing
X
X
X
X
Flocculation
X
X
X
X
K atpH<7.5 and with
X
urn MCL
X
X
HC at pr
X
X
x
X
X
X
= 8 for ferric
X
X
Sedimentation
X
X
X
X
alum or ferric s
X
X
X
X
X
sulfate and 9,0
X
X
DC at pH 6.7 to 8. 5 for alum and pH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ilfote dosac
X
X
X
X
x
or alum
X
X
Post
CI -1-100
MPN/lOOm
Ci=< 5,000
MPN/lOOm
Ci=<20,000
MPN/lOOm
Ci = >20,OOC
MPN/lOOml
e =20-30 mo
X
X
X
X
X ' —
X
X
6.5 to 9.3 for ferric sulfat
X
X
X
X
X
X
a,
X
Oxldatio
Ozone
or X
n
KMn04
>r X -
Reverse
Osmosis
fallowed
IIIA1, III
CiSO.33
mg/l
Ci=45
ma/I
ma/I
Ion
Activated Carbon
>y treatment shown unde
42, or IIIA3 above
Act. Alumina
or bone cha
Softening
r Items
j
-------
TABLE 5 (CONT'D)
MATRIX OF WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES USEFUL IN MEETING THE NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS, WITH MAXIMUM RAW WATER CONCENTRATIONS (Ci) SHOWN
VITA
SUB
1QDA1
YHIA2
•ZnTA2
TCHA3
nnA4
nnBi
THTB3
QA
3TAI
3A2
XA2
XB
XB
XTA
EC
EC
ED
EDA
EDB
XUC
nn
DSA
ZDTB
13
Substance
Leod
Lead
norganic Mercury
( Ci S 0. 1 m g/0 (
norganic Mercury
norganic Mercury
norganic Mercury
norganic Mercury
Jrgonic Mercury
(CirO.l mg/t)
Organic Mercury
Organic Mercury '
Nitrate
Selenium, quadravalent
S.'4
Se 4
>elenium( hexavalent
Se*6
Silver (Ci«0.17 mg/l)
Silver (Ci = 0.17 mg/l)
Silver (Ci = O.SO mg/1)
Silver
Fluoride
Fluoride (hard waters)
Fluoride (soft waters)
Organic chemicals
Asbestos
Asbestos
Virus
mg/l i Disinfection
0.05
0.05
0.002
I1.UU2
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0 002
0.002 1
10 :
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Varies
w air
Temp.
1.4 to
2.4
j
-
Pre-
17 emoved CO
With the err
Alum
Ci 0.006
mg/l
X
( X o
ncidenta
200-50
mg/l
ployment
Coagu
Ferric
Sulfate
Ci 0.07
mg/l
:i=0.05
ma/I
r X)
ly in p*
0
a lion
Ferrous
Sulfote
Lime
Softening
Cl= 0.007
mg/l
.n under It
X
pH
Adius
Lower
X
ems 1C,
X
X
of proper operating strategies, virus
10.7
DB, or!
9.0
11.5
10.6
-ill be
X
X
X
X
X
X
1C if fer
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ic sulfatc or a
X
X
X
emoved by the process
X
X
X
X
X
X
urn dosage is oc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
equate
X
X
X
er Items IB
1
Post
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ic, HA. us.
i
0
CI,
orHC
1
xidotion
s shown under Items IA. IB,' 1C, ID, HA, BB, or'lTC
1
Reverse
C,= tt4
ma/I
cA°n!°r
Anion
Ci=115 N03
mg/l . Selective
J
Ci=0.33
mg/l
mg/l
Ci=0.83
mg/l
Cl:225 mg/
Ci = 0.33
mg/l
CU0.33
mo/1
Alumina
or
Bone eha
Activated
X
X
)
Carbon
mg/l
mg/l
-------
TABLE 5 (CONT'D)
MATRIX OF WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES USEFUL IN MEETING THE NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS, WITH MAXIMUM RAW WATER CONCENTRATIONS (Ci) SHOWN
H"
NJ
ll._ K
XVI A
XVIB
XVIC
XVI IA
XVIIB
XVIIIA
XVIIIB
XIXB
XIXC
T
S.kllo»c.
T. B. R.«,o..d
Radium (low hardness
waters)
Radium (medium
hardness waters)
Radium (high
hardness wafers)
Radium
Radium
Sodium
Sodium
Sulfot.
Sulfote
unoxidized
Manganese,
inorganic
Manganese, organic
MCL
1 -"
5.0 pCM
5.0 pCi.l
5.0 pCi/l
5.0 pCi/l
SOpCi/I
20
20
250
250
0.05
0.05
P..-
01. Inf. c, |on
P,«-
S>dlm.ntal!»
*l™
Xor X
Coo,.
F..MC
Sulhi.
lollon
F.froui
Svll.t.
Llm.
Soll.nln
Ci r30
pCi/1
Ci;70
pCi/l
Ci: 165
pCi/1
X
ph
Adlv
Lo..,
.0-9.6
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pml
X
X
X
Oildotlc
n
X
X
R*v«rB«
Oimoi •
100 pCT/
Ci=285
mg/l
Cir3570
mg/l
Ion
E .change
100 pCi/1
Ci=133
mg/l
Ci-8300
mo/I
X
Acll«t,d Corb.n
-------
Pentavalent (+5) Arsenic - Initial concentration to 1.0 mg/1
Pentavalent arsenic can be treated by pH adjustment (if required) to
pH 6 - 7 or pH 6 - 8 for alum or ferric sulfate addition, respectively.
To meet the MCL of 0.05 mg/li coagulant dosages up to 20 - 30 mg/1 may be
required, followed by rapid mixing, 30 minutes of flocculation, settling
at a basin overflow rate of 24,450 Lpd/sq.M (600 gpd/sf) and filtration at
81.4 to 203.4 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf).
Pentavalent arsenic may also be removed coincidently during the treatment
of moderate to high coliform concentrations, or high turbidity, by chemical
clarification, provided that proper attention is given to pH and alum or
ferric sulfate dosage (20 to 30 mg/1).
Pentavalent arsenic can also be removed by lime softening at pH above
10.8. Treatment would consist of lime addition and mixing, 30 minutes of
flocculation, settling at a basin overflow rate of 24,450 Lpd/sq.M (600 gpd/sf)
with 2 hours detention, pH adjustment, and filtration at 81.4 to 203.4 Lpd/sq.M
(2 to 5 gpm/sf).
Trivalent (+3) Arsenic - Initial concentration to 1.0 mg/1
Trivalent arsenic can be oxidized to the pentavalent form by the use
of chlorine, ozone, or potassium permanganate and then removed by the treat-
ment processes previously described for the pentavalent form.
Pentavalent (+5) and Trivalent Arsenic
Both valences of arsenic may be removed b.y ion exchange using activated
alumina or commercial anion resins. Insufficient data is available at the
present time to determine the maximum concentration which, can be reduced
to the 0.05 mg/1 MCL. Arsenic may also be reduced by about 85 percent using
reverse osmosis, making such treatment applicable to raw waters containing
up to 0.33 mg/1 of arsenic.
BARIUM - MCL =1.0 mg/1
Barium is only present in trace amounts in most surface water and ground
water supplies. The most common occuring natural form of barium is barite
(barium sulfate) which has a low solubility, especially in waters containing
sulfate. Soluble forms of barium are very toxic, whereas insoluble forms
are considered non-toxic. Barite is used principally as a drilling mud in
oil and gas well drilling, while other barium compounds are used in the
production of glass, paint, rubber, ceramics, and the chemical industry.
Lime softening in the pH range 10 to 11 may be used to treat waters
containing 1.0 to 10.9 mg/1 of barium. Treatment consists of lime addition
and mixing, 30 minutes of flocculation, settling at a basin overflow rate
of 24,450 Lpd/sq.M (600 gpd/sf) with 2 hours detention, pH adjustment, and
filtration at 81.4 to 203.4 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf).
13
-------
Ion exchange systems similar to those used for softening (calcium and
magnesium removal) may be used for barium concentrations exceeding the 1.0
mg/1 MCL. The maximum concentration of barium in the raw: water is limited
if the usual method of blending raw and treated water is to be practiced
for hardness concentration control and stabilization of the treated water.
The amount of raw water used for blending must necessarily be controlled
to insure that the 1.0 mg/1 MCL for barium is not exceeded in the blended
mixture.
Barium concentrations up to 45 mg/1 may be reduced below the 1.0 mg/1
MCL using reverse osmosis operating at about 98 percent removal. Depending
upon water composition, however, there may be difficulties with membrane
fouling in treatment of high barium waters.
CADMIUM - MCL = 0.01 mg/1
Cadmium generally does not present a water quality problem from naturally
occurring sources, although it may occur in leachates from iron and other
ore mining and smelting operations. Carbonate and hydroxide forms found
at higher pH are relatively insoluble, while other forms are soluble. Water
supply contamination from industries: may occur from electroplating industry
wastes, sludges resulting from paint manufacture;, battery manufacturing,
metallurgical alloying, ceramic manufacturing, and textile printing.
Lime softening in the pH range of 8.5 to 1-1.3 may be used to treat
waters containing 0.010 to 0.50 mg/1 of cadmium. The'amount of lime which
must be added increases, with increasing concentrations of cadmium in the
raw water. Treatment would consist of lime addition and mixing, 30 minutes
of flocculation, settling at a basin overflow rate of 24,450 Lpd/sq.M C600
gpd/sf) with 2 hours detention, pH adjustment, and filtration at 81.4 to
203.4 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf).
Raw water containing 0.010 to 0.10 mg/1 of cadmium can be treated by
pH adjustment to 8.0 for ferric sulfate coagulation and 9.0. for alum coagula-
tion at dosages of 30 mg/1, followed by mixing, 30 minutes; of flocculation,
settling at a basin overflow rate of 24,450 Lpd/sq.M (600 gpd/sf), and
filtration at 81.4 to 203.4 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf).
Cadmium at initial concentrations of 0.0.10. to Q. 10 mg/1 is removed
coincidentally in the treatment of high coliform waters and moderate or high
turbidity waters, provided proper pH conditions are maintained (8.0 for
ferric sulfate and 9.0 for alum), and sufficient coagulant is used.
CHROMIUM - MCL = 0.05 mg/1
Chromium in water supplies may be present in either the trivalent (+3)
form or the hexavalent (+6) form. Unless pH is very low, the hexavalent
form predominates. The hexavalent form is the more toxic form, and is also
the more difficult form to remove. Most forms of hexavalent chromium treat'
ment incorporate reduction of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium
prior to removal.
14
-------
Chromium occurs naturally as chromite (CrOs) or chrome iron ore
C^Os). The major source of chromium in water supplies is not from
natural sources, but rather from industrial operations. Operations involving
metal plating, alloy preparation, tanning, wood preservation, corrosion
inhibition, and pigments for inks, dyes and paints are all potential sources.
Trivalent (+3) Chromium
Trivalent chromium can be reduced to the MCL of 0.05 mg/1 by coagulation:
(a) with 30 mg/1 ferric sulfate in the pH range of 6.5 to 9.3 and raw water
concentrations up to 2.5 mg/1, or (b) with 30 mg/1 of alum in the pH range
of 6.7 to 8.5 and raw water concentrations up to 0.5 mg/1. The chemical
treatment should be followed by mixing, 30 minutes flocculation, settling
at basin overflow rates of 24,450 Lpd/sq.M (600 gpd/sf), and filtration at
81.4 to 203.4 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf). This type of treatment is similar
to the treatment required for high coliform and moderate or high turbidity,
and trivalent chromium is removed along with these contaminants, provided
proper attention is given to pH and coagulant dose.
Waters containing up to 2.5 mg/1 of trivalent chromium can be treated
by lime softening at pH >10.6. Treatment would include lime addition and
mixing, 30 minutes of flocculation, settling at a basin overflow rate of
24,450 Lpd/sq.M with 2 hours detention, pH adjustment, and filtration at
81.4 to 203.4 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf).
Pre-oxidation of raw water containing trivalent chromium is normally
not practiced, since the trivalent form would be converted to hexavalent
chromium, making removal more difficult.
Hexavalent (+6) Chromium
Raw water concentrations up to 5.0 mg/1 of hexavalent chromium can be
treated using a special ferrous sulfate coagulation process in which pH
adjustment to the 6.5 to 9.3 range is made several minutes after coagulation.
Chemical treatment should be followed by mixing, 30 minutes flocculation,
settling at b.asin overflow rates of 24,450 Lpd/s:q.M (600 gpd/sf), and
filtration at 81.4 to 203.4 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf). Pre-chlorination will
Interfere with this process, as the ferrous ion is oxidized by chlorine and
is then unavailable for reduction of hexavalent chromium. Pre-chlorination
would necessitate a higher ferrous sulfate dose.
Trivalent (+3) and Hexavalent (+6) Chromium
Chromium concentrations, trivalent or hexavalent, up to 0.4 mg/1 can
b.e reduced to the 0.05 mg/1 MCL by reverse osmosis-.
COLIFORM BACTERIA
Coliform bacteria are not pathogens:, but are indicators of the presence
of contamination from the intestinal tract of humans and warm blooded animals.
The advantage of measuring for coliform organisms is the testing procedures
are much simpler and more sensitive than for pathogenic bacteria and virus.
15
-------
The disadvantage of coliform organisms as an indicator is that they may
survive longer than some pathogenic organisms and shorter than others.
Low Coliform Waters
Underground waters (only) containing more than one but less than 100
coliform bacteria (M.P.N.) per 100 ml as measured by the monthly arithmetic
mean, and having a standard plate count limit of 500 organisms per ml, a
fecal coliform density of less than 20 per 100 ml as measured by a monthly
arithmetic mean, can b.e treated using only continuous disinfection. Thirty
minutes contact should be utilized prior to discharge of the water into the
distribution system.
Moderate Coliform Waters
Water containing not more than 5,000 coliform bacteria (M.P.N.) per
100 ml, should be treated by pre-disinfection with 30 minutes contact, coagu-
lation (with or without settling), filtration at 41.4 to 203.5 Lpm/sq.M
(2 to 5 gpm/sf), and continuous post-disinfection with 30 minutes, or more
contact prior to use.
Excessively High, Coliform Waters.
Water containing more than 20,000 coliform bacteria per 100 ml or having
a fecal coliform count exceeding 2,000 per 100 ml monthly geometric mean
are considered undesirable as a source of supply. In the absence of an
adequate supply of better bacteriological quality, special methods of treat-
ment may b.e considered. Proposed special methods of treatment for highly
polluted waters should be approved by the State, prior to the preparation
of plans.
FLUORIDE - MCL = 1.4 to 2.4, depending upon average annual air temperature
Fluoride can be contributed to water from fluoride bearing minerals,
although the majority of naturally occuring fluoride compounds are only
moderately soluble. Generally, natural sources do not cause excessively
high concentrations, although well water supplies in several states do have
naturally high concentrations. There are also soluble fluorides from indus-
trial wastewaters in some supply sources. Industries which may discharge
significant amounts of fluoride include glass production, fertilizer manufac-
turing, and aluminum processing.
Water containing excessive fluoride ion may be treated by ion exchange
methods using either activated alumina or bone char. Removals by both are
pH dependent, with the best removals occuring between pH 5.5 and 7.0.
Exchange capacity varies widely among water supplies, and laboratory testing
should b.e utilized to develop design criteria.
Fluoride may also be removed from hard waters- by lime softening, followed
by filtration. The amount of the fluoride reduction accomplished by lime
softening is dependent upon both the initial fluoride concentration and the
16
-------
amount of magnesium removed in the softening process,. The fluoride reduction
is generally proportional to the square root of the magnesium removed.
For very soft waters (only), flocculation with massive alum dosages
of 200 to 500 mg/1 is an effective means of fluoride reduction when followed
by clarification and filtration as described for moderate turbidity waters.
LEAD - MCL =0.05 mg/1
Lead in water supplies may result from naturally occuring lead sulfide
and lead oxide mineral compounds. The lead solubility may approach 0.4 to
0.8 mg/1, although the solubility limit is lower for alkaline and mineralized
sources. Major industrial sources of lead include storage battery manufacture,
and gasoline additives, although photographic materials, explosives and lead
mining and smelting may also contribute significant amounts.
Naturally occurring carbonates and hydroxides of lead are very insoluble,
and treatment of a somewhat turbid surface water by plain sedimentation will
reduce 0.5 mg/1 of lead to below the 0.05 mg/1 MCL.
Coincidental reduction of 2.5 mg to the MCL will also occur during lime
soda softening in the pH range of 8.5 to 11.3. Also, initial concentrations
up to 1.7 mg/1 are reduced to the MCL coincidently, during the treatment
of high coliform waters and moderate or high turbidity waters with alum and
ferric sulfate.
Reverse osmosis may he used to remove soluble lead concentrations up
to 0.4 mg/1. Precautions are necessary, however, to prevent membrane fouling
by insoluble lead carbonates and lead hydroxides.
MANGANESE - Secondary Drinking Water Regulation MCL =0.05 mg/1
Manganese solution from mineral forms: is primarily the result of bacterial
action or complexation by organic material. Reduced forms of manganese (+2)
in water are soluble, while oxidized forms (+4) are insoluble. Acid mine
drainage is a principal natural source of manganese in water supplies.
Industrial contributions of manganese generally are not significant.
Manganese is included in the Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, and
not the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.. There is no presently
known health- danger from manganese, in the oxidized, unoxidized, or organic
states, in water supplies. The principal problems, with manganese are brown-
black stains which. It may impart on laundered goods, and taste which it may
impart to drinking water.
Unoxidized and Oxidized Inorganic Hanganesre
Manganese, in the absence of iron and organic matter can be oxidized
at low pH (7.2 to 8.0) values with chlorine., potassium, permanganate, or
previously precipitated manganese. An alternative approach, would Be aeration
at pH. 9.4 to 9.6, to oxidize all manganese. The insoluble oxidized form
may then b,e. removed by settling and filtration.
17
-------
Organic Manganese
Manganese present in water as a complex of organic matter or iron must
be treated with lime to pH values of 9.0 to 9.6 before oxidation of manganese
will occur. Ferric sulfate coagulation is also especially suitable for waters
containing organic manganese.
With these modifications and with oxidation by chlorine or potassium
permanganate, manganese, complexed with organic matter or iron can be removed
by the conventional treatment processes of mixing, flocculation,, settling
and filtration.
MERCURY - MCL = 0.002 mg/1
Organic forms of mercury are significantly more toxic than inorganic
forms, and can result from utilization of inorganic forms by bacteria and
higher level organisms. Elemental mercury is soluble in aerobic situations,
and may form mercuric oxide salts. Generally, such mercuric oxide salts
adsorb on sediment and are naturally removed by sedimentation. Mercury in
water supplies from natural sources is rare. Industrial sources of mercury
include electrical and electronics industries, pulp and paper production,
Pharmaceuticals, paint manufacture, and agricultural herbicides and fungicides,
Inorganic Mercury
Chemical coagulation, at pH = 8 with ferric sulfate will treat raw
waters containing up to 0.07 mg/1 inorganic mercury, and at pH = 7 alum will
treat raw waters containing up to 0.006 mg/1 inorganic mercury, when followed
by the clarification treatment described for moderate turbidity waters.
Powdered activated carbon may be used in conjunction with coagulation to
increase removals above those obtained by coagulation alone, although dosages
significantly above those used for taste and odor control are necessary to
provide increased removal.
Lime softening in the pH range of 10.7 to 11.4, followed by filtration
can reduce concentrations up to 0.007 mg/1 to the MCL.
Cation and anion exchange resins, operated in series can reduce inorganic
mercury from concentrations up to 0.1 mg/1, to the MCL of 0.002 mg/1.
Experiments on such removal are only preliminary, and the removal mechanism
is uncertain.
Granular activated carbon at a contact time of only 3.5 minutes can
remove 80 percent of the applied inorganic mercury, making this process
applicable for treatment of raw water concentrations up to 0.01 mg/1.
Organic Mercury
Powdered activated carbon can b.e used in the clarification process.
described for moderate turbidity waters to remove organic mercury. About
1 milligram per liter of powdered activated carbon is needed for each. 0.1
microgram per liter or organic mercury to be removed down to the MCL of
0.002 mg/1.
18
-------
Similarly to inorganic mercury, granular activated carB.on at a contact
time of only 3.5 minutes can be used to remove 80 percent of the organic
mercury applied, making the process applicable for raw water concentrations
up to 0.01 mg/1.
Cation and anion exchange resins operated in series can reduce organic
mercury from concentrations up to 0.1 mg/1 to the 0.002 mg/1 MCL.
NITRATE - MCL = 45 mg/1 as.N03~
Naturally occurring high nitrate concentrations: are very rare. High
nitrate concentrations in ground water or surface water are generally the
result of direct or indirect contamination by was±ewater, animal excrement,
or by agricultural fertilization. Industrial discharges: from fertilizer
manufacturing also represent a potential source of contamination. Nitrate
is a relatively stable form of nitrogen, but nitrate may be produced by the
biological oxidation of ammonia.
Anion ion exchange resins: can be used to reduce nitrates from as high
as 221 mg/1 to as low as 2.2 mg/1 (as N03~). Since the MCL is 45 mg/1 (as
N03~), the use of blending can result in a considerable savings in capacity
and operational cost.
Reverse osmosis can achieve up to 85 percent removal of nitrate. Thus,
concentrations as high as 300 mg/1 (as: NOs"). could be reduced to the MCL,
or concentrations less than 300 mg/1 could be treated to below the MCL and
utilized for blending purposes.
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
The six organic pesticides presently included in the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards are not naturally occurring. Four of these organics
(endrin, lindane, toxaphene, methoxychlorj are chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides. These synthetic organic insecticides- may be contributed to
water supplies by industrial discharge during manufacture or runoff following
use. The remaining two organics (2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)) are chloro-
phenoxy herbicides, which are generally used for the control of aquatic
vegetation. Contamination of water supplies: may occur by manufacturing
operation and/or use.
Proposed as an amendment to the Primary Standards are total trihalo—
methanes CTTHM's). Trihalomethanes (chloroform, bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, and tribromomethane) are not naturally occurring, but
are reaction by-products: resulting from chlorinatlon of water containing
naturally occurring humic and fulvic compounds. Bromide and iodide ions
may also be reactants: in the process. The criteria for volatile halogenated
compounds in the proposed amendment was established as a measure of analysis
for a broad range of organic chemicals- which are difficult to measure
individually and/or are unknown.
19
-------
For the six organic pesticides of concern, information on removal is
only available for four: endrin - MCL =0.0002 mg/1; lindane - MCL = 0.004
mg/1; toxaphene - MCL = 0.005 mg/1; and 2,4-D - MCL =0.1 mg/1. No informa-
tion is available for methoxychlor - MCL =0.1 mg/1; or 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) -
MCL = 0.01 mg/1. In general, granular activated carbon or powdered activated
carbon used in conjunction with coagulation and filtration, are the only
treatment methods capable of significant removals. Other treatment methods
such as coagulation/filtration, chlorination, ozonation, and addition of
potassium permanganate remove, in general, less than 10 percent of the
organics. The percentage removals which, various, treatment methods achieve,
are shown in Table 6. Where blanks occur in this table, information is not
presently available.
For total trihalomethanes, removal of the pre-cursor organic compounds
b.y use of granular activated carbon has been determined to he the best treat-
ment technique. Other techniques which will partially remove some of the
naturally occurring pre-cursors are precipitation, oxidation, aeration, and
adsorption on synthetic resins.
RADIUM - MCL = 5 pCi./l
Radium may occur naturally in water either as radium - 226 or radium -
228, and is generally found in ground water rather than surface water. Radium
exists in radium-bearing rock strata, particularly in Iowa and Illinois,
and in phosphate-rock deposits, found in parts of Florida. Leaching from
such deposits has resulted in high ground water concentrations.
The lime-soda softening process removes radium as well as hardness.
Operationally, the total hardness removal necessary is equal to the fraction
of radium removed, raised to the 2.86 power. In equation form:
Hardness Removal Fraction = (Radium Removal Fraction)2-86
or ________™
Radium Removal Fraction =\-8yHardnes:s Removal Fraction
Therefore, to reduce 25 pCi/1 to the 5 pCi/1 MCL, requires: a radium
removal fraction of 0.82-85 = 0.528, meaning that 52.8 percent of the hardness
must be removed. If desired hardness, levels: are met by blending, considera-
tion must also be given to the influence of this; blending on the radium
concentration in the final blend. In situations: with a relatively low hard-
ness and high radium concentration, radium may control the blending ratio.
Radium removal increases as pH increases.
Ion exchange and reverse osmosis are each, capable of removing up to
95 percent of the input radium. Therefore the limiting concentration which
can be treated to meet the MCL is 100 pCi./l.
SELENIUM - MCL = 0.01 mg/1
Selenium is chemically similar to sulfur, and commonly occurs, with
sulfur in mineral veins. Selenium in water may be in either the quadravalent
(+4) form known as selenite (Se03~2) or the hexavalent (+6) form known as
20
-------
TABLE 6
PERCENT REMOVAL OF PESTICIDES
BY WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
2,4-D
Treatment Sodium Isopropyl Butyl Isooctyl
Method Endrin Lindane Toxaphene Salt ester ester ester
Coagulation, filtration 35 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Coagulation, filtration and
adsorption with:
Powdered activated carbon, mg/1
5-9 85 30 93
10-19 80 55 90 90 90
20-29 94 80-90
30- 9 90
40-49 97 97
M 50-59 98 97
70-79 99 98
Granular activated carbon, 5-7 -
minute full bed contact time >99 >99
Oxidation:
Chlorine, mg/1
5 <10 <10
8 <10
50 <10
Ozone, mg/1
11 <10
38 55
Potassium permanganate, mg/1
10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <10
40 <10
Note: Treatment information not available for methoxychlor and 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
-------
selenate (SeO^"2),. The quadravalent form may be found in ground water, while
the hexavalent form may occur in either ground water or surface water.
Selenium contributions from natural sources are from selenium containing
soils and runoff from these soils. Industrial related contributions may
result from paint, rubber, dye, insecticide, glass, and electronic manufacturing.
Quadravalent (+4) Selenium
Adjustment of pH to 6.0 and coagulation with 30 mg/1 ferric sulfate
will treat raw waters containing up to 0.05 mg/1 of Se+I+ to meet the 0.01
mg/1 MCL, when followed by the clarification treatment described for moderate
turbidity waters.
Raw waters containing up to 0.33 mg/1 of Se+k can be treated by ion
exchange or reverse osmosis. Lower concentrations may be treated to less
than the MCL .and then be utilized for blending purposes.
Hexavalent (+6) Selenium
Raw waters containing up to 0.33 mg/1 of Se+6 can be treated by ion
exchange or reverse osmosis. As for the quadravalent form, lower concentra-
tions may be reduced to less than the MCL, and then be utilized for blending.
SILVER - MCL = 0.05 mg/1
Silver rarely occurs in water supplies, from natural sources:, and many
silver salts such as the chloride and sulfide forms: are relatively insoluble.
Generally speaking, silver contamination of water supplies is industrial
in origin, from photographic and electroplating industries.
Coagulation in the pH range of 6 to 8 with 30 mg/1 of alum or ferric
sulfate will treat raw waters containing up to 0.17 mg/1 of silver to meet
the MCL of 0.05 mg/1, when followed by the clarification treatment described
for moderate turbidity waters.
Coincidental removal occurs: during the treatment of high coliform waters
and moderate or high turbidity waters, provided that the dosage of ferric
chloride or alum is adequate. In the pH range of 6 to 8, concentrations
of 0. 17 mg/1 can be reduced to the MCL.
Lime softening followed by chemical clarification and filtration will
also remove salver. Raw water silver concentrations- of 0.17 mg/1 can be
treated at pH 9 while values as high as 0.5 mg/1 can be reduced to the MCL
of 0.05 at pH = 11.5.
Reverse osmosis may be used to remove silver, and concentrations up
to 0.83 mg/1 can be reduced to the MCL.
22
-------
SODIUM - No- Primary or Secondary Regulation MCL
Sodium occurs naturally in water supplies as. a result of leaching from
rock formations or naturally occurring salt deposits. Sea water intrusion
may represent a sodium source in coastal areas. Sodium is extremely soluble,
and rarely forms a precipitate.
Although there is presently no established sodium standard, a concentra-
tion of 20 mg/1 of sodium in drinking water is. considered compatible with
a restricted sodium diet of 500 mg per day. Being a very soluble ion, removal
is best accomplished by ion exchange or reverse osmosis. Ion exchange can
remove up to 85 percent, restricting use to supplies with an Initial sodium
concentration of 133 mg/1. Reverse osmosis can offer somewhat larger removals,
up to 93 percent, and thus could treat initial sodium concentrations up to
285 mg/1.
SULFATE - Secondary Regulation MCL = 250 mg/1
Sulfate Is an extremely soluble anion which occurs In water supplies
from both natural and Industrial sources. Sulfate represents the principal
form of sulfur in nature. Natural sources include leaching from soils and
mineral deposits containing sulfate, and from the biological oxidation of
sulfides. Rainfall In many areas Is a major contributor of sulfate. Key
industrial sources Include sulfurlc acid and sulfate manufacture and Indus-
tries using sulfates and sulfuric acid, such as sulfate pulp mills and
tanneries.
Research Indicates that a limit of 250 mg/1 of sulfate in drinking water
affords a reasonable factor of safety against water causing laxative effects.
As with sodium, Ion exchange and reverse osmosis are the only practical
treatment methods. Ion exchange can give removals up to 97 percent, and
is therefore useful to concentrations as high as 8,330 mg/1. Reverse osmosis,
however, will only remove 93 percent of the sulfate, and is therefore useful
only up to 3,570 mg/1 of sodium.
TURBIDITY - MCL = 1 to 5 TU, depending on several circumstances:
Turbidity is produced by suspended and colloidal matter In water and
Is generally only a problem In surface water supplies:. The principal
Importance of turbidity is the possible interference with disinfection, due
to shielding of mlcroblal contaminants:, and the Inability to maintain a
disinfectant residual In the water supply. Aesthetic considerations are
also important at high turbidity levels.
Low Turbidity Waters
Waters containing more than one TU (turbidity unit) but less than 25
TU should be treated by coagulation without settling, filtration at 41.4
to 2Q3.5 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf), and post-disinfection with 30 minutes
contact prior to use.
23
-------
Moderate Turbidity Waters
Water containing more than 25 but less than 1,000 TU should be treated
by chemical addition, mixing, coagulation, 30 minutes flocculation, settling
at basin overflow rates of 24,450 Lpd/sq.M (.600 gpd/sf), filtration at 81.4
to 203.4 Lpd/sq.M (2 to 5 gpm/sf), and post-chlorination with 30 minutes
contact prior to use.
High Turbidity Waters
Waters containing more than 1,000 TU and meeting the Interim Regulations
in other respects should be subjected to 2 hours pre-sedimentation at basin
overflow rates of 142,600 Lpd/sq.M (3,500 gpd/sf), followed by the treatment
provided for moderate turbidity waters, above.
24
-------
V. COST CURVES
A. •Construction Cost Curves
The construction cost curves were developed using equipment cost data
supplied by manufacturers, cost data from actual plant construction, unit
takeoffs from actual and conceptual designs, and published data. The cost
curves were then checked and verified by a second consulting engineering
firm, using an approach similar to that which would be utilized by a general
contractor in determining his construction bid. Every attempt has been made
to present the conceptual designs and assumptions which were incorporated
into the curves. Adjustment of the curves may be necessary to reflect site
specific conditions, geographic or local conditions:, or the need for standby
power. The curves should be particularly useful for estimating the relative
economics of alternative treatment systems and in the preliminary evaluation
of general cost level to be expected for a proposed project. The curves
contained in this Interim Report are based on January, 1978, costs.
The construction cost was developed by determining and then aggregating
the cost of the following eight principal components: (1) Excavation and
Site Work; (2) Manufactured Equipment; (3) Concrete; (A) Steel; (5) Labor;
(6) Pipe and Valves; (7) Electrical and Instrumentation; and (8) Housing.
These eight categories were utilized primarily to facilitate accurate cost
updating, which is discussed in a subsequent section of this Interim Report.
The division will also be helpful where costs are being adjusted for site
specific, geographic and other special conditions. The eight categories
include the following general items:
Excavation and Site Work. This category includes work related only
to the applicable process and does not include any general site work
such as sidewalks, roads, driveways, or landscaping.
Manufactured Equipment. This category includes, estimated purchase cost
of pumps, drives, process equipment, specific purpose controls and
other items which are factory made and sold with equipment.
Concrete. This category includes the delivered cost of ready mix
concrete and concrete forming materials:.
Steel. This category includes reinforcing steel for concrete and
miscellaneous steel not included within the Manufactured Equipment
category.
25
-------
Labor. The labor associated with installing manufactured equipment,
piping and valves, constructing concrete forms and placing concrete
and reinforcing steel, are included in this category.
Pipe and Valves. Cast iron pipe, steel pipe, valves, and fittings have
been combined into a single category. The purchase price of pipe, valves,
fittings, and associated support devices are included within this
category.
Electrical and Instrumentation. The cost of process electrical equipment,
wiring and general instrumentation associated with the process, equipment
is included in this category.
Housing. In lieu of segregating building costs into several components
this category represents all material and labor costs associated with
the building, including heating, ventilating, air conditioning, lighting,
normal convenience outlets, and the slab and foundation.
The subtotal of the costs of these eight categories includes the cost
of material and equipment purchase and installation,, and subcontractor * s
overhead and profit. To this subtotal, a 15 percent allowance has been
added to cover miscellaneous items not included in the cost takeoff as
well as contingency items. Experience at many water treatment facilities
has indicated that this 15 percent allowance is reasonable. Although
blanket application of this 15 percent allowance may result in some minor
inequity between processes, during the combination of costs- for individual
processes into a treatment system, the inequities are generally balanced
out.
The construction cost for each unit process: is presented as a function
of the most applicable design parameter for the process. For example,
clarifier construction costs are presented versus square feet of surface
area, whereas chlorine feed system costs are presented versus daily chlorine
feed capacity. Use of such key design parameters allows the curves to
be utilized with greater flexibility than if costs were simply plotted
versus flow. For example, the clarifier curve la applicable to a 5 mgd
flow regardless of whether regulatory agencies require, or designer prefer-
ence indicates, use of a surface overflow rate of 700 gpd/ft2 or 900 gpd/ft2.
For some processes, however, flow rate is the most applicable design
parameter, a situation which: is true for package plants.
The construction costs shown in the curves are not the final capital
cost for the unit process. The construction cost curves do not include
costs for special sitework, general contractor overhead and profit,
engineering, land, legal, fiscal, and administrative and interest during
construction. These cost items are all more directly related to the total
cost of a project, rather than the cost of the individual unit processes.
They therefore are most appropriately added following summation of the
cost of the individual unit processes:, if more than one unit process is
required. Example calculations are included following the individual unit
process cost curves to illustrate the recommended method for the addition
of these costs.
26
-------
B. Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves
Operation and maintenance curves were developed for: (1) energy
requirements, (2) maintenance material requirements, (3) labor requirements,
and (4) total operation and maintenance cost. The requirements were deter-
mined from operating data at existing plants, at least to the extent
possible. Where such information was not available, assumptions were made
based both upon the author's and equipment manufacturer's experience, and
such assumptions are stated in the description of the cost curve.
Energy requirements were developed for both process energy and building
related energy, and are presented in terms of kilowatt-hours per year.
This approach was used to allow ready adjustment for geographical influence
upon building related energy. For example, while lighting requirements
average about 17.5 kw-hr/ft2/yr throughout the United States; heating,
cooling, and ventilating requirements vary from a low of about 8 kw-hr/ft /yr
in Miami, Florida to a high of about 202 kw-hr/ft2/yr in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. The electrical energy cost curves presented for each process
are In terms of kw-hr/yr, and include an average building related demand
of 102.6 kw-hr/ft2/yr. This Is an average for the 21 cities included in
the Engineering News Record Indexes. An explanation of the derivation
of this number Is Included in Appendix A. The computer program to be
developed by the Final Report will allow other building related energy
demands than 102.6 kw-hr/ft2/yr. Process electrical energy Is also included
in the electrical energy curve, and was. calculated using manufacturer's
data for required components. Where required, separate energy curves for
natural gas and diesel fuel are also presented.
Maintenance material costs Include the cost of periodic replacement
of component parts necessary to keep the process operable and functioning.
Examples of maintenance material items included are valves, motors, instrumen-
tation, and other process items of similar nature. The maintenance material
requirements d£ not Include the cost o_f chemicals required for process
operation. Chemical costs must be added separately, as will be shown in
the examples presented following the individual unit process cost curves.
The labor requirement curve Includes both operation and maintenance
.labor, and Is presented in terms of hours per year.
The total operation and maintenance cost curve Is a composite of the
energy, maintenance material, and labor curves. To determine annual energy
costs, unit costs of $0.03/kw-hr of electricity, $0,0013/cubic foot of
natural gas, and $0.45/gallon of diesel fuel were utilized. The labor
requirements were converted to an annual cost using an hourly labor rate
of $10.00/hour, which Includes salary and fringe benefits. The computer
program to be developed by the Final Report will allow utilization of other
unit costs for energy and labor.
C. £pdating Costs to Time of Construction
Continued usefulness of the curves developed as a portion of this
Project depends upon the ability of the curves to Be updated to reflect
27
-------
inflationary increases in the prices of the various components. Most
engineers and planners are accustomed to updating costs using one all
encompassing index, which tracks the cost of specific items and then
proportions the costs according to a predetermined ratio. The key
advantage of a single index is the simplicity with which it can be applied.
Although use of a single index is an uncomplicated approach, there is much
evidence to indicate that these time honored indices are not understood
by many users and/or are inadequate for application to water works construction.
The most frequently utilized single indexes in the construction industry
are the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (CGI) and Building
Cost Index (3d). These ENR indices were started in 1921 and were intended
for general construction cost monitoring. The ENR Construction Cost Index
consists of 200 hours of common labor, 2,500 pounds of structural steel
shapes, 1.128 tons of Portland Cement and 1,008 board feet of 2 x 4 lumber.
The ENR Building Cost Index consists of 68.38 hours of skilled labor plus
the same materials included in the Construction Cost Index. The large
amount of labor included in the Construction Cost Index was appropriate
prior to World War II; however, on most contemporary construction, the
index labor component is far in excess of actual labor used.
Although key advantages of the ENR indices include their availability,
their simplicity and their geographical specificity, many engineers and
planners believe that these indices: are not applicable to water treatment
plant construction. The rationale for this belief is that the index does
not include mechanical equipment, pipes, and valves: which, are normally
associated with such construction, and the proportional mix of materials
and labor is not specific to water treatment plant construction.
An approach which may be utilized to overcome the shortcomings of
the^ENR indices relative to water works construction, is to apply specific
indices to the major cost components of the construction cost curves.
This approach allows the curve to be updated using indexes specific to
each category and weighted according to the dollar significance of the
category. For the eight major categories of construction cost, the
following Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and Engineering News Record
(ENR) indices, were utilized as a basis for the cost curves included in
this Interim Report.
January, 1978
Cost Component Index Value of Index
Excavation and Sitework ENR Skilled Labor Wage Index 235
Q967 Base)
Manufactured Equipment BLS General Purpose Machinery 208.6
and Equipment - Code 114
Concrete BLS Concrete Ingredients - 208.6
Code 132
Steel BLS Steel Mill Products - 237.5
Code 1013
28
-------
January, 1978
Cost Component Index Value of Index
Labor ENR Skilled Labor Wage Index 235
(.1967 Base)
Pipe and Valves BLS Valves and Fittings 222.4
Code 114901
Electrical and Instru- B.LS Electrical Machinery and
mentation Equipment - Code 117 160.0
Housing ENR Building Cost Index 237.88
(1967 Base)
The principal disadvantages: of this approach are the lack of geographical
specificity of the BLS indices, and the use of seven indices rather than
a single index.
To accomodate these two different approaches to cost updating, the
cost curves were derived by developing the cost of the eight component
areas, and then aggregating the eight components. This approach allows
costs to be updated by using indices specific to the eight cost component
categories, or by applying the ENR Construction Cost Index to the sum cost.
Updating of total operation and maintenance costs may be accomplished
by updating the three individual components: energy, labor, and maintenance
material. Energy and labor are updated by applying the current^unit cost
to the energy and labor curves. Maintenance material costs, which are
presented in terms of dollars per year, can be updated using the Producer
Price Index, which replaces the old Wholesale Price. Index. The maintenance
material costs in this Interim Report are for January, 1978, a Producer
Price Index of 186.8
29
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Package Pressure Filtration Plants
Package pressure filters can be used for iron and manganese removal
from well waters, and in some States as a final treatment process following
chemical coagulation and clarification of surface waters. Pressure filters
are available from many manufacturers with either rapid sand, dual media
or mixed media filter beds. Units can be either totally automatic or
manual in operation.
Construction costs were developed for package pressure filtration
plants of capacities ranging between 1,000 gpd and 0.5 mgd, for filtration
rates of 2 and 5 gpm/square foot and a media depth of 30 inches. Conceptual
designs for the plants are shown in Table 7. Vessel sizes selected are
those generally available in the industry. Costs are based upon completely
housed filtration plants.
All units are skid mounted, completely self-contained and include
a single vertical pressure vessel with internals;, automatic control valves
filter supply pump, filter media (mixed), backwash, pump and control panel
Included with each unit are two chemical feed units including tank, mixer
and chemical feed pump. Finished water is discharged to an at grade storage
tank/ clearwell which is not included in the cost estimate.
Backwash water is pumped from the storage tank by an end suction
centrifugal pump. The filter supply pump is also an end suction centrifugal
pump and requires a flooded suction. The filter units, are designed for
automatic operation. Backwash is initiated by excessive headless or by
elapsed operating time. Surface wash is obtained from a separate pump
or from a pressure distribution system through a backflow preventer.
Estimated construction costs are presented in Table 8 and illustrated
in Figure 1.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Package Pressure Filtration Plants
Operating and maintenance costs have been developed from estimates
of energy, labor and maintenance material requirements for the conceptual
designs presented in Table 7. Building energy requirements are for heating,
cooling, ventilation and lighting. Process energy, which is not nearly
as large as building related energy, is for backwash and filter supply
pumping and the chemical feeders.
Maintenance material requirements are related primarily to replacement
of pump seals, application of lubricants, replacement of parts; for chemical
feed pumps, instrumentation repair and general facility maintenance supplies.
The maintenance material costs do not include the cost of treatment chemicals.
30
-------
u>
Table 7
Conceptual Design
Package Pressure Filtration Plants
PI
2
ant Capacity
J5jWft
1,000
10,000
40,000
100,000
200,000
gpm/rt
2,500
25,000
100,000
250,000
500,000
Number
of Units
i
Filter
Area, ft2
0 34
0 1 /,
Uf.
1/i 9
Diameter
ft
0.67
2
4
6 5
Total Filter
Area, ft2
0.34
3.14
12.6
34.2
64
Housing
Area, ft2
240
300
480
896
1,080
-------
Table 8
Construction Cost
Package Pressure Filtration Plants
Co
2 gpm/ft2
. .... 5 epm/ft2
Excavation and Sitework
[anufactured Equipment
loncrete
.abor
'iping and Valves
llectrical and Instrumentation
busing
SUBTOTAL
iscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL $
1,000
2,500
$ 100
4,380
360
1,310
500
1,700
7,200
15,550
2,330
17,880
10,000
25,000
100
15,250
440
4,570
600
4,040
9,000
34,000
5, 100
39,100
40,000
100,000
125
23,125
650
6,940
850
6,180
14,400
52,270
7,840
60,110
100,000
250,000
200
36,870
1,100
11,060
1,100
10,200
26,880
87,410
13,110
100,520
200,000
500,000
22Q
55,000
1,300
16,500
1,400
14,300
32,400
121,120
18,170
139,290
-------
7
6
5
4
3
2
6
5
4
3
2
100,000
9
87
6
*•
3
0
D 2
3
Z
: 10,000
J 9
c
o ^
2 5
_) <
<
__^.
1000
.*•
^**
=*
^
0
-. "^
*M — -
III 1
2(
.^
*'^ ^
5PM
•^r
^
'F
X*
-2
x*
,x '
^ ••
^
- ^"
5GPM
'FT
•^^
X
•
234 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 567
)00,000
10
100
CAPACITY -mVdoy
1000
CONSTRUCTION COST
PACKAGE PRESSURE FILTRATION PLANTS
FIGURE I
33
-------
Lahor requirements were developed assuming the treatment plant operates
automatically, and virtually unattended. Operator attention is only necessary
to prepare the treatment chemicals, establish proper dosages, carry out
routine quality assurance tasks and perform necessary maintenance tasks.
No allowance was included for administrative or laboratory labor.
Operation and maintenance requirements for filtration rates of 2 and
5 gpm/ft are summarized in Table 9 and illustrated in Figures: 2 and 3.
34
-------
OJ
Ul
Table 9
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Package Pressure Filtration Plants
J.1 JL-l-Ul. CLfc.-1-v^i.i. ivt-t »- *- — O
Plant Capacity, gpd
1,000
10,000
40,000
100,000
200,000
Building
24,620
30,780
49,250
91,930
110,810
Energy kw-hr/yr
Process
50
450
1,830
4,950
9,270
Total
24,670
31,230
51,080
9 6, i860
120,080
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
50
150
200
350
450
Labor
hr/yr
365
365
425
500
730
Total Cost*
$/yr
4,440
4,740
5,980
8,260
11,350
i'-L.-I-U.LCH--*-'-',
Energy kw-hr/yr
Plant Capacity, gpd
2,
25,
100,
250,
500,
500
000
000
000
000
Building
24,
30,
49,
91,
110,
620
780
250
930
810
Process
1,
5,
9,
24,
120
220
040
820
550
Total
24
32
54
101
135
,740
,000
,290
,750
,360
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
50
150
200
350
450
Labor
hr/yr
365
365
425
500
730
Total Cost*
$/yr
4,440
4,
6,
8,
11,
760
080
400
810
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
1,000,000
1000
i
I
6
< 2
EC
LU
llOO
<
z
LU
I- 4
Z
< 3
10
100
2 3 4 5 678910,000 2 3456 789100,000 2' 3 4 5 6 789
___^ PLANT CAPACITY- gpd 1,000,000
\
10
100
1000
PLANT CAPACITY- m3 /day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PACKAGE PRESSURE FILTRATION PLANTS
FIGURE 2
36
-------
9
6
5
4
100,000
10,000
9"
>. 8 -
w 5
O 4
o
0 2
1000
7
6
5
1000
c
8
ABOR-
CM
IOC
C(
GPltl/FT2
TOTAli
2
1000 234 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 56789
1,000,000
PLANT CAPACITY-gpd
i'o
100
CAPACITY-mVday
1000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PACKAGE PRESSURE FILTRATION PLANTS
FIGURE 3
37
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Package Gravity Filter Plants
Cost estimates were developed for package gravity filtration plants
proceeded by a one hour detention basin. The capacity range utilized was
80 to 1,400 gpm, for filtration rates of 2 and 5 gpm/ft2 and a media depth
of 30 inches. Package filtration plants less; than 80 gpm are not recommended
because operational skill and attention are often severely limited. At
flows less than 80 gpm, package complete treatment plants (coagulation,
flocculation, settling, and filtration) are generally recommended. At
flows exceeding 1,400 gpm, package filtration plants usually are not
economical.
Conceptual designs for the cos,t estimates: are presented in Table 10
These conceptual designs are representative of package gravity filter plants
currently in widespread service, and much of the construction cost data
utilized was obtained from equipment manufacturers: and from actual installa-
tions. The conceptual designs analyzed in the report include a one hour
detention control basin prior to filtration. The contact basin removes
rapidly settling materials such as sand and silt which could hamper operation
of the filters and also provides additional time for coagulant dispersion
and flocculation. The contact basin serves: to dampen the effects on coagulant
requirements caused by raw water quality changes and provides the operator
with additional time to make necessary chemical dosage changes. The
efficiency of chlorine disinfection is also enhanced by the detention time
provided in the contact basin.
Cost estimates are for filter vessels which are open top, cylindrical
steel tanks sized to permit shop fabrication andover-the-road shipment.
The plants are complete including filter vessels, mixed media, piping,
valves, controls, electrical system, backwash, system, surface wash system,
chemical feed systems, (alum, soda ash, polymer and chlorine), raw water
pumps (no intake structure), one hour detention pre-filter contact basin,
backwash/clearwell storage basin, building and other ancillary items required
for a complete and operable installation.
The estimated construction costs for filtration rates of 2 and 5 gpm/ft2
are shown in Figure 4 and presented in Table 11.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Package Gravity Filter Plants
Building related electrical energy for lighting, ventilation, heating
and other uses was projected for each size facility based upon floor area
of the structure. In all cases the filters, piping, controls, chemical
feed equipment and other mechanical appurtenances are entirely enclosed.
Process related energy is for filter supply pumping, filter backwash and
filter surface wash.
38
-------
Table 10
Conceptual Design
Package Gravity Filter Plants
Filter Vessels
Plant Capacity, gpm
2 gpm/ft2
80
140
225
280
560
5 gpm/ft*
200
350
560
700
1,400
Number
of Units
2
2
2
2
3
Filter Area
ft2
20
38
50
79
113
Diameter
ft
5
7
8
10
12
Total Filter
Area, ft2
40
76
100
158
339
Housing
Area, ft2
1,500
1,800
1,800
1,800
3,600
-------
-p-
o
Table 11
Construction Cost
Package Gravity Filter Plants
Plant Flow Rate -
2 gpm/ft^
5 gpm/ft2
Excavation and Sitework $
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
80
200
790
27,000
14,000
11,230
6,460
19,500
45,000
SUBTOTAL 123,980
Miscellaneous and Contingency
18,600
TOTAL $142,580
140
350
1,080
35,000
19,500
12,690
8,380
24,900
54,000
155,550
23,330
178,880
225
560
1,440
38,000
26,500
13,630
11,110
31,000
54,000
175,680
26,350
202,030
"tar-
700
1,580
50,000
29,000
16,450
11,650
46,400
54,000
209,080
31,360
240,440
560
1,400
2,660
90,000
47,500
25,730
25,280
81,000
108,000
380,170
57,030
437,200
-------
1,000,000
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
100.000
9
10 2 3 4 56789 100 2 3 4 567891000 2 3456789
10,000
CAPACITY-gpm
-h
10
-H
100
CAPACITY- liters/sec
CONSTRUCTION COST
PACKAGE GRAVITY FILTER PLANTS
FIGURE 4
41
-------
The cost of maintenance material was estimated from background informa-
tion obtained from several operating facilities. This item includes the
cost of anthracite coal to replace that which is backwashed out of the
filters, miscellaneous small parts for controls and instrumentation, recorder
ink and charts and other general supplies related only to actual operation
of the filters. These costs do not include those related to administrative
activities, laboratory chemicals or supplies, general facility maintenance
nor do they include treatment chemicals.
Man hour requirements were developed assuming that the treatment
facilities would be only partially attended over a 24 hour period. This
mode of operation is typical for modern package treatment plants which
are designed to perform unattended, and to backwash automatically on the
basis of headloss or excessive filtered water turbidity and then return
to service.
Operation and maintenance requirements for filtration rates of 2 and
5 gpm/ft are presented in Figures 5 and 6, and are summarized in Table 12.
42
-------
Table 12
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Package Gravity Filter Plants
Filtration Rate = 2 gpm/ft2
GO
Energy kw-hr/yr
Plant Capacity
80
140
225
280
560
Filtration Rate
Plant Capacity
200
350
560
700
1,400
- gpm Building
153,900
184,680
184,680
184,680
360,000
= 5 gpm/ft2
- gpm Building
153,900
184,680
184,680
184,680
360,000
Process
3,950
6,920
11,064
13,830
27,660
Energy kw-hr/yr
Process
9,470
16,580
26,250
33,150
66,300
Total
157,850
191,600
195,740
198,510
387,660
Total
163,370
201,260
210,930
217,830
426,300
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
1,000
1,200
1,300
1,500
2,500
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
1,000
1,200
1,300
1,500
2,500
Labor
hr/yr
2,920
2,920
3,650
3,650
4,380
Labor
hr/yr
2,920
2,920
3,650
3,650
4,380
Total Cost*
$/yr
34,940
36,150
43,670
43,960
57,930
Total Cost*
$/yr
35,100
36,440
44,130
44,530
59,090
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
b_
>*
^ 2
1
_i
<
cc
LJ 9'
lu 5
2 4
2 3
LJ
(-
Z 2
< *
2
10,000
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
1000
: I
7
g
5
4
3
2
1,000
: 1
6
5
4
3
2
100,0
>> f
~ £ 6
— l 5
- * 4
1
- >- 3
CC
UJ
10,00
9
7
6
5
4
3
2
1000
,000
00
0
,«
4
*
BUILD
2 GPM
_j+
-^.
1 -jjj
./^
S^
.f
/
.^±:
NG
'FT'
X1
X
X*
•— •
Eh
9
X
X*
^
X
*-
EIRC
Jf
j*
X
»*•
x
X
,**
Y
^
/
x
.'
S
^'
^^X
5 (
S
Jr
.^ROC
r
MAINT
MATER
.XM
^•^ M/!
5 (
LDH
PM
FR?
ENA
AL
AIN'
TEF
PM
JG
'F'
1
NC
20
"EK
IAI
'F
-I
N
Pf
Al
•2
N
4>
sl(
El
?(
F
E
>l I
\ t
T'
1 /
f
10 234 56789100 234 567891000 234 56789
PLANT CAPACITY - gpm 10,000
1— 1 — 1
10 100
PLANT CAPACITY-liters/sec
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PACKAGE GRAVITY FILTER PLANTS
FIGURE 5
44
-------
100,000
9'
- 8
"> 7
o
O
1-
10,000 10,000
1000
LABOF
LABCR
10 2 3456789100 2 3456 7891000
PLANT CAPACITY -gpm
[Rif/FT2"
GFM
tfT
3 456 789
10,000
H-
10 100
PLANT CAPACITY- liters /sec
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PACKAGE GRAVITY FILTER PLANTS
FIGURE 6
45
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Package Complete Treatment Plants
The use of package complete treatment plants (coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation and filtration) has grown substantially during the last 10
years. These plants which are available either as factory preassembled
units or field assembled modules, significantly reduce the cost of small
facilities (10,000 gpd to 2 mgd). The units are automatically controlled
and require only minimal operator attention.
Cost estimates were developed for standard manufactured units: Incorporating
20 minutes of flocculation, tube settlers rated at 150. gpd/ft2, mixed media
filters rated at 2 and 5 gpm/ft2, and a media depth of 30 inches. The costs
include premanufactured treatment plant components, chemical feed facilities
(storage tanks and feed pumps), flow measurement and control devices, pneumatic
air supply (for plants of 200 gpm and larger) for valve and Instrument
operation, effluent and backwash pumps and all necessary controls for a
complete and operable unit. The three smaller plants: utilize low head
filter effluent transfer pumps and are to he used with an above grade
clearwell. The larger plants gravity discharge to a below grade clearwell.
Raw water intake and pumping facilities, clearwell storage, high service
pumping and site work, exclusive of foundation preparations, are not included
in the costs.
Construction costs are presented In Figure 7 and Table 13.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Package Complete Treatment Plants
Complete treatment package plants (coagulation, flocculation, sedimenta-
tion, and filtration) are designed for essentially unattended operation,
i.e., they backwash automatically on the basis of headloss: or excessive
filtered water turbidity and return to service.
The principal use of energy Is for building heating, cooling, and
ventilation, and these requirements have been based on a completely housed
plant. Process energy is required for flocculators:t rapid mix, chemical
pumping and filter backwash.'
The cost of maintenance material was based upon Information obtained
from typical operating Installations. Included are the costs of anthracite
coal to replace that lost during backwash, miscellaneous small replacement
parts for controls and Instrumentation and other general supplies related
to the operation of the treatment plant proper. Excluded are those costs:
related to treatment plant administrative activities., laboratory services,
chemicals or other related supplies, and general facility maintenance.
46
-------
Table 13
Construction Cost
Package Complete Treatment Plants
Plant Capacity — gpm
2 gpm/ft2
5 gpm/ft2
4
10
8
20
40
10Q
80
200
140
350
225
560
280
700
560
1.400
Excavation and Sitework $ 200
Manufactured Equipment 12,300
Concrete 350
Labor 5,100 ;
Pipe and Valves 1,000
Electrical and Instrumentation 15,630
Housing 14.900
SUBTOTAL 49,480
Miscellaneous and Contingency 7,420
TOTAL $56,900
260
15,400
430
6,000
1,100
16,780
16,300
56,270
8.440
64,710
370
29,000
650
7,000
1,500
20,610
20.300
79,430
11,910
91,340
520
50,000
1,040
10,200
2,800
20,610
27.300
112,470
16,870
770
68,000
1,840
13,600
3,400
25,780
45.600
158,990
23,850
800
84,000
1,950
16,800
4,100
28,790
47,700
184,440
27,620
129,340 ! 182,840 211,760
1,250
100,000
2,930
24,000
5,600
46,900
68,300
248,980
37.350
286,330
2,100
175,000
4,330
37,500
8,700
64,200
97,000
388,830
58,320
447,150
-------
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,000
9
8
6
5
4
1
H 2
to *
O
o
§ 100,000
CONSTRUCTI
0
"b
o
O ro ex * 01 o>-jo>u:
^=^
— — •*"
<-^
.— =:
==•
^
«—
X
^.
+
«•
x
>•
^
«
^
e
2 GPM
-j
/
|f.^
^*
'FT'
X
^-
^
X*
/
X
/
X
x
^
/
*
>X
^
5 (
5PM
'F
-2
10 2 3456789 100 2 34 567891000 2 3 456789
10,000
CAPACITY- gpm '
1 10 100
CAPACITY- liters/sec
CONSTRUCTION COST
PACKAGE COMPLETE TREATMENT PLANTS
FIGURE 7
48
-------
Operator attention is required to replenish treatment chemicals, make
proper chemical dosage requirements, perform routine laboratory quality
assurance tests and carryout necessary daily maintenance and other house
keeping tasks. Labor estimates were based on performance of these tasks.
Operation and maintenance requirements: for plant filtration rates
of 2 and 5 gpm/ft2 are presented in Figures 8 and 9 and summarized in
Table 14.
49
-------
Table 14
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Package Complete Treatment Plants
Filtration Rate = 2 gpm/ft2
Ui
o
Energy kw-hr/yr
Plant Capacity -
4
8
40
80
140
225
280
560
Filtration Rate =
Plant Capacity -
10
20
100
200
350
560
700
1,400
Calculated using
gpm Building
30,780
38,480
61,560
98,500
174,420
184,680
277,020
410,400
5 gpm/ft
Energy
gpm Building
30,780
38,480
61,560
98,500
174,420
184,680
277,020
410,400
$0.03/kw-hr and $10.
Process
320
390
3,210
3,950
6,920
11,060
13,830
27,660
kw-hr/yr
Process
780
1,560
7,810
9,470
16,580
26,520
33,150
66,300
Total
31,100
38,870
64,770
102,450
181,340
195,740
290,850
438,060
Total
31,560
40,040
69,370
107,970
191,000
201,260
310,170
476,700
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
300
550
800
1,500
1,800
2,000
2,400
3,000
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
300
550
800
1,500
1,800
2,000
2,400
3,000
Labor
hr/yr
1,460
1,460
1,750
3,200
3,600
3,600
3,600
5,400
Labor
hr/yr
1,460
1,460
1,750
3,200
3,600
3,600
3,600
5,400
Total Cost*
$/yr
15,830
16,320
20,240
36,570
43,240
43,870
47,130
70,140
Total Cost*
$/yr
15,840
16,350
20,380
36,740
43,530
44,040
47,710
71,300
00/hr of labor
-------
I0,0(
§
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOOC
, f
_*ja C
NTENANCE MATER
8
a o -j CD to o ro o
5 4
3
2
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
DO
7
6
5
4
3
2
) I.OOC
t *
6
5
4
3
2
100,0
- \ 7
- ^ 6
" T 4
~ t9 3
tr
LU
^S 2
10,0 C
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOOC
),000
,^
^^"^
X^
**"
00
^^^f'
0
X
_^^
s*
BU
2
x^
*^^
X
r^^
^
ILl
GP
X
j^rf"
x
gX1
j^
IN
M
^
^
X
^
^
G
'F
^
^
^
^
T
5
^
/
••
'
C
2
-
|X
X
^
l\
X
^
E
^
MAIN1
^
RGY
^^T
J^
_J
S
s
S
EN/
x*
r-
^
/
,N(
X*
x'
X
X
/
;E
X*
r^
/
/
**
f
1 1 1 1
dAr
1
X
/
/
x^
M>
/**
/
ERIAL-
^
1 MAIN1
AERIAL
/BUI
5 G
*
f
7
PROCI
2 G
'EN
5C
i
1
PM
\Nl
p^
LOIIJJG
/
*
I/
El
kJFf2
tss
E
Nf
i
1.
JE
:R
^
F
G
c
Y
> ^
10 234 56789100 2 34 567891000 2-34 56789
CAPACITY - gpm l0'000
-r— ., _.l , » •
1 10 100
CAPACITY -liters/sec
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PACKAGE COMPLETE TREATMENT PLANTS
FIGURE 8
51
-------
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
too,
9'
.. 8
>* -f
T 5
8 3
H 2
g
10,00
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
: I
7
5
4
3
2
6
3
2
000
9
8
5
4
3
2
0 I0,0(
r- 9
8
7
- \ 5
1
m
~ _i 2
IOOC
s=
)0
— _-^
»-^
.— -
,*•—
,— —
.*--
^»
**•
*— '
,x
9»
•^
»*
)•>•
id
•e
^»
^
,0
^
•»
••
<•
?
^
0
«
*
*
0
*
^
,-X
x^^
^
x^"
i An/
^
TO
^
^^
^
in '
in i
-X-
, — '
TA
[x
X
' G
-^
?x
^
^
—
m,
k/'
X
T
fTnT
^
*H
X
J
r
1
X
,
^'
7,1
jlfi
i
^
-2GPM/
^^^
. COST
^^
• ^
LABOR
FT:
5 G
-5G
\
3M
PIV
'F
/F
T
T
2
2
10 234 56789100 234 567891000 21 3 4 56789
CAPACITY -gpm I0'°°0
— ,1 .,„, • i
1 10 100
CAPACITY- liters /sec
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PACKAGE COMPLETE TREATMENT PLANTS
FIGURE 9
52
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Conversion of Sand Filter to Carbon Contactor
Existing rapid sand or dual media filters can be converted to carbon
contactors by removing filter media and replacing it with granular activated
carbon. Filter box dimensions will generally permit installation of a
30-36 inch deep carbon bed which will provide 9-11 minutes of empty bed
contact time at 2 gpm/ft2. The existing underdrain and support gravel
design can be retained unmodified. The only required modifications are
installation of spent carbon collector and transport system and a similar
system for return of reactivated carbon to the contactors. Continued
operation at the original design filtration rate of 2 gpm/ft2 will require
no modification of existing filter rate controls or instrumentation*
The backwash rate will be reduced from 15 gpm/ft2 to 10 gpm/ft2 for activated
carbon.
Cost curves were developed for modifying existing filters with total
bed areas ranging from 350 to .70,000 square feet. The cos:ts include those
related to removing and disposing of existing sand (or coal-sand) and gravel,
installing carbon collection troughs and related piping and valving outside
of filter, installing slurry pumps and related controls for transport and
spent carbon to dewatering and regenerating facilities, reactivated carbon
storage tank, reactivated carbon return eductors and distribution piping
systems to contactors. Carbon transport piping was sized on the basis of
3 pounds of carbon per gallon of water. The costs also include a 30 inch
deep bed of granular carbon placed over a 12-inch deep graded gravel
underdrain.
The costs for accomplishing these modifications are presented in
Table 15 and in Figure 10.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Conversion of Sand Filter to Carbon Contactor
Following conversion, operation and maintenance costs should be virtually
the same as prior to conversion. Experience at the existing plant, prior
to conversion, is therefore the best guide to operation and maintenance costs.
53
-------
Ul
.p-
Table 15
Construction Cost
Conversion of Sand Filter to Carbon Contactor
•I ry
Contactor Area, ft
2Contactor Volume, ft3
Labor
Manufactured Equipment
Piping and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL COST
350
875
8,200
11,000
9,850
1,650
30,700
4,600
35,300
1,750
4,375
26,900
21,000
49,150
3,150
100,200
15,030
115,230
3,500
8,750
45,700
22,500
79,750
3,380
151,330
22,700
174,030
17,500
43,750
166,400
80,500
417,500
12,000
676,400
101,460
777,860
35,000
87,500
322,500
142,000
840,500
21,300
1,326,300
198,950
1,525,250
70,000
175,000
615,000
278,000
1,547,000
42,000
2,482,000
372,300
2,854,300
•'•Area of existing filters
2Assumes bed depth of 30"
-------
•HI
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000,0
1
6
5
4
3
2
I.OOO.C
9
87
6
5
4
7 •
j^
/
X
/
X
A
r
s
f
w
A
f
J^
Jr
x
r
/
'
f
'
100 234 567891000 234 56789IOOOO 2 34 56789
FILTER AREA-FT* ' I00'°00
-4-
10
100
FILTER AREA-m2
1000
CONSTRUCTION COST
CONVERSION OF SAND FILTER
TO CARBON CONTACTOR
FIGURE 10
55
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Pressure Carbon Contactors
Construction costs were developed for pressure granular activated
carbon contactors constructed of shop fabricated steel tankage. Bed depths
of 5, 10, and 20 feet were used, which- provide empty bed contact times of 7.5,
15, and 30 minutes at a hydraulic loading rate of 5 gpm/ft2. Conceptual
design information is shown in Table 16. The practical upper limit for
pressure carbon contactors is generally in the range of 20 to 25 mgd, but
the cost curves are presented up to 50 mgd.
The cost for the steel contactors was. based upon pressurized downflow
operation using cylindrical ASME code pressure vessels with a design working
pressure of 50 psl. Vessels used were either 10 foot or 12 foot diameter
by 14, 23, and 33 feet overall height. Carbon contactors are furnished
with a nozzle style underdrain and are designed for rapid removal of spent
carbon and recharge of virgin carbon.
The costs presented are for a complete carbon contacting facility
including vessels, cylinder operated butterfly valves, liquid and carbon
handling face piping with headers within the carbon contactor building,
flow measurement and other instrumentation, master operations control panel
and building. Not included in the cost estimate are carbon contactor supply
and backwash pumping, initial activated carbon charge, spent or regenerated
activated carbon handling and carbon regeneration and preparation facilities.
Separate curves are provided for these facilities
Housing requirements were developed assuming that the carbon columns
are totally enclosed. Additional space for pipe galleries and operating
and maintenance service areas are also included in the area requirements.
Estimated construction costs are presented in Table 17, 18, 19 and
in Figure 11.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Pressure Carbon Contactors
Electrical energy requirements were computed assuming that the carbon
contactors serve as both filters and carbon contactors:; thus periodic
backwashing is required. Backwash pumping requirements- are based upon
one backwash, per day for 10 minutes duration at a rate of 12 gptn/ft2.
Energy requirements are for backwash pumping, for pumping of spent carbon
to regeneration facilities and for return of regenerated,carbon. Carbon
was assumed to be removed and replaced every two months. Energy for
supply pumping to contactors is not included. Building energy requirements
are for heating, lighting, ventilating, instrumentation and other general
building purposes. It was assumed that the contactors were completely
housed.
56
-------
t_n
Table 16
Conceptual Designs
Pressure Carbon Contactors
Total Carbon Volume-
Plant Flow
tngd
1
10
50
Number of
Contactors
2
12
60
Diameter
Contactors, ft
10
122
12
Total Contactor^
Area, ft2
1
6
157
,357
,786
Ft
7.5
6,
33,
3 @
min
680
790
930
Detention
15 min
1,57.0
13,570
67,860
Times
30
3,
27,
135,
min
140
140
720
Plant Area^
Requirements ,
1,750
4,800
21,000
ft2
iCarbon contactors sized for 5 gpm/ft2 application rate
ry
-Maximum sized contactor for shop fabrication and over-the^road shipment
^Volumes determined at bed depth of 5, 10 and 20 feet
-Assumes carbon contactors are totally enclosed
-------
Ui
oo
Table 17
Construction Cost
Pressure Carbon Contactors
(7.5 min empty bed contact time - 5 ft bed depth)
Contactor Volume - f t 3
Contactor Area - f t 2
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
680
157
500
46,200
2,070
1,020
17,500
14,350
14,930
61,250
157,820
23,670
181,490
6,790
1,357
1,330
385,800
5,330
2,560
99,430
127,300
79,200
158,400
859,350
128,900
988,250
33,930
6.786
5,880
1,832,600
23,330
11,200
446,000
639,620
410,420
630,000
3,999,050
599,860-
4,598,910
-------
Table 18
Construction Cost
Pressure Carbon Contactors
(15 min. empty bed contact time - 10 ft bed depth)
Ul
Contactor Volume - ftd
Contactor Area - ft2
Excavation & sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
1,570
157
500
52,280
2,070
1,020
18,500
15,790
14,980
78,750
183,890
27,580
211,470
13,570
1,357
1,330
426,740
5,330
2,560
105,430
138,760
79,200
206,400
965,750
144,860
1,110,610
67,860
6,786,
5,880
2,037,320
23,330
11,200
476,000
685,390
410,420
861,000
4,510,540
676,580
5,187,120
-------
Table 19
Construction Cost
Pressure Carbon Contactors
(30 min. empty bed contact time - 20 ft bed depth)
Contactor Volume - ft
Carbon Area - ft2
Excavation and Site Work
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
3,140
157
500
72,860
2,480
1,120
21,280
17,400
15,680
148,750
280,070
42,010
322,080
27,140
1,357
1,330
706,540
6,400
2,820
121,250
208,600
83,200
384,000
1,514,140
227,120
1,741,260
135,720
6,786
5,880
3,356,050
28,000
12,320
547,400
1,054,000
431,000
1,638,000
7,072,650
1,060,950
8,133,550
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST — $
O
c
3)
m
o-
TJ o
33
m
CO
CO O
S Z o
rn co £
H r
35
O <— o
s 3
O «
H
0
CO 3
0
o
0
o
o
o
ro
01
-(*
Ol
CT)
89IOPOO
TOTAL
o f
o
Z
>
0
-i *
o
73 Ol
< H
o -^
c to
7!
1 0
-^ o
Ol
*
j-oi
8-
0-^
°s
rv
o
4>
o
i -
~O
O
0
UJ
0
\
\
\
^
4
\
s
\
s
o
s
\
J
4
*
\
^^
cn^ia
,
*
^
KO 0 ^
O
o
Ol
•fc
-------
Maintenance material costs reflect estimated annual requirements: for
general supplies, pump seals, instrumentation repair, valve replacement
or repair and other miscellaneous work items:. Costs for replacement of
carbon lost during contactor operation and carbon regeneration are not
included. A separate curve is provided for makeup carbon, and this cost
must be added separately.
^Labor costs are related to operation of the facility and include those
required to maintain equipment and supervise operation.
Operation and maintenance requirements; for pressure carbon contactors
are summarized in Table 20 and Figures 12 and 13.
62
-------
U)
Table 20
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Pressure Carbon Contacfcors
Total
Surface
Area-ft2
157
1,357
6,786
Energy - kw-hr/yr
Process
916
7,967
39,746
Building
179,550
492,480
2,154,600
Total
180,470
500,450
2,194,350
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
1,500
7,500
35,000
Labor
hr/yr
2,000
3,500
7,500
Total Cost*
$/yr
26,910
57,510
175,830
*Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hour of labor
-------
•w-
I
cc
UJ
UJ
o
LU
h-
2
<
1
6
5
4
3
2
100,0
9
f
6
5
4
3
2
10,00
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOC
9"
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
|
7
6
5
4
3
2
00 I,OC
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
0 100, (
• 9
r ,. 8
"- <^ 7
w
- 1 4
i
- >- 3
CD
cc
- z 2
UJ
)0 10,0
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1000
>0,000
300
+*
DO
^
+*
/
'
/
X
_ 4 _
^
/
^
^^
^
-X
^
y
X
/
y
_/l
f
f
r
,
/
/
j
/
f-
/
/
/
/
r ~
{
J
BUILD
MAINT1
MATEI
^ROCE
100 234 567891000 234 56789KJOOO 2
TOTAL CONTACTOR AREA -ft 2
ING
ENA
?IAI
SS
3
F
NO
Fl
N
p
^JF
•R
R
GY
V
456 789
'0 100 1000
TOTAL CONTACTOR AREA -m2
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PRESSURE CARBON CONTACTORS
FIGURE 12
64
-------
-,
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
6
5
4
3
-\ 2
1
fe 100,0
0 9
0 8
oB 5
0 4
l-
H 2
10,00
9"
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1000
-
- rf
7
6
5
4
3
2
,000
7
6
5
4
3
00 100
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'O 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 '
o 6 LABOR -hr/yr
3 ro OJ * 01
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Concrete Construction
Concrete gravity carbon contactors are essentially identical to gravity
filtration structures, and the same conceptual layout was used. Costs
were developed for carbon bed depths of 5 feet and 8.3 feet, which provide
empty bed contact times of 7.5 and 12.5 minutes, respectively, at an
application rate of 5 gpm/ft2.
Carbon removal from the contactor is accomplished using a series of
troughs located at the carbon/support gravel interface. The carbon slurry
is then pumped to dewatering and regeneration facilities. Carbon removal
troughs and piping were sized to maintain a velocity of 3 ft/second with
a carbon slurry of 3 Ibs carbon per gallon. The troughs, each of which
have plug style valves, are manifolded into a spent carbon transfer system.
Regenerated carbon is transported through a similar piping system.
The costs presented are for a complete carbon contacting facility
including the contactor structure, cylinder operated butterfly valves,
liquid and carbon handling piping with headers in a pipe gallery, flow
measurement and other instrumentation, master operations control panel
and building. Housing requirements were developed assuming that the entire
carbon contactor structure is enclosed.
^ included in the cost estimate for the carbon contactor are backwash
pumping, the initial activated carbon charge, spent or regenerated activated
carbon handling outside of -the contactor pipe gallery and carbon regeneration
and preparation facilities. Separate curves are presented for these costs.
In developing construction costs it was assumed that all carbon in a
contactor would be removed and replaced with regenerated carbon in a single
operation. This handling method requires that regeneration facilities
be designed to store both spent and regenerated carbon in quantities
equivalent to the amount in one contactor.
Estimated construction costs are presented in Tables 21 and 22 and
in Figure 14.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Gravity Carbon Contactors -Concrete Construction
Building energy requirements are for building heating, ventilation, and
lighting. Process energy is: required for backwash, pumping and carbon slurry
pumping during carbon removal and replacement. The backwash frequency was
assumed to be once per day, for 10 minutes at 12 gpm/ft2. For carbon removal,
a regeneration frequency of every two months, and a slurry concentration
of 3 pounds of carbon per gallon of water were utilized. Process energy
requirements are virtually identical for the two different carbon bed depths.
66
-------
Table 21
Construction Cost
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Concrete Construction
(7.5 min. empty bed contact time - 5 foot bed depth)
Total Contactor Volume - ft3
Total Contactor Area - ft2
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
700
140
1,580
25,770
6,210
4,790
19,560
31,580
6,350
16,250
112,090
16,810
128,900
3,500
700
2,900
50,800
15,730
9,000
52,160
102,260
10,400
37,800
280,330
42,050
322,380
7,000
1,400
4,430
67,450
22,030
12,810
95,980
193,920
10,510
65,910
473,040
70,960
544,000
35,,000
7,000
13,010
240,800
82,880
61,300
311,940
562,000
42,440
272,600
1,586,370
237,960
1,824,330
70,000
14,000
20,550
410,780
134,360
102,670
445,510
812,800
58,800
480,250
2,465,720
369,860
2,835,580
140,000
28,000
34,850
760,800
239,190
175,030
875,890
1,376,500
92,730
904,350
4,459,340
668,900
5,128,240
-------
ON
00
Table 22
Construction Cost
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Concrete Construction
(12.5 min. empty bed contact time - 8.2 foot bed depth)
Total Contactor Volume - ft3
Total Contactor Area - ft2
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
700
140
2,110
25,770
7,560
5,840
23,810
31,580
6,350
16,250
119,270
17,890
137,160
3,500
700
3,880
50,080
19,150
10,140
63,540
102,260
10,400
37,800
297,250
44,590
341,840
7,000
1,400
5,910
67,450
29,420
17,940
116,850
193,920
10,510
65,910
507,910
76,190
584,100
35,000
7,000
17,350
240,800
104,810
74,630
379,760
562,000
42,440
272,600
1,694,120
254,120
1,948,240
70,000
14.000
27,400
410,780
170,300
124,990
542,360
812,800
58,800
480,250
2,627,680
394,150
3,021,830
140,000
28,000
46,400
760,800
291,190
213,080
1,103,630
1,376,500
92,730
904,350
4,788,680
718,300
5,506,980
-------
8
B
7
6
5
4
3
2
io,ooo,r
|
8
6
5
4
»- 3
2
0
D
J
1,000,1
5 1
3 8
7
= 1
n 5
a 4
§ 3
2
100,
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
)00
300
^X
X^x
000
X
_^s
—
^p
^r S
r ~
X
_ - . — ^
jr 4
.. t* s\
' *
4 r
i^
/
x^
,/
/
>
C.D.C
-^ —
X >
, /
4
E.B.C
^-Sr
^
^
2i
HM
N1
1000
5 o / o a iu,uuu «• ^ -T - - • --iw«,wu^ - - I 000 000
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME-ft3
100 1000 10,000
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME- m3
CONSTRUCTION COST
GRAVITY CARBON CONTACTORS
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 14
69
-------
Maintenance material costs include the cost of general supplies, backwash
and carbon transport pump maintenance, instrumentation repair and other
miscellaneous items. The cost for replacement of carbon lost during contactor
operation and carbon regeneration is not included in the maintenance material
costs.
Labor costs include the cost of operating the contactors, the backwash
pumps and the carbon slurry pumps, as well as the cost of instrument and
equipment repairs, and supervision.
A TFJfUroo 15 and 16 Present the operation and maintenance requirements,
and lable Z3 is a summary of these requirements.
70
-------
Table 23
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Concrete Construction
7.5 minute empty bed contact time - 5 foot bed depth
Total
Contactor
Volume - .ft3
700
3,500
7,000
35,000
70,000
140,000
Electrical
Building
44;. 120
151,850
279,070
1,190,160
2,165,890
4,123,490
Energy - kw-hr/yr
Process Total
1,370 45,490
6,820 158,670
13,630 292,700
68,150 1,258,310
136,300 2,302,190
273,070 4,396,560
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
1,400
4,800
8,500
31,000
50,600
90,000
Labor
hr/yr
1,850
2,220
2,600
6,670
13,150
25,700
Total O&M
Costs - $
21,260
31,760
43,280
135,450
251,170
478,900
12.5 minute empty bed contact time - 8.3 foot bed depth
Total
Contactor
Volume - ft3
1,160
5,810
11,620
58,100
116,200
232,400
Electrical
Building
44,120
151,850
279,070
1,190,160
2,165,890
4,123,490
Energy - kw-hr/yr
Process Total
1,380 45,500
6,900 158,750
13,790 292,860
68,790 1,259,130
137,940 2,303,830
276,350 4,399,840
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
1,400
4,800
8,500
31,000
50,600
90,000
Labor
hr/yr
1,850
2,220
2,600
6,670
13,150
25,700
Total O&M
Costs - $
21,270
31,760
43,290
135,470
251,210
479,000
-------
100,000
1000 234 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 567 9
_ TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME-FT3 tpO 0,000
100
1000 10,000
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME -m3
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
GRAVITY CARBON CONTACTORS-
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 15
72
-------
3
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,
6
5
4
3
2
><
\
*f*
| IOO
l- 9
I/) ft
8 I
_: 5
£ 4
O
<- 3
2
IO.OC
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
o
7
6
5
4
3
2
DOO
- 9
— Q
7
6
5
4
3
2
000 IOC
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
)0 IO,C
9
8
7
6
- 1 3
QL
O
< *•
1000
),000
^
00
^
1000
^
==
2
x*
^*
^
""" ^ '
^
s==
:;-^
( X"*^
^x^
J -^^
X
^>
-^
^
X
„/
^
^
x1
(/
/
~pf--\
.. — £§_|
S
* /
' /I2J
P
t
>_
7.5 W
/
//.
UN-
/
Ml
8-<
IN.
/
.5
sV
-t
N.
R-
™
UN
t--
-B-t
L. J.
.( .
• "•
....
T
3 4 5 6789IOPOO 234 56789100,0002 3 456789
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME - ff3 l,000,00<
. ^ — 4
100 1000 10,000
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME -m3
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
GRAVITY CARBON CONTACTORS -
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 16
73
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction
For carbon treatment facilities requiring in excess of about 30 000
cubic feet of carbon contact volume, the use of large diameter, field
erected, steel gravity contactors may offer an economic advantage over
smaller diameter, factory-built, pressure carbon columns. Costs were
developed for 20 foot and 30 foot diameter steel, gravity contactors using
the conceptual design information listed in Table 24. A carbon bed depth
of 20 feet with an overall vessel height of 35 feet was used in the cost
analysis. The units are designed for down flow operation and the system
hydraulics were sized using an application rate of 5 gpm/ft2, which provides
a JU minute empty bed contact time.
_The_vessels are constructed of factory formed steel plates erected at
the jobsite. Units are provided with a nozzle style underdrain eliminating
the need for a supporting gravel layer. Carbon is removed from each con-
tactor as required for regeneration through multiple carbon drawoff pipes
in the underdrain support plate. Regenerated carbon is returned through a
piping system to the top of each contactor.
_ The costs presented are for a complete carbon contacting facility
including vessels, face and interconnecting piping, access walkways, cylinder
operated butterfly valves, on all hydraulic piping with manually operated
ball or knife type valves on carbon handling system, flow control and other
instrumentation, master operations control panel, and a building completely
housing the contactors.
Not included in the construction costs: are carbon contactor supply
pumping, surface wash and backwash pumping, the initial activated carbon
charge, spent or regenerated carbon handling facilities (exclusive of
piping within the contactor building) or carbon regeneration or preparation
facilities. Curves for estimating the costs for these facilities: are
presented separately.
Estimated construction costs are presented in Tables 25 and 26 for
20-foot and 30-foot diameter units respectively. Figure 17 shows the
construction cost curves for systems using the two different diameter
contactors..
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction
Building energy requirements are for building heating, ventilation,
and lighting. Process energy is required for the backwash pumping and carbon
slurry pumping during carbon removal and replacement. The backwash frequency
was assumed to be once per day, for 10 minutes at 12 gpm/ft2. For carbon
removal, a regeneration frequency of every two months, and a slurry concentra-
tion of 3 pounds of carbon per gallon of water were utilized. Process
energy requirements are virtually identical for the two different carbon
bed depths.
74
-------
Table 24
Conceptual Design
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction
(20 foot carbon bed depth)
Plant
Flow
ingd
10
50
100
200
Total Contactor
Bed Area, Ft2
20' diam.
1,570
7,850
15,700
31,400
30' diam.
7,065
14,130
28,260
Number
Contactors
20' diam.
5
25
50
100
ju aiam.
10
20
40
Total C
Volume ,
on 1 J-f „.-
zu aiam.
31,400
157,000
314,000
628,000
arbon
ft3
*3H ' rH ATTI
141,300
282,600
565,200
rj-a.ii u &.LCO.
r\
Requirements, ft
20' diam. 30' diam.
6,500
33,000
66,000
126,000
—
26,000
50,000
95,000
-------
Table 25
Construction Cost
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction
(20' diam. tanks)
Total Contactor Volume - ft3
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
31,400
1,950
321,400
7,220
3,450
63,000
132,400
48,200
585,000
1,162,620
174,390
1,337,010
157,000
6,240
1,526,800
25,920
12,720
299,000
635,500
198,500
2,706,000
5,410,680
811,600
6,222,280
314,000
11,040
2,989,000
44,620
22,080
556,000
1,352,000
388,600
5,346,000
10,709,340
1,606,400
12,315,740
628,000
20,700
5,785,560
86,400
41,400
1,023,300
2,488,000
752,000
10,080,000
20,277,360
3,041,600
23,318,960
-------
Table 26
Construction Cost
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction
(30' diam. tanks)
Total Contactor Volume, ft3
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
141,300
6,800
1,251,000
28,000
13,800
251,000
532,000
163,000
2,132,000
4,378,000
656,700
5,034,700
282,600
12,500
2,447,000
53,000
26,000
465,000
1,028,000
318,000
4,050,000
8,400,000
1,260,000
9,660,000
565,200
23,800
4,845,000
105,000
50,000
897,000
1,986,000
630,000
7,695,000
16,232,000
2,434,800
18,666,800
-------
•*«-
i
89
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,000,
89
6
5
4
3
2
I0,000,(
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
l,000,<
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
000
)00
300
•
X
/
/
x
/
20' DL
/
X.
yy^
<<
,r s
\ME
^-X
vV
/
TE
^
^
^
y
r
/
3
X
0'
t
[>l
^ METEF
-
10,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 56789(000,000 3 4 56789
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME -'ft3
1000 10,000
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME-m3
—I
100,000
CONSTRUCTION COST
GRAVITY CARBON CONTACTORS-STEEL CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 17
78
-------
Maintenance material costs include the cost of general supplies, backwash
and carbon transport pump maintenance, instrumentation repair and other
miscellaneous items. The cost for replacement of carbon lost during contactor
operation and carbon regeneration is not included in the maintenance material
costs. A separate curve is provided for makeup carbon and this cost must
be added separately.
Labor costs include the cost of operating the contactors, the backwash
pumps, and the carbon slurry pumps, as well as the cost of instrument and
equipment repairs, and supervision.
Figures 18 and 19 present the operation and maintenance requirements,
and Table 27 is a summary of these requirements.
79
-------
oo
o
Table 27
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction
Maintenance
Contactor
Diameter - ft
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
Carbon
Volume - ft3
31,400
157,100
314,000
628,000
141,300
282,600
565,200
Electrical
Building
666,900
3,385,800
6,771,600
12,927,600
2,668,000
5,130,000
9,750,000
Energy -
Process
12,030
60,170
120,340
240,680
54,150
108,300
216,600
kw-hr/yr
Total
678,930
3,445,970
6,891,940
13,168,280
2,722,150
5,238,300
9,966,600
Material
$/yr
5,000
20,000
35,000
65,000
15,000
25,000
40,000
Labor
hr/yr
3,000
7,000
14,000
27,000
6,800
13,500
26,000
Total Cost*
$/yr
55,370
193,380
381,760
730,050
164,660
317,150
600,000
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hour of labor
-------
UJ
UJ
o
100,000
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
1
6
5
4
3
2
10 OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
IO.OC
7
6
r 5
4
3
2
1,00
• 1 6
- * 5
- l 4
V
. o »
cc 3
UJ
- u 2
I00,(
9
8
6
3
10,0
10,000
D.OOO
DOO
?o
X
/
/
x
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
f
f
/
f
MAI
y
f
j
y
— -^
f
NT
/
4!
>
/
— r
Li
A
/
/
ft
t
*
N
/
3
/
/
r, (
j
KJt AT
IVIATI
' DIAM
tIAMET
BUILDI
PROC
^^^
Rl»'
TF
ER
NG
•SS
L
El
El
E
IE
R
*<
*<
•^
.
10,000 2 345 6789100,0002 3 4 5 6 7 89lpOO,000 345 6789
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME - ff3
1000 10,000
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME - m3
100,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
GRAVITY CARBON CONTACTORS -STEEL CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 18
81
-------
H
W
O
o
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000.
1
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.C
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IO.OC
I
6
5
4
3
2
: 1
7
6
5
4
3
2
000
9
F *
6
5
4
3
2
)00 IOC
9
, 87
6
5
4
i- 9
0 IO,C
i- 9
8
M'
- f 4
u. S 3
O °
00
<
i y
1000
jOOO
00
rfrf
r
&
^[
X
w
^
^
/
/
>
J
jS
S1
,r
4
/
/
A
/
/
/
/
/
J
r
/
f
TOTAL
LABOf
c
OS
T
10,000 2 34 56789100,0002 3 4 5 6 7 891000,0002 3 4 56789
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME -ff3
-»-
1000 10,000
TOTAL CONTACTOR VOLUME -
100,
000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
GRAVITY CARBON CONTACTORS - STEEL CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 19
82
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration - Handling and Transportation
Construction costs were developed for combination granular activated
carbon dewatering/storage bins. These facilities would be required for
storage and dewatering of carbon removed from pressure or gravity
contactors, prior to transport to off-site regeneration facilities. Such
storage provisions are generally provided where spent carbon must be
accumulated before it can be economically handled, transported and
regenerated at a regional facility.
Two different design configurations were used to develop the cost
curves. Storage bins of 2,000 cubic feet and less are elevated, 12 foot
diameter, cylindrical tanks with conical bottoms. The 5,000 cubic foot
bin is an elevated, three hopper, rectangular tank. For larger storage
requirements, multiple units would be used.
Tanks are elevated for gravity loading to dump trucks. The overall
height of the storage bins was limited to 30 feet. All designs include
stainless steel dewatering. screens and associated piping and valving to
conduct water to waste drains. Tanks are field fabricated of braced,
1/4 inch, shop formed steel plate protected by a suitable coating system.
The tanks are not housed. No costs are included for trucks necessary to
haul dewatered carbon to the regional regeneration facility. These costs
must be added separately.
Construction costs are summarized in Table 28 and illustrated in
Figure 20.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration - Handling and Transportation
Granular activated carbon may be removed from the contactor, dewatered,
and hauled to a regionally located regeneration facility serving a number
of treatment plants within a distance of up to 100 miles. Included In
the costs are the fuel, labor and maintenance requirements to load spent
carbon from dewatered carbon storage tanks: to 30 cubic yard, semi-dump
trailers, haul to the regeneration facility, unload, reload reactivated
carbon from bulk storage, return to the treatment plant, and discharge
either to on-site storage tanks or directly to the carbon contactors.
For all travel distances it was assumed that the entire operation would
he accomplished in an 8—hour day.
The annual fuel requirements are based upon a diesel fuel consumption
of 3.5 mpg.
Maintenance materials are only for the trucks, and were computed
assuming a unit cost of $0.30 per mile.
83
-------
oo
.p-
Table 28
Construction Cost
Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration - Handling and Transportation
On Site Carbon
Storage Capacity - Ftd
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipe and Valves
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
1,000
200
18,150
740
12,290
1,300
32,680
4,900
37,580
5,000
350
19,760
1,650
31,240
3,600
56,600
8,490
65,090
20,000
1,400
77,460
6,000
117,630
14,100
216,590
32,490
249,080
-------
X
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,00
7
6
5
4
-w- 3
i
*~ 2
O
o
z IOO.C
° 9
" 7
i 6
0 3
2
IO.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
3
0
00
/
)0
X1
>
,/
x
^
/
1000 234 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 56789
ON-SITE CARBON STORAGE CAPACITY -ff3
1 1 1
1000 10,000 100,000
ON-SITE CARBON STORAGE CAPACITY-m3
CONSTRUCTION COST
OFF-SITE REGIONAL CARBON REGENERATION
HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 20
85
-------
A summary of the operation and maintenance requirements is presented
in Table 29, and they are also shown In Figures: 21 and 22. The total cost
represent the labor, energy, and maintenance requirements; related only
to the handling and transportation of activated carbon. The costs do not
include the cost of regeneration at the regional regeneration facility.
86
-------
Table 29
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Off-Site Regional Carbon Regeneration
Handling and Transportation
Carbon
Regenerat<
Ibs/yr
30,000
150,000
500,000
1,000,000
3,000,000
2d
10 mi
5.7
28.6
97
194
582
Diesel Fuel1
gals/yr
25 mi
14.3
71.4
243
486
1,430
100 mi
57
286
971
1,943
5,829
10
6
30
100
200
610
Maintenance
Matls-$/yr
mi 25 mi 100 mi
20 60
80 300
260 1,020
510 2,040
1,530 6,120
10 mi
6.8
34
116
232
780 1,
Labor
hrs/yr
25 mi
11
55
187
374
200 1,
Total
$
100 mi
14
70
238
476
428
10 mi
80
380
1,310
2,610
8,670
Cost3
/yr
25 mi
130
660
2,230
4,470
14,170
100 mi
230
1,130
3,840
7,670
23,020
NOTE; All distances are one way
1Based on 3.5 mpg for 30 yd3 semi-dump
o
Labor for loading and unloading carbon and for hauling
Calculated using diesel fuel at $0.45/gallon and labor at $10.00/hour
-------
1000
E 2
u
<
2 100
o
UJ
2 3-
Z -
10
9"F
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
Z 345 6789 2 3 456789
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
CARBON REGENERATED-Ib/yr
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,0
I
6
5
4
3
2
100
.. 9
£.8
\ 7
r.
-i 4
UJ
£ 3
_i
UJ 9
en 2
UJ
Q
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
00
D
y
f
/
4
/
/
/
f
/
/
/
/
/
/
+- j
{
*
s
s\ £5
/
s
i
/
/ M
/
/
r
/
y
/
/
/
j
/
/
+
/
/
MN1
MAI
/
r
1
/
/
/
•
10
EN
ER
Dl
n~fr
ILp
1
M
M
IA
•S
FUE
00
f
25
10
I
1 1
L,
C
L
E
L
11
41
MLI
r-
E
E
-
-c
c
.' i
. )
234 56789
10,000,000
10,000
-f-
1,000,000
100,000
CARBON REGENERATED-kg/yr
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OFF-SITE REGIONAL CARBON REGENERATION
HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 21
88
-------
100,000
1
6
5
4
3
2
10,00
* f
-^ 6
^ 5
co 4
° 3
_i
!* 2
O
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
0 10,0
; l
6
5
4
3
l i i i i i i i • i i i i i i i i *
- LABOR -hr/yr
O ro CM * ui o> -sjoxo ° r» u ^ ui o> ^Ou) § r>
00
0
X
X
*
^
/
.
/
/
/
^
/
/
^
/
^
'
'
J
/
x
J
.
r
/
/
A
/
/
/
w
A
,
j
f
f
/
^
y
x <
X /
s
/ A
f S
/
r
j
/,
//
SS A
//
/
/
Jr
y
y^
f
X
r X
y^
r
/
r
f
i.
4
t
/
/
y
r
/
S
/
'
/
/
/
/
'
/
/
^
^
/
/
.
'
^
/
,
/
_f
s y
r S
r ^^
/ y
/" /"
/
i
j
f
y^y
y^yV
' ./'y^
•y
x
TOT
^
J
A
J
f
/
^r
/ j
s
f
AL
I0(
2J
I^N
IV
L/
25
in
<
*
s
)|/iL
Nil
Mill
|IL
B
) r
iv
0
11
II
Mil
.
F
R
T
Tl
1
(
c
"
>
k
5
i
234 56789 234 56789 234 56789
10,000 100,000 1,000,000 IO,000,OC
CARBON REGENERATED - Ib/yr
i i i
10,000
100,000 1,000,000
CARBON REGENERATED - kg/yr
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OFF-SITE REGIONAL CARBON REGENERATION
HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 22
89
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration
Granular activated carbon is effectively regenerated in multiple hearth
furnaces by exposure to properly and closely-controlled conditions of tempera-
ture, oxygen, and moisture content of the atmosphere within the furnace.
During the process, adsorbed organics are oxidized and driven off, restoring
the adsorptive properties of the activated carbon. The multiple hearth
furnace is a cylindrical refractory lined shell carrying a series of fired
refractory hearths located one above the other. A revolving insulated
central shaft and attached radial rabble arms move the material across
the hearth directing material alternately outward or inward as material
drops from one level to the next.
The required size of a multiple hearth furnace is a function of the
required frequency of regeneration, the carbon dosage used (which is a
function of the nature of the organics adsorbed), the allowable hearth
loading of the furnace, and anticipated downtime. These factors must be
considered in selecting the required furnace size.
Construction costs were developed for a series, of single furnaces with
various hearth areas. Conceptual designs for multiple hearth furnaces
used in the cost estimates are shown in Table 30. The costs include the
basic furnace, center shaft drive, furnace and cooling fans, spent carbon
storage and dewatering equipment, auxiliary fuel system, exhaust scrubbing
system, regenerated carbon handling system, quench tank, steam boiler,
control panel, and instrumentation. The equipment costs which are on a
furnished and installed basis, were obtained from equipment manufacturers.
Housing requirements were developed from manufacturer's recommendations.
Construction costs for a complete carbon regeneration furnace
and supporting equipment are presented in Table 31 and illustrated in
Figure 23.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration
Operation and maintenance costs were developed for single furnace
multiple hearth carbon regeneration systems, with effective hearth areas
between 27 and 1,509 square feet. The costs presented are for operation
100 percent of the time, and correction must be made once the actual
percentage of time in operation has been determined.
Process, electrical energy requirements were developed from manufac-
turer's information listing connected and operating horsepower requirements
for furnaces of various sizes, and assuming tha furnace operates 100
percent of the time. Appropriate correction must be made for the actual
percentage of the time, that the furnace is operated. Building energy
requirements are only for lighting and ventilation.
90
-------
Table 30
Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration Conceptual Design
Furnace Configuration
Effective Hearth
Area - Sq. Ft.
27
37
147
359
732
1,509
I.D.
30"
30"
39"
10'-6"
14'-6"
20'-0"
No . Hearths
6
6
6
5
6
6
Building Ai
Requirement!
750
750
900
1,200
1,800
2,400
-------
Table 31
Construction Cost
Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration
Furnace Hearth Area - 27 37 147 359 732 1,509
Square Feet
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and
$208,000
112,000
7,840
7,920
102,400
438,160
65,720
$260,000
140,000
7,840
7,970
102,400
518,210
77,730
$490,000
260,000
7,840
7,970
116,000
881,810
132,270
$610,000
330,000
13,620
8,780
163.500
1,125,900
168,890
$980,000
530,000
22,060
14,260
229.500
1,775,620
226,340
$1,230,000
670,000
45,910
25,770
312,300
2,283,980
342,600
Contingency
TOTAL $503,880 $595,940 $1,014,080 $1,294,790 $2,041,960 $2,626,580
-------
i
7
6
5
4
3
10,000,000
f
6
5
•w-
1 3
I-
w
O 2
o
z
2 1,000,000
S 89
a: 7
w 6
Z 5
0
O 4
3
2
100,000
i
7
6
^
4
2
^
^
X
* *
^
^
*
+
+
+ '
,^
10
4 56789100 234 567891000
SINGLE FURNACE HEARTH ARE A-ft2
•+•
456 789
10,000
I 10 100
SINGLE FURNACE HEARTH AREA -m2
CONSTRUCTION COST
MULTIPLE HEARTH GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION
FIGURE 23
93
-------
Natural gas: requirements were calculated from manufacturer's recommenda-
tions, assuming that the feed activated carbon has a moisture content of 50
percent and that the furnace.operates continuously. The natural gas
requirement must be adjusted to account for the percentage of downtime.
A heat value of 1,000 Btu/standard cu ft of natural gas was assumed in
determining energy requirements. Where an alternate fuel, such as No. 2
Fuel Oil is. utilized in place of natural gas, the appropriate gallonage
requirements can be calculated using an overall fuel Btu value equal to
that of natural gas.
Maintenance material costs were developed from Information furnished
by equipment suppliers and are related to maintenance and repair of
electrical drive machinery, replacement of rabble arms, and damaged
refractory materials.
Operating labor is related principally to operation of the equipment.
Estimates were developed from information furnished by equipment suppliers
and operating installations.
Table 32 presents the operation and maintenance requirements, which
are also shown In Figures 24, 25, and 26.
94
-------
Table 32
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration
Effective
Hearth Area
<5f1 ft
27
37
147
359
732
1,509
Electrical Energy
kw-hr/yr 1
Building Process
14,630 261,400
14,630
17,550
23,400
35,100
46,800
326,750
424,770
588,150
849,550
1,307,000
Total £
276,030
341,380
442,320
611,550
884,650
1,353,800
latural Gasg
jcf/yr x 10
5.80
7.72
26.2
48.26
108.40
207.75
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
2,800
3,500
6,000
8,000
11,000
15,000
Labor
hrs/yr
900
950
3,400
6,200
10,500
17,000
Total Cost
$/yr*
27,620
32,840
87,330
151,080
283,460
495,690
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr, $0.0013/scf and $10.00/hr of labor
NOTE: Makeup carbon costs are not included
-------
100,000
*
7
6
5
4
. 3
><
^ 2
1
< IO.OC
£ |
£ f
2 6
LU
o 4
1 3
in
1-
Z 2
<
5
1000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
I I
7
6
5
4
3
2
)0
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
: 9
8
- 5,'
\ 6
£ 5
-.5*
1 3
e>
_ DC 2
z
111
I00,(
- , 9
- < 8
-07
E;
- ^ 4
LU
3
2
I0,0(
,000
300
30
^
•**
••••
^
^
••Mi
^
+*
^
+ '*
+•*
--•
- ~—^
,**
^
-&*
^
4*
p^
5**
x-
^
^«
X
^-'
-*•
^
^
x^
^•^^M
M
PR
EN
^S
'^UILl
IU 234 56789100 234 567891000 2
SINGLE FURNACE HEARTH AREA -ft 2
MN
ATF
)CE
:RR
INC
3
'Eh
Rl
JS
Y
F
4
A
U
N!
5
J
F
:E
(!'
/
6789
10,000
1 10 100
SINGLE FURNACE HEARTH AREA-m2
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
MULTIPLE HEARTH GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION
FIGURE 24
96
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
o
8
6
5
4
o
O
X
u.
o
en
co 9
< 8
o 7
< 5
o:
r> 4
< 3
z J
i
*
— X
^
ji
f
^
~?
^
NAT I
_LJ
RAl
C
A!
•
10 2345 6789100 2 3456 7891000 .2 3 4 5 6 i ay
SINGLE FURNACE HEARTH AREA - ft2 10,000
_j 4- 100
SINGLE FURNACE HEARTH AREA-m2
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
MULTIPLE HEARTH GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION
FIGURE 25
97
-------
*
7
6
5
4
3
2
l,000,(
5
f
6
5
4
3
2
100,000
9
_ 8
\ 7
-«- 6
1 5
O
(M
100
)0
^
/
/
/
/''
--^—
/
f
/
/
*
X
^
/
^
/
^s
•' LA
TO'
30F
AL
I
;c
1C "
Vi
10 234 56789100 2 34 567891000 2
SINGLE FURNACE HEARTH AREA -ft2
—f-
3456 789
10,000
10
100
SINGLE FURNACE HEARTH AREA -
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
MULTIPLE HEARTH GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION
FIGURE 2&
98
-------
MATERIAL COST
Granular Activated Carbon
Virgin carbon is generally purchased in two cubic foot bags for quanti-
ties of 40,000 pounds and less, with larger quantities generally transported
in bulk by rail. Costs were developed for purchase and placement of virgin
carbon in a contactor. These costs may be used for either pressure or
gravity carbon contactors to obtain the complete cost of the carbon contactor.
The curve may also be used to determine the cost of makeup carbon to replace
carbon lost during contactor operation and carbon regeneration. Figure 27
presents a cost curve for purchase, delivery and placement of virgin carbon.
99
-------
i
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,
6
5
4
3
-w-
CO
o
0
100,
o 9
m 8
JLAR ACTIVATED CAR
O
01 * 01 en-*
a: 6
4
3
2
1000
000
DOO
00 /
^
/
/
-^
— 4 -
/
,
r
^
/
/
: y/L
j
/
/
/
fTT
i +
s
*
,.-„„ 2 3 4 56789 234 56789 2 3 4 56789
I0.°00 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
CARBON QUANTITY- Ib
• 1-
10,000
100,000
CARBON QUANTITY-kg
1
1,000,000
MATERIAL COST
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
FIGURE 27
100
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems
The costs for chlorine feed facilities have been based upon use of
150 pound cylinders for feed rates up to 100 pounds per day and ton cylinders
for feed rates up to 2,000 pounds per day. For rates of 2,000 pounds per
day and greater, three options were considered: (1) ton cylinders; (2)
on-site storage with bulk rail delivery; and (3) direct feed from a rail
car.
Cylinder Storage
The maximum chlorinator capacity utilized was 8,000 pounds per day
and one standby chlorinator was included for each installation. The costs
include cylinder scales for all installations, and evaporators are included
for delivery rates of 2,000 pounds per day and greater. Residual analyzers
with flow proportioning controls were included for flow rates greater than
1,000 pounds per day. Costs were also included for injector pumps capable
of delivering sufficient water at 25 psi to allow production of a 3,500
mg/1 high strength solution. Housing cost includes both the chlorinator
room and the cylinder storage room. All cylinders were assumed to be stored
Indoors, and the number of days of storage ranged from 15 for the smallest
installation to 7 for the largest. The larger the chlorine usage, presumably
the closer the plant would be to chlorine distribution centers, and less
chlorine would have to be maintained at the plant. For feed rates greater
than 100 pounds per day, electrically operated, monorail trolley hoists
were included.
On-SIte Storage Tank with Rail Delivery
Use of an on-site storage tank would eliminate the housing requirement
for cylinder storage, the monorail and hoist, the cylinder scale, cylinder
trunnions and the cylinder manifold piping. However, additive costs are
incurred for the tank and its supports, a tank sun shield, load cells for
the tank, a railhead connection and associated track, unloading platform,
an air padding system, expansion tanks, and miscellaneous gauges, switches
and piping. All considerations relating to the chlorinators, evaporators,
and other feed equipment remain the same as for the ton cylinder curve.
The amount of chlorine storage provided with, the on-site tank is 15 days,
which Is. greater than feeding from ton cylinders at the same flow rate,
principally because space is not a problem and delivery of a tank car by
rail Is often less reliable than delivery of ton cylinders by truck.
The rail siding costs Include the cost of a turnout from the main
line, 500 feet of on-site track, and the unloading platform. Piping costs
would be strongly influenced by the location of the storage tank relative
to the chlorinators. Normally the storage tank Is located near the plant
boundary. Valvlng is more complex than with ton cylinders, mainly due
to the unloading system, the use of duplicate heads for gas or liquid feed,
and the air padding system.
101
-------
This curve may be adapted to bulk truck delivery by removing the cost
of the rail siding.
Direct Feed from Rail Car
_ Chlorine may be fed directly from the rail car to the evaporator
eliminating the requirement for an on-site storage tank. Ownership of
the rail car may be by the utility or the chlorine manufacturer. In the
later case, a higher cost per ton of chlorine must be paid to account for
amortization and maintenance costs of the car. Chlorinator, evaporator
and other feed equipment costs are the same as for feed from ton cylinders.
Rail siding costs are the same as for on-site storage with rail delivery.
Estimated construction costs are shown in Tables 33, 34 and 35 for
feed systems between 10 and 10,000 pounds per days and the costs are shown
graphically in Figure 28. As .may be seen, construction costs for on-site
storage are not significantly greater than costs for use of ton cylinders.
However, the chlorine cost would be significantly less when it is delivered
in bulk.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems
Power requirements include heating, lighting, and ventilation of the
chlorination building and the cylinder storage area, the electrical hoist
when ton cylinders are used, evaporators when feed is 2,000 pounds/day
or greater and the injector pump for the high strength chlorine solution.
This pump was sized to deliver sufficient flow for a maximum chlorine
concentration of 3,500 mg/1 in the high strength solution. Where on-site
storage tanks were utilized, the electrical hoist power requirements are
eliminated and heating, ventilating, and lighting power are significantly
reduced due to elimination of indoor storage facilities.
Maintenance material requirements were b.as.ed upon experience at operating
plants, and are essentially the same for use of cylinders on-site storage
or rail car storage and feed. Cost of chlorine is not included in the
maintenance material estimates.
Labor requirements for cylinders were based upon loading and unloading
cylinders from a delivery truck, time to connect and disconnect cylinders
from the chlorine headers, and the time for routine daily checking of the
cylinders. For on-site tank storage, labor consists of time to unload a
bulk delivery truck or rail tanker. The rail car storage concept requires
labor only to move the rail car into place, and to connect and disconnect
the cars from the feed system. Common to all installations would be the
time required for daily checking and periodic maintenance of the chlorine
handling system.
102
-------
Table 33
Construction Cost
Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems - Cylinder Storage
Chlorine Feed Capacity - Pounds/day
' jo 5001.000 2,000 5,00010.000
j T, . *. <5 7 nn 10 630 19,880 31,500 36,500 54,130
M Manufactured Equipment ? 3,13U iu,oju i3,oou -. ,
g Labor 2,500 2,500 3,800 6,700 6,700 7,600
Pipe and Valves 320 1,060 1,750 2,540 5,190 9,020
Electrical and instrumentation 1,000 2,400 2,800 5,000 7,200 9,500
Housing - 3,900 12,300 15,700 18.400 25,900 ,45^00
SUBTOTAL 10,850 28,890 43,930 64,140 81,490 125,950
Miscellaneous and Contingency 1.630 ^330 _6^590 ^620 JL2.220 _i^890
TOTAL $12,480 33,220 50,520 73,760 93,710 144,840
-------
Table 34
Construction Cost
Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems
On-Site Storage Tank With Rail Delivery
Manufactured Equipment
Equipment
Rail Siding
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
Chlorine Feed Capacity
Pounds /day
$
$
2,000
46,400
48,410
1,380
8,560
5,080
12,400
7,410
129,640
19,450
149,090
5,000
58,540
48,410
2,200
10,250
10,380
16,710
7,410
153,900
23,090
176,990
10,000
80,590
48,410
3,080
12,560
18,040
21,130
8,580
192,390
28,860
221,260
-------
Table 35
Construction Cost
Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems
Direct Feed From Rail Car
Chlorine Feed Capacity
Pounds/day
2,000 5,000 10,000
Manufactured Equipment
Equipment $ 31,500 36,500 54,130
g Rail Siding 48,410 48,410 48,410
Labor 7,000 8,000 9,000
Pipe and Valves 4,810 10,100 17,040
Electrical and Instrumentation 5,000 7,200 9,500
Housing 7,410 7,410 8,580
SUBTOTAL 104,130 117,620 146,660
Miscellaneous and Contingency 15,620 17.640 22,000
TOTAL $ 119,750 135,260 168,660
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST - $
O
c
ro
m
ro
oo
O
IE
m
»8
o
o
m
m
o
CO
O)
H
m
2
O)
o
O
o
CO
Q.
a
-------
Figures 29 and 30 present operation and maintenance curves for chlorine
feed systems using cylinder storage. For feed rates greater than 2,000
pounds per day, and use of a on-site storage tank with rail delivery or
the rail car storage and feed, operation and maintenance requirements are
shown in Figures 31 and 32. Table 36 presents a summary of operation and
maintenance requirements for all three storage concepts.
107
-------
O
00
Table 36
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Chlorine Feed Systems
Energy kw-hr/yr
Feed Rate
10
500
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
- Ib/day
0) 0)
T3 00
S cfl
•H l-i
rH O
>> 4J
O CO
Q) Q) £*>
•U 00 V-i
•H CO rH CU
CO !-( -H >
1 O CO -H
£3 4J f£i rH
O co (U
Q
3
O f-i
•U VJ CO
O fin C-3
0)
>-l 13 r-t
•H 0) -H
O 0) CO
fa M
Building
6,160
22,570
25,650
41,040
65,660
123,120
10,260
10,260
15,390
10,260
10,260
10,260
Process
570
1,120
2,230
6,210
15,530
30,990
1,740
4,340
8,690
1,740
4,340
8,690
Total
6,730
23,690
27,880
47,250
81,190
154,110
12,000
14,600
24,080
12,000
14,600
24,080
Maintenance
Material $/yr
1,430
2,860
3,300
4,400
5,500
7,700
4,400
5,500
7,700
4,400
5,500
7,700
Labor
hr/yr
437
663
1,267
2,043
3,140
5,443
926
1,100
1,144
754
790
796
Total Cost*
$/yr
6,000
10,200
16,810
26,250
39,340
66,750
14,020
16,940
19,860
12,300
13,840
16,380
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
2 -
345 6789100
3456 7891000
CHLORINE FEED CAPACITY- Ib/doy
10
100
30003 456 789
10,000
•4-
10.00
CHLORINE FEED CAPACITY -
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHLORINE STORAGE AND FEED SYSTEMS
CYLINDER STORAGE
FIGURE 29
109
-------
I
7
6
5
4
100,000
1000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
10,000 10,000
9
w 8
>> 7
100
2 3456789100 2 3456 7891000 2 3 456789
CHLORINE FEED CAPACITY - Ib/doy 10,000
10 100 1000
CHLORINE FEED CAPACITY - kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHLORINE STORAGE AND FEED SYSTEMS
CYLINDER STORAGE
FIGURE 30
110
-------
10,000
9'
8
, 7
6
5
4
o
LU
H
•1000 10
9
8
6
5
- o
cc
*l
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
)0
)0
.— -
«•»
/
/
^*
—
y
/
^
•0
/
^
^
/
^
*
/
^
M
/
^
•
ri
•
F
MAIN
MATE
»
BUILDI
•
'
PROCI
'EN
RIA
«
— - —
NG
:ss
Eh
E
DE
El
NE
?(
•F
\
G
Y
100 234 567891000 234 56789IOpOO 234 56789
CHLORINE FEED CAPACITY- Ib/day
100
1000 10,000
CHLORINE FEED CAPACITY - kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHLORINE STORAGE AND FEED SYSTEMS
ON-SITE STORAGE TANK AND RAIL CAR FEED
FIGURE 31
111
-------
V)
o
o
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.C
1
6
5
4
3
2
r 10,0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
2!
7
6
5
4
3
2
)00
: 1
6
5
3
2
00
9
8
4
2
1000
i- 9
h 8
7
- w 6
-< 5
i.
- •= 4
1
-s 3
ED
< 2
100
*—-
.- —
_••
^BMM
— •
— •
^•^
^•^
«*•
^«
^•v
^
••
p^
•*
••
^
= •
» •
•• •
TOTAL
STORA
TOT
CAR
LABOR
STOR/
•
LABOR
C(
GE
\L (
TAN
-or
GE
"-TV*
Fl
1ST
TA
;o<
K
S
T
• i
-(
N>
T
F
T!
Ah
UL v.
:ti
)h
-1
_E
K
A
1
?/
c
K
II
,l
r:
i
100
4 567891000 234 56789IQOOO
CHLORINE FEED CAPACITY - Ib/day
456 789
-f-
100 1000 10,000
CHLORINE FEED CAPACITY- kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHLORINE STORAGE AND FEED SYSTEMS
ON-SITE STORAGE TANK AND RAIL CAR FEED
FIGURE 32
112
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Ozone Generation Systems and Contact Chambers
Ozone may be generated on—site using either air or pure oxygen. Costs
were developed for generation rates between 10 and 3,500 pounds per day.
For systems up to 100 pounds per day, air was assumed to be the feed.
At generation rates greater than 100 pounds per day, pure oxygen generated
on-site is the feed for the ozone generator.
The manufactured equipment cost for ozone generation includes the
gas preparation equipment, oxygen generation equipment (at more than 100
pounds per day), the ozone generator, dissolution equipment, electrical
and instrumentation costs and all required safety and monitoring equipment.
All ozone generating equipment was considered to be housed, but all oxygen
generating equipment is located outside on a concrete slab. Construction
costs for ozone generating systems are shown in Figure 33 and are presented
in Table 37.
The ozone contact chamber is a covered reinforced concrete structure
with a depth of 18 feet, and a length to width ratio of approximately 2:1.
Partitions are utilized within the chamber to assure uniform flow distribu-
tion. Ozone dissolution equipment costs are included within the ozone
generation curve costs, and are not included with the ozone contact chamber.
Construction costs are shown in Figure 34 and in Table 38.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Ozone Generating Systems and Contact Basins
For ozone generation systems less than 100 pounds per day, electrical
energy is required for the ozone generator and building heating, cooling
and lighting requirements. Ozone generation using air feed requires 11
kw-hr per pound of ozone generated. For larger, oxygen fed systems, the
power requirements are 7.5 kw-hr per pound of ozone "generated. These figures
includes oxygen generation, ozone generation, and ozone dissolution.
Maintenance material requirements are for periodic equipment repair
and replacement of parts. Based upon manufacturers recommendations, an
annual maintenance material requirement of 1 percent of construction cost
was utilized.
Labor requirements are for periodic cleaning of the ozone generating
apparatus, maintenance of the oxygen generation equipment, annual maintenance
of the contact basin, and day to day operation of the generation equipment.
Operation and maintenance requirements are shown in Figures 35 and 36,
and are summarized in Table 39.
113
-------
Table 37
Construction Cost
Ozone Generation Systems
Ozone Generation Capacity - Pounds/day
Manufactured Equipment $
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL $
10
32,250
—
—
4,840
6,000
43,090
6,460
49,550
100
143,610
—
—
33,690
8,400
185,700
27,860
213,560
500
511,960
1,540
1,520
114,980
12,700
642,700
96,410
739,110
1,000
685,810
1,540
1,520
143,110
23,400
855,380
128,310
983,690
2,000
1,070,540
2,250
2,210
207,500
35,700
1,318,200
197,730
1,515,930
3,500
1,523,240
2,250
2,210
272,300
41,800
1,841,800
276,270
2,118,070
-------
10,000,000
1
6
5
4
1
<2 1,000,000
§ 1
o 7
6
1 5
& 4
i 3
o
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
10
3 4 56789100 2 34 567891000
GENERATION RATE-lb/Day
20003 4 5 6 789
10,000
10
100
GENERATION RATE - kg/day
CONSTRUCTION COST
OZONE GENERATION SYSTEMS
FIGURE 33
1000
115
-------
Table 38
Construction Cost
Ozone Contact Chamber
Contact Chamber Volume - Ft3
Excavation and Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Labor
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
$
$
1
2
4
5
460
470
850
,470
,150
,940
740
,680
4,
1,
4,
8,
12,
27,
4,
31,
600
630
950
400
200
180
080
260
23
2
8
13
19
43
6
50
,000
,570
,280
,570
,510
,930
,590
,520
46,
5,
15,
23,
36,
82,
12,
94,
000
150
450
330
120
050
310
360
92
10
29
48
69
157
23
181
,000
,290
,810
,550
,330
,980
,700
,680
-------
4
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,
"I
6
5
4
3
2
4»-
I IOO.C
H 1
8 7
o 6
§ 4
t 3
3
o:
i 2
o
o
I0,0<
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1000
000
)00
)0
y
s
s
4
9
/
r
X
>
s
/
s
^
s
*
_s
S
i r
s
X"
J0r
4
r^
X
X
/
^.'
00 234 567891000 234 5678910000 2 3 4 56789
CONTACT CHAMBER VOLUME -ft3 IOO.OOC
1 1 i__
10 100
CONTACT CHAMBER VOLUME- m3
CONSTRUCTION COST
OZONE CONTACT BASIN
FIGURE 34
1000
117
-------
00
Table 39
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Ozone Generation Systems
Ozone Generatio
Rate - Ib/day
10
100
500
1,000
2,000
3,500
n Electrical Energy - kw-hr/yr
Building
5,750
9,850
16,420
30,780
71,820
123,120
Process
40,150
401,500
1,368,750
2,737,500
5,475,000
9,581,250
Total
45,900
411,350
1,385,170
2,768,280
5,546,820
9,704,370
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
1,340
2,860
10,070
13,350
20,690
29,140
Labor
hr/yr
550
550
910
1,830
2,190
2,920
Total Cost*
$/yr
8,230
20,700
60,730
114,700
208,990
349,470
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
-W-
I
UJ 10,000
<
1000
10,000,000
8
6
5
4
3
2
,000
1
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.C
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
10,0
9
8
/
X
r
• ^.^
i **^*^
.f
x
• ^
>
_f
f
T
S>
^
/
/
s
_t^
^
/
/
x
'
/
^
/
/
/
/
^
A
/
y
./
^
/
' PRO
BUILDI
EN ERG
/
/
/
./
CES
NG
Y
J
S
F
/
MAI
MA'
x
s
/
x
NT
EF
Ef
IN
IA
JE
F
4<
L
-1
c
!!
y
10 234 56789100 234 567891000 20003 4 56789
10 100 1000
GENERATION RATE - kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OZONE GENERATION SYSTEMS
FIGURE 35
119
-------
1,000,
§
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,000
9
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
9
- 8
* I
40- 6
^ 5
co 4
O
0 3
i 2
O
1000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
000
f *
7
5
4
2
- *
6
5
4
3
_ 0
IO.OOC
: 1
6
4
3
2
1000
9
7
6
- v. 5
>»
- \ 4
x:
- I 3
o:
o
CD 5>
m z
_j
_ 100
^^
w^^ —
^^
/
.X
/
/
TO'
X
'AL
v
L
C
Al
D
)(
%• •
,1
10 234 56789100 234 567891000 20003 4 56789
GENERATION RATE-lb/Doy I0'°
00
10 100 1000
GENERATION RATE -kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OZONE GENERATION SYSTEMS
FIGURE 36
120
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
On-Site Hypochlorlte Generation
Sodium hypochlorite may he produced in an electrolysis cell using salt,
water and electrical energy. There are presently available two basic
types of equipment which generate sodium hypochlorite solution. Open-cell
systems have an electrolysis cell which includes an anode and cathode,
with the actual cell arrangement varying between manufacturers. Membrane-
type systems utilize a cell which has a membrane separating the anode and
cathode compartments. A principal difference between the open-cell and
membrane systems is the final sodium hypochlorite concentration. Manufac-
turers report a hypochlorite concentration of about 80,000 mg/1 for the
membrane cell and only about 5,000 to 8,000 mg/1 for the other electrolysis
cells. This has a pronounced effect on the required size of the hypochlorite
storage facilities and feed systems.
A construction cost curve is shown in Figure 37 for systems with chlorine
producing capacities ranging from 10 to 10,000 pounds per day of chlorine
equivalent (Note: One pound of C12 is equivalent to 1.05 pounds of sodium
hypochlorite). For systems with a chlorine producing capacity of up to
2,500 pounds per day, the equipment utilized in the cost curve was based
upon the open-cell systems. For systems from 2,500 to 10,000 pounds per
day of chlorine, membrane-type systems were utilized due to their lower
cost.
Components included in the construction cost estimate include the
electrolysis cells, power rectifier, salt storage tank and brine dissolver,
brine storage tank, water softener, brine transfer and metering pumps,
hypochlorite transfer and metering pumps, hypochlorite storage tank, piping
and valves, flowmeters, electrical control equipment and housing. It was
assumed that the hypochlorite is pumped by a metering pump to a location
for in-line mixing. The salt storage tank and brine dissolver was assumed
to be located outside of the housing for systems with chlorine producing
capacities of 500 pounds per day and larger.
A water softener is normally utilized as cleaning requirements are
minimized when the total hardness of the water use.d for brine make-up is
less than 30 mg/1. Use of purified salt is essential, either purchased
or purified on-site. Small systems generally use purchased purified salt,
but for systems with a chlorine producing capacity of greater than 2,000
pounds per day, it becomes economical to use a brine purification system
and less expensive rock salt. A brine purification system is included
in the cost estimate for systems larger than 2,000 pounds per day. The
salt storage tank and brine dissolver is assumed to have a storage capacity
of one month, while the sodium hypochlorite storage tank has a hypochlorite
storage of 24 hours.
A relatively rapid increase in the cost of hypochlorite generating
equipment occurs as the chlorine producing capacity increases from about
100 to 500 pounds per day. This increase occurs because systems of 100
121
-------
pounds per day and smaller capacity are pre-deslgned and purchased as pre-
fabricated units, whereas most systems of 500 pounds per day-and larger
capacity are custom-designed for the particular installation.
A detailed cost breakdown for generation systems is presented in Table
40 and a construction cost curve is shown in Figure 37.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
On-Site Hypochlofite Generation
Operation and maintenance costs have been developed from information
provided by manufacturers of on-site hypochlorite generation systems and
also from operation and maintenance cost guarantees contained in several
competitive bids. Operation and maintenance requirements are summarized
in Table 41 and illustrated in Figures: 38 and 39.
Energy requirements vary from about 2.0 to 4.7 kilowatt-hours per
pound of chlorine equivalent, with the lowes.t energy consumption by the
membrane-type cell. Energy requirements were developed using an electrolysis
cell and rectifier usage of 2.5 kwh per pound of equivalent chlorine.
Energy is also required for the electrical control system, the brine transfer
and metering pumps, and the sodium hypochlorite transfer and metering pumps
and is included under process energy. Electrical energy for lighting,
heating, and ventilating is included under building energy.
The largest maintenance material requirement is for electrode replating
or replacement. For estimating purposes, it was assumed that the electrodes
were replated, or recoated, every two years. For the electrolysis cell
utilizing a membrane, the entire electrolysis cell, including the anode,
cathode, membrane, and cell frame,- were assumed to be replaced every three
years. Other maintenance material requirements are for cell gaskets for
the membrane cell, for other miscellaneous: parts associated with the
electrolysis cells, and for materials needed for periodic repair of pumps,
motors, and electrical control equipment. Salt requirements of the different
manufactured equipment vary considerably. The reported salt requirements
vary from about 2.0 to 4.5 pounds of salt per pound of chlorine equivalent,
with the lowest salt consumption by the membrane-type system. Cost of
salt is not included in the cost curves.
•
Labor requirements are for salt delivery and handling, operation of
electrolysis cells, operation and maintenance of pumps, electrode replating
or replacing, occasional cleaning of electrolysis: cells, and for supplying
and mixing brine purification chemicals for the larger systems. Labor
requirements range from nearly one hour per day for the smallest system
up to about 11 hours per day for the 10,000 pound per day system. The
reduction in the labor requirement for the range from 100 to 200 pounds
per day of chlorine is attributable to a change in the method of salt delivery,
from a more labor intensive use of salt in bags to bulk salt delivery by
pneumatic truck. The increase in the range from 1,500 to 2,500 pounds
per day is due to the added labor required for brine purification, which
is. included for systems with a chlorine producing capacity of greater than
2,000 pounds per day.
122
-------
Table 40
Construction Cost
On-Site Hypochlorite Generation
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
steel
Labor
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
Hypochlorite Generation — Pounds/day of Equivalent Chlorine
$
$
10
5,600
—
—
3,000
1,000
6,210
15,810
2,370
18,180
50
12,000
—
—
5,000
2,350
7,160
26,510
3,980
30,490
250
65,
—
—
23,
3,
10,
101,
15,
117,
000
000
580
380
960
290
250
1,000
180
59
14
19
272
40
313
,000
180
240
,000
,000
,280
,700
,910
,610
2,500
290
93
20
22
425
63
489
,000
350
480
,000
,000
,060
,890
,880
,770
5,000
400
120
33
30
584
87
672
,000
350
480
,000
,000
,540
,370
,660
,030
10,000
550,000
530
720
165,000
33,000
34,380
788,630
118,290
906,920
-------
g
7
6
t
4
S
10,000,000
1
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,000
9
?
6
5
4
3
: «
CO
o
o
_ 100,000
~ 9
? 8
1- 7
0 1
cc 5
h-
co 4
z
0 3
0
2
iqooo
^__^-«
^^
^
S
4
yj
s
S
/
/
x
s
s'
^
/
^^
^*
>*
._*
10 234 56789100 234 567891000 2 3 4 5 6 78
HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION-lb/Day OF EQUIVALENT CHLORINE I0><
—f 1 • — 1
i
j
DOO
100 1000
HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION - kg/day of EQUIVALENT CHLORINE
CONSTRUCTION COST
ON-SITE HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION
FIGURE 37
124
-------
Table 41
Operation and Maintenance Summary
On-Site Hypochlorite Generation
nypocii-Lut .LUC ueiic.Lai-.njti
Pounds per day of
Equivalent Chlorine
10
50
250
1,000
2,500
5,000
10,000
Energy kwh/yr
Building
5,130
10,260
30,780
87,210
99,960
135,430
158,300
Process
9,120
45,600
228,000
912,000
2,280,000
4,560,000
9,120,000
Total
14,250
55,860
258,780
999,210
2,379,960
4,695,430
9,278,300
Maintenance
Material $/yr
860
1,700
3,700
9,200
19 , 300
35,200
66,300
Labor
hr/yr
330
510
710
1,080
1,920
2,700
3,820
Total Cost*
$/yr
4,590
8,480
18,560
49,980
109,900
203,060
382,850
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
100,000
10,000
4
6
I
4
i
1000
c
8
,1
- 5
1 4
_l
< 3
"ENANCE MATER
O
-JOMO O ro
T — i— H 1
2 6
< 5
5 4
3
2
10.
: §
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,00
: 1
7
6
5
4
3
2
I.OOC
9
8
^ 6
- -
C5
fR ^
z
LlJ
100,0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0,000
0,000
)000
F=^
00
/
^"
/
^''
_^
/_
_^
^
t ^
MA
MA'
/
X
^'
/
/
x
NTE
•ERI
/
.^
'U 2 3456789 100 2 3
X*
N/^NCE
AL
_/
_ ^
^r
X
— — -
/
BUILDII
^p-^
_ - ^^- —
x
/
/•% 1
J
456 7891000 20003
/
s
PI?OC
EIIER
NEiR'S'
^«-
456
i'3o
* -
789
^HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION- Ib/Doy OF EQUIVALENT CHLORINE I0'°0°
~ ~~
HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION - ke/day OF EQUIVALENT CHLORINE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ON -SITE HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION
FIGURE 38
126
-------
1,00
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,00
i
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
9
8
. 7
^ 6
h- 4
CO
8 3
i 2
o
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
>>00°n
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
9
7
4
- 2
1,000
6
- 4
1 3
L
/X
xx
AHC F
3 4 56789100 234 567891000 20003 456
/'
/
1
innr
HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION -Ib/ Day OF EQUIVALENT CHLORINE
^ —i —I
10 too 1000
HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION - kg/day OF EQUIVALENT CHLORINE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ON-SITE HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION
FIGURE 39
127
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Chlorine Dioxide Geriefatirig and Feed Systems
Chlorine dioxide is most commonly generated by mixing a high strength
chlorine solution with a high strenth sodium chlorite solution. Mixing
takes place in a PVC chamber filled with procelain Raschig Rings, the chamber
referred to as the chlorine dioxide generator. Chlorine dioxide may also
be generated by acidifying with sulfuric acid, solutions of sodium chlorite
and sodium hypochlorite. This method is only applicable in very small
installations with little operator time available, and is not included
in this cost curve
In theory, 1.34 pounds of pure sodium chlorite and 0.5 pounds of chlorine
react to give one pound of chlorine dioxide. However, since sodium chlorite
is normally purchased with a purity of 80 percent, 1.68 pounds of sodium
chlorite are required per pound of chlorine dioxide generated. Chlorine
is normally used at a 1:1 ratio with sodium chlorite, to insure completion
of_the reaction and to lower the PH to 4. The cost curves have been developed
using 1.68 pounds, of chlorine and 1.68 pounds of sodium chlorite per pound
of chlorine dioxide generated.
Costs have been based upon the addition of costs for a sodium chlorite
mixing and metering system, plus a chlorine dioxide generator, to the
appropriate sized chlorine feed system. The sodium chlorite system consists
of a polythelene day tank, a mixer for the day tank, and a dual head metering
pump. The chlorine dioxide generator is a PVC tube filled with porcelain
Raschig Rings or other turbulence producing media, and is sized for a
detention time of about 0.2 minutes.
Estimated construction costs are shown in Table 42 and Figure 40
presents the construction costs graphically.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems
Electrical requirements include power for the gaseous chlorination
system, the sodium chlorite mixing and metering system, and building heating
lighting, and ventilation. *"
*
Maintenance material requirements are based upon experience with gaseous
chlorine systems and liquid metering systems. Costs for sodium chlorite
and chlorine are not included.
Labor requirements consist of labor for gaseous chlorination systems,
plus the labor required to mix the sodium chlorite solution, to adjust its
feed rate, and to maintain the mixing and metering equipment.
Figure 41 and 42 present operation and maintenance curves for chlorine
dioxide generation systems. A summary of operation and maintenance require-
ments is presented in Table 43.
128
-------
Table 42
Construction Cost
Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems
Chlorine Dioxide Feed Capacity - Pounds/day
1 10 100 1,000 5.000
Manufactured Equipment $ 10,310 10,310 20,000 35,690 78,690
Labor 1,300 1,300 2,500 10,730 32,780
Pipe and Valves 370 370 1,000 2,300 7,460
Electrical and Instrumentation 2,500 2,500 3,300 10,200 11,300
Housing 8,750 8,750 13,130 17,060 35,610
SUBTOTAL 23,230 23,230 39,930 75,980 165,840
Miscellaneous and Contingency 3,480 3,480 5,990 11.400 24,880
TOTAL $ 26,710 26,710 45,920 87,380 190,720
-------
1
1
1
I
t
1,000,000
8
7
6
c
4
•*»• 3
1
1-
-------
Table 43
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems
Chlorine Dioxide
Feed Rate Energy kw-hr/yr
Ib/day
1
10
100
1,000
5,000
Building
12,310
12,310
26,680
58,480
136,460
Process
3,290
3,290
3,640
12,740
35,890
Total
15,600
15,600
30,320
71,220
172,350
Maintenance
Material Labor
$/yr hr/yr
1,040
1,730
2,650
4,830
8,050
481
604
873
2,342
5,632
Total Cost*
$/yr
6,320
8,240
12,290
30,390
69,540
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
1
6
5
4
3
2
w
>.
-69- 10,0
i f
MAINTENANCE MATER
O
o
Nootc O ro w ^ en ai
6
5
4
3
2
,
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 I
6
5
4
3
2
00
: *
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.C
9
- T
6
5
4
3
2
10,0"
9
- _ 8
- ^ 7
C 6
- f 4
- J 4
-5 3
a:
-S ?
LU
1000
— •*
)00
00
— ^M—
— •
—
^HM>
—
*** **"
_ — —
"• ~~ •*• ._
^ — •
h
__-^
. .— ^*^
-**^"
^-,
X^
^^
*^**
^
^
"~^^
MAI
MA
BUILC
X
- 2 e.
IU 234 56789100 2 34 567891000 2
CHLORINE DIOXIDE FEED CAPACITY- Ib/Day
~^f^
TE
FER
~^
JG
x
PR(
F
3
f^-
ANCE
IAL
E E'R
^
/>
ct:s3
ERGY
4567
...
89
10,00
'0 100 innn
CHLORINE DIOXIDE FEED CAPACITY-kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHLORINE DIOXIDE GENERATING AND FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 41
132
-------
10,000.
9
I0 2 5^6789100 234 567891000 20003 4 56789|0,000
CHLORINE DIOXIDE FEED CAPACITY-Ib/Day
10
100 1000
CHLORINE DIOXIDE FEED CAPACITY - kg/Day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
CHLORINE DIOXIDE GENERATING AND FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 42
133
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Ammonia Feed Facilities
A concept which may be used to provide disinfection without producing
trihalomethanes is the ammonia-chlorine process. Ammonia is added to water
prior to chlorination, and chloramines are formed when chlorine is added
A chlorine-ammonia ratio of 3:1 is required to produce a combined chlorine
residual which is mainly monochloramine.
Ammonia may be fed in either of two forms, anhydrous ammonia or aqua
ammonia. Anhydrous ammonia is purchased as a pressurized liquid, and is
ted through evaporators and ammoniators and then as a gas to the point of
application. Aqua ammonia is a solution of ammonia and water, and contains
/y.4 percent ammonia. Aqua ammonia is metered as a liquid directly to the
point of application.
Generally speaking, aqua ammonia is readily available near large cities
and is most commonly found in larger plants. A technical disadvantage of '
anhydrous ammonia can result if the gas produced by the ammoniator is used
to produce a high strength solution, to be fed to the application point.
in certain cases, magnesium precipitation occurs due to PH elevation which
results from ammonia solution. In some cases,, this severely restricts
effective ammoniator capacity.
Construction cost curves include only ammonia storage and feed facilities
Separate curves are included in this Report for chlorine feed systems.
Anhydrous: Ammonia
The cost curves include bulk ammonia storage for all feed rates with
10 days of storage provided. The storage tanks include the tank and its
supports, a scale, an air padding system, and all required gauges and
switches. The ammonia feed system consists of evaporator for flows in excess
of 2,000 pounds per day, an ammoniator, and flow proportioning equipment
Dry ammonia gas was assumed to be fed directly to the point of application,
rather than metering a high strength ammonia solution to the point of
application.
The construction cost curve for anhydrous ammonia feed facilities is
presented in Figure 43, and a detailed breakdown of construction cost is
shown in Table 44.
Aqua Ammonia
Aqua ammonia is stored in a horizontal pressure vessel with a length/
width ratio of approximately 3:1. Only one tank was used for each installa-
tion and the assumed usable storage capacity was 10 days. Construction
costs include the tank and Its supports, required piping and valves for
filling the tank from a bulk delivery truck and for conveying from the tank
to the metering pump, and the metering pump. A housing cost is not included,
because only the metering pump is housed, and it could easily be located in
a number of other housed areas.
134
-------
Table 44
Construction Cost
Anhydrous Ammonia Feed Facilities
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
Feed Capacity - Pounds /day
$
$
250
12,500
3,800
2,250
3,100
4,200
25,850
3,880
29,730
500
18,400
5,400
3,310
3,600
4,200
34,910
5,240
40,150
1,000
28,700
8,800
5,170
5,900
4,200
52,770
7,920
60,690
2,500
36,600
10,100
6,590
8,100
4,200
65,590
9,840
75,430
5,000
55,800
13,200
10,040
10,500
6,000
95,540
14,330
109,870
-------
c
1
6
i
4
C.
I
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,000
9
8
6
5
4
7
g 2
o
z
0 100,000
t- 9
o 8
3 7
£ 6
w 5
Z
0 4
o
3
2
10 000
— -
^
**•
, —
g**
^
,^
^
• r
^^
^
s^
—JP
X
x
^
/!NH
AOL
VDROUS
j • —•-
/ AMMC
AM
MIA
V10
^
100 2345 67891000 234 5678910000 20,000 4 5
FEED RATE- Ib/day
\
6 789
100 IO'OQ IO'ODO
FEED RATE -kg/day U'UU°
CONSTRUCTION COST
AMMONIA FEED FACILITIES
FIGURE 43
136
-------
The construction cost curve for aqua ammonia feed systems; is; presented
in Figure 43 and a detailed breakdown is contained in Table 45.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Anhydrous Ammonia Feed Facilities
Electrical energy requirements are for heating, lighting, and ventilating
of the ammoniator building, and operation of the evaporators. Evaporators
are only included for systems of 2,000 pounds per day or greater, and
evaporator energy requirements were calculated on the basis of 23.8 kw-hr/ton
of ammonia.
Maintenance material requirements were based upon operating experience
at similar size chlorination facilities. Anhydrous ammonia costs are not
included in the maintenance material costs.
Labor requirements are for transfer of the hulk anhydrous ammonia from
the delivery truck or rail car to the on-aite ammonia storage tank, plus
day to day operation and maintenance requirements. A bulk unloading time
of 3 hours per shipment was utilized. Operation and maintenance requirements
varied from roughly one and a half hours per day for the smaller systems
to three hours per day for larger systems.
Figures 44 and 45 present the operation and maintenance curves, and
Table 46 presents a summary of the operation and maintenance requirements.
Aqua Ammonia Feed Facilities
Electrical energy costs are only for operation of the metering pump.
Due to the small indoor area required for the metering pump and standby
pump no allowance is included for building heating, lighting, and ventilation.
Transfer of aqua ammonia from the bulk truck to the storage tank was assumed
to be by a pump located on the bulk truck.
Maintenance material costs are for repair parts- for the metering pump,
valve repair, and painting of the storage tank. Aqua ammonia costs: are
not included in the maintenance material costs.
Labor costs include 15 minutes per day for operational labor, 24 hours
per year for maintenance labor, and one hour per unloading of the bulk
delivery truck.
Operation and maintenance requirements are presented in Figures 46
and 47 and summarized in Table 47.
137
-------
Lo
00
Table 45
Construction Cost
Aqua Ammonia Feed Facilities
Feed Capacity - Pounds/day
250 _JOO 1.000 2,500 5,000
Manufactured Equipment $ 7,630 9,830 12,710 18,230 26,710
Labor 960 970 1,130 1,220 1,360
Pipe and Valves 630 630 860 1,590 1,590
Electrical and Instrumentation 1,000 2,400 2,800 5,000 7,200
SUBTOTAL 10,220 13,830 17,500 26,040 36,860
Miscellaneous and Contingency 1,530 2,070 2,630 3,910 5,530
TOTAL $ 11,750 15,900 20,130 29,950 42,390
-------
Table 46
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Anhydrous Ammonia Feed Facilities
Ammonia
Feed Rate
Ib/day
250
500
1,000
2,500
5,000
Energy
kw-hr/yr
Building Process
10,260
10,260
10,260
10,260
15,390
—
8,690
21,720
43,450
Total
10,260
10,260
18,950
31,980
58,840
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
2,860
3,300
4,400
5,500
7,700
Labor
hr/yr
500
580
630
780
990
Total Cost*
$/yr
8,070
9,310
11,170
14,160
19,220
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
7
6
5
4
10,000
1
7
6
5
4
3
2 -
1000
9
8
7
6
5
• 4
-w-
_l
<
lit
O
z
I
9
8
7
6
8-
2-
I
i
(
1
t
t
c
7
6
K
4
2
100,000
9
87
6
5
4
3
2
X
= 10,000
s 1
ae °
' I
5 5
2 4
z
3
2
1000
**•
w~
*£
~~*
^^^
^
^
J
**~
•^
/
**
*>--
M/ill
2 1
**
B
• i : MNCE
no CESS i
JL.DING E
M;
NEI
NEF
'00 Z 3 4 567891000 234 56789(0(000 20pOO
AMMONIA FEED RATE-ib/Day
TE
G1
GY
4
RIM
5 6 789
100 1000 10,000
AMMONIA FEED RATE -kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ANHYDROUS AMMONIA FEED FACILITIES
FIGURE 44
140
-------
1"
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOO,C
1
6
5
4
3
2
*'$
** 8
1 7
h- 6
8 5
0 4
_i ,
O
1- 2
1000
7
6
5
4
3
2
-
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
I
6
5
— 4
3
2
100
: 9
8
6
4
3
2
1000
9
8
7
6
5
w -
-.CO
1.
ac.
m
inn
~w«
_•«•
—
.— •
a
«—
— •
•
•
e:
» •"
.--*•
.^r-
.~^~^
L
x-^
^^
ABC
x'
^
R
X1
TOT/
L (
OS
T
100
AMMONIA FEED RATE-lb/Day
100 1000 10,000
AMMONIA FEED RATE-lb/Day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ANHYDROUS AMMONIA FEED FACILITIES
FIGURE 45
141
-------
Table 47
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Aqua Ammonia Feed Facilities
Ammonia Feed Process Energy Maintenance Material
Rate - Ib/day kw-hr/yr $/yr Labor hr/yr Total Cost - $/yr*
250 570 100 152 1,640
500 570 150 152 1,690
1,000 570 250 152 1,790
2,500 570 400 152 1,940
5,000 570 600 152 2,140
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
lOOg.
I 2
100
7
LU 6
z 5
< 4
K
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
6
5
4
3
2
10,0
9
!
6
5
4
3
2
k_
>»
^10
i!
> 5
0 4
or *
u ,
z 3
LU
2
100
DO
MAir
M<
00
TEr
TEF
X
IANC
•*'
X
-
'
X
x
/
X
x
X
x^
X
^
p
.
X
RC
C
3 >
i :NERGY
100 234 567891000 234 56789IOpOO 2 3 4 56789
AMMONIA FEED RATE- Ib/day
100
-t-
1000 10,000
AMMONIA FEED RATE-kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
AQUA AMMONIA FEED FACILITIES
FIGURE 46
143
-------
§
7
6
5
4
3
2
£
$
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
9
1 5
O
o 3
_i
g 2
1000.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
7
6
5
4
i
2
L I
i- 8
i- 7
6
- 5
3
2
9
8
6
- 5
4
3
2
1000
9
g
7
6
5
- j= 3
i
cc
-02
GO
_J
inn
^mm
^^m
•^
— — -
... —
=— •
L/
100 2345 6789(000 2 3
*«•
B<
.—
R
•*
TOT/
456 789IOOOO 2
L
3
CO
N-
456 789
AMMONIA FEED RATE-lb/Day
•4-
100 1000
AMMONIA FEED RATE -kg/day
-4-
10,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
AQUA AMMONIA FEED FACILITIES
FIGURE 47
144
-------
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Alum Feed Systems
Liquid Alum
Cost estimated for liquid alum feed systems: are b.as:ed upon use of liquid
alum, which has a weight of 10 pounds per gallon and contains the equivalent
of 5 pounds of commercial dry alum per gallon. Fifteen days of storage
are provided using fiberglas reinforced polyester (FRP) tanks. The FRP
tanks were assumed to b.e uncovered and located Indoors for smaller Installa-
tions, and outdoors for larger Installations. Outdoor tanks are covered
and vented, with insulation and heating provided to prevent crystallization,
which occurs at temperatures helow 30°F.
Dual head metering pumps were used to pump liquid alum from the storage
tank and meter the flow directly to the point of application. No provision
was made for dilution of the liquid alum prior to application. A standby
metering pump was Included for each installation. All pipe utilized to
convey the liquid alum was 316 stainless steel, and 150 feet of pipe, along
with miscellaneous fittings, and valves were included for each metering pump.
Construction costs for liquid alum feed are presented In Table 48 and
shown graphically on Figure 48.
Dry Alum
Cost estimates for solid alum feed facilities; are based upon use of
commercial dry alum with a density of 60 pounds per cubic foot. A five
minute detention period Is required In the dissolving tank, and 2 gallons
of water are used per pound of alum. Fifteen days of dry alum storage Is
Included, using mild steel storage hoppers located Indoors. Conveyance
of alum from hulk delivery trucks to the,hoppers Is pneumatically with the
blower located on the delivery truck. The largest hopper capacity utilized
was 6,000 cubic feet. For Installations too small for bulk delivery, bag
loaders are used on the feeder. All hopper facilities Included dust
collectors.
Volumetric feeders for the smaller Installations: and mechanical weigh
belt feeders for the large Installations and their respective solution tanks
were located directly beneath the storage hoppers, eliminating the need
for bucket elevators or other conveyance devices; from below ground storage.
Such Installation does, however, make the building cost somewhat greater
than other possible arrangements. Conveyance from the solution tanks to
the point of application was by dual head dlaphram metering pumps.
Construction cost estimates for solid alum feed are presented in Table
49 and shown graphically In Figure 48.
145
-------
Table 48
Construction Cost
Liquid Alum Feed Systems
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation 3,000
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
5.4
$ 4,200
950
940
n 3,000
5,500
14,590
2,190
$ 16,780
54
5,480
1,170
940
3,250
13,970
24,810
3,720
28,530
540
23,950
4,220
940
4,700
25,840
59,650
8,950
68,600
5.400
188,730
34,570
4,680
14,100
8,400
250,480
37,570
288,050
-------
Table 49
Construction Cost
Dry Alum Feed Systems
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
$
$
7
2
1
6
17
2
19
Feed
10
,500
420
,000
,110
,000
,030
,550
,580
Capacity -
100
13,100
1,130
2,500
2,260
13,300
32,290
4,840
37,130
Pounds /hr
1,
33,
2,
3,
4,
51,
95,
14,
109,
000
560
430
000
960
270
220
280
500
5,
160
12
15
19
174
381
57
438
000
,940
,160
,000
,000
,590
,690
,250
,940
-------
•w-
I
O
O
O
I-
o
r>
o:
CO
o
o
7
6
5
4
3
2
l,000,(
1
6
5
4
3
2
100,0
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
IO.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1000
300
00
=— —
0
.-.^
.-*
.—
,•••'
*-»
^
s
X
^
?•
•i.
DRY
x^
/
^
/**
LI
/
X
Ql
^
Jl
— f-
D
10
4 56789100 234 567891000
ALUM FEED RATE-lb/hr
4 5 6789
10,000
10
100
ALUM FEED RATE-kg/hr
CONSTRUCTION COST
ALUM FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 48
1000
L48
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Alinn Feed Sys terns
Electrical requirements are for solution mixers, feeder operation,
building lighting, ventilation, and heating and in the case of larger liquid
feed installations, for heating of outdoor storage tanks. The sharp decrease
in the building energy curve for high feed rates Is attributable to the
use of outdoor storage tanks, as contrasted to use of indoor storage tanks
at lower flow rates.
Maintenance material costs were estimated on the basis of three percent
of the manufactured equipment cost, excluding storage tank cost. Alum costs
are not included in the maintenance material costs.
Labor requirements consist of time for chemical unloading and routine
operation and maintenance of feeding equipment. Liquid alum unloading
requirements were calculated on the basis of 1.5 hours per bulk truck delivery,
and dry alum requirements on the basis of 5 hours per 50,00.0 pounds. For
dry feed Installations using alum from bags, 8 hours were used per 16,000
pounds removed and fed to the bag loader hopper. Time for routine Inspection
and adjustment of feeders Is 10 minutes/feeder/shift for dry feed and 15
minutes/metering pump/shift for liquid feed. Maintenance requirements were
8 hours per day for liquid metering pumps and 24 hours: per day for solid
feeders and the solution tank.
Figures 49 to 52 present operation and maintenance costs for both liquid
alum feed and dry alum feed. A summary of operation and maintenance
requirements Is presented In Table 50.
149
-------
Table 50
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Alum Feed Systems
0
3
i— 1
<
>,
M
Q
1
r- 1
<
T3
•H
3
cr
•H
I-J
Alum Feed Rate
10 Ib/hr
100 Ib/hr
1,000 Ib/hr
5,000 Ib/hr
5.4 Ib/hr
54 Ib/hr
540 Ib/hr
5,400 Ib/hr
Energy kw-hr/yr
Building
6,160
23,090
63,920
320,630
5,130
245210
99,520
10,260
Process
4,900
4,900
6,530
9,800
3,270
3,270
5,450
116,340
Total
11,060
27,990
70,450
330,430
8,400
27,480
104,970
126,600
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
180
210
300
1,330
70
70
100
330
Labor
hr/yr
288
332
1,124
4,624
63
63
63
315
Total Cost*
$/yr
VI J *-
3,390
4,370
13,650
57,480
950
1,520
3,880
7,280
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
-w-
I
1090
I
6
5
4
3
2
IT
Ul
< 100
111
u
z w
z 5
iii 4
I-
i 3
1000
3 4 56789100 234 56789KX50 20003 4 56789
LIQUID ALUM FEED RATE-lb/hr 10,000
10
-H
100
1000
LIQUID ALUM FEED RATE-kg/hr
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
LIQUID ALUM FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 49
151
-------
I
6
5
4
3
2
I0,(
5
f
6
5
4
3
2
1000
9
i 8
X 7
•«*• 6
1 5
0
0 3
_l
K 2
O
1-
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
DOO
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,0
1 1
u 8
r 7
4
3
2
1000
9
8
w
~ iT 5
f
~ 1 4
O °
CD
100
00
1 —
^— '
.*:
^*
^'-
.-^
x^
-^
^v
X*
•>•
•e
«•
?
^'
Bi-
^^^
*
TOT
X"*
!\L
X
10 234 56789100 234 567891000 200Q3
LIQUID ALUM FEED RATE - Ib/hr
^
CO
L
H
3T
/
i\E
0
R
456 789
10,000
'0 do 1600
LIQUID ALUM FEED RATE - kg/hr
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
LIQUID ALUM FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 50
152
-------
Ui
IO.OC
I"
7
6
5
4
3
2
I00(
o
1
6
5
4
2
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
7
6
5
4
3
2
D 1,000
9
i
6
5
4
3
2
100,
9
\ •
- £ 6
5 5
tf- m CVJ O O>OOf^(D 1
1-A3d3N3 2
ii i .iiii
4
3
- 2
1000
,000
BSBBSBS
000
00
^^
—»^—
10
•••
— •
••i
X
••••••
••••
••••
— • •
^
X
M • •
..— — •
X
^ F
Bl— —
•— •
X"
•••
— •
x|
^~
**
t^
~*
^ *
~**
MAINT
MATEF
V^
^x^
^
s
-^
PRO
LNA
IAL
— ^
/
1^^"
IES
MCI
X-
;
Bl
E
^^
1
X
/
IL
NE
N
/
/
DNG
FGY
RG1
234 56789100 234 567891000 234 56789
10,000
DRY ALUM FEED RATE-lb/hr
i
10 100 1000
DRY ALUM FEED RATE-kg/hr
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
DRY ALUM FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 51
153
-------
-to
*
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.OC
6
5
4
3
2
- ' 9
6
5
3
2
1000
7
6
5
4
3
2
' I
7
6
5
4
3
2
30
o>o>f-
^
/
y
^
^
456 7891000 2
FEED RATE-lb/hr
TO
x
3
TAI
/
LA
/
^
B(
A
w
F
DS'
456 789
10,000
ib ibo IO'QO
DRY ALUM FEED RATE-kg/hr
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
DRY ALUM FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 52
154
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Polymer Feed Systems
Cost estimates for polymer feed systems are based upon the use of dry
polymers, fed manually to a storage hopper located on the chemical feeder.
Chemical feed equipment is based upon preparation of a 0.25 percent stock
solution. No provision has been made for standby or redundant equipment,
as polymer would generally be utilized only as a coagulant aid or a filter
aid, and thus an equipment breakdown could be tolerated for a short period
of time while equipment is repaired.
In addition to the manufactured feeder and solution tank, costs have
also been included for the water piping to the feeder and a polymer solution
line out of the building, installation labor, the cost of housing for the
feeder/mixer, and a bag storage area for up to 15 days storage.
The estimated costs are presented on Table 51 and are shown graphically
in Figure 53.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Polymer Feed Systems
Energy requirements for the feeder and metering pump were calculated
using motor horsepower requirements recommended by manufacturers. Building
energy requirements are based upon completely housed systems.
Maintenance material costs used are 3 percent of manufactured equipment
and pipe/valve costs. These costs do not Include the cost of polymer.
Labor requirements are for bag unloading, 1 hour per ton of bags, the
dry chemical feeder, 110 hours/year for routine operation and 24 hours per
year for maintenance, and the solution metering pump, 55 hours/year for
routine operation and 8 hours per year for maintenance.
Figures 54 and 55 present the estimated operation and maintenance costs
for feeding of a 0.25 percent polymer solution. The operation and maintenance
requirements are summarized In Table 52.
155
-------
Table 51
Construction Cost
Polymer Feed Systems
Capacity j-lb/ day
.
________ 1... ......... 10_._ 100 200
H Manufactured Equipment $ 11,000 11,000 13,880 17,880
°* Labor 670 670 670 720
Pipe and Valves 260 260 260 280
Electrical and Instrumentation 1,230 1,230 1,230 1,230
Housing 3,, 360 3.360 3,780 4,200
SUBTOTAL 16,520 16,520 19,820 24,310
Miscellaneous and Contingency Jm,480 2^480 2^970 3,650
TOTAL $ 19,000 19,000 22,790 27,960
-------
7
6
5
4
3
Z
1,000,0
|
8
6
5
4
3
2
«. 100.0
i 9
i_ 8
w 7
0 6
0 5
3 4
£ d
3
P 2
to
z
o
° !O,0
9
8
r
6
5
4
3
Z
00
oo
^•••^^M
00
i
•i^M
^•M
^ • •
• I m^mm^—^
^^0
^
»-!
..-"
=
2 345 6789IO 2 3456 789IOO ZOO 3 4 5 6789
POLYMER FEED RATE- !b/day
10
POLYMER FEED RATE - kg /day
CONSTRUCTION COST
POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 53
157
-------
L/l
OO
Table 52
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Polymer Feed Systems
Polymer Fee<
Rate Ib/day
1
10
100
200
3 Energy kw-hr/yr
Building
8,210
8,210
9,230
10,260
Process
17,300
17,300
17,300
17,300
Total
25,510
25,510
26,530
27,560
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
240
260
290
440
Labor
hr/yr
198
199
215
234
Total Cost*
$/vr
T / J •*-
2,990
3,020
3,240
3,610
*Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
I
6
5
4
3
2
1000
cc
ui
S
5
ui
o
z
<
z
UI
I- 10
z
<
2 7
9
7
6
b
4
3
2
9
8
6
b
4
2
IOO.C
9
8
<«
s 4
T 3
o
UJ ^
Ul
IO.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1000
Mi^MBB
poo
i^^BHBH
)0
M^BBMi
^^»
••^
«••
2
— i —
•1M
MB
••I
3
— i -• •
!•• H •
•• • •
. . — —
• •^•^•M
• «"^™^
^^«
^iBM
^••a
•^ ~" ~
•^ ^ —
i^ — •
^s
* *^
MAIN
MATE
PROC
• • ••Mi^M
- - *-~*
TTTT
BUIl
{
EN-
RIA
SS
•• —
)IN
NCE
EIJER
:
i _
4 5 678910 2 34567 89100 200 3 456 rtja
POLYMER FEED RATE- Ib/day
POLYMER FEED RATE -kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 54
159
-------
O
O
_l
<
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
/
6
5
4
3
2
IOC
f
6
5
4
2
c
7
6
5
4
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
00
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0 100
9
8
- > -S
- i 4
1
O
GO
100
D
M^WMM
• • •WM^—
T -
MMM^
••M
•••
K — —
^ M ••
T
— . '
L
TA
4BC
2 3, 4 56 78 9 10 2 3456 789100 203
POLYMER FEED RATE-lb/doy
R
4
COM
5 6 789
POLYMER FEED RATE-kg/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
,00
FIGURE 55
160
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Rapid Mix
Construction costs were calculated for reinforced concrete basins
ranging in size from 100 cubic feet to 20,000 cubic feet. The largest basin
capacity utilized was 2,500 cubic feet, and common wall construction was
utilized when more than one basin was required. Mixer costs are for vertical
shaft, variable speed, turbine mixers, with 304 stainless steel shafts and
paddles, and TEFC motors. Construction costs for G values of 300, 600 and
900, (3, 6, and 20 foot-pounds per second per cubic foot respectively) and
a water temperature of 15°C are presented in Figure 56 and in Tables 53 to
55.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Rapid Mix
Power requirements are a function of G and water temperature. At a
water temperature of 15°C and G values of 300, 600 and 900, energy require-
ments were calculated on the basis of respective horsepower per unit volume
requirements, of 3, 6, and 20 foot-pounds: per second per cubic foot. An
overall mechanism efficiency of 70 percent was: utilized.
Maintenance material costs consist of oil for the gearbox drive unit.
Labor requirements were determined using a jar testing time of one
hour per day for plants under 50 mgd and two hours: per day for plants over
50 mgd, 15 minutes per mixer per day for routine 0 & M, and 4 hours- per
mixer per 6 months for oil changes. An allowance of 8 hours per basin per
year was also included for draining, inspection, and cleaning.
Figures 57 and 58 show operation and maintenance curves for the rapid
mix units, and a summation is presented in Table 56.
161
-------
Table 53
Construction Cost
Rapid Mix G = 300
N3
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical and Instrumentation
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
Total Basin Volume -
$
2
1
6
11
1
$ 13
100
210
,890
370
520
,170
,670
,830
,770
,600
3
1
2
6
14
2
16
500
360
,470
820
,220
,190
,670
,730
,210
,940
4
1
1
3
6
18
2
20
1,000
470
,640
,210
,820
,240
,670
,050
,710
,760
5,000
1,290
16,380
3,
5,
8,
10,
44,
6,
51,
410
070
090
280
520
670
190
ft3
10
2
32
6
10
16
19
87
13
100
,000
,590
,760
,810
,130
,190
,230
,710
,160
,870
20,
5,
65,
13,
20,
32,
35,
172,
25,
198,
000
190
520
630
260
390
990
980
950
930
-------
Table 54
Construction Coat
Rapid Mix G = 600
Total Basin Volume - ft
Excavation and Sitework $
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical and Instrumentation
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL $
100
210
3,250
370
520
1,240
6,670
12,260
1,840
14,100
500
360
4,640
820
1,220
2,440
6,670
16,150
2,420
18,570
1,000
470
6,960
1,210
1,820
3,680
6,670
20,810
3,120.
23,930
5,000
1,290
25,200
3,410
5,070
8,930
11.060
54,960
8,240
63,200
10,000
2,590
50,400
6,810
10,130
17,860
19.930
107,720
16,160
123,880
20,000
5,190
100,800
13,630
20,260
35,720
37.760
213,360
32,000
245,360
-------
Table 55
Construction Cost
Rapid Mix G - 900
Total Basin Volume - ft3
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical and Instrumentation
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
_100_
210
4,060
370
520
1,170
6.670
13,000
1,950
500
360
9,270
820
1,220
2,190
6,670
20,530
3,080
1,000
470
13,910
1,210
1,820
3,240
6,860
27,510
4,130
5.000
1,290
63,000
3,410
5,070
12,500
7,140
92,410
13,860
lOjOOO
2,590
126,000
6,810
10,130
25,000
8,370
178,900
26,840
20,000
5,190
252,000
13,630
20,260
50,000
15,380
356,460
53,470
$ 14,950 23,610 31,640 106,270 205,740 409,930
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST - $
CD
C
TB
m
Ol
0)
-------
Table 56
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Rapid Mix
Total Basin
Volume - ft3
100
500
1,000
2,500
5,000
10,000
20,000
Energy
G = 300
5,090
25,450
50,900
127,250
254,500
kw-hr/yr
G = 600
10,180
50,900
101,800
254,500
509,000
509,000 1,018,000
1,018,000 2,036,000
G - 900
33,930
169,670
339,330
848,330
1,696,700
3,393,300
6,786,670
Maintenance
Material
^ I\T1-
v/yr
20
30
40
60
75
150
300
Labor
nr/yr
470
470
470
510
580
1,160
1,590
Total
G = 300
4,870
5,490
6,270
8,980
13,510
27,020
46,740
Cost -
G = 600
5,030
6,260
7,790
12,800
21,150
42,290
77,280
$/yr*
G - 900
5,740
9,820
14,920
30,610
56,780
113,550
219,800
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
f
6
5
4
*
2
1000
9
8
7
6
K
< 4
^^ 1
1
< %
E
iij
i-
s 100
uj i
o 7
| 6
z 5
z 4
I
10
|
o r
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
3
8
6
5
4
3
2
100,
9
*i!
- •* 4
1
cc
- £2
UJ
10,0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOOC
,000
000
_^
/
oo y
b^ —
•^^
y
/
— —
/
— •
>
y
7^~
/
•*•
— ^
y^
^
y
"-/—]
^**
+ ^
,
>
^
X
/
/
y*
— ;
y
^
y
y
y
^__
xM
y^
r
_ — ^
[y/
/' PR(
EN
y
=>RC
bNt
PHI
ENE
Ct:
ERG
MA
MA
Ct
Kt
Ch
RG
S
' —
INI
FE
s
Y- G-
SS
G=30
tl/L
0 J
/ |
100 234 567891000 234 5678910000 20000 4 56789
TOTAL RAPID MIX VOLUME - ft3 IOO.OC
1 __ 1 — 1
10
100
1000
TOTAL RAPID MIX VOLUME-m3
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
RAPID MIX
FIGURE 57
167
-------
1,000,000
1
6
5
4
3
2
^
JlOC
i 1
w i.
0 6
0 5
* 4
1 3
2
IO.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOOC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 -
2 -
- I
€
•
4
2
2
,000
: 1
6
5
4
3
2
0 10,0
: 9
8
6
5
4
3
2
) I00(
9
8
i- 7
^6
- - 5
f
- | 4
- S i
m
<
- -J 2
100
00
•»___•-••
)
«•— •
^*^
s=»
MMM
*'_
^*f. _
jsai «- — • —
jS
../
>' >
-_.
-
- . •
y
x
X
^^-
i
X
S
'/
/
±::
I
/
' -7^
1 1 1 1 ^
._, f
^r
' /
11
X
*•-
IN
1
"F~
i
100 z 3 4 567891000 234 5678910000 20000
TOTAL RAPID MIX VOLUME- ff3
)T/!L C
G=9
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Flocculatlon
Estimated flocculation basin costs are for rectangular shaped reinforced
concrete structures, 12 feet deep, with common wall construction where the
total basin volume exceeded 12,500 cubic feet. A length to width ratio
of approximately 4:1 was used for basin sizing and the maximum basin size
utilized was 12,500 cubic feet. Structural costs for vertical turbine
flocculators are somewhat higher than for the horizontal paddle type due
to the required structural support above the basin. Costs were calculated
for use of horizontal paddle flocculators and total basin volumes between
1,800 and 1,000,000 cubic feet, but only between 1,80.0 and 25,000 cubic
feet for vertical turbine type. Horizontal paddles are less expensive for
use in larger basins, and generally provide more satisfactory operation
in the larger basins, particularly when tapered flocculation is practiced.
G values of 20, 50 and 80 were used to calculate manufactured equipment
costs. All drive units are variable speed, to allow maximum flexibility.
Although common drive for two or more parallel basins is commonly utilized,
the estimated costs were calculated using individual drive for each basin.
Estimated costs for horizontal paddle systems are shown in Figure 59 and
on Tables 57 to 59 and for vertical turbine flocculators in Figure 60 and
on Table 60.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Flocculation
Energy requirements for G values of 20, 50 and 80 were calculated on
the basis of respective horsepower per unit volume requirements of 0.01,
0.06 and 0.17 foot-pounds per second per cubic foot. An overall motor/
mechanism efficiency of 60 percent was utilized.
Maintenance material costs are based upon 3 percent of the manufactured
equipment costs. Although equipment costs vary somewhat with the maximum
design value for G, the maintenance material costs are based upon a G value
of 80.
Labor requirements are based on routine 0 & M of 15 minutes: per day
per basin (maximum basin volume = 12,500 cubic feet) and an oil change every
six months requiring four hours per change. No allowance is included for
jar test time, as this is included in the rapid mix 0 & M curves.
Figures 61 and 62 present operation and maintenance costs for G = 20,
50 and 80 for horizontal paddle flocculation. Costs for vertical turbine
flocculators are nearly identical, and are not shown separately. However,
the cost curves are applicable to vertical turbine flocculators. only up
to basin volumes of 25,000 cubic feet. Table 61 summarizes the operation
and maintenance requirements.
169
-------
Table 57
Construction Cost
Flocculation - Horizontal Paddle G = 20
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical and Instrumentation
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
Total. .Basin Volume -- ft3
$
$
1,800
450
11,440
1,320
2,140
6,740
6,670
28,760
4,310
33,070
10,000
2,430
26,620
7,180
11,370
19,240
27,050
93,890
14,080
107,970
25,000
4,080
29,620
12,020
18,520
26,740
27,050
118,030
17,700
135,730
100,000
9,490
51,370
28,090
42,140
66,540
27,050
224,680
33,700
258,380
500,000
38,130
111,560
113,480
158,840
178,260
135,270
735,540
110,330
845,870
1,000,000
73,870
219,370
219,790
307,640
355,280
270,540
1,446,490
216,970
1,663,460
-------
Table 58
Construction Cost
Flocculation - Horizontal Paddle G = 50
Excavation and Sitewbrk
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical and Instrumentation
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
Total Basin Volume - ft3
1,800
$ 450
11,440
1,320
2,140
6,740
6,670
28,760
4,310
$ 33,070
10,000
2,430
26,630
7,180
11,370
19,240
27,050
93,900
14,090
107,990
25,000
4,080
33,380
12,020
18,520
27,990
27,050
123,040
18,460
141,500
100,000
9,490
70,130
28,090
42,140
71,790
27,050
248,690
37,300
285,990
500,000
38,130
208,130
113,480
158,840
210,450
135,270
864,300
129,650
993,950
1,000,000
73,870
408,750
219,790
307,640
418,400
270,540
1,698,990
254,850
1,953,840
-------
Table 59
Construction Cost
Flocculation - Boris cntal Paddle G - 80
Total Basin Volume -ft*
__________
7800" iCOQO 25.000 100,000
Excavation and Sitework $ 450 2,430 4,080 9,490 38,130
Manufactured Equipment 11,440 32,250 41,810 109,130 403,130
Concrete 1,320 7,180 12,020 28,090 113,480
Steel 2,140 11,370 18,520 42,140 158,840
Labor 6,740 21,110 30,800 85,790 275,450
Electrical and Instrumentation 6 ,670 27r050 27,050 27,050 135,270
SUBTOTAL 28,760 101,390 134,280 301,690 1,124,300
Miscellaneous and Contingency ^4^310 15^210 20t140 45^ 250 168,650
TOTAL $ 33,070 116,600 154,420 346,940 1,292,950
-------
^
7
6
5
4
3
2
I,OOO,(
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
•W"
^ 100,
to 9
0 8
o 7
6
1 5
-^ 2
f~
to
z 2
O
o
10.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.DOO
>00
000
)0
x^
x^
*
(X1
+.
0 *
S ' i
!;X— -1
H
-^
X
x
x
>
s
s
jS
S\//>
.'/
*
6 =
-/•
/>
f
80
/I
<
— ,
/I
G
i .,
/
~3
-'
i
c
^
tc
Ci
^
^ ^
\
j
1000 234 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 56789
BASIN VOLUME-ft 3 I.OOO.OOO
100
-f-
iOOO
BASIN VQLUME-m:
10,000
CONSTRUCTION COST
FLOCCULATION-HORIZONTAL PADDLE
FIGURE 59
173
-------
Table 60
Construction Cost
Flocculation - Vertical Turbine
Total Basin Volume - ft3
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical and Instrumentation
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
G=20
$
6,
1,
2,
6,
6,
25,
3,
$ 29,
600
880
820
870
890
670
730
860
590
1,
800 ftd
G=50
6
1
2
6
6
25
3
29
600
,880
,820
,870
,890
,670
,730
,860
,590
G=80
6,
1,
2,
6,
6,
25,
3,
29,
600 /
880
820
870
890
670
730
860
590
10,000 ft6
G=20
2,400
13,800
7,280
11,300
21,030
27,050
82,860
12,430
95,290
G=50
2,400
15,000
7,280
11,300
21,380
27,050
84,060
12,610
96,670
G=80
2,400
15,000
7,280
1 1 , 300
21,380
27,050
84,060
12,610
96,670
G=20
3,090
27,500
11,600
17,580
35,270
27,050
122,090
18,310
140,400
25,000 ft6
G=50
3,090
27,500
11,600
17,580
35,270
27,050
122,090
18,310
140,400
G=80
3,090
32,500
11,600
17,580
36,520
27,050
127,090
19,060
146,150
-------
7
6
5
4
3
2
I.OOO.C
7
6
5
4
3
2
,_ IOO.C
V) 9
8 8
6
K 4
o
i 3
w
o
I0,0(
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
)00
00
^
DO
X
X
X
/
/
,
X
x
G
—
),5
C,or80
1000 234 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 5 6 789
BASIN VOLUME-ft 3
100
1000
BASIN VOLUME- m3
10,000
CONSTRUCTION COST
FLOCCULATION-VERTICAL TURBINE
FIGURE 60
175
-------
Table 61
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Flocculation
Total Basin
Volume - ft3
1,800
10,000
25,000
100,000
500,000
1,000,000
Energy kw-hr/yr
G - 20 o - ^n
330
1,960
4,900
19,600
98,020
198,230
2,070
11,870
29,630
118,720
593,590 1,
1,188,300
r; - 80
6,100
33,660
84,080
336,550
682,750
—
Maintenance
Material
<>/vr
9/yr
380
980
980
3,750
13,500
27,000
Labor
T,_ /,T —
nr/ yr
99
199
199
397
496
990
Total Cost -
— zu
1,380
3,030
3,120
8,310
21,400
42,850
U - JJU
1,430
3,330
3,860
11,280
36,270
72,550
$/yr*
G = 80
1,550
3,980
5,490
17,820
68,940
—
*Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
o
o
31
o
c
35
m
en
_
|-
O
O
o
c:
r~
H
Q
z
0 o-
"D °
rn
H
om
«v CD
z >
t2
^
_ <
0?
c _,
~. s°-
g m o
^ , o
P» 1
H w
m
z
z
0
m
0
"o.
o
o
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL -$/yr
9 O
Ol -Ik Ol 0>-400(0 O
T
1 - 1
II
ro
—r~
Ol
—T~
Ol
~rr
O
p
>-MHO o
I I i IQ
4k Ol -JC9IO
—I—I—I—I I ' I
8
o
ro
01
*.
Ol
0)
^1
00
9 10,000 2 3 45678
BASIN VOLUME -ft3
(O
8
o
ro
01
*
01
~C> *
O ->l
O CO
0<0
o
O
0 ENERGY- kw-hr/yr _ _ .-
8 ro 01 * 01 o> ^ia>(0 ° ro 01 * 01 o>-K»
\
\
^
^
\
->
S
S~
s
k,
Sk.
X
X
— x~
X
S
\
s
\
- • - \
\
S
\
V
— ^
•£.
2>
$5
CUrn
^z
>r>
rc5
m
s
>
s
\
s
s
s
>.
>
~ s
s
r~s
~ s
S^
\
s
^
s
o
>
'v
V
\
V
>s
s
V
^^
^
?B
torn
03)
0
V
\
\
X,
V
s
1
s
\
-o
It
o
o
CO
V)
k.
1 S>
^,
X
S
S
s
s
\
s
s
\
s
s, -
y
s
o
o
o
V
\
\
) _ _____
^
--Nr—
m
z
n
3J
o
s -<
y
Sv 0
X "
-" -^
x
m"0
z5
mo
3%
-
s
\
T3
O
f$ —
m
V) —
IS,
s
\
\
\
^
\
~ k.
kf —
— y
O
o
k
-------
100 000
1000 2 34 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 56789
TOTAL BASIN VOLUME - ff3 1,000,000
-h
100 1000
TOTAL BASIN VOLUME-m3
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
FLOCCULATION
FIGURE 62
10,000
178
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Gravity Filtration Structure
Conventional gravity filtration structure costs are baaed upon use
of cast in place concrete with a media depth of 2 to 3 feet, and a total
depth of 16 feet for the filter box. Construction cost estimates have been
based on the conceptual designs outlined in Table 62. At flows less than
5 mgd, two filters were used, but at 5 mgd and greater, a minimum of four
filters was utilized. Maximum filter size was limited to 1,275 square feet
and above 700 square feet the filters are dual-celled to allow hackwashing
of each half separately. This approach allows a significant reduction in
the size of wash water and waste piping. On the designs up to and including
10 mgd, raw water was fed to the filter using a gullet between the pipe
gallery and the filter structure. For larger designs, which were dual-celled,
raw water was fed using an influent channel located on the periphery of
the filter structure. Only one valve was used to admit raw water to the
dual-celled filters, since the filters operate as one until the end of the
filter cycle, even though they are backwashed separately. For designs up
to and Including 10 mgd, piping was used to convey product water in the
pipe gallery, but larger designs used a covered concrete box structure in
the center of the pipe gallery. Basic housing requirements includes housing
only the pipe gallery, which is located beneath the filter control area.
The filter structure need not be housed except in severe winter climates,
where other precautions such as diffused air addition near the filter periphery
are not taken. The cost curves include, however, housing of the entire
filter structure.
Costs for filtration structures are presented in Table 63 and Figure
63. These costs include the filter structure, underdrains, wash water troughs,
a pipe gallery, required piping and cylinder operated butterfly valves,
filter flow and headless instrumentation, a filter control panel, and the
total housing requirement. The costs do not include the cost of backwash
water storage facilities, backwash pumping facilities, filtration media,
or surface wash piping and pumps. These facilities were not included since
their use and sizing will vary with each design, and they are most appropri-
ately added separately.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Gravity Filtration Structure
Energy requirements are only for building heating, ventilation, and
lighting. All process energy required for filtration is: included in the
backwash and surface wash curves.
Maintenance material Includes the cost of general supplies, instrumen-
tation repair and the periodic addition of filter media. Costs are based
upon costs experienced at several plants.
Labor costs include the cost of operation, as well as the cost of
instrument and equipment repairs, and supervision.
179
-------
Table 62
Conceptual Designs for
Gravity Filtration Structures
(24 to 36 Inch Media Depth)
Total Filter Filters Housing Requirement - Ft2
00
o
Plant Flow, mgd
1
5
10
50
100
200
Area Ft2
140
700
1,400
7,000
14,000
28,000
Number
2
4
4
10
14
22
Area Eachj^Ft2
70
175
350
700*
1,000*
1,275*
Basic
150
420
800
2,900
4,060
6,380
Total
430
1,480
2,720
11,600
21,110
40,190
*Dual celled filters
-------
Table 63
Construction Cost
Gravity Filtration Structure
Total Filter Area - ft2
oo
Plant Flow Rate - mad
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
140
1
$ 1,860
22,210
6,750
5,210
21,260
19,360
12,790
16,250
105,690
15,850
$ 121,540
700
5
3,440
53,690
17,100
9,050
56,700
74,340
36,690
37,800
288,810
43,320
332,130
1,400
10
5,250
73,810
26,270
16,020
104,330
119,800
36,690
65,910
448,080
67,210
515,290
7,000
50
15,430
287,660
93,580
66,630
339,070
395,760
94,700
272,600
1,565,430
234,810
1,800,240
14,000
100
24,350
498,980
152,050
111,600
484,250
555,200
161,280
480,250
2,467,960
370,190
2,838,150
28,000
200
41,300
926,010
259,990
190,250
985,380
1,058,850
253,430
904,350
4,619,560
692,930
5,312,490
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST-
-
0
NJ
O
01 cn~J®io .P
O
O
-n z
^ v>
zj
m
Oi
01
H O
70 O
c w
O H
-j
m
cr
o
25-
r-O
2
H
m
m
1
3
0.
0
O
0
IM
CM
Ol
en
- s
-1 O
j> O
r- O
q "
m
33 01
> "
-fc -4
O
0
ro
CM
01
en
82
O CD
0
O
O
\
>
L
\
s
L-. .
\
V
x
s
s
\
u
O
^
\
\
\
\
s.
\
\
\
\
CJ
O
-------
Figures 64 and 65 present the operation and maintenance requirements,
and Table 64 is a summation of these requirements.
183
-------
oo
Table 64
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Gravity Filtration Structure
Total Filter
Area - ft2
140
700
1,400
7,000
14,000
28,000
Energy
kw-hr/yr
44,120
151,850
279,070
1,190,160
2,165,890
4,123,490
Maintenance
Material - $/yr
1,100
3,850
7,060
26,400
44,000
80,300
Labor
hr/yr
1,825
2,190
2,570
6,600
13,000
25,500
Total Cost*
$/yr
20,670
30,310
41,130
128,100
238,980
459,000
*Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
a:
UJ
UJ
o
z
<
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,00
1
6
5
4
3
2
IO.OOC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1001
9"
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
0 10,00
: K
6
5
i- 4
3
2
ipoo,
: 9
8
6
5
4
3
2
D 100,
9
- f 5
1
- >- 3
0
UJ
10,00
0,000
000
DoX^
X
0
X
jr
' —
/
/
'
^
/
MAINTENA,
MATERIA
s^
s^
r '
f
*
/
^.x
/
NC
_
X
E
X
~3
'
/
/
x
/
X
,x
/
Xsu
>
x"
ILDI
NER
p
NG
GY
100 234 567891000 234 56789IOpOO 234 56789
TOTAL FILTER AREA-ft2
H •• 1 1
10 100 1000
TOTAL FILTER AREA -m 2
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
FIGURE 64
185
-------
1,000,000
1
7
6
5
4
3
< 2
-w-
i
w IOO.C
8 1
_, f
? !
° :
3
2
IO.OOC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
7
6
5
4
3
2
300
7
6
5
4
3
2
) IOO.C
!- 9
8
7
6
- 5
4
3
2
10,00
9
8
7
6
5, 5
-e
- ' 3
a:
o
~ < 2
1000
^^^m
)00
0
•M
— -
• -
— -
^s
—
•V
«-"
--'
^s
^.
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Filtration Media
Cost estimates have been prepared for three types of commonly used
filtration media: rapid sand, dual media (coal-sand), and mixed media
(coal-sand-garnet). The advantage of rapid sand media is its low initial
cost and simplicity of placement while its disadvantages are the relatively
low application rates and limited suspended solids loading. While the more
sophisticated dual and mixed media allow higher filtration rates and suspended
solids loading than rapid sand, they are higher in Initial cost and require
In place processing. Common practice is to backwash the media during place-
ment and then skim a shallow layer from the surface to remove excessive
fines.
Cost estimates have been made for purchase and placement of 30-inches
of media over a 12-inch gravel underdrain. These estimates are applicable
to either gravity or pressure filters, although pressure filters are often
designed with a somewhat deeper gravel support layer. Characteristics of
each media and the gravel underdrain are presented in Table 65. Costs were
developed as a function of filter area using a filtration rate of 2 gpm/
square foot for rapid sand, and 5 gpm/square foot for dual media and mixed
media. For plants with total filter areas of 140 square feet and less,
materials were considered to be truck shipped in 100 pound bags. For total
filter areas between 140 and 2,000 square feet, rail shipment in 100 pound
bags was assumed, and for larger filter areas, rail shipment by bulk was
assumed.
The estimated costs include media cost, shipping, and installation.
Where required, the cost of a trained technician to supervise media placement
is also Included. Freight cost represents a nationwide average. Estimated
filtration media costs are presented in Figure 66 and In Table 66.
187
-------
Table 65
Filter Media and Gravel Underdrain Characteristics
Rapid Sand:
30 inches of 0.42 - 0.55 mm effective size silica sand, uniformity
coefficient less than 1.6.
Dual Media:
20 inches of 1.0 - 1.2 mm effective size anthracite coal, uniformity
coefficient less than 1.7.
10 inches of 0.42 - 0.55 mm effective size silica sand, uniformity
coefficient less than 1.6.
Mixed (Tri) Media:
16-1/2 inches of 1.0 - 1.1 mm effective size anthracite coal,
uniformity coefficient less than 1.7.
9 inches of 0.42 - 0.55 mm effective size silica sand, uniformity
coefficient less than 1.6.
4-1/2 inches of 0.18 - 0.28 mm effective size garnet or ilmenite
sand, uniformity coefficient less than 1.8.
Gravel Underdrain: (common to all four media)
3 inches of 1-1/2" x 3/4" silica gravel
3 inches of 3/4" x 3/8" silica gravel
3 inches of 3/8" x 3/16" silica gravel
3 inches of 3/16" x #10 silica gravel
188
-------
00
Table 66
Construction Cost
Filtration Media
Plant
Capacity
TTl£ d
1
5
10
50
100
200
Filter
Rapid
Sand
350
1,750
3,500
17,500
35,000
70,000
Bed Area, ft2
Dual and
Mixed Media
140
700
1,400
7,000
14,000
28,000
Filter
Rapid Sand
6,080
24,570
27,190
131,490
262,210
523,640
Media Costs Installed
Dual Media Mixed Media
5,430
16,990
30,900
106,590
203,360
403,420
8,420
24,060
45,700
169,690
332,560
654,580
-------
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,
I
6
5
4
3
2
)-
- IOO.C
1 "I
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,00
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
000
)00
0
^~
,*
^
x
/
^
/ ^
X
MIX
/^
/ /
' /
',/
:D
7*-
/
/
ME
-7
/
D
/
A
/
^
x
/Xy^!
' ^
_£
1
IUO 234 56789)000 234 56789IOpOO 2
TOTAL FILTER AREA -ft2
/
/
P
/
R/i
3
/
PIC
4
f
/
!M*
,iiir
-
5 6 789
100,000
0 160 idoo
m^
CONSTRUCTION COST
FILTRATION MEDIA
FIGURE 66
190
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Hydraulic Surface Wash Systems
The cost of hydraulic surface wash systems is presented separately
from the backwash system, as some plants may not use surface wash in conjunc-
tion with backwashing. If surface wash is utilized, the cost must be added
to the cost of the backwash system, the filter structure, and the filter
media, to arrive at the total cost of filtration. Cost estimates include
dual pumps with one as standby, electrical control, piping, valves, and
headers within the filter pipe gallery. No allowance for housing is included
as this is included in the filtration structure cost. Surface wash pumps
are sized to provide approximately 50 to 85 psi at the arms in accordance
with manufacturers recommendations.
Costs are based on the area of each individual filter within a plant,
using the filter sizes presented in the gravity filter section. Dual arm
agitators were used with an application rate according to manufacturers
recommendations. One agitator was included for filter areas up to and
including 75 square feet, four agitators for the 350 to 700 square foot
filters, and 6 and 8 for the 1,000 and 1,275 square foot filters respec-
tively. It was assumed that the wet well for the surface wash pumps is
the same as for the backwash pumps. The construction cost estimates are
shown by cost component in Table 67 and graphically in Figure 67.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Hydraulic Surface Wash Systems
Energy requirements per surface wash were calculated using a surface
wash time of 8 minutes, application rates as recommended by manufacturers,
which were approximately 1.5 gpm/square foot of filter surface for the dual
arm agitators, a TDK of 200 feet, and an overall motor pump efficiency of
70 percent.
Maintenance material requirements are for repair of the pump(s),, motor
starter, valves and surface agitators. Two surface wash operations per
day were assumed.
Lab,or requirements are for maintenance of equipment only, and are based
upon manufacturers estimates. Operation labor is included with the basic
filter.
Figures 68 and 69 present the operation/maintenance requirement for
hydraulic surface wash systems. The total cost must be added to the costs
for filter backwashing and filter operation to arrive at the total operation
and maintenance costs for filter operation. An operation and maintenance
summation is presented in Table 68.
191
-------
Table 67
Construction Cost
Hydraulic Surface Wash Systems
Individual Filter Area - ft2
70"1753507001,0001,275
Manufactured Equipment $ 4,320 2,840 8,270 7,730 11,610 17,190
Labor 62° 660 1,230 1,400 2,000 2,880
Pipe and Valves 1,210 1,200 1,650 1,260 2,170 2,560
Electrical and Instrumentation 6,050 4,280 4,880 3,620 4,170 4,010
SUBTOTAL 12,200 8,980 16,030 14,010 19,950 26,640
Miscellaneous and Contingency 1,830 1,350 2,400 2,100 2,990 4,000
TOTAL $ 14,030 10,330 18,430 16,110 22,940 30,640
-------
9
i
7
6
5
4
3
2
Q
8
6
5
4
3
2
100,
I
6
5
*»- 4
1 3
1-
O 0
0 c
z
o
p 10,0
« 9
K 8
i_ 7
6
0 5
0 4
3
2
1000
000
00
«»
"•
• ••
**•
X
^
xx
/
—
10
3456789100
INDIVIDUAL
2 3456 7891000 2 3 456789
FILTER SURFACE AREA- ft2
10 100
INDIVIDUAL FILTER SURFACE AREA -m2
CONSTRUCTION COST
HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH SYSTEMS
FIGURE 67
193
-------
Table 68
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Hydraulic Surface Water Systems
VO
Individual Filter
Surface Area - ft2
Process
Energy-kw-hr/
Surface Wash
Maintenance
Material
$/Surface Wash
Labor-hours/
Surface Wash
Total Cost*
70
175
350
700
1,000
1,275
1.58
3.30
7.54
12.37
19.81
24.75
0.137
0.086
0.103
0.055
0.049
0.037
0.037
0.040
0.069
0.042
0.039
0.051
Y / *+ *•**- J.CLV.C ncLDii
0.55
0.59
1.02
0.85
1.03
1.29
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
o
S
(U
o
o
OL
UJ
q
6
7
6
5
4
3
2
O.I
Q
1
6
5
4
7
2
0.01
9
8
7
6
«
4
T
2
j
8
1
6
i
i
t
7
6
5
4
3
2
Q
8
6
5
4
3
2
10.0
9
6
4
- -C *
U) J
0
" » 2
U
o
«*_
k_
S i.o
_ \ 9
- j= 8
- i
- 1 6
- 1 5
- b 4
tK
- LLI ;
•z.
UJ
o
10
«*
fc
^^
/
/
/
S*
/
s
•**
X
^^*
/
2 —
MAII
M
,__
/
/' PR
E
It!
TE
OCE
gER
Al
IA
SS
SY
b/
2 3456789100 2 34 567891000 20003 4 56789
INDIVIDUAL FILTER SURFACE AREA - ft2 10,000
10
100
INDIVIDUAL FILTER SURFACE AREA— m2
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH SYSTEMS
FIGURE 68
195
-------
1.0
01
O
D
O
O
O.I
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0.01
9
8
6
5
4
O
I
7
6
i
4
2
I
6
C
4
3
2
O.I
9
7
6
4
3
2
0.01
_c Q
« a
O 0
* 7
o> 6
S n
n 4
i: 3
O 2
ffi
0,001
— _ •
•
-^
= S d»
,---
^•e
— •
V
^m
mm — «
- ; ^
TOT
::— »
LA
,|_
BOF
10 Z 3 4 56789100 234 567891000 20003
( INDIVIDUAL FILTER SURFACE AREA -ft2
;os
4
T
5 6 789
10,000
10 100
INDIVIDUAL FILTER SURFACE AREA-m?
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH SYSTEMS
FIGURE 69
196
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Backwash Pumping Facilities
The cost of the backwash pumping system must be added to the basic
cost for the filtration structure, filter media cost, surface wash, and
any required backwash water storage capacity to arrive, at the filtration
facility cost. Included within the backwash pumping system cost is the
cost of required pumps and motors, including one standby unit, flow control,
filter backwash sequencing control, pump station valving, the backwash header
cost not included in the filter structure, and motor starters. Backwash
piping and valving was sized for a velocity of 7 feet per second. Housing
costs are not included. The assumed pumping head for the backwash pump
was 50 feet TDK and the maximum design rate for backwash was 18 gpm/square
foot. The maximum size pump utilized was 7,000 gpm and for all installations,
one standby pump was included.
Construction cost estimates, are shown by cost component in Table 69 and
on Figure 70. Costs are presented as a function of backwash pumping capacity,
as the rate will vary with the type of media utilized and the size of filters
us ed.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Backwash Pumping Facilities
Since backwash frequency is dependent upon raw water quality, and is
not a function of filter size, all operation and maintenance curves are
presented using a per backwash basis. For dual cell filters, a backwash
is defined as a backwash of both cells. Using this- approach, variations
in water quality and frequency of backwash can be readily taken into account
in determining annual cost.
Energy requirements per backwash were calculated using a backwash rate
of 15 gpm/square foot, a pumping head of 50 feet TDK, and an overall motor/
pump efficiency of 72 percent. Energy requirements per backwash are based
on a backwash period of 10 minutes.
Labor requirements are for maintenance labor only as all operation
labor is included with the filtration structure curves. To convert annual
labor requirements to labor per backwash, two backwashes per day per filter
were assumed.
Maintenance material costs are for repair of the backwash pumps:, the
motor starters, and valving. Costs are expressed per backwash, assuming
two backwashes per day.
Figures 71 and 72 present the operation and maintenance requirements
which are also summarized in Table 70. The total cost curve is based upon
a 10 minute backwash at 15 gpm/square foot, and a 50 TDH. If different
conditions are utilized, the total cost should be adjusted accordingly.
197
-------
VO
oo
Table 69
Construction Cost
Backwash Pumping Facilities
Pumping Capacity
GPM
MGD
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and
TOTAL
Contingency
1,260
1.8
$ 10,750
2,900
9,200
12,750
35,600
5,340
$ 40,940
3,150
4.5
13,760
4,200
16,640
15,320
49,920
7,490
57,410
6,300
9.1
36,180
4,640
16,640
15,990
73,400
11,010
84,410
18,000
25.9
72,370
8,840
31,410
26,810
139,430
20,910
160,340
22,950
33
90,460
11,840
42,130
31,760
176,190
26,430
202,620
-------
Q
i
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
8
6
5
4
2
1,000,
9
8
6
5
4
•
-------
Table 70
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Backwash Pumping Facilities
bo
o
o
Backwash Pumping
Rate - gpm
1,050
2,625
5,250
10,500
15,000
19,125
Process
Energy
kw-hr/
Backwash
2.29
5.73
11.46
22.91
32.73
41.73
Maintenance
Material
$ /Backwash
0.479
0.377
0.616
0.466
0.411
0.355
Labor
Hours /Backwash
0.130
0.072
0.086
0.041
0,034
0.023
Total Cost*
$ /Backwash
1.85
1.27
1.82
1.56
1.73
1.84
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
Q
6
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.0
9
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL - $ / BACKWASH
ro 01 * 01 CT)->IODU> — ro w * 01 o>->iao«> — ro w * <" <""*•
_
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
L 1
7
6
4
x _
i it
-hr/BACKWAS
-------
10
o
m 1.0
- I
-w-
I
I-
o
o
<
O
0.01
9
8
7
6
5
o
1
6
i
4
i
7
6
•
4
3
2
1.0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
O.I
I 9
S? 8
ii
° *
oo 4
\
*= 1
tr
o ?
CD
<
_J
0.01
X
Sr
^
s
TO
*^LAI
^S
TAL
OR
^
C
0,
IUU 234 567891000 234 56789IOpOO 20pOO 4 5
t BACKWASH PUMPING RATE-gpm
n
6 789
IOO.OOC
'0 100 1000
BACKWASH PUMPING RATE - lit ers/sec
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
BACKWASH PUMPING FACILITIES
FIGURE 72
202
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis utilizes membranes, to remove a high percentage of almost
all inorganic ions, turbidity, bacteria, and viruses. Most organic matter
is also removed, with the exception of several materials, including most
halogenated and low molecular weight compounds.
Figures 73 and 74 present costs for construction of complete reverse
osmosis plants in the size ranges from 2,500 gpd to 1 mgd and from 1 mgd
to 200 mgd, respectively. Commercial units are available in sizes up to
about 5,000 gpd for the membrane elements and up to 30,000 gpd for the
reverse osmosis modules (pressure vessels); therefore large scale plants
would be composed of many smaller, parallel modules. Components taken into
account in the construction cost estimates including housing, structural
steel and miscellaneous metalwork, tanks, piping, valves, pumps, reverse
osmosis membrane elements and pressure vessels, flow meters, cartridge
filters, acid and polyphosphate feed equipment and also cleaning equipment.
The cost curves are based upon the use of either spiral wound or hollow
fine fiber reverse osmosis membranes. Table 71 presents the breakdown of
construction costs.
The efficiency of the membrane elements in reverse osmosis systems
may be impaired by scaling, due to slightly soluble or insoluble compounds,
or by fouling, due to the deposition of colloidal or suspended materials.
Because of this, a very important consideration in the design of a reverse
osmosis system is the provision of adequate pretreatment to protect the
membrane from excessive scaling and fouling and to avoid frequent cleaning
requirements. In the development of the cost curves, adequate pretreatment
was assumed to precede the reverse osmosis process, and costs for pretreat-
ment are not included in the estimates.
The construction cost curve applies to waters with a total dissolved
solids (TDS) concentration ranging up to about 10,000 mg/1. Other considera-
tions, such as calcium sulfate and silica concentrations and also the desired
water recovery, affect costs more than the influent TDS concentration.
The temperature of the feedwater is assumed to be between 65 and 95 degrees
Fahrenheit, while the pH of the feedwater is adjusted to near 5.5 - 6.0
prior to the reverse osmosis process. A single-pass treatment system (only
one pass through the membrane) is assumed, with an operating pressure of
400 - 450 psi. The assumed water recoveries for different flow ranges are
as: follows:
Flow Range Water Recovery - %
2,500 - 10,000 gpd 60
10,000 - 100,000 gpd 70
100,000 gpd - 1.0 mgd 75
1.0 - 10 mgd 80
10 - 200 mgd 85
Brine disposal costs are not included in the estimates.
203
-------
Table 71
Construction Cost
Reverse Osmosis
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
0.0025
$ 3,500
730
4,000
2,500
10,730
1,610
12,340
0.01
10,500
2,100
4,500
3,800
20,900
3,140
24,040
0.
76,
15,
10,
6,
107,
16,
124,
1
400
300
200
000
900
190
090
i
447
67
62
60
636
95
732
.0
,000
,000
,800
,000
,800
,520
,320
10
3,260
330
464
432
4,486
672
5,159
,000
,000
,500
,000
,500
,980
,480
100
27,500
2,200
3,472
2,250
35,422
5,313
40,736
,000
,000
,900
,000
,900
,440
,340
53,
2,
6,
3,
66,
9,
76,
200
200,000
700,000
636,400
900,000
436,400
965,460
401,860
-------
X
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,
7
6
5
4
i 2
0
Z
2 too,
0 9
3 8
cc 7
1 4
3
2
10,0
300
000
30
*>
s
s
s
/
y
*
V
X
/
/
r
/
r
^
>
>
X
/
/
,
^
r
,,
r
•^
1000 234 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 5 B™ 9
PLANT CAPACITY -gpd ' '
• i i
10 100 1000
PLANT CAPACITY - m3 /day
CONSTRUCTION COST
REVERSE OSMOSIS
FIGURE 73
205
-------
7
6
5
4
3
2
I00,0(
1
6
5
4
3
•w- o
1
t-
W
8 10,000
_ 9
^ o
— 7
o 6
*•* 5
3
I.OOC
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.C
30,000
,000
'Jr
)00
/
/
s
t
/
. _
>r
, f
»
/
r
/
/
Jr
S
S
234 5678910 234 56789100
PLANT CAPACITY-mgd
-f-
200 3 456789
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
PLANT CAPACITY- m3/day
CONSTRUCTION COST
REVERSE OSMOSIS
FIGURE 74
206
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Reverse Osmosis
Electrical energy usage is included for the high pressure feedwater
pumps, based on an operating pressure of 450 psi and on the water recoveries
listed In the construction cost write-up. For other pumps and chemical
feed equipment, an energy usage of 10 percent of the usage for the high
pressure pumps was assumed. Electrical energy for lighting, heating, and
ventilating was calculated, based on an estimated floor area required for
complete housing of the reverse osmosis equipment.
The largest maintenance material requirement is for membrane replacement;
a membrane life of three years was used in the cost estimates. Other mainten-
ance material requirements are for replacement of cartridge filters, for
membrane cleaning chemicals, and for materials needed for periodic repair
of pumps, motors, and electrical control equipment. The maintenance material
costs vary from 17.5 cents per thousand gallons for plants above 10 mgd
to 25 cents per thousand gallons for plants below 1 mgd. Costs for pretreat-
ment chemicals, such as acid and polyphosphate, are not Included in the
estimates. The chemicals utilized and the dosages required will show great
variability between different water supplies, and should be determined from
pilot plant testing.
Labor requirements are for cleaning and replacing membranes, replacing
cartridge filters, maintaining the high pressure and other pumps, preparing
treatment chemicals and determining proper dosages, maintaining chemical
feed equipment, and monitoring performance of the reverse osmosis membranes.
Membrane cleaning was assumed to occur monthly. In estimating labor require-
ments a minimum of about one and one half hours per day of labor was assumed
for the smallest plant.
Operation and maintenance requirements are summarized in Table 72 and
Illustrated In Figures 75 to 78.
207
-------
Table 72
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Reverse Osmosis
Plant Capacity Energy kwh/yr
mgd
N3
O
oo
0
0
0
1
10
100
200
.0025
.01
.1
.0
Building
7,000
10,500
15,400
105,400
840,000
7,560,000
15,120,000
Process
8,030
28,100
260,980
2,409,000
22,082,500
220,825,000
441,650,000
Total
15
38
276
2,514
22,922
228,385
456,770
,030
,600
,380
,000
,500
,000
,000
Maintenance
Material - $/yr
9
91
700
6,390
12,800
230
910
,100
,000
,000
,000
,000
Labor
hr/yr
510
1,
1,
2,
6,
11,
710
320
840
840
670
550
Total Cost*
$/yr
5,780
9,170
30,590
184,820
1,416,080
13,308,250
26,618,600
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
100,000
6
5
4
10,000 1,000,000
yea
NTENANCE MATERIAL
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
1000
1,000 234 5678910,000 234 56789100,0002 3 4 56789
PLANT CAPACITY— gpd 1,000,000
10 100
PLANT CAPACITY-M3/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
REVERSE OSMOSIS
FIGURE 75
10*00
209
-------
1,000,000
I
100,
co
o
o
lo.oqp 10,000
1,000 2 345 678910,000 234 56789100,000 2 345 6789
PLANT CAPACITY- gpd 1,000,000
1*00 I
PLANT CAPACITY-m3/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
REVERSE OSMOSIS
FIGURE 76
icfoo
210
-------
1,000,000,000
1
6
5
4
3
2
IO.OOO.OC
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL - $/yr
608
i"o N w * 01 ~^ ro 01 * 01 ffi-jaxoO pa CM * " o>^** _ ro CM * 01 O>^OMO
>- ^
cc
- id 2
UJ
)00 l,(
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
00 l(
b
o.ooo.oc
o.ooo.oc
>
/
300^000
30^00
30
0
j
f
'
/
/
r
— -y
f
/
J
r
/
A
f
/
g
s
'
^
^
'
f
A
t
4
j
t
.
s
/
— -^- —
^r
/
r
,
f
/
/
A
_^"
r '
.
r
/
f
/
/
A
/
,
f
<
/
/
'
/
/
:t
f
/
/Pf
^F
^F
S M
r
x
• jf —
s
>
/
OCE
^
AIM"
MA
. Bl
E
SS
F*M
t-N
EF
IIL
NE
f
All
IA
)lf
)G
N
f
M
G
Y
c
^1
37
2 345 678910 2 3456 789100 200 3 456 789
PLANT CAPACITY- mgd
1 1 U. HI,
10,000
100,000 1,000,000
PLANT CAPACITY-m3/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
REVERSE OSMOSIS
FIGURE 77
211
-------
100,000,000
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000,00
* !
•w- 5
w 4
8 3
< 2
O
1-
l,000,0(
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.OC
1
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
0 1,00
6
5
4
3
2
DO 100
9
8
6
k. £
- ^ 4
-C
- 1 ^
CC 3
0
CD „
- < 2
_J
0 10,0
9
8
7
6
5
4
2
1000
0,000
000
/
00
^i
A
/
^*~
/
^
— •
>
f
«»
y
»•
^
••
^
^
*
<
*
/
X
^^^
^-^"^
^
'
^^<
y*
L/
y
B
^
^
)F
•»•
v
^
^
t
t
/
T(
^^
)TAI
•«
:o
5"
234 5678910 234 56789100
PLANT CAPACITY-mgd
200 3 456 789
10,000
100,000
PLANT CAPACITY -m3/doy
1,000,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
REVERSE OSMOSIS
FIGURE 78
212
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Ion Exchange - Softening
Cation exchange resins can be utilized for the removal of not only
hardness, but also other constituents such as barium, trivalent chromium,
lead, manganese, mercury and radium. Pressure units are generally competitive
with gravity units at low capacities, while gravity units are more economical
at higher flows. An advantage of pressurized exchange units is the capability
of pumping through the softener and directly to the clearwell, or other
point, possibly eliminating the need for double pumping.
Facilities were sized based upon an exchange capacity of 20 kilograins
per cubic foot and a hardness reduction of 300 mg/1. Regeneration facilities
were sized on the basis of 150 bed volumes treated prior to regeneration
and a regenerant requirement of 0.275 pounds, of sodium chloride per kilograin
of exchange capacity. The total regeneration time required is 50 minutes.
Of this time, 10 minutes is for backwash, 20 minutes is regeneration brine
contact time (brining and displacement rinse), and 20 minutes is a fast
rinse at 1.5 gpm/ft3. Feedwater was assumed to be of sufficient clarity
to require backwashing only for resin reclas;s:ification. Backwash pumping
facilities and media installation are included in the construction cost.
In place resin costs of $45.00 per cubic foot were utilized.
No facilities are included in the construction cost for spent brine
disposal.
Pressure Ion Exchange Softening
Construction costs were developed for pressure ion exchange using the
conceptual information presented in Table 73. The contact vessels are
fabricated steel, with a baked phenolic lining added after fabrication,
and constructed for 100 psi working pressure. The depth of resin was 6
feet, and the contact vessel was designed to allow for as much as 80 percent
media expansion during backwash. A gravel layer between underdrains and
media was not included.
Regeneration facilities include two salt storage/brining basins, which
are open, reinforced concrete structures, constructed with the top foot
above ground level. Saturated brine withdrawal from the salt storage/
brining basins is 26 percent by weight. A saturated brine storage of two
and a half days normal use was provided in the storage/brining basins.
Pumping facilities were included to pump from the brining tanks to the
contact vessels. An eductor is utilized to add sufficient water to dilute
the brine to a 10 percent concentration as it is being transferred from
the salt storage/brining tank to the contact vessel.
Construction costs for pressure ion exchange softening are presented
in Figure 79 and summarized in Table 74.
213
-------
Table 73
Conceptual Design
Pressure Ion Exchange Softening
Total Salt
N>
Plant
Capacity - mgd
1.1
3.7
6.1
12.3
49
122.6
Number of
Contactors
2
3
5
10
40
100
Diameter of
Contactors -ft
8
12
12
12
12
12
ft2 of
Housing
558
1,232
1,980
3,960
15,840
31,680
Storage - Brining
Capacity - ft*
918
3,146
5,244
10,488
41,954
104,890
-------
Table 74
Construction Cost
Pressure Ion Exchange Softening
Plant Capacity - mgd
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Equipment
Resin
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
$
$
1.1
390
23,400
27,140
1,260
1,930
2,520
14,240
31,700
18,000
120,580
18,090
138,670
3.7
780
61,460
91,610
2,490
3,790
4,910
40,650
46,500
32,750
284,940
42,740
327,680
6.1
1,040
104,090
152,690
3,310
5,010
6,480
77/970
77,900
58,100
486,590
72,990
559,580
12.3
2,080
207,520
305,380
6,620
10,020
12,960
155,940
183,600
105,750
989,870
148,480
1,138,350
49.0
4,270
830,220
1,221,480
13,080
19,660
24,370
623,760
684,500
364,350
3,785,690
567,850
4,353,540
122.6
8,770
2,075,800
3,053,700
26,280
39,510
47,830
1,333,680
1,738,300
713,000
9,036,870
1,355,530
10,392,400
-------
7
6
5
4
3
10,000,000
-w-
I
CO
8 1,000,000
O
O
100,000
9
^
PRESSURE
GRAVITY
2 345 678910 2 3456 789100 200 3456 789
CAPACITY -mgd
10,000 100,000
CAPACITY- m3/day
CONSTRUCTION COST
ION EXCHANGE-SOFTENING
-*-
1,000,000
FIGURE 79
216
-------
Gravity Ion Exchange *• Softening
Construction costs were developed for gravity ion exchange, using the
conceptual designs presented in Table 75. The structures are similar to
those used for gravity filtration. Differences from gravity filter structures
are larger influent channels to allow a higher loading per square foot of
surface area and use of an eighteen foot wall depth to allow a loading of
8 gpm/ft2. A six foot resin depth was utilized and underdralns not requiring
an overlying gravel layer were utilized. Piping was modified from gravity
filtration by the addition of a regenerant line. Facilities included for
regenerant storage and dilution to 10 percent were similar to those described
for pressure ion exchange.
Construction costs for gravity ion exchange softening are presented
in Figure 79 and in Table 76.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Ion Exchange - Softening
Electrical requirements are for regenerant pumping, rlns
-------
Table 75
Conceptual Designs
Gravity Ion Exchange Softening
Total Salt
Storage and
T>1 OTtf- KT«im1-kA-w T?^-2 „£ T)-.
KJ
1-1
oo
Plant
Capacity - mgd
1.5
7.5
15
75
150
Number
of Beds
2
4
4
10
14
Ft2/Bed
70
175
350
700
1,000
Ft2 of
Housing
150
420
800
2,900
4,060
Primary Capacity
Ft 3
1,300
6,490
12,990
64,930
129,850
-------
Table 76
Construction Cost
Gravity Ion Exchange Softening
Plant Flow Rate - mgd
K3
M
VD
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Equipment
Resin
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
$
$
1.5
3,490
40,960
37,800
8,750
8,460
21,300
21,770
19,190
16,250
177,970
26,700
204,670
7.5
6,180
88,490
189,200
20,110
16,420
55,260
61,050
55,040
37,800
529,550
79,430
608,980
15
9,250
137,770
378,000
30,570
23,310
77,300
84,060
55,040
65,910
861,210
129,180
990,390
75
31,630
527,120
1,890,000
98,330
83,630
284,700
246,710
142,050
272,600
3,576,770
536,520
4,113,290
150
55,110
960,040
3,780,000
131,410
145,350
486,510
370,190
241,920
480,250
6,650,780
997,620
7,648,400
-------
Table 77
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Pressure Ion Exchange Softening
NJ
NJ
O
Plant Flow
Rate - mgd
1.1
3.7
6.1
12.3
49
122.6
Energy kw-hr/yr
Building
57,250
126,400
203,150
406,300
1,625,180
3,250,370
Process
2,270
7,620
12,570
25,350
100,970
252,630
Total
59,520
134,020
215,720
431,850
1,726,150
3,503,000
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
4,690
15,140
25,040
49,820
197,890
489,280
Labor
hr/yr
2,160
2,700
3,000
3,400
6,900
13,600
Total Cost*
$/yr
28,000
46,160
61,510
96,770
318,670
730,370
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
<«-
I
UJ
O
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
,000,
i
6
5
4
3
2
!OC
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,00
1
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
10,00
1
7
. 6
5
4
3
2
DOO I.OC
2
),OOOIO
: -S87
- 2 5
1 4
>-
O
- o: 3
LJ
Z
- LJ 2
0 I0,(
5
1,0
0,000
)0,000
0,000
-^
^r
f
r
300
J
f
y/
/
00
,
/
_^
/
/
/
/-
/
j
J
/
^ -
/
4
S
/\
s
T
f X
x^
/
s
f
,
'
—j
r
/
A
/
^
/
/
BUILI
ENEF
/ M/
/
/
' PI
El
6Y
INI
TEI
IOC
JER
^
IA
ES
3Y
i
i
'11 u
2 3456789 10 2 3456 789100 2 3 4 5 6 789
CAPACITY- mgd
10,000 100,000 ,000,000
CAPACITY - mVday
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PRESSURE ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING
FIGURE 80
221
-------
I:
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1,000,000
6
5
4
3 -
2 -
£ 100,000
O 9"
o
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 -
I
- S- 5
1000
c
7
6
f
4
2
f
6
5
4
3
2
R9
f
6
5
4
3
?
),0(
9
7
6
•>
4
?
0
^
30
— —
«^
X^
— —
Xs
«—
x
«•
. if
==•
III
-
A
-^
1
X
X-*
x
x
,/
X**"
TC
- /
r
/'
^ U
*'
f
!
234 5678910 234 56789100 2
CAPACITY- mgd
TAI
BOF
3
f
4
rvn
5 6 789
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
CAPACITY - m3/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PRESSURE ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING
FIGURE 81
222
-------
u>
Table 78
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Gravity Ion Exchange Softening
Plant
Rate -
1
7
15
75
150
Flow
- mad
1?
.5
.5
Building
44,120
151,850
279,070
1,190,160
2,165,890
Energy kw-hr/yr
Process
1,470
7,370
14,730
73,700
147,310
Total
45,590
159,220
293,800
1,263,860
2,313,200
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
6,960
30,690
59,040
286,830
567,880
Labor
hr/yr
2,230
3,090
3,570
9,600
17,460
Total Cost*
$/yr
30,630
66,370
103,550
420,750
811,880
*Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
1,000,000
I
7
6
\ 5
-w- .
1 *
< 3
tt
LU
y 100,00
\ 1
< 5
5 4
3
2
IO.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
: I
7
6
5
4
3
2
0 1,00
7
6
5
4
3
2
)0 100,
9
8
- i 7
- \ 6
- >- 3
o
a:
. w 2
LJ
IO.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IOOC
0,000
DOO
-^
)0
x
y
^
/
x
/
/'
s'
— r-
- -1
Lr
^ - >^
/
^
/
'
u
/
/
r
- --^-
j
'
/*
/
Ml
M
UIL
EN
PR(
FNf
R-
T
>IN
R
)CE
F
RIA
5
Y
S5
Y
:
f
2 345 678910 2 3456 789100 200 3 45 6789
CAPACITY -mgd
,000,000
10,000 100,000 I
CAPACITY -m3/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
GRAVITY ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING
FIGURE 82
224
-------
3
6
5
4
3
2
1,00
1
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.C
9
8
ss
rl
& 4
0
" 3
_l
? 2
P
IO.OC
9"
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
0,000
: *
6
5
4
3
2
)00 100,
9
8
- _ 6
- <5
- £ 4
i
- o 3
00
- 32
0 10,0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1000
000
X*
00
— B-5
X*
•— •
*J
•«•
x
-••
^
••
, "
» *• ~
'.**
-^
;X- —
t^
• "r-
/
S
V
/
X
/
x
X
x
/
>
/
TOT
— X-
/
/
X-
(\L (
BOF
(X
T
2 345678910 2 3456 789100 200 3 456789
CAPACITY-tngd
I0,0(
100,000
CAPACITY -m3 /day
1,000,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
GRAVITY ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING
FIGURE 83
225
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal
Strongly basic anion exchange resins may be used for the removal of
nitrates, and also sulfates, fluorides, and some forms or organic and
inorganic mercury. When a strongly basic anion exchanger is operated on
the chloride form, the sulfate is selectively removed over nitrate, and
the nitrate is selectively removed over fluoride. Therefore, the larger
the nitrate to sulfate ratio, the greater is the nitrate removal capacity
of the resin. Generally, fluoride removal by anion exchange resins is not
considered practical due to the low capacity.
Costs were developed for treatment of a water supply with the following
anion content: nitrate = 100 mg/1; sulfate = 80 mg/1; other anions = 120
mg/1. The assumed nitrate capacity for the strongly basic anion exchange
resin operated on the chloride form was 7 kilograins of nitrate per cubic
foot, when operated to nitrate breakthrough. It must be noted that other
quality water supplies may result in significantly different exchange
capacities, and pilot scale studies are recommended prior to design. A
sodium chloride regenerant was utilized, with a regenerant requirement of
15 pounds per cubic foot of resin.
A total regeneration time of 54 minutes was utilized. Backwash required
10 minutes, the brine contact and displacement rinse 24 minutes:, and the
fast rinse an additional 20 minutes.
Construction costs were developed for pressure anion exchange, using
fabricated steel contact vessels with a 100 psi working pressure and a baked
phenolic lining. A six foot bed depth was utilized, although tanks were
sized for up to 80 percent resin expansion during backwash. A gravel layer
between the resin and the underdrains was not utilized. Resin placement
and backwash pumping costs are included in the construction cost.
Regeneration facilities include two salt storage/brining basins, which
are open, reinforced concrete structures, constructed with the top foot
above ground level. Saturated brine withdrawn from the salt storage/brining
basins is 26 percent by weight. A saturated brine storage of two and a
half days normal use was provided in the storage/brining basins. Pumping
facilities were included to pump from the brining tanks to the contact
vessels. An eductor is utilized to add sufficient water to dilute the brine
to a 10 percent concentration as it is being transferred from the salt
storage/brining tank to the contact vessel.
Conceptual designs which were used to estimate costs are presented
in Table 79.
226
-------
TABLE 79
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
PRESSURE ION EXCHANGE - NITRATE REMOVAL
Diameter of
f\
Plant Capacity - mgd Number of Contactors Contactors - ft Housing - ft
1 2 2 8 930
3.9 3 12 2,375
6.5 5 12 3,910
13 10 12 6,920
No facilities are included in the construction cost for disposal of
spent regenerant. Construction costs for pressure ion exchange softening
are presented in Figure 84 and summarized in Table 80.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal
Electrical energy costs are for backwash pumping, rinse pumping, regen-
erant pumping, and building heating, lighting, and ventilation. Backwash
pumping was based upon a ten minute wash, at 3 gpm/ft2. Regenerant pumping
was based upon a rate of 1 gallon per minute per cubic foot of resin for
24 minutes, and fast rinse pumping was based upon a rate of 8 gallons per
minute/square foot for twenty minutes. All pumping was assumed to be against
a 25 foot TDH.
Maintenance material costs for periodic repair and replacement of
components were estimated based on one percent of the construction cost.
Resin replacement costs are for resin lost annually by physical attrition
as well as loss of capacity due to chemical fouling. As anion resin is
typically replaced every 3 to 5 years, a 25 percent annual resin replacement
was included to account for resin fouling and resin loss. Regenerant costs
are not included in the maintenance material cost.
Labor requirements are for operation and maintenance of ion exchange
vessels and the pumping facilities. Hours were estimated based upon compar-
able size filtration plants and filter pumping facilities. Labor requirements
are also included for periodic media addition and replacement of the media
every 4 years.
No costs are included for spent brine disposal. Operation and mainten-
ance curves: are presented in Figures 85 and 86 and are summarized in Table 81.
227
-------
Table 80
Construction Cost
Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal
Plant Capacity - mgd
KJ
K>
00
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Equipment
Media
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
1.1
$ 700
37,670
87,460
2,270
3,470
26,160
13,210
26,460
20,470
217,170
32,580
$ 249,750
3.7
1,080
84,440
295,190
3,380
5,150
63,030
36,480
36,790
33,300
558,840
83,830
642,670
6.1
1,400
129,860
491,990
4,480
6,820
110,660
65,610
58,100
53,630
922,550
138,380
1,060,930
12.3
1,870
243,410
983,970
5,960
9,020
223,480
131,220
114,830
180,500
1,793,580
269,040
2,062,620
-------
9
§
7
6
5
4
3
2
I0,000,f
7
6
5
4
3
-w-
1 2
t-
O
0 I.OOO.C
9
CONSTRUCTION
0
ro & * 01 (D^joouj- f° 01 * ui o>~«ia
)00
JOO
s
X
DOO
-^
^ '
-^
f
f
2 3456 78 910 2 3456 789100 200 3456 789
CAPACITY- mgd
10,000
100,000
CAPACITY -m3 /day
CONSTRUCTION COST
PRESSURE ION EXCHANGE-NITRATE REMOVAL
FIGURE 84
229
-------
Table 81
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal
N)
U>
O
Plant
Capacity - mgd
1.1
3.7
6.1
12.3
Energy kw-hr/yr
Building
56,090
126,400
203,150
313,960
Process
1,900
6,380
10,510
21,200
Total
57,990
132,780
213,660
335,160
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
24,110
79,730
132,670
264,720
Labor
hr/yr
2,200
2,500
3,000
3,300
Total Cost*
$/yr
47,850
108,710
169,080
307,770
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hour of labor
-------
Ul
O
Z
,000
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,0
6
5
4
3
2
10,00
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I.OOC
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
000
7
6
5
4
3
2
00 f,0(
9
I
7
6
5
4
3
0 I0(
- 8*
6
4
3
1 | 1 1 1 ~I T I 1 * 1
- ENERGY-kw-hr/yr _
2 ro ui * 01 cn-^oxo-/-, *
)0,000
y
>r
/
3,000
-^
^r
S'
)00
)0
/
s
^ —
<*-
/
y
^~
^
/
/
A
A
j
~?
f
/--
x
M/
M
s
**' BUI
PRO
/
NT
ATE
.Dlf
;ES
EN
RL
6
3
M
L
E
E
C
N
IE
-
. '
RC
I 2 345678910 2 3456 789100 200 3 456789
CAPACITY-mgd
-4-
10,000 100,000
CAPACITY -m3/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PRESSURE ION EXCHANGE-NITRATE REMOVAL
FIGURE 85
231
-------
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
I.OC
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
w 8
^ 7
6
i 5
8 3
2 2
IO.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
?
<
7
6
i
4
2
0,000
: 1
7
6
5
4
3
2
000
: 9
8
7
6
5,
4
3
2
>0 10,0
9
8
7
- ^ 6
- >»• 5
- i 4
1
- or 3
0
CD
- < 2
1000
^r
30
'—
X1
•— • -
X
— -
/'
s
S* TO!
-
P *•'
LAB(
AL
R
C(
sr
i
:
~
2 345 678910 2 3456 789100 200 3 456 789
( CAPACITY -mgd '
10,000 100,000
CAPACITY- m3 /day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PRESSURE ION EXCHANGE-NITRATE REMOVAL
FIGURE 86
232
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal
Water supplies with fluoride concentrations up to 10 mg/1 and higher
can be effectively treated by contact with activated alumina. Fluoride
reductions to less than 0.5 mg/1 are generally achieved by activated alumina
contact, with blending being utilized to meet desired fluoride concentrations.
Treatment is generally selective for fluoride and arsenic, although small
amounts of other anions often are removed. Regeneration of the activated
alumina with caustic removes both exchanged fluoride and arsenic.
Facilities were sized based upon a fluoride exchange capacity of 0.6
percent by weight, or 0.25 pounds of fluoride per cubic foot of activated
alumina, and a fluoride reduction from 3 mg/1 to 0.5 mg/1. Operation was
assumed to be at pH 5.5, although higher pH values may be used with a
resultant lower exchange capacity. Regeneration facilities were sized on
the basis of batch rather than continuous regeneration, due to the signifi-
cant savings in regeneration chemical cost when batch regeneration is
utilized. However, a reduced capacity of the facilities results from the
increased regeneration time. Two one hour contacts; with 0.1 N sodium
hydroxide were included for fluoride removal from the alumina, followed
by a one-half hour contact with 0.05 N sulfuric acid for neutralization
of remaining caustic. An activated alumina void volume of 2.28 gallons
per cubic foot and in place resin costs: of $13.86 per cubic foot were
utilized. Feed water was assumed to be sufficiently low in suspended solids
so that backwashing was only occasionally necessary, although backwashing
facilities are included in the construction cost.
Construction costs were developed for pressure ion exchange using the
conceptual information presented in Table 82. The contact vessels are
fabricated steel with a baked phenolic lining, and constructed for 100 psi
working pressure. The depth of resin was 8 feet, and the contact vessel
was designed for 80 percent media expansion during backwash. A gravel
layer between underdrains and media was; not included.
Regeneration storage facilities were sized for 30 days requirement.
Sodium hydroxide required for regeneration was assumed to be purchased in
a solid form for capacities less than 10 mgd, and as a 50 percent solution
for larger plants. A caustic dilution tank was. included when the 50 percent
solution was used. Due to the small requirement for sulfuric acid, a
concentrated sulfuric acid storage tank was only included for 70 mgd and
larger plants, although a sulfuric acid dilution tank was included in each
case. Metering pumps were included for transfer of concentrated caustic
and sulfuric acid to the dilution tanks, and pumping facilities were included
to pump from the dilution tanks to the exhausted contactor.
233
-------
TABLE 82
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
ACTIVATED ALUMINA FOR FLUORIDE REMOVAL
Diameter of
Plant Capacity - mgd Number of Contactors Contactors •> ft Housing -'ft2
0.7 2 6 252
2-0 2 10 700
6.8 5 12 1,980
27 20 12 7,920
54 40 12 15,840
135 100 12 31,680
All facilities were assumed to he located indoors. Construction costs
are presented in detail in Table 83 and are also shown in Figure 87.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal
Electrical energy costs are for regenerant pumping, occasional backwash
pumping, and building heating, ventilation and lighting. The latter require-
ments constitute the majority of the energy requirements, and use of an
outdoor installation would have a very significant impact on energy require-
ments. Process energy is extremely small, and is only for regenerant pumping.
If backwash is required, process energy requirements would increase signifi-
cantly.
Maintenance material costs are for periodic repair and replacement
of components, and were estimated on the basis of one percent of the
construction cost. An activated alumina replacement cost was also included
in maintenance material, at an annual rate of 10 percent. Regenerant costs
are not included in the maintenance material cos±s.
Labor requirements are principally for regenerant preparation and
regeneration of the activated alumina. Labor requirements also include
periodic media addition to make up losses and occasional replacement.
Operation and maintenance curves are presented in Figures 88 and 89 and
are summarized in Table 84.
234
-------
Table 83
Construction Cost
Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal
Plant Capacity -
U)
Ln
Manufactured Equipment
Equipment
Activated Alumina
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
0.
$ ?s,
7,
9,
15,
i 9,
6,
74,
11,
$ 85,
7
?30
820
780
300
600
500
230
130
360
2
42
13
12
18
10
25
123
18
142
.0
,020
,920
,830
,180
,850
,800
,600
,540
,140
6
130
78
45
64
21
58
398
59
458
.8
,390
,310
,680
,940
,300
,000
,620
,780
,410
27
492
313
182
257
57
197
1,499
224
1,724
,240
,240
,690
,030
,600
,000
,800
,970
,770
54
972,090
626,470
365,400
510,510
113,700
350,000
2,938,170
440,730
3,378,900
135
2
1
1
1
7
, 1
8
,417
,566
,220
,287
272
695
,448
,117
,565
,380
,i«U
,070
,040
,000
,000
,670
,300
,970
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST — $
N)
U)
T]
O
C
m
o>
3 -s
^
H
m
o
o °
c— Z ~o
M >
SH H
^^ "^
^ 5 10
? C 3.°
> O wo-
1 H ^8
J2 0 5
c ^~
o
3J r>
_ **
O ^
mH
m-%"
o
32! °
0 -o-
*J o
g 8
r~
at
? ^>
o
-1 <«
" „
°- w
--J
OD
ro
Ol
OD
<£>
?,
o
o
v> (
M J
k (
X <
»-
-goj
.|
\
\
0 (
\
tt .
v
\
[k (
V
It C
k
^
»"
r
-JO>(
s
s
-o
o ^ r
O
0
O
\
\
0 t
N
M -i
\
* i
^
K <
V
A-40B
N
O
"b
K0 O 1
o
o
o
N> (
«l •
» I
X t
» -JO
H0
-------
S3
Table 84
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal
Plant Capacity
mgd
0.7
2.0
6.8
27
54
135
Energy kw-hr/yr
Building
17,640
49,000
138,600
554,400
1,108,800
2,217,600
Process
10
10
10
10
30
70
Total
17,650
49,100
138,600
554,410
1,108,830
2,217,670
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
1,780
3,040
14,030
55,660
111,130
278,680
Labor
hr/yr
2,400
2,580
2,940
4,490
7,560
17,580
Total Cost*
$/yr
26,310
30,190
47,590
117,190
219,990
521,010
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
1,000,000
•««-
I
_l
<
cc
UJ
<
UJ
o
<
H
UJ
h-
z
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
100,0
5
2
10,000
5
2
1000
9"
8
6
5
4
3
2
*
7
6
5
4
3
2
OOIO.OC
6
5
3
2
1,000
9
- f 5
(9
(C
- ui 2
UJ
I00,(
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
10,000
0,000
000
X
DOO
y
yT
/
f
jjl
Jr
>
^
A
A
V
V
/
^
^
/
n>
/
'
^
y
X
>
/'
/^
y
/^
f
A
S
f
j
J
S
r
J
f
f
,
'
,
}
t
. _____^_
/
MA
M,
X
___
INK
MEI
BUILOHNG
ENERGY
Ni
L
;E
23 4 5678910 2 3 456 7 89100 200 3 4 5 6 789
CAPACITY - mgd
1 . 1 1
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
CAPACITY-m3/day
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ACTIVATED ALUMINA-FLUORIDE REMOVAL
FIGURE 88
238
-------
1
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,
f
6
5
4
3
2
100.
9
8
< I
•at- 5
,1 «
S- 3
0
3* 2
6
10,00
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
: K|
7
6
5
4
3
2
000
: 1
6
5
4
3
2
000 IOC
9
: ?
6
""* O
4
3
4
2
0 10,0
9
8
7
- £ 6
- "x 5
-T4
-5 3
-
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems
The systems were sized for feeding of an 11 percent slurry (one percent
carbon per gallon of water). The 11 percent slurry Is stored and continuously
mixed In uncovered concrete tanks, which, are placed below ground level except
for approximately the top foot. For feed capacities less than 700 pounds
per hour, eight days of storage In two equal size basins: is Included. For
greater feed rates, two days of storage In a single basin is Included.
Mixers were sized based upon a G value equal to 600. Storage/mixing basins
include equipment for powdered activated carbon feed from bags in smaller
installations and from trucks or railroad cars in larger installations.
For feed rates less than 20 pounds of carbon per hour, a diaphragm
type metering pump Is used to feed directly from the mixing/storage tank
to the point of application. For rates greater than 20 pounds per hour,
a positive displacement type pump Is used to continuously transfer slurry
to an overhead rotodip volumetric feeder, which, feeds directly to the point
of application.
Construction cost Is shown In Figure 90 and presented In detail In
Table 85.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems.
Energy requirements are based upon the rated horsepower of pump motors
and continuous mixing of the 11 percent carbon slurry at a G value of 600.
Maintenance material requirements consist; of oil for gearbox drives
and for minor repair of pumps and motors, as well as the associated electrical
switching gear.
Labor requirements for carbon unloading were b,ased upon rates of 10
minutes per 50 pound bag, 2 hours per 9,000 pound truck load, and 4 hours
per 27,000 pound railroad car. Requirements for the mixing storage basin
are 30 minutes per day per basin for inspection and routine maintenance,
and 16 hours per year per basin for cleaning and gearbox oil change. Slurry
pumps would require one manhour per day per pump.
Table 86 summarizes the operation and maintenance requirements, which
are also shown in Figures 91 and 92.
240
-------
Table 85
Construction Cost
Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems
Feed Capacity - Pound/Hour
3.5 35 35Q 7QO 7,000
Excavation and Sitework $ 90 340 1,410 2,120 10,600
Manufactured Equipment 8,180 21,200 66,410 118,810 506,640
NJ
£ Concrete 270 1,000 3,910 5,580 27,890
Steel 230 1,640 6,730 9,800 48,990
Labor 560 2,120 8,520 12,510 62,550
Pipe and Valves 17,160 17,450 17,790 18,580 84,350
Electrical and Instrumentation 22,490 23,320 24,930 50,580 109,780
Housing 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000
SUBTOTAL 54,980 73,070 135,700 223,980 856,800
Miscellaneous and Contingency 8,250 10,960 20,360 33,600 128,520
TOTAL $ 63,230 84,030 156,060 257,580 985,320
-------
10
4 56789100 234 567891000
FEED CAPACITY- Ib/hr
20003
456 789
10,000
10
100
1000
FEED CAPACITY-kg/hr
CONSTRUCTION COST
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 90
242
-------
Table 86
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems
NJ
JS
OJ
Feed Rate
Ib/hr
3.5
35
350
700
7,000
Energy kw-hr/yr
Building
10,260
10,260
10,260
10,260
10,260
Process
7,000
59,000
482,000
946,000
2,294,000
Total
17,260
69,260
492,260
956,260
2,304,260
Maintenance
Material $/yr
2,000
4,000
8,000
14,000
62,000
Labor
hr/yr
85Q
1,110
1,840
2,010
11,000
Total Cost*
$/yr
11,020
17,200
41,170
44,700
241,130
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
100,000
£ MATERIAL- $/yr
O ro CM * » C
\ 6
j= 5
-54
JC
- I 3
O
cc
- UJ o
z
UJ
I00t(
f- 9
3
IO.OC
0,000
=^-"
),000
DOO
/
/
o' -
— '
/
/
^^
v
/
f
/
^
/
«•
,
&
/
/
^
/
_^
*^
/
r
^^r^
j
/
4
™
j
/
4
W
4
^
s
4
s
^
?
X
<' M/l
IV
.^
./
/
X
INTEN/
ATERI/
^P
E
BUILDIN
1
^
RO
MB
/
N
L
^^
3
; EN
1
/
If
x-
£t
s
Y
,
/
^
%
^(
^
k '
r
10
To-
34 56789100 234 567891000
FEED RATE — Ib/hr
20003 4 56789
10,000
4-
1000
FEED CAPAC!TY-kg/hr
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 91
244
-------
1,000,000
I?
100,000
8 3
10,000 10,000
r i 3
ac
o
- CO 2
1000
9
S
7
6
5
.. IOC
10 234 56789100 234 567891000 20003 4 56789
FEED RATE-lb/hr f0'000
•4-
IC
idoo
FEED CAPACITY-kg/hr
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON FEED SYSTEMS
FIGURE 92
245
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Pressure Filtration Plants
Costs have been developed for pressure filtration plants which are
suitable for use with 24-36 inch deep filter beds consisting of rapid sand,
dual media or mixed media. Regardless of the media used, structural and
hydraulic requirements of these media are similar. Filtration rates ranging
from 2 to 7-8 gpm/ft2 are possible, depending upon the media utilized.
Cost estimates are based on use of either vertical or horizontal
cylindrical ASME code pressure vessels of 50 to 75 psi working pressure.
Each plant consists of a minimum of 4 vessels, with conceptual designs as
shown in Table 87. Filter vessels are provided with a pipe lateral under-
drain and filter media is supported by graded gravel. This type underdrain
is suitable for water backwash with surface wash assist. For air-water
backwashing the pipe laterals are replaced with a nozzel underdrain.
Costs include a complete filtration plant with vessels, cylinder operated
butterfly valves, filter face piping and headers within the filter gallery,
filter flow control and measurement instrumentation, headloss instrumentation
and a master filter control panel. The filters are designed to backwash
automatically on an input signal such, as headloss, turbidity breakthrough,
elapsed time or by manual activation. Not included in the cost estimate
are supply piping to the filtration units from other unit processes, filter
supply pumping, backwash storage and pumping, surface wash or airwash supply
facilities, or filtration media. Housing requirements are based on the
minimum rectangular space into which the facilities will fit. The basic
housing includes covering of the pipe gallery (including a small portion
of the ends of the tanks and a minimal service area for control panel) and
other appurtenances related to the filtration structure, except for the
1 mgd plant which because of its design and configuration is totally housed.
The total housing requirement is for complete housing of the filters and
pipe gallery, which would only be necessary in the most severe climates.
Estimated construction costs, including only basic housing, are shown
in Figure 93 and in Table 88.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Pressure Filtration Plants.
Energy requirements were developed from the conceptual designs for
process and for heating, lighting and ventilating the basic housing require-
ment. Process energy is for the filtration system supply pumps and backwash
pumps. Continuous 24 hour per day, 365 days per year operation with one
backwash per day of 10 minutes duration was assumed. It was further assumed
that the surface wash supply would be obtained from the pressurized distribu-
tion system with suitable means for backflow prevention.
246
-------
Table 87
Conceptual Designs
Pressure Filtration Plants
Filter Vessels
Plant Flow
mgd
1
10
50
100
200
Total Filter
Area, ft2 (2)
140
1,400
7,000
14,000
28,000
Number
4
4
18
35
70
Diameter and Area Plant Area
Lengths, ft Each, ft2 Requirements, ft2
7 vertical O)
10 x 35
10 x 40
10 x 40
10 x 40
35
350
400
400
400
2 , 100
5,000
13,750
26,050
64,200
Housing
(^ Basic
2,100
2,000
8,200
14,950
28,500
, ft2
Total^
2,100
5,000
13,750
26,050
64,200
C1) Vertical pressure filters approximately 10' tall
(2) Filter rate approximately 5 gpm/ft2
(3) Rectangular space covering entire plant area
(4) Entire plant enclosed
-------
Table 88
Construction Cost
Pressure Filtration Plants
Plant Capacity, mgd
Filter Area - ft2
Excavation and Sitework
Ji! Manufactured Equipment
oo
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Piping and Valves
Electrical and Instrumentation
Housing
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous and Contingency
TOTAL
1
14Q
$ 930
94,890
650
260
9,150
22,230
19,180
61,600
208,890
31,330
$ 240,220
10
1.400
1,650
236,250
890
450
23,320
66,700
49,400
58 , 700
378,660
56,800
435,460
50
7.000
3,850
1,114,000
4,440
2,270
176,000
598,000
284,780
197,600
2,380,940
357,140
2,738,080
100
14,000
7,600
2,343,000
8,880
4,540
352,000
1,196,000
586,800
343,800
4,892,620
726,390
5,569,010
200
28.000
13,800
4,435,000
16,650
9,080
704,000
2,392,000
1,135,580
641,300
9,347,410
1,402,110
10,749,520
-------
VO
o-
u
3J
m
CO ""
w' V J —I
O m
33 Z *-
-71 mn S§
« -n 3) 5
5 F£ T
m H £4 3
^1 ' PO
tf) ^ O
w H Z
rt
2 0
o
•T^l /A
r-H 5.
^ o
Z °
H
CO
o
o
.38
i- o
m
31 01
m
I '*
to
*
0
o
•*
C_) (O
O
^
1 O
4 4
' C
n o
>-.
ia
ICC
O
O
0
0
> o
1
I
\
\
I
4 .{
\
\
\
>
b CJ
1 0
^~-
l
^
jODy
s
o
o
0
o
»,
V
>
> o
L
>
4 •*
S-
-N
u
—
» ff
>~JOB
s
o
"0
*>P ^
O
1
I
3 O
J J
' 0
n
-------
Maintenance material costs are for additional filter media> charts
and ink for recorders, and miscellaneous, repair items for electrical control
equipment and valves.
Labor requirements were based upon review of records from operating
plants.
Table 89 and Figures 94 and 95 present operation and maintenance costs.
250
-------
Table 89
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Pressure Filtration Plants
Maintenance
Capacity, mgd
1
10
50
100
200
Filter
Area, ft2
140
1,400
7,000
14,000
28,000
Energy kw-hr/yr
Building
215,460
205,200
841,320
1,533,870
2,924,100
Process
35,597
330,316
1,652,776
3,303,155
6,606,310
Total
251,007
535,516
2,494,096
4,837,025
9,530,410
Material
$/yr
1,200
7,300
26,000
45,000
80,000
Labor
hr/yr
1,460
2,920
8,760
11,680
20,440
Total Cost*
$/yr
23,330
52,565
188,420
306,910
570,310
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
100,000
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,0
i_ f
<:6
-w- 5
i 4
CO
< 3
cc
LU
I- Z
<
S
3 ioc
I!
< 5
S 4
2
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
9
§
7
6
5
4
3
2
00 10,0
7
6
5
4
3
2
X) 1,00
: 9
8
- \ 5
- •= 4
s
f 3
1
o
- cc 2
UJ
Z
UJ
100,0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
00,000
0,000
)0
A
/
X
^^
— 7
jT
/
-y
X
/
^
~?
/
x1^
X
/ /
/
x
x^
^x
^/
X
/•
x
X
/
^
xx
/
i
^
v
X
M/
M/
yX
X
X
>
x
INT
TFF
X
/
B
E
:N
TA
PR
EN
JIL
NE
's
0(
El
Dl
RO
^
K
MI
Y
SS
\1
\
10
2 34 567891000 234 56789IOpOO 234 56789
FILTER AREA-ff2 100,000
-4-
100
FILTER AREA-m2
lO'OO
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PRESSURE FILTRATION PLANTS
FIGURE 94
252
-------
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
6
5
4
3
2
100,0
9"
8
7
- 6
t/r 5
T 4
1 3
O
_l 2
10,0
1
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
L000
3
8
6
5
4
3
2
00
6
t
6
2.
00 I0,(
9
- _ 7
i i i
LABOR-hr
OJ *
/
TOT
X
AL
L/
C
B
OST
)R
100
234 567891000 234 5678910000 234 56789
FILTER AREA-ft2 ' 100,000
•4-
10
100
FILTER AREA-m2
1000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PRESSURE FILTRATION PLANTS
FIGURE 95
253
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter
The continuous automatic backwash filter is an adaptation of rapid
sand filtration principles. The filter bed is contained in a shallow
rectangular concrete structure which is laterally divided into compartments.
Each compartment is in effect a single filter. Filter flow rate Is based
upon declining rate as there are no rate of flow controllers. An attractive
feature of the filter is that operating head losses are generally less than
one foot of water. A motor driven carriage assembly equipped with a backwash
pump and a washwater collection pump backwashes each compartment sequentially
as it traverses the length of the filter.
Costs were developed for filter units, capable of handling flows from
1 mgd to 200 mgd at a filtration rate of 2 gpm/ft2. Conceptual designs
are listed in Table 90. A filter box depth of 5 feet was used for all size
filters and each size plant utilizes a minimum of two filters. The filter
units are essentially self-contained and require no inter-connecting piping.
Filtered water, influent and backwash water are conducted to and from the
filter by troughs or channels integrally cast within the concrete filter
structure.
The nature of the equipment requires that it be housed for protection
from inclement weather and freezing temperatures. Housing costs were
developed assuming total enclosure of the filters: with minimum additional
space for access on two of the four sides for maintenance.
The costs are presented in Table 91 and Figure 96 and include the
filtration structure, internal mechanical equipment, partitions, underdrains,
rapid sand filter media (depth generally 11 inches) wash, water collection
trough, over-head pump carriage, electrical controls and instrumentation.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter
Energy requirements are for building heating, lighting and ventilation
and pumping costs related to backwashing of the automatic backwash filter.
It was assumed that the entire filter unit is. housed.
Maintenance material costs include general supplies, pump maintenance
and repair parts, replacement sand, and other miscellaneous items.
Labor costs were estimated from projected maintenance time requirements
and are related to general supervision and maintenance.
Table 92 summarizes the operation and maintenance requirements which are
illustrated graphically in Figures 97 and 98.
254
-------
Ul
Ul
Table 90
Conceptual Design
Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter
Plant Flow
mgd
1
5
10
100
200
Total Filter
Area, ft
360
1,750
3,520
35,200
70,400
Filters
Number
2
2
2
20
40
Area, ftz
180
875
1,760
1,760
1,760
o
Housing, ft
1,088
3,332
6,120
81,600
162,625
-------
Table 91
Construction Cost
Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter
Plant Flow, mgd
10 100 200
Excavation and Sitework $ 280 1,330 2,500 23,000 45,000
Manufactured Equipment 97,450 175,000 341,000 3,075,000 6,140,000
K Concrete 10,980 27,780 46,210 472,830 936,380
Steel 4,600 11,900 19,650 182,920 362,170
Labor 23,200 53,000 100,000 773,780 1,449,000
Piping and Valves 10,500 14,100 21,000 55,000 110,000
Electrical and Instrumentation 5,000 7,000 12,000 188,300 371,000
Housing 27.800 79,200 129,600 1.568,000 3,057,000
SUBTOTAL 179,810 369,310 671,960 6,338,830 12,520,540
Miscellaneous and Contingency 26,970 55, 400 100,790 950,820 1,878,080
TOTAL $ 206,780 424,710 772,750 7,289,650 14,398,620
-------
7
6
5
4
3
2
6
5
4
3
2
1 0,000, C
89
6
5
4
<* 3
1
£ *
0
O
g 1,000
s «
3 7
K 6
I- 5
w
Z 4
O
0 3
2
100,
>00
000
000
^
**
+ ''
X
X
*
/
r
v
r
£.
/.
/
/
/
/^
r
y
^^
-i/
/
•^
—
/
r —
•
100 2* 3 4 567891000 234 56789IOpOO 334 56789
r 100,000
TOTAL FILTER AREA- ft2
• >
ib 160 1000
TOTAL FILTER AREA-m2
CONSTRUCTION COST
CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC BACKWASH FILTER
FIGURE 96
257
-------
Table 92
Operation and Maintenance Summary
Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter
Plant Flow, mgd
N)
Ui
oo
1
5
10
100
200
Total Filter
Area, ft2
360
1,750
3,520
35,200
70,400
Energy, kw-hr/yr
Building
111,629
341,863
627,912
8,372,160
16,685,325
Process
3,854
13,624
42,890
428,900
857,800
Total
115,483
355,487
670,802
8,801,060
17,543,125
Maintenance
Material
$/yr
650
1,400
2,200
19,000
35,000
Labor
hr/yr
728
832
1,040
10,000
18,000
Total Cost*
$/yr
11,394
20,385
32,724
383,032
741,294
Calculated using $0.03/kw-hr and $10.00/hr of labor
-------
100,
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,0
•w- '
i °
< 5
ifi 4
I 3
UJ 2
o
z
3 100
if
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
000
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
00 10,0
9
I
6
5
4
3
2
0 1,00
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
- ^ 6
- •* 4
- 5- 3
o
IT
~ Z 2
UJ
10,0
00,000
0,000
000
00
X
.-
X
**c -
X
MAir
MA
s
s
/
TEf
TER
X
/
At
Al
X
-7
c
x
>
r
^
^
^
/
x^
s
/
/
y
/
/
x
/
BU
ENI
/
X
PR
EN
/
/-
LD
IR(
f
*
OC
ER
x
y
N
Y
^
re
gy
/
/
^
3
t
^
t
> -
/
y-
100 234 567891000 234 56789IOpOO 2
TOTAL FILTER AREA, ft2
345 6789
100,000
10
100
1000
TOTAL FILTER AREA - m 2
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC BACKWASH FILTER
FIGURE 97
259
-------
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000,
6
5
4
3
2
IOO.OC
If
I- 6
„
0 5
0
9
I
10,00
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
000
: 1
6
5
4
3
2
0 I0,0(
9
6
5
4
3
0 100
f- 9
8
7
- _ 6
- j= 4
- i 3
O
m
- < 2
_J
. 100
30
0
^
•
**
^
X
^
^
^
i*
9
*
*
^|
,-x
^
X
X
/
X
y
F
/
>
r^
A
f
A
w
s
f
4
TOTAL
/
p ^f
^r
f
t*
ci
s
/
)S-
y
/
LA
y
/
B(
y
/
)F
/
/
»
100 234 567891000 234 5678910/500 234 56789
TOTAL FILTER AREA-ft2
-+-
1C
100
TOTAL FILTER AREA-m2
1000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC BACKWASH FILTER
FIGURE 98
260
-------
VI. EXAMPLE CALCULATION - DIRECT FILTRATION
THe following example uses the curves presented In this Interim Report
to develop capital and operation and maintenance costs for a direct filtration
plant treating a flow of 7 mgd, but designed with a capacity up to 10 mgd.
Table 93 presents the design and operating information for this example.
The table shows for each required unit process or system, the basic design
criteria, the design parameter, and the operating parameter. The design
and operating parameters are used with the appropriate cost curves.
TABLE 93
DESIGN CRITERIA
10 MGD DIRECT FILTRATION PLANT
System and Design Criteria
Flow Rate - mgd
Alum Feed System - 30 mg/1
operating dose
Polymer Feed System - 0.2 mg/1
operating dose
Rapid Mix - 30 seconds, G=600
Flocculation - 20 minutes, G=80
Filtration - 5 gpm/ft2, 24 hour
filter run
Filter Media — mixed media
Surface Wash - 12 hour filter run
Backwash Pumping - 12 hour filter
run, 4 filters
Design Parameter
10 mgd
104 Ib/hr
17 Ib/day
464 ft3
18,570 ft3
1,388 ft2
1,388 ft2
4 @ 350 ft2 each
5,250 gpm
Operating Parameter
7 mgd
73 Ib/hr
12 Ib/day
464 ft3
18,570 ft3
1,388 ft2
1,3.88 ft2
4 @ 350 ft2 each
5,250 gpm
Note: No clearwell Is included in this; example.
Design criteria presented in Table 93 represent average conditions,
but should not be utilized indiscriminantly for any water supply. This
report Is not Intended to serve as a total design manual, but rather to
aid In process selection, to Illustrate the effect of contaminant concentra-
tions upon overall process sizing, and to provide cost estimating data after
the design engineer has selected appropriate design parameters, number of
treatment units for each unit process, standby capacity, etc.
Table 94 presents the capital cost and operation/maintenance summary
for this example. In Table 94, construction cost and building energy require-
ments are based upon the design parameter for the process, and thus are
261
-------
Table 94
Direct Filtration Cost Calculation
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Unit Process
Alum Feed System -
Dry Installed Capacity-104 Ib/hr 48
Feed Rate - 73 Ib/hr
Polymer Feed System
Installed Capacity-17 Ib/day
Feed Rate - 12 Ib/day
Rapid Mix-G=600, Vol=464 ft3
Flocculation - G=70
Horizontal Paddle, Volume =
18,570 ft3
Filtration
Total Filter Area=l,388 ft2
Filter Media
1,388 ft2
Surface Wash
Four 350 ft2 filters
Backwash Pumping
Installed Capacity=5,250 gpm
10 minute wash, 4 filters
SUBTOTALS
Sitework, interface piping
roads at 5%
Subsurface Considerations
Standby Power
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
General Contractors Overhead
and Profit
SUBTOTAL
Engineering @ 10%
SUBTOTAL
Land, 3 acres @ $2,000/acre
Legal, Fiscal and Administrative
Interest during construction-
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Refer to
Figure
Numbers
'hr 48
51, 52
53
54, 55
56
57, 58
59
61, 62
63
64, 65
66
67
68, 69
70
71, 72
99
ive 101
•7% 103
Electrical Energy Maintenance
Construction kw-hr/yr Material
Cost Building Process $/year
33,000 23,090
4,900 200
19,000 8,210
17,300 270
IfiyOOO 0
47,240 30
150,000 0
57,000 1,400
500,000 270,000
0 7,050
45,600 000
73,720 0 150
20,440
80,000 0
49,640 _ 180
917,320 301,300 196,520 9,280
45,870
0
0
963,190
120,400
1,083,590
108,360
1,191,950
6,000
20,000
60,000
1,277,950
Labor
Hours/year
310
200
47Q
200
2, SCO
0
120
Iftn
3,960
262
-------
independent of the actual flow through the process. However, process energy,
maintenance material, and labor requirements are all based upon the operating
variable for the process, and therefore, vary with the flow through the
process. For example, the alum feed system is sized for a feed capacity
of 104 pounds per hour, yet is only operated in the example at 73 pounds
per hour. Construction costs and building related energy are then obtained
from the cost curves using the design parameter (104 pounds per hour), while
operation/maintenance costs other than building related energy are obtained
from the cost curves using the operating parameter (73 pounds per hour).
This approach represents, in our opinion, the most accurate method for use
of the curves when a process operates at less than design capacity. Other
approaches may be used however, simply by varying the operating parameter.
The sum of the construction costs, for the individual unit processes
yields a subtotal which is the basis for a number of special costs related
more to the aggregate cost than the cost of the individual unit processes.
These special costs include: (1) special sitework, landscaping, roads,
and interface piping between processes, (2) special subsurface considerations,
and (3) standby power. The special costs can vary widely, depending upon
the site available, the design engineer's preference, and regulatory agency
requirements. The computer program being developed as a part of this Project
will allow percentages and/or costs to be used for these special costs.
Adding these special costs to the aggregate cost of the unit processes gives
the total construction cost.
To the total construction cost, the following costs must be added:
(.1) general contractors overhead and profit, (2) engineering, (3) land,
(4) legal, fiscal, and administrative, and (5) interest during construction.
Curves for these costs, with the exception of engineering cost and land
are presented in Figures 99 to 103. A curve for engineering cost is not
included as the cost can vary widely depending on the need for the complexity
of preliminary studies, time delays, the size of the project, and any
construction related inspection and engineering design activities. The
computer program being developed as a part of this Project will allow a
variable input percentage for engineering, and for land, a variable cost
and acreage requirement.
Table 95 presents the calculation of annual cos.t and cost per 1,000
gallons treated. This calculation involves, a number of variables, such
as amortization percentage and period, lab.or rate, power rates, and unit
cost for chemicals. The variables used in Table 95 are representative of
United States averages, but may vary significantly between geographic areas.
The computer program being developed will allow variable input for each
of these rates or unit costs.
263
-------
TABLE 95
ANNUAL COST FOR DIRECT FILTRATION EXAMPLE
Total Annual Costs:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years
$120,630/year
Labor, 3,960 hours @ $10/hr (total labor $ 39,600/year
costs including fringes and benefits)
Electricity, 497,820 kwh @ $0.03
Fuel
Maintenance Material
$ 14,930/year
$ Q/year
$ 9,280/year
Chemicals, Alum, 320 tons/year @ $70/ton $ 31,160/year
Polymer, 4,380 Ibs/yr @ $2/lb
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $215,600/year
215,600 x 0.1
Cents per 1,000 gallons treated =
365 x 7 mgd
= 8.43 <:/1,000 gallons treated
Note: Does not include clearwell costs or ultimate sludge disposal costs.
264
-------
50,000,000
-vr
\
\-
V)
8 25,000,000
z
0
o
£ 10,000,000
z
o
o
< 5,000 ,000
t-
o
2,500,000
i.onn.nnn
mmf^mm
9 10 II 12
PERCENT OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
GENERAL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND
FEE PERCENTAGE VS TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION COST
FIGURE 99
265
-------
9
6
100,0
ll
6
5
4
* 3
1
co 2
CO
0
o
IO.OC
> 89]
i 7e!
fe 5
_
1 3
<
Q 2
z
<
< 100 C
co 9
U- o
i I
w
_l 4
3
3
100
00
)0
— 7^
/
/
/
/
/
f
X
/
s'
/
s^
^
s
s
s
t
3456 789
2 3456789 2 3456789 2
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
SUM OF CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND LAND COSTS -$
LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
PROJECTS LESS THAN $1,000,000
FIGURE 100
266
-------
i
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
r l00*'
i a
1- 7
S 6
0 5
4
UJ
> i
LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATI
0 _0
O w oj -& m o>->ja><0 § ro t
)00
0
2 345 6789
X
s
-X
X*
X
x
x
y
^
^
2 3 456789
,^^
^^^
, *^
.X
X"
X
X
X
••
*"
2 3456 789
100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
SUM OF CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND LAND COSTS- $
LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
PROJECTS GREATER THAN $1,000,000
FIGURE 101
267
-------
10,000
I
•V)-
I
I 3
o
i 2
o
o 1000
o I
z 7
ft^ fi
Q 5
W
LU
tr
UJ
100
9
8
6
5
4
J0%
_8%
6%
/
/
V
//
10
10,000 2 345 6789100,0002 3456789
SUBTOTAL OF ALL OTHER COSTS- $
345 6789
INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION-PROJECTS
LESS THAN $ 200,000
FIGURE 102
268
-------
10,000,000
1,000,000
o
r-
CJ
o
oc.
v>
a:
3
O
I-
co
UJ
z
3,000
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
1000
//
v/
A^
//'
10%
4^
7
2 34 56789 234 56789 234 56789
roo.ooo 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
SUBTOTAL OF ALL OTHER COSTS-^
INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS GREATER THAN $ 200,000
FIGURE 103
269
-------
VII. EXAMPLE CALCULATION - PRESSURE GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON PLANT
This example uses the curves included in this Interim Report to develop
capital and operation and maintenance costs for granular activated carbon
treatment using pressure contactors. In the example, the plant design capacity
is 15 mgd and the system is operating at full capacity.
Table 96 presents the design criteria and operating information for this
example. These design criteria represent hypothetical conditions, and should
not be utilized indiscriminately for any water supply. Before design of
facilities is initiated, pilot plant s.tudies are necessary to determine the
optimum carbon contactor empty bed contact time (EBCT) and regeneration
frequency for the carbon. These two factors will have a very significant
Influence on the cost of a given size system.
TABLE 96
DESIGN CRITERIA
15 MGD PRESSURE GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON PLANT
System Description & Design Criteria Design Parameter Operating Parameter
Flow 15 mgd 15 mgd
Required Carbon Volume1 20,889 ft3 20,889 ft3
Number Contactors2 18 18
Supply Pumping3 10,500 gpm 10,500 gpm
Backwash Pumping 1,360 gpm 1,360 gpm
Required Multiple Hearth Furnace Area5 245 ft2 245 ft2
Initial Carbon Charge6 626,670 Ibs
Makeup Carbon - 7% per regeneration •*— 263,201 lb.s
1Determined at assumed EBCT of 15 minutes, with application rate of 5 gpm/ft2
and a 10 foot carbon depth..
2Assume 12' 0 units @ 113 ft2/uni.t
Operating head 35 feet
One backwash per day for 10 minute duration
5Furnace area based upon regeneration every two months, a carbon density
of 30 lbs/ft3, a hearth loading of 70 Ihs./ft2/day and 40 percent down time
6Based upon density of 30 lbs/ft3
270
-------
Table 97 presents the capital cost and operation and maintenance require-
ments for each of the unit processes required in this example. The figure
numbers for the curves which were used to develop these costs and operation
and maintenance requirements are also shown in Table 97. The one exception
is for supply pumping, a curve which was unavailable in final form at the
time this Interim Report was. prepared.
The sum of the construction costs for the individual unit processes
shown in Table 97 yields a subtotal cost which is the basis for a number
of special costs more appropriately related to the subtotal cost than to
the construction cost of each individual unit processes. These special
costs include: (1) special sitework, landscaping, roads, and interface
piping between processes, (2) special subsurface considerations, and
(3) standby power. The special costs can vary widely, depending upon the
site, the design engineer's preference, and regulatory agency requirements.
Adding these special costs to the aggregate cost of the unit processes gives
the total construction cost.
To arrive af the total capital cost, the following costs must be added
to the total construction cost: (1) general contractor's overhead and
profit, (2) engineering, (3) land, (4) legal, fiscal and administrative,
and (5) interest during construction. Curves for these costs, with the
exception of engineering cost and land are presented in Figures 99 to 103.
A curve for engineering cost is not included as the cost will vary widely,
depending on the need for preliminary studies, time delays, the size and
complexity of the project, and any construction related inspection and
engineering design activities.
Table 98 presents a calculation of total annual cost and cost per 1,000
gallons treated. This calculation involves a number of variables such as
amortization rate and period, labor rate including fringes and benefits,
electrical rates, and natural gas rates. The variables used in Table 3
are representative of United States averages, but may vary significantly
between geographical areas.
271
-------
Table 97
Pressure Granular Activated Carbon Cost Calculation
Unit Process
Refer to
Figure
Numbers
Pressure Carbon Contactors 11
Volume = 20,889 ft3 12, 13
Surface Area = 2,090 ft2
Initial Carbon Charge, 27
626,670 Ibs
Supply Pumping - *
10,500 gpm
Backwash Pumping - 70
1,360 gpm, one ten
minute wash/day/contactor
Multiple Hearth Carbon 23
Regeneration, 245 ft2 24, 25, 26
Makeup Carbon - 27
263,201 Ib/yr
SUBTOTALS
Sitework, interface
piping, roads at 5%
Subsurface Considerations
Standby Power
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
General Contractors
Overhead and Profit 99
SUBTOTAL
Engineering @ 10%
SUBTOTAL
Land, 6 acres @ $2,000/acre
Legal Fiscal and 101
Administrative
Interest during 103
constriction - 8%
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Construction
Cost
1,600,000
1,200,000
3,375,000
168,750
0
0
3,543,750
354,380
3,898,130
389,810
4,287,940
12,000
41,000
330,000
4,670,940
Electrical Energy
kw-hr
Building Process
600,000
11,000
Natural Gas
scf/yr
Maintenance
Material Labor
$/year hr/yr
370,000
160,000
45,000
0 963,270
0 **
9,500
2,500
3,900
800
20,000
360,000*** 22,800,000***4,800*** 2,760
— — 160,000
620,000 1,334,270 22,800,000 176,800
7,460
*These curves were unavailable in final form at the time the Interim Report was prepared.
The curves will be included in the Final Report.
**Included in the pressure contactor costs.
***Value for 245 ft2 (0.6) to account for 60% down time.
272
-------
Table 98
Annual Cost for Granular Activated Carbon Plant Example
Total Annual Costs :
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years
$ 440,890/yr
Labor, 7,460 hours @ $10/yr (total labor $ 74,600/yr
costs including fringes and benefits)
Electricity, 1,954,270 kwh <§ $0.03
Natural Gas 22,800,000 scf @ $0.0013
Maintenance Material
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Cents per 1,000 gallons treated = ^l
0 365 x 15 mgd
= 14. 26
-------
APPENDIX A
GEOGRAPHICAL INFLUENCE UPON
BUILDING RELATED ENERGY.
Overall building related energy requirements are greatly influenced
by the geographical location. Those components which show, strong geographical
influence are heating and cooling, whole lighting and ventilation are rela-
tively constant in different geographic areas. A lighting requirement
of 2 watts/square foot is adequate for most enclosed water treatment processes
or equipment. This is equivalent to 17.5 kw-hr/ft2/yr. Ventilating require-
ments are also relatively constant, a 2.2 kw-hr/ft2/yr, based on six air
changes per hour.
An analysis was conducted of heating and cooling requirements for each
of the 21 cities included in the ENR Indices. This analysis was done for
a building module of 20' x 40* x 14', an average winter indoor temperature
of 68°F and an average summer indoor temperature of 75°F. Although it
certainly would not be true in many situations, electrical energy was assumed
for heating in each area. The results, expressed in terms of kw-hr/ft2/yr
are shown in Table 1, along with the ventilation and lighting requirements.
As can be seen, building related energy requirements range from a low
of 25.8 kw-hr/ft2 in Miami to a high of 219.8 kw-hr/ft2 in Minneapolis.
The 21 city average was 102.6 kw-hr/ft2, and this value was used to develop
the total operation/maintenance cost curves included in this Report.
274
-------
City
Seattle
Salt Lake City
Omaha
Minneapolis
Chicago
New York
Boston
San Francisco
Denver
St. Louis
Las Vegas
Richmond, Va.
Nashville
Washington, D.C.
Los Angeles
Pheonix
Albuquerque
Dallas
Tampa
Atlanta
Miami
Averages:
TABLE 1
GEOGRAPHICAL INFLUENCE UPON
BUILDING RELATED ENERGY
Electrical Energy - kw-hr/ft2/yr
Lighting
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5.
17.5
„ _—
Venti lation
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
Heati ng
59.4
144.0
157.3
199.4
146.4
90.3
104.4
40.5
149,5
116.6
36.3
71.6
70.6
78.3
27.7
23.7
80.6
43.8
9.2
54.9
2.9
Cooling
0.2
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.5
1.6
2.4
2.4
1.6
2.0
1.6
0.5
2.4
1.2
5.6
3.2
1.5
3.2
1 UTAL
79.3
164.5
177.9
219.8
166.9
110.7
124.5
60.7
170.8
138.7
58.4
92.9
92.3
99.6
47.9
45.8
101.5
69.1
32.1
76.1
25.8
L7.5
2.2
81.3
1.6
102.6
NOTE: Building module used was 20' x 40' x 14', with a winter inside
design temperature of 68°F, a summer inside design temperature of 75°F
and a ventilation rate of 6 changes per hour.
275
-------
APPENDIX B
ESTIMATING COSTS FOR
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEMS
IN WATER PURIFICATION BASED ON
EXPERIENCE IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
INTRODUCTION
Because the use of granular activated carbon (GAG) is relatively new
in the purification of potable water, there is a rather limited amount of
cost data available from actual plant operations. Fortunately, however,
GAC has b.een used since 1965 for the adsorption of organics from wastewater.
Complete, detailed, reliable cost data are available on constructing,
operating, and maintaining complete GAC wastewater treatment systems
including carbon contact, regeneration, and transport. These data are
available from a number of sources and for a variety of plant capacities.
There are differences: in the use of GAC for water purification and
wastewater treatment, however, and these differences will influence cost.
Some of the differences are obvious, but others are less apparent.
However, a sanitary engineer who is informed and experienced in both fields
as well as in cost estimating can use the cost experience accumulated in
wastewater operations to estimate GAC costs for water purification quite
readily, and with the same degree of accuracy (± 15%) attendant to
preliminary estimates for other water treatment processes.
GAC SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Systems utilizing granular carbon are. rather simple. In general, they
provide for: (I) contact between the carbon and the water to be treated
for the length of time required to obtain the necessary removal of organics,
(2) regeneration or replacement of spent carbon, and (.3) transport of makeup
or regenerated carbon into the contactors and of spent carbon from the
contactors to regeneration or hauling facilities.
Selecting Carbon and Plant Design Criteria. Pilot plant tests are a
mandatory prelude to carbon selection and plant design for both water and
wastewater treatment projects. Pilot column tests make it possible to:
(1) select the best carbon for the specific purpose based on performance;
(2) determine the required contact time; (3) establish the required carbon
dosage, which will determine the capacity of the carbon regeneration furnace
or the necessary carbon replacement costs; and (4) determine the effects of
variations in influent water quality.
276
-------
One of the principal differences in costs for GAC treatment between
water and wastewater will be the more frequent regeneration required in
water purification due to earlier breakthrough of the organics of concern.
In wastewater treatment, GAC may be expected to adsorb 0.30 to 0.55 pounds
of COD per pound of carbon before the carbon is exhausted. In water
treatment, the organics of concern may breakthrough at carbon loadings
much lower than those which are obtained in wastewater treatment. THE
ALLOWABLE CARBON LOADING OR CARBON DOSAGE AND THE NEEDED REGENERATION
CAPACITY MUST BE DETERMINED FROM PILOT PLANT TEST RESULTS. These factors
cannot be estimated from wastewater data. Therefore, costs taken from
wastewater cost curves which are plots of flow in mgd versus cost (capital
cost or 0 & M costs) cannot be applied directly to water treatment.
Allowance must be made in the capital costs for the greater regeneration
capacity needed, and in the 0 & M costs for the greater amount of carbon to
be regenerated or replaced.
Preliminary indications are that the lightly-loaded carbons resulting
from water treatment can be more rapidly and easily reactivated than those
from wastewater treatment, so that proportionally less furnace capacity
will be needed. However, the regeneration characteristics of carbon saturated
with, organics adsorbed during water purification are not well established
at this time. Until these characteristics are better understood, It appears
prudent to use the regeneration characteristics of GAC which has been saturated
with organics adsorbed from wastewater as a guide to regeneration capacity
required for water treatment. If such time and temperature requirements
per pound of carbon to be regenerated are used, regeneration equipment may
be larger and more expensive than necessary, but the amount of such cost is
not great, and some factor of safety in regeneration capacity would be
obtained.
Selection of the general type of carbon contactor to be used for a
particular water treatment plant application may be based on several
considerations indicating the judgement and preference of the engineering
designer. The choice generally would be made from three types of downflow
vessels:
1. Deep-bed, factory-fabricated, steel pressure vessels of 12-foot
maximum diameter. These vessels might be used over a range of
carbon volumes from 2,000 to 5Q,OQO cubic feet.
2. Shallow-bed, reinforced concrete, gravity filter-type boxes may
be used for carbon volumes ranging from 1,000 to 200,000 cubic
feet. Shallow beds probably will be used only when long service
cycles between carbon regenerations can be expected, based on
pilot plant test results.
3. Deep-bed, site-fabricated, large (20 to 30 feet) diameter, open
steel, gravity tanks may be used for carbon volumes ranging from
6,000 to 200,000. cubic feet, or larger.
277
-------
These ranges; overlap, and the designer may very well make the final
selection based on local factors, other than total capacity, which affect
efficiency and cost.
GAC Contactors. The advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) experience
with GAC contactors may be applied to water purification if some differences
in requirements are taken into account. The required contact time must be
determined from pilot plant test results. Contactors may be designed for
a downflow or upflow mode of operation. Upflow packed beds or expanded beds
provide maximum carbon efficiency through the use of countercurrent flow
principles. However, upflow beds can be used only when followed by
filtration due to the leakage of some carbon fines in the effluent. Down-
flow beds probably will be used in most municipal water treatment applications,
Single beds or two beds in series may be used. Open gravity beds or closed
pressure vessels may be used. Structures may be coal-tar epoxy coated steel
or reinforced concrete. In general, small plants will use steel, and large
plants may use steel or reinforced concrete.
In some instances where GAC has. been used in existing water filtration
plants, sand in rapid filters has been replaced with. GAC. In situations
where GAC regeneration or replacement cycles are exceptionally long (several
months or years), as may be the case in taste and odor removal, this may
be a solution. However, with the short cycles anticipated for most organics,
conventional concrete box style filter beds are not well suited to GAC
contact. There principal drawbacks are the shallow bed depths and the
difficulty of moving carbon in and out of the beds. Deeper beds, or
contactors with greater aspect ratios of depth to area, provide much greater
economy in capital costs. The contactor cost for the needed volume of
carbon is much less. Carbon can be. moved in water slurry from contactors
with conical bottoms easily and quickly and with virtually no labor. Flat-
bottomed filters which require labor to move the carbon, unnecessarily add
greatly to carbon transport costs. For most, if not all, GAC installations
for trihalomethane (THM) removal, precursor organic removal, or synthetic
organic removal, the use of conventional filter boxes will not be a permanent
solution and specially designed GAC contactors should be installed.
Contactors should be equipped with flow measuring devices. Seperate GAC
contactors are especially advantageous where GAC treatment is required only
part of the time during certain seasons, because they then can be used only
when needed and bypassed when not needed, thus saving unnecessary exhaustion
and regeneration of GAC. In summary, tremendous cost savings can be
realized in GAC treatment of water through proper selection and design of
the carbon contactors.
GAC Replacement or Regeneration. Spent carbon may be removed from
contactors and replaced with virgin carbon, or it may be regenerated either
on-site or off-site. The most economical mode depends upon the quentities
of GAC involved and the effective service life of the carbon. For large
plants and large volumes of GAC, on-site regeneration is the answer. Only
in small plants, or in large plants with service cycles of several months,
will carbon replacement or off-site regeneration be economical.
278
-------
Carbon may he thermally regenerated to full virgin activity. However,
carbon losses may b.e excessive under these conditions. Experience in
Industrial and was:tewater treatment Indicates that carbon losses can be
minimized (held to 8 to 10 percent per cycle) if the GAG activity of regen-
erated carbon as Indicated by the Iodine Number, is held at about 90 percent
of the virgin activity. For removal of certain organics, there may be no
decrease In removal despite a 10 percent drop in Iodine Number.
Thermal Regeneration Equipment. GAG may be reactivated in a multiple—
hearth furnace, a fluidized bed furnace, a rotary kiln, or an electric
infrared furnace. Spent GAG is drained dry (40 percent moisture content)
in a screen-equipped tank or in a dewatering screw before Introduction to
the regeneration furnace. Dewatered carbon is usually transported by a
screw conveyor. Following thermal regeneration, the GAG is cooled in a
quench tank. The water-carbon slurry may then be transported by means of
diaphragm slurry pumps, eductors, or a blow-tank. The regenerated carbon
may contain fines produced during conveyance, and these fines should be
removed in a water tank or in the contactor. Maximum furnace temperatures
and time of retention in the furnace are determined by the amount (pounds
of organics per pound of carbon) and nature (molecular weight) of the
organics adsorbed.
Off-gases from carbon regeneration present no air pollution problems
provided they are properly scrubbed, or, In some cases, passed through
an afterburner (for odor control) and then scrubbed.
Required Furnace Capacity. The principal cost differences between GAG
treatment of water and wastewater lie In the capital cost of the furnace
and In the 0 & M costs for the quantity of carbon to be regenerated. As
already discussed, the cost of regeneration per pound of carbon may be
less for carbons used In water treatment due to the greater volatility of
the organics adsorbed, but a prudent approach to use at the present time
is to assume that the cost of regeneration per pound of carbon Is the same
for GAG used in treating water and wastewater.
Also, as previously mentioned, the pounds of organics adsorbed on a
pound of carb,on at the point of breakthrough may be quite different for
water and wastewater. Usually the loading will be much less for water
treatment carb.ons. TO ACCURATELY ESTIMATE GAG COSTS FOR WATER PURIFICATION
IT IS ESSENTIAL TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF
ORGANICS ADSORBED AS COMPARED TO THOSE ADSORBED IN AWT. To fail to take
this important difference into account could lead to erroneous estimates
of cost, and the estimated cost differences could be substantial. To
repeat, it is not possible to use GAG cost curves for AWT based on mgd
throughput or plant capacity to obtain costs for water treatment.
Differences in regeneration requirements must be taken Into account.
Carbon'Transport and GAG Process Auxiliaries. There can be tremendous
differences in 0 & M costs for GAG systems depending upon the method selected
for carbon transport. Transport of GAG in water slurry by gravity or use
of water pressure is simple, easy, inexpensive, rapid, and uses very little
labor. Moving dry or dewatered carbon manually or with mechanical means
279
-------
involving lab.or can b.e very difficult, time consuming, and costly. The
proper use of conical bottoms in carbon contactors, dewatering bins, storage
bins, wash tanks, and the like can minimize GAG handling costs. Efforts to
use existing (or new) flat-bottomed structures requiring operator or other
labor to more the carbon can be costly.
SOURCES OF COST AND DESIGN DATA FOR GAG SYSTEMS
General. There are three main sources ,of cost information and organic
adsorption data needed to prepare cost estimates for GAC systems for
production of drinking water. These are the: (.1) EPA publications,
particularly those of recent research at the Cincinnati laboratories,
(2) articles concerning the experience with GAC in AWT, and (.3) papers
concerning the use of GAC in water filtration plants.
EPA Publications. Pertinent publications of Interes:t are:
1. Clark, Robert M., et al., "The Cost of Removing Chloroform and
Other Trihalomethanes From Drinking Water Supplies", EPA 600/1-77-008,
March, 1977.
2. Symons, James M., "Interim Treatment Guide for Controlling Organic
Contaminants in Drinking Water Using Granular Activated Carbon",
EPA Water Supply Research. Division, Cincinnati, January, 1978.
3. "Advanced Wastewater Treatment as Practiced at South Tahoe",
EPA 17010ELQ08/71, August, 1971.
Reference No. 2 on page 108 gives an example of the method of converting
carbon dosage requirements for water purification Into regeneration
requirements and costs, using carbon dosage requirements obtained from
the results of pilot plant work. This example Includes capital and 0 & M
costs.
AWT Cost Experience. Good cost data is available from operating
installations at: (1) The South Tahoe Public Utility District, South
Lake Tahoe, California (.13 years), (.2) the Orange County Water District,
Fountain Valley, California (4 years), and (3) the Upper Occoquan Sewage
Authority, Manassas Park, Virginia (.capital cost data only - plant not yet
in operation).
The South Tahoe data is summarized In two books; (.1) Gulp, R.L. and
Culp, G.L., "Advanced Wastewater Treatment", Van Nostrand Relnhold, New
York, 1971, and (.2) Gulp, Wesner, Culp "Handbook of Advanced Wastewater
Treatment", Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York., 1978.
GAC Experience in Potable Water Treatment. The experience with 12
integrated filtration-adsorption units Is summarized on pages 239-247 of
"New Concepts In Water Purification", Culp and Culp, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, 1974 (see Table 1).
280
-------
TABLE 1
GRANULAR CARBON INSTALLATIONS IN
MUNICIPAL WATER PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Water Plant Location
AWWS Co., Hopewell, Virginia
Nitro, West Virginia
Montecito Co. Water District
Santa Barbara, California
Del City, Oklahoma
Somerset, Massachusetts
Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Lawrence, Massachusetts
Piqua, Ohio
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
Granite City, Illinois
Winchester, Kentucky
Mt. Clemens, Michigan
Year
Installed
1961
1966
1963
1967
1968
1969
1969
1969
1970
1971
1970
1968
Size of
Plant (mgd)
3.0
10.0
1.5
5.25
4.5
24
10
8
4.5
7
1.5
7
Flow Rate
(gpm ft3)
2.0
1.5-2.0
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.4
2
1.7
Carbon
Bed
Depth
24 in.
30 in.
12 ft.
36 in.
11 in.
18 in.
24 in.
30 in.
18 in.
24 in.
18 in.
24 in.
24 in.
281
-------
Industrial and Miscellaneous Municipal' Carbon RerggmefatioTi Tu'riiace
Installations. Some cost data is also available from the following carbon
furnace installations:
CARBON FURNACE INSTALLATIONS
Installation
Use
Dye Wastewater
Wastewater, Industrial
II
tl
Date
Hollytex Carpet Mills, PA 1969
BP Oil, N.J. 1971
Stepan Chemical Co., N.J. 1972
Hercules, Mississippi 1972
Amerada Hess, N.J. 1973
American Aniline, PA 1973
American Cyanimid, N.J. 1977
Esso Research 1973
Republic Steel Corp. 1974
Colorado Springs, CO 1969
Rocky River, OH 1972
Derry Township, PA 1974 " "
Vallejo, CA 1974 " "
Santa Clara V.W.D. Palo Alto, CA 1975 " "
Tahoe-Truckee San. Dist., CA 1976 " "
No. Towanda, N.Y. 1976 " "
Nassau Co., N.Y. 1977 " "
There are another 30-50 carbon furnaces installed for use in connection
with refining (decolorizing) of corn syrup and beet sugar.
Municipal
it
282
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-182
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Estimating Costs for Water Treatment As A Function
of Size and Treatment Efficiency
5. REPORT DATE
August 1978 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Robert C. Gumerman, Russell L. Gulp, and
Sigurd P. Hansen
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Culp/Wesner/Culp
Consulting Engineers
Santa Ana, CA 92707
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1CC614 SOS-1 Task 38
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CI-76-0288
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
EPA 600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Robert M. Clark 513-684-7209
16. ABSTRACT
This interim report discusses unit processes and combinations of unit processes
which are capable of removing contaminants included in the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Standards. Construction and Operation and Maintenance cost
curves are presented for 30 unit processes, which are considered to be especially
applicable to contaminant removal. The Final Report for this project will include
similar cost curves for over 100 unit processes. All costs are presented in terms
of January 1978 dollars, but a discussion is included on cost updating. For
construction cost, either of two methods may be used. One is to use indices which
are specific in the eight categories used to determine construction cost. The
second is use of an all-encompassing index, such as ENR Construction Cost Index.
Operation and maintenance reauirements mav be readilv updated, or adiusted to local
conditions, since labor reauirements are expressed in hours per vear. and
electrical reauirements in kilowatt-hours per vear.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Construction Costs
Cost Analysis
Cost Estimates
Cost Indexes
Economic Analysis
Operating Costs
Unit Costs
Unit Process Costs
Conceptual Designs
Contaminant Removal
Process Efficiency
13 B
91 J
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified •
21. NO. OF PAGES
295
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
283
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-757-140/1342 Region No. 5-11
------- |