United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-87/058 Sept. 1987
&EPA Project Summary
Safe Drinking Water Act Cost
Impacts on Selected Water
Systems
Bruce E. Burris and Robert C. Gumerman
Detailed site visits to eight U.S. water
utilities assessed the capital and opera-
tion and maintenance (O&M) cost im-
pacts of making treatment changes due
to the existing and proposed require-
ments of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). New treatment facilities were
constructed at each utility to correct
water quality problems that had
resulted in violations or concerns under
the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR). The drinking
water problems addressed in this report
include coliform bacteria, turbidity,
trihalomethanes (THM's), Giardia
lamblia, and trichloroethylene (TCE).
New treatment facilities constructed
include conventional treatment using
flocculation, sedimentation, filtration,
and chlorination for coliform bacteria,
turbidity, and Giardia removal. Preoz-
onation was installed at one utility for
reduction of THM's. Airstripping
facilities constructed at three of the
utilities were primarily for TCE removal
from groundwater.
In addition to documenting the costs
of meeting the SDWA, the individual
reports prepared for each utility contain
10 years worth of data on many water
system activities. These include capital
and O&M costs for the categories of
acquisition, treatment, distribution of
water, and suppopt services. Other in-
formation compiled includes detailed
water quantity information, specific
O&M information, as well as many
other details on each utility.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Water Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to announce
key findings of the research project that
Is fully documented In a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering Information at back).
Introduction
A significant number of the public
water utilities in the United States have
had or will have to make changes or
additions to their treatment processes in
order to meet the requirements of the
SDWA. Site visits to eight U.S. water
utilities reviewed records on capital and
O&M costs for meeting the existing and
proposed requirements of the SDWA. In
addition, information was obtained for a
10-year period on the capital and O&M
costs for the major water operations
categories of acquisition, treatment, dis-
tribution, and support services. Other
information obtained includes detailed
water quantity information, including gal-
lons per year of revenue producing water,
treated water, purchased water, ground
water, and surface water; more specific
O&M costs including labor, electric
power, and chemicals; depreciation and
interest; quantity of pipe in system; num-
ber of water meters; and size of retail
service area.
The (NPDWR) water quality violations
that occurred at the utilities examined
included: coliform bacteria, turbidity, and
total THM's. Other contaminants
included G. lamblia and the volatile
organic chemical TCE. New treatment
processes constructed to solve the
drinking water problems include floccu-
lation, sedimentation, and filtration for
reducing coliform bacteria and turbidity,
ozonation for reducing THM's, and
airstripping for reducing TCE.
-------
Individual Utility Reports
Documentation on each of the eight
utilities where site visits were conducted
is presented in various sections of the
final report. Information presented for
each utility includes the following general
information:
EPA Region Number
U.S. Postal Service Code
EPA Identification Number
Years, 1-10
Water System Name
Water System Representative —
Name, title, address, phone number
EPA Regional Representative —
Name, title, address, phone number
State Representative — Name, title,
address, phone number
Population of Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA)
Population of County
Population of City or Town
Population of Retail Service Area
Gas or Oil Fuel
Treatment Process (for each process)
Treatment Number
Treatment Name
Treatment Code
Percentage Treated
Chemicals (for each chemical)
Number
Name
Code
Amount and units
The following items are also included
for each utility for each year in the 10-
year period:
Acquisition O&M Cost ($/yr)
Treatment O&M Cost ($/yr)
Support Services O&M Cost ($/yr)
Total O&M Cost ($/yr)
Payroll Costs ($/yr)
Labor Used (manhours/yr)
Power Costs ($/yr)
Energy Used (kWh/yr)
Total Chemical Costs ($/yr)
Total Depreciation Values ($/yr)
Total Interest ($/yr)
Total Capital Costs ($/yr)
Acquisition Capital Costs ($/yr)
Treatment Capital Costs ($/yr)
Distribution Capital Costs ($/yr)
Support Services Capital Costs ($/yr)
Special Taxes ($/yr)
Revenue Producing Water (MG/yr)
Treated Water (MG/yr)
Maximum Daily Flow (MG/day)
Maximum Hourly Flow (MG/hr)
Raw Water Purchased (MG/yr)
Treated Water Purchased (MG/yr)
Raw Water from Ground Supply
(MG/yr)
Raw Water from Surface Supply
(MG/yr)
Amount of Pipe in System (mi)
Number of Consumer Water Meters
Number of Consumer Water Accounts
Number of Flat-Rate Accounts
Area of Retail Service (mi2)
Fuel (gas-scf/yr, oil-gal/yr)
Capital Costs to Conform with SDWA
($/yr)
O&M Costs to Conform with SDWA
($/yr)
In addition, the following information
was requested from each utility:
Historical Water Rates
Top 10 Water Users, Water Usage and
Water Bills
Treatment Effectiveness — Water
Quality Records
Treatment Plant Design Criteria
Treatment Process O&M Costs
Water Department Organizational
Chart
Fixed and Variable Costs
Financial Arrangements of Utility
Conclusions
A summary of the drinking water
problem, new treatment required, average
design flow capacity, and the additional
costs to meet SDWA requirements is
shown in Table 1 for each utility
investigated.
Overall, the unit capital costs are
considerably lower for the airstripping
process than for conventional treatment.
However, the overall lowest unit capital
cost is for the 120 MGD conventional
treatment facility. This facility also has
the lowest unit O&M cost. This is partly
due to the obvious economy of scale
realized when comparing a 120 MGD
treatment plant to 6 other plants with
design capacities under 7 MGD and one
plant with a design capacity of 50 MGD.
The full report was submitted in ful-
fillment of Contract No. 68-03-3216 by
CWC-HDR, Inc., under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Tabto 1. Cost Impacts of Safe Drinking Water Act on Selected Water Systems
Additional Costs to
Meet SDWA. $/MG Treated
Drinking
Water Water
System Problem
Idyllwild, Bacteria,
CA Giardia
LeRoy, NY Turbidity
Potsdam, THM's
NY
Design
Treatment Capacity
Required (MGD) Capital O&M
Package 0.8 210 326
Filter
Plant
Flocculation 1.7 864 78
Sedimentation
Filter
Ozone, 2.6 1.195 380
Flocculation
Sedimentation
Filter
Total
System
536
942
1,575
Tacoma,
WA
Everett,
WA
San Juan
Suburban
Water
District. CA
Hartland,
Wl
Scottsdale,
AZ
TCE,
1. 1,2,2
Tetrachloro-
ethane
Turbidity
Turbidity
TCE
TCE
Airstripping 7
Flocculation 50
Filter
Flocculation 120
Sedimentation
Filter
Airstripping 1.4
Airstripping 1.7
56
167
50
260
89
77
49
23
64
53
133
216
73
324
142
-------
Bruce E. Burris and Robert C. Gumerman are with CWC-HDR, Inc., Santa Ana,
CA 92707.
Jeffrey Q. Adams is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Safe Drinking Water Act Cost Impacts on Selected
Water Systems," (Order No. PB 87-227 260/AS; Cost: $30.95, subject to
change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Officer can be contacted at:
Water Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-87/058
0000329 PS
U S ESVJR PROTECTION
REGION 5 LISRAR*
a30 S DEARBORN STR65T
CHICAGO IL 60604
------- |