,v
r-
TECHNOLOGIES & COSTS FOR POINT-OF-E.NTRY (POE) AND
POLNT-OF-USE (POU) DEVICES FOR CONTROL OF
DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS (FINAL REPORT)
STANDARDS AND RISK REDUCTION BRANCH
STANDARDS AND RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TASK ORDER PROJECT OFFICER: WILLIAM HAMELE
NOVEMBER 1998
INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
4134 Linden Ave., Suite 200
Dayton, OH 45432
Under Contract with the USEPA No. 68-C6-0039
Delivery Order No.8, Modification No. 3
EPA/815/R-98/016
-------
ACK> O\\ LEDGMENTS
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Standards and Risk Reduction Branch.
Standards and Risk Management Division prepares this document. The Task Order Project Officer
w-as Mr William Hamele of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technical consultant, International Consultants, Incorporated played a significant role in the
preparation of this document. The Technical Project Manager was'Michael T Cowles of
International Consultants, Inc. The Project Manager was Ronald Braun of International Consultants,
Inc. Members of the International Consultants technical support team were Christopher Hill, and
Timothy Soward.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page:
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1 1 Background . 1
1 2 Purpose ... . . . -
1 3 Point-of-Entry and Point-of-Use Devices ... 2
1.3 1 Point-of-Entry Devices 3
1 3 2 Point-of-Use Devices 4
1.4 Standards for POE/POU Units 4
1.5 Document Organization . . 5
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS 6
2.1 Basis For Cost Estimates .6
2.1.1 Installation Assumptions 6
2.1.2 Capital Cost Assumptions 7
2.1.3 Operation and Maintenance Cost Assumptions 7
2.1.3.1 Maintenance Cost Assumptions 7
2.1.3.2 Labor Cost Assumptions 8
2.1.3.3 Monitoring Cost Assumptions 8
2.1.3.4 Waste Cost Assumptions 9
2.1.4 Additional Assumptions 9
3.0 REVERSE OSMOSIS 10
3.1 Process Description 10
3.1.1 Parameters to Ensure Peak Reverse Osmosis Performance . . 10
3.1.2 Pretreatment for Reverse Osmosis 11
3 2 Design Criteria 11
3.3 Total Costs 12
4.0 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 14
4.1 Process Description 14
4.1.1 Bacterial Colonization of POE/POU Devices 14
4.2 Design Criteria 14
4.3 Total Costs 15
5.0 COST ANALYSIS ' 17
5.1 Curve Fitting Analysis 17
5.2 Break-Point Analysis 17
5.3 Affordability Criteria Assessment 18
5.3.1 Determination of Household Affordability 19
6.0 REFERENCES : 22
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Pip 4.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Paae:
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
Table 1-1 Maximum Contaminated Levels for D/DBP 1
Table 1-2 Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels for D/DBP . . 2
Table 1 -3 US EPA Flow Categories for
Which POE/POU Cost Were Developed 3
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS 6
Table 2-1 POU Cost Data for Replacement Components 8
Table 2-2 Sampling Cost Estimates 8
3.0 REVERSE OSMOSIS 10
Table 3-la Design Criteria for POE Reverse Osmosis Devices 11
Table 3-lb Design Criteria for POU Reverse Osmosis Devices 11
Table 3-2 Total Cost for POE Reverse Osmosis Devices . 12
Table 3-3 Total Cost for POU Reverse Osmosis Devices 13
4.0 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 14
Table 4-la Design Criteria for POE GAC Devices 15
Table 4-lb Design Criteria for POU GAC Devices 15
Table 4-2 Total Cost for POE GAC Devices 16
Table 4-3 Total Cost for POU GAC Devices 16
5.0 COST ANALYSIS 17
Table 5-1 Translation of Centralized Treatment Cost 17
Table 5-2 Break-Point Analysis - Ground Water System 18
Table 5-3 Break-Point Analysis - Surface Water System .18
Table 5-4 National Level Affordabilhy Criteria 19
Table 5-5 Number of Households by Size Category for POE/POU Options 20
Table 5-6 Summary of POEVPOU Cost
and Household Income 21
Ptge-ii-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Appendix A
Figure A-1
Figure A-2
Figure A-3
Figure A-4
Figure A-5
Figure A-6
Figure A-7
Figure A-8
Figure A-9
Figure A-10
Figure A-11
Figure A-12
Figure A-13
Figure A-14
Figure A-15
Figure A-16
Cost Development for Point-of-Entry Reverse Osmosis (Ground Water)
Cost Development for Point-of-Use Reverse Osmosis (Ground Water)
Cost Development for Point-of-Entry Granular Activated Carbon (Ground
Water)
Cost Development for Point-of-Use Granular Activated Carbon (Ground
Water)
Cost Development for Point-of-Entry Reverse Osmosis (Surface Water)
Cost Development for Point-of-Use Reverse Osmosis (Surface Water)
Cost Development for Point-of-Entry Granular Activated Carbon (Surface
Water)
Cost Development for Point-of-Use Granular Activated Carbon (Surface
Water)
Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Ground Water- POE
Reverse Osmosis Devices-
Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Ground Water- POU
Reverse Osmosis Devices-
Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Ground Water- POE
GAC Devices-
Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Ground Water- POU
GAC Devices-
Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Surface Water- POE
Reverse Osmosis Devices-
Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Surface Water- POU
Reverse Osmosis Devices-.
Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Surface Water- POE
GAC Devices-
Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Surface Water- POU
GAC Devices-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
Appendix B
Figure B-l
Figure B-2
Figure B-3
Figure B-4
Figure B-5
Figure B-6
Figure B-7
Figure B-8
Break-Point Analysis for DBF Control Utilizing POE Reverse Osmosis
(Ground Water)
Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POU Reverse Osmosis
(Ground Water)
Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POE GAC
(Ground Water)
Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POU GAC
(Ground Water)
Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POE Reverse Osmosis
(Surface Water)
Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POU Reverse Osmosis
(Surface Water)
Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POE GAC
(Surface Water)
Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POU GAC
(Surface Water)
-------
1.0 CsTRODlCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The use of disinfection to reduce waterborne disease in drinking water is common practice
in the drinking water treatment industry. Disinfectants, primarily chlorine, have been used extensively
to ensure the safety of drinking water from pathogens. Research in the early 1970's uncovered
evidence that application of disinfectants can result in undesirable organic and inorganic disinfection
by-products (DBFs) through oxidation/reduction and substitution reactions in natural water In
1979, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) promulgated a regulation to
control DBP formation.
In 1979, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) promulgated a
regulation that set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 100 ^g/L for total Trihalomethanes
(TTHMs).
In the Stage 1 DBP Rule (DBPR), the US EPA promulgated MCLs for the following DBPs:
TTHMs, five haloacetic acids (HAAS), bromate, and chlorite at levels specified in Table 1-1
Table 1-1
Maximum Contaminant Levels for D/DBP
. - =• GnpMul -;• ;; • -
Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)
Bromate
Chlorite
MCL{ing/L)
Stage 1 DBP Rule
0.080
0.060
0.010
1.0
Also under this regulation, Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels (MRDLs) are established for the
most commonly used disinfectants. The MRDLs for Stage 1 of the DBP Rule are specified in Table
1-2.
The US EPA developed the Technologies and Costs for the Control of Disinfection By-
Products (US EPA, 1998c) to support development of the DBPR and to develop cost estimates for
the compliance technologies. Readers should refer to this document to obtaiir background
information on the chemistry of DBP formation and applicable treatment technologies.
Pige-l-
-------
Table 1-2
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels for D/DBP
Compound
Chlorine (as CU)
Chloramine (as CU)
Chlonne Dioxide (CIO,)
MBDLs
Stage 1 DBF Rule
40mg/L
4.0mg/L
0.8mg/L
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to examine the application and costs associated with the use
of Point-of-Entry (POE) and Point-of-Use (POU) devices as treatment technologies for control of
DBPs regulated by the DBPR. The POE/POU devices examined in this document include the
following:
• Reverse osmosis (RO); and
• Granular activated carbon (GAC).
This document develops cost estimates for the control of TTHM and HAAS with these two
types of POE/POU devices. The compliance technology for the MRDLs, and bromate, and chlorite
MCLs is controlled by process operations.
Estimates were developed for the five smallest US EPA flow categories for POU devices and
the three smallest US EPA flow categories for POE devices, as shown in Table 1-3. Economies of
scale allow centralized treatment to be less expensive than POE/POU devices for use by larger flow
categories; therefore, POE/POU estimates are not provided for all twelve US EPA flow categories.
1.3 POINT-OF-ENTRY AND POINT-OF-USE DEVICES
The US EPA is not listing POE and POU devices as compliance technologies for the Surface
Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). Section 1412 (bX4)(EXii) of the 1996 SDWA specifically prohibits
POU devices as compliance technologies for microbial contaminants. The National Research
Council, a principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences, advises that POE devices
not be used for disinfection purposes (NRC, 1997). To be effective, water treatment authorities must
implement the appropriate technology, and ensure proper maintenance of the units. Water quality
monitoring is imperative to ensure all devices are operating efficiently and effectively.
P»ge-2-
-------
Although, the US EPA believes POL" devices are affordable (see chapter 51 for small s>items.
:he Agency has reser\ations listing POL" devices as a compliance technology for small systems under
DBP Rule because of concerns that they do not address ill routes of exposure (e.g , volatilization and
dermal exposure from DBPs) Because of these concerns, the US EPA believes additional research
's needed prior to listing of POU devices as a compliance technology for small systems. The
determination to not list POU devices for DBPs is consistent with the findings in the Small System
Compliance Technology Lists included in the Federal Register on August 6, 1998 (63 FR 4203), in
which POU devices were not listed for VOCs. When additional information is available, the US EPA
may consider listing POU devices as a compliance technology for small systems. POE devices are
still considered emerging technologies because of waste disposal and cost considerations and
therefore are not considered compliance technologies at this time for small.
Table 1-3
US EPA Flow Categories for
Which POE/POU Cost Were Developed
FfewOategK?
1
2
3
4
5
flfl|fljHHfli|i|tt
Pepalalien
Served
100
500
1.000
3.300
10.000
Itttattte*
ftuofeero*
Bmefcofe
33
167
333
1,100
3,333
AdJBtted
CoansptioB:
(keaUeoaaectkm)*
83
85
85
85
89
Note*: The estimated consumption was adjusted upward 15 percent to account for
tos water due to leaks.
* US EPA 1997 a,b,c
The cost reported for flow categories 2,4 and 5 correspond to the maximum population reported
for the three population-based size categories of small systems as outlined in 1996 Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). The 1996 SDWA size categories are as follows:
• 10,000 or fewer but more than 3,301;
• 3,300 or fewer but more than 501; and
• 500 or fewer but more than 25.
1.3.1 Point-of-Entry Devices
Point-of-Entry (POE) devices provide treatment for all the water entering a dwelling or house
POE devices, compared to POU devices, provide an increased level of protection against acute health
Pi*-3-
-------
::s.\i ana exposure to contaminants de volatile organic compounds.) via inhalation ar.c derrr.a:
contact Thus. POE devices are more applicable in situations where contaminants may cause health
ettects throush non-inaestion pathways because all the water entering the dwelling receives treatment
Water test information is needed in all POE applications to ensure proper application of the
technology (Johnson, 1996). Monitoring and service of POE units is critical to ensure proper
performance Flow meters and seasonal monitoring are essential components of the overall
maintenance scheme to gather information regarding water use and its effects on the POE system
This attention, especially during the first year of service, can result in a lower overall cost of
maintenance to the water treatment authority (Johnson, 1996).
1.3.2 Point-of-Use Devices
Point-of-Use (POU) devices are utilized for treatment of water meant only for consumption.
They are usually attached to household faucets. There are several different device alternatives
including: faucet-mounted units, counter-top units, in-line and line bypass units. Counter-top units
are not considered a compliance technology since their mode of operation creates a high potential for
bacterial contamination. Further, faucet-mounted units may not prove applicable as a compliance
technology due to a relatively short contact time. Therefore, this document examines and develops
cost for in-line and line bypass POU devices as the only viable alternatives for meeting the DBP Stage
1 MCLs. POU devices may require high levels of monitoring, verification, and awareness of the
various reactants produced to maximize disinfectant qualities while minimizing the production of odor
from breakpoint and nitrogen trichloride production (Harrington, 1996).
1.4 STANDARDS FOR POE/POU UNITS
The cost estimates developed by the analysis and presented in this document meet the
following requirements outlined in the SDWA, Section 1412 (bX4)(EXii)
• POE/POU treatment units shall be owned, controlled, and maintained by the public
water system or by a person under contract with the public water system; and
• No POE/POU unit may be included on the list of affordable technologies, treatment
technique, and other means of compliance with an MCL or treatment technique unless
it is equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that customers are automatically
notified of operational problems; and
• The use of POE/POU devices to achieve compliance with a MCL for a microbial
contaminant (or an indicator of a microbial contaminant) is strictly prohibited.
The SDWA also requires POE/POU units be independently certified as having met applicable
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards prior to being accepted for compliance with
a MCL or treatment technique requirement. In listing any technology, treatment technique, or other
means pursuant to this clause, the US EPA is required to consider the quality of source water to be
Plff-4-
-------
:rea:ed The rodowjig standards have been established by ANSLNSF for POE.POU units examined
in tr.is document
1 ANSI/NSF 42 - Aesthetic effects,
2 ANSI/NSF 53 - Health effects;
3 ANSI/NSF 55 - Ultraviolet microbiological treatment
4 .ANSI/NSF 58 - Reverse Osmosis Treatment systems; and
Other organization have adopted standards for POE/POU units. The Water Quality Association
(WQA) standards for household and commercial water filters include water filters (S-200-73), and
RO systems (S-300-84). Standard test to examine the operational parameters of RO (D4194-82) and
GAC(D3922-80) units have been developed by The American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). The analysis presented in this document assumes that water treatment authorities will only
select devices certified under NSF Standards and other applicable technology standards.
1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This document is organized according to the following sections:
• Section 2 - DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS: provides the basis for cost development
including discussion of cost indices, amortization factors, and curve fitting analysis
• Section 3 - REVERSE OSMOSIS: provides a short summary including process
description, design criteria and cost tables for this technology.
• Section 4 - GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON: provides a short summary-
including process description, design criteria and cost tables for this technology
• Section 5 - COST ANALYSIS: provides a short discussion regarding curve fitting,
and break-point analysis as well as affordability criteria assessment.
• Section 6 - REFERENCES: provides the citations for the references used in the
preparation of this addendum.
• Appendix A - provides cost development spreadsheets and regression analysis curves
for the cost estimates developed in this document.
• Appendix B • provides a graphically depiction of the break-point analysis.
Paje-5-
-------
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS
2.1 BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES
An extensive literature search was conducted to identify applicable POE/POU technologies
for DBF control. RO and GAC were the only applicable technologies identified. The cost developed
for POU Reverse Osmosis and GAC systems in this document are based upon original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) information collected in July of 1998 The cost developed for POE Reverse
Osmosis and GAC systems are based upon an 1998 draft document developed by the US EPA. The
document is entitled, Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point-of-Use and Pomt-
qf-Entry Treatment Units (US EPA, 1998a). The cost outlined in this document are in 1997 dollars
These cost were escalated to 1998 dollars utilizing the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer
Price Index (CPI) and the Engineering News Record's (ENR) Skilled Labor Index. OEM data was
deemed most appropriate for cost development since it best represents current practice in both
manufacturing techniques and system design. The OEM data provided detailed information on capital
cost, installation, membrane replacement and expected life, yield, and expected unit life. The costs
generated in this report are limited to general design and operation criteria specified from vendors.
The cost do not include allowances for customization due to variances in source water quality
Where applicable, volume discounts are applied to cost. The following detailed assumptions are
based upon information provided by OEMs, contractor expertise, and the 1998 draft cost evaluation
document for POE/POU treatment units (US EPA, 1998a).
2.1.1 Installation Assumptions
The installation of the POE/POU devices will be performed by trained water treatment
personnel only. It is assumed that POU units are installed under the sink and POE units are installed
in the garage or basement. Any additional materials required for the installation of the equipment (i.e.
special site considerations) are not detailed in the cost estimate. However, a contingency fee of 15
percent has been added to capital and installation costs to account for unique characteristics at each
installation site. This contingency fee is based upon the percentage added to capital cost for site work
and interface piping detailed in the WATERCOST Model (US EPA, et al. 1986). It is also assumed
that training or necessary training materials (i.e. manuals, instructional videos) will be provided by
the vendor to permit system personnel to conduct installation and routine maintenance of the system.
Installation of POE and POU units is assumed to require three and one hour(s) labor,
respectively including travel-time. POU unit installation is to be conducted by minimally skilled labor
while POE unit installation is assumed to be conducted by skilled labor. An additional two hours per
day of labor is estimated for preparation. All installation costs are based on an eight hour work day
or forty hours per week per employee. Installation includes full assembly of the unit and testing to
ensure proper operation. Based upon these assumptions, six POU or two POE units can be installed
per water treatment employee per day.
Page -6-
-------
2.1.2 Capital Cost Assumptions
Capital cost estimates are based upon OEM data. The basic components included in the
estimation of capital cost are as follows
• POU/POE unit;
• All necessary piping, hardware, tubing and house wrench;
• Valve and automatic shut-off device (to comply with SDWA Section 1412
• and Ultraviolet Light disinfection unit (POE GAC units only).
More detailed design criteria are provided in each section addressing specific technologies. Capital
cost estimates do not include shipping and handling fees. The amortization of capital cost is based
upon the expected unit life as documented by the OEMs at an interest rate of 3, 7 and 10 percent.
The assumed lifetime for POE/POU units is 5 and 10 years, respectively. The following formula is
used in the calculation of the appropriate capital recovery rate:
Capital Recovery Rate: ( 1 + i)N / ( 1 ; + i)N - 1
Where: N = lifetime of unit
i = interest rate
2.1.3 Operation and Maintenance Assumptions
2.1.3.1 Maintenance Cost Assumptions
All maintenance will be conducted by trained water treatment personnel. It is recommended
that water treatment facilities conduct pilot-tests to determine the volume of water treated prior to
breakthrough. This is important since microbiological, chemical, and physical properties of a
community's water supply can have a significant effect upon replacement frequency. POU filter
replacement is assumed to be quarterly while POE filter replacement is assumed to be on a yearly
basis. POU and POE unit maintenance, including testing, calibration, cartridge, media or filter
replacement, and travel time, is assumed to require 45 minutes and 2 hours, respectively. POU unit
maintenance is to be conducted by minimally skilled labor while POE unit maintenance is assumed
to be conducted by skilled labor. An additional 2 hours is added per day for daily preparation. There
are no shipping and handling cost included in this analysis. Based upon these assumptions, 3 POE
or 8 POU units can undergo maintenance per day per employee. Table 2-1 provides cost estimates
provided by OEMs for replacement materials. No additional cost for electricity used in conjunction
with the operation of a UV lighting unh for POE devices is included. Administrative items (i.e. office
supplies, record keeping, and other items) are estimated to add SIS.00 to O&M cost per household.
Page -7.
-------
2.1.3.2
Labor Cost Assumptions
Labor is based on a 40 hour work week at 8 .ours per personnel per day The labor rates
assumed for the estimation of cost are based on escalated 1997 values reported in the Information
Collection Rule for Public Water System Supervision Program, still under review These rates
include S1494 for minimal skilled labor and $28 78 for skilled labor. Labor associated with
administrative items (i e. monitoring sample tracking) is assumed to be 1 hour per household per year
Table 2-1
POU Cost Data for Replacement Components
Device
POU Reverse Osmosis
POU GAC
•. 1 ? • €aax*HU»tt •'
Membrane Cost
Chlorine/Sediment
Pre- Filter
Caibon Post-Filter
Activated Carbon Filters
r" Cwt
$ 79.50
$ 10.65
$9.80
$40.00
! Expected Life
18-24 months
3 months (250 gallons)
6 months (500 gallons)
12 months
2.1.3.3
Monitoring Cost Assumptions
Monitoring will be conducted to ensure proper operation and compliance with the DBF Stage
1 MCLs. For surface water systems serving less than 500 people, one sample from one dwelling will
examined annually. For surface water systems serving between 501 and 9,999 people, one sample
from one dwelling once per quarter will be examined. Ground water systems serving less than 500
people will follow the same monitoring scheme as outlined above for surface water systems.
However, ground water systems serving between 501 and 9,999 people will monitor one system in
one dwelling on an annual basis. It is assumed that sampling will be conducted at the time of
maintenance. It is also assumed sampling will require 15 minutes added labor for POU units and 30
minutes for POE units. An additional hour is also estimated for preparation time. The testing of the
sample will include screening for TTHM and HAA5 levels. Table 2-2 details the cost associated with
analyzing the samples.
Table 2-2
Sampling Cost Estimates
TTHMs
HAAS
S 100.00
$150.00
Page -«-
-------
2.1.3.4 Waste Costs Assumptions
Waste associated with POU Reverse Osmosis and GAC units is assumed to be negligible due
to the frequency of filter replacement. In the case of POE Reverse Osmosis and GAC units, waste
is assumed to be collected and discharged to a publically owned treatment works. The waste volume
is based upon a 25 percent reject volume. Cost were developed from the equations presented in the
Small Water Systems Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document (US EPA, 1993) Cost
were escalated to 1998 dollars based on Engineering News Record indexes and amortized at 3, 7 and
10 percent interest for 20 years It is to be noted, that the cost associated with waste disposal are
estimated based on average waste production estimates for non-radioactive sludges and brines The
actual waste constituents may differ due to source water parameters.
2.1.4 Additional Assumptions
The cost developed in this document only assumed the use of POU at one faucet. Providing
more than one POU unit per dwelling becomes cost prohibitive, with the result that POE devices
become the recommended alternative for treatment of the dwellings water supply. To ensure
compliance with the SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii), all POE/POU devices will be equipped with
a mechanical warning and shut-off device to ensure users are automatically notified of operational
problems. RO units are assumed to be equipped with an in-line Total Dissolved Solids monitor
instead of a water meter so inorganic breakthrough can be determined by conductivity. The estimated
number of units required for each US EPA flow category is based on the maximum possible number
of dwellings in each category given an average of 3 individuals per household at the maximum
estimated population (i.e. 33 units for flow category 1). An average water consumption per
individual per household of 1 gallon is assumed for drinking and cooking. The annual total water
assumed per connection for POE devices is reported in Table 1-3. All units are assumed to be owned
and operated by the water treatment system and any tampering with the device by the user is
prohibited.
Page-9-
-------
3.0 REVERSE OSMOSIS
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION: REVERSE OSMOSIS
Reverse Osmosis (RO) involves forcing the contaminated source water through a semi-
permeable membrane By maintaining a pressure gradient greater than the osmotic pressure of the
feed, contaminants are rejected by the nv^nbrane and discharged in a reject stream. Periodic flushing
of the reject water is required to reduce the potential for scale formation on the membrane
Depending upon the source water quality, pre-treatment may be required to reduce harm to the
membrane due to disinfectant residuals such as chlorine.
3.1.1 Parameters to Ensure Peak Reverse Osmosis Performance
Slovak and Hafher (1996) detail six water-quality parameters that effect the performance of
RO units. They are: •
1 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The level of IDS in feed water should be examined
before choosing the type of membrane to be utilized, since the rejection rate varies
with each membrane. TDS can cause osmotic "back pressure," which can reduce the
effective feed water pressure.
2. Feedwater pressure. The net pressure (net pressure = feed pressure - back pressure -
osmotic pressure) is directly proportional to the RO production rate and effects the
percent rejection of TDS. For cellulose POU membranes, the minimum net pressure
should be 25 psi. For thin-film, (TF) membranes the recommended minimum net
pressure is 15 psi.
3. Feedwater temperature. Temperature can effect the viscosity of water and thus the
RO production rate. For the determination of a production rate, the industry standard
recommends 77° F (25° C). The determination of temperature is crucial to ensure
membrane degradation does not occur. The maximum operating temperature for
cellulose acetate (CA) and cellulose triacetate (CTA) membranes is 85° F (29° C),
and for TF membranes, 100° F (38° C).
4. Feedwater pH. At pH levels exceeding 8.0, cellulosic membranes (CA, CTA and
CA/CTA blends) can lose their rejection of TDS because'of deterioration due to
hydrolysis. TF membranes can safely operate at pH levels up to 11.0.
5. Water disinfection. Disinfectants such as chlorine, chloramines or ozone can cause
membrane deterioration. Cellulose membranes resist the effects of chlorine and other
chemical oxidizers but can be deteriorated by certain bacteria in non-disinfected
supplies. Most TF membranes are immune to bacterial deterioration but do not resist
free chlorine and other disinfectants well.
6. Impurities. Water analysis is crucial prior to adopting an RO treatment strategy to
ensure no impurities are present (i.e. excessive hardness, manganese, alum etc.).
Page-10-
-------
3.1.2 Pretreatment for Reverse Osmosis
t
Paul (1994) suggests that pre-treatment is critril prior to the application of an TF composite
membrane for source waters disinfected by chlorine or chioramines To reduce chlorine and
chloramines prior to the application of RO, activated carbon (AC) provides the most cost-effective
solution However, the greatest disadvantage to AC treatment is the possibility for microorganism
growth The issue of the risk surrounding bacterial colonization is examined in detail in Section 4 1 1
In the case of chlorine and chloramine, cellulose membranes are resistant to their oxidizing pressures
(Harrington, 1996).
3.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
Table 3-la and b details the basic design criteria upon which cost estimations are based for
treatment with POE/POU RO devices.
Table 3-la
Design Criteria for POE Reverse Osmosis Devices
POE
Capital
Operation &
Maintenance
(1) POE Reverse Osmosis Unit
(1) Water meter with automatic warning
off device.
Installation hardware included
All necessary replacement components
Replacement assumed to occur every 12
Sampling as described in Section 2. 1.3.3
document
and shut-
months
of this
Table 3-lb
Design Criteria for POU Reverse Osmosis Devices
Capital
Operation &
Maintenance
POU
(1) 5-micron activated carbon pre-filter
(1) activated carbon post-filter
(1) TFC membrane (horizontal)
(1) 2.5 gallon storage tank, Air gap faucet Water
meter with automatic warning and shut-off device
Installation hardware included
Replacement of pie- and post-filter every 3 -months
Replacement of membranes every 18 months
Sampling as described in Section 2. 1.3.3 of this
document
-11-
-------
. ~e oreri:.o".ai perfcrrr.ance data prcuded b> the OEM demonstrates a greater than 95 percent
reduction in TTHMs utilizing POL" Reverse Osmosis at an average influent concentration of 100 to
300 _g L The operational specifications also call for the replacement of the pre-filter every 3
months or 250 gallons, the post-filter every 6 months or 500 gallons, and the membrane even,- 18
months or 1.500 gallons
3.3
TOTAL COSTS
Table 3-2 and 3-3 provides cost estimates for DBP control with POE/POU Reverse Osmosis
devices. A more detailed cost development description is provided in Appendix A-1 and A-2 for
ground water systems and Appendix A-5 and A-6 for surface water systems.
Table 3-2
Total Cost for FOE Reverse Osmosis Devices
Estimated
Flotation
Estimate*
How
(MGD)
.Estimated.
Number of
BewdwUs
Capital
Cost
(MSJ
ABaual
QAM
C«r
(g&gaft
Annual
TotatCo*
"= $3*
l««eiQ
AB&aai
Total Out
@7%
- fefesaft
Annual
Total Co«
@ltt%
(
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
100
500
1.000
0.01
0.05
0.10
33
167
333
0.310
1.508
2.920
942
882
863
2,259
2.126
2.072
2.543
2,393
2.331
2.774
. 2.610
2.541
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
100
500
1.000
0.01
0.05
0.10
33
167
333
0.310
1.508
2.920
942
882
867
2.259
2,126
2.075
2,543
2,393
2.335
2.774
2.610
2.545
Pa«o-12-
-------
Table 3-3
Total Cost for POL Reverse Osmosis Device
Estimated
Population
100
500
1.000
3.300
10.000
Eahnated
Flow
(MGB)
Estimated
Number of
Beoodtelds
Capital
Cost
(MS)
Aaauai
O&M
COB
(«/l&ai)
Anaoai
Total Cost
' ®*%
ftsfcxal)
AsBuaJ
Total Cost
-------
4.0 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
4.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION: GAC
POEPOU activated carbon devices are widely used and typically the easiest to maintain
Activated carbon is produced in block, granular or powdered form, although granular activated
carbon is the most common. It is produced by heating carbonaceous substances in the absence of air,
resulting in an absorbent material that is highly porous (Gordon et. Al, 1997) GAC removes
contaminants by an adsorption process influenced by contaminant solubility and affinity for the carbon
surface Water conditions, such as temperature and pH, can greatly effect the adsorption capacity
of GAC. GAC is able to improve water conditions through the removal of organic and solvent
contaminants, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and trihalomethanes (THM), along with
many other organic chemicals (Gordon, et al., 1997). GAC effectively removes chlorine improving
water taste and reducing odor. Being an effective remover of chlorine, GAC is a common
pretreatment option in the case of TF membranes (See Section 3.1.3). The removal of chlorine does
pose some concern due to the potential for bacterial growth. GAC filters also need to be replaced
frequently to prevent contaminant breakthrough.
4.1.1 Bacteria] Colonization of POETOU Devices
Bell et al (1984), in a study of home water treatment systems, reported a significant increase
in test-unit effluent heterotrophic-plate-count (HPC) densities compared to influent HPC levels after
overnight and 2-day stagnation periods. Additionally, Reasoner et al (1987) found high levels of HPC
bacteria in GAC effluent water in laboratory tap water. This suggests that GAC filters are
susceptible to colonization by heterotrophic bacteria. Further, Snyder et al. (1995) noted that these
high HPC densities may prevent pathogenic bacteria colonization of the GAC filter beds. It is to be
note no increase in illness incident was connected to the exposure described in these studies. It is
recommended that consumers run water for 30 seconds prior to use to allow the removal of bacteria
easily washed off the filter media. POU contamination from bacteria is not considered significant due
to the frequency of filter replacement, which was outlined in section 2.1.3.1. Bacterial growth in
POU systems can be controlled through proper sizing of the unit to prevent long tank holding times
of treatmented water. If stagnation does occur (i.e., after a vacation), proper flushing of the system
should reduce the potential levels of bacterial contamination (Schlafer, et al., 1997).
Potential bacterial contamination can also occur due to backfiow (Cheesebrow, 1995). All
POU units used for the basis of cost estimation include a air gap faucet to protect against potential
backwash contamination. For POE devices utilizing GAC, the cost of a ultraviolet unit module has
been added to capital for post treatment mediation of bacteria.
4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
Table 4-la and b details the basic design criteria upon which cost estimations are based for
treatment with POE/POU GAC devices.
Page-14-
-------
Table 4-la
Design Criteria for POE GAC Devices
POE
Capital
Operation &
Maintenance
(1) POE GAC Unit
(1) Water meter with automatic warning and
shut-off device.
(1)UV light
Installation hardware included
All necessary replacement components
Replacement assumed to occur every 12 months
Sampling as described in Section 2. 1.3.3 of this
document
Table 4-1 b
Design Criteria Tor POU GAC Devices
POU
Capital
(2) Activated carbon filters
(1) Air gap faucet
(1) Water meter with automatic warning and
shut-off device
Installation hardware included
Operation &
Maintenance
All necessary replacement components
Filter replacement is assumed to occur every 3
months.
Sampling as described in Section 2.1.3.3 of this
document
The operational performance data provided by the OEM demonstrates a 95 percent reduction in
TTHMs utilizing POU GAC at an average influent concentration of 300 /ug/L- The operational
specifications also call for the replacement of the filter every 4 months or approximately 250 gallons.
However, if DBF concentrations are very high, the water treatment system may wish to consider the
application of POE/POU RO instead of POE/POU GAC.
4.3 TOTAL COSTS
Table 4-2 and 4-3- provides cost estimates for DBF control with POE/POU GAC devices.
A more, detailed cost development description is provided in Appendix A-3 and A-4 for ground water
systems and Appendix A-7 and A-8 for surface water systems.
Page-13-
-------
Table 4-2
Total Cost for POE GAC Devices
Estimated
Popalatioa
Estimated
Flow
(MGD)
Estimated
Number of
Households
Capital
Cost
CMS)
Annual
OAM
Cost
(«fcgar>
Annual
Total Cost
@a%
(ctegaft
Annual
Total Cost
@7%
te&saD
Annual
Total Cost
% 10%
(«/kgai>
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
100
500
1,000
0.01
005
0.10
33
167
333
0.091
0.368
0.731
474
442
440
855
745
742
939
810
807
1.007
863
859
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
100
500
1.000
0.01
0.05
0 10
33
167
333
0.091
0368
0731
474
442
443
855
745
745
939
810
810
1.007
863
863
Table 4-3
Total Cost for POU GAC Device
Estimated
Fopolatioa
Estimated
Iffow
0KGB)
Estimated
{batter «f
Capital
Out
4IW&
Aaaaal
0AM t
• &t*
CcflcBaB
::/: Annul • '
TotaiCMt
%*&'•*
; Anna!
Total Coa
i'-®TK:
r&ftta®
Ammai
Total Cost
@2034
(s/kgaD
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
100
500
1.000
3.300
10.000
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.33
1.00
33
167
333
1,100
3,333
0.007
0.031
0.060
0.198
0.599
259
239
229
228
213
312
286
276
275
257
318
291
281
280
263
323
296 -
286
284
. 267
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
100
500
1.000
3.300
10.000
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.33
1.00
33
167
333
1,100
3,333
0.007
0.031
0.060
0.198
0.599
259
239
233
229
214
.312
286
279
276
258
318
292
. 285
281
263
323
296
289
285
267
Page-16-
-------
-------
5.0 COST ANALYSIS
5.1 CURVE FITTING ANALYSIS
The total cost estimates generated at 3,7, and 10 percent interest were plotted on a scatter
graph Regression analysis was than performed to develop a cost equation for the estimation of costs
associated with DBF control by POE/POU RO and GAC devices at the various interest rates
specified The independent parameter in each case is the estimated number of households The
graphs are provided in the Appendix A (A-9 through A-16).
5,2 BREAK-POINT ANALYSIS
A break-point analysis was conducted to examine at what number of households, POE/POU
treatment strategies may prove to be more cost effective than comparable centralized treatment
options. The technologies (data source) analyzed included the following:
POE Reverse Osmosis and POE GAC (vendor);
POU Reverse Osmosis and POU GAC (vendor);
Centralized nanofiltration (1998 Technologies & Cost document);
Centralized GAC-10 minute EBCT (1998 Technologies & Cost document), and
Centralized GAC-20 minute EBCT (1998 Technologies & Cost document).
Centralized treatment costs, based in 1997 dollars, were escalated to 1998 dollars using the ENR's
Building Cost Index and the BLS's Chemical and Allied Products Index. The flow criteria for which
centralized treatment costs were developed has been translated into an estimated number of
households based upon the adjusted flow per connection reported in Table 1-3. This data is reported
in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Translation of Centralized Treatment Cost
0.0056
0.024
0.086
0.23
0.70
100
500
1,000
3,300
10,000
25
103
369
988
2871
* Source: 1998 Technologies & Cost document
PlfB-17-
-------
The data analyzed included total costs at ~ percent interest for an estimated lifetime of 5. 10. and 20
years for POL', POE. and centralized treatment, respectively Table 5-2 and 5-3 details the cost
break-points in terms of estimated households served and cost per 1000 gallons treated for POE/POL"
devices verse comparable centralized treatment options A graphical depiction is provided in
appendix B-1 through B-4 for ground water systems and appendix B-5 through B-8 for surface water
systems
Table 5-2
Break-Point Analysis - Ground Water Systems
(# of Households / c/kgal)
POE Reverse Osmosis
POU Reverse Osmosis
POE GAC
POU GAC
....,: Centralized Treatment
GAC-lOmio EBCT
»
49/367
*
69 / 305
Nanofiltration
*
490/328
51/904
715/279
-
«
*
1125/274
' No break-point easts
Table 5-3
Break-Point Analysis - Surface Water Systems
(# of Households / i/kgal)
POE Reverse Osmosis
POU Reverse Osmosis
POE GAC
POU GAC
* ' < ,- . |
GAC-lOmin EBCT
*
48/368
*
69/306
:«trjdfaaf Treatment
GAC-20mio EBCT
*
489 / 329
51/904
712 / 280
Nanofiltration
at
*
-
1105/275
' No break-point exua
5.3 AFFORDABUJTY CRITERIA ASSESSMENT
The costs developed for POE/POU devices in this document were compared to the
affordability criteria set forth in the National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, Draft Report, (US EPA, 1998b). The affordability
Page-IS-
-------
o-:..r.e- ;r. this doci.rr.ent is pursuant to Section l-M2Cb)<4) of the SDWA The cost asscc;atec -A;:.-.
SD^\ \ compliance technologies for community water systems (CWS) are deemed affordable if :r.e
following are met
• the cost associated with their application are affordable to the average household.
• the costs are within a certain percentage of median household income; and
• the costs are comparable to other household expenditures.
The need to examine the ability-to-pay of residential customers for a treatment option is important
in determining the ability of small systems to pass along the cost of compliance with an operational
or treatment requirement.
5.3.1 Determination of Household Affordability
Table 5-6 details the affordability assessment for the application of POE/POU devices for
control of DBFs under Stage I of the DBF rule. The cost associated with POE/POU technology are
based upon total cost («/kgal) at 7 percent interest. The baseline treatment cost and median
household income are reported in Table 5-4 from the draft affordability document (US EPA 1998b)
Baseline reported values are assumed to represent cost per household prior to the adoption of
POE/POU devices for DBP control. The median household income and water bills were reported
in 1995 dollars. These values were escalated based upon the Engineering News Records index for
skilled labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for water and sewerage
maintenance, respectively. The 1998 values are reported in parentheses in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4
National Level Affordability Criteria
Cost Basis 1995 Dollars (Cost Basis 1998 Dollars)
System Size
Popotaiaa
Serve*
Atftaiafeiity
ThraafaeW
Available
Mxrgfe
(S/HH/yr.
25-500
30,785 (33.094)
211(234)
0.69 (0.71)
770 (827)
559 (593)
501-3,300
27,058 (29.087)
184 (204)
0.68 (0.70)
676 (727)
492(523)
3.301-10,000 27,641 (29,714)
181 (201)
0.65 (0.68)
691 (743)
510(542)
Source: 1998 Draft SDWA Affordability Document
The US EPA has established an affordability threshold associated with water cost for
households of 2.5 percent of household income. In accordance with this affordability criteria, POU
Reverse Osmosis, and POU GAC are deemed affordable technology options. Also, these costs are
in-line with consumer expenditures as a percent of income for such items as electricity (2.4 percent),
Pa«e-19-
-------
< 5 percent) and reading and education i 1 7^percent) In contrast, me ccs:s
associated 'Aim POE Reverse Osmosis and POE GAC are estimated to be 7 1 and 2 9 percer.: :f
household income, respectively Therefore, the cost as~ "ciated with POE Reverse Osmosis and POE
GAC could pose a potential burden upon households and CWS's
The costs developed for POE/POU devices in this document are based on a range of
households Cost curves were generated for both capital and O&M costs with the number of
households as the independent parameter A subset of data from the Community Water Supply
Survey(US EPA, 19987 a,b,c) provided information regarding residential connections This data was
used to determine the median number of connections within each size category. The number of
connections was assumed to be the number of households for each size category under the SDWA.
The resultant number of households and on which the total annual composite costs for the three size
categories under the SDWA, detailed in Table 5-6, are reported in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5
Number of Households by Size Category for POE/POU Options
SDWA Size
Categories
1
2
3
Population
Miasmaa \
25
501
3,301
^ijarlijjjiMg-
500
3,300
10,000
Mediin
: Number rf
4*wlMCBO*fl3fr •
50
425
1935
Pace-20-
-------
Table f-6
Summan of POE/POU Cost and Household Income
Population
Treatment
Option
Composite
Animal Cost
forPOE/
POIKS/HB)
Aanuai
Baseline
Cost
(S/HH>*
Total Cost
($)
Average
Median HH
Income
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
Bates. W , (1998) "Avoid Feeling Foul Over RO Maintenance" Water Technology
Culotta. N , (1998) "How NSF Sets POU/POE Standards" Water Technology
Cheesebrow, D , (1995). "Backflow Prevention Methods: Without Them, Contaminants May
Enter Potable Water." Water Technology. 18 (7), p 38.
Cummings, S., (1998). "Small Systems' Doors Aren't Swinging Wide Open" Water Technology
Eubanks, B., (1998). "Reactivated GAC Can Offer Dealers an Alternative" Water Technology
Gordon, R.F.. and J.M. Mark, (1997). "Material Matters When Selecting POU/POE Filters"
Water Technology. 20 (8). pp 54-58.
Hafher, B. and R. Slovak, (1996). "Six Steps to Better RO." Water Technology. 19 (8),
pp35- 37.
Harrington, M., (1996). "How To Treat Water Disinfected With Chloramines."
Water Technology. 19 (6), pp 21-22.
Haug, I., (1994). "Small Systems to Benefit from Automation: Transducers, Microprocessors Will
Fine-tune Monitoring, Improve Water Quality."Water Technology. 19 (6), pp 21-22.
Johnson, M., (1996). "Take the POE Point of View." Water Technology. 19 (5),
pp 32- 40.
Schlafer, J.L. and M. Bicking, (1997). "Heterotrophic Bacterial Control in a Residential
Reverse-Osmosis Drinking Water Filter." Jnl. Environmental Health. 60 (2), pp. 14-16
Snyder, J.W. et. al., (1995). "Effect of Point-of-Use, Activated Carbon Filters on the
Bacteriological Quality of Rural Groundwater Supplies." Jnl. Applied and Environmental
Microbiological 61- (12), pp 4291- 4295.
US EPA (1998a). Cost Evaluation of Small Systems Compliance Options Point-of-Use andPomt-
of-Entry Units, Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Incorporated.
US EPA/ICI, Inc. (1998b). National-Level Affordability Criteria Under The 1996 Amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act
US EPA/ICI, Inc. (1998c). Technologies and.Cost Document for Control of Disinfection By-
Products.
Page-22-
-------
L S EPA ! 1 ?°~ai Information to States on Affordabiiity Criteria. Revised Final Draft, National
Dr.nkma Water Advisor,- Council Small Systems Working Group November 25, 199"
US EPA (1997b) Community Water System Survey Volume I Overview EPA 815-R-97-OOU.
Washington, D.C. EPA Office of Water. January 1997
US EPA (1997c). Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Survey Result Tables and
Methodology Report. EPA 815-R-97-001b. Washington D C: EPA Office of Water January
1997.
US EPA (1993). Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document.
Developed by DPRA, Incorporated for the US EPA.
US EPA / Gulp, Wesner, Gulp and Technicomp, Inc. (1986). WATERCOST - A Computer
Program For Estimating Water and Wastewater Treatment Costs.
Ptge-23-
-------
Appendix A
Figure A-1 Cost Development for Point-of-Entry Reverse Osmosis (Ground Water)
Figure A-2 Cost Development for Point-of-Use Reverse Osmosis (Ground Water)
Figure A-3 Cost Development for Point-of-Entry Granular Activated Carbon (Ground
Water)
Figure A-4 Cost Development for Point-of-Use Granular Activated Carbon (Ground
Water)
Figure A-5 Cost Development for Point-of-Entry Reverse Osmosis (Surface Water)
Figure A-6 Cost Development for Point-of-Use Reverse Osmosis (Surface Water)
Figure A-7 Cost Development for Point-of-Entry Granular Activated Carbon (Surface
Water)
Figure A-8 Cost Development for Point-of-Use Granular Activated Carbon (Surface
Water)
Figure A-9 Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Ground Water- POE
Reverse Osmosis Devices-
Figure A-10 Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Ground Water- POU
Reverse Osmosis Devices-
Figure A-l 1 Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Ground Water- POE
GAC Devices-
Figure A-12 Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Ground Water- POU
GAC Devices-
Figure A-13 Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Surface Water- POE
Reverse Osmosis Devices-
Figure A-14 Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Surface Water- POU
Reverse Osmosis Devices-
Figure A-15 Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Surface Water- POE
GAC Devices-
Figure A-16 Total Cost Regression Analysis for DBP Control in Surface Water- POU
GAC Devices-
-------
"S
1
!/3
/•^
W
U
>
^
>>
a F
355
2 | 1
So '3 a
•T s. «
— "~ !_
1 S
•1
s
*«
?
13
>
Q»
^
,®
w<
T
l/~
*?
S3
•* '
• ' «-i
r-
^ f^
Sr n
' O
*8
«*•—
;^i
t|
2?
&--
Sf
t,
,
^
s -
1 ;
»'i
ML
IS*
&>sJ
a?.,,.-'
V" '"
<'
- : t
c; 3
i i
• »
j ^
<
;
- £
t r-
S 5
a -
<
|-
is
9
S
•<
il
ii
s *
(2
apllnl « 'oil for
W Discharge ($S)
V. !-
£
M
«t
>>
I
&
|
liulallallon
($$)
i ~
= S
3 J(
A *\
^^^9 j| ^K
m H
;imj ——
:• i
1 J
X»<--^^oa^_^^
. 1 »l
-1- il
S^ *
u v
"3 ,
*» ^^
'* ^
u''
,^
It
t
1 * L
-I 5 ?
1 * S
1 •
r x c
•f- •*••*•
_ - C
^ ^ ^~ -^
— ' ""' """
— -r r-
Lf. ^ T
•* v» *«>
; - *
x •*. "T.
* 2 £
S P-4 V
•* 4^- *%
* P 2
s ^. -.
"«• O"
-------
i»
2
< 7 £
£ s ?
s 'S s
M « 3
sis
c
^
>
^O
w
<-i — — O —
o o o o o
QS as as as a:
O OO O O
as as as os
-------
ri
ac te w
-------
T If
< £ £
5r3 ^^
W """"I
M "^ ^5
S£ O 3
2jl
s.
^
>
S^ X
S » w,
_ 3*. 00 C^ *
"sls.l
fS C\
VI 1^, w", Sv
ao ao x x ae
>O >C * P-
)
30 — — O (•>
— Sv 3C « x£
PM fS (N «N
-------
X
"55
i
5/3
V
Si?
M 0 «S
e
£
™
v
-------
o
•si
I ~
s v
'
en *.
;r .
""S
V
^
If,
r~
#S
*S
2:-
*T •»
.. PS
:«t-s
&2
:''•::• PS
S 5
<
r *
i !•
<
j?
O
r»
c^
so
r- T
f: \O
; *
3"S
5
**
«
- a
^®
s •".
v«" M
ae —.
* a a - R
I
l
o
ai
ls
o o
as oi
o o o o g
ec s: os oi a:
90 00 00 SC 30
30 f.
P- PM — — =^
p- m Se
i
Illll
o o o o o
flfi 5 0£ 0£ Q£
-------
< £*
Ms
^ I W ZZ
.2f
-------
« T
oe " S
. >* *
< *£
*D ? «s
;T — -
"" I £
~£|;MXr~r-r-
= : = |ir-TTr-r-^
=• s. ~ IV* v*' ** «^ **
.,.„.
907
S*
;
241
«n
f'
- « •**
.» *1
I/
s s'.
<
c
5 #
- c~
p
ll
?«
S
<
tf»
«t
,o
w
3
a
w
5
M
M
X
*
W
7 ,—s
5 M
« e.
j
: >.-K
!?ri
M
s
5 5
so
o ~
"
^ *^ £A £A TT
Accuin. Dull
Prlcc<$$)
§ n
,j
l
i^
!? £
22111
O 0 O O O
-------
=
p— »—
00
tfi CN <_'
£ a: g>
CO M
ii
Qi
!/)
O O O
U O O
CO CD CC
O O O
t- 1- H
* • o
o
kO
CO
§
co
«
M
i
"5
I 1
z
co
(M
-------
«
!§2i
* «o i
Co
Ills
K c «
» o «
W / \ w
O u K
IM
= (N =
~x f± x
01 oo .
co
CM
S3 o< O
© @ ©
Tfi to c/1
000
O O O
i CO CO CC
! o o O
o
to
o
§
o
s
eo
§
3
CM
o
§
(N
i
(0
o
o
s
§
X)
-------
= CM
X O5
O>
CM
O
I!
= ifl
= O5
X CM
in O5
T- O
O) „
x «
01 °
CO II
O
= 0
0
o o o
15 15 76
o o o
(A 4)
'35 73
>» >
g£i
-1=1
3 S 2 I
< 'Si O Q
» «A c Q
3 £ Z <
0) o> ^ o
E,g|g
*• 0 ?
§0^-
^£
2 Q
o
HI*
o
m
co
O
o
CO
o
IT)
CM
(A
O
x
o
51
§
8
00
o
i
§
3
(N
-------
5? # O
CO 1^. f-
"x 5 x s
o
*7 O
8 "
rt <"**
* *
>.
x
CD
10
CO
o o o
O O O
CO CO CO !
(0 0}
•£«
-2
« *
e T3
< e
M ^ 3
r S P
i<
s°
1§1
in / > Q.
0 u '
S&
« o
eo
£
O
o
in
g
co
o
m
CV4
§
(|B6>|p) ISOQ
-------
3 1
05 O
X 05
(£) ~
CO
co
O5
oo o
S »
77) J!
|B»01
-------
= CM
= CO
X 03
r~ CO
Is- O
% II
= CN
= CO
X CO
r-- oo
01 o
ro „
II
>.
= CN
= O
X O5
CO 00
tn
r--
CN
o
II
fN
o:
cl
c
O
3
'J
75
o
o
o
"CD
"c
tf _ co I
§ S.SO
IT 2*2 ?
U. (V ** J-
tt c *
— o >
tf) A 0
O ° K
0 m =
78 R o
O
o
in
CM
«
§2
_ O
o
CM
i
o
II
z
§
O O
vT> Q
|p)
IB101
-------
= 0>
r CO
= 03 2
CO O5
••J- O
00 „
II ^
:M ^ '•
V- II
>.
2 r-
x 90
to o
r- o
rt
O CJ O
15 15 "re
o o o
(A 0
'35 n
^5
"* 5J «
4> (0 e
a 8 =
O) O) 9
O
53?
ig
0
o
in
CO
o
u->
(N
M
§1
<* 5
M
' 3
O
O A
2 |
§
CNJ
§
CO
isoo ie)oi
-------
x
s
CO ts
= CM
= CM
* £
r— O)
CO
II
II
OJ
tr
~ 02
r CM
CO r.
II K
S5 O
vi i/5 01
O O O
000
CO CO CO
o "o "o
I- t- I-
* • <
to 5
•«• ^^
S.S
Is*
sill
<|5^
o e- o
01
5^0
§3?
S*
5 o
o
8
o
o
CO
o
s
CM
(0
o 2
o o
M
O
z
§
o
§
vO
O
IO
co
§
CM
(I«BMP)
-------
Appendix B
Figure B-1 Break-Point Analysis for DBF Control Utilizing POE Reverse Osmosis
(Ground Water)
Figure B-2. Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POU Reverse Osmosis
(Ground Water)
Figure B-3 Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POE GAC
(Ground Water)
Figure B-4 Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POU GAC
(Ground Water)
Figure B-5 Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POE Reverse Osmosis
(Surface Water)
Figure B-6 Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POU Reverse Osmosis
(Surface Water)
Figure B-7 Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POE GAC
(Surface Water)
Figure B-8 Break-Point Analysis for DBP Control Utilizing POU GAC
(Surface Water)
-------
LU
•J~,
o
O
CL
3 O
«- CN
S2 S 2 2
= c c
« o>
— ^
"3 ^- §.
i — K
1 1 =
u —• '-i
Z S .= S i
•o
* i
=
•rf
c 5
. I
«•
J
A.
a
o
I
>>
It
o s
o
m
CO
o
o
CO
S
«
•o
t»
§ i
CM «_
O
g
I
CM
-------
—
J1
O CJ
02 XI
HI LU
n
O
T- CN
tr 9 o o
D § 6 6
o 5 < <
a. z o o
• • < X
S; 2 3 * 8-
O re i_ — re U
0 "8
s
O
O
O
m
CO
8
P4-
§
O
O
'o
o «
o 5-
8-l
o
o
§
§
JB»OJ.
-------
o o
CQ CO
LU IU
= c
• o
~~ J^,
1 2 S
0 S = =
^999
Q O
LU
O
0.
o o
4 X
2 <- o 1 «-:
8«^Is
u -s ^ = =
w -S *1 3 «
«• ~ y u —
b i l-s o
Z eS .= s ±
•O
1
•5U
1
S
w
a,
a
a
-------
o a
m CD
LU LLJ
to
O O
f (M
S s s
«~ "?s ^
01
O c
o 9 o o
' o 6
< <
oo
< X
o
CO
• •
o 5 _" s '=
i " ^ « O
* r- o ^ ^- a
w! ~ *• .— — y
U •» v? u «• «-
i. C J> u = 3
O I 2 "2 3 -^
Z * ™ —• ^ /^i
-. 2
-
t - o
a-
-
• .•=
IS
I
a.
a
o
CO
•o
o
m e
T- e
§
ISOQ
-------
CO
o
O O
03 CD
UJ LU
ca = 2
-(• «
•
V 00
ca
3
s
a
&
09
a
X oo
O C- S^.
I 1 2 2
> 1 = =
as « «
-------
u
w
^
s
C/3
>«^
sft
i. 'M
O ®
I =
™ N
S
3
a.
a
c
c/)
0
P
<7!
O
oj
to
^
0)
IX
^^
2
•»
9
o
XI
LU
~-
s
o
^^**
5
U.
1
u
o
CD
LU
—
~
CN
^^^
"5
^5
c
09 '
0
o o
0. Z
< X
-
lliiil
O
O
in
n
§
O
co
o
o
CM
I
o
§
to
§
CM
§
JSOQ
-------
u u
CD CD
UJ LU
o
s
LLJ
o
Q.
•
Q
w
-------
0 O
CD CD
UJ LU
o o
c Ci
1 2 2
o 9
*>
_ § 6 o
o « < <
0. Z O O
* • < X
Z 5 - 3 — S
55
in
CO
O
F §
co
CN
(A
•o
o
o
S
CO
o
o
§
CO
-------
------- |