-------
f. Dechlorination
It is sometimes necessary or desirable to reduce the residual chlorine
in a water supply for aesthetic reasons. Several techniques can be
employed for this purpose, among the most feasible technically and
economically being activated carbon absorption, aeration, and the use
of sulfur dioxide and related compounds.
The use of sulfur dioxide or its derivatives is rapid and insures good
results. It is a practice widely used in water treatment, sulfur
dioxide being first used in North America by Howard in Toronto in 1926.
Sodium bisulfite and sodium sulfite are also used, the former being cheaper
and more stable. The equations describing the dechlorination are:
Na HS03 + C12 + H20 - ^Na HSO^ + 2HC1
bisulfite bisulfate
Na2 S03 + C12 + H20 - *• Na2S04 + 2HC1
bisulfite sulfate
As can be seen, the products of the reaction are acidic, and thus tend to
decrease the alkalinity of the dechlorinated water.
The doses required for each "dechlor" are:
Sulfur dioxide - 0.90 mg/1 per mg/1 C12 removed
Sodium bisulfite - 1.46 mg/1 per mg/1 Cl- removed
Sodium sulfite - 1.77 mg/1 per mg/1 Cl~ removed
Approximate costs are:
Sulfur dioxide - 25$/kg
Sodium bisulfite - 16
-------
SECTION V
TREATED WATER STORAGE
General
Treated water reservoirs are used In waterworks to perform the function
of service storage. The three major components of service storage are:
(1) equalizing, or operating, storage; (2) fire reserve; and (3) emergency
reserve.
1. Equalizing, or operating, storage
Because of the varying rate of demand for water during the day, many
cities find it necessary to provide reservoirs that permit water treat-
ment or pumping plants to operate at a reasonably uniform rate and provide
water from storage when the demand exceeds this rate.
2. Fire reserve
Based upon the durations of serious conflagrations that have been experi-
enced in the past, the recommendations of the National Board of Fire
Underwriters are that distribution reservoirs be made large enough to
supply water for fighting a serious conflagration for 10 hours in
communities of 6000 people or more, and for 4-8 hours for smaller ones.
3. Emergency reserve
The magnitude of this component of storage depends on (1) the danger
of interruption of reservoir inflow by failure of supply works; and
(2) on the time needed to make repairs. The emergency reserve is some-
times taken as equal to 25% of total average capacity. The National
Board of Fire Underwriters bases its rating system on an emergency
storage of five days at maximum flow.
Classification
Where topography and geology permit, the water stored for distribution
is held in reservoirs that are formed by impoundage, by balanced exca-
vation and embankment or by masonry construction.
a. Open and covered service reservoirs
Treated water storage reservoirs should be covered at all times in order
to protect the water against chance contamination and deterioration. The
covering of open finished water reservoirs is not a. requirement of the
Environmental Protection Agency. However, the practice is recommended
and endorsed by the Agency and is required by some states. In the event
it is impossible to cover a reservoir, there are certain safeguards that
must be observed: (1) the reservoir should always be fenced (2) Where
-203-
-------
the reservoir is so placed that runoff can be carried into it - a margin
intercepting drain should be provided for its protection from such run-
off. Other methods of safeguarding open reservoirs will be dealt with
further.
i. Contamination of Open and Closed Service Reservoirs
Treated water storage facilities can never be completely sealed and as a
result are susceptible to contamination.
Inferior reservoir construction can allow serious contamination in any
type of reservoir. Pollutants may enter the reservoir through leaky
roofing, with rainwater, and in the case of subsurface storage, faulty
sealing. Poorly designed or installed ventilation systems may allow
the entrance of windblown contaminants as well as birds, insects, rodents
and other small animals capable of contaminating the stored water. Poorly
constructed reservoir roofs can be worse than no roof, as far as contri-
bution of degrading materials is concerned. Covered and uncovered reser-
voirs located in windy and dusty areas can be subject to windblown dusts
that enter'through vents. This dust can contribute significant numbers
of coliform organisms to water in the reservoir.
The open service reservoir is particularly susceptible to airborne pollu-
tants such as bacteria, agricultural chemicals, etc. These contaminants
may enter the reservoir directly through wind or rain action. Open ser-
vice reservoirs are also subject to various types of algal growth which
in turn impart undesirable tastes, odors and color to the water. Sedi-
mentation can be a major problem in large open reservoirs, requiring fre-
quent draining and cleaning, to prevent the development of weed growth.
The AWWA report on the Committee on Open-Air Reservoirs gave evidence
on widespread organic pollution in open reservoirs by gulls, ducks and
other birds; animals and rodents, such as mice and rats, dogs, cats and
frogs. Humans were found to contribute significantly to contamination
through bathing, fishing, and other water-related activities.
Night swimming in large or isolated reservoirs is extremely hard to
prevent even when fences and watchmen are provided. Wires strung across
open reservoirs intended to keep ducks and gulls away provide perches
for swallows, starlings and other small birds. This situation is a poten-
tial danger as bird droppings have been linked to disease transmission.
The prudence of using open service reservoirs has been questioned by
the 1929-1930 APHA Committee on Water Supply. The committee made
the following comment:
"The committee would urge that more study be given open reservoirs
throughout the country by the various water departments with
the hope of reducing the number to a minimum. Enough information
is now available to throw doubt on the wisdom of using open
reservoirs without continuously chlorinating the water. B. coli
growing on microorganisms does not constitute a menace to health,(SIC)
-204-
-------
but if we become accustomed to assuming that bacterial increases
in the distribution system are natural growths and of no significance
the occasional occurrences of real pollution will also be ignored."
ii. Prevention of Contaminants in Open and Closed Reservoirs
Open potable-water storage reservoirs should be fenced. Experience has
shown that even a 2.8 m fence topped with barbed wire will not keep out
those determined to enter a reservoir. Too much dependence on a manproof
fence is therefore futile. Fencing should be of such material and construc-
tion to prevent the passage of children and such animals as dogs, cats
and rabbits and will discourage the less determined youths from pranks.
The fence should be located a sufficient distance from the water to
eliminate the pleasure found in watching objects thrown in the water.
Access gates should be kept locked. Indirect pollution in open reservoirs
can be mitigated by providing flow-through circulation and by treating the
influent and stored water. However, despite such measures, unsatisfac-
tory conditions have not infrequently developed in open reservoirs.
Obviously, properly designed and constructed covers would eliminate the
cause of direct pollution previously noted. Covers on reservoirs must
be structurally sound in order to withstand wind pressure, snow and ice,
earthquake strains and the like. The materials should be and continue
light-tight and imper/ious to dust and polluting agents. Plywood panels
on steel rafters can be satisfactory if properly designed and if sufficient
maintenance is received. Standard concrete, lightweight concrete dome
and steel construction are among the more usual and more permanent covers.
The "standard" concrete cover designs are generally practical if the
reservoir is to be buried under earth. For those not to be buried, the
lightweight concrete dome and steel covers are more practical. The
economics involved in covering reservoirs could be an overwhelming
problem. Low cost floating covers such as butyl rubber and nylon-vinyl
membrane have been tried successfully. However, in using floating covers,
care must be taken to insure the proper handling of any problems which
might endanger the integrity of the cover such as rainwater and ice forma-
tion. The City of Charleston, S.C. installed strong permanent leakproof
covers of synthetic rubber on two cement reservoirs. The covers not
only protected the water from airborne pollutants and debris, but also
prevented chemicals (e.g. chlorine) and the water itself from evaporating.
Reservoirs below the ground surface should be located at elevations above
groundwater levels to avoid infiltration and possible flooding or inunda-
tion from surface stream or storm water.
At any rate the reservoir must be sealed to prevent infiltration when empty.
Protective coatings (FDA or EPA approved), preservatives and joint sealers
should be used or applied in a manner which will not contaminate the stored
water. The coatings, if used, on the inside of a reservoir must resist
abrasion from ice formation, have good adhesion, and the ability to withstand
1Committe report: Bacterial Aftergrowths in Water Distribution Systems,
Am. J. Public Health, 43:485 (1930).
-205-
-------
alternate wetting and drying in addition to constant itnmersion without
flaking. Many types of rubber and plastic sheet lining material and
liquid sealants are available for a wide range of applications. Butyl
rubber used for covers can also be used for linings. Gunite, a sand-cement-
water mixture, discharged from a nozzle or gun through and onto a mat of
reinforcing steel, has been employed to line or reline the invert and sides
of reservoirs. An asphalt-plastic liner is available on the market for
use in the storage and containment of potable water. The manufacturer
claims that the liner does not impart taste or discoloration to potable
water.
Some very salient protection features for reservoir protection are as
follows:
1. The cover of the reservoir and the ground surface about the reser-
voir should be graded in such a manner as to divert surface water and
prevent pooling within the vicinity of the reservoir.
2. The discharge end of all overflow, blowout or cleanout pipes should
be turned downward and screened to prevent the entrance of rain, dust,
birds, insects, rodents and other contaminating materials. They should
also be able to discharge freely, without any chance of backflow of
contaminated water or material. If the discharge is to a control chamber
located where the overflow will be above ground and flood level, it may
be drained by gravity directly to the ground surface or indirectly into
a storm drain; otherwise it should be drained by pumping.
3. Whenever practical, a suitable and substantial cover should be
provided for any reservoir, elevated tank or the structure used
for water storage. Covers should be generally of lightweight, water-
tight, durable material and construction, and designed to facilitate
drainage from the cover and prevent contaminating materials from getting
into the stored water.
4. Manholes on reservoir covers should be fitted with raised watertight
walls projecting at least 15.24 cm above the level of the reservoir cover
or any fill material placed over the cover. Manhole covers should be
solid and watertight, preferably with edges projecting downward at
least 5.08 cm around the outside of the frame. Each manhole cover should
be locked securely with a sturdy lock.
5. Vents and openings, where necessary on covers of reservoirs for
water level control guages or other purposes, should be constructed and
screened to prevent the entrance of dust, rain, snow, birds, insects or
other foreign matter.
6. The operation of storage reservoirs should be conducted in such a
manner as to maintain the highest sanitary quality of water.
-206-
-------
ill. Removal of Contaminants in Reservoirs
Free or combined chlorine residual may be maintained if the reservoir is
of the flow-through type and the size is not too large in relation to
the flow. In open reservoirs, free residual chlorine, chloramine, copper
sulfate and activated carbon were suggested for control of microscopic
growth. Disinfection facilities should be set up so all the water
reentering the distribution system will be re-treated.
-207-
-------
b. Elevated Storage Tanks
Elevated storage in many cases has proven to be the most practical and
economical method for providing adequate storage and pressure in the
distribution system. Where natural elevation is inadequate to provide
the proper pressure, .standpipes and elevated tanks are the two most
suitable types of water storage. The construction can be of wood,
concrete or steel. In cold climates steel is found to be the most
practical. In reinforced concrete, unless the steel is prestressed,
vertical cracks are formed, and leakage and freezing cause rapid de-
terioration of the structure. Wood type storage tanks are almost wholly
confined to railroad and industrial supplies. The water tower is often
a community's tallest structure and stands out prominently. As a result,
there has been concern with the aesthetics in water towers, which in turn
has produced a myriad of shapes and sizes of storage tanks and stand-
pipes.
The major problems with storage tanks and standpipes are contamination
by corrosion and leakage. These two factors are mainly a matter of de-
sign considerations dictated by the economics of the situation. Steel
is competititve in cost to concrete and is more watertight but
involves more periodic maintenance to alleviate corrosion. Concrete on
the other hand, is much less susceptible to corrosion but is more prone
to leakage. As in the case of reservoir design, a wide range of rubber
and plastic sheet lining material and liquid sealants are available to
aid the prevention of contamination and leakage in elevated tanks and
standpipes. Improved paint systems now available, and increased use of
cathodic protection systems have reduced the chances of contamination by
corrosion products from steel tanks in addition to increasing the life
expectancy of the tanks. Guidance for preparing and painting storage
tanks is provided by AWWA Specifications D102 Coatings and Cathodic
Protection. Paint coatings are applied to submerged steel surface areas
for the sole purpose of isolating the steel from the corroding medium.
All coatings are subject to deterioration in service due to water
absorption, abrasion, bond failure, delamination, and ice damage. There
are literally scores of variables that have a direct effect on the rate
of corrosion activity within a structure.
Cathodic protection offers a viable resistance to corrosion. However,
cathodic protection requirements change from time to time and from
place to place. For any given utility structure, the amount of cathodic
protection currently required to achieve and maintain a protection
condition changes scores of times each day. Given two identical storage
structures with identical coatings and storing identical waters, dif-
ferent degrees of cathodic protection needs will exist. The coating
industry has recognized the need for more sophisticated coating systems
and have improved their products and application techniques. The
cathodic protection industry has also recognized its responsibility to
keep pace so that its installed systems do their job of 'corrosion con-
trol more economically and efficiently.
-208-
-------
A less perplexing but nonetheless existing problem is the problem of
foreign materials entering storage tanks by way of vents. As in the
case of reservoirs, all vents should be screened and protected so that
roof drainage cannot be deflected through openings. Protection should
be provided particularly in landscaped areas where fertilizers might be
used. Algal spores may also enter through the vents and stimulate the
growth of algae. Customer complaints can be an indication as to the
presence of contamination in the storage system. However, complete
water sampling and analysis, and an intelligent review of water quality
data must be accomplished to properly evaluate the degree of contamina-
tion. Disinfection and periodic cleaning will alleviate these problems.
Adequate disinfection of storage tanks after construction or repairs is
necessary to prevent degradation in the distribution system water quality.
Spraying strong solutions of chlorine on the surface of the storage tanks
after thorough initial flushing, followed by filling with chlorinated
water has proved satisfactory.
-209-
-------
Cost Data
a« Reservoir Corrosion Protection
Reservoir liners
asphalt-plastic liners
material and labor - $0.6 - $0.12 per sq m
(includes gussetting and excludes site preparation)
butyl rubber lining
material costs $0.6 per sq m
gunite sealing
Reservoir covers
butyl rubber floating covers
material $0.09 per sq m
steel covers *
concrete covers *
Water towers and storage tanks protection
cathodic protection for corrosion control
installation costs
600 - cu meters storage tank $2,000.00
2,000 - cu meters storage tank $2,700.00
4,000 - cu meters storage tank $3,330.00
(The preceeding costs are for manual cathodic systems only. For
automatic systems, each cost is increased $800.00)
coatings for corrosion .control
Labor to apply coatings vary with coating product. Average
labor costs are:
Blasting and applying 1 coat 5c per sq m
add 0.5
-------
coatings
bimetallic glassy phosphate
material cost $0.01 - $0.15 sq m
vinyl resins
material cost $0.01 - $0.15 sq m
-211-
-------
SECTION VI
CONTROL OF WATER QUALITY IN
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
General
Often it is fallaciously assumed that water entering the distribution
system from storage will be of the same quality at the consumers tap.
The quality of water must be preserved during its conveyance from the
point of production and storage to delivery to the consumer.
Theoretical conditions for accomplishment of complete control are:
i. The finished water is completely stable in its compositional
and physical attributes.
ii. It is completely disinfected.
iii. The conveyance system and accessory structures are relatively
inert to the water being conveyed.
iv. The conveyance system is sealed off from contaminating in-
trusion.
Such conditions are rarely all achieved throughout the operational
distribution system, and results in deterioration due to: poor-quality
water put into distribution system; chemical interaction between water
and pipe; biological degradation; biological infestation; cross connection
hazards; inadequate main disinfection; and less common factors such as
blowoffs and vacuum or air relief valves improperly constructed or
located. The consequence may be one or more of the following; unsafe
water, turbid or rusty water; unpleasant taste and odor; or colored
water.
Cross Connections
A hydraulic linkage permanently or temporarily connecting an additional
source of water with the pipes of a potable water supply is called a
cross connection. Unless the quality of the supplementary water supply
is equal or superior to that of the potable supply and unless it is so
maintained at all times, neither direct nor indirect cross connections
should be tolerated. The hazards of cross connections may result
from either pumping or "back siphonage".
Pumping hazards are those causing backflow of foreign liquids into the
potable water system, resulting from interconnection of the domestic
water system to a second system of pipes, tanks, or the like, containing
water or other liquids under pressure maintained from some source other
than the potable water system. The pressure may be, or can be, higher
than the pressure in the potable water system at the point of
interconnection.
-213-
-------
These hazards can exist at water service connections to sewage or storm
water pumping stations, sewage-treatment plants, waterfront properties,
industrial plants handling liquids under pressure, and buildings where
sewage is pumped on the premises. Such interconnections may result in
large quantities of dangerous materials such as sewage and toxic chemicals
entering the potable water system through backflow.
One of the major items in a cross-connection control program is the pro-
tection against these pumping hazards in a system. Removal of the basic
cause (such as abandonment of a sewage-polluted auxiliary source) will pro-
vide such protection. Protection can also be obtained by delivering
water from the potable water supply overhead - through an "air gap" -
to a receiving tank, or by installing a backflow-prevention device at
the service connection. The latter two actions mentioned will protect
the potable water supply but will not protect the people drinking
water within the property under consideration. Depending on the region
some health authorities will only accept air-gap separation (or
abandonment of polluted supplementary source) as protection against the
above stated pumping hazard. Where an air-gap separation is not practical
some health authorities will accept a reduced-pressure-principle device.
Another backflow prevention device; a double check valve assembly, can
provide acceptable protection against backflow from nontoxic materials in
industrial premises handling such nontoxic materials under pressure, for
example the carbonated beverage industry. Cross connections permitting
backflow of nontoxic materials into the potable water supply may not
create public health hazards, but can create objectionable conditions.
i
Back siphonage is another means of contaminating a potable water
supply. It occurs when negative pressure develops, either in the water
users piping system or in the community piping system.
Negative or subatmospheric pressures in a piping system can cause the
transfer of polluted or used water or other liquids from a water using
fixture into a building piping system and, under extreme conditions,
into the potable water system. Back siphonage hazards therefore,
presents more of a threat to water consumers within a building than to
a potable water system on a whole. As long as adequate pressure is
always maintained at the point of service from a potable water system
to a customer's piping, back siphonage will not affect the potable water
supply. Negative pressure more frequently occurs in building piping
systems. It is due to either insufficient internal hydraulic capacity
or to low pressure in the potable water system. Negative pressure also
occurs in community piping systems and is due to: main breaks; planned
shutdowns; fire demands; water usage exceeding the hydraulic capacity of
the system; and other reasons. Negative pressure should not be tolerated.
A positive pressure is necessary to prevent contaminated infiltration,
such as leakage from nearby sewer lines, into the system.
-214-
-------
Disinfection of Mains
Water treatment does not usually produce coliform-free water. The
control of these organisms is relative and not absolute.
Distribution systems are rarely free from coliform organism unless
residual chlorine is always present and other adverse conditions do not
exist. In waterworks the presence of coliform organisms act as an
indicator of pollution and are not usually considered as pathogenic.
The existance of these organisms however, should always be considered
as presumptive evidence of pollution. Among the sources of bacteria
are: cross connections, infiltration due to low or negative pressure,
and ineffective or non-existent main disinfection.
Standards for the disinfection of mains have been set down by AWWA
(C601-68). The standards describe procedures for protecting the
cleanliness of the pipe during laying. It calls for preliminary
flushing of new lines and specifies chlorination to produce a residual
of at least 25 mg/1 after 24 hours of standing in the treated pipeline.
Procedures are also described for disinfecting repaired lines. These
standards along with the "Standards for Installation of Cast Iron Water
Mains" (AWWA C600), approve only rings, asbestos rope or treated paper
as yarning or packing material. Other packing materials such as jute
and hemp generally contain coliform organisms and are extremely hard to
disinfect, consequently they are prohibited. Such contaminated packing
may not constitute a public health hazard, but contributes to a
continued coliform presence in water flowing in new mains despite all
reasonable efforts to disinfect the lines.
Chemical Interaction Between Water and Pipe
Corrosion is an electrochemical process that causes pitting of main pipe,
deposition of ferric hydroxide (rust), tuberculation and lime scaling,
blue-green stains on enamel bathroom fixtures (from copper and brass pipe
and fittings), and sometimes the formation of toxic lead salts in lead
pipes. This chemical interaction between water and pipe leads to the
deterioration of metal in the community and household piping system,
rusty (or red) water, and a reduction in the water carrying capacity of
the water mains.
Tuberculation and pitting, the most serious types of corrosion frequently
occurs when the pH value of the water is between 7.0 and 10.0. In this
pH range the corrosion tends to be localized in nature. The corrosion
products are precipitated in place to form tubercles which are pervious
to water and therefore promote rather than stifle further attack. The
resulting pits may soon penetrate steel pipe, making replacement neces-
sary. Even before the pipe fails, the tubercles formed can seriously
impede the flow of water. Lime scaling also impedes the flow of water
and is especially serious whenever a water high in bicarbonate hardness
is heated or an unstable water is discharged from a lime or lime soda
softener. This is particularly true in industrial heat exchangers,
condensers and hot water systems.
-215-
-------
There are numerous methods for combating corrosion and any specific
problem can have more than one method of solution. Very often two or
more methods are used to supplement one another. The methods of
combating corrosion can be classified into six general categories. These
are as follows:
i. Alloying or use of better corrosion resistant pipes.
ii. Coatings (organic and inorganic)
iii. Alteration of pipe environment
iv. Non-metallic pipes (Plastic)
v. Cathodic protection
vi. Design.
Almost all of the methods of combating corrosion listed above have been
employed. The use of alloying or better corrosion resistant material is
employed whenever metals other than steel are used, such as in copper.
The National Bureau of Standards has conducted long-term corrosion tests
of underground pipe line materials, including steel, cast iron, and
ductile cast iron. A comprehensive analysis of this data was made by
the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, the
"Pennington Report".1 It was found that gray cast iron pits 1.8 times
as much as steel in a soil where steel will pit at an average depth of
40 mils the first year. In the same type of soil, ductile cast iron
will develop maximum pits 2.6 times as deep as those in steel.
In corrosive soils the expected life of 6" Class 22 gray cast iron would
be in the order of 26 years, the expected life of ductile cast iron 6"
Class 22 would be 9 years and bare steel 0.18 cm thick, 3 years. In 24"
size, Class 23 gray cast iron life would be 97 years, Class 1 Ductile,
15 years and 0.33 cm steel, 10 years. Assuming a theoretical pipe 0.64
cm thick of each of these materials, the calculated life would be 35
years for steel, 11 years for gray cast iron and 5-1/2 years for ductile
cast iron.
Corrosion rates are not linear with time. The expected life is based on
complete penetration of the pipe wall by corrosion. No credit was given
to the value of corrosion products remaining intact.
The Pennington Report concluded that all pipe must be protected against
corrosion in most instances and that the use of carbon steel properly
protected was more economical than using gray cast iron or ductile cast
iron.
Corrosion of Steel and Two Types of Cast Iron Pipe in Soil, W. A.
Pennington, Highway Research Record No. 140, 1966, Highway Research
Board, pp. 9-22.
-216-
-------
Metallic or inorganic coatings would include the use of galvanized pipes
and the use of concrete as a coating on steel. Organic coats consist
of a wide range of products such as; coal tar, asphalt, wax, plastic
tapes, epoxy resins, vinyl resins and paints, and organic zinc paints.
Concrete coated steel is extensively used for pipes 16" and larger.
The concrete provides a protective coating for the steel and inhibits
corrosion. Cured concrete normally maintains the.pH at about 9.5 to 12.5
which can furnish a protective environment for steel. Tnere are
situations where concrete coated steel should not be used without further
corrosion measures. Furthermore, the concrete must completely qover
the pipe or else corrosion will be accelerated on the uncovered portion.
The concrete protective film will break down if the cover is too thin
or if the cement, concrete or water contains excessive chlorides. In
a recent investigation severe corrosion resulted in steel with concrete
covers of 2.54 cm or less. The most severe corrosion of steel in
concrete was due to the presence of chlorides. In one case 21 km
of prestressed pipe failed, most of it before being installed.
Organic type coatings have been commonly used in the past, however, their
effect on corrosion has limitations. They tend to concentrate the effects
of corrosion since it is difficult to cover 100% of the pipe. It can be
calculated that even a 99.9% perfect coating of a 0.15 m pipe will have
0.52 m2 of base metal per kilometer. Coatings may also deteriorate with
age and further expose the metal to corrosion.
The addition of certain chemicals to the water as part of the treatment
in order to deposit a protective coating or film on metals is a very
widespread, practical means of controlling corrosion. Chemicals that
are most used for this purpose include calcium carbonate, silicates and
polypho sphate.
The earlier treatment method of coating with calcium carbonate was
achieved by adding lime to the water in such a way that the water was
deliberately made scale forming, so that calcium carbonate scale would
cover the corroding pipe surfaces and stifle the corrosion. Lime addi-
tion was sound in theory, but the difficulty experienced in practice was
that most of the scale would precipitate in transmission mains leaving
the system unprotected and even decreasing flow rates in the distribution
system.
The use of a polyphosphate, sodium hexametaphosphate,was introduced for
scale prevention in 1938 and helped considerably by keeping transmission
mains free of calcium carbonate scale. This innovation at least permitted
lime softening plants to send water out at pH values above 10, and such
pH values are effective in decreasing corrosion. In latter years the
glassy phosphate (sodium hexametaphosphate) was found to be in
itself an effective corrosion inhibitor at pH values below 8 and, being
non-toxic as well as colorless and tasteless was ideal for use in
potable water systems. This discovery led to a development of a bi-
-217-
-------
metallic glassy phosphate (sodium-zinc glassy phosphate) for use in the
municipal field,
This complex bimetallic phosphate glass, (containing 8-9% zinc) proved
to be three to five times as effective (depending on conditions) as
straight sodium phosphate glass in overcoming corrosion in water systems.
It required more than 25mg/l of sodium hexametaphosphate even to approach
the effectiveness of the bimetallic glassy phosphate.
Unfortunately, it requires as long as 24 hours to dissolve this bimetallic
glassy phosphate in some waters at temperatures above 10°C, and feed
solutions of more than 1 per cent (approximates 0.5 kg per 50 liters)
are seldom stable. At temperatures below 10°C the material frequently
will not dissolve to any noticeable extent. This created some limitations
of treatment in the municipal field.
Nevertheless, several hundred municipalities in warmer areas are using
bimetallic phosphate glass either to maintain high flow coefficients
following mechanical cleaning of mains or to eliminate red water com-
plaints. Continuous dissolving feeders have been used quite effectively,
with the rate of dissolution determining the amount fed to the water.
These municipalities have obtained superior results in controlling
corrosion with one important limitation: the rate of feed must always
be sufficient to carry a metaphosphate residual to the ends of the
distribution system. In most instances, this minimum proves to be no
more than 1 mg/1.
Bimetallic metaphosphate glass has been particularly effective in tuber-
culation control because of its rapid film formation. When used at a
high concentration during an immediately after the cleaning operation,
the bimetallic glass overcomes the disadvantage of tubercules being
formed before the polyphosphate film can form.
Although greater attention has been given to the use of the bimetallic
glassy phosphate in connection with water main cleaning and tuberculation
control, equally good results have been obtained in eliminating difficult
corrosion problems and red-water complaints when main cleaning is not
involved. Actual data of a small municipality which treated 1,877.5 cu
m/day by means of conventional clarification - sand filtration plant shows
the effect of bimetallic metaphosphate on corrosion. The municipality
had a severe corrosion problem resulting in numerous complaints of red
waters. The iron content of the water leaving the treatment plant
averaged no more than 0.1 mg/1. The water had a pH value of approximately
6.1, hardness of only 16 mg/1 and 15 mg/1 of sulfate ion, however, so
that it was quite corrosive. The consumer complaints were definately
caused by iron pick-up as the water passed through the distribution
system. After treatment by bimetallic metaphosphate test data obtained
by subtracting the iron content of the water leaving the treatment plant
from the total iron content of the water at the different test locations
showed an overall reduction in iron pick-up through the system to be
68 percent.
-218-
-------
Sodium-zinc metaphosphate is subject to restrictions in use. At pH values
above 8 its effect as a corrosion inhibitor is limited and maximum effec-
tiveness for iron and steel is obtained at pH values between 6 and 7.5.
It is true that the bimetallic phosphates are somewhat more effective at
higher pH values, but this is difficult to measure. They require, however,
a minimum calcium content in the water of at least 1 mg/1 (2.5 mg/1
hardness) for every four or five mg/1 of phosphate for proper film
formation; and best results are obtained when the water contains at
least 0.017 grams per liter of hardness.
The ground characteristic is a significant factor in corrosion of the out-
side of the distribution system. The use of corrosion resistant materials,
electrolytic protection, and altering the characteristics of the environ-
ment (i.e. using special backfill material such as sand or gravel) are
used in combating this type of corrosion. Very effective protection of
ductile iron pipe under corrosive conditions can be provided by encasing
the pipe during installation with a loose tube or sleeve of polyethelene
8 mils thick. This protective method has been tested by the Cast Iron
Pipe Research Association over a period of 15 years in several very
corrosive sites such as cinders and tidal muck, and found to give excel-
lent protection.
Non-metallic pipes have exhibited potential as water distribution mains
in public works. Their use is not innovative as clay tile pipes have
been used for many years. In recent years a great deal of attention has
been given to plastic pipes. Inert to chemical action of waters and
soils, plastic pipes should neither rust, corrode, put, tuberculate, nor
dissolve during water service.
Cathodic protection is an electrical method of preventing corrosion. It
is used on metallic structures which are in electrolytes such as soil or
water. It has had widespread application on underground pipe lines in
addition to numerous other underground and underwater structures. It
operates by passing direct current continuously from electrodes which
are installed in the electrolyte to the structure to be protected. Cor-
rosion is arrested when the current is of sufficient magnitude and is
properly distributed. A sacrificial node is substituted which is dissipated
instead of the pipeline metal. Where properly applied cathodic protec-
tion can completely eliminate the loss of metal and the resulting
pitting from underground corrosion. Cathodic protection is most economical
where it is used in conjunction with good coatings. The amount of current
required is proportioned to the bare area; therefore, the better the
coating less current required. Many economic studies have found
that the use of cathodically protected coated pipe is the most economical
to be used. Cathodic protection, however, exhibits a tendency to have
high installation cost and a continuing need for maintenance and
technical service.
Much has been done in the design stages to help combat corrosion, an
example of which is the installation of insulating joints either to
avoid bi-metallic coupling 'or to confine cathodic protection current.
-219-
-------
It is to be noted that each of the corrosion control methods presented
here has a number of conditions to consider and many limitations
relative to a particular situation. Before adaption of any method the
user is urged to carefully scrutinize and identify the particular corro-
sion problem before proceeding to select a certain protection technique.
Dead Ending
In the design of water distribution systems dead ending should be
avoided, unless it is the case where the dead ending becomes unavoidable
in the early stages of piping system development. Provisions for circu-
lation or lack of such provisions will have some effect on water quality.
This largely depends on the water quality entering the system. Lack of
circulation obviously creates dead ends with their variable and somewhat
unpredictable problems. Because of the lack of water movement in dead
ends, an accumulation of rust, organic matter, and other material can
cause undesirable odors, taste and color, which can be drawn throughout
the system during periods of low flow.
All dead ends should be routinely inspected and flushed thoroughly to
prevent the deterioration of water quality in the system.
Biological Degradation and Infestation
A phenomenon commonly called "aftergrowth" or "secondary growth" often
develops in distribution systems even when water at the source meets or
exceeds Federal Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines. This con-
tamination by coliform organisms is the most complex and least understood
cause of biological infestation. It is not established whether these
organisms are from recovery of cells partially injured by treatment, or
if they are bacteria that produce any of several types of gases which
could be: hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane or
ammonia. Methods of controlling this problem include: better treatment
at the source, elimination of noneirculating zones in the system, and
adequate flushing. An important means of controlling aftergrowths is
chlorine treatments. It is likely that complete control of coliform
aftergrowth is obtained only if chlorine residuals are carried to
extremities of a distribution system. This has been accomplished on in-
creasing number of systems, but often with difficulty and with consumer
dissatisfaction, at least for an initial period. Chlorine should not be
used indiscriminately throughout the distribution system although EPA
recommends chlorine residuals throughout the system. Where laboratory
analysis shows that water in the distribution system is contaminated,
investigations should be made to locate the problem and appropriate
corrective steps should be taken.
A number of larger biological forms may find their way into domestic
water distribution systems. Broadly these are known as nuisance
organisms and include nematodes, snails, the larvae of the chironomid
fly, and others. Some authorities also include Crenothrix under the
general heading of nuisance organisms. Snails and nematodes are
-220-
-------
introduced at the source and can best be controlled at that point.
Measures for the prevention and elimination of larval infestations may
be divided into mechanical, biological and chemical procedures.
Mechanical procedures mainly consist of reservoir protection
features and the use of filters placed at the outlet pipe to the dis-
tribution system. The latter method has been proved to be effective in
some plants throughout the United States. Biological methods of control
depend for their success on the interruption in some manner of the
development of the insect. Examples of this type of control include
such methods as: removing a major source of food supply and strict
control of their development in the reservoir. Chemical methods consist
of very delicate procedures, and even the most reliable chemical measures
available at this time offer only temporary relief, and their application
should be limited to extreme emergency situations and with close
consultation of public health authorities.
The control of Crenothrix in distribution systems is adequately dealt
with in a publication by AWWA.^ The publication stated:
"Crenothrix, one of the higher bacteria, is a microscopic, fila-
mentous (threadlike) organism closely related to true bacteria and
microscopic fungi. .This organism will live in the dark and in the
absence of dissolved oxygen but will not thrive in water containing
large concentrations of dissolved oxygen. It requires iron as an
essential food and thus will live on the inside of distribution
systems conducting water containing iron.
Crenothrix will grow in gelatinuous masses on the inside of water
mains to an extent that will seriously reduce the capacity of the
mains and will lead to the presence of objectionable concentrations
of precipitated iron in the water and to objectionable tastes and
odors, especially when the organism dies. Its presence is to be
anticipated when well water containing iron, but little or no
dissolved oxygen, is pumped into distribution systems.
Crenothrix may be eliminated by removing iron (food) from water
before it enters distribution systems, by increasing the concen-
tration of dissolved oxygen in the water above about 2.0 mg/1
through aeration, and by the application of copper sulfate or
chlorine to the water. It is significant to note, however, that
the doses of copper sulfate and chlorine required for the rapid
destruction of these organisms are higher than may be utilized in
the treatment of a potable supply, but fortunately limited doses
are effective if continued for a period of several weeks or more.
Copper sulfate doses in excess of 0.3 mg/1 are effective, and a
dose of 0.5 mg/1 is recommended. The chemical may be applied with
various types of feeders available for applying alum to water.
Water Qualify and Treatment,, A Handbook of Public Water SuppliesT
AWWA, 1971, p. 494. (Ref. 105).
-221-
-------
The chlorine dose required to destroy this organism is that dose
necessary to result in a concentration of residual chlorine between
0.5 to 1.0 mg/1. It may be quite difficult to maintain this con-
centration of residual chlorine unless ammonia is added also to
stabilize the chlorine. Even then, objectionable tastes are likely
to be produced through the destruction of the organisms, so such
treatment should be preceded by a notice to the consumers that
special treatment is to be utilized for the destruction of these
organisms so they will not be unduly concerned as to the quality of
the water supplied to them temporarily."
Quality of Water put into Distribution System
In waterworks it is generally accepted that water leaving the consumer
tap will be of lower quality than that entering the distribution system.
Therefore, the importance of transmitting high quality water from the
treatment plant to the distribution system cannot be neglected. The
lower the quality of water put in the distribution system from the
treatment plant, the more the problems of contamination within the dis-
tribution system will be compounded. The quality of the finished water
is a reflection on the quality of the source. Each community should
try to select the best possible source in order to avoid excessive
stress and shock loads on the treatment plant. Where quality control at
the source is not practiced the effects of treatment irregularities are
likely to be passed on to the distribution system. Poor watershed
control practices will impair the performance of even the most modern
and efficient treatment plant by the introduction of shock loads caused
by unabated pollution.
Air Relief Valves and Blowoffs
Proper location of air valves and blowoffs are imperative in order to
prevent the entrance of contaminated or polluted water when they are
open. Air valves are used to relieve entrapped air. They aid in the
prevention of milky water when lines are at full capacity. Vacuum-release
valves are used to allow air to enter lines that are unable to withstand
atmospheric pressure when under vacuum. Vacuum valves have been known to
leak under very low head and if proper drainage is not provided and main-
tained the valve could become submerged with water and allow pollution of
the distribution system. Blowoffs are normally located at a low point for
draining a line or for connecting a line, however, they should also be
provided where no other means of blowing off a dead end exists. Water
quality is not directly affected by blowoffs, but their presence is
necessary to permit blowing off a line, which gives temporary relief to a
poor-quality water condition. Direct connection of blowoffs to sewers and
manholes must never be allowed.
Sampling of Distribution System
To efficiently maintain good quality water in the distribution system it
is expedient to institute an effective sampling program. Federal Drinking
-222-
-------
Water Standards and Guidelines have established recommendations for
sampling water quality in distribution systems.
The more salient concern of the standards is bacteriological quality -
more specifically, with coliform organisms. Realizing that varied nature
of different distribution systems makes it difficult to establish specific
requirements for sampling, the standards therefore, are very general in
their recommendations. It is urged that all municipalities adhere to
the Federal Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines when instituting a
sampling program. This program is necessary to provide a continual feed-
back of water quality in the distribution so analyses can be made and any
problems in the systems can be effectively dealt with.
-223-
-------
SECTION VII
TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION AND EFFECTIVENESS
a. Process Selection
The bases for selection of the optimum treatment system are the source
water quality, the desired product water quality, and the capacity of
the plant, and type of existing facilities. The cost and location of
the facilities will also influence the design.
The required capacity of the plant will often influence the selection
of unit operations. Some processes are more economical than others at
small capacities, whereas as the capacity increases, the economics may
tend to favor alternate processes. The flexibility of the chosen system
to meet variations in source water quality and in consumer demand is
also an important design criteria. Ease of operation, and the minimum
requirement for maintenance operations have substantial bearing upon
the selection of the treatment system in locations where there may
be a shortage of skilled labor.
All of these factors, however, are peculiar to a specific set of
circumstances, and may not readily be quantified on a general basis.
The effectiveness of a given process for the removal of a specific
contaminant, or groups of like contaminants, can be quantified, and
can form an excellent method for further investigations or comparative
studies.
It is extremely difficult to simplistically state the effectiveness of
a process for the removal of a specific contaminant. The level of
removal depends on a variety of physical and chemical parameters, all
of which must be considered for each specific case. However, for
planning purposes, the effectiveness of the treatment methods can be
approximated closely enough to provide the necessary information for
process selection. It must be emphasized that extensive laboratory
and/or field tests on the subject source water must be performed before
final decisions on the treatment system can be made.
Aeration
Odor removal is better than 90% in some cases, except for odor-
causing compounds such as chlorophenols, however the effectiveness
is variable. Acidification or the use of carbon dioxide in the
aeration column may be necessary for the complete oxidation of
hydrogen sulfide.
Iron and Manganese are oxidized to the insoluble trivalent forms,
which are precipitated, and may be removed by sedimentation or
filtration. Ninety percent removal is possible, but concen-
trations about 1.0 mg/1 of iron may require pre-oxidation using
chlorine.
-225-
-------
S edimentation
1. Turbidity. Turbidity caused by heavy silt particles may be
removed by plain sedimentation followed by sand filtration.
Sedimentation alone is not suitable for turbidities of greater
than 20 JTU, and is usually employed with coagulation. Ex-
tremely muddy waters may be presettled, but would require
additional treatment. The reduction in turbidity by plain
sedimentation cannot be predicted, and must be evaluated on
an individual basis.
Coagulation and Sedimentation
1. Turbidity is almost totally removed by coagulation and sedimen-
tation. If the process is followed by rapid sand filtration,
turbidity reduction approaches 99%. Without filtration, reduc-
tions are of the order of
2. Color removal is of the order of 95% if sand filtration is used
for polishing.
3. Arsenic has been removed successfully in bench-scale apparatus
by coagulation with a high level of alum (hydrated aluminum
sulfate) followed by sedimentation and sand filtration. The
best results were obtained at an initial pH of 6 with 50 mg/1
of alum - removal efficiency approached 94%. Substituting
hydrated ferrous sulfate for alum at the same pH, and with 40 mg/1
dosage removed 99%+ of arsenic (V).
4. Mercury. Extensive laboratory work by Logsdon and Symons has
indicated that substantial reductions in mercury levels (See
mercury - Section II) may be expected using coagulation and
sedimentation techniques. Very broadly, alum coagulants will
reduce mercury about 30%, and iron coagulants will reduce mer-
cury 40-60%. No operational tests on full size equipment have
yet been performed.
5. Selenium. Coagulation with ferric sulfate will remove 60% to
90% of Selenium IV with a pH of <7, and 30% of Selenium VI.
Alum coagulation will remove 0 to 30% of both IV and VI.
6. Radioactive Contaminants. Coagulation and sedimentation will
remove 20 to 80% of alpha emitters, depending uponthe specific
type. Radium 226 will be removed up to 25%.
Beta emitters will be 20 to 80% removed. Strontium 90 will be
removed, while Iodine 129 and 131 will be 20% removed.
Rapid Sand Filtration
1. Bacteria will be removed by rapid sand filtration, if included
in or attached to particles of suspended or colloidal matter.
-226-
-------
2. Turbidity will be 99% removed in a rapid sand filter, if the
influent turbidity is less than 15 JTU. However, frequent
bacfcwashing will be required for the filtration efficiency
of the bed.
3. Arsenic can be oxidized by chlorine, absorbed on ferric chloride,
and removed in a sand filter. Pilot scale tests show removal
efficiencies of 99%+ with As^+ concentration in raw water of
less than 1.0 mg/1, and dosage of 30 to 60 mg/1 of ferric
chloride. The filter is washed with caustic soda and arsenic
free water.
Slow Sand Filtration
1. Bacteria removal of 85 - 90% can be effected.
2. Turbidity reduction in the order of 90% is possible, but flow
rates must be precisely controlled, and frequent backwashing
is required.
3. Colloidal color can be biologically removed. Efficiency varies
with the type of color, and the turbidity of the raw water.
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
(
1. Bacteria, color and turbidity will be removed to approximately
the same level as with slow sand filters given the same raw water
characteristics.
2. With preoxidation, manganese can be removed to below the allowable
concentration. With preaeration and alkalinity adjustment, iron
can be removed to below the allowable concentration.
3. Conversion of soluble mercury to the insoluble form, followed
by diatomaceous filtration can reduce mercury levels by 99%+.
Microscreeninj^
1. Bacteria removal of approximately 50% can be expected.
2. Suspended solids removals of 50 to 80% are possible, with
minimum screen opening of 23 microns,
Reverse Osmosis
1. Bacteria will be 99%+ removed assuming the integrity of the mem-
brane is maintained, and the membrane material is inert from
bacterial attack. Cellulosic membranes are not suitable.
2. Removes color caused by organic materials of molecular weight
greater than 200.
-227-
-------
3. Cyanide and Fluoride can be removed by 90%.
4. Inorganics can generally be removed by 90 to 97%, providing the
concentration factor does not result in calcium precipitation.
pH must not exceed 9, otherwise hydrolysis of the membrane will
occur.
Electrodialysis
1. All inorganics can be removed by approximately 80%, provided
the calcium concentration does not exceed the solubility
limits.
Distillation
1. All inorganics will be rejected in the distillate to a level of
99%+. The heat required for distillation will kill some bacteria,
but the level varies with the characteristics of the water supply.
Ion Exchange
1. Waste waters from dye plants and food processing facilities have
been completely decolored with special resins.
2. 95%+ removal of Barium, Cadmium and Arsenic is possible with ion
exchange.
3. Chromium, Copper and Lead can be removed by ion exchange by 95%.
4. The acid radicals, chloride, sulfate and nitrate can be exchanged
to a level of 97%+, depending on the level of regeneration.
5. Radioactive contaminants. Alpha emitters can be reduced by 96%+.
Strontium 90 has been reduced by 99.9%. However, the water
containing the contaminant was ultra pure.
Disinfection
1. Bacteria kill is 99%+ with both chlorine and ozone.
2. Organic color can be 99%+ removed with ozone.
3. Both chlorine and ozone will oxidize iron and manganese for
removal by sedimentation and/or filtration.
-228-
-------
b. Unit Cost Curves
Unit Cost curves for each process have been developed and presented in
Section VII. These curves are based on the following information derived
in agreement with the Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection
Agency, and Environmental Planning and Engineering Division of David
Volkert & Associates.
i. 40 year plant life (30 years for desalting systems)
ii. 6% interest rate
iii. Land cost of $25,000/hectare
(approx. $10,000/acre)
iv. Power cost of lc/kwh
All Unit Cost Curves presented here are developed from the cost data
presented in Section IV. They are intended to be used only as a very
preliminary estimate of the unit cost of water using a particular treatment
on a once through basis, since they are of necessity based on the specific
restraints described with each curve. If interest rates, power cost, etc.
varies significantly, the curves become misleading.
-229-
-------
Note that the maximum concentrations given in the following tables
are for a single pass through the process listed. The percentage of
contaminant removed by each process is an indication of effectiveness,
but should not necessarily be used to determine the maximum concentration.
The maximum removal rate does not necessarily occur at maximum concentration.
Many processes will remove contaminants very effectively up to a certain
concentration, and then the rate of removal will drop or decrease rapidly.
For example, the 1974 Federal Drinking Water Guidelines and Standards
limit for arsenic is 0.1 mg/1. Preoxidation, coagulation with Fe 0,3 and
filtration have the capability to remove 99% of the arsenic content in
water. However, this does not mean that it will be effective at arsenic
concentrations of 10 mg/1, since it is about 1 mg/1 in practice. Note
that if 1 mg/1 arsenic is present in the raw water, that these processes
will reduce it to well below acceptable levels. If the concentration is
higher than 1 mg/1 in the raw water, the additional process of chlorination
may be necessary. The percentage removal figures can, of course, be used
as long as one remains below the maximum concentrations or to indicate if
several passes or a combination of processes will be required. For
example, if arsenic levels in the raw water are 15 mg/1, then preoxidation,
coagulation with Fe Cl^, chlorination, filtration, and a desalting process
such as electrodialysis or reverse osmosis may have to be coupled into a
unit process train.
When a range of values for percentage removal or maximum concentration
are given, then the effectiveness of the treatment process is dependent
on other factors. These factors may include pH level, particle size,
saturation levels, water temperatures, etc.
-230-
-------
C/l
H
O
25
§
H
* H
|3
S H
^ W
S 23
O
CJ
, ~t
<
o
33
w
2
gs^
H
4-1 -H
a 6 cd 3
« rH u cr
B O H M
a IH iH •
0 MH (3 O
at o o
-O 42 t3 "H rl
(3 d 4J -H
cd 4-1 cd cd
co 4-1 -a
a g c -H g
o S o a 3
rl -H -H O
•H « u o 43
ca cd at
CU CU 4J M O
> 4-1 c ex. -H
CU O iH cd 60
M O *O C) M
rl CU >rj O
H cd CO S
HO 3 rl
•H -H X43 O
S ,0 43 O MH
v h
PM S
rH rH
£3 3
1
o m
c*"> O
o o
Q)
CO
(U
cd
u>
Q
o
o
H
1^.
o
M
H
53
•
O 0)
4J Tj
H ^
43 0
cd cd •
•H 4J -O
H 0) 01
01 rl
4J 3
H cd 01
4-1 CU rl
C 43
4) (3
•H O O
O -H -H
iH rH W
>4H 43 O
<4H 3 01
3 D*1*-!
CO (3
4-1 *H
4J 01 01
O 3 iH
25 s a
1
o
ON
1
o
cd
•H
,
MH 0) 4J 4J
HH rH O -H
01 0 B T3
•H 3 V) •
0 4J -04^ p
a cd o s <->
•H a. o •>
0
iH c3 B *4-i O
X O -H -H CM
£^
^
0
ir>
Oi
O
in
^
4-1
•H
•o
•rl
43
H
CO
rl
Cu O
Ol CO
H CU
60 CO
B CO
tH CU
to a
o
Cd rl
a
d
o
CO
cu B
d o
iH T*
^H 4J
cu cd
T3 O
•H -H
3 H
CJ O.
3
•a -a
o
01
•a d
rl 0
Cd -rl
d nJ
tt) C
-U -H
CO rO
s
-3- O
rx o
<• ON
H B
CU
O 43
•a rf
01 01
3 "S)
•0 -H
01 43
CU
01 M
43 cd
d ca
cd d
y o
•rl
43 4-1
u cd
•H rl
•£ u
• o •
i-i d TJ
cu o cu
4J O Wt
cd cu
S rl T3
CU -H
t% 4J CO
cd cd d
rl > 0
u
•3 cl 4)
d U "°
O >W 4J
« a
IH •
4-i en a
d co oi
CU 4) CO
o cj en
d o cu
O rl 0
o a o
rl
S 43 Pi
3 60
0 3 rl
•H O 0)
X rl 43
id 43 4J
a 4J o
«
d
o
•°s g
CO O
4J 4J U-l
B x d
Cd CU -rl
cd cu B
4-1 CO O
d IH
O 4J
O • iH
CO -tf
lt-1 CU -O
o co cd
CO
rH CU rl
cd u o
> O >4-l
O t-i
CU M
H 01 B
cd S o
M 4J -H
CU « 4-1
B CU U
0) rl 4)
OHM
a
-231-
-------
o
55
§
H
£ S
MAXIM
CONCENTI
Kj
i
B-S
CONTAMINANT
H
S
§
1
M
PQ
H
g
•H
4-1
U
01
'a
O iH
4J 0)
•as
01
IrJ
4J CU
4-1 4J
acteria a
oidal mat
ired.
43 rH 3
r-l CT
4-1 O 0)
MOM
1
O
Oi
o
Bacteria
2
5
H
H
5
^*
o
o
cats
2w
S3 (tf
C^ M
w oi d
43 O
• -H
(3 4J 4-1
•H 3 2
4J 8 4J
Cd rH
rl 33 iH
4J O.IM
rH
•H 01
<4H • M
VO O
43 O CU
CU st VO
O <4H 0)
rH O
fio.'S
CO
4J
•H
§
O
rH
O
CJ
CTi
M
O
S
C
iltrat
cu
g
rH
iH
H
8
m
CTl
§
Turbidity
>.
•o
S 6
rH CO
O rH
<4H U
Ifi
4-1 iH
preoxida
ulation w
ration
43 DO 4J
U Cd rH
•H O iH
S O MH
rM
rH
CTi
CTi
Arsenic
o
•H
i g
o h
rH *J
H rH
« £
°° 1
•H 4J *
S S g
-- S
81 8
co rt T
" • 1
a) (3 *
PL* O M
43 4J -g
S 5 S
rH
00
S
H H.
"M ?
a ^
0 °
-1 o
§\ °
in
Cadmium
o
iH
4J
cd
I
cd
o
CJ
a
3
<
rH
00
a
o
rH
O
cn
0)
IH
1
CO
CO
cd
(X
cu
rH
DO
CO
cd
C
•H
CO
^
rH
0)
3
O
T3
CO
T3
rl
cd
"T3
§
4-1
cn
rH
O
.
*o
cu
U
01
0)
U
•S
•H
"§
A
rl
CU
C
4-1
cd
rl
4-1
C
CU
U
c
o
o
I
•3
M
i
IH
O
cesses
o
P.
o
g
•H
4J
n)
rH
§*
•§
I-l
O
(2
5
combinat
(3
1
iT
0)
•a
. -i
*rt
43
H 43
A 4J
4-1 O
43
CO
4-1
C
"a
ed
TABLE
g
•H
4J
•H U
O
4J <4H
S-S
H
rH
cu cd
01 C
W O
4-1
• -rl
co *o
CU T3
co cd
01 IH
o o
O 14H
rl
ss
cu c
B o
ri - 1
Cd 4J
0) O
rl 01
E-i co
-232-
-------
CO
O
Z
0
M
« H
P M
S §
£b ^
8
|
§
PM
6-S
CONTAMINANT
H
g
C^
w
H
•
01
00
33 S
P. ki
•
• «* a <~i
c . 3 ^
o en H oo
•H td a
4J 0
rt w I-H o
h -^ CM
4J T3 00 |
rH 01 S O
•H 4J rH
«H M rH c
43 -O 0
td >,
•0 (3 (7
o> oi o td
S 43 tH 01
O 4J CO
rH 4J tH 01
rH CO T> CJ
£ B < 0
rH
00
0
ON
tJ 4J O
•H -H 43
3 3 <5
rH
^^.
00
S
r-l \O
• — o
o
CO |
CM m
0 0
0 O
0 0
8§
1
o
Mercury
•o
01
S
0
rH
i-H
0
MH
tH
U
n
a)
o
•H
XH •
0) O
•H
M 4-1
oi a)
•a a
tH rH
43 -H
<4-l
U
» 4?
e
0
o
rH
ON
i
00
Turbidit;
M
rH
C
0
•H
4-1
O
0>
45
§
*H
CO
§
o
CO
•a
01
01
01
o
Arseni
4->
•H
r*
Q
I-l
r— i
o
iu
B
01
rH
•S
rH
O C
0] O
C -rl
tH 4-1
td
C rl
tH 4J
I-l
XH -rl
H UH
i-H
00
a
rH
CM
O
CD
0
0
in
/^
•9
Cadmium
(insol
4-1
•H
**
O
r-l
O
g
0
MH
01
rH
•f?
rH
O C
0) O
C -rl
iH 4-1
Id
IS rl
•H 4J
r-|
M-l -rl
•^^
op
0
m
Q
rH
O
O
O
Chromium
X
u
c
01
•H
u
•H
MH
W
§
•H
W
n.
44
ft
•H
>^
5>s
•£"£ 1
co co O
rH
K rl r-l
00 0
rH rH
~2P ^
8 rH U
Q S £
i m I
CO rH 00
O O rH
§8 §
i i i
o o o
VD CM
Selenium
Gross Alpha
0 •
4-1 M
rH
•O 01
0) 0) r*
> n oi
4J 3
0 CT-rH
0 2 >
•rl Q
•a to a
id o) oi
H .H 1-1
TJ
td 3 o
43 4-1 -rl
o. 01 UH
rH -rl
3 *-" 0
O 0)
C r-l O.
O -rl CO
4J Q)
S . -S
73 oi a
C 0 C
0) rl 01
a 3 w
0> O 0)
T3 01 T3
w
Radioactiv:
*>
43
0.
m
co
O
rl
rl 4-1
O iH
01 4J
4J O
o id
C 0
T-f
01 T)
oi td
W rl
rH
•rl
CX
rH
CJ O
|
• IT)
VO CM
rH
in oo
CM |
O
CM
^
4J
•H
•H
O
id
o
GO iH
CM TJ
CM td
VO
CM td
CM 4J
S-
•rl 01
Is
o
01
0)
o.
01
rH
00
01
Id
a
tH
01
01
Q
•H
0>
•o
•H
3
a
id
0]
•a
id
•a
c
td
4-1
CO
ON
rH
0
•a
01
o
3
13
01
rl
CU
43
cj
S
O
O
•rl
S
OJ
4J
S
d
•H
C
o
tH
4J
td
4J
B
01
O
C
Q
V
1
X
1
^
o
01
01
CO
CO
Ol
o
0
M
p.
M
0
f3
o
•H
4J
id
CJ
TH
i-H
O.
3
•a
}_i
o
a
o
•H
4-1
S
•H
O
O
e
01
43
00
tH
t-1.
II
td
Ul
C
0
tH
4J
id
M
4-J
a
01
o •
c -a
O 01
u u
raw water i
be conside
14H 4J
M a
01 CO
as oi
(U CO
U 01
O 01
U CJ
a. o
•S*
3 H
O 01
I-i 43
4-1 O
1
g
o
I
M
M
-233-
-------
tn
i
z
o
rH
*, H
i^
S H
K§
5 O
8
|
Q
S
H
1
3
H
I
H
§
s
*c
&3
P
•o
2
•H
3
o-
2
i-H
•H
U
to
sinfectio
•H
Q
1
?
O
•H
1i
U
•z
p o
< H
t/D •<
Q P
M hJ
Oj H
OJ U
9
C7* MH
4) *rl
M
1-1 ^ rt
U (3 0 -S
(0 O O 4J
§-H rH td
CJ 4J rH
« ° -3 « 1
2 ti a a S
C * a)
§ttl 4J flO
5 -H W
iH IH -a O
4J o) i; "H w
Id 4J 0 XI C «J
H O rH H O Q
rH (S
•rl
T)
•rl
43
S
H
•
d
cd
id
S
M
01
IH
id
4J
•H o
rt ij
•ri
rH 01
•d w
la
th preaer
justment '
1 mg/lo
•H 13 «
3 tlj 0
01
I
01
OJ
CO
OJ
o
c
OJ
0)
to
2
rH
1 O vc
S4J O
o
U rl •
O OJ O W
oorH o S
•rl £2 • Id
to n) o o)
9 o l-i
d 01 4J
0 4-1 H
•Ho) co ni
id § H fl
•d 00 > -H
•H q oj 4J
K 3 rH 1-1 .
o S 1-4 -d >,
oj G^. oo -a ti
IH o) oo M "^ td
O.d0 CO
l-l CO
JS Sin 01 rH a)
4J 3 O |J *•*, y
•H-H • O 00 0)
3 COO ,J S C
01
4J
g '
OJ
0)
CO
2 £
0 °>
c
OJ
01
to
01
CO >•>
Q) W
c 3
3 o
00 l-i
to
to
ex o
cu to
i-H 01
oo 01
(3 CO
•rl OJ
CO O
a.
o
to
oj d
55
•H 4J
oi td
•d O
•H -rl
9 rH
o ex
3
rl
o
to
"S 0
td -H
13 4J
C rt
r- CJ
3§
O ,£
4J 4-1
•0 rT
OJ OJ
•O -H
OJ f.
OJ
OJ H
,£) td
S S
0 O
•H
o id
3 (3
« o •
H d T3
oj o oi
4J O \4
id QJ
3 rl T)
01 -H
U 4J u
id id i
l-i > O
1
•5 id OJ
M ,Q
o IH 4->
•H H a
•M :
id
IH •
4J CO
d to 0
OJ OJ
CJ O V
a o a
0 V<
U (X
§j3
oo
•H O
^4 IH
a -s
*
recesses.
:ion.
M <—
«1
C O
S "S
ij «H
(0
QJ rH
^ cd
H C
££
to *d
4J T3
C td
id
C h
•H O
1 ""
t^
CJ
iw O
0 -rl
4J
i-M O
id oi
> en
0
QJ >H
4J
id a
|J H
C cu
(U CJ
O t/3
"S
3
4J
c
0
o
1
M
^.
S
S
C"1
-234-
-------
i/i
1
2
S
H
il
H 1 U
W
!> 3
O Q)
S r4
01
U 4J
O
r< CO
0 X
<4H W
bfi bf
ff ?
s§
m m
(Sj I
o
ON ON
^^ O^
i
o
Sulfates
Zinc
£
to
•g
0)
_rj
O
Vw
01
4J
ta
,_,
i«
4J
O
4-1
C
O
4-1
1
IX
II
CJ d
J2 -M
3 §
± ±
wS C^
09
01
4J
tO Rl
4H u
M CO
m i
0) CO
co oi
oi co
O 0)
O 01
rl O
a, o
rl
43 a
00
3 r<
O OI
43 *->
4-1 O
•
CO
01
01
co
01
o
o
u
CM
c
a
B
4-1
A
01
H
CD
4J
C
A
r*
•H
g
i
e
o
C_J
MH
O
rH
A
^
01
&.
i-H
A
O
•O
0)
3
C
•H
4-1
C
cS
rH
1
rH
M
>
TABLE
§
^H
4J
i
0
c
Tt
rH
S
o
•H
t3
T3
tj
O
M
>
e
o
•H
4J
O
01
w
a
•H
4J
X
OI
0)
01
en
-235-
-------
CO
EH
§
2!
|
* H
|g
55 23
8
g
>
s
PM
6-S
H
*Z>
£
8
H
H
S
^
a
H
UH
O
01
3
4-1
2
0)
4J
a
o
4-1 •
C t-i
d 3 -3 0 H iH 5 3 to C 01 9 tO
2 « «J3rH O* >,
0 !>>
^ y
4-1 CJ
C CU
f3 iH
CU >H
0,14-1
CU CU
T)
>, 1
d *H
CU !>4
*rl TO
O 0
•H
>4H CU
MH CJ
a) 3
•a
rH O
J|
•H CU
SiJ
60 O
1-1 CO
§2
*
*.
CU
4-1
o
X
CO
Cfl
*J
(u fH
a o
CU CO
rH T
cu cu
CJ A
3 60
•O -rl
M
0)
CU M
ft tO
CQ C3
CJ 0
j3 ^J
O to
•rt 1-1
r* 4J
S d
cu
. CJ •
M d 13
cu o cu
4J 0 rl
to cu
2 §|
•H to a>
O ^ 4J
T( M CO
eg 0
^4 t
4-1 CO CO
C m 01
a) cu ca
a o m
C O CO
O rl CJ
o ex o
g 43 cu
0 3 M
•H o a;
S M M
S 4-1 O
*
>
CO
cu
CO
cu d
0 O
O tH
£ g
4J 5
C 0
(U U-l
0 C
j_j ^_|
(0
d) r-t
H ca
^g
XI 4-1
01 *O
4J 'O
d to
tO
d H
iH O
H1"
4-1 H
C H
d
<4-t O
0 Tt
4J
rH O
eg ai
> w
0 d
CU ^H
4J
10 CU
V4 H
cu
d cu
QJ CiJ
O CO
T3
CU
,^j
jj
C
o
u
.
1
t_t
TABLE V:
-236-
-------
C/3
B
i
SB
* s
H
|§|
1
3 rt
CU-HJ3OOaCT3d60CJI-lll>-H<4-l
MH'9M3aiS<«OCM4Jr-lrH'Or-j
».j « W jc i-l O XOlMrthji-tOI-HO 3
<» 0*0 0 J W S 33S5 MM W W
*
55
0
M
H
.J
M
H
M
Q
41
ft
§
u
I
•H
4J
rt
M
4J
(3
0)
u
§
o
4-1
•d
CO
o *
H
1
4-1
M
•H
>
M
4)
W
§
rt
4)
ON CO
ON
4-1
CO
41
T3
3
4)
CO
^
CO
•H
O M
a
i-H 01
•H i-l
fj 1
•H rt
T3 J3
•K
•K
a
a
n
V
Q
41
i-
(
T
CO
d
•r
CO
a
V
r-
a
T
T
C
T
R
CO
T
•^
S
4.
-*
r--
a
H
0
4J
•a
Q
C.
•i
4
^
01
£
S
0
•s
•H
f
1-
4
4-
&
3 M
o o>
4J O
,
CO
41
CO
CO •
41 C
0 O
O *H
M 4J
4J 1
a o
0) *4>l
a c
4-1 -H
rt
0) i— t
*J
^0 4J
CO 'O
4-1 T3
C fl)
rt
•H O
^J LJ
J>
^ §
O -rt
4J
i-l O
cti 01
> W
o
a c
OI -H
&
U
r-l X
rt 01
Z H
01
01 OI
o w
01
g
•H
4J
e
0
rH
i
M
£
9
-237-
-------
co
W
H
O
Z
55
o
* H
||
^
1
£3
5
pr
3u
3
M
8^
DNTAMINANT
O
H
i
jS
p
01
0 "d
o>
>-i co
01
i-H g
.d
8 .
•H CO
CO 01
Special re
organic dy
legates.
I
o
o
1-1
M
o
Cd
CJ
^
O
w
0)' >W
3 Mid)
(« 01 a 3
M 4J n o
o> cd u rH
tjj
)-l • J3
,., M 0) 4J O
jj o .£ d 3
M-l 4J 01 0
U O CO
S CO 01 41
« 01 M CX
rt 01 • V4 0
o i; >• <« .
•H 4J p%
jj r-l -H CO O
C 0 M 4J d
S 4) 3 C 4)
g jB J3 -H -H
n, 4J 60 g <4-l
S) -H -H Cd IH
M M
01 01
H r-l *j 4J
"eo ^i^oo H H
8 g10 ^^
y£) -» lH O U
OOCMOCOOOr-IOrHO CMr-<0 CX|X
CMOOrHCM O-*O*OOOOOO>HOOO O
OJ CNCM O OO^O^O
CM O O H rH r-l
a «
in
00
iniA*niniAinu"vu"*iAi/>iAfs*u^u^ir\fs-m^ in
CsO\ONCT*<^O%CTtCT»OONCyNO\fysO\O\OVO\ON C^
£ oo
CM
rt CM o
ed «o o\
CO 0) ^3
§olu cocas tn cs 3
^0 0) 01 P% 01 3 01 lH
SI-SIT! as ' isa-as §ti s s
(U *r4 Q O Q O«Gri3 C 60OM Q) ^*HM-( O*H O
COM*oM 3 O**9*'JO fiMJJ rH iH *O *H CJ *O M
V-) (0 (0 Jc *H O ^h OJ )-( ^ Ci *H (U*H O 3 *H CQ4-I
cd
TJ 0
•H -H
3 rH
o §•
(3
cd M
o
co
M O
d -H
la
*-> in
CO JQ
•* O
h« O
o\
rH g*
•O W*
01 01
0 J3
V 60
"O i-l
o) .e
M
0)
01 I-l
,£> cd
CCJ d
o o
•rl
"8 rt
01
» o •
M d "O
01 O 0)
4J O rJ
cd 01
01 -H
ft 4-1 CO
id d d
M 1$ O
O
•3 id (U
O M-l 4J
•H H M
•U P
cd S
M •
4-1 co a
d ra o)
01 oi ca
u o cn
go o)
Lj tl
M w
o ag
a a M
•rt 0 01
X H 43
S 4J O
-238-
-------
NOTES
£5
s
M
& £!
13
M S
H w
3 O
Q
O
, T
<
^
g
1
fr^
H
5
§
H
55
8
H
55
p
Si
K
^H
>,
43
T3
01
g
rH
rH
5
rchlorination
01
§•
en
1 i
4.
ON O
ON ON
cd
•H
ti
01
4-1 ri
u o
cd TJ
« O
55
O
M
H
5
M
0
1
M
•
rH
cd
>
01
ss chlorine ri
exce
>,
i
4-1
C
i
4-1
cd
01
H
4J
vated carbon
•H
4-1
CJ
<
be required.
o
CO
•3
T3
-O 01
a 4->
cd cd
0) > 1
C rH 1-t OI
O -rl 4-1 l-l
•rl 43 0
4-1 |J <• 01
cd 43
rH 01
3 4J . ,*,
oo m a a
cd cd 01 s
0 4J rH
U 40 4->
•a o s
4-1 Cd >H 01
H 42 a 0
cd u
co • 01 IH cd
(3 0 0 01
CO 3 T) rl •
O -H -O O 4-i T3
rl 4J O 01
•H Cd rl 00 (3 rl
rl O. (3 O -rl
43 4-1 -H 43 3
4J rH >N rl rl If
•H i-l cd 3 cd 01
IS >4H S CJ O rl
rH
"oo
0 1 I
0
rH
+
ON ON O
ON ON ON
Cd
0 l-l
•H rl
13 01
01 4J rl
CO CJ O
rl CO TJ
0 CO
3*
Soo
•H
u IH
43 41
Ct) 01
rJ C/l
rH
00
a
o
rv
1 I
-a-
rH
£ .
'
QJ
m
• •
•O T)
(U 01
l-l V4
•H i-l
3 3
0* o-
01 O
M rl
00 00
55
U 4-1
CO CO
01 01
4J 4J
•s-s
r3 rJ
1 1
**
ON ON
'
^/
m
co
01
•O
•rH
CJ
1-1 CO
4-1 0)
CO 4J
01 cd
CU J3
CO
co
cd
ex
0)
rH
00
•S
CO
a)
•S
CO
!
rH
01
T3
1-4.
O
T3
3
CO
TJ
rl
cd
T3
§
4-1
C/>
•
rl
01
4-1
CS
00 >>' 'p. S
(3 rl 0 CO
rl -H
%2 i
O i~* W
So o
CJ fe
2:
pq
2
3
«
o
B
<
H
H
O
<«
c
U rl
BOI
33
•H 0
s-a
CO O
£ S
O co
00
rH rl
cd o
rl
01
C3
c?
g
rl
q
•H
13
o
•H
4-
co
rl
4-1
C
0'
O
a
o
CJ
1
j=
•5
en
33
•K
rl
O
CO
01
co
CO
01
o
o
rl
(X
M-l
O
O
•H
4J
cd
CJ
•H
rH
0<
3
T)
l-l
O
C!
0
•rl
4J
S
1-1
•i
13
o
CJ
C
&
4J
rT
01
•a
•rl
43
01
VH
cd
S
o
4-1
cd
M
4J
a
01
u
(3
0
CJ
rt
0)
4-1
cd
3
S
cd
rl
<4-l
rH
.
CO
CO
a)
o
o
rl
a.
•a
3
S
43
4J
•
TT
CJ
IH
01
T3
•H
CO
0
CJ
01
43
4J
CO
3
8
CO
01
CO
CO
01
CJ
o
IH
ex
IH
01
4J
O
to
01
01
CD •
41 C
o o
O -H
l-i 4J
p-i 03
4-> l-l
c o
OJ 14-1
B-S
cd
O) rH
01 T3
4-1 T3
c CB
cd
C ri
•H O
g 14-1
cd
4-1 M
G rH
O >
14-1 O
O i-l
4-1
•H O
td C/3
rt (1)
l-< H
01
C
w
I
-239-
-------
s
g
55
§
M
H
e* fc^
g g
^_i QJ
J>C ^j
^c CO
S O
^
^>
o
J5
w
52
&*•?
gH
5s
H
§
0
i
2
f^
"^
pd
PM
H
£f
•H
4-1
03
01
4-1
01
rH
cd
O
03
X
£
0)
rH
60
H
O
•
O
o
00
1
o
vO
u
M
jr*
O
n
S3
W
£
O
CO
M
2
£-4
rJ
rH
•H
U
O,
O
f\J
m
p^
CO
CNl
vO
CN
CM
I
PS
03
a
0
•H
4-1
cd
rl
4J O
G rH
41
U O
o
o m
3*
Bfl
4-> £.
trj
CO C2
m cd
u o
at .
MH i
w o
t-H
ff
O
*
t-H
O
O\
U
•H
g
CO
^4
o
•< ss
g H
CO S
E"^
M fa
S o
H4 CO
J
i
•H
4-1
cd
4-1
G
01
u
g
u
u
cd
03
o,
o
1-1
•O
03
09
01
ctiven
4)
MH
4)
4J
0
G
01
01
03
O
VO
s
O 4J
4J ^ C
m x S 03
•t-l 4J C
o\ cd cd o
03 41 iH
Cd 03 M 4-1
O. 01 4-1 CO
O rl
•O 4) i-H 4->
d G Cd G
cd G 01
4J O U
rH G -H C
~s_ nl 4J O
60 0 -HO
0 4J *O •
Cd *O CO rH
O 0) •< >4J
4-1
•H
S
rH t-H
r-l rH JS
O O -H
4-1 4J X
vO vO M-J
. . o
O O
rH I-H t-l
01
Cd pd 4-*
o« ex cd
? 4? rl
01 01 O
CO CO I'M
rH I-H
Ifl? S
rH in (X
• rH
00 0
1 • 0
m i CM
CN O
o
O vo
ON ON
1
£^
vO
3 !
•H 4J
G G
0) 0
t-H h
01 4-1
CO CO
CO
-H
(U
1 1
j3
cd
d
•H
cd
o
u
M
41
4J
0
a
Ij
(U
§
rH
rG
o
QJ
rt
!*•>
s
01
•H
o
•H
<4H
M-l
01
*
01
1
03
^
rH
41
4J
1
i-H
O
•o
"O
01
03
s
u
60
d
tH
rH
Q
0
t-H
0
5
§
rH
PM
01
H
60
G
•H
03
cd
£j
•(^
03
01
•5
rH
•S
iH
•O
ccj
03
t>
•S
cd
4-1
CO
;*
ON
rH
O
4-1
•8
u
1
M
01
G
cd
o
j^
o
•rl
^
ft
M
01
4J
cd
3
Cd
rl
d
•rl
G
*1~1
4J
cd
M
4J
G
01
o
G
O
0
0
ft
w
(q
5E
*
MH
O
C
0
•H
4->
Cd
U
•H
rH
&
•O
o
G
O
•H
a
^H
•i
o
u
c
01
4-1
14
4)
X
4)
rl
cd
09
§ •
•H -a
4J 0)
Cd rl
M 0)
4J T3
d -H
Ot CO
O G
O 0
u
41
M |O
01
-M 4_>
S r2
3
» s
cd co
M 4)
03
<4H 03
M 01
U
O
03 O.
03
41 M
U 4)
O X
rl 4J
a o
X rl
60 0
3
O 03
M OJ
X 03
4-1 CO
01
03 U
CO O
Cd t-t
a a
CO
01
03
03 •
41 G
O O
O Tt
t-l 4J
G O
01 IH
a G
4J -H
cd
0) rH
rl Cd
H G
O
>»lH
•°3
0) T3
4J -O
G cd
cd
rl
O
G H
a:
>t-l O
O iH
4J
i-l O
cd cu
> CO
If
-5 9
SH
G 41
o) d)
O CO
1
I
4-1
§
o
-240-
-------
2 3 4
PLANT CAPACITY M3/doy X 1000
loo
200 3oo
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of working
capital. Operating and Maintenance costs including taxes,
insurance, labor, power, etc.; land requirement negligible.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-1 - Aeration
-241-
-------
o
u
10
50
100
700 300
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land and
working capital. Operating and Maintenance costs including
taxes, insurance, labor, supplies, chemicals, power, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-2 - Sedimentation
-242-
-------
200 300
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land
and working capital. Operating and Maintenance costs
including taxes, insurance, labor, supplies, chemicals,
power, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-3 - Coagulation
-243-
-------
50
100 200 300
Plant Capacity - nT/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land
and working capital. Operating and Maintenance costs
including taxes, insurance, labor; supplies, chemicals,
power, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-4 - Coagulation and Sedimentation
-244-
-------
100
„ 50 ^=?
3 4 5
50
100
200 300
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land
and working capital. Operating and Maintenance costs
including taxes, insurance, labor, supplies, chemicals,
power, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-5 - Rapid Sand Filtration
-245-
-------
150
O
u
£ 50 -
50 100 200 300
Plant Capacity - m /day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land
and working capital. Operating and Maintenance costs
including taxes, insurance, labor, supplies, chemicals,
power, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-6 - Slow Sand Filtration
-246-
-------
10
200 300
Plant Capacity - m /day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land
and working capital. Operating and Maintenance costs
including taxes, insurance, labor, supplies (2% of
construction cost), chemicals, power, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-7 - Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
-247-
-------
100
200 300
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (6%/yr.) on cost of working
capital. Operating and Maintenance costs including taxes,
insurance, labor, supplies, chemicals, power, etc.; land
requirement negligible.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-8 - Microscreening
-248-
-------
200
O
u
100
200 300
Plant Capacity - m /day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over a 30 year term.
Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land and working capital
Operating and Maintenance costs including taxes, insurance,
labor, supplies, chemicals, power membrane replacement, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-9 - Reverse Osmosis
-249-
-------
250
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs over
a 30 year term.
Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land and working capital.
Operating and Maintenance costs including taxes, insurance,
labor, supplies (1% of construction cost), chemicals, power
and membrane replacement.
Basis: Raw water 1311 mg/1 concentration TDS, product TRS 500 mg/1,
temperature 25°C.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
i
Figure UC-10 - Eiectrodialysis
-250-
-------
1000 -
750
500
o
u
250
200 300
Plant Capacity - nr/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over a 30 year term.
Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land and working capital.
Operating and Maintenance costs including taxes, Insurance,
labor, supplies, chemicals, power, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-11 - MSF and VTE-MSF Distillation
-251-
-------
300
250
,2000 mg/1 reduction
t-1000 mg/1 reduction
200 300
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 30 yr. term. Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land and
working capital. Operating and Maintenance costs including
taxes, insurance, labor, supplies, chemicals, power, resin
replacement, etc.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-12 - Ion Exchange
-252-
-------
7.5
2.5
10
50
345
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
100
300
Includes: Amortization of site preparation equipment and construction
costs.
Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of working capital.
Operating and Maintenance costs including taxes, insurance,
and chlorine gas at He/kg. Includes cost of maintaining
equipment.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Divison
Figure UC-13 - Chlorine Gas Disinfection
-253-
-------
7.5
O
u
2.5
50
100
300
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs.
Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of land and working capital.
Operating and Maintenance costs including taxes, insurance,
labor, supplies, chemicals, power, etc. Includes cost of
maintaining equipment.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-14 - Site-Generated Hypochlorite Disinfection
-254-
-------
7.5
O
vj
2.S
100
300
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction cost.
Interest (at 6%/yr.) on cost of working capital.
Operating and Maintenance costs including taxes, insurance,
and sodium hypochlorite at 12c/liter.Includes cost of
maintaining equipment.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division
Figure UC-15 - Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection
-255-
-------
7.5
8
2.5
2 345
100
300
Plant Capacity - m3/day x 1000
Includes: Amortization of site preparation and construction costs
over 40 yr. term. Interest (at 6% yr.) on cost of working
capital. Operating and Maintenance cost primarily power.
Source: Environmental Planning and Engineering Division.
Figure UC-16 - Ozonation
-256-
-------
1000
100
o
o
10.00
$/1000 Gallons
Source
s Environmental Planning and Engineering Division.
Figure UC-17 - Unit Cost Conversion Cost
-257-
-------
SECTION VIII
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Cost estimates can be obtained for the treatments listed elsewhere
in this report. The curves and tables in this report can be considered
as guidelines and any futher information available to the estimator can
be used to supplement his estimate. Cost estimates prepared from this
report should be used only for comparison studies, preliminary economic
analysis and to assist in selection of processes, and not for detailed
cost negotiations or funding.
Capital costs refer to all costs associated with construction.
Inclusive capital costs are given for each capital cost estimation curve
on a treatment by treatment basis. Noninclusive costs must be estimated
by the planner or appraiser.
The term nondepreciating capital costs refers to costs invested in
facilities which do not depreciate over the life of the project or project
facility under study. Examples are costs of purchased land and working
capital. Normally, these costs are not amortized since the value is
expected to be the same at the end of the amortization period.
Interest during construction is computed on the basis that the
owner will borrow mone;y as needed to finance construction, and will pay
simple interest on this money after it is expended. The computation of
this cost also may be simplified by assuming a constant rate of expen-
diture of funds over the construction time required for the process
selected. For instance, if the process selected requires 3 years for
construction and the cost of money to the owner is 6 percent per year,
the interest during construction would amount to 3/2 (averaging expen-
diture of funds) x 6 percent (interest rate) or 9 percent of the con-
struction cost.
Construction time is highly variable and dependent on the local
situation. Construction time refers to the period of time for material
suppliers to manufacture, fabricate, and deliver component parts; and
the construction forces to prepare facilities and erect and install these
component parts.
Startup costs are the costs incurred by the owner during the period
immediately after construction and before the plant produces revenue.
This period involves tests, training, and establishing operating criteria
and norms. The time required during startup may be assumed to be about
1 month, and the cost is about one-twelfth of 1 year's annual costs.
This figure can be adjusted.
Owner's General Expenses include indirect costs such as project
investigation and studies, construction contract administration, and
general overhead and administration costs including consultant fees, etc.
-259-
-------
These costs will vary considerably in accordance with the owner's
method of accounting. If no specific information is available, the
following can be used as a guide.
Subtotal of Percentage for
Construction Owners General
Capital Cost Expense
$ 100,000 15
1,000,000 12
10,000,000 9
100,000,000 7
Working Capital is the ready cash on hand to cover day to day
expenses in operating the facilities. These expenses include salaries,
chemicals, energy, and maintenance materials. Working capital generally
should amount to two months worth of annual costs or 1/6 of total annual
operating costs.
Annual costs are obtained from the cost estimating curves. Some
additional computations may be necessary.
Unit water costs are determined on a cents per cubic meter basis.
In order to do this, capital and operating costs must be reduced to an
annual basis. Capital costs are usually amortized over the expected life
of the project. The table below gives the percentages of the total capital
cost that must be payed each year.
INTEREST RATE
years
20
25
30
40
50
5%
.0802
.0709
.0651
.0582
.0548
6%
.0871
.0782
.0727
.0665
.0634
7%
.0944
.0859
.0806
.0750
.0725
8%
0.1019
0.0937
0.0888
0.0863
0.0817
10%
.1175
.1102
.1061
.1023
.1009
12%
.1339
.1275
.1241
.1213
.1204
Capital Recovery Factor Percentages indicate annual payments
which must be made at annually compounded interest rates for terms
shown. Use expected interest rate in cost calculations. Term
of loan or bond is expected life of equipment or plant.
These factors are applied to depreciating capital costs. Non-
depreciating capital costs are paid at simple interest rates. Once
annualized capital and operating costs are obtained, they can be divided
by the annual water production to obtain unit water costs.
The following example problems illustrate the use of the report.
-260-
-------
EXAMPLE 1
A small community, Badwater, currently receives water for its municipal
distribution system from a well field. The only treatment it receives
is chlorination. The community wishes to build a treatment plant which
will produce water that meets the proposed Federal Drinking Water
Standards and Guidelines (1974 revision). Water consumption records and
planned growth indicate that a 4,800 m3/day (1.25 MGD) plant will be
required. Several chemical analyses taken over a period of several
months of the water supply result in the following typical values.
mg/1
Total Dissolved Solids 1210
Hardness (as CaCQ$) 610
Calcium 100
Magnesium 88
Sodium 170
Iron 3.0
Manganese 0.08
Bicarbonate 350
Sulfate 620
Chloride 190
Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 0.2
Fluoride 0.7
pH 8.3
Color (pale yellow) 25 color units
Temperature 55°F
Special sampling and tests indicate heavy metal, biological, and radio-
logical contamination is negligible. A check of the Federal Drinking
Water Standards and Guidelines 1974 Standards shows the following
limits for contaminants are exceeded.
Sampling % Removal
Contaminant Value FDWS&G - 1974 Required
Iron 3.0 mg/1 0.3 mg/1 90
Manganese 0.08 0.05 37.5
Sulfate 620 250 60
Color 25 color units 15 color units 40
The water is "very hard", resulting in scaling of piping, plumbing
fixtures, and low cleaning efficacy. The pale yellow color is the
result of the iron content, and preliminary laboratory tests show that
the iron is in an inorganic form, and that removal of the iron will
remove the color in the water. In addition to the meeting of Federal
-261-
-------
Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines ( 1974 revision) standards t
it is desired that the product water have a IDS level no greater than
500mg/l.
It is estimated that financing and construction will begin about June
1975. The cost indices obtained for this date are (or are estimated
as) :
Engineering News Record BCI
Handy-Whitman Index
BLS-Labor Cost Index
1250
400
4.6
SOLUTION;
I. Preliminary Process Determination
The first step is to determine the treatment processes that will be
necessary to produce the quality of water desired. The following in-
formation is derived from Table VII-1.
Treatment
Contaminant
Iron & Manganese 90%
Sulfate
Color
c
o
•H
4J
(j
90%
i—
«.
o
«ao
o
CM
04JC
•H CO O
4J4J-H
cdC-u
rH
s
90-97
JO-97
^00
co
vH
cn
^t
r-l
cd
0
4-1
O
cu
tH
J0%
!0%
_
0)
00
rt
0
X
w
c
o
H
_
97%
_
n-l
4->
cd
rH
l-l
•H
4-1
CO
•H
0
99.9
99
.-,
The following points can be deducted or are known:
1. The four desalinization processes (reverse osmosis, electro-
dialysis, ion exchange, and distillation) will effectively
remove chloride, nitrate, and fluoride ions. (Table VII-1).
2. Although the other inorganic salts are not listed in the tables,
the desalinization processes will effectively reduce their levels.
-262-
-------
3. Points 1 and 2 mean that the use of these desalinization
processes would result In a water of satisfactory TDS and
hardness content.
4. Since the laboratory tests indicate that removal of the iron
and manganese will also remove the color, aeration will solve
both problems, although this is not normally true.
5. Those treatments listed for color removal will not remove iron.
This point coupled with point 4 indicates that they would not
be effective in this case.
6. Reverse Osmosis and distillation will remove 90% or more of the
iron and manganese as well as all other contaminants of interest,
and they will produce a product water of satisfactory quality
without the use of any other major processes.
7. Electrodialysis will remove only 80% of the iron. Since 90%
iron removal is required some pretreatment will be necessary.
8. Ion exchange will not remove iron and pretreatment is necessary.
9. Aeration will precipitate the iron and manganese since they are
in inorganic form (Section II). A subsequent treatment such
as filtration will be necessary to remove the precipitate.
Collecting the information from the preceding points, the following
treatments or combination of treatments are judged to be feasible on a
preliminary basis.
A. Aeration + Filtration + Electrodialysis
B. Aeration + Filtration + Ion Exchange
C. Reverse Osmosis
D. Distillation
II. Order of Value Cost Estimate
A rough or approximate cost estimate is now made for each of the predeter-
mined treatments. This is done by selecting the most significant cost
from Section IV for each process. This will eliminate from consideration
those processes that will obviously not be economically effective. Those
which appear to be competitive must be analyzed in more detail. The
cost obtained for the second cheapest system can be used as an upper
limit for the cheapest system. If this upper limit is exceeded in the
cost calculations for the cheapest system then more detailed calculations
should be made for the next least expensive system. It must be kept in
mind that special conditions (such as availability of cheap power, steam,
etc.) may exist in a particular case and the planner may select the
second least expensive system over the cheapest for this reason, provided
the cost differential is relatively small.
The preliminary cost calculations can also be used to eliminate some treatments
or indicate some further modification to the treatment process that may be
necessary. This will occur when it is indicated from the cost curves or other
calculations that certain limits in the parameters of operations will be
-263-
-------
approached or exceeded, e.g., unusual temperature, pH, particle
size.
The most significant costs associated with each of treatments in the
previous section are now determined.
A. Aeration - the most significant cost for aeration is for equipment
construction. From Fig. A-l, Aeration Equipment and Construction for a
4,800 m3/day plant is $11,000.
o
B. Diatomaceous Earth Filters - Construction Cost for a 4,800 m /day
plant is $120,000 (Fig. DF-1).
C. Electrodialysis - the most significant cost will be for construction;
however, some preliminary calculations must be made.
% IDS = Na + K + Cl
where,
TDS = mg/1 TDSi of feed-water = 1210 mg/1
Na = mg/1 sodium of feed-water 170 mg/1
K = mg/1 potassium of feed-water 0 mg/1
Cl = mg/1 chloride of feed-water 190 mg/1
% TDS = 170 + 0 + 190 360
1210 12O~ ~ '
The water temperature is 55°F = 13°C
From Fig. ED-1 we obtain by interpolating between the 20% and 40% lines,
Rating Factor =0.45
Using this rating factor in Fig. ED-2, the fraction of solids remaining
per stage is determined to be 0,69 with a stack flow rate of 545 m /day.
It is important to note that such a system would be relatively inefficient
with a low stack flow rate and that the operational limits for the
electrodialysis process are closely approached. The number of stages
required can be determined by multiplying the fraction of solids remain-
ing by the TDS content until the TDS content remaining is within
acceptable limits.
0.69 x 1210 mg/1 = 835 mg/1 remaining
0.69 x 835 mg/1 = 576 mg/1 remaining
0.69 x 576 mg/1 = 398 mg/1 remaining
Since three iterative multiplications are necessary to reduce the TDS
level remaining below acceptable limits, the number of stages required
is 3. The number of stages required is checked by the calculation.
0.3289 = .573
= VI
1210
-264-
-------
With FSR = .573 and the rating factor = 0.45, the stack flow rate will
be less than 545 m^/day, and 3 stages are sufficient.
The number of stacks required is:
Plant Capacity _ 4.800 m3/day = 3.8 = 9 stacks
Stack Capacity 545 m3/day/stack
9 stacks x 3 stages = 27 stacks total
stage
From Figure ED-3, Construction costs = $1.25 million.
(D) Ion Exchange
While ion selective resins are available, it will be assumed for
initial calculations that the ion exchange process will reduce the
level of all inorganic contaminants proportionally, i.e., if the IDS
or any contaminant level is lowered by a given percentage, then the
remaining contaminants will be reduced proportionally. Neglecting
iron and manganese which, will be removed in pretreatment, the con-
stituent that must be lowered the greatest percentage in this
particular case is sulfate - 864 (60%). A 60% reduction in the IDS
content produces the following:
1210 mg/1 -.60 . (1210) mg/1 = 484 mg/1, or
1210 - 484 = 726 mg/1 reduction
The most significant cost for ion exchange is the plant construction
cost. Using a 726 mg/1 reduction in TDS for a 4,800 m^/day plant, it
is determined that the plant construction costs will be $530,000,
(Fig. IX-1 ).
(E) Reverse Osmosis
The most significant cost associated with reverse osmosis is the
plant construction cost. From Fig. RO-3, this cost is $800,000.
(F) Distillation
From Fig. D-3, the construction costs for distillation plants and
steam generation are $3,500,000. Distillation is normally utilized
when salt concentrations are very high.
Summarizing the analysis to this point, four potential treatment
systems have been selected
System A = Aeration + Filtration + Electrodialysis
System B = Aeration + Filtration + Ion Exchange
System C = Reverse Osmosis
System D = Distillation.
-265-
-------
The most significant costs associated with these systems by respective
process are:
System A = $11,000 + $120,000 + $1,250,000 = $1,381,000
System B = $11,000 + $120,000 + $ 530,000 = $ 661,000
System C = + $ 800,000 = $ 800,000
System D = + $3,500,000 = $3,500,000.
Ion exchange with pretreatment and reverse osmosis seems to be
economically competitive and will require more detailed study.
Electrodialysis and distillation will obviously cost much more, and
will also have some associated technical difficulties.
Distillation can be dropped from further consideration because of the
large cost differential between it and systems B and C. In the case
of electrodialysis, it is important to note that the process has
adjustable operating parameters. The rating factor, and thus the
efficiency, improves with higher feed-water temperature (see Fig. ED-1).
If the feed-water, for example, is preheated to 40°C (104°F ), the
rating factor increases from 0.45 to 1.25. A stack flow rate of 954
m3/day is possible with this new rating factor. This could eliminate
the need for a stage of stacks or reduce the number of stacks per stage
and lower the electrodialysis plant costs to a competitive value.
However, the cost of heating the water may offset the potential savings,
and further study is required to determine whether such system adjust-
ments are worthwhile. In this case, it is assumed that electrodialysis
is dropped from further consideration and that more detailed costs will
be derived for ion exchange and reverse osmosis.
-266-
-------
CAPITAL COST SHEET
ROJECT:
'ROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Reverse Osmosis for Badwater
DATE: December 1974
PRICE LEVEL: June 1975
• PLANT CAPACITY: 4,800 m3/day
ANNUAL PRODUCTION: 1,752,000 m3
INTEREST RATE: 7%
PLANT LIFE: 30 yr.
WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS:
Iron, manganese, color, and sulfate ion above (Federal Drinking Water Standards
and Guidelines - 1974 revision). The water also has a high level TDS and hardness
content.
PRODUCT WATER CHARACTERISTICS:
TDS = 500 ppm. All contaminant levels reduced below (Federal Drinking Water Standards
and Guidelines - 1974 revision).
A. CAPITAL COST CENTERS:
ESTIMATED COST
COST
INDEX
CURRENT
ESTIMATED COST
1. RO Site Development Cost (Fig. RO-2)
$140.000
125071154
$ 152,000
2... RO Plant Construction Cost (Fig. RO-3)
3.
(corrected for temperature)
$850.000
$1.171.000
4.
6.
7.
11.
B. SUBTOTAL
C. INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (say 8 mo. at 7%)
D. START-UP COSTS (1/12 of Annual Costs) ,
E. OWNERS GENERAL EXPENSE (say 12% of subtotal) ..
4.7%
F. TOTAL DEPRECIATING CAPITAL (sum B, C, D, E)
C. LAND COSTS
WORKING CAPITAL (1/6 of Annual Operating Costs - Item L)
TOTAL NON-DEPRECIATING COSTS
J. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
-267-
$1.323.000
$ 62,000
14.000
$ 158,800
$1,557,800
500
$ 28,100
28 .600
$1.586.400
-------
ANNUAL COST SHEET
PROJECT: DATE:December 1974
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Reverse Osmosis for Badwater
K. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS:
O&M LABOR, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE MATERIAL
12. RO O&M Labor Costs (Fig. RO-4)
13. RO O&M Supplies _^1% of construction
14. cost) Item A-2
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
FUEL
21.
22.
23.
24.
STEAM
25.
26.
ELECTRIC POWER
27. RO Power Requirement
28.
29.
30.
CHEMICALS
31. RO Chemicals
32.
33.
34.
35.
ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COSTS
36. RO Membrane Replacement
37.
38.
OTHER ANNUAL COSTS
39.
40.
41.
ESTIMATED COST
$32,000
$11,700
$46,250
$24,000
$51,500
COST
INDEX
4.6/4.18
-
_
.
L. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
M. DEPRECIATING CAPITAL COST (ANNUAL BASIS
N. NON-DEPRECIATING CAPITAL (ANNUAL BASIS)
0. TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL CHARGES
)0.0806 x $1,557,80
.07 x 28,600
0
P. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (Sum Items L, 0)
Q COST OF WATER ($ /m3) $296,250 ---[4,800
f\
nrVday x 365 day/yr
.]
CURRENT
ESTIMATED COST
$ 35,200
$ 11,700
$46,250
$ 24,000
$ 51,500
$168,650
$125^600
$ 2,000
$127,600
$296,230
17
-------
COMPUTATION SHEET
LRO JECT:
.OJECT DESCRIPTION:
Reverse Osmosis for Badwater
ANNUAL FUEL COSTS:
Brine to product ratio = BPR
TDS 500
Volume brine
1210
BPR =
900
Cai
900_
100
_1
1-.413
9-1
.07 however
.11 is min.
("see RO section^
. fipR
Vb = 4,800 m3/day x 0.11
Vb = 528 say 530 m3/day
Vi = Vb + Vp
Vj. = 4,800 + 530 = 5,330
m3/day
ANNUAL STEAM COSTS:
ANNUAL POWER COSTS:
Local commercial rate 1.0
-------
CAPITAL
COST SHEET
PROJECT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
DATE: December 1974
PRICE LEVEL: June 1975
Aeration + Diatomaceous Filtration
+ Ion Exchange for Town of Badwater.
• PLANT CAPACITY: 4,800 m3/day
ANNUAL PRODUCTION: 1,752,000 m3
INTEREST RATE: 7%
PLANT LIFE: 30 yr.
WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS:
Iron, manganese, color, and sulfate ion above Federal Drinking Water
Standards and Guidelines - 1974 revision . The water also has high
level TDS and hardness content.
PRODUCT WATER CHARACTERISTICS:
TDS = 500 ppm. All contaminant levels reduced below Federal Drinking Water
Standards and Guidelines - 1974 revision. Assume that all pretreatment processes,
even if non-desalting process, will have 30 year life or the same as the major
component.
A. CAPITAL COST CENTERS:
1^ IX Plant Construction Cost (Fig. IX-1)^
_2, IX Site Development (Fig. IX-3)
3 Aeration Equipment Construction
4_ (Fig. A-l) note: 8,300 m3/day unit
5. Diatomaceous Earth Filter Construction
6. (Fig. DF-1) note: 8,300 m3/day unit
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
B . SUBTOTAL
C. INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (say 8 mo.
D. START-UP COSTS (1/12 of Annual Costs -
E. OWNERS GENERAL EXPENSE (say 12% of subt
F. TOTAL DEPRECIATING CAPITAL (sum B, C, D
G . LAND COSTS
H. WORKING CAPITAL (1/6 of Annual Costs -
I. TOTAL NON- DEPRECIATING COSTS (sum G, H)
J. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (sum F, I) ....
ESTIMATED COST
$540^000
$140,000
$ 15,000
$200,000
at 7%) - 4.7%
Item L)
otal)
, E)
Item L)
COST
INDEX
400/290.4
1250/U54
12bU/ii54
4UU/29Q.4
CURRENT
ESTIMATED COST
$ 744,000
$ 152,000
$ 16,000
$ 275,000
$1,187,000
$ 56,000
$ 12,600
$ 142,400
$1,398,000
$ 500
$ 25,000
$ 25 5 00
$1,423,500
-270-
-------
ANNUAL COST SHEET
ADJECT: DATE: December 1974
RojECT DESCRIPTION:
Aeration + Diatomaceous Earth Filtration + Ion Exchange for Badwater
K. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS:
O&M LABOR, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE MATERIAL
12. IX O&M Labor (Fig. IX-5)
13. IX O&M Supplies (1% of construction)
14. Item A-l
15, Aeration O&M (Fig. A-2)j 8^300 m3/day^
16. unit
17. Diatomite Filter O&M (Fig. DF-3);
18. 8.300 m3/dav unit
19. Diatomite Filter O&M Supplies -
20. (2% of construction) Item A-5
FUEL
21.
22.
23.
24.
STEAM
CTRIC POWER
IX Power
_„. Diatomite Filtration Power
29.
30.
CHEMICALS
31. IX Chemicals
32.
33.
34.
35.
ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COSTS
36. IX Resin (3% of construction) Item A-l
37. Diatomaceous Earth (Fig. D-5)
38.
OTHER ANNUAL COSTS
39.
40.
41.
ESTIMATED COST
$33,000
$ 7,400
$10,000
$ 9,400
$ 5,500
$ 4,500
$ 3,600
$39,500
$22,300
$10,000
COST
INDEX
4.6/4.18
-
4.6/4.18
4.6/4.18
-
_
-
,.
_
-
L . TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
M. DEPRECIATING CAPITAL COST (ANNUAL BASIS
N. NON-DEPRECIATING CAPITAL (ANNUAL BASIS)
0. TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL CHARGES
) (0.0806 x $1,398,0
(.07 x 25,500)
00)
^A TflTAT A,mTTTAT rnQTq fq,,m T1-omc T ^ O>
q. COST OF WATER ($ /m3) $264,900 -f,[4,800 m3/day x 365 day/yr
.1
CURRENT
ESTIMATED COST
$ 36,300
$ 7,400
$ 11,000
$ 10,300
$ 5,500
$ 4,500
$ 3,600
$ 39,500
$ 22,300
$ 10,000
$150,400
$112,700
$ 1,800
$114,500
$264,900
15c/m3
I
-271-
-------
COMPUTATION SHEET
PROJECT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Aeration = Diatomaceous Filtration + Ion Exchange for Town of Badwater
ANNUAL FUEL COSTS: None
- ^
8,300 m3/day
From Wells
AERATION
^^
8,300
m3/day
DIATOMITE
FILTRATION
^
^.
8,300
m3/day
ION
EXCHANGE
1 • ••• - • ^-
4,800 m3/day
product
T 3,500 m3/day brine
ANNUAL STEAM COSTS:
ANNUAL POWER COSTS: From local utility: Commercial rate = l
-------
EXAMPLE 2
A large community, Industrytown, has a winter water demand of 25,000
m3/day and 35,000 m^/day during the summer. The present city water
treatment system consists of coagulation, sedimentation, filtration,
and chlorination processes. The treated water supply meets all
Federal standards except for Barium (standard level 1.0 mg/1 ).
Analyses of the treated and raw water supplies indicate barium levels
of 1.2 mg/1 and apparent ineffectiveness of the present treatment
system in removing Barium.
,*
Other pertinent information required is:
Engineering News Record BCI 1200
Handy-Whitman Index 350*
BLS - Labor Cost Index 4.8*
Water Temperature 58°F = 14.4°C
TDS 400ppm
K 250ppm
Cl 75ppm
Na 75ppm
Ca 25ppm
SOLUTION;
I. Preliminary Process Selection
From Table VII-1, it is determined that four processes effectively
remove barium.
Percentage
Treatment Removal
Reverse Osmosis 90
Electrodialysis 80
Distillation 99
Ion Exchange 95
Required removal is: 1.2 mg/1 - 1.0 mg/1 = .2 mg/1
or: .2 mg/1 " 16.7%
1.2 mg/1
* Assumed for May 1, 1975. Actual values should be obtained from
appropriate sources.
-273-
-------
Since the removal requirement is only a small portion of the total
capability of the process, blending is a distinct possibility.
Rather than treat all the raw water, only a portion necessary to
bring the barium down to acceptable levels may be treated. A
smaller system requirement and concomitant reduction in costs may
be realized.
The size of the treatment processes if blending is used can be de-
termined as follows:
Determine the concentration of the contaminant of interest in
the product water for each process.
RO 1.2 mg/1 x .90 = 1.08 mg/1 removal = .12 mg/1 product
ED 1.2 mg/1 x .80 = 0.96 mg/1 removal = .24 mg/1 product
Dis 1.2 mg/1 x .99 = 1.188 mg/1 removal = .012 mg/1 product
IX 1.2 mg/1 x .95 = 1.14 mg/1 removal = .06 mg/1 product
The schematic diagram below illustrates the situation.
EXISTING
PLANT
1
I
RO
UNIT
0
.2
mg/1
.12 mg/1
in
in
'1 ~]
X%
0% of
water 1.0 mg/1 in 100% product
of water
On a percentage basis, the following equation is applicable.
(Concentration RO water) (Proportion of RO water) + (Concentration
of existing water) (Proportion of existing water) = (Concentration
of Product water) (1 or 100%)
0.12 (X) + 1.2 (1-X) = 1.0 (1)
0.12X + 1.2-1.2X = 1
1.08X = .2
X = .185 or 18.57» of the water must pass
through the RO unit.
35,000 m3/day X .185 = 6,475 m3/day« 6,500 m3/day
Check calculation is
0.12 (6,475) + 1.2
(28,525) " 1.0 (35,000)
777 + 34,230 = 35,000
35 007 = 35,000 within accuracy of rounding off.
-274-
-------
Similarly, for
ED = 7,300 m3/day
Dis = 5,900 m3/day
IX = 6,200 m3/day
II. Order of Value of Cost Estimate
The most significant or highest cost associated with each of the pre-
determined processes is now obtained from the appropriate figures in
Section IV, thus eliminating those processes which would be exorbitant
in cost. The lowest cost process is then subjected to a more detailed
cost estimate.
(A) Reverse Osmosis
The most significant cost associated with reverse osmosis is
for plant construction. For a 6,500 m3/day reverse osmosis
plant, plant construction costs are $1,000,000 (Fig. RO-3).
(B) Electrodialysis
Following the procedure outlined in the electrodialysis plant
cost calculation section, the cost is determined as follows:
% TDS = (Na+K+Cl) 100 = (75+25+75) 100 - 17500 . 44%
TDS 400 400
For a feed-water temperature of 58°F - 14.4°C , the rating
factor = .55 (Fig. ED-1). Entering Fig. ED-2, the fraction
of solids remaining after each stage is 0.635 for a stack
flow rate of 545 m3/day.
The blending premise is based on a 0.24 mg/1 of barium in
the product water. The raw water level is 1.2 mg/1. Thus,
the number of stages needed is:
0.635 x 1.2 mg/1 = .762 mg/1 product 1st stage
0.635 x 0.762 mg/1 = .484 mg/1 product 2nd stage
0.635 x 0.484 mg/1 = .307 mg/1 product 3rd stage
0.635 x 0.307 mg/1 = .195 mg/1 product 4th stage
.*. 4 stages will be required.
The number of parallel stages is:
7,300 m3/day =13.4 say 14 stacks per stage.
545 mj/stack/day
The total number of stacks = 14 stacks/stage x 4 stages =
56 stacks. From Fig. ED-3, the construction cost for a
56 stack electrodialysis plant (most significant) is
$2,100,000.
-275-
-------
Alternatively, assume the product water from the
electrodialysis plant will contain barium at a level of
0.8 mg/1 instead of 0.24 mg/1 as originally proposed.
If the level is 0.8 mg/1, then 50% of the water must be
treated in the electrodialysis plant (50% at 0.8 mg/1 and
50% untreated at 1.2 mg/1 combined will give a 1.0 mg/1
product). Performing the same calculations done previ-
ously, the following is obtained:
The number of stages is:
0.635 x 1.2 mg/1 = 0.762 mg/1 product 1st stage
• only 1 stage required.
The number of parallel stages is:
17.500 (50% of 35.000) m3/day - 32.1 say 33 stacks
545 m^/stack/day
The total number of stacks = 33 stacks/stage x 1 stage =
33 stacks. From Fig. ED-3, the construction cost is
$1,450,000. This is much less than for a 4 stage 56 stack
plant.
(C) Distillation
The most significant cost for a 5,900 m-Vday distillation
plant is the construction cost, which is $4,000,000
(Fig. D-3).
(D) Ion Exchange
The most significant cost for ion exchange is plant con-
struction costs (Fig. IX-1). The curves are in terms of
TDS reduction. Assume ion exchange removes all contaminants
proportionally. Then a 95% reduction of barium (1.2 mg/1
to 0.06 mg/1) will also reduce the TDS by 95% or 400 mg/1 x
0.95 = 380 mg/1 or 20 mg/1 TDS will remain. No curve is
given for a 380 mg/1 TDS reduction in Fig. IX-1. The value
for a 6,200 m3/day plant with a 500 mg/1 reduction is TDS is
$520,000. It can be assumed that the 380 mg/1 TDS reduction
plant will be directly proportional in cost since ion
exchange construction costs are directly related to the TDS
reduction. Therefore,
380 mg/1 reduction _ $ (x)
500 mg/1 reduction $520,000
or x = $395,000 (approximately)
-276-
-------
The same procedure illustrated above for electrodialysis
can also be used in the case of ion exchange. Assume that
the barium level is reduced from 1.2 mg/1 to 0.8 mg/1 or a
33% reduction. This means, of course, that the ion
exchange unit will be 17,500 m3/day instead of 6,200 m3/day.
The TDS reduction is 400 mg/1 x 0.33 = 133 mg/1. From Fig. IX-1.
133 mg/1 reduction = $ (x)
500 mg/1 reduction $1,100,000 (17,500 mj/day plant)
x = $293,000 (approximately)
In summary, the order of value costs for each of the processes under
consideration is:
Reverse Osmosis ( 6,500 m3/day) $1,000,000
Electrodialysis ( 7,300 m3/day) $2,100,000
Electrodialysis (17,500 m3/day) $1,450,000
Distillation ( 5,900 m3/day) $4,000,000
Ion Exchange ( 6,200 m3/day) $ 395,000
Ion Exchange (17,500 m3/day) $ 293,000
Obviously, ion exchange is the cheapest process and a more detailed cost
estimate should be made.
-277-
-------
CAPITAL COST SHEET
PROJECT:
Ion Exchange Unit for Industrytown (6,200 m3/day unit)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Ion exchange unit for Industrytown;
(Product water from ion exchange unit
has 0.06 mg/1 barium level.) Blending
will be used. Total water demand is
35,000 m3/day in summer, 25,000 m3/day
in winter. Assume former for all
calculations
DATE: May 1. 1975
PRICE LEVEL: May 1. 1975
• PLANT CAPACITY: 6,200 m3/day
ANNUAL PRODUCTION: 2,263,000 m3
INTEREST RATE: 8%
PLANT LIFE: 30 yr.
WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS:
Meets all requirements except for barium standards (1.2 mg/1). Barium standard
1.0 mg/1.
PRODUCT WATER CHARACTERISTICS:
Reduce barium to standard level by blending 6,200 TO*/day of product water at
0.6 mg/1 with 28,800 m3/day from existing plant.
A. CAPITAL COST CENTERS:
ESTIMATED COST
COST
INDEX
CURRENT
ESTIMATED COST
1. IX Plant Construction Costs (Fig., IX-1)
$395.000
J:>u/290.4
$476,000
2. IX Site Development Costs (Fig. IX-3)
$107.000
1200/1154
$111,300
4. (F9r 6,200 a3/day plant)
5.
6.
7.
9.
11.
B. SUBTOTAL
C. INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (say 8 mo. at 8%)
D. START-UP COSTS (1/12 of Annual Costs - Item L)
E. OWNERS GENERAL EXPENSE (say 12% of subtotal) ..
5.3%
$587.300
$ 31.100
$ 8.450
$ 70.500
F. TOTAL DEPRECIATING CAPITAL (sum B, C, P, E) ...
G. LAND COSTS (negligible; use existing) ..,
H. WORKING CAPITAL (1/6 of Annual Costs - Item L)
$697.350
$ 16.900
I. TOTAL NON-DEPRECIATING COSTS (sum G, H)
J. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$ 16.900
$714.250
-278-
-------
ANNUAL COST SHEET
EECT: DATE: May 1, 1975
ECT DESCRIPTION:
6,200 nrVday IX unit for Industry town
K. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS:
)
O&M LABOR, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE MATERIAL
12. IX Operation & Maintenance Labor
13. (Fig. IX-5)
14. IX O&M Supplies (1% of construction
15. Item A-l)
16.
17. (Use data for 35,000 m3/day)
18.
19.
20.
FUEL
21.
22.
23.
24.
STEAM
25.
HI:
^KCTRIC POWER
HF. IX Power Requirement
28.
29.
30.
CHEMICALS
31. IX Regenerant Cost
32.
33.
34.
35.
ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COSTS
36. IX Resin (3% of construction) Item A-l
37.
38.
OTHER ANNUAL COSTS
39.
40.
41.
ESTIMATED COST
$37,000
$ 4,750
$ 2,400
$37,600
> $14,300
COST
INDEX
/•We. 25
-
.
mm
wm
L. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
M. DEPRECIATING CAPITAL COST (ANNUAL BASIS
N. NON-DEPRECIATING CAPITAL (ANNUAL BASIS)
0. TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL CHARGES
) (.0888 x $714, 250)
(.08 x 16,900) ...
CURRENT
ESTIMATED COST
$ 42,500
$ 4,750
$ 2,400
$ 37,600
$ 14,300
$101,550
$ 63,400
$ 1,350
? 64,750
$166,300
7.3 c/m-**
1.3 c/m3t
pIX Treated water basis t Total product water basis.
-279-
-------
COMPUTATION SHEET
PROJECT: 6,200 m3/day IX unit for Indus trytown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Ion exchange unit for Industrytown; Blending will be used. Total water demand is
35,000 m3/day.
ANNUAL FUEL COSTS:
NOTE: Annual costs given here are for 6,200 m'3/day unit. It can be argued that
these costs will be lower if the total water production is 35,000 m3/day for 6 months
and 25,000 m3/day for 6 months, and thus the IX volume 6,200 m3/day and 4,400 m3/day
respectively. This can be done if desired. It is preferable, however, to always
be too conservative (too high) in costs estimates. The annual costs for a
6,200 m3/day unit for the full year are therefore used here.
ANNUAL STEAM COSTS:
ANNUAL POWER COSTS:
Electric Power for 6,200 m3/day unit = 1,650 kwhr/day. From Fig. IX-6,
Cost from local power utility, 4 mils/kwhr = 0004<:/kwhr
1,650 kwhr/day x 365 days/yr. x .004$/kwhr = $2,400/yr.
ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COSTS:
ANNUAL CHEMICAL COSTS
IX Regenerant Cost (Fig. IX-4) for 380 mg/1 reduction in IDS, say 1.75C/m3
1.75c/m3x6,200m3/dayx365 days/yr. = $39,600.
Sulfuric Acid available at $38/ton (U. S.) 39,600 x $38 = $37,600
$40
LAND REQUIREMENTS:
For 6,200 m3/day ion exchange unit; negligible land requirements. Say 0.1
hectare (Fig. IX-2). Assume available at existing treatment site.
OTHER COMPUTATIONS:
Update of BLS Labor Index
4.8 (Index May '75) = (X) (Updated Modified Index)
4.18 (Report Index) 6.25 (Report Index Modified to include overhead, etc.)
X = 7.18
-230-
-------
CAPITAL COST SHEET
IOJECT:
' Ion Exchange Unit for Industrytown (17,500 up/day unit)
ROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Ion exchange unit for Industrytown.
Product water will have 0.8 mg/1
barium level. Blending will be used.
Total water demand is 35,000 m^/day.
DATE: May 1, 1975
PRICE LEVEL: May 1, 1975
• PLANT CAPACITY: 17,500 m3/day
ANNUAL PRODUCTION: 6,387,500 m3
INTEREST RATE: 8%
PLANT LIFE: 30 yr.
WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS:
Meets all requirements except for barium standards (1.2 mg/1).
Barium standard 1.0 mg/1.
PRODUCT WATER CHARACTERISTICS:
Reduce barium to standard level by blending 17,500 m3/day of product water
at 0.8 mg/1 with 17,500 m^/day from existing plant.
A. CAPITAL COST CENTERS:
ESTIMATED COST
COST
INDEX
CURRENT
ESTIMATED COST
1. IX Plant Construction Costs (Fig, IX-1)
$293.000
$353.000
IX Site Development Costs (Fig. IX-3)
$333.000
1200/H54
$346,300
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
B. SUBTOTAL
C. INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (say 8 mo. at 8%)
D. START-UP COSTS (1/12 of Annual Costs - Item L)
E. OWNERS GENERAL EXPENSE (say 12% of subtotal)
$699,300
5.3% of Item B
$ 37,100
9.900
83,900
F. TOTAL DEPRECIATING CAPITAL (sum B, C, D, E)
G. LAND COSTS (negligible - use existing) ,
WORKING CAPITAL (1/6 of Annual Costs - Item L)
$830,200
$ 19,800
I. TOTAL NON-DEPRECIATING COSTS (sum G, H)
J. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (sum F, I)
$ 19.800
-281-
-------
ANNUAL COST SHEET
PROJECT: 17^00 m3/day IX unit for Indus try town DATE: May 1, 1975
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
K. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS:
O&M LABOR, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE MATERIAL
12. IX Operation & Maintenance Labor
13. (Fig. IX-5)
14. IX O&M Supplies (1% of construction -
15. Item A-l)
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
FUEL
21.
22.
23.
24.
STEAM
25.
26.
ELECTRIC POWER
27. ix Power Requirement
28.
2.9.
30.
CHEMICALS
31. IX Regenerant Cost
32.
33.
34.
35.
ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COSTS
36. IX Resin (3% of construction -
37. Item A-l)
38.
OTHER ANNUAL COSTS
39.
40.
41.
ESTIMATED COST
$60,000
$ 3,500
$ 5,500
$30,300
$10,600
COST
INDEX
7.18/6.25
-
_
-
L. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
M. DEPRECIATING CAPITAL COST (ANNUAL BASIS
N. NON-DEPRECIATING CAPITAL (ANNUAL BASIS)
0. TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL CHARGES
) (0.08888 x $850,00
(0.08 x $19,800) ..
0)
P. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (Sum Items L, 0)
CURRENT
ESTIMATED COST
$ 68,900
$ 3,500
$ 5,500
$ 30,300
$ 10,600
$118,800
$ 7S,SOO
$ 1,600
? 77,100
$195,900
Treated water basis 3.0
-------
COMPUTATION SHEET
ROJECT: o
17,500 mj/day IX unit for Industrytown
.OJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANNUAL FUEL COSTS:
ANNUAL STEAM COSTS:
ANNUAL POWER COSTS:
Electric power for 17,500 m3/day unit = 3,800 kwhr/day (From Fig. IX-6)
Cost from local power utility, 4 mils/kwhr.
3,800 kwhr/day x 365 day/yr. x .004 $/hr. = $5,500/yr.
Jjjmui.
REPLACEMENT COSTS:
ANNUAL CHEMICAL COSTS
IX Regenerant Cost (Fig. IX-4) - For 133 mg/1 reduction in TDS, say 0.5
0.5 £/m3 x 17,500 m3/day x 365 days/yr. = $31,900
Corrected for Sulfuric Acid available at $38/ton (U.S.) $31,900 x 3J[ = $30,300
40
LAND REQUIREMENTS:
For 17,500 m3/day - 0.5 hectare (Fig. IX-2). Assume available.
OTHER COMPUTATIONS:
-283-
-------
EXAMPLE 3
A small community, Flyspeck, currently has an average daily water
consumption of 800 m^/day. The water is supplied to the town un-
treated. Sampling indicates that the water meets all drinking water
standards except for high bacteriological levels, specifically high
coliform counts. The bacteria are not attached to suspended matter.
The town council has decided that some form of treatment must be
provided and that the treatment equipment to process must have a
capacity of 1,200 m^/day to allow for possible future town develop-
ment. The town council would like to know what alternatives are
available and what the costs will be on a preliminary basis.
Tests reveal that a 50% reduction in bacteria level is necessary to
meet Standards. The treatment facility would be built in July 1976.
An estimate of the indexes, based on recent trends, for July 1976 are:
Engineering News Record Building
Cost Index = 1380
Handy-Whitman Index = 350
Labor Cost Index = 4.6
SOLUTION:
From TableVII-1, the following processes are effective in the treat-
ment of high bacteria levels.
% Removal
Process of Bacteria
1. Slow Sand Filtration 85-90
2. Diatomaceous Filtration 85-90
3. Microscreening 50
4. Chlorination 99+
5. Ozonation 99+
Some further background information is
PLANT CAPACITY: 1,200 m3/day
DATE OF ESTIMATE: November, 1975
PRICE LEVEL DATE: July, 1976
INTEREST RATE: 7%
Labor Cost Index modification to include overhead and payroll expense.
(BLS Index July 1976 4.6 = x (modified BLS Index)
(BLS Index from report) 4.18 6.25 (modified BLS Index in report)
x = 6.88
-284-
-------
(1) SLOW SAND FILTRATION
Capital Cost Estimated
Centers Cost
1. Slow Sand Filtration Constr.
(Fig. SF-2) $120,000
2. Site Development (Fig. SF-3) $ 11,000
3. Subtotal
Annual Operating
Costs
4. Slow Sand Filtration Labor
(Fig. SF-4) $ 12,000
5. Slow Sand Filtration O&M
(Fig. SF-4) $ 6,000
6. Total Annual Operating Costs
Total Capital
Costs
7. Capital Cost Subtotal (from 3)
8. Interest during construction
(say 3 months construction time
7% simple interest for 3 months
equals 1.75%. This is applied
to subtotal)
9. Start-up Costs (includes
operator training, debugging,
etc. Say 1 month applied to
total annual operating costs or
1/12 of $19,800)
10. Owners General Expense (say 10%
of subtotal)
11. Total Depreciating Capital Cost
(sum items 7, 8, 9, 10)
12. Working Capital (say 1/6 of annual
operating costs). This is
non-depreciating capital cost.
13. Total Capital Cost (sum items 11
and 12)
Current
Cost Estimated
Index Cost
350/290.4 $144,600
1380/1154 $ 13.100
$157,700
6.88/6.25 $ 13,200
6.88/6.25 $ 6.600
$ 19,800
$157,700
$ 2,800
$ 1,600
$ 15.800
$177,900
$ 3.300
$181,200
-2.85-
-------
Current
Estimated Cost Estimated
Annual Costs Cost Index Cost
14. Annual Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.075 x 177,900)
(Capital Recovery Factor for
7% interest over 40 years;
i.e., plant life, is 0.075) $ 13,340
15. Annual Non-Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.07 x $3,300) (77o simple
interest over 40 years) $ 230
16. Total Annual Capital Costs
(sum items 14 and 15) $ 13,570
17. Total Annual Costs (sum items 6,
16) $ 33,370
-286-
-------
(2) DIATOMACEOUS EARTH FILTRATION
Capital Cost Estimated
Centers Cost
1. Diatomaceous Filter Construc-
tion Cost (Fig. DF-1)
2. Subtotal
Annual Operating
Costs
Cost
Index
3. Diatomaceous Filter Labor &
O&M (Fig. DF-3)
4. Electric Power (275,000
kwhr/yr. (Fig. DF-4), local
rate l
-------
Current
Estimated Cost Estimated
Annual Costs Cost Index Cost
14. Annual Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.075 x $47,010)
(plant life 40 years) $ 3,525
15. Annual Non-Depreciating
Capital Cost (0.07 x $1,100) $ 75
16. Total Annual Capital Costs
(sum items 14, 15) $ 3,600
17. Total Annual Costs (sum
items 6, 16) $ 10,200
-288-
-------
(3) MICROSCREENING
Capital Cost
Centers
1. Microscreening Construction
Cost (Fig. MS-1)
2. Microscreening Site Develop-
ment Cost (Fig. MS-2)
3. Subtotal
Annual Operating
Costs
4. Microscreening O&M Labor
(Fig. MS-3)
5. Microscreening other O&M
costs (Fig. MS-3)
6. Total Annual Operating
Costs
Total Capital
Costs
7. Capital Cost Subtotal
(from item 3)
8. Interest During Construction
(3 months at 7% - 1.75%)
9. Start-up Costs (say 1/12 of
$33,900)
10. Owner's General Expense (say
10% of subtotal)
11. Total Depreciating Capital,
Cost (sum items 7, 8, 9, 10)
12. Working Capital (say 1/6 of
annual operating costs)
13. Total Capital Cost (sum items
11 and 12)
Estimated
Cost
$ 9,000
$ 25,000
$ 5,800
Current
Cost Estimated
Index Cost
$ 30,000 350/290.4 $ 36,150
1380/1154 $ 10.750
$ 46,900
6.88/6.25 $ 27,500
6.88/6.25 $ 6.400
$ 33,900
$ 46,900
$ 825
$ 2,825
$ 4,700
$ 55,250
$ 5.650
$ 60,900
-289-
-------
Current
Estimated Cost Estimated
Annual Costs Cost Index Cost
14. Annual Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.075 x $61,000)
(plant life 40 years) $ 4,575
15. Annual Non-Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.07 x $5,650) $ 400
16. Total Annual Capital Costs (sum
items 14 and 15) $ 4,975
17. Total Annual Costs (sum items
6, 16) $ 38,875
-290-
-------
(4A) CHLORINATION GAS FEED SYSTEM
Capital Cost
Centers
1. Gas Chlorination Equipment
Cost (Fig. DN-1)
2. Equipment Enclosure Cost
(Fig. DN-2)
3. Subtotal
Annual Operating
Costs
4. Chlorine Gas (Typical dosage
1-10 mg/1 for bacteria)
(Table DN-2). Tests indicate
6.5 mg/1 +0.5 mg/1 residual re-
quired. Cl2 in kg/day ™ plant
capacity. (m3/day x mg/1 x
9.98 x 10"4 or = 1,200 m3/day
x 7 mg/1 x 9.98 x 10~A = 8.3
kg/day. Assume cylinder used.
8.3 kg/day x 365 day/yr x
$0.27/kg (Table DN-1) $
5. Total Annual Operating Cost
Total Capital
Costs
6. Capital Cost Subtotal
(item 3)
7. Interest During Construction
(negligible)
8. Start-up Costs (say 1/8 of
annual operating cost)
9. Owner's General Expense
(say 10% of subtotal)
10. Total Depreciating Capital
Cost (sum items 6, 7, 8, 9)
Estimated Cost
Cost Index
$ 5,800 350/290.4
$ 1,000 1380/1154
820
Current
Estimated
Cost
$ 7,000
$ 1.200
$ 8,200
$ 820
$ 820
$ 8,200
$ 0
$ 100
$ 820
$ 9,120
-291-
-------
Current
Total Capital Estimated Cost Estimated
Costs Cost Index Cost
11. Working Capital (negligible) _j§ 0_
12. Total Capital Cost (sum
items 10 and 11) $ 9,120
Annual Costs
13. Annual Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.381 x $9,120)(plant
life 3 yrs. 7% interest paid
over 3 years means 0.381 of
total must be paid each year.) $ 3,475
14. Total Annual Capital Costs
(non-depreciating cost
negligible) $ 3,475
15. Total Annual Costs (sum items
5, 14) $ 4,295
-292-
-------
Cost
Index
(4B) CHLORINATION - SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE SYSTEM
Capital Cost Estimated
Centers Cost
1. Hypochlorite Equipment Cost
(Fig. DN-3) $ 4,200 350/290.4
2. Equipment Enclosure Cost
(Fig. DN-2) $ 1,000 1380/1154
3. Subtotal
Annual Operating
Costs
4. Sodium Hypochlorite 8.3
kg/day (C12) x 365
days/year x $0.425 kg
equivalent cost kg C12 in
NaClO $ 1,300
5. Total Annual Operating Cost
Total Capital
Costs
6. Capital Cost Subtotal
(item 3)
7. Interest During Construction
(negligible)
8. Start-up Costs (say 1/8 of
annual operating cost)
9. Owner's General Expense
(say 10% of subtotal)
10. Total Capital Cost (sum
items 6, 7, 8, 9)
11. Working Capital (negligible)
12. Total Capital Cost (sum items
10, 11)
Current
Estimated
Cost
$ 5,050
$ 1.200
$ 6,250
$ 1.300
$ 1,300
$ 6,250
J LO_
$ 160
$ 625
$ 7,035
J P_
$ 7,035
-293-
-------
Current
Estimated Cost Estimated
Annual Costs Cost Index Cost
13. Annual Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.381 x $7,035)
(plant life 3 years) $ 2.680
14. Total Annual Costs
(non-depreciating costs
negligible) $ 2,680
15. Total Annual Costs (sum
items 5, 14) $ 3,980
-294-
-------
(4C) CHLORINATION - ELECTROLYSIS SYSTEM
Estimated
Capital Cost
Centers
Cost
Current
Cost Estimated
Index Cost
1. Electrolysis Equipment Cost
(Fig. DN-3) $ 5,400 350/290.4 $ 6,500
2. Electrolysis Enclosure Cost
(Fig. DN-2) $ 1,000 1380/1154 $ 1,200
3. Subtotal
$ 7,700
Annual Operating
Costs
4. Electrolysis Generator O&M
(Fig. DN-4) $ 1,400 6.88/6.25 $ 1,525
5. Electrolysis Electric Power
(6.61 kwhr/kg hypochlorite x
1kg C12
.09 kg hypochlorite
or 73.4 kwhr/kg Cl2 x 8.3 kg
Cl2/day x 365 day/yr. x
l£/kwhr = )
$ 2,225
$ 2,225
6. Salt
3 kg salt
1 kg hypochlorite .09 kg
x 1kg hypochlorite x 3$
kg salt
$1.00 kg Cl
$1.00 kg Cl x 8.3 kg/day x
365 day/yr = $ 3,000 - $ 3.000
7. Total Annual Operating Cost
(sum items 4, 5, 6)
Total Capital
Costs
8. Capital Cost Subtotal
(item 3)
9. Interest During Construction
(negligible)
10. Start-up Costs (say 1/8 of
annual operating costs)
$ 6,750
$ 7,700
$ 0
$ 850
-295-
-------
Current
Total Capital Estimated Cost Estimated
Costs Cost Index Cost
11. Owner's General Expense
(say 10% of subtotal) $ 675
12. Total Depreciating Capital
Cost (sum items 8, 9, 10, 11) $ 9,225
13. Working Capital (negligible) _j> 0_
14. Total Capital Cost (sum items
12 and 13) $ 9,225
Annual Cost
15. Annual Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.381 x $9,225) $ 3.500
16. Total Annual Cost (items 7
and 15) $ 10,250
-296-
-------
(5) OZONATION
Current
Capital Cost Estimated Cost Estimated
Centers Cost Index Cost
1. Ozonation System Construction
Cost (Fig. DN-5) $ 17,500 350/290.4 $ 21,100
2. Ozone Generator Enclosure Cost
(Fig. DN-7) $ 2,000 1350/1154 $ 2.350
3. Subtotal $ 23,450
Annual Operating
Costs .
4. Electric Power Costs (Tests
indicate 3 mg/1 ozone required.
Fig. DN-6 for 5 ppm. Calculate
as follows: Water density
1 gm/cm3 = 1,000 kg/m3 - 1,200
m3/day x 1,000 kg/m3 = 1.2 x
106 kg/day.
3 mg/1 93=3 kg 03 x 1.2 x 106 kg H20/day = 3.6 kg 03
1 x 106 kg H20
3.6 kgOo x 27.5 kwhr/kg =
99 kwhr/day - 99 kwhr/day
x 365 day/yr. x l
-------
Current
Total Capital Estimated Cost Estimated
Costs Cost Index Cost
10. Total Depreciating Capital
Cost (sum 6, 7, 8, 9) $ 25,985
11. Total Capital Cost
(non-depreciating costs
negligible) $ 25,985
Annual Costs
12. Annual Depreciating Capital
Cost (0.244 x $25,985)
(plant life 5 yrs. 7% interest
and retirement after 5 yrs.
means 0.244 of total must be
paid each year. $ 6^340
13. Total Annual Capital Cost $ 6,340
14. Total Annual Cost (sum items
5 and 13) $ 6,700
-298-
-------
IN SUMMARY:
Treatment
Process
1. Slow Sand Filtration
2. Diatomaceous Earth
Filtration
3. Microscreening
4. Chlorination
a. Gas Feed
b. Sodium Hypochlorite
c. Electrolysis
5. Ozonation
Effectiveness
In Removing
Bacteria
very good
very good
poor
Annual
Cost
$33,370
$10,200
$38,450
Cost per
Cubic Meter
7.6
-------
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS 1962*
3. BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
3.1 Sampling
3.11 Compliance with the bacteriological requirements of these
Standards shall be based on examination of samples collected at representative
points throughout the distribution system. The frequency of sampling and
the location of sampling points shall be established jointly by the
Reporting Agency and the Certifying Authority after investigation by either
agency, or both, of the source, method of treatment, and protection of the
water concerned.
3.12 The minimum number of samples to be collected from the
distribution system and examined each month ishould be in accordance witK the
number on the graph in Figure I, for the population served by the system.
For the purpose of uniformity and simplicity in application, the number
determined from the graph should be in accordance with the following: for
a population of 25,000 and under-to the nearest 1;25,001 to 100,000- to the
nearest 5; and over 100,000-to the nearest 10.
3.13 In determining the number of samples examined monthly, the
following samples may be included, provided all results are assembled and
available for inspection and the laboratory methods and technical competence
of the laboratory personnel are approved by the Reporting Agency and the
Certifying Authority:
(a) Samples examined by the Reporting Agency.
(b) Samples examined by local government laboratories.
(c) Samples examined by the water works authority.
(d) Samples examined by commercial laboratories.
3.14 The laboratories in which these examinations are made and the
methods used in making them shall be subject to inspection at any time by
the designated representatives of the Certifying Authority and the Reporting
Agency. Compliance with the specified procedures and the results obtained
shall be used as a basis for certification of the supply.
3.15 Daily samples collected following a bacteriologically unsatisfactory
sample as provided in sections 3.21, 3.22, and 3.23 shall be considered as
special samples and shall not be included in the total number of samples
examined. Neither shall such special samples be used as a basis for
prohibiting the supply, provided that: (1) When waters of unknown quality
are being examined, simultaneous tests are made on multiple portions of a
geometric series to determine a definitive coliform content; (2) Immediate
and active efforts are made to locate the cause of pollution; (3) Immediate
action is taken to eliminate the cause; and (4) Samples taken following
such remedial action are satisfactory.
*Bacteria standards for 1974 are the same as the 1962 standards
-301-
-------
3.2 Limits. - The presence of organisms of the coliform group as
indicated by samples examined shall not exceed the following limits:
3.21 When 10 ml standard portions are examined, not more than
10 percent in any month shall show the presence of the coliform group.
The presence of the coliform group in three or more 10 ml portions of a
standard sample shall not be allowable if this occurs:
(a) In two consecutive samples;
(b) In more than one sample per month when less than 20 are
examined per month; or
(c) In more than 5 percent of the samples when 20 or more are
examined per month.
When organisms of the coliform group occur in 3 or more of the 10 ml
portions of a single standard sample, daily samples from the same sampling
point shall be collected promptly and examined until the results obtained
from at least two consecutive samples show the water to be of satisfactory
quality.
3.22 When 100 ml standard portions are examined, not more than 60
percent in any month shall show the presence of the coliform group. The
presence of the coliform group in all five of the 100 ml portions of a
standard sample shall not be allowable of this occurs:
(a) In two consecutive samples;
(b) In more than one sample per month when less than five are
examined per month; or
(c) In more than 20 percent of the samples when five or more are
examined per month.
When organisms of the coliform group occur in all five of the 100 ml
portions of a single standard sample, daily samples from the same sampling
point shall be collected promptly and examined until the results obtained
from at least two consecutive samples show the water to be of satisfactory
quality.
3.23 When the membrane filter technique is used, the arithmetic mean
coliform density of all standard samples examined per month shall not
exceed one per 100 ml. Coliform colonies per standard sample shall not
exceed 3/50 ml, 4/100 ml, 7/200 ml, or 13/500 ml. in:
(a) Two consecutive samples;
(b) More than one standard sample when less than 20 are examined per
month; or
-302-
-------
1.000
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES PER MONTH
pg m -w IT, O O g
10,000
° 100.000
0.
O
1,000.000
10,000.000
\
Figure 1
\
Source: Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards 1962
H.E.W., No. 956, 1962, p. 4
-303-
-------
(c) More than five percent of the standard samples when 20 or more are
examined per month.
When coliform colonies in a single standard sample exceed the above
values, daily samples from the same sampling point shall be collected
promptly and examined until the results obtained from at least two consecutive
samples show the water to be of satisfactory quality.
-304-
-------
APPENDIX B
SODIUM
Man's intake of sodium is mostly influenced by the use of salt.
Intake of sodium chloride for American males is estimated to be 10
grams per day, with a range of 4 to 24 grams (1). This would be a
sodium intake of 1600 to 9600 mg per day. Intake of these amounts
is considered by most to have no adverse effect on normal individuals.
Even Dahl, who has been one of the strong advocates of the need for
restricting salt intake, has felt that an intake of 2000 mg of sodium
could be allowed for an adult without a family history of hypertension.
Intake of sodium from hospital "house" diets has been measured re-
cently (2). The sodium content of a pool of 21 consecutive meals that
were seasoned by the chef or the dietitian from twenty selected
general hospitals was determined each quarter. The average sodium
intake per capita per day was 3625 ± 971 (SD) milligrams. The intake
could be greatly changed between individuals who never add salt to the
food at the table and the individuals who always add salt even before
tasting.
The taste threshold of sodium in water depends on several factors
(3). The predominant anion has an effect; the thresholds for sodium
were 500 mg/1 from sodium chloride, 700 mg/1 from sodium nitrate, and
1000 mg/1 from sodium sulfate. A heavy salt user had a threshold of
taste that was 50 percent higher, and the taste was less detectable
in cold water.
Six of 14 infants exposed to a sodium concentration of 21,140
mg/1 died when salt was mistakenly used for sugar in their formula
(4). Sea water would have about 10,000 mg/1 of sodium.
Severe exacerbation of chronic congestive heart failure due to
sodium in water has been documented (3). One patient required
hospitalization when he changed his source of domestic water to one
that had 4200 mg/1 sodium. Another patient was readmitted at
two-to-three-week intervals when using a source of drinking water of
3500 mg/1 sodium.
Sodium-restricted diets are used to control several disease con-
ditions of man. The rationale, complications, and practical aspects
of their use were reviewed by a committee on food and nutrition of
National Research Council (5). Sodium-restrictive diets are essential
in treating congestive cardiac failure, hypertension, renal disease,
cirrhosis of the liver, toxemias of pregnancy, and Meniere's disease.
Hormone therapy with ACTH and cortisone is used for several
diseases. Sodium retention is one of the frequent metabolic conse-
quences following administration of these therapeutic agents, and
sodium-restricted diets are required, especially for long period of
treatment, more recent medical text books continue to point out the
usefulness of sodium-restricted diets for these several diseases
where fluid retention is a problem (6).
-305-
-------
When disease causes fluid retention in the body, with subsequent
endema and ascites, there is a diminished urinary excretion of sodium
and of water. If the sodium intake is restricted in these circum-
stances, further fluid retention will usually not occur, and the
excess water ingested will be excreted in the urine because the mecha-
nisms that maintain the concentration of sodium in the extracellular
fluid do not permit the retention of water without sodium.
Almost all foods contain some sodium, and it is difficult to
provide a nutritionally adequate diet without an intake of about
440 mg of sodium per day from food; this intake would be from the
naturally occurring sodium in food with no salt added. The additional
60 mg that would increase the intake to the widely used restricted
diet of 500 mg per day must account for all non-nutrition intake that
occurs from drugs, water, and incidental intakes. A concentration of
sodium in drinking water up to 20 mg per liter is considered compatible
with this diet. When the sodium content exceeds 20 mg/1, the physician
must take this into account to modify the diet or prescribe that dis-
tilled water be used. Water utilities that distribute water that
exceeds 20 mg/1 must inform physicians of the sodium content of the
water so that the health of consumers can be protected. About 40 per-
cent of the water supplies are known to exceed 20 mg/1 and would be
required to keep physicians informed of the sodium concentration (7).
Most of the state health departments have made provision for deter-
mining the sodium content of drinking water on a routine basis and
are now informing physicians in their jurisdiction (8). If change of
source or a treatment change such as softening occurs that will
significantly increase the sodium concentration, the utility must be
sure that all physicians that care for consumers are aware of the
impending change. Diets prescribing intakes of less than 500 mg per
day must use special foods such as milk with the sodium reduced, or
fruits that are naturally low in sodium.
It is not known how many persons are on sodium-restricted diets
and to what extent the sodium intake is restricted. To reduce edema
or swelling, the physician may prescribe a diuretic drug, a
sodium-restricted diet, or a combination of the two. Therapy, of
course, depends on the patient's condition, but there are also
regional differences that probably result from physician training.
The American Heart Association (AHA)(9) feels that diuretics may
allow for less need of very restricted diets and that diuretics are
necessary for quick results in acute conditions. For long-term use,
a sodium-restricted diet is simpler, safer and more economical for
the patient. It is preferable, especially when a moderate or mild
sodium-restricted diet will effectively control the patient's
hypertension and water retention. Literature is provided to physicians
by the AHA to distribute to their patients explaining the
sodium-restricted diets. These cover the "strict" restriction - 500 mg
sodium, "moderate" restriction - 1000 mg sodium, and the "mild" re-
stricted diet - 2400 to 4500 mg sodium. From 1958 through June 1971,
there were 2,365,000 pieces of this literature distributed: 37% - 500 mg;
-306-
-------
34% - 1000 mg; and 29% - "mild" (10). There are many ways a
physician can counsel his patients other than using this literature,
so the total distribution does not reflect the extent of the problem,
but the proportion of booklets distributed may provide an estimate of
the portion of diets that are prescribed. The "mild" restricted
diet could require just cutting down on the use of salt, and liter-
ature for the patient would not be as necessary. :
The AHA estimates that hypertension affects more than 21 million
Americans, and in more than half of these cases put enough strain on
the heart to be responsible for the development of hypertensive heart
disease (11). Congestive heart failure is a sequelae of several
forms of disease that damage the heart and would affect some unknown
portion of the 27 million persons with cardiovascular disease. Thus,
from 21 to 27 million Americans would be concerned with sodium intake.
Toxemias of pregnancy are common complications of gestation and
occur in 6 to 7 percent of all pregnancies in the last trimester (12).
Thus, about 230,000 women would be very concerned with sodium intake
each year. Other diseases are treated with restricted sodium intake,
but no estimate can be made on the number of people involved.
Questions about salt usage were asked on the ninth biennial
examination of the National Heart Institute's Framingham, Massachusetts
Study (13). The study population was free of coronary heart disease
when the study began in 1949 and now are over 45 years of age. There
were 3,833 respondents. Forty-five percent of the males and 30 per-
cent of the females reported that they add salt routinely to their
food before tasting. But at the other extreme, 9 percent of the men
and 14 percent of the women avoid salt intake. More of the people
60 and over avoid salt intake than the 45 to 59 population. It is
not determined if the salt restriction was medically prescribed nor
how extensively the sodium intake was restricted.
It can be seen that a significant proportion of the population
needs to and is trying to curtail its sodium intake. The sodium
content of drinking water should not be significantly increased for
frivolous reasons. This is particularly true of locations where many
of the people using the water would be susceptible to adverse health
effects, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and retirement communities.
The use of sodium hypochlorite for disinfection, or sodium fluoride
for control of tooth decay, would increase the sodium content of
drinking water but to an insignificant amount. The use of sodium
compounds for corrosion control might cause a significant increase,
and softening by either the base exchange or lime-soda ash process
would significantly increase the sodium content of drinking water.
For each milligram per liter of hardness removed as calcium carbonate
by the exchange process, the sodium content would be increased about
one-half mg per liter. The increase in excess lime softening would
depend on the amount of soda ash added. A study in North Carolina
found that the sodium content of 30 private well-water supplies in-
creased from 110 mg/1 to 269 mg/1 sodium on the average after
-307-
-------
softening (14). The sodium content of the softened water was much
higher shortly after the softener had been regenerated than later
in the cycle. A case has been reported where a replacement element
type softener was not flushed, and the drinking water had a sodium
content of 3,700 mg/1 sodium when the unit was put back in service.
All consumers could use the water for drinking if the sodium
content was kept below 20 mg per liter, but about 40 percent of
the U.S. water supplies have a natural or added sodium content above
this concentration (7). Many industrial wastes and runoff from
deiced highways may increase the sodium pollution of surface water
(15). The problem is most acute when groundwater is polluted with
sodium (16, 17) because it remains for a long time. Removal of
sodium from water requires processes being developed by the Office
of Saline Water (18) and are economically feasible only in certain
situations.
The person who is required to maintain a restricted sodium
intake below 500 mg per day can use a water supply that contains
20 mg or less sodium per liter. If the water supply contains more
sodium, low sodium bottled water or specially treated water will
have to be used. In the moderately restricted diet that allows for
a consumption of 1000 mg sodium per day the food intake is essen-
tially the same, but the diet is liberalized to allow the use of
1/4 teaspoon of salt, some regular bakery bread, and/or some salted
butter. If persons on the moderately restricted diet found it
necessary to use a water with a significant sodium content they
could still maintain their limited sodium intake with a water con-
taining 270 mg/liter. This would require allocating all of the
liberalized intake to water (the original 20 mg/1 and 250 mg/1 more
with two liter domestic use, drinking or cooking, per day). High
sodium in water causes some transfer of sodium to foods cooked in
such water (5).
It is essential that the sodium content of public water
supplies be known and this information be disseminated to physicians
who have patients in the service area. Thus, diets for those who
must restrict their sodium intake can be designed to allow for the
sodium intake from the public water supply or the persons can be
advised to use other sources of drinking water. Special efforts of
public notification must be made for supplies that have very high
sodium content so that persons on the more restricted sodium intake
will not be overly stressed if they occasionally use these water
supplies.
-308-
-------
The 1963 Sodium Survey (7) had the following percent distri-
bution of sodium concentration from 2100 public water supplies:
Range of Sodium Ion Percent of Total
Cone ent rat ion Samples
mg/1 7o
0-19.9 58.2
20-49.9 19.0
50-99.9 9.3
100-249.9 8.7
250-399.9 3.6
400-499.9 0.5
500-999.9 0.7
Over 1000 0.1
REFERENCES
1. Dahl, L.K. Possible Role of Salt Intake in the Development of
Essential 'ivpcrtension, From Essential Hypertension, An Inter-
national fiymnoniur.! Edited by P. Cottier and K. D. Bock, Berne
(Springer Verlag, Jeildelberg) 1960, p. 53-65.
2. Bureau of Radiological Health - California State Department of
Public Health, Estimated Daily Intake of Radionuclides in
California Diets, April-December 1969, and January-June 1970.
Radiological Health Data and Reports, 625-632 (November 1970).
3. Elliott, G.B. and Alexander, E.A. Sodium from Drinking Water
as an Unsuspected Cause of Cardiac Decompensation. Circulation
23, 562-566 (April 1961).
4. Finberg, L., Kile, J., and Luttrel, C.N. Mass Accidental Salt
Poisoning and Infancy, Journal American Medical Assn. ISA, 187-
190 (April 20, 1963).
5. Food and Nutrition Board-NAS-NRC, Sodium-Restricted Diets. Pub-
lication 325, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1954.
6. Wintrobe, M.M., Thorn, G.W., Adams, R.D., Bennett, I.L.,
Brauwald, E., Isselbacher, K.J., and Petersdorf, R.G., Editors.
Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Sixth Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York 1970.
-309-
-------
7. White, J.M., Wingo, J.G., Alligood, L.M., Cooper, G.R., Gutridge,
J., Hydaker, W., Benack, R.T., Dening, J.W., and Taylor, F.B.
Sodium Ion in Drinking Water 1. Properties, Analysis, and
Occurrence, Journal of the American Dietetic Assn., 50, 32-36 (1967)
8. Division of Water Hygiene, Review of State Sodium-in-Drinking-
Water Activities (1971).
9. Pollack, H. Note to the Physician (inserted with diet booklets)
Your 500 mg. Sodium Diet-Strict Sodium Restriction, Your 1000 mg.
Sodium Diet - Moderate Sodium Restriction, and Your Mild Sodium-
Restricted Diet, American Heart Association 1960 (leaflet).
10. Cook, L.P. American Heart Assn. Personal Communication (1971).
11. American Heart Assn., Heart Facts 1972, A.H.A.,New York (1971).
12. Eastman, N.J. and Hellman, L.M. Williams Obstretics, 13th Ed.,
Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York 1966.
13. Kannel, W.B. Personal Communication 1971.
14. Garrison, G.E. and Ader, O.L. Sodium in Drinking Water.
Arch. Environ. Health 13, 551-553 (1966).
15. Bubeck, R.C., Diment, W.H., Deck, B.L., Baldwin, A.L., and
Lipton, S.D. Runoff of Deicing Salt: Effect on Iron-
dequolt Bay, Rochester, New York. Science 172 (3988) 1128-
1132 (June 11, 1971).
16. Joyer, B.F. and Sutchliffe, H. Jr. Salt-Water Contamination
in Wells in the Sara-Sands Area of Siesta Key, Sarasota
County, Florida. J. Am. Water Works Assn. 59, 1504-1512
(1967).
17. Parks, W.W. Decontamination of Ground Water at Indian Hill.
J. Am. Water Works Assn. 5^, 644 (1959) .
18. U.S. Department of the Interior, Saline Water Conversion
Report for 1969-1970, Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. (1970).
-310-
-------
Length
Capacity
Area
APPENDIX
Metric to English Equivalents
Conversion Factors
Multiply
cm
m
m
km
by
0. 3937
3.281
1.094
0.6214
to obtain
in.
ft.
yds.
mi
Multiply
1 liter
1 liter
1 liter
by
0.0353
0.2642
61.025
to
obtain
cu ft.
gals. (U.S.)
cu in.
Multiply
sq. cm
sq. m.
sq. m.
ha
sq. km.
sq. km.
by
0.1550
10.76
1.196
2.471
247.1
0.3861
to obtain
sq. in.
sq. ft.
sq. yd.
acres
acres
sq. mi.
-311-
-------
Pressure
Multiply
1 kg (force) per
sq . cm.
1 kg per sq. ra.
1 kg per sq. m.
1 kg per sq. m.
1 kg per cm.
1 metric atm.
1 std. atm.
1 N/m3
by
14.2233
1.42 x 10"3
0.20482
3.281 x ID'3
0.96784
1.033228
14.6959
0.00014
to obtain
psi
psi
Ib/sq. ft.
ft. of water
std. atm.
kg per sq. cm.
psi
psi
Mass
Multiply
gm
gm
gm
kg
kg
kg
tons (metric)
by
15.432
0.0353
980.7
2.205
0.0011
io-3
2205
to obtain
grains
oz.
dynes
Ibs.
ton (short)
tons (metric)
Ibs.
Volume
Multiply
cu. cm.
cu. m.
cu. m.
cu. m.
by
0.061
35.31
1.308
264.2
to obtain
cu. in.
cu. ft.
cu. yd.
gal. (U.S.)
-312-
-------
Flow (Volumetric)
Multiply
cu. m. /sec
I/sec.
cu. m, /sec
by
15,850.0
15.850
35.33
to obtain
gpm
gpm
cf s
Density
Multiply
gm/1
.gm/1
gm/1
by
58.4
8.345
1000
to obtain
grains/gal.
lb/1,000 gal.
(ppm) mg/1
Horsepower
Multiply
hp (metric)
by
1.01387
to obtain
hp (mech)
Horsepower Formula
bhp - g (gpm) x H (ft) x sp gr
3960 x E
bhp = Q
x H (m) x sp gr
271 23 x E
* 1 hp - 33,000 ft. Ib/min.
Temperature Formula
C° - 5 ( F - 32 )
9
-313-
-------
Power
Multiply
watt*
watt
watt
watt
kg-cal/min.
kg-cal/min.
by
0.056
0.7376
1.34 v ID'3
0.0143
51.457
0.0936
to obtain
B.T.U./min.
ft. Ib/sec.
hp
kg cal/min.
ft-lb/sec.
hp
1 watt «• 1 J/S, 1 Joule * IN-m, 1 kw * 1000 watts
Velocity (Linear)
Multiply
m/sec.
mm/ sec .
km/ sec .
km/hr.
by
3.28
0.00328
2.230
0.9113
to obtain
fps
fps
mph
fps
Viscosity
Multiply
poise
by
1.45 x 10 -5
to obtain
Ib (weight) sec/sq. in.
-314-
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
acre-foot acre-ft
afternoon PM
alternating-current (adj.)... a-c
ampere (s) amp
ampere hour (s) amp-hr
Angstrom units A
approximate, -ly approx
aqueous aq
atmosphere (s) atm
atomic mass unit , a.m.u.
atomic weight at wt
average avg
avoirdupois avdp
barrel (s) bbl
Baume' Be'
before noon ...; AM
billion electron volt (s).... Bev
billion gallons bil gal
billion gallons per day bgd
biochemical oxygen demand.... BOD
board feet fbm
(feet board measure) fbm
brake horsepower bhp
British thermal unit (s) Btu
bushel (s) bu
calorie (s) c,al
capita cap
centigrade C°
centigram (s) eg
centiliter (s) cl
centimeter (s) Cm
chemical oxygen demand COD
chemically pure cp
concentrated con
concentration concn
counts per minute cpm
counts per second cps
cubic cu
cubic centimeter (s) cu cm * ml
cubic feet per day cfd
cubic feet per hour cfh
cubic feet per minute cfm
cubic feet per second cfs
cubic foot (feet) cu ft.
cubic inch (es) cu in.
cubic meter (s) cum
cubic micron (s) cu
cubic millimeter (s) cu mm
cubic yard (s) cy yd
curie (s) Ci
current density cd
cycles per second Hz
decibels db
deciliter (s) dl
decimeter (s) dm
degree (s) deg
degree (s) Centigrade (Celsius). °C
degree (s) Fahrenheit °F
diameter diam
dilute (adj.) dil
direct-current (adj.) d-c
disintegrations per minute dpm
dissolved oxygen DO
dissolved solids DS
dram (s) dr
efficiency E
electromotive force emf
electron volt ev
elevation el
equation eq
ethylenediaminetetraacetate .... EDTA
exponential exp
fahrenheit0 F°
feet ft
feet board measure (board feet). fbm
feet per day fpd
feet per hour- fph
feet per minute fpm
feet per second fps
figure (s) Fig
foot ft
foot-candle (s) ft-c
foot-pound (s) f t -Ib
free on board fob
-315-
-------
gallons (s) gal
gallons (s) (Imperial) gal (Imp)
gallons (s) per capita per
day gpcd
gallon (s) per day gpd
gallon per day per acre gpd/acre
gallons per day per capita .. gpd/cap
gallons per day per square
foot gpd/sq ft
gallon (s) per hour gph
gallon (s) per minute gpm
gallon (s) per minute per
square foot gpm/sq ft
gallon (s) per second gps
grain (s) per gallon g/g
gram (s) g
grams per liter g/1
gram-molecule mole
head H
hectare (s) ha
height h
hertz Hz
horsepower hp
horsepower-hour (s) hp-hr
hour (s) hr
hundredweight cwt
hydrogen ion concentration
(-log H+ ) pH
immediate oxygen demand IOD
inch (es) in.
inch (es) per second ips
inch (es) per minute ipm
inch-pound (s) in.-Ib
indicated horsepower ihp
infra-red ir
inside diameter id
insoluble insol
international unit i.u.
ionic strength I
Jackson turbidity units Jtu
Kelvin0 K°
kilocalorie (s) kcal
kilocurie K Ci
kilocycle (s) kc
kilogram (s) kg
kiloliter (s) kl
kilometer (s) km
kilovolt (s) kv
kilovolt-ampere (s) kva
kilowatt (s) kw
kilowatt-hour (s) kwh
linear foot lin ft
liters 1
logarithm (common-base 10) log
logarithm (natural-base e) In
man-hour (s) ................... man-hr
maximum ........................ max
maximum permissible
concentration ................ MFC
maximum permissible level ...... MPL
mean sea level
median tolerance limit
membrane filter
meter (s)
mho (s)
MSL
MF
m
mho
microampere (s)
microcurie (s)
microgram (s) .................. ji g
microgram (s) per liter ........ M8/1
microinch (es) ................. p, in.
microliter ..................... /& 1
micrometer (s) ................. fim
micromho (s) ................... Mmho
micromicrocurie (s) ............ Ml" Ci
micromicron (s) ................ MM
micromole ...................... /i mole
micron (s) ..................... n
microvolt (s) .................. pv
microwatt (s) .................. jw
mile (s)
mile (s) per hour
mi
mph
-316-
-------
millampere (s) ma
millicurie (s) mCl
milliequivalent (s) meq
milligram (s) mg
milligrams per liter rag/I
Mllihert mHz
milliliter (s) ml
millimeter (s) mm
millimicrogram (s) m/ig
millimicron (s) m/t
millimolar mM
million electron volt Hev
million gallons mil gal
million gallons per day mgd
million gallons per day
per acre mgd/acre
milliroentgens mr
millivolt (s) ,. mv
minimum .. min.
minute (s) min
mixed liquor suspended
solids MLSS
molar (concentration) M
mole mole
molecular weight mol wt
molecul-e, -ar mol
most probable number MPN
nanocurie (s) (10"' curie) .. nCi
neutron n
normal (concentration) N
number (s) No.
newton N
otho-tolidine OT
otho-tolidine-arsenite OTA
ounce (s) oz
ounce-foot (feet) oz-ft
ounce-inch (es) oz-in.
outside diameter od
oxidation-reduction
potential ORP
oxygen consumed OC
part (s) per thousand ppt
percent percent
percent (vol in vol) percent (v/v)
percent (wt in vol) percent (w/v)
percent (wt in wt) percent (w/w)
picocurie (s) (10~12 curie) pCi
potential difference p.d.
pound (s) lb
pound-mole Ib-mol6
pound (s) per acre Ib/acre
pound (s) per acre-foot Ib/acre-ft.
pound (s) per day per acre Ib/day/acre
pound (s) per day per cubic
foot Ib/day/cu ft
pound (s) per square foot psf
pound (s) per square foot per
hour ....' psf/hr
pound (s) per square inch psi
pound (s) per square inch
absolute psia
pound (s) per square inch gage psig
pound (s) per thousand cubic
feet lb/1,000
cu ft
precipitate (as a noun) ppt
precipitated pptd
precipitating pptg
precipitation pptn
quart (s) qt
radiation absorbed dose rad
reciprocal ohm (s) mho
resistance (ohms) R
revolution (s) per minute rpm
revolution (s) per second rps
roentgen (s) r
roentgen equivalent (s) man .... rem
saturated calomel electrode .... S.C.E.
part (s) per billion ppb = g/1
part (s) per million ppm* = mg/1**
second (s) sec
second feet (cubic feet per
second) cfs
second feet days std
* For gases
••For aqueous solutions; for non-aqueous solutions,
correct for density.
-317-
-------
side water depth SWD watt (s) w
watt-hour (s) whr
sludge density index SDI
sludge volume index SVI week (s) wk
weight wt
soluble sol
solution soln
yard (s) yd
specific gravity sp gr year (s) yr
specific heat sp ht
square sq
square centimeter (s) sq en
square foot (feet) sq ft
square inch (es) sq in.
square kilometer (s) sq km
square meter (s) sq m
square micron (s) ;.... sq
square mile (s) sq mi
square millimeter (s) sq mm
square yard (s) sq yd
suspended solids SS
switch sw
time t
tons per day tpd
total oxygen demand TOD
total solids TS
total suspended solids TSS
total volatile solids TVS
ultra-violet uv
unit of pressure (mm Hg) torr
United States Pharmacopoeia.. USP
volatile solids VS
volatile suspended solids ... VSS
volt (s) '. v
volt-ampere (s) ,. va
volume vol
-318-
-------
APPLICATION OF UNITS
Description
Air supply
BOD loading
Concentration
Density
Discharge or
abstractions, yields
Flow in pipes, conduits,
channels, over weirs,
mimniTiP
Hydraulic load per unit
area; e.g. filtration,
rates
Hydraulic load per unit
volume, e.g. biological
filters, lagoons
Optical units
Pipes-diameter length
Precipitation, run-off
evaporation
Water usage
Unit
cubic meter or
liter of free air
per second
kilogram per cubic
meter per day
milligram per liter
kilogram per cubic
meter
cubic meter per day
cubic meter per
second
liter per second
cubic meter per
square meter per day
cubic meter per
cubic meter per day
lumen per square
meter
millimeter meter
millimeter
liter per person
per day
Symbol
cu m/s
1/s
kg/ cu m day
mg/1
kg/cu m
cu m/day
cu m/sec
1/s
cu m/sq m
day
cu m/cu m
day
lumen/ sq m
mm m
mm
1 /person day
English
Equivalents
0.02832 cu ft/s
28.32 cu ft/s
0.0624 Ib/cu
ft day
1 ppm
0.0624 Ib/cu ft
1.83 x 10"! gpm
0.2272 gpm
15.85 gpm
3.28 cu ft/sq
ft day
cu ft/cu ft day
0.092 ft
candle/ sq ft
0.03937 in
3.28 ft
0.03937 in
0.264 gcpd
-319-
-------
APPENDIX D
ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION STATEMENT NO. 5
Dated Feb. 6, 1973
SUBJECT: EPA POLICY ON SUBSURFACE EMPLACEMENT OF FLUIDS BY WELL
INJECTION
This ADS records the EPA's position on injection wells and subsurface
emplacement of fluids by well injection, and supersedes the Federal Water
Quality Administration's order COM 5040.10 of October 15, 1970.
GOALS
The EPA Policy on Subsurface Emplacement of Fluids by Well Injection
is designed to:
1. Protect the subsurface from pollution or other
environmental hazards attributable to improper
injection or ill-sited injection wells.
2. Ensure that engineering and geological safeguards
adequate to protect the integrity of the
subsurface environment are adhered to in the
preliminary investigation, design, construction,
operation, monitoring and abandonment phases of
injection well projects.
3. Encourage development of alternative means of
disposal which afford greater environmental
protection.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND POLICY RATIONALE
The available evidence concerning injection wells and subsurface
emplacement of fluids indicates that:
1. The emplacement of fluids by subsurface injection
often is considered by government and private
agencies as an attractive mechanism for final
disposal or storage owing to: (1) the diminishing
capabilities of surface waters to receive
effluents without violation of quality standards,
and (2) the apparent lower costs of this method of
disposal or storage over conventional and advanced
waste management techniques. Subsurface storage
capacity is a natural resource of considerable
value and like any other natural resource its use
must be conserved for maximal benefits to all
people.
-321-
-------
2. Improper injection of municipal or industrial
wastes or injection of other fluids for storage or
disposal to the subsurface environment could
result in serious pollution of water supplies or
other environmental hazards.
3. The effects of subsurface injection and the fate
of injected materials are uncertain with today's
knowledge and could result in serious pollution or
environmental damage requiring complex and costly
solutions on a long-term basis.
POLICY AND PROGRAM GUIDANCE
To ensure accomplishment of the subsurface protection goals established
above it is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency that:
1. The EPA will oppose emplacement of materials by
subsurface injection without strict controls and a
clear demonstration that such emplacement will not
interfere with present or potential use of the
subsurface environment, contaminate ground water
resources or otherwise damage the environment.
2. All proposals for subsurface injection should be
critically evaluated to determine that:
(a) All reasonable alternative measures have been
explored and found less satisfactory in terms of
environmental protection;
(b) Adequate preinjection tests have been made for
predicting the fate of materials injected;
(c) There is conclusive technical evidence to
demonstrate that such injection will not interfere
with present or potential use of water resources
nor result in other environmental hazards;
(d) The subsurface injection system has been
designed and constructed to provide maximal
environmental protection.
(e) Provisions have been made for monitoring both
the injection operation and the resulting effects
on the environment;
-322-
-------
(f) Contingency plans that will obviate any
environmental degradation have been prepared to
cope with all well shut-ins or any well failures;
(g) Provision will be made for plugging injection
wells when abandoned and for monitoring plugs to
ensure their adequacy in providing continuous
environmen tal p ro tec tion.
3. Where subsurface injection is practiced for waste
disposal, it will be recognized as a temporary
means of disposal until new technology becomes
available enabling more assured environmental
protection.
4. Where subsurface injection is practiced for
underground storage or for recycling of natural
fluids, it will be recognized that such practice
will cease or be modified when a hazard to natural
resources or the environment appears imminent.
5. The EPA will apply this policy to the extent of
its authorities in conducting all program
activities, including regulatory activities,
research and development, technical assistance to
the States, and the administration of the
construction grants, State program grants, and
basin planning grants programs and control of
pollution at Federal facilities in accordance with
Executive Order 11507.
-323-
-------
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
Environmental Planning and Engineering
a division of
David Volkert & Associates, Bethesc;a, Maryland.
Title
Monograph on the Effectiveness and Cost of Water Treatment
Processes for the Removal of Specific Contaminants.
10
22
Authors)
Ian C. Watson
Stephen J. Spano
Howard N. Da^is
Frederick M. Heider
i/ Pro/ect Designation
T7T>A Tjnr* Prtn *••*--! ^*- >iTn Aft—Hi _ 1 ft ^ *^
2] Note
Citation
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
*Water Treatment Methods and Processes, *Water Treatment Costs,
Treatment Process Selection, Water Source Protection, Treated
Water Storage, Control of Water Quality in Distribution System.
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
*Effectiveness and Cost of Water Treatment
27
Abstract
This monograph provides information on treatment processes for
potable water supplies and their costs. It is intended as a
general planning document, giving the user general concepts on
what treatment methods are available to remove specific con-
taminants or reduce them below the limits required or recommended
by the 1974 Federal Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines.
These contaminants may be physical, biological, radiological, or
chemical. General cost estimates for the removal or reduction of
contaminant levels can be made by using the cost estimation
curves and procedures outlined in the monograph. Volume II of
the monograph is a KWIK INDEX which provides additional references
for more detailed information on treatments and costs.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of EPA contract 68-01-1833
undei the sponsorship of the Water Quality Office, Environmental
Protection Agency.
j.s rac"pre C
-------