United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/2-79-162a
August 1979
Research and Development
&EFA
Estimating Water
Treatment Costs
Volume 1
Summary
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600'/2-79i162a
August 1979
ESTIMATING WATER TREATMENT COSTS
Volume 1. Summary
by
Robert C. Gumerman
Russell L. Gulp
Sigurd P. Hansen
Gulp/Wesner/Gulp
Consulting Engineers
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contract No. 68-03-2516
Project Officer
Robert M. Clark
Drinking Water Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution
to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water,
and spoiled land are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay between
its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution, and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and
manage wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, to preserve and treat public drinking
water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health,
and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products
of that research—a most vital communications link between the researcher
and the user community.
The cost of water treatment processes that may be used to remove
contaminants included in the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations is of considerable interest to Federal, State, and local
agencies, and consulting engineers. This four-volume report presents
construction and operation and maintenance cost curves for 99 unit
processes that are especially applicable, either individually or in
combination, to the removal of contaminants contained in the Regulations.
Francis T, Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This Report discusses unit processes and combinations of unit processes
that are capable of removing contaminants included in the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Construction and operation and mainten-
ance cost curves are presented for 99 unit processes that are considered to
be especially applicable to contaminant removal. The Report is divided into
four volumes. Volume 1 is a summary volume. Volume 2 presents cost curves
applicable to large water supply systems with treatment capacities between 1
and 200 mgd (3,785 and 757,000 m3/d), as well as information on virus and
asbestos removal. Volume 3 includes cost curves .applicable to flows of
2,500 gpd (9.46 m3/d) to 1 mgd (3,785 m3/d). And Volume 4 is a computer
program user's manual for the curves included in the Report,
For each unit process included in this report, conceptual designs were
formulated, and construction costs were then developed using the conceptual
designs. The construction costs that were developed are presented in
tabular form by eight categories: Excavation and sitework; manufactured
equipment; concrete; steel; labor; pipe and valves; electrical and instru-
mentation; and housing. The construction cost curves were checked for
accuracy by a second consulting engineering firm, Zurheide-Herrmann, Inc.,
using cost-estimating techniques similar to those used by general contractors
in preparing their bids. Construction costs are also shown graphically,
plotted versus the most appropriate design parameter for the process (such
as square feet of surface area for a filter). This type of plot allows the
data to be used with varying design criteria and designers' preferences.
Operation and maintenance requirements were determined individually
for three categories; Energy, maintenance material, and labor. Energy
requirements for -the building and the process are presented separately.
All costs are presented in terms of October 1978 dollars, and a
discussion is included on cost updating. For construction cost, either
of two methods may be used. One is the use of indices that are specific
to each of the eight categories used to determine construction cost. The
second is use of an all-encompassing index, such as the ENR Construction
Cost Index. Operation and maintenance requirements may be readily updated
or adjusted to local conditions, since labor requirements are expressed
in hours per year, electrical requirements are in kilowatt-hours per year,
diesel fuel is in gallons per year, and natural gas is in standard cubic
feet per year.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2516 by
Culp/Wesner/Culp under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. A subcontractor, Zurheide-Herrmann, Inc,, Consulting Engineers,
checked the validity of all construction cost data which was developed.
This report covers the period November 1, 1976 to January 1, 1979, and work
was completed as of July 2, 1979.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Abbreviations and Symbols x
Metric Conversions . xi
Acknowledgements • xii
1. Introduction 1
2. Treatment Techniques for Contaminant Removal 10
3. Example Process Flow Diagrams 29
4. Cost Curves 34
5. Example Calculations 41
References 85
Appendices 87
A. Estimating Costs for Granular Activated Carbon Systems in
Water Purification Based on Experience in Wastewater
Treatment 87
B. Geographical Influence on Building-Related Energy ,93
C. Example Calculation of Cost Estimating Using Unit Cost
Takeoffs from a Conceptual Design 95
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Capabilities of Conventional Water Filtration Plants to 30
Meet Maximum Contaminant Levels of the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
2 Capabilities of Conventional Lime Softening Plants to 31
Meet Maximum Contaminant Levels of the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
3 Treatment and Disposal Options for Water Treatment 32
Plant Sludges
4 Treatment Options for Reuse of Lime Sludge from Lime 33
Softening Plants
5 General Contractor Overhead and Profit as Percent of 43
Total Construction Cost
6 Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative Costs for Projects Less 44
than $1 million
•
7 Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative Costs for Projects 45
Greater than $1 million
8 Interest During Construction for Projects Less than 46
$200,000
9 Interest During Construction for Projects Greater than 47
$200,000
vi
-------
TABLES
Number
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
•6,
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13,
14,
Contaminants and Maximum Contaminant Levels Included in
the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Maximum Contaminant Levels for Fluoride
Maximum Contaminant Levels for Coliform Organisms
Most Effective Treatment Methods for Contaminant Removal
Matrix of Water Treatment Processes Useful in Meeting the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation Maximum
Contaminant Levels, with Maximum Raw Water Concentrations
Shown
Upper Limiting Raw Water Concentrations 'of Various
Contaminants that can be Treated by Ion Exchange Without
Exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level
Upper Limiting Raw Water Concentrations of Various
Contaminants that can be Treated by Reverse Osmosis Witho'ut
Exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level
Percent Removals of Pesticides by Various Water Treatment
Processes
BLS and ENR Indices Used as Bases for the Construction
Cost Curves
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 70 gpm Package
Complete Treatment Plant
Annual Cost for a 70 gpm Package Complete Treatment Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 350 gpm Package
Complete Treatment Plant
Annual Cost for a 350 gpm Package Complete Treatment Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 700 gpm Package
Complete Treatment Plant
15. Annual Cost for a 700 gpm Package Complete Treatment Plant
Page
3
3
4
11
12, 13
14
15
16
25
38
48
49
50
51
52
53
vii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27,
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 5 mgd-Conventional
Treatment Plant
Annual Cost for a 5 mgd Conventional treatment Plant
Annual Cost for a 40 mgd Conventional Treatment Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 130 mgd
Conventional Treatment Plant
Annual Cost for a 130 mgd Conventional Treatment Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 1 mgd Direct
Filtration Plant
Annual Cost for a 1 mgd Direct Filtration Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 10 mgd Direct
Filtration Plant
Annual Cost for a 10 mgd Direct Filtration Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 100 mgd Direct
Filtration Plant
Annual Cost for a 100 mgd Direct Filtration Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 5 mgd Reverse
Osmosis Plant
Annual Cost for a 5 mgd Reverse Osmosis Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 5 mgd Ion
Exchange Softening Plant
Annual Cost for a 5 mgd Ion Exchange Softening Plant
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 25 mgd Lime
Softening Plant
55
56
Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 40 mgd Conventional 57
Treatment Plant
33. Annual Cost for a 25 mgd Lime Softening Plant
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
71
72
73
viii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number '
34, Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 10 mgd
Pressure Filtration Plant
35. Annual Cost for a 10 mgd Pressure Filtration Plant
36, Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 5 mgd Corrosion
Control Facility
37. Annual Cost for a 5 mgd Corrosion Control Facility
38. Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 2 mgd Pressure
Granular Activated Carbon Plant
39, Annual Cost for a 2 mgd Pressure Granular Activated
Carbon Plant
40, Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 20 mgd Pressure
Granular Activated Carbon Plant
41, Annual Cost for a 20 mgd Pressure Granular Activated
Carbon Plant
42. Design Criteria and Cost Calculation for a 110 mgd Gravity,
Steel Granular Activated Carbon Plant
43, Annual Cost for a 110 mgd Gravity, Steel Granular
Activated Carbon Plant
74
75
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
ix
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ft
ft2
ft3
G
gal .
gpd
gpd/ft2
gpm
hr
kg
kw-hr
1
Ib
Ipd
lpd/m3
Ips
m
m2
m3
m3/d
m3/s
mg
mg/1
mgd
min
mph
psi
scf
tdh
tu
yd3
yr
foot
square foot
cubic feet
velocity gradient - feet per second per foot
gallon
gallons per day
gallons per day per square foot
gallons per minute
hours
kilogram
kilowa t t-hour
liter
pound
liters per day
liters per day per cubic meter
liters per second
meter
square meter
cubic meter
cubic meters per day
cubic meters per second
million gallons
milligrams per liter
million gallons per day
minutes
miles per hour
pounds per square inch
standard cubic foot
total dynamic head
turbidity unit
cubic yards
year
x
-------
METRIC CONVERSIONS
English Unit
cu ft
cu yd
ft
gal
gal
V
gpd/ft2
gpm
Ib
mgd
mgd
sq ft
Multiplier
0.028
0.75
0.3048
3.785
0.003785
0.003785
40.74
0.0631
0.454
3785
0.0438
0.0929
Metric Unit
m3
m3
m
1
m3
m3/d
lpd/m2
1/s
kg
m3/d
m3/sec
m2
xi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared under the direction of Dr. Robert M. Clark,
EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development. The report was prepared by Robert C. Gumerman, Russell L. Gulp
Sigurd P. Hansen, Thomas S. Lineck, and Bruce E. Burris of Gulp/Wesner/Gulp.
Ms. Karin J. Wells of Gulp/Wesner/Gulp was responsible for typing of the
Final Report.
Mr. Ronald M. Dahman of Zurheide-Herrmann, Inc., was responsible for
checking all unit costs. Dr. Isadore Nusbaum and Mr. Dean Owens were
respective sub-consultants on the reverse osmosis and ion exchange curves.
Special acknowledgement is given to Mr. Keith Carswell, Dr. Robert M.
Clark, Mr. Jack De Marco, Dr. Gary Logsdon, Dr. 0. Thomas Love, Mr. Benjamin
Lykins', Jr., Mr. Thomas J. Sorg, all of the EPA Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, who reviewed the Final Report.
Mrs. Anne Hamilton was the technical editor for all four volumes of
this Report.
xii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE
This four-volume report presents construction and operation and
maintenance cost curves for 99 unit processes useful for removing contam-
inants included in the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Volume I, the summary, discusses 'the cost estimating approaches that were
utilized to develop the cost curves, presents the treatment techniques
that are applicable to contaminant removal, and gives a series of examples
demonstrating the use of the cost curves. Volume 2 presents cost curves
applicable to large water supply systems with treatment capacities between
1 and 200 mgd (3,785 and 757,000 mVd); it also contains information on virus
and asbestos removal. Volume 3 includes cost curves applicable to flows
of 2,500 gpd (9.46 m3/d) to 1 mgd (3,785 m3/d) . Volume 4 is a computer
user's manual and contains a computer program that can be used for retrieving
and updating all cost data contained in the report.
BACKGROUND
The Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Law 93-523l enacted on December 16,
1974, empowered the Administrator of the U«S, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to control the quality of the drinking water in public water
systems by regulation and other means. The Act specified a three-stage
mechanism for the establishment of comprehensive regulations for drinking
water quality:
1, Promulgation of National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations,
2. A study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) within 2 years of enactment on the human health effects
of exposure to contaminants in drinking water.
3. Promulgation of Revised National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations based on the NAS report,
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations were promulgated
on December 24, 1975,2 and July 9, 1976;3 they became effective on June 24,
1977, These Regulations were based on the Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards of 1962, as revised by the EPA Advisory Committee on the
Revisions and Application of the Drinking Water Standards. They are intended
-------
to protect health to the maximum extent feasible using treatment methods
that are generally available and take cost into consideration. The National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations contain maximum contaminant levels
(MCL) and monitoring requirements for 10 inorganic chemicals, six organic
pesticides, two categories of radionuclides, coliform organisms, and turbidity.
An Amendment to the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations was
proposed on February 9, 1978.4 This amendment would establish regulations
for total trihalomethanes and establish treatment technique requirements for
the control of synthetic organic chemicals for community water systems
serving a population of more than 75,000. Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
were proposed by EPA on March 31, 1977.5
A list of contaminants presently included in the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations, is shown in Tables 1 and 2, along with the
MCL for each contaminant except coliform organisms. The MCL for coliform
organisms depends on whether the membrane filter technique or the fermentation
tube technique is utilized, and on the sample size if the latter is used.
Table 3 presents the MCL for coliform organisms.
The Primary Regulations are devoted to contaminants affecting the health
of consumers, whereas the secondary regulations include those contaminants
that primarily deal with aesthetic qualities of drinking water. The Interim
Primary Regulations are applicable to all public water systems and are
enforceable by EPA or the States that have accepted primacy. Secondary
regulations are not federally enforceable and are intended as guidelines for
the States.
NAS Study
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Summary Report was delivered to
Congress on May 26, 1977, and, the full report, Drinking Water and Health,
was delivered on June 20, 1977, The NAS Summary Report was also published
in the Federal Register, Monday, July 11, 1977.6 Based on the completed
National Academy of Sciences Report and the findings of the Administrator,
EPA will publish:
1. Recommended MCL's (health goals) for substances in drinking water
that may have adverse effects on humans. These recommended levels
will be selected so that no known or anticipated adverse effects
will occur, allowing an adequate margin of safety. A list of
contaminants that may have adverse effects but that cannot be
accurately measured in water will also be published.
2, Revised National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. These will
specify MCL's or require the use of treatment techniques. MCL's
will be as close to the recommended levels for each contaminant
as feasible. Required treatment techniques for those substances
that cannot be measured will reduce their concentrations to a
level as close to the recommended level as feasible. Feasibility
is defined in the Act as use of the best technology, treatment
techniques, and other means that the Administrator finds to be
generally available (taking costs into consideration).
2
-------
Table 1
Contaminants and Maximum Contaminant Levels
in the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
Contaminant
MCL
Arsenic 0.05 mg/1
Barium 1,0 mg/1
Cadmium 0.01 mg/1
Chromium 0.05 mg/1
Lead . w 0.05 mg/1
Mercury 0,002 mg/1
Nitrate (as N) 10.0 mg/1
Selenium 0,01 mg/1
Silver 0.05 mg/1
Endrin ..... Q.002 mg/1
Lindane 0.004 mg/1
Toxaphene 0.005 mg/1
2, 4-D . 0.1 mg/1
2, 4, 5 - TP (Silvex) 0.01 mg/1
Methoxychlor 0.1 mg/1
Alpha Emitters;
Radium - 226 • 5 pCi/1
Radium - 228 5 pCi/1
Gross Alpha Activity (Excluding radon and uranium) • 15 pCi/1
Beta and Photon Emitters: *
Tritium 20 pCi/1
Strontium 8 pCi/1
Turbidity 1 turbidity unit+
*Based on a water intake of 2 liters/day. If gross beta particle activity
exceeds 50 pCi/1, other nuclides should be identified "and quantified on the
basis of a 2-liter/day intake.
+0ne turbidity unit based on a monthly average. Up to 5 turbidity units
may be allowed for the monthly average it if can be demonstrated that no
interference occurs with disinfection or microbiological determinations.
Table 2
Maximum Contaminant Levels for Fluoride
Average Annual Maximum
Daily Air Temperature
°F °c
53,7 and below
53,8 to 58,3
58.4 to 63.8
63.9 to 70.6
70.7 to 79.2
79.3 to 90.5
12.0 arid below
12,1 to 14,6
14.7 to 17.6
17.7 to 21.4
21.5 to 26.2
26.3 to 32.5
MCL, mg/1
2.4
2.2
2.0
1,8
1,6
1,4
-------
Detection
Technique Used
Membrane Filter
Fermentation Tube,
10-ml Standard
Portions
Table 3 ,
Maximum Contaminant Levels
for Coliform Organisms
Number of Samples
Examined per Month
Fewer than 20
20 or more
Fewer than 20
20 or more
Fermentation Tube,
100-ml Standard
Portions
Fewer than 5
5 or more
Maximum Number of
Coliform Bacteria
1/100 ml as arithmetic mean of all
samples examined each month
4/100 ml in no more than one
sample
4/100 ml in no more than 5 percent
of all samples examined each month
Coliforms shall not be present in
more than 10 percent, of the
portions in any month
Coliforms shall not be present in
three or more portions in more
than one sample
Coliforms shall not be present in
three or more portions in more
than 5 percent of the samples
Coliforms shall not be present in
more than 60 percent of the
portions in any month
Coliforms shall not be present in
five portions in more than one
sample
Coliforms shall not be present in
five portions in more than 20
percent of the samples
-------
Proposed Revisions of the Interim Regulations
On February 9, 1978, the EPA proposed to amend the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations by adding regulations for organic1 chemical
contaminants in drinking water. The proposed amendment1* consisted of two
parts:
1. An MCL of 0.10 mg/1 (100 parts per billion) for total trihalomethanes
(TTHM), including chloroform.
2. A treatment technique requiring the use of granular activated carbon
for the control of synthetic organic chemicals. Three criteria that
the granular activated carbon must achieve are: an effluent limita-
tion of 0.5 yg/1 for low molecular weight halogenated organics
(excluding trihalomethanes); a limit of 0.5 mg/1 for effluent total
organic carbon concentration when fresh activated carbon is used;
and the removal of at least 50 percent of influent total organic
carbon when fresh activated carbon is used.
These proposed amendments are initially applicable to community water
systems serving a population of more than 75,000. Considerable comment has
been received by EPA on the relatively limited use of activated carbon
in water treatment to date and the subsequent lack of cost and design data.
Activated carbon has however, been utilized, in many wastewater treatment
applications, and a considerable amount of cost and design data have resulted.
Appendix A presents a summary of information on wastewater applications using
granular activated carbon.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The principal purpose of this project is to delineate water treatment
processes or process combinations that can remove one or more of the
contaminants included in the Interim Regulations, and then to develop con-
struction and operation and maintenance cost curves for the required unit
processes. To facilitate the usefulness of the curves, separate curves were
developed for flows ranging between 1 and 200 mgd (3,785 and 757,000 m3/d)
(Volume 2) and between 2,500 gpd (9.46 m3/d) and 1 mgd (3,785 m 3/d) (Volume 3)
This separation was made because many processes applicable to one range are
not applicable to the other, and often when a process is applicable to both
ranges, the conceptual design of the components varies significantly. In
addition, the economy of scale inherent to treatment of larger flows often
causes a dramatic change in the slope of cost curves, commonly in the 1 to
5 mgd (3,785 to 18,925 m3/d) range.
Other objectives of the project include a literature search on the
effectiveness of modifying standard treatment processes to enhance the
removal of virus and asbestos, and the development of cost curves for the
required modifications (Volume 2), The project also developed a computer
program that can be used to retrieve and update costs and to determine the
cost of various combinations of unit processes (Volume 4),
This volume includes a detailed discussion of treatment processes and
techniques useful for the removal of each contaminant. Following this is a
detailed explanation of how the cost curves were derived, and then 17 examples
-------
are presented to illustrate how the cost curves can be used to determine
construction and operation and maintenance costs for various treatment flow
schematics.
The 72 unit processes that were developed for flows of 1 to 200 mgd
(3,785 to 18,925 m3/d) (Volume 2) are:
Chemical Feed Processes
1. Chlorine Storage and Feed Systems
2. Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems
3. Ozone Generation Systems and Contact Chambers
4. On-Site Hypochlorite Generation
5. Alum Feed Systems
6. Polymer Feed Systems
7. Lime Feed Systems
8. Potassium Permanganate Feed Systems
9. Sulfuric Acid Feed Facilities
10. Sodium Hydroxide Feed Systems
11. Ferrous Sulfate Feed Systems
12. Ferric Sulfate Feed Systems
13. Ammonia Feed Facilities
14. Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System
Flocculation, Clarification and Filtration Processes
15, Rapid Mix
16. Flocculation
17. Circular Clarffiers
18. Rectangular Clarifiers
19, Upflow Solids Contact Clarifiers
20. Tube Settling Modules
21, Gravity Filtration Structure
22, Filtration Media
23, Backwash Pumping Facilities
24, Hydraulic Surface Water Systems
25, Air-Water Backwash Facilities
26. Wash Water Surge Basin
27, Modification of Rapid Sand Filters to High Rate Filters
28, Continuous Automatic Backwash Filter
29. Recarbonation Basin
30, Recarbonation - Liquid CC>2 as CC>2 Source
31, Recarbonation - Submerged Burners as C02 Source
32. Recarbonation - Stack Gas as CC>2 Source
33, Multiple Hearth Recalcination
34, Contact Basin
35, Pressure Diatomite Filters
36, Vacuum Diatomite Filters
37, Pressure Filtration Plants
38, In^Plant Pumping
39, Wash Water Storage Tanks
-------
Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange Processes
40. Reverse Osmosis
41. Ion Exchange - Softening
42. Pressure Ion Exchange - Nitrate Removal
43. Activated Alumina for Fluoride Removal
Activated Carbon Processes
44. Gravity Carbon Contactors - Concrete Construction
45. Gravity Carbon Contactors - Steel Construction
46. Pressure Carbon Contactors
47, Conversion of Sand Filter to Carbon Contactor
48. Granular Activated Carbon
49. Capping Sand Filters with Anthracite
50. Regional Off-Site Regeneration - Handling and Transportation
51. Multiple Hearth Granular Carbon Regeneration
52. Infrared Carbon Regeneration Furnace
53, Granular Carbon Regeneration - Fluid Bed Process
54. Powdered Carbon Regeneration - Fluidized Bed Process
55. Powdered Carbon Regeneration - Atomized Suspension Process
Sludge Pumping, Dewatering, and Disposal Costs
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63,
64.
65,
66.
67.
Chemical Sludge Pumping - Unthickened Sludge
Chemical Sludge Pumping - Thickened Sludge
Gravity Sludge Thickeners
Vacuum Filters
Belt Filter Press
Filter Press
Decanter Centrifuges
Basket Centrifuges
Sand Drying Beds
Sludge Dewatering Lagoons
Sludge Disposal - Sanitary Sewer
Sludge Hauling to Landfill
Miscellaneous Processes
68. Raw Water Pumping Facilities
69, Finished Water Pumping Facilities
70, Clearwell Storage ,
71, Aeration
72. Administration, Laboratory, and Maintenance Building
The 27 unit processes that were developed for flows between 2,500 gpd
(9.46 m3/d) and 1 mgd (3,785 m3/d) (Volume 3) are:
1. Package Complete Treatment Plants
2, Package Gravity Filter Plants
3, Package Pressure Filtration Plants
4, Filter Media
-------
5. Package Pressure Diatomite Filters
6. ' Package Vacuum Diatomite Filters
7. Package Ultrafiltration Systems
8. Package Granular Activated Carbon Columns
9. Potassium Permanganate Feed Systems
10. Polymer Feed Systems
11. Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Systems
12. Chlorine Feed Systems
13. Ozone Generation Systems and Contact Chamber
14. Chlorine Dioxide Generating and Feed Systems
15. Ultraviolet Light Disinfection
16. Reverse Osmosis
17. Pressure Ion Exchange Softening
18. Pressure Ion Exchange Nitrate Removal
19. Activated Alumina Fluoride Removal
20. Bone Char Fluoride Removal
21. Package Raw Water Pumping Facilities
22. Package High Service Pumping Stations
23. Steel Backwash/Clearwell Tanks
24. Sludge Hauling to Landfill
25. Sludge Disposal - Sanitary Sewer
26. Sludge Dewatering Lagoons
27, Sand Drying Beds
STUDY APPROACH
The information presented in Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4 has been developed
and presented in a manner that will allow maximum flexibility in its use.
Construction costs are presented in terms of eight key components, and
an appropriate index is recommended for updating each of the eight components.
Therefore, if the construction cost components escalate at different rates,
which is more likely than not, the variations in escalation can readily be
taken into account by using the index specific to each component. If the
user prefers to use one composite index to update the total construction
cost, a method is presented for use of the Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Index.
The construction cost curve plots for the unit processes are presented
with construction cost plotted versus the design parameter, which will allow
the maximum degree of flexibility in the use of the curve. Although some
construction costs are shown plotted versus flow, most are shown plotted
versus another design parameter, such as pounds per day for chemical feed
systems, cubic feet of volume for rapid mix and flocculation, square feet
of surface area for clarifiers and filters, and cubic feet of press volume
for sludge filter presses. Use of these design parameters allows designer's
preferences and regulatory agency requirements on loading rates to be incor-
porated into the cost estimating procedure. This approach gives the cost
curves for many unit processes a much higher degree of flexibility than if
all curves were shown plotted versus flow.
-------
The operation and maintenance requirements were also developed and are
presented in a manner that allows maximum flexibility in their use. The
component categories that were used to .develop the operation and maintenance
categories and the units assigned to each are;
Energy
Electrical, kw-hr/year
Building related
Process related
Natural gas, scf/year
Diesel fuel, gal/year
Maintenance material (excludes chemicals), $/year
Labor, hr/year
Separation of electrical energy into building and process-related requirements
allows geographical variations in building heating, lighting, air conditioning
and ventilation requirements to be taken into account. Appendix B of this
volume presents estimated building energy requirements for 21 cities. Process
energy requirements do not vary from location to location, and are therefore
presented as a separate category. Local variations in the unit cost of
electrical energy, natural gas, diesel fuel, and labor can be readily
incorporated into the cost calculations, since all tables and plots of
operation and maintenance requirements show these components in terms of
kw-hr/year, scf/year, gal/year, and hr/year, respectively. The maintenance
material requirements, which are for all repair and maintenance items, were
calculated using nationwide averages and are presented in dollars/year.
Updating of the maintenance material costs is best accomplished using the
Producer Price Index for Finished Goods. Note that the maintenance material
costs exclude chemical costs, which must be added separately. Chemical
costs are added separately because of the wide variation they exhibit in
different areas of the country.
Since water treatment plants seldom operate at full capacity, the curves
are presented to allow operation and maintenance requirements (except
building energy) for less than full capacity operation to be taken into
account. If for example, the appropriate design parameter for a unit
process is 1.3 mgd, and the process is operating at 0,6 mgd, the operation
and maintenance requirements for process energy, natural gas, diesel fuel,
maintenance material, and labor can be determined by entering the curve
at 0,6 mgd. This approach allows variations in percent utilization of the
"facilities to be taken into account.
For a unit process in which operation and maintenance requirements are
shown plotted versus a parameter that is independent of flow, such as cubic
feet of basin volume or square feet of basin area, the requirements are
independent of flow, and the design parameter must be used to estimate both
construction cost and operation and maintenance requirements.
-------
SECTION 2
TREATMENT TECHNIQUES FOR CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
BASIC WATER TREATMENT TECHNIQUES
A number of conventional water treatment techniques may be utilized for
the removal of contaminants considered in this report. These conventional
techniques as well as a variety of other new techniques have been researched
in considerable detail by EPA in recent years, and the results of the
research are contained in numerous publications.7"11 Information contained
in these publications has been used as the basis for the information
presented in Tables 4 to 7, as well as the discussion on treatment techniques
and percentage removals which is included in this section.
The techniques most applicable to the removal of the various contaminants
are listed in Table 4. A detailed listing of unit processes which make up
each of these techniques, is shown in Table 5. Also shown in Table 5 are
the MCL's for each contaminant as well as the highest initial concentration
(Ci) of the contaminant that can be reduced to the MCL by a single pass through
the particular treatment technique. If a single pass will not reduce the
contaminant concentration to less than the MCL, then multiple steps of the
same process or two or more different processes in series may be utilized.
The techniques were selected based upon their ability to reduce the initial
contaminant concentration from a minimum of 10 times the MCL to less than
the MCL. As an example in the use of Table 5, consider the contaminant
cadmium. A conventional lime softening plant, when operating in the pH
range 8.5 to 11, could reduce concentrations of cadmium from 0.5 mg/1 to
the 0.01 mg/1 MCL. If alum or ferric sulfate are used as the coagulant
in a conventional filtration plant, at pH of 9 and 8 respectively, an initial
cadmium concentration of 0.1 mg/1 could be reduced to the 0.01 mg/1 MCL.
As may be observed in Tables 4 and 5, most of the slightly soluble
inorganic constituents may be removed by conventional coagulation, whereas
highly soluble inorganics are generally removed by reverse osmosis or ion
exchange, and soluble organics are generally removed by adsorptive inter-
action with activated carbon. Although these are generalizations, it is
important to recognize that there is a great degree of commonality among
many contaminants, and that most treatment techniques are applicable to
the removal of more than one contaminant. Many contaminants can be removed
by ion exchange or reverse osmosis. Tables 6 and 7 are presented to
illustrate the upper limiting raw water concentrations that can be treated
by ion exchange and reverse osmosis without exceeding the MCL. The upper
limiting raw water concentrations shown in Tables 6 and 7 are based on
information presented in reference 7.
10
-------
Table 4
Most Effective Treatment Methods for Contaminant Removal
Contaminant
Most Effective Treatment Methods
Arsenic As+5 - ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6 to 8; alum
coagulation, pH 6 to 7; excess lime softening
As+3 - ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6 to 8; alum
coagulation, pH 6 to 7; excess lime softening.
NOTE: Oxidation required before treatment for As 3.
Barium Lime softening, pH 10 to 11; ion exchange softening.
Cadmium Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 8; alum coagulation,
pH 9; lime softening; excess lime softening.
Chromium Cr+3 - ferric sulfate coagulation. pH 6 to 9; alum
coagulation, pH 7 to 9; excess lime softening.
Cr+6 - ferrous sulfate coagulation, pH 7 to 9.5.
Coliform Organisms . . Disinfection; coagulation plus disinfection.
Fluoride Ion exchange with activated alumina; lime softening.
Lead Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6 to 9; alum ccagul'a-
tion, pH 6 to 9; lime softening; excess lime softening.
Manganese Inorganic - oxidation/sedimentation/filtration.
Organic - lime softening.
Mercury Inorganic - ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 7 to 8.
Organic - ion exchange.-
Nitrate Ion exchange.
Organic Contaminants . Powdered activated carbon; granular activated carbon.
Radium Lime softening; reverse osmosis.
Selenium Se+tf - ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6 to 7; ion
exchange; reverse osmosis.
Se+6 - ion exchange; reverse osmosis.
Silver Ferric sulfate coagulation, pH 6 to 8; alum coagula-
tion, pH 6 to 8: lime softening; excess lime
softening.
Sodium Ion exchange; reverse osmosis.
Sulfate Ion exchange; reverse osmosis.
Turbidity Alum coagulation, filtration.
11
-------
in
a)
to d
C &
•H O
A! rC!
p! co
•H
O
cd co
•H O
M -H
fit 4J
•S
4-J
L4 rj
CO Q)
4J O
PJ C
H O
O
cd M
C a)
O 4J
•rl Cd
cd
cd
•H
r-H
CO
OJ 01
to >
& Si
I-}
to
a) 4J
to a
co cd
O 6
fM 4J
4J O
B
s
S c
4J O
cd -H
t2 4J
cd
O 3
Ml
X 10.6
2.5 MG/L
0.05 MG/L
CHROMIUM -TRI-
VALENT
X
X
X
y
ii
0.5 MG/L
X
d
X
X
X
pH 6.5-9.3
5.0 MG/L
0.05 MG/L
CHROMIUM -HEXA-
VALENT
X
vow ro
i
UJ
y
a
HI
P
S
oH
TRATION OF THE C
HROUGH THE PARTI
TER REGULATION
RY REGULATION ES
INITIAL CONCE*
k SINGLE PASS T
RY DRINKING W/
kRY OR SECOND/
y& §
la S
0 * *
•X
12
-------
-d
a)
I
.u
C!
O
•3
2
C
a
a
<
;
t
z
c
g
o
MIXING &
z
5
u
a.
*
u"
GRANULAR 1
POWDERED
ION
EXCHANGE
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
I
51
u
POST
DISINFECTION
1,
tuh-
1
FLOCCU-
LATION
FERROUS
SULFATE
FERRIC
SULFATE
1
LIME
SOFTENING
SEDIMEN-
TATION
DISIN-
FECTION
FOR TREATMENT
SHOWN
s
CONTAMINANT
X
100/100 ML
1/100 ML
COLIFORM ORGANISMS
X
X
X
X
< 5000/1 00 ML
X
X
X
X
X
<: 20,000/1 00 ML
VTELAW
>20,000/100 ML
X
X
X
0
s
<
X
1
VARIES WITH
1
X
X
X
1$
— 0
o:
I-
u.
I
AIR TEMP.
ACTIVATED
ALUMINA OR
BONE CHAR
1
1.4 TO 2.4 MG/L
'X
X
X
0*
X
X
a
S
I
0.05 MG/L
1
X
1
X
X
X
•x
1
0.05 MG/L**
U
UJZ
||
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
•i
X
1
ORGANIC
X
'X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
T
X
o
i
MERCURY
- INORGANIC
X
X
X
X
.N.
0
X
X
X
X
oo
X
0.07 MG/L
X
0.01 MG/L
i
i
X
X
X
X
X
1
- ORGANIC
CATION-
ANION IN
SERIES
0.1 MG/L
X
0.01 MG/L
g i
•x *
* *
*
13
-------
0)
g
•H
4J
a
o
o
tn
a)
i-t
,n
ra
EDIM
ATIO
MIXI
FLO
LAT
.§
1
I
65
K | I
I? I I
1
INITI
SINC
Ig I
u *
*
14
-------
Table 6
Upper Limiting Raw Water Concentrations of
Various Contaminants That Can Be Treated by
Ion Exchange Without Exceeding the MCL
Contaminant to
Upper Limiting
Raw Water
be Removed
Arsenic, Trivalent
Barium
Fluoride
Manganese
Inorganic Mercury
Organic Mercury
Nitrate - as N
Radium
Selenium., Quadrivalent
Selenium, Hexavalent
Sodium
Sulfate
Concentration
Unknown
45 mg/1. Generally
by blending of raw
& finished water
for corrosion &
hardness control
pH dependent (best
@ pH = 5.5 to 7).
Unknown
0.1 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
50 mg/1
100.0 pCi/1
0.33 mg/1
0.33 mg/1
133.0 mg/1
8,300 mg/1
MCL
0,05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
1.4 to 2,4 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
0,002 mg/1
10.0 mg/1
5-0 pCi/1
0.01 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
20.0 mg/1
250.0 mg/1
Remarks
Activated -
alumina or
bone char
Softening
resins
Activated
alumina or
bone char
Secondary MCL
Cation and
anion resins
Cation and
anion resins
NOs selective
resin
Softening
resins
—
—
No MCL set
Secondary MCL
15
-------
Table 7
Upper Limiting Raw Water Concentrations of
Various Contaminants That Can Be Treated by
Reverse Osmosis Without Exceeding the MCL
Contaminant to
Upper Limiting
Raw Water
be Removed
Arsenic, Trivalent
Barium
Chromium, Hexavalent
Lead
Nitrate - as N
Radium
Selenium, Quadrivalent
or Hexavalent
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Concentration
0.33 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
0.4 mg/1
0.4 mg/1
67 mg/1
100.0 pCi/1
0.33 mg/1
0.83 mg/1
285.0 mg/1
3,570,0 mg/1
MCL
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.05 /mg/1
10 mg/1
5,0 pCi/1
0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
20.0 mg/1
250,0 mg/1
Remarks
—
— .
—
—
•
—
—
No M€L set
Secondary MCL
16
-------
The following sections present detailed discussions, by contaminant,
of the treatment techniques and process combinations listed in Tables 4
through 7. These detailed discussions also give the assumptions which were
used in calculating the upper limiting raw water concentrations shown in
Tables 5 to 7. .
ARSENIC (MCL = 0.05 mg/1)
Arsenic in water may be either the trivalent (+3) form known as arsenite
(As02~) or the pentavalent (+5) form known as arsenate (AsOi,."3). Conversion
of the trivalent form to the pentavalent form may be by biological or chemical
oxidation. Reduction of the oxidized form generally occurs by anaerobic
biological action. The trivalent form is more toxic than the pentavalent
form. Elemental arsenic is essentially insoluble in water, and organic
arsenic forms are rarely found. Arsenic contributions from natural sources,
generally found only in certain portions of the western United States, are
due to leaching of native arsenic from rock formations and leaching of mine
tailings from copper, gold, and lead refining operations. Industry related
contributors are from the aforementioned refining operations, pesticides,
herbicides, insecticides, and fossil fuel combustion.
Pentavalent (+5) Arsenic
Pentavalent arsenic can be treated by pH adjustment (if required) to
pH 6 to 7 or pH 6 to 8 for alum or ferric sulfate addition, respectively.
To meet the MCL of 0.05 mg/1, coagulant dosages up to 20 to 30 mg/1 may be
required, followed by rapid mixing, 30 min of flocculation, settling at a
basin overflow rate of 24,450 lpd/m2 (600 gpd/ft2) and filtration at 81.4
to 203.4 lpd/m2 (2 to 5 gpm/ft2).
Pentavalent arsenic may also be removed coincidently by chemical
clarification during the treatment of moderate to high coliform concentrations
or high turbidity, provided that proper attention is given to pH and alum
or ferric sulfate dosage (20 to 30 mg/1).
Pentavalent arsenic can also be removed by lime softening at a pH above
10.8. Treatment would consist of lime addition and mixing, 30 min of
flocculation, settling at a basic overflow rate of 24,450 lpd/m2 (600 gpd/ft2)
with 2 hr detention, pH adjustment, and filtration at 81.4 to 203.4 lpd/m2
(2 to 5 gpm/ft2).
Trivalent (+3) Arsenic
Trivalent arsenic can be oxidized to the pentavalent form by the use
of chlorine, ozone, or potassium permanganate and then removed by the
treatment processes previously described for the pentavalent form.
Pentavalent (+5) and Trivalent Arsenic
Both valences of arsenic may be removed by "ion exchange using activated
alumina or commercial anion resins. Insufficient data are available at
present to determine the maximum concentration that can be reduced to the
17
-------
0.05 mg/1 MCL. Arsenic may also be reduced by about 85 percent using reverse
osmosis, making such treatment applicable to raw waters containing up to
0.33 mg/1 of arsenic.
BARIUM (MCL =1.0 mg/1)
Barium is only present in trace amounts in most surface water and ground
water supplies. The most commonly occurring natural form of barium is barite
(barium sulfate), which has a low solubility, especially in waters containing
sulfate. Soluble forms of barium are very toxic, whereas insoluble forms
are considered nontoxic. Barite is used principally as a drilling mud in
oil and gas well drilling, whereas other barium compounds are used in the
production of glass, paint, rubber, ceramics, and the chemical industry
Lime softening in the pH range of 10 to 11 may be used to treat waters
containing 1.0 to 10.9 mg/1 of barium. Treatment consists of lime addition
and mixing, 30 min of flocculation, settling at a basin overflow rate of
24,450 lpd/m2 (600 gpd/ft2) with 2 hr detention, pH adjustment, and filtration
at 81.4 to 203.4 lpd/m2 (2 to 5 gpm/ft2).
Ion exchange systems similar to those used for softening (calcium and
magnesium removal) may be used for barium concentrations exceeding the 1.0
mg/1 MCL. The maximum concentration of barium in the raw water is limited
if the usual method of blending raw and treated water is to be practiced
for hardness concentration control and stabilization of the treated water.
The amount of raw water used for blending must be controlled to insure that
the 1.0 mg/1 MCL for barium is not exceeded in the blended mixture.
Barium concentrations up to 45 mg/1 may be reduced below the 1.0 mg/1
MCL using reverse osmosis operating at about 98 percent removal. Depending
on water composition, however, there may be difficulties with membrane
fouling in treatment of high-barium waters.
CADMIUM (MCL =0.01 mg/1)
Cadmium generally does not present a water quality problem from
naturally occurring sources, although it may occur in leachates from iron
and other ore mining and smelting operations. Carbonate and hydroxide forms
found at higher pH are relatively insoluble, whereas other forms are soluble.
Water supply contamination from industries may occur from electroplating
industry wastes, sludges resulting from paint manufacture, battery manufac-
turing, metallurgical alloying, ceramic manufacturing, and textile printing.
Lime softening in the pH range of 8.5 to 11.3 may be used to treat
waters containing 0.010 to 0.50 mg/1 of cadmium. The amount of lime that
must be added increases with increasing concentrations of cadmium in the
raw water. Treatment would consist of lime addition and mixing, 30 min of
flocculation, settling at a basin overflow rate of 24,450 lpd/m2 (600 gpd/ft2)
with 2 hr detention, pH adjustment, and filtration at 81,4 to 203.4 lpd/m2
(2 to 5 gpm/ft2).
18
-------
Raw water containing 0.010 to 0.10 mg/1 of cadmium can be treated by
pH adjustment to 8.0 for ferric sulfate coagulation and 9.0 for alum
coagulation at dosages of 30 mg/1, followed by mixing, 30 min of flocculation,
settling at basin overflow rate of 24,450 lpd/m2 (600 gpd/ft2), and
filtration at 81.4 to 203.4 lpd/m2 (2 to 5 gpm/ft2).
Cadmium at initial concentrations of 0,010 to 0,10 mg/1 is removed
coincidentally in the treatment of high coliform waters and moderate or
high turbidity waters, provided proper pH conditions are maintained (8,0 for
ferric sulfate and 9,0 for alum) and sufficient coagulant is used,
CHROMIUM (MCL =0,05 mg/1)
Chromium in water supplies may be present in either the trivalent (+3)
or the hexavalent (+6) form. Unless pH is very low, the hexavalent form
predominates. The hexavalent form is the more toxic and is also the more
difficult to remove. Most forms of hexavalent chromium treatment incorporate
reduction'of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form before removal.
Chromium occurs naturally as chromite (CrOs) or chrome iron ore
(FeO-Cr203). The major source of chromium in water supplies is not from
natural sources, but rather from industrial operations. Operations involving
metal plating, alloy preparation, tanning, wood preservation, corrosion
inhibition, and pigments for inks, dyes, and paints are all potential sources,
Trivalent (+3) Chromium
Trivalent chromium can be reduced to the MCL of 0.05 mg/1 by coagulation:
(a) with 30 mg/1 ferric sulfate in the pH range of 6.5 to 9.3 and raw water
concentrations up to 2,5 mg/1, or (b) with 30 mg/1 of alum in the pH range
of 6.7 to 8.5 and raw water concentrations up to 0.5 mg/1. The chemical
treatment should be followed by mixing, 30 min flocculation, settling at
basin overflow rates of 24,450 lpd/m2 (600 gpd/ft2), and filtration at
81.4 to 203.4 lpd/m2 (2 to 5 gpm/ft2). This type of treatment is similar
to the treqtment required for high coliform and moderate or high turbidity,
and trivalent chromium is removed along with these contaminants, provided
proper attention is given to pH and coagulant dose.
Waters containing up to 2.5 mg/1 of trivalent chromium can be treated
by lime softening at pH >10,6, Treatment would include lime addition and
mixing, 30 min of flocculation, settling at a basin overflow rate of 24,450
lpd/m2 with 2 hr detention, pH adjustment, and filtration at 81.4 to 203.4
lpd/m2 (2 to 5 gpm/ft2).
Pre^-oxidation of raw water containing trivalent chromium is normally
not practiced, since the trivalent form would be converted to hexavalent
chromium, making removal more difficult.
19
-------
Hexavalent (+6) Chromium
Raw water concentrations up to 5.0 mg/1 of hexavalent chromium can be
treated using a special ferrous sulfate coagulation process in which pH
adjustment to the 6.5 to 9.3 range is made several minutes after coagulation.
Chemical treatment should be followed by mixing, 30 min flocculation,
settling at basin overflow rates of 24,450 lpd/m2 (600 gpd/ft2), and
filtration at 81.4 to 203.4 lpd/m2 (2 to 5 gpm/ft2), Prechlorination will
interfere with this process, as the ferrous ion is oxidized by chlorine and
is then unavailable for reduction of hexavalent chromium, Prechlorination
would necessitate a higher ferrous sulfate dose.
Trivalent (+3) and Hexavalent (+6) Chromium
Chromium concentrations, trivalent or hexavalent, up to 0.4 mg/1 can
be reduced to the 0.05 mg/1 MCL by reverse osmosis.
COLIFORM BACTERIA
Coliform bacteria are not pathogens, but indicators of the presence of
contamination from the intestinal tract of humans and warm-blooded animals.
The advantage of measuring for coliform organisms is that the testing pro-
cedures are much simpler and more sensitive than those for pathogenic
bacteria and virus. The disadvantages of using coliform organisms as an
indicator is that they may survive for longer periods than some pathogenic
organisms and for shorter times than others.
Low-Coliform Waters
Underground waters (only) containing more than one but less than 100
coliform bacteria (MPN)/100 ml (as measured by the monthly arithmetic mean)
and having a standard plate count limit of 500 organisms/ml, and a fecal
coliform density of less than 20/100 ml (as measured by a monthly arithmetic
mean) can be treated using only continuous disinfection. Thirty minutes of
contact should be used before discharge of the water into the distribution
system.
Moderate-Coliform Waters
Water containing not more than 5,000 coliform bacteria (MPN)/1.00 ml
should be treated by predisinfection with 30 min of contact, coagulation
(with or without settling), filtration at 41.4 to 203.5 lpm/m2 (2 to 5
gpm/ft2), and continuous postdisinfection with 30 min or more contact
before use.
Excessively High^Coliform Waters
Water containing more than 20,000 coliform bacteria/100 ml or having
a fecal coliform count exceeding 2,000/100 ml monthly geometric mean are
considered undesirable as a source of supply. In the absence of an adequate
20
-------
supply of better bacteriological quality, special methods of treatment may
be considered. Proposed special methods of treatment for highly polluted
waters should be approved by the State before the preparation of plans.
FLUORIDE (MCL = 1.4 to 2.4, depending on average annual air temperature)
Fluoride can be contributed to water from fluoride-bearing materials,
although most naturally occurring fluoride compounds are only moderately
soluble. Generally, natural sources do not cause excessively high concen-
trations, although well water supplies in several States do have naturally
high concentrations. There are also soluble fluorides from industrial
wastewaters in some supply sources. Industries that may discharge significant
amounts of fluoride include glass production, fertilizer manufacturing, and
aluminum processing.
Water containing excessive fluoride ion may be treated by ion exchange
methods using either activated alumina or bone char. Removals by both are
pH dependent, with the best removals occurring between pH 5.5 and 7.0.
Exchange capacity varies widely among water supplies, and laboratory testing
should be utilized to develop design criteria.
Fluoride may also be removed from hard waters with lime softening
followed by filtration. The amount of the fluoride reduction accomplished
by lime softening depends on both the initial fluoride concentration and the
amount of magnesium removed in the softening process. The fluoride reduction
is generally proportional to the square root of the magnesium removed.
For very soft waters (only), flocculation with massive alum dosages of
200 to 500 mg/1 is an effective means of fluoride reduction when followed
by clarification and filtration as described for moderate-turbidity waters.
LEAD (MCL =0.05 mg/1)
Lead in water supplies may result from naturally occurring lead sulfide
and lead oxide mineral compounds. The lead solubility may approach 0.4 to
0.8 mg/1, although the solubility limit is lower for alkaline and mineralized
sources. Major industrial sources of lead include storage battery manufacture
and gasoline additives, although photographic materials, explosives, and
lead mining and smelting may also contribute significant amounts.
Naturally occurring carbonates and -hydroxides of lead are very insoluble,
and treatment of a somewhat turbid surface water by plain sedimentation will
reduce 0.5 mg/1 of lead to below the 0.05 mg/1 MCL.
Coincidental reduction of 2.5 mg/1 to the MCL will also occur during lime
soda softening in the pH range of 8.5 to 11.3. Also, initial concentrations
up to 1.7 mg/1 are reduced to the MCL coincidentally during the treatment
of high-coliform waters and moderate or high-turbidity waters with alum and
ferric sulfate.
21
-------
Reverse osmosis may be used to remove soluble lead concentrations up
to 0.4 mg/1. Precautions are necessary, however, to prevent membrane fouling
by insoluble lead carbonates and lead hydroxides.
MANGANESE (Secondary Drinking Water Regulation MCL =0.05 mg/1)
Manganese solution from mineral forms _is primarily the result of
bacterial action or complexation by organic material. Reduced forms of man-
ganese (+2) in water are soluble, while oxidized forms (+4) are insoluble.
Acid mine drainage is a principal natural source of manganese in water
supplies. Industrial contributions of manganese generally are not significant.
Manganese is included in the Secondary Drinking Water Regulations and
not the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. There is no presently
known health danger from manganese in the oxidized, unoxidized, or organic
states in water supplies. The principal problems with manganese are the
brown-black stains it may deposit on laundered goods and the taste it may
impart to drinking water.
Unoxidized and Oxidized Inorganic Manganese
Manganese in the absence of iron and organic matter can be oxidized
at low pH (7.2 to 8.0) values with chlorine, potassium, permanganate, or
previously precipitated manganese. An alternative approach would be
aeration at pH 9.4 to 9.6 to oxidize all manganese. The insoluble oxidized
form may then be removed by settling and filtration.
Organic Manganese
Manganese present in water as a complex of organic matter or iron must
be treated with lime to pH values of 9.0 to 9.6 before oxidation of manganese
will occur. Ferric sulfate coagulation is also especially suitable for waters
containing organic manganese.
With these modifications and with oxidation by chlorine or potassium
permanganate, manganese complexed with organic matter or iron can be removed
by the conventional treatment processes of mixing, flocculation, settling,
and filtration.
MERCURY (MCL = 0.002 mg/1)
Organic forms of mercury are significantly more toxic than inorganic
forms and can result from utilization of inorganic forms by bacteria and
higher level organisms. Elemental mercury is soluble in aerobic situations
and may form mercuric oxide salts. Generally, such salts adsorb on sediment
and are naturally removed by sedimentation. Mercury in water supplies from
natural sources is rare. Industrial sources or mercury include electrical
and electronics industries, pulp and paper production, Pharmaceuticals,
paint manufacture, and agricultural herbicides and fungicides.
\
22
-------
Inorganic Mercury
Chemical coagulation, at pH 8 with ferric sulfate will treat raw waters
containing up to 0.07 mg/1 inorganic mercury; at pH 7, alum will treat raw
waters containing up to 0.006 mg/1 inorganic mercury when followed by the
clarification treatment described for moderate-turbidity waters. Powdered
activated carbon may be used in conjunction with coagulation to increase
removals above those obtained by coagulation alone, although dosages signifi-
cantly above those used for taste and odor control are necessary to provide
increased removal.
Lime softening in the pH range of 10.7 to 11.4, followed by filtration,
can reduce concentrations up to 0.007 mg/1 to the MCL.
Cation and anion exchange resins operated in series can reduce inorganic
mercury from concentrations up to 0.1 mg/1 to the MCL of 0.002 mg/1.
Experiments on such removal are only preliminary, and the removal mechanism
is uncertain.
Granular activated carbon at a contact time of only 3.5 min can remove
80 percetit of the applied inorganic mercury, making this process applicable
for treatment of raw water concentrations up to 0.01 mg/1.
Organic Mercury
Powdered activated carbon can be used in the clarification process
described for moderate-turbidity waters to remove organic mercury. About
1 mg/1 of powdered activated carbon is needed for each 0.1 vg/1 of organic
mercury to be removed down to the MCL of 0.002 mg/1.
As with inorganic mercury, granular activated carbon at a contact time
of only 3.5 min can be used to remove 80 percent of the organic mercury
applied, making this process applicable for raw water concentrations up to
0.01 mg/1.
Cation and anion exchange resins operated in series can reduce organic
mercury from concentrations up to 0.1 mg/1 to the 0.002 mg/1 MCL.
NITRATE (MCL = 10 mg/1 as N)
Naturally occurring high nitrate concentrations are very rare. High
nitrate concentrations in ground or surface water are generally the result
of direct or indirect contamination by wastewater, animal excrement, or agri-
cultural fertilization. Industrial discharges from fertilizer manufacturing
also represent a potential source of contamination. Nitrate is a relatively
stable form of nitrogen, but nitrate may be produced by the biological
oxidation of ammonia.
Anion ion exchange resins can be used to reduce nitrates from as high
as 50 mg/1 to as low as 0.5 mg/1 (as N). Since the MCL is 10 mg/1 (as N) ,
the use of blending can result in a considerable savings in capacity and
operational cost.
23
-------
Reverse osmosis can achieve up to 85 percent removal of nitrate. Thus,
concentrations as high as 67 mg/1 (as N) could be reduced to the MCL,
or concentrations of less than 67 mg/1 could be treated to below the MCL
and utilized for blending purposes.
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
The six organic pesticides presently included in the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards are not naturally occurring. Four of these organics
(endrin, lindane, toxaphene and methoxychlor) are chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides. These synthetic organic insecticides may be contributed to
water supplies by industrial discharge during manufacture or runoff following
use. The remaining two organics (2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP, or Silvex) are
chlorophenoxy herbicides, which are'generally used for the control of aquatic
vegetation. Contamination of water supplies may occur by manufacturing
operation and/or use.
Proposed as an amendment to the Primary Standards is the regulation of
total trihalomethanes (TTHM's). Trihalomethanes (chloroform, bromodichloro-
methane, dibromochloromethane, and tribromomethane) are not naturally
occurring they are reaction by-products resulting from chlorination of water
containing naturally occurring humic and fulvic compounds. Bromide and iodide
ions may also be reactants in the process. The criteria for volatile halo-
genated compounds in the proposed amendment was established as a measure of
analysis for a broad range of organic chemicals that are difficult to measure
individually and/or are unknown.
For the six organic pesticides of concern, information on removal is
available for only four: endrin (MCL = 0.0002 mg/1), lindane (MCL = 0.004
mg/1), toxaphene (MCL = 0.005 mg/l), and 2,4-D (MCL = 0.1 mg/1). No
information is available for methoxychlor (MCL =0.1 mg/1), or 2,4,5-TP
(Silvex) (MCL = 0.01 mg/1). In general, granular activated carbon or
powdered activated carbon used in conjunction with coagulation and filtration
are the only treatment methods capable of significant removals. Other
treatment methods such as coagulation/filtration, chlorination, ozonation,
and addition of potassium permanganate generally remove less than 10 percent
of the organics. The percent removals that various treatment methods
achieve, are shown in Table 8. Where blanks occur in this table, information
is not presently available.
For TTHM's, removal of the precursor organic compounds by use of
granular activated carbon has been determined to be the best treatment
technique. Other techniques that will partially remove some of the
naturally occurring precursors are precipitation, oxidation, aeration, and
adsorption on synthetic resins.
RADIUM (MCL - 5 pCi/1)
Radium may occur naturally in water either as radium 226 or radium 228,
and is generally found in ground water rather than surface water. Radium
24
-------
rH
4-J CU O
0 4J rH
O CO V
0 W
CO
M
rH rH
>-, CU O
4-14-1 rH
3 CO V
PQ M
O
1
* i — 1
CN !>>
ft rH
O CU O
rH 4-1 rH
ft CO V
•o-w
CO
rH
34-1
•H rH O
Trj cd *~~i
O M V
CU
PJ
QJ O
rC rH
ft V
cd
O
H
cu
S
cd o
13 rH
rj V
•rl
rJ
a
•PI
rH "I
13 co
rj
w
a
0
13 rd
fl ?~1
cd cd
o
13 a a
o o o ^o
,X3 -H iH CU
4-1 4-14-1 4-1
cu cd cd cd
JSl rH rH •• t>
4-1 4J fi -H
4J rH rH 4-1 4-1
pj iH -H -H O
B
4-J « " 0 13
cd a Pi O cu
CU O O -H rH
Vl vH -rl 4J CU
EH 4-J 4J ft 13
Cd Cd rH J3
rH rH O O
3 3 CO PL,
60 60 *nJ
cd cd pt, 0)
•H S
rHrHrHrHrHrH4-l C'H
rH ^^ ^^. ^^ ^^ -^^ ^ — * cj *H EH
— » 606060606060nc_3
0
1 1 1 0 II 01
1 1 1 r-l || rH |
i V V
1 1 1 0 II 01
1 1 1 —1 || rH |
V V
1 1 \l 0 II 01
1 1 1 rH || rH |
V V
1 1 1 O II O i
1 1 1 — 1 II rH |
V V
1 1 1 0 II II
1 1 1 rH || ||
V
o o o i o in o o
rH rH rH j rH in rH rH
V V V V V V
0 1 1 1 II II
V
..
a>
4J
cd
S
60
1-HrHrHrH rHrHrjrHrH
^- ^^- ^*». ^-» ^-« ^^. crt "^^ *>-^.
60606060 6060Q6060
0BBB BBVtBg
0)
• • in oo o ^^ ' — ' oo p | ^3 CD
• •(U inO — ICO rH-Nd"
P! a ^ 0
0 -H •• 3
•H rH (11 -H
4-1 O C CO
cd rH O CO
13 rC N Cd
•HO O 4-1
M 0
O PH
•H
C/J
PH
H
in
CM
13
CO
M
O
rH
a
o
5
CU
•H
cd
4-1
O
a
a
o
•H
O
m
•S
cd
01
rH
H
*
25
-------
exists in radium-bearing rock strata, particularly in Iowa and Illinois, and
in phosphate rock deposits found in parts of Florida. Leaching from such
deposits has resulted in high ground water concentrations.
The lime-soda softening process removes radium as well as hardness.
Operationally, the total hardness removal necessary is equal to the fraction
of radium removed, raised to the 2.86 power. In equation form:
Hardness Removal Fraction = (Radium Removal Fraction)2-86
or
Radium Removal Fraction =/S2-^Hardness Removal Fraction
Therefore, to reduce 25 pCi/1 to the 5 pCi/1 MCL requires a radium
removal fraction of 0.82-86 = 0.528, meaning that 52.8 percent of the hardness
must be removed. If desired hardness levels are met by blending, considera-
tion must also be given to the influence of this -blending on the radium
concentration in the .final blend. In situations with a relatively low hard-
ness and high radium concentration, radium may control the blending ratio.
Radium removal increases as pH increases.
Ion exchange and reverse osmosis are each capable of removing up to
95 percent of the input radium. Therefore the limiting concentration that
can be treated to meet the MCL is 100 pCi/1.
SELENIUM (MCL = 0.01 mg/1)
^Selenium is chemically similar to sulfur and commonly occurs with sulfur
in mineral veins. Selenium in water may be in either the quadrivalent (+4)
form known as selenite (Se03~2) or the hexavalent (+6) form known as
selenate (SeO^ ). The quadrivalent form may be found in ground water, and
the hexavalent form may occur in either ground water or surface water.
Selenium contributions from natural sources are from selenium containing
soils and runoff from these soils. Industry-related contributions may result
from paint, rubber, dye, insecticide, glass, and electronic manufacturing.
Quadrivalent (+4) Selenium
Adjustment of pH to 6.0 and coagulation with 30 mg/1 ferric sulfate
will treat raw waters containing up to 0.05 mg/1 of Se+k to meet the 0.01
mg/1 MCL when followed by the clarification treatment described for moderate-
turbidity waters.
Raw waters containing up to 0.33 mg/1 of Se+lf can be treated by ion
exchange or reverse osmosis. Lower concentrations may be treated to less
than the MCL and then be utilized for blending purposes.
26
-------
Hexavalent (+6) Selenium
Raw waters containing up to 0.33 mg/1 of Se+G can be treated by ion
exchange or reverse osmosis. As for the quadrivalent form, lower concentra-
tions may be reduced to less than the MCL and then be utilized for blending.
SILVER (MCL = 0.05 mg/1)
Silver rarely occurs in water supplies from natural sources, and many
silver salts such as the chloride and sulfide forms are relatively insoluble.
Generally speaking, silver contamination of water supplies is industrial
in origin, from photographic and electroplating industries.
Coagulation in the pH range of 6 of 8 with 30 mg/1 of alum or ferric
sulfate will treat raw waters containing up to 0.17 mg/1 of silver to meet
the MCL of 0.05 mg/1, when followed by the clarification treatment described
for moderate-turbidity waters.
Coincidental removal occurs during the treatment of high-coliform waters
and moderate or high turbidity waters provided that the dosage of ferric
chloride or alum is adequate. In the pH range of 6 to 8, concentrations
of 0.17 mg/1 can be reduced to the MCL.
Lime softening followed by chemical clarification and filtration will
also remove silver. Raw water silver concentrations of 0.17 mg/1 can be
treated at pH 9, and values as high as 0.5 mg/1 can be reduced to the MCL
of 0.05 at pH 11.5.
Reverse osmosis may be used to remove silver, and concentrations up to
0.83 mg/1 can be reduced to the MCL,
SODIUM (No Primary or Secondary Regulation MCL)
Sodium occurs naturally in water supplies as a result of leaching from
rock formations or naturally occurring salt deposits. Sea water intrusion
may represent a sodium source in coastal areas. Sodium is extremely soluble
and rarely forms a precipitate.
Although there is presently no established sodium standard, a concentra-
tion of 20 mg/1 of sodium in drinking water is considered compatible with
a restricted sodium diet of 500 mg/day. Since sodium is a very soluble ion,
removal is best accomplished by ion exchange or reverse osmosis. Ion exchange
can remove up to 85 percent, restricting use to supplies with an initial
sodium concentration of 133 mg/1. Reverse osmosis can offer somewhat larger
removals, up to 93 percent, and can thus treat initial sodium concentrations
up to 285 mg/1.
SULFATE (Secondary Regulation MCL = 250 mg/1)
Sulfate is an extremely soluble anion that occurs in water supplies from
both natural and industrial sources. Sulfate represents the principal form
of sulfur in nature. Natural sources include leaching from soils and mineral
27
-------
deposits containing sulfate, and the biological oxidation of sulfides.
Rainfall in many areas is a major contributor of sulfate. Key industrial
sources include sulfuric acid, sulfate manufacture, and industries using
sulfates and sulfuric acid, such as sulfate pulp mills and tanneries.
Research indicates that a limit of 250 mg/1 of sulfate in drinking water
affords a reasonable factor of safety against water that causes laxative
effects. As with sodium, ion exchange and reverse osmosis are the only
practical treatment methods. Ion exchange can give removals up to 97 percent
and is therefore useful for concentrations as high as 8,330 mg/1. Reverse
osmosis, however, will only remove 93 percent of the sulfate and is therefore
useful only up to 3,570 mg/1 of sodium.
TURBIDITY (MCL = 1 to 5 TU, depending on several circumstances)
Turbidity is produced by suspended and colloidal matter in water and
is generally only a problem in surface water supplies. The principal
importance of turbidity is its possible interference with disinfection
because of shielding of microbial contaminants and the inability to maintain
a disinfectant residual in the water supply. Aesthetic considerations are
also important at high-turbidity levels.
Low-Turbidity Waters
Waters containing more than 1 but less than 25 turbidity units (TU)
should be treated by coagulation without settling, filtration at 41.4 to
203.5 lpd/m2 (2 to 5 gpm/ft2), and postdisinfection with 30 min of contact
before use.
Moderate-Turbidity Waters
Water containing more than 25 but less than 1,000 TU should be treated
by chemical addition, mixing, coagulation, 30 min of flocculation, settling
at basin overflow rates of 24,450 lpd/m2 (600 gpd/ft2), filtration at 81.4
to 203.4 lpd/m2 (2 to 5 gpm/ft2), and post chlorination with 3 min of
contact before use.
High-Turbidity Water£
Waters containing more than 1,000 TU and meeting the Interim Regulations
in other respects should be subjected to 2 hr of presedimentation at basin
overflow rates of 142,600 lpd/m2 (3,500 gpd/ft2), followed by the treatment
provided for moderate-turbidity waters (above).
28
-------
SECTION 3
EXAMPLE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS
As can be seen in Tables 4 and 5, filtration and softening are two
treatment techniques that are particularly well suited to the removal of
many of the contaminants listed in the Interim Regulations, Figure 1
presents a schematic flow diagram of the unit processes in a conventional
water filtration plant, as well as the upper limiting raw water concentration
of contaminants that can be removed by conventional water filtration plants.
Also shown in Figure 1 are modifications that can be made to conventional
water filtration plants, and the contaminants and the upper limiting raw
water concentrations that can be treated by the various modifications.
The schematic flow diagram of a conventional lime-softening plant is
shown in Figure 2. The contaminants that may be removed by lime softening
and the pH range required for their removal are also shown.
A wide variety of unit processes and techniques are available for the
treatment and disposal of water treatment plant sludges. Figure 3 illustrates
schematically various options for treatment and disposal of water treatment
plant sludges. As shown, the ultimate disposal may be either to a sewer,
land, landfill, a lagoon, or the sea. Lime sludges may also be dewatered
and recalcined for reuse. Figure 4 presents possible options for the
recalcination of lime.
Many other sludge treatment concepts are in the development stage or
in limited application, but a complete discussion of these processes and
their cost is not within the scope of this project. A number of references
that provide in-depth detail on both new and established sludge treatment
concepts are available, however,.and these references should be consulted
for more detail on techniques and design parameters,12"
29
-------
t
^
i
j.
£
j
, i
iE
I
i
"
j
j
T
i
!
j
,
5
•|
°-
J
It;
K £
11} ®
*X % £
5i1 £
i
©
,
1
© -
=c
3
to
•f 0
V
g
s
© ^
az
1
© ,
SB
v*/ ~^
5
g
©
J e
* u,
—•
s
j.
i
LfJ
U>
1
g
™
S
OS
s
i
i
a
UJ
g
z z z z
s: z = si c
oo
l—
f
"ill *
0 O 0 *°
OJ OJ flj -^ CO
in in tn KI _
S
p±
III 1
535 1
< < < z S
=3 =3 => «c g
to i-t a
E -J
g i £ ^
« a 2 s
a. H- z o o
E Z
1 i
:z *«•»
3-T => u. *»»
l—o. to
iss *
CM ,-H .-H O
<
S
CQ *
E 1—
to ui z •
• £ to o: Uj <
o ts ui o x
Z J- 0 X CO ifi
J ^ - < 0 <
>* H UJ J-
-J >- O U. <
•» 2 Q S Q
^ S S 2 *
V^/ 3 — UJ N
I- 1- E U. tfl
-« Q a: a: . ui
o a o o E a
-1 U O
(^j) Q < a:
o z to z - j-
— O E Q
to a. % h- —
S 5© 1 §
UI 1— Q \-
S £ S "*
U. t- O 3= K
•X. U. Q tK 0
to z o
E H < U. •.
; rH 0. UI . -. h-
i- a u. a _i u.
: CM uj E u z
—i ^ < >-<
.- "iS* i— to -- .. S
_ Q- ^(CM) u. to -aq o_ "3 E
E E E ^S E
E
3 C3 0 O
O O 0 00
o CD o o m
PM CM CM CM
CO
E E E -^
j j o V
11 ' 1 « J
S = =) ^ «£ .
O
_J J
E ca
-j <
1 IS
£ ^ S *? §
o o =
E Z
5 g
S ^
C S tt
§0 0
O O ~J
•* o o -••.
=> % •• 0
£ fi£ CC O
III J
Z
s
1 I
i £ -
< £ 5
,i »
El— O ^ O
E
•» 3= =>
I "• S
_l <
^ Q, ^
£ a
11
re
<
( ^) 0
_ i— tn
— a
©o (CM) i
< = t-
z i- w S :
a- I E i ^
<| « ®
S J f I
H <-^ "- 1—
to tn o **» •-•
« . u. co > a
(- — CC f-
- > E U E Z
w £ °° w §
1 Iln4l 1 in I
_i
^ ^ ^"i
C3 S 0 C?
UJ 1— uj O U)
O — — O *~ —
*~ < 0 < *~f'? <
in >• CM >. in CD >-
uj pr>1 S
1-0 ^
= 5 *^i j j|_
Lt. i-i a.
= ° t 03 ofl CO
S 3 J § = = 3
LU -.
^ ctf H
= < U. UJ I"1 5
a- 1- h- 4J B
a ^ < < i 3
co tu t_j' u. u. r~t pi
^S£S ^^ -Hi-f
~ g- a. »» p^p^
CD 0 3 00 U U
CO O. O "• — __,
"— ' tO E Oi a (| Cj
oj + S S a: CK W (3
ui < Ij w ui nl «r-(
L^000< U.LJ, «J ^
cd
11 ^
O 3
•* Ei M
60
•H
30
-------
o
to
iH
(U
Si
£ <*
1
4J
C
O
O
CO
§
* M
JJ 0)
UJ O I— UJ IU
O O O O O
O -l-l
4-1 cd
CD O UI O
_ _
Q_ Q. O CD
r-H O O «-H
LT» in LA
is
cd «H
r-l A!
P4 C
•H
60 M
•
0
0)
td
Q)
r-i 4J
£ £
O
in in h-
o
•H i-i
4J Cd
« C3
cu o
> -H
H 4J
o cd
o a
CO
a)
•H
4-1
•H
rH
•H
•3
p<
td
o
C\I
= 0)
bO
•H
31
-------
CO
Ol
13
r-)
CO
4-1
Cfl
rH
ft
4-1
I
4-1
cS
0)
01
4J
o
4-1
CO
C
O
•H
•U
tx
o
n)
to
o
1
I
-------
Lime sludge to
softening process
Multiple — Hearth
Furnace
Other
Method
i
Reuse recalcined Lime
in process
Figure 4. Treatment options for reuse "of liine sludge
from lime-softening plants.
33
-------
SECTION 4
COST CURVES
CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES
The construction cost curves were developed using equipment cost data
supplied by manufacturers, cost data from actual plant construction, unit
takeoffs from actual and conceptual designs, and published data. When unit
cost takeoffs were used to determine costs from actual and conceptual designs,
estimating techniques from Richardson Engineering Services Process Plant
Construction Estimating Standards,19 Mean's Building Construction Cost Data 20
and the Dodge Guide for Estimating Public Works Construction Costs21 were often
utilized. An example illustrating how costs were determined using unit cost
takeoffs from an actual design for a reinforced concrete wall (similar to a
wall for a clarifier or a filter structure) is presented in Appendix C.
The cost curves that were developed were then checked and verified by a
second engineering consulting firm, Zurheide-Herrmann, Inc., using an
approach similar to that a general contractor would utilize in determining
his construction bid. Every attempt has been made to present the conceptual
designs and assumptions that were incorporated into the curves. Adjustment
of the curves may be necessary to reflect site-specific conditions, geographic
or local conditions, or the need for standby power. The curves should be
particularly useful for estimating the relative economics of alternative
treatment systems and in the preliminary evaluation of general cost level
to be expected for a proposed project. The curves contained in this report
are based on October 1978 costs.
The construction cost was developed by determining and then aggregating
the cost pf the following eight principal components: (1) Excavation and
site work; (2) manufactured equipment; (3) concrete; (4) steel, (5) labor;
(6) pipe and valves; (7) electrical equipment and instrumentation; and
(8) housing. These eight categories were utilized primarily to facilitate
accurate cost updating, which is discussed in a subsequent section of this
chapter, The division will also be helpful where costs are being adjusted
for site-specific, geographic and other special conditions. The eight
categories include the following general items:
Excavation and Site Work. This category includes work related only
to the applicable process and does not include any general site work
such as sidewalks, roads, driveways, or landscaping.
Manufactured Equipment. This category includes estimated purchase cost
of pumps, drives, process equipment, specific purpose controls, and
other items that are factory made and sold with equipment.
34
-------
Concrete. This category includes the delivered cost of ready mix
concrete and concrete-forming materials.
Steel. This category includes reinforced steel for concrete and
miscellaneous steel not included under manufactured equipment.
Labor. The labor associated with installing manufactured equipment,
and piping and valves, constructing concrete forms, and placing
concrete and reinforcing steel are included here.
Pipe and Valves. Cast iron pipe, steel pipe, valves, and fittings
have been combined into a single category. The purchase price of
pipe, valves, fittings, and associated support devices are included
within this category.
Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation. The cost of process electrical
equipment, wiring, and general instrumentation associated with the
process equipment is included in this category.
Housing. In lieu of segregating building costs .into several components,
this category represents all material and labor costs associated with
the building, including heating, ventilating, air conditioning, lighting,
normal convenience outlets, and the slab and foundation.
The subtotal of the costs of these eight categories includes the cost
of material and equipment purchase and installation, and subcontractor''s
overhead and profit. To this subtotal, a 15-percent allowance has been
added to cover miscellaneous items not included in the cost takeoff as well
as contingency items. Experience at many water treatment facilities has
indicated that this 15-percent allowance is reasonable. Although blanket
application of this 15-percent allowance may result in some minor inequity
between processes, these are generally balanced out during the combination
of costs for individual processes into a treatment system.
The construction cost for each unit process is presented as a function
of the most applicable design parameter for the process. For example, con-
struction costs for package gravity filter plants are plotted versus capacity
in gallons per minute, whereas ozone generation system costs are presented
versus pounds per day of feed capacity. Use of such key design parameters
allows the curves to be utilized with greater flexibility than if all costs
were plotted versus flow.
The construction costs shown in the curves are not the final capital
cost for the unit process. The construction cost curves do not include costs
for special site work, general contractor overhead and profit, engineering,
or land, legal, fiscal, and administrative work and interest during construc-
tion. These cost items are all more directly related to the total cost of
a project rather than the cost of the individual unit processes.. They are
therefore most appropriately added following cost summation of the individual
unit processes, if more than one unit process is required. The examples
presented in a subsequent section of this volume illustrate the recommended
method for the addition of these costs to the construction cost,
35
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST CURVES
Operation and maintenance curves were developed for: (1) energy require-
ments, (2) maintenance material requirements, (3) labor Requirements, and
(4) total operation and maintenance cost. The energy categories included
are: process energy, building energy, diesel fuel, and natural gas. The
operation and maintenance requirements were determined from operating data
at existing plants, at least to the extent possible. Where such information
was not available, assumptions were made based on the experience of both the
author and the equipment manufacturer. Such assumptions are stated in the
description of the cost curve,
Electrical energy requirements were developed for both process energy
and building-related energy, and they are presented in terms of kilowatt-hours
per year. This approach was used to allow adjustment for geographical
influence on building related energy. For example, though lighting require-
ments average about 17.5 kw-hr/ft2 per year throughout the United States,
heating, cooling, and ventilating requirements vary from a low of about
8 kw-hr/ft2 per year in Miami, Florida, to a high of about 202 kw-hr/ft2 per
year in Minneapolis, Minnesota, The building energy requirements presented
for each process are in terms of kilowatt-hours per year, and they were
calculated using an average building-related demand of 102.6 kw-hr/ft2 per
year. This is an average for the 21 cities included in the Engineering News
Record Index, An explanation of the derivation of this number is included
in Appendix B. The computer program developed as a portion of this project
will allow use of other building related energy demands than 102.6 kw-hr/ft2
per year. Process electrical energy is also included in the electrical
energy curve and was calculated using manufacturer'^ data for required
components. Where required, separate energy curves for natural gas and
diesel fuel are also presented. When using the curves to determine energy
requirements, the design flow or parameter should be utilized to determine
building energy, and the operating flow or parameter should be used to
determine process energy, diesel fuel, and natural gas.
Maintenance material costs include the cost of periodic replacement
of component parts necessary to keep the process operable and functioning.
Examples of maintenance material items included are valves, motors, instru~
mentation, and other process items of similar nature, The maintenance
material requirements do not include the cost of chemicals required for
process operation. Chemical costs must be added separately, as will be
shown in the subsequent examples. The operating parameter or flow should be
used to determine maintenance material requirements^
The labor requirement curve includes both operation and maintenance
labor and is presented in terms of hours per year. The operating parameter
or flow should be used to determine the labor requirement.
The total operation and maintenance cost curve is a composite of the
energy, maintenance material, and labor curves. To determine annual energy
costs, unit costs of $0.03/kw-hr of electricity, $0.0013/ft3 of natural
36
-------
_ . and $0,45/gal of diesel fuel were utilized. The labor requirements
were converted to an annual cost using an hourly labor rate of $10., 00/hr,
which includes salary and fringe benefits. The computer program that was
developed as a portion of this project (Volume 4) will allow utilization
of other unit costs for energy and labor,
UPDATING COSTS TO TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
Continued usefulness of the curves developed as a portion of the project
depends on the ability of the curves to be updated to reflect inflationary
increases in the prices of the various components. Most engineers, and
planners are accustomed to updating costs using one all-encompassing index,
which is developed by tracking the cost of specific items and then propor-
tioning the costs according to a predetermined ratio. They key advantage
of a single index is the simplicity with which it can be applied. Although
use^of a single index is an uncomplicated approach, there is much evidence
to indicate that these time-honored indices are not understood by many users
and/or are inadequate for application to water works construction.
The most frequently utilized single indicies in the construction industry
are the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Indexes (CCI) and
Building Cost Index (BCI), These ENR indices were started in 1921 and were
intended for general construction cost monitoring, The CCI consists of 200
hours of common labor, 2,500 Ib of structural steel shapes, 1,128 tons of
Portland cement and 1,008 board feet of 2 x 4 lumber, The BCI consists of
68.38 hr of skilled labor plus the same materials included in the CCI,
The large amount of labor included in the CCI was appropriate before World
War II; however, on most contemporary construction, the index labor component
is far in excess of actual labor used.
To update the construction cost using the CCI, which was 265.38 in
October 1978, the following formula may be utilized;
Updated Cost = Total Construction Cost from Curve (Current ENR CCI)
265.38 J
This approach may also be utilized in the computer program developed for
this report.
Although key advantages of the ENR indices include their availability,,
their simplicity, and their geographical specificity, many engineers and
planners believe that these indices are not applicable to water treatment
plant construction. The rationale for this belief is that the index does
not include mechanical equipment or pipes and valves that are normally
associated with such construction, and the proportional mix of materials
and labor is not specific to water treatment plant construction.
^An^approach that may be utilized to overcome the shortcomings of the
ENR^indices relative to water works construction is to apply specific
indices to the major cost components of the construction cost curves. This
approach allows the curve to be updated using indices specific to each
category and weighted according to the dollar significance of the category.
37
-------
For the eight major categories of construction cost, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS)^2 and ENR indices shown in Table 9 were utilized as a
basis for the cost curves included in this report.
Table 9
BLS and ENR Indices Used as Bases for
the Construction Cost Curves
Cost Component
Excavation and Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Electrical Equipment
and Instrumentation
Housing
Index
ENR Skilled Labor Wage Index
(1967)
BLS General Purpose Machinery
and Equipment - Code 114
BLS Concrete Ingredients
Code 132
BLS Steel Mill Products
Code 1013
ENR Skilled Labor Wage Index
(1267 .Base}
BLS Valves and Fittings
Code 114901
BLS Electrical Machinery and
Equipment - Code 117
ENR Building Cost Index
(1967 Base)
October 1978
Value of Index
247
221.3
221.1
262.1
247
236.4
167.5
254.76
The principal disadvantages of this approach are the lack of geographical
specificity of the BLS indices and the use of seven indices rather than a
single index.
To update the construction costs using the above two ENR, and five BLS
indices, the construction cost from the construction cost curve or the
construction cost table must first be broken down into the eight component
categories. One acceptable method of accomplishing this breakdown is to
utilize all the detailed cost estimates included in the construction cost
table to determine the average percent of the subtotal construction cost for
each of the eight (or less) construction cost components. The appropriate
index for each component can then be used to update the component cost,
For example, if the sum of all of the manufactured equipment costs in the
construction cost table for a particular unit process is $1 million, and the
subtotal of all construction costs is $3 million, the manufactured equipment
represents, on the average, 33^3 percent of the subtotal construction costs.
Therefore, if the construction cost curve for a particular size of the unit
process gives a construction cost of $500,000, the the BLS General Purpose
Machinery and Equipment Index is 260, the manufactured equipment cost for
this particular size would be:
38
-------
Manufactured Equipment Cost -"0.3333 ($500,000)
260
^221.3
-) = $195,790
When this approach is used with each of the components of construction cost,
the updated sum gives the subtotal of construction cost, and the updated
total construction cost is obtained by adding 15 percent to this updated
subtotal cost. Either this approach or the previously described approach
using the CCI may be used with the computer program contained in Volume 4.
t
Updating of total operation and maintenance costs may be accomplished
by updating the three individual components: Energy, labor, and maintenance
material. Energy and labor are updated by applying the current unit costs
to the kilowatt-hour and labor requirements obtained from the energy and
labor curves. Maintenance material costs, which are presented in terms of
dollars per year, can be updated using the Producer Price Index for
Finished Goods. The maintenance material costs in this report are based
on an October 1978 Producer Price Index for Finished Goods of 199.7
FIRMS THAT SUPPLIED COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
During the development of both construction and operation and mainten-
ance cost curves, a large number of equipment manufacturers and other firms
were contacted to determine cost and technical information. The help
provided by those firms that did respond is sincerely appreciated, for the
information furnished was instrumental in assuring a high level of accuracy
for the curves. The manufacturers and other firms that provided input to
this study were:
Acrison, Inc.
Advance Chlorination Equipment
Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.
Aquafine Corporation
BIF, a Division of General Signal Corporation
Bird Centrifuge
Capital Control Company
Ralph B. Carter Company
Chemical Separations Corporation
Chicago Bridge and Iron Company
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company
Chromalloy, L.A. Water Treatment Division
Clarkson Industries, Inc., Hoffman Air & Filtration Division
Colt Industries, Inc., Fairbanks Morse Pump Division
Continental Water Conditioning
Copeland Systems
Crane Company, Cochrane Environmental Systems
Curtiss-Wright Corporation
DeLaval Turbine, Inc.
Dorr-Oliver, Inc.
Dravo Corporation
The Duriron Company, Inc., Filtration Systems Division
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, Inc.
The Eimco Corporation
39
-------
Electrode Corporation, Subsidiary of Diamond Shamrock Corporation
Englehard Industries
Envirex, Inc. - A Rexnord Company
Environmental Conditioners
Environmental Elements Corp., Subsidiary of Koppers Co., Inc.
Envirotech Corporation
Fischer and Porter Company
FMC Corporation
General Filter Company
Infilco Degremont, Inc.,
Ionics, Inc.
Johns-Manville
Kaiser Chemicals
Keystone Engineering
Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation
Merck & Co., Inc., Calgon Company
Mixing Equipment Company, Inc.
Morton-Norwick Products, Inc., Morton Salt Company
Muscatine Sand and Gravel
Nash Engineering Company
Neptune Micro Floe, Inc.
Nichols Engineering & Research Corp., Neptune International Corp.
Northern Gravel Company
Ozark-Mahoning Company
Pacific Engineering & Production Company of Nevada
PACO
R.H. Palmer Coal Company
Passavant Corporation
PCI Ozone Corp., A Subsidiary of Pollution Control Industries, Inc.
Peabody Welles, Inc.
Peerless Pump
Pennwalt Corporation
The Permutit Company, Inc., Division of Sybron Corporation
Reading Anthracite Company
Robbins & Meyers, Inc., Moyno Pump Division
Rohm and Haas Company, Fluid Process Chemicals Department
Shirco, Inc.
D.R. Sperry & Company
Sybron Corporation, R.B. Leopold Co. Division
TOMOC02 Equipment Company
Union Carbide Corporation - Linde Division
Universal Oil Products Company, Fluid Systems Division
U.S. Filter Co., Inc., Calfilco Division
Westvaco Corporation, Chemical Division
Western States Machine Company
Worthington Pump, Inc.
Zimpro, Inc.
40
-------
SECTION 5
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
INTRODUCTION
To demonstrate the use of the construction and operation and maintenance
cost curves included in Volume 2 and 3, a series of examples has been prepared.
These examples, which are for a variety of different treatment schemes at
various capacities, ares
1, 70 gpm Package Complete Treatment Plant
2, 350 gpm Package Complete Treatment Plant
3. 700 gpm Package Complete Treatment Plant
4. 5 mgd Conventional Treatment Plant
5, 40 mgd Conventional Treatment Plant
6, 130 mgd Conventional Treatment Plant
7. 1 mgd Direct Filtration Plant
8. 10 mgd Direct Filtration plant
9. 100 mgd Direct Filtration Plant
10. 5 mgd Reverse Osmosis Plan
11. 5 mgd Ion Exchange Plant
12. 25 mgd Lime Softening Plant
13. 10 mgd Pressure Filtration Plant
14. 5 mgd Corrosion Control Facility
15. 2 mgd Pressure Granular Activated Carbon Plant
16, 20 mgd Pressure Granular Activated Carbon Plant
17. 110 mgd Gravity, Steel Granular Activated Carbon Plant
These examples are only for hypothetical situations, however, and the design
criteria and costs presented should be considered as general in nature and
not necessarily applicable to all plants having the same capacities as the
examples.
The examples illustrate the method of adding a number of special costs
to the subtotal obtained from the construction cost curves tb arrive at the
total capital cost for a project. These special costs are added to the
subtotal of the construction cost for all of the unit processes in the plant,
since they are more appropriately related to the subtotal of construction cost
than to the construction cost pf each individual unit process - These special
costs includes (1) special site work, landscaping, roads, and interface
piping between processesj (2) special subsurface considerations: and
(3) standby power. The special costs will vary widely depending on the site,
the design engineer's preference, and regulatory agency requirements. Addition
of these special costs to the subtotal cost of the unit processes gives the
total construction cost.
41
-------
To arrive at the total capital cost, the following costs must then be
added to the total construction cost: (1) general contractor's overhead and
profit, (2) engineering costs, (3) land costs, (4) legal, fiscal, and
administrative costs, and (5) interest during construction. Curves for these
costs, with the exception of engineering and land, are presented in Figures
5 through 9. A curve for engineering cost is not included, as the cost will
vary widely, depending on the need for preliminary studies, time delays,
the size and complexity of the project, and any construction-related
inspection and engineering design activities.
PACKAGE COMPLETE TREATMENT PLANT EXAMPLES
Package complete treatment plants include coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, and filtration, all included in factory preassembled units or
field*-assembled modules. Their relatively low initial cost, as well as the
low operation and maintenance cost that results from automatic control
features, makes package complete treatment facilities popular for small
installations.
Examples are presented for three capacities of package complete
treatment plants: 70 gpm, 350 gpm, and 700 gpm. All examples are for
complete and operable facilities, including raw water pumping, clearwell
storage, high service pumping, an enclosure for all facilities, and chemical
requirements. All plants in the examples were assumed to be operating at
70 percent of full capacity. Other than the capacity variation, the only
other key difference is the method of sludge disposal utilized. The 70 gpm
plant utilizes sand drying beds, the 350 gpm uses sludge lagoons, and the
700 gpm uses a sanitary sewer for sludge disposal,
The design criteria utilized, as well as the capital and annual cost
calculations, are presented in Tables 10 and 11 for the 70 gpm plant, in
Tables 12 and 13 for the 350 gpm plant, and in Tables 14 and 15 for the 700
gpm plant. The annual cost analysis indicates that economy of scale has a
substantial effect. Whereas the unit cost of water produced is 158.41
0/1,000 gal for the 70 gpm plant, it decreases to 64.76
-------
g
EC -I
UJ<
o u.
8|
12
11
10
2.5 5 10 25 50
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS, million dollars
100
Figure 5. General Contractor Overhead and Profit as Percent
of Total Construction Cost.
43
-------
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
|OO,0
7
6
5
4
x- '3
1
co 2
to
o
o
IO.OC
UJ q
*
C 6
fc 5
Z 4
i 3
<
0 2
<
_J
< IOOO
uT 8
< ;
ut
_J 4
3
2
100
00
)O
s
/
/
s
/
/
/
/
/
s
i
s
/
/
s
^
~?*~
S
s
s
s
*
t
r
2 34 56789 234 56789 234 56789
10,000 IOO.OOO I.OOO.OOO
SUM OF CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND LAND COSTS-$
Figure 6- Legal, fiscal and administrative costs for
projects less than $1 million.
44
-------
|
LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST - $
5 P 5
§ N w •*> 01 ai-*iai
-------
c
7
6
I
4
<
10,000
c
8
7
6
•vt- 5
i 4
O
u
U)
o
" 1000
1 e9
- 7
_T O
o 5
LU 3
K
UJ
5 2
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
IO
/
^
/A
f
/
V
x y
~7
/
/
M
^
'
/
y
y
y^~^
f —
*~?~
^
/
/A
'//
IO
8
6
%
%
%
m
3456789 IOO.OOO 2 3456789
SUBTOTAL OF ALL OTHER COSTS-
3 456789
Figure 8. Interest during construction for
projects less than $200,000.
46
-------
10,000,000
7
6
5
4
3
2
I.OOO.C
1
6
5
-w 4
1
•Z. 3
0
S 2
z>
K
1-
t/>
gioo.c
0 a
I ?e
K 5
i 4
1- 3
C/J
UJ
o: 2
U)
•z.
IO.OC
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1000
)00
)OO
)0
/
/,
//
//
v/
r/
/
^
/
/
r
/
7
Y
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
[/
//
/ r /
// /
'/ /
/ /
/
/
/
r
y,
/
/
j/ ^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
r
*
/
[/
10%
8°/
/
^
' /
< /
/
t
/
'/,
6°/c
/
^
/
/
x
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
yjt *
^ ^
^
lOO.OOO
34 56789 2
I.OOO.OOO
34 56789 2
lO.OOO.OOO
34 56789
lOO.OOO.OOO
SUBTOTAL OF ALL OTH^R COSTS-
Figure 9. Interest during construction for
projects greater than $200,000.
47
-------
I
CM
«,.,
BS
ca
d -
o a
4J *r
C r
•rl a
jg *•
S£
r-l
a>
3-x-
pt, h
;>
.-1 <
ft) 1—
w *
Q) 6
•H *-
O
>
O OOOOO . '
vo * !>J O OOOOO
M-J 0 A « A «l n n
tn f*-> ^d~ rH cnl en \o
«-i co 1-1 r-i I en
o ft o oo u-i
00 0 I III
*n - m o ' I ill
o o m o o
1-1 r* r-i »-< in
-H ^i cd
o eu CM
fo (OB «
4J E-l -ri U)
JO fi D. ? «J »M
u u u u m iu -H
•u jj — a) *a ^ m
(^ a> j^ CQ at o B
-3: ^ ra M u on
5 S4J S * 1 5 jT 1 £
a a> « a £ s"8 -s^
^^S-SjS^SgKg-g
oo >IUB«W S a
a a m u ra S .rfoygu
PWb COPUCQ CO COCO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
\ ' •
1 II 1 1 1 1 1
1 II 1 1 1 1 1
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 II 1 1 1 II
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 I 1
o o| o o o o b ol o
-* c-]lvoovooy3COO
i-) co|CT\rs..voinoTs-lo
O vO|^Oiricg VOINCN?
-* r-ll ITJ1' l-l 1^.' CO
•-* I r-l r-l ,-!
«•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i ill!!!!!
! !!!!!!!!
t3 a) s.a
e > K
a -H ^
• 1 § 2 ;
ll • ill
s » Si 3 tJ «
O *• • . S M
« 8 ^ * B | 8
ll ° 2 • . if 3
•Jr fc* u t-i >rt -H
2 J-» « « M •rf
** CJ ttO 03^"
5« «.s3cq.s-°3
rH^UoSjOo^^rH
COo-HuSiJ0 .Sffl
S sslllial 1
ai ^ e « a) d
U U _1 ,J M
8
a
3
E
48
-------
Table 11
Annual Cost for a 70 gpm
Package Complete Treatment Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . .
Labor, 2,118 hr @ $10/hr (Total
Labor Costs Including Fringes and
Benefits). . . .
Electricity, 71,110 kw-hr @ $0.03
Fuel, 40 gal @ $0.65
Maintenance Material
Chemicals, Alum, 2.2 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 55 Ib/yr @ $2/lb; "
Chlorine, 0.33 tons/yr @ $300/ton . .
Total Annual Cost*
Total Costs/year
$17,180
'•: 21,180
:•• -2,130
30
750
360
41,630
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated =
= 158.41(?/1,000 gal treated-
49
-------
I
rl rl
fl
M
• rt
O.
a
a
I
4J O
,Q S &5 cd
3 > rH r-t
13 4J H 4-1
o o
4-1 <1)
• -
o
00
d ri cn oo cn
m
o
B i
50
-------
Table 13
Annual Cost for a 350 gpm
Package Complete Treatment Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 3,254 hr <§ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes and Benefits)
Electricity, 233,017 kw-hr @ $0.03 . . ,
Fuel, 155 gal @ $0.65 ,
Maintenance Material ,
Chemicals, Alum, 11 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 264 Ib/yr @ $2/lb;
Chlorine, 1.6 tons/yr @. $300/gon . .
Total Costs/year
$ 40,100
32,540
6,990
100
1,850
1,810
Total Annual Cost*
83,390
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated
.o x 365
= 64.76
-------
r
cu *J
a «
O co
IH rH
B *
5 S
« §
eg g
«-) w
s a-i
0
•H
4J
O
H CQ
•U O
co O
c
o
o
M
C QJ
60 4J
•rl CU
to |
oi c3
(=) Pi
£
0
-*
en
en
en
•CO-
g.
00
0
o
o
rH
CM
in
•K
OJ (0
M r-l
al
S|
t-t
m
o
m
CO
o>
•r-C
JJ
•H
«
•H
^
0)
4J
e
c
00
•H
CO
O)
o
•§
CO
E
OI
*J
CO
>,
CO
rH
•iH
U
rt
h
g>
•H
CU
h
01
4J
S
OI
00
ca
^
U
03
i
jj
g
rH
CM
4-1
i
4J
ca
0)
M
E-i
CU
•U
0)
rH
g-
E
0
o
OI
CO
o
to
o
o
00
o"
r-
CN
I
to
O
o
r-
**
en
n
oj
I
00
m
' O
CT»
•*
m
a\
rH
rH
m
00
o
0
o
o
m
CN
vo
in
J£
C
co
H
rH
rH
CU
B
ctl
CU
rH
0
J3
CO
i l
-*
m '
m
m
c
o
>iH
4-1
«a IH -
4J CU
™ g
00 CO
c
•rH 5*.
i- s
3 4-)
^ 'c c
CD ca
U CO
•H
> i
M M
Q) rH
co ca
CO -1
x; o
oo a. >•
•H CO rH
B -H ca
Q •" ^
CU 0
00 CU W
ca oo ^
^•03
O 3 CO 4
ca «-H
1
1
o
-3-
CO
vO
-3-
in
i i
i i
0 O
CN VO
vD -*
in CN
VO rH
VO
1 1 1
1 1 1
o o o
in rH O
CN r-» CN
rH Cn rH
VD p-«
vo
I
I
o
en
en
CN
i— i
I i
I I
0 O
SCO
vD
en O
CN rH
Sf
onsiderations
CJ
CU
u
n
m
t4
3
CO
J3
3
CO
£
1
>>
.a
•§
CO
4J
CO
truction Cost
(0
P:
5
4J
fi
ractors Overhead and
0
enera
o
4-)
•H
u-c
s
PM
rH
CO
4->
0
4J
1
s-«
o
£
•H
CU
CU
a
•H
00
U
CU
M
0
0
O
0
CN
CO
01
|-i
CJ
n «
CO vo
4-1
O o
4J ^
-§ -
CO g
rJ
1 and Administrative
o
CO
•iH
rv.
CO
00
rJ
ing Construction - 7!
3
CU
M
0)
4J
c
M
0)
cS
4J
•H
tO
O
2
S
52
-------
Table 15
Annual Cost for a 700 gpm
Package Complete Treatment Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 3,824 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits)
Electricity, 421,870 kw-hr @ $0.03 . .
Maintenance Material .
Sludge Disposal .
Chemicals, Alum, 22 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 548 Ib/yr @ $2/lb;
Chlorine, 3.3 tons/yr @ $300/ton . .
Total Annual Cost*
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated =
Total Costs/year
$ 67,080
38,240
12,660
2,400
240
3,610
124,230
720 (365)
= 47.27
-------
The design capacity utilized and the capital and annual cost calculations
are presented in Tables 16 and 17 for the 5 mgd plant, in Tables 18 and 19
for the 40 mgd plant, and in Tables 20 and 21 for the 130 mgd plant. The unit
cost of water produced drops as- the size of the plant increases, but the drop
is not as dramatic as in the previous examples for package complete treatment
plants. For the three conventional plants, the unit cost decreased from 31.05
0/1,000 gal for the 5 mgd plant, to 18.12 0/1,000 gal for the 40 mgd plant,
to 13.39 0/1,000 gal for the 130 mgd plant. It should be recognized that
these unit costs are based upon a 70 percent utilization of plant capacity.
DIRECT FILTRATION PLANTS
For water supplies with a low turbidity and a low suspended solids
concentration, direct filtration may be utilized at a resultant cost savings
over a typical conventional filtration plant. Because the settling basin
and its associated sludge collection apparatus are eliminated, a substantial
initial capital cost savings results. Operation and maintenance costs are
also reduced because there is less equipment to maintain.
Examples are presented for direct filtration plants of three capacities;
1 mgd, 10 mgd, and 100 mgd. Other than the capacity variations, the only
other major difference is the method of sludge handling. The 1 mgd plant
uses a sanitary sewer for sludge disposal; the 10 mgd plant uses a sludge
storage lagoon; and the 100 mgd plant uses gravity thickening, a filter
press, and sludge disposal by hauling to landfill. Each example is for a
complete and operable plant, including raw water pumping, clearwell storage,
and finished water pumping^ All plants were assumed to be operating at 70
percent of design capacity.
The design criteria utilized and the capital and annual cost calculations
are shown in Tables 22 and 23 for the 1 mgd plant, in Tables 24 and 25 for
the 10 mgd plant, and in Tables 26 and 27 for the 100 mgd plant. A substantial
decrease in annual cost occurs between 1 and 10 mgd, decreasing from 63.04
to 18.87 0/1,000 gal. The annual cost variation between the 10 and 100 mgd
plants is substantially less, decreasing from .18.87 to 12.20 c/1,000 gal.
These cost calculations are based on operation at 70 percent of design
capacity.
REVERSE OSMOSIS EXAMPLE
As shown in Tables 4, 5, and 7, reverse osmosis can remove a substantial
number of the contaminants included in the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations, This example is for a complete, 5 mgd reverse osmosis
plant, including clearwell storage, chlorination disinfection, and finished
water pumping,
The design criteria and the capital and annual cost calculations are
shown in Tables 28 and 29, The estimated annual cost for a 5 mgd plant
operating at 70 percent of capacity is 78.68 o/l.,000 gal treated.
54
-------
SO
*o
! f
B-g
o o o o
I I
CO r-t
i ! i
«n' S
o o o o
o o o o
•U OJ CM CM
00
CM f-t
a -£?
IM co
o\
-*
*^> CO
oo o
§o S °-
o •-« o
f- r-» en \o
gtQ
T-<
tn en
o co
CM r-(
CM •-( T-«
I !
j a
5-
O ft 03 rH
&~ 5
Laborator
uilding
g"
3?,
Administrat
Main tenant
Subtotal
a
•i-t
a
•H
At
CO
4J
to
8
1
a
g
8
tH
0)
4J
1
i
4J
U
M
*J
General Con
PrpfJ.t
Subtotal
^s
o
a
Engineering
Subtotal
S
u
to
g
o
CM*
<*>
tn
-------
Table 17
Annual Cost for a 5 mgd
Conventional Treatment Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 9,350 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits)
Electricity, 725,530 kw-hr @ $0.03 . .
Fuel, 3,810 gal @ $0.65/gal
Maintenance Material
Chemicals, Alum, 219 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 1,825 Ib/yr @ $2/lb;
Sodium Hydroxide, 100 tons/yr @ $200/ton;
Chlorine, 9 tons/yr @ $300/ton
Total Annual Cost
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated
$396,610 (100)
3,500 (365)
Total Costs/year
$ 223,140
93,500
21,770
2,480
13,930
41,790
396,610
31.05
-------
§ 5
! ! ! i
o > >1
n"£
cf
2 i
D* cd
O CM
C
O
•H
JJ
U
£t tn
0) U
& a
jj
•H a)
•,
cd
•o
o
o
o
m
CO
CO
CO
CO
1
§
JJ
10
£
Sodium Hydroxide Feed
15 mg/1
0 O
CO CO
CM f-l
vo *
cd co
TJ JJ
--». n-t
5 «
CO
r*. r*.
vO CM
CO CM
CM m
CM" -T
CM m
CM in
1
o
Cvl O
• vO
i
>
cd
5 '
o
in
"*
O O
CO CO
ON O
CO CM
VO r-<
o\
r-l
bO
| I
r-l 0
O
o m
vD CM
CM
„ O
r-l CM
c
3
r-4 0
"-*. I-l
s
CM S
Chlorine Feed System -
Clearwell Storage - Be
o o
-* -*
VO rH
ON )
g g
0 O
O CM
O O
r-l rH
co in
-------
Table 19
Annual Cost for a 40 mgd
Conventional Treatment Plant
Item;
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . . .
Labor, 30,534 hr $ $10/hr, (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits)
Electricity, 7,560,510 kw-hr @ $0.03
Fuel, 4,820 gal @ $0.65/gal
Maintenance Material
Chemical, Alum, 1,533 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 16,425 Ib/yr @ $2/lb;
Sodium Hydroxide, 602 tons/yr @ $200/ton;
Chlorine, 82 tons/yr @ $300/ton ....
Total Costs/year
$ 975,460
305,340
226,820
3,130
55,900
285,250
Total Annual Cost*
. $1.851,900 (100)
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated = 28 000 (365)
= 18.120/1,000 gal treated
1,851,900
58
-------
CN i-l 10
O r-r .-i
0) •-<
W (fl
(U 60
O O O O
o o o o
to co cn t-f
2? ^? -! -*
O
CM
«J
I
O
UH
1
re
rH
3
U
-3
O
^
g
U
1
•H
0)
4J
tl
U
1
4J
c
w
4J
1
*d
%
0
CO
60
O
•H
(8
o>
Q.
O
§
•H
O
(H
4J
°
•i-l
CO
O I**
IO CM <-t
O
CM
cr\
S
cn
CM
CN
CM
^
CM
S
<=
VO
10
IO
to
CO
CN CTi
»H CO
o i^T o
•£»
S R °.
JO CM CN
CN »
<± ^n o * O O
CO
1— 1
VD
T-t
•£>
Oi
co"
r*.
O
CN
cn
cs
1
Chlorine Feed Systera
0
§
S
g
s
1
i-H
01
(!)
?— 1
O
r
g>
Finished Water Pumpi
Gravity Thickener
(0
s
a.
t-i
-------
Table 21
Annual Cost for a 130 mgd
Conventional Treatment Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 64,969 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .
Electricity, 23,876,230 kw-hr @ $0.03
Fuel, 5,540 gal @ $0.65/gal .....
Maintenance Material
Chemicals, Alum, 3,942 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 51,100 Ib/yr $ $2/lb;
Chlorine, 237 tons/yr @ $300/ton ...
Total Costs/year
$ 2,458,890
649,690
716,290
3,600
122,070
499,320
Total Annual Cost
4,399,890
*Centers Per LOGO ga! «eated - '
= 13.39
-------
vo o\ o
en m co o
o o o
O O O O
.60 M
C 0)
•H 4J
<§•«!
O rf -(
3 4J
H m
•u o
0000
IA CO o oo o e^ ^
CM "
D Ot O
n CM en
•) col o
1 C3l CO
>
CM CM
IM 14-1
"I g
CM
O
CM
O
CM
4J
1
I
a>
•g.
s
(U
U
1
O
CM
cr»
vo
r-4
f
O
CM
I
1
4J
CO
CO
CU
cu
en
CM
CM
CM
CM
00
i-t
O
1
4-1
03
w"
T3
CU
1
M
cd •
4J
•rH
-§
CO
1
i-H
cd
CO
o
CU rH
CO --,
•rH 00
O S
cu o
60O
T3 O
m
T— (
CM
H
& B~9
qj m
4J
-H C2J
1
1
rations
cu
3
S
8
CU
CJ
cd
UH
3
CO
3
! i
4-1
CO
3
g
•H
U
3
M
rH 4J
CU CO
§c
o
.0. cd
C O
cd EH
4-1
!
fs Overhead and
}H
o
4J
O
cd
h
4J
CJ
rH 4J
cd -H
CU O
§£
1
1
r-H
cd
4J
o
4-1
3
CO
t
1
o
t-H
4J
cd
-H
[H
CU
CU
c
•H
00
«
i
r-H
cd
4-1
O
4J
Is
CO
61
-------
Table 23
Annual Cost for a 1 mgd
Direct Filtration Plant
Item;
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years
Labor, 5,524 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .
Electricity, 520,000 kw-hr @ $0.03 . . .
Maintenance Material
Sludge Disposal
Chemicals, Alum, 21,9 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 182.5 Ib/yr @ $2/lb;
Chlorine, 1.8 tons/yr @ $300/ton . . .
Total Annual Cost*
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated =
Total Costs/year
$ 79,100
55,240
15,600
6,670
2,000
2,450
161,060
= 63.040/1,000 gal treated
62
-------
en CM CO O m CO O
CM
a
ooooooooooooo
CO CtJ
> >
Ll rl
Q> JJ
C 1
W 3
.M
U) rl
C 01
•rt 4J
4J (U
eo i
rt 8
QJ ri
a. eo
O CU
a
o
•rt
4J
O
3 4J
rt (0
4J O
W O
a
5
a S
60 4J
• H (D
(U C?
CH rl
5
0) CO
rl rt
3 CD
00,0
£ 1
*?
u
£
4J
•H
rt
U
g
•H
CO
0)
Q
1
4-1
a
>
CO
§
m
s
en
i-H
*o
§
o
VO
CO
s"
•CO-
TS
I1
tn
r-i
o
01
O
CM
O
CM
j-
£
4J
0
O
rH
1
I
CU
n
s
1
IS
§
•*
-*
T-l
rt
43
43
i-l
O
O
CTi
CO
vD
CM
Ll
JS
,0
O
r-
o
«"
T-l
•X)
rH
rH
>
S
1
S
a>
4J
CO
>.
CO
•t)
>
cd
-o
Xt
r-l
O
r-.
rH
O
CM
i?
•a
5
cn
00
en
.
CM
i-4
O
1
g
4-1
CO
£
CD
CD
1
O
O O
CO CO
cn vo
r-. -*
CM en
S1
TJ
--. cn
.0 4J
r-l (4-1
O CO
O CM
O O
m -d-
r- en
CM CM
>>
cd
T3
"•s. en
JZ 4-1
rH MH
r- co
rH Cn
CM
en *
* m
CM
I-l
Cd)
CM O
vr>
; &
§ .
4J
o) a
ra 's
I ^
m •£
•rl
r) T3
O -H
JS cd
O O
m co
o m
en en
vo r-
CM
en
4J
4-1 CM
4J
0 H-l
in o
- 0
CO **
o o
\O VD
CM CM
r-4 VO
cn
4-1
IH CM «
JJ
o m
P-.
m o
CO* §
t-t 1-1
VO O^
m co
m vo
en r-
CM
4-1
§m
-^.
O Cu
• in
.S ,
ion - 20 m:
iltration •
cd
CJ .rt
o >
r-l t-l
0 0
in
CO
cn
t-t
CM
4->
4-1
O
§
0 0
cn r-
rH t-»
3 S"
M CM
4-1 4J
»W 4-1
O O
0 0
-3- -*
r-l rH
O
m
!-.
o -
1 f
(0 0}
O
m
T-t
00
\o
m
rH
O
rH
rH
oC
O
T-t
^
CO
o
«
4-t
m
en
Pumping -
4J
S
CM
C
0 0
-^
CTN
f-l
l^>
1 T3
§>
§o
r-
CM 0
H
rH *H
O O O
co en
•*" m ,
S S ! i
*> «*
en -*
r- «-H
to
•o
CO
T3 0
C P^
CO
& |
O *rt
4J CU
CtJ -H
i g g1
0 ,0 -H QJ
60 cd -O O
CO rJ rH CO
J .? tl
a §H s
Cd *H Q) fi
rl 4-1 O M
0 CO fi iH
4J rl CO CO
CO 4J C 4-1 ^4
CU «H 4-1 4-1 O
bO (3 C W3 5 S*S
•O *H *rl 3 CD m
3 0 CO CO 4J
III III
III III
III I I [
tii lit
o o o o o o
o~i \o in cn
cn cn cn co
r*- o co -*
o -* si- CM
O CM CM CM
CM CM"
! i III
! ! ! Ill
T)
TJ
nj
0)
CO 4J rl
SCO (U
0 >
•H CJ O
4J
CO CJ W
Li O -
01 i-l L)
13 4-1 O B^S
•H O 4J O
CO 3 CJ rH
C rl CO
O JH 4J Ll Gy
U CD 05 4J
0) g g g ,-, g
O FL, U CJ co *H
CO 4-1 Ll
H ^3 CO -OJ -rl 4-1 (U
3 T3 4J Ll UH »J3 C
to fi O CD O 3 TI
•Q CO EH CJ Li W Oi
54-1 0) PH p
>
o
63
-------
Table 25
Annual Cost for a 10 mgd
Direct Filtration Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 9,847 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .
Electricity, 3,094,090 kw-hr @ $0.03 .
Fuel, 560 gal @ $0.65/gal
Maintenance Material . . . . . . . . . .
Chemicals, Alum, 219 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 1,825 Ib/yr @ $2/lb;
Chlorine, 18.25 tons/yr @ $300/ton .
Total Annual Cost* . .
Total Costs/year
$ 249,120
98,470
92,820
360
16,780
24.460
482,010
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated =
= 18.87c?y 1,000 gal treated
64
-------
m in
en en
:l
O O
S S
O O O
i !
OOOO
OOOOOO
O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
r-i *o oo CM a\ a\ C3\ O " O O
- « m o o o co - o
rncs •> in o f^- P*> -"d" o
a a
.a
CO O\ O
vD I^. CTi
i ! !
i !.
S-n
«
llSrt
OOO.-H
O OOT3
vO « (U
B • m »
°
S P3
ft <3)
1
&
(0 D
8 g
I -"
4J O
3 O
rH rj 4J
ci) rt -H
O (U O
H ss
•j C •-!
CO iH «
4J }-( 4-»
a
J S
s s
W 13
£ u
. 3
SO)
4J
65
-------
Table 27
Annual Cost for a 100 mgd
Direct Filtration Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 44,072 @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .
Electricity, 33,071,200 kw-hr @ $0.03
Fuel, 5,540 gal @ $0.65/gal
Maintenance Material
Chemicals, Alum, 2,190 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 18,250 Ib/yr @ $2/lb;
Chlorine, 200.8 tons/yr @ $300/ton . .
Total Annual Cost*
Total Costs/year
$ 1,343,660
440,720
992,140
3,600
86,870
250,030
3,117,020
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated
$3,117,020 (100)
70,000 (365)
= 12.200/1,000 gal treated
66
-------
o o o o
2
.2
4J
Construe
Cost
§
O
CO
•w-
1
m
i-<
So
en
co r-
r- m
r-* CO
O
m
r-
CM
t-H
o o o
O
m
tn
CM
t-i
en
o
(N
en
o
3
en
r-.
o-\
en"
O O O
O CM *O
01
O
1
s
^
o
I
CO
B
"o.
a 6
M o
4J *H
8 I
K Tt
3 a,
T3 nj
*fl fl) O
60 4J H
01 e
67
-------
Table 29
Annual/Cost for a 5 mgd
Reverse Osmosis Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 3,138 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .
Electricity, 8,915,740 kw-hr @ $0.03 .
Maintenance Material
Chemicals, Sulfuric Acid, 190 tons/yr @ $65/ton;
Sodium Hexameta Phos., 38 tons/yr @ $650/ton;
Chlorine, 19 tons/yr @ $300/ton
Total Costs/year
$ 400,670
31,380
267,470
263,810
41.800
Total Annual Cost*
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated =
_ $1,005,130 (100)
3,500 (365)
1,005,130
= 78.680/1,000 gal treated
68
-------
PRESSURE ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING PLANT
Like reverse osmosis, ion exchange softening can be used to remove many
of the contaminants included in the Interim Regulations, as shown in Tables
4, 5, and 6. This example is for a 5 mgd plant using pressure ion exchange
softening. The plant is complete and operable, including chlorination,
clearwell storage, and finished water pumping.
The design criteria and the capital and annual cost calculations are
shown in Tables 30 and 31. The estimated annual cost for the 5 mgd plant
operating at 70 percent of capacity is 24.82 e/1,000 gal. This unit cost is
substantially less than that for water produced by a reverse osmosis plant
of equal size, indicating that if both processes remove the contaminant
or contaminants of concern, pressure ion exchange softening would normally
be the process selected.
LIME SOFTENING PLANT EXAMPLE
Tables 4 a»d 5 illustrate that lime'softening may be used to remove
many of the contaminants included in the Interim Regulations, This example
is for a typical 25 mgd lime-softening plant operating at 70 percent of
capacity, or 17,5 mgd. The plant includes chemical feed systems, upflow
solids contact clarification, and recarbonation using stack gas,
filtration, clearwell storage, and finished water pumping. Lime was assumed
to be dewatered using a basket centrifuge and then recalcined for reuse,
Waste sludge was hauled to landfill.
The design criteria and the capital and annual cost calculations are
shown in Tables 32 and 33, The estimated annual cost for this 25-mgd
plant operating at 17.5 mgd is 24.57
-------
vo
r~
CM
O
\D CO
o
CO
vO
o o
o
r-
o
m
m
60 •»•
M H
O O O O O O
VO O VD in rH
CM vO O OO Ov
r^ vo co m o
CM !•» rH i-t f-
m rH in
CO
o
CO
B
§ f*
« "g
» 8.
B Cl)
I f
•
r
in
60 >-i
B 01
4-1 01
2 I
01 M
p. cd
O CM
•a •«
60 60
in in
CO CO
•o
J3
00
CO
•o
I?
g
•H
Construe
Cost
0 0
o\ in
•* vO
CM in
VO CO
o
00
o>
rH
O
OO
00
rH
0
P-
O
00
CM
i-t
0
CO
r-
in
oo
o
o
o
o\
o o o
m
ON
CO
o
r-
o
o
rH
O
CM
VO
Ov
CO
CT\
O
VO
Ov
CO
Ov
o
00
m
CO
CO
0
rH
000
O CO vO
O VO •*
CO t— rH
iH in
o
CM
t*~
m
0
rH
rH
B 01
60 4J
•rl 0)
to @
01 cd
0 13
cd
•o
60
o
§
m
oo
o B
CO O
vo in oo
vo
O
m
o
CM
00
o
B
60
• rf
1
00
B
•i-l
g
4J
IH
o
co
01
B°
cd
1
4J
B
CO
rH
I
•o
01
0)
fa
01
•o
•H
X
o
•a m
O i-l
CO
rH
in
iH
1
5,
CO
•a
01
01
01
.s
u
0
I-t
6
- Ground Level 20'
01
00
cd
l-i
o
4J
00
I-l
rH
g
cd
01
rH
CJ
0
CM
3
4J
O
O
CM
1
60
B
• H
B.
cu
u
a
4J
B
•O
01
•g
•i-t
B
• H
fa
rH
cd
4-1
O
4J
,0
3
U
ce Piping, Roads
cd
IH
H
01
4J
B
M
U
0
01 LTJ
4-1
• H
tsi
CO
01
0
cd
in
•"*
•C3
B
cd
d Administrative
g
ft
I-l
cd
o
CO
rH
cd
60
01
onstruction - 7%
CJ
60
B
• rt
3
4-1
01
01
01
4J
5
4-1
tfl
O
CJ
rH
cd
4J
•H
P.
cd
CJ
rH
cd
4J
C-4
70
-------
Table 31
Annual Cost for a 5 mgd
Ion Exchange Softening Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 4,276 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .
Electricity, 1,303,680 kw-hr @ $0.03 .
Maintenance Material
Chemicals, Salt, 3,130 tons/yr @ $30/ton;
Sodium Hydroxide, 80 tons/yr @ $200/ton;
Chlorine, 8.03 tons @ $300/ton ....
Total Annual Cost*
Total Costs/year
$ 104,370
42,760
39,110
18,550
112,290
317,080
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated
$317,080 (100)
3,500 (365)
24.82
-------
r^ co 1-1
SCO CO
-a- in
— •-•-.« »
CM CO
5 ° ° §
CO *H CMl CM
-I
s s
000
Sooooooooo
io -a- vo CM en *o
O\ 1^1 CO •* f*- i—I f*»
10 00* CM* • oT CM CO
OOO O O OOOOOOOOOO
fi-g
o o o o
_^ o o o
•Bl ~ jo c.
s s
~ » -
•* •*
-------
Table 33
Annual Cost for a 25 mgd
Lime Softening Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years ......
Labor, 33,352 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) . . .
Electricity, 6,573,630 kw-hr @ $0.03 . . .
Fuel, 630 gal @ $0.65/gal
Natural Gas, 33,129,3.20 scf @ $O.Q013/scf
Maintenance Material ...........
Chemicals, Lime, 788.4 tons/yr @ $65/ton;
Chlotine, 66.6 tons/yr @ $300/ton . . .
Total Annual Cost
Total Costs/year
$ 871,480
333,520
197,210
410
43,070
52,230
71,230
1,569,150
per 1>000 gal
24.57(?/l,000 gal treated
73
-------
O i-"
a a
ai oc
s~\
&H
Era
«•?
o
CO
o
o
o
CM
O
in
m
0
r-
-a-
o
CM
0
T-H
t-»
in
r^
tr\
•a CM CM CM
ooo
en en 'co
° "e
*^ a
J*
fi s-
O
oo
0_
o"
en -* en en
00-
r-1 - O
CJ O O
m in co
n
a
S " cs"
» CM
•• CM
«. »-4 CO
s
'a
4J
tn
c1
P4
jj
§
t—|
?
S
CO
CM
I
4J
CO
S1
t)
a
•H
jj
o
T-l
6
"*> .
eo
1
S
5
4J
CO
>t
60
-a
0)
a)
W
j-i
T-l
£
4J
CO
?S
CO
-o
s
(M
(U
T3
•i-t
X
O
V4
*o
fi1-!
B W"
3 S
•rl
TS 10
0 ^
CO
JJ
g
r-l
CM
g
•H
3
^
*J
i-l
•H
fe
«
t4
S
CO
09
0)
V"
P4
1
00
00
T*
1
Pumping
Backwash
Basin
OJ
1
h
a
1
t>
§
o
(U
o
4J
cn
Clearwell
in
i-t
i
bO
i
i^
0)
4-1
S
Finished
g
!
ij
0)
SP
IJ
o
0)
bO
rH
CO
Laboratory,
Llding
g"S
^H
O
4J
•§
CO
&-S
o
i-H
<&J
%
•H
I
S
i-4
2
S
•§
CO
-------
Table 35
Annual Cost for a 10 mgd
Pressure Filtration Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years . . .
Labor, 9,419 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .
Electricity, 2,655,210 kw-hr @ $0.03 .
Fuel, 330 gal @ $0.65/gal
Maintenance Material
Chemicals, Chlorine 22 tons/yr @ $70/ton;
Polymer, 2,920 Ib/yr @ $2/lb*
Sodium Hydroxide, 161 tons/yr @ $200/ton
Total Annual Cost*
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated
$417,540 (100)
7,000 (365)
Total Costs/year
$ 181,630
94, 190
79,6.60
210
17,320
44,530
417,540
= 16.34£/1,000 gal treated
75
-------
This example is for corrosion control by the addition of lime. The facility
was assumed to have a 5 mgd capacity and operate at 3.5 mgd. The lime feed
rate was 30 mg/1.
The capital and annual cost calculations are shown in Tables 36 and 37,
The estimated capital cost is $95,750, and the annual cost would be 2.16
0/1,000 gal.
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON PLANT EXAMPLES
Granular activated carbon has great versatility for the removal of
organic compounds, including trihalomethanes, from water. Generally, the
smaller installations are pressure, and larger installations are gravity
flow using large-diameter steel contactors or concrete contactors similar
to rapid sand filter structures.
Examples are presented for three different capacity granular activated
carbon plants: 2 mgd, 20 mgd, and 110 mgd. The two smaller plants operate
using pressure steel contactors, and the 110 mgd plant operates using gravity
steel contactors. Another difference is the method of carbon regeneration
utilized. The 2 mgd facility uses off-site regional regeneration and assumes
that the 2 mgd plant is 5 percent of the amount of carbon regenerated at the
regional facility. The 20 mgd plant uses on-site carbon infrared carbon
regeneration, and the 110 mgd plant uses on-site, multiple-hearth regeneration,
Each example is for a complete and operable plant, including raw water pumping,
chlorination, clearwell storage, and finished water pumping.
The design criteria utilized and the capital and annual cost calculations
are shown in Tables 38 and 39 for the 2 mgd example, in Tables 40 and 41 for
the 20 Egd example, and in Tables 42 and 43 for the 110 mgd example,
76
-------
! : i
" 1
I
as
o o
co in
o r-
•H a)
in B
0) CO
md Design Criteria
u
l^i
CO
l-l
ttO
B
8
g
4J
CO
r-i
'S «
& °
« •§
_g «
iterface Piping, Roads
•g
§B-S
Q) U*i
.tJ®
cn
Considerations
s
CO
M-l
(4
3
(0
*o
5
er
struction Cost
^ a
T> U
B O
JJ
CO
•s
CO
•s
0)
1
CO
8
JJ
O
CO
r-4 JJ
OJ-H
l-l U-l
ss.
S*
i-H
m
jj
o
4-1
•§
CO
s
JJ
cd
bO
eerin
c
•rt
g>
u
rH
3
O
JJ
•§
CO
S
S
g
O
CM
rH
g CO
V4 4J
a> o
S^
E
77
-------
Table 37
Annual Cost for a 5 mgd
Corrosion Control Facility
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years
Labor, 702 hr @ $10/hr, (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) ,
Electricity, 26,770 kw-hr @ $0.03 . .
Maintenance Material
Chemicals, Lime, 153 tons/yr @ $65/ton
Total Annual Cost* . .
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated
$27,610 (100)
3.5 (365)
Total Costs/year
$ 9,040
7,020
800
790
9.960
27,610
- 2.160/1,000 gal treated
78
-------
v0 O O O
III!
O O O O
5 T
H 3
s
U
(0
3
4-1
«1
3
1
d
5
•S
4-1
•H
!
0)
.3
4J
^
r-l
ca
tH
3
B
d
6
0)
U
tion Operating
Parameter
O
24-1
m
•u o
w o
o
o
*o
£
-*
rH
O
co"
CO
•co-
co
4-1
3
c§
1
0)
2
O
4-1
W
rH
rH
01
U
CO
\D
O
CM
m
0
CM
»3-
O
CM
€
U
0
m
i
DO
a
o<
V4
s
s
•o
4J
•g
'H
c
«H
h
H .-1 *-l| CM
CT\ .-< ,-) T-tl CM
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 I 1 1
i i i i i
i riii
•2
§
«
S
3 1
5 £
a m
o -
3 o1
S S 2
M CO
4J >•»
d d
M
01 QJ
4j d
i I I I d oi
1111 S g1
D* H
O
a
V] O
r- o *O O O 3 d rH
CN d O O d tH O
co PI d
•CO- M rH 0) -H
•> C d i-t W
CO tH t-t 4-1 3 *H W
0) d V4 fH 60 43 «rt
S S ^ & g " „
d -H U CO t»
fe 4-1 | 0) M
CM CO rH g D
•> a ca oi 3 y
g s
« -3
79
-------
Table 39
Annual Cost for a 2 mgd
Pressure Granular Activated Carbon Plant
Item:
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years ,,..,,
Labor, 5,116 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .. , . .
Electricity, 674,950 kw-hr @ $0,03
Natural Gas, 3,973,960 scf @ $0,0013/scf , ,
Fuel, 3,380 gal @ $0.65/gal ,
Maintenance Material , « ,
Chemicals, Chlorine, 2.7 tons/yr @ $300/ton
Total Annual Cost*
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated
$248.890 C100)
1,400 (365)
Total Costs/year
$ 123,740
51,160
20,250
5,170
2,200
45,550
820
248,890
48.710/1,000 gal treated
80
-------
V,",?!
o >i
•s "a
-j j=i
! i
00*-.
H H
II
5
H
o
• H
JJ
O
<
H
CO
rH
3
S
CO
Vl
0
n to
(U VI
O (H
B
O
•H
JJ
U
3 JJ
H CQ
4-1 0
W O
B
O
U
' O CO GO IT)
0000
•a co .H
A
rH
O
! i
iteria
o
60
•rl
CO
(1)
a
1
11
CO
CO
=§
JJ
0
1
oo
£
I
u
8
M
.5
O
CN
CO
g
JJ
o
R)
jj
O
O
g
•s
CtJ
(1) C-l
Pressurt
E.B.G/
cn
4J
UH
i-H
vD
CN
bO
6
B
0
•B
(0
u
Initial
CN
4J
UH
00
0
rH
I
bO
d
•rH
_«
Backwasl
.s
CO
pp
0)
00
CO
JJ
CO
CO
ct)
at ion
S
a)
00
fA
a
o
TJ
Infrar e<
(U
00
CU
1
ti
0
H !H
ct) ^t
c
P< 0)
3 00
1 0)
0) r-t
CO vO
rH
^
in
rH
1
S
0)
jj
GO
C
•H
0)
!
M
rH
JJ
0
4J
3
CO
QJ
H
O
O
0
O
CN
•W-
-------
Table 41
Annual Cost for a 20 mgd Pressure
Granular Activated Carbon Plant
Item: Total Costs/year
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years $ 574,370
Labor, 13,801 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits)
Electricity, 6,622,860 kw-hr @ $0.03
Maintenance Material ....
Chemicals, Chlorine, 27.4 tons/yr @ $300/ton . . .
Total Annual Cost*
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated
$1,064,870 (100)
14,000 (365)
138,010
198,690
145,590
8,210
1,064,870
20.84<:/1,000 gal treated
82
-------
CO
M
o
m
d
O
*H
rt
i-H
»
O
iH
3
4-1
-o
tfl
•rt
S
•U
•H
!H
O
*ffl
(=1
4J
i-H
H4
g
.Q
14
•H
4J
5
15
iH
1
H
O
i-H
0)
0)
4J
CO
>»
4J
•r<
^
m
H
6
T3
M
ef
o
t-H
i-H
* M
J;-q
« M
•4 .SI
S*
isT
E r-i
0) CO
4J *H
B H
•H O
S |
CO
U U
to J*(
3 U
4J •
CO W
^
bO"-^
J? M
0) .d
w j*
bQ M
4J 0)
2 1
P. «
B
o
•rt
*J , . rH
4J O CO
|2 |
o o
0 O
o o
0 O
1 1
o o
oo en
r*- r~
m ^-1
CN
aw
tm o
o
CO
r-*
CN
-T o
r^. co
1
DO
0 -H
r-t m
bo 0)
S 00
a" <3
0)
1 ^
1 1
CN
0
r*.
r-t
i
0
vO
r-l
O
O
CM
r-4
n
O
CM
O
VO
r-
ON
CO
^
CM
4J
0
13
g
rH
S
CM
CM
4J
ON
O
in
m
* bO
n)
-^ o
r-4 ft
O
O 0
CO O
r-< P-
co
CM
* o
bO
S
g
4J
>. bo
co ca
O *J
o en
•d i
g |
CO
CO
ft
CM
O
r^
o
t-H
o
o
CO
00
r-*
CO
oC
•a
B
^
O
CO
-a-
OO
CO
M
e
o
0
CN
8
CM
«
O
CM
€
4->
0
o
CM
1
bO
B
•H
O.
4->
«
1
ta
00 .cr,
O r--
N. °1 ! ! !
a 3
° 2
» 3 ! i !
•* vO
rt CO
F-l
»H
0 0
o
CN
S !
M
§
CM
O O
vO "if
T, r. \
CO t-M |
(^* l*^i
CO
CM
8P . j
0 ' '
rt
o o o o c
S 00 S
2 S S
CO rH P-
rH
bO
e 1 ! !
O
cH
2 i ii
CN 1 II
•»
CN
•o
B 5
VI *t
>, 00
fi B «
O «H B
^ 00 P4 4-J
OB <»
,Q -H Of h
to t) o 4J O H r
•§ ^ *§ il <& 3
< CO CO CO
1
I
j
1
1
1
j
1
b o
«.
t-*
i !
1 1
1 1
1
TJ
CJ O
d m
5 -M
4-1 O
3 0
^ U U
2 3 o
all
j (U
/I O
OOOOC3
co
S
,0
I
83
-------
Table 43
Annual Cost for a 110 mgd Gravity,
Steel Granular Activated Carbon Plant
Item; Total Costs/year
Amortized Capital @ 7%, 20 years $ 1,839,680
Labor, 42,973 hr @ $10/hr (Total Labor
Costs Including Fringes & Benefits) .
Electricity, 23,711,640 kw-hr @ $0.03 . . . .
Natural Gas, 209,414,200 scf @ $0.0013 . . . .
Maintenance Material . . .
Chemicals, Chlorine, 182.5 tons/yr @ $300/ton
Total Annual Cost*
*Cents per 1,000 gal treated =
_ $4,494,360 (100)
77,000 (365)
429,730
711,350
272,240
1,186,610
54.750
4,494,360
= 15.990/1.000 gal treated
84
-------
REFERENCES
1. Public Law 93-523., Safe Drinking Water Act, 93rd Congress, S, 433
December 16, 1974,
2, National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. U,S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Programs, Federal Register, 40:248;59566.
December 24, 1975.
3, Drinking Water Regulations, Radionuclides, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Federal Register, 41;133j28402, June 9, 1975,
4, Control of Organic Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, Federal Register, 43:28:5756, February 9, 1978.
5. National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, Proposed Regulations.
U,S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, 42:62:17143,
March 31, 1977,
6. Drinking Water and Health, Recommendations of the National Academy of
Science. Federal Register, 42»132j35764, July 11, 1977.
7t Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations, EPA-600/8-77-05. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978, 73 pp.
8, Symons, J,M. Interim Treatment Guide for Controlling Organic Contamin~
ants in Drinking Water Using Granular Activated Carbon, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978, 55 pp,
9. Symons, J.M, Interim Treatment Guide for the Control of Chloroform and
Other Trihalomethanes, U.S, Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976,
10, Sorg, T,J, Treatment Technology to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Inorganics. Journal American Waterworks
Association, 70(2)5105^112.
11. Sorg, T,J., and G,S, Logsdon, Treatment Technology to Mee.t the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Inorganics, Part 2S
Journal American Waterworks Association, 70(7)5379-7-393,
12, Processing Water Treatment Plant Sludges, American Waterworks
Association, Denver, Colorado, 1974, 152 pp.
85
-------
13. Processings of the American Waterworks Association Seminar on Minimizing
and Recycling Water Plant Sludge, Presented by the Education Committee
of American Waterworks Association and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1973.116 pp.
14. Fulton, G.P. Disposal of Wastewater .from Water Filtration Plants,
Journal American Waterworks Association, 61(7)5322-^326,
15. Disposal of Water Treatment Plant Wastes. Committee Report? Journal
American Waterworks Association, 64(12):814-820.
16. Westerhoff, G.P., and/Daly, M.P. Water Treatment Plant Wastes Disposal,
Parts 1, 2, and 3. Journal American Waterworks Association,
66(5);319-324; 66(6);378-384; and.66(7):441-444.
17. Water Treatment Plant Sludges - An Update of the State of the Art,
Parts 1 and 2. Committee Report, Journal American Waterworks
Association, 70(9):498-503, and 70(10):548-554.
18, Bishop, S»L, Alternate Processes for Treatment of Water, Plant Wastes,
Journal American Waterworks Association, 70(8)5503-506,
19. Process Plant Construction Estimating Standards, Volumes 1, 2, 3, & 4,
Richardsons Engineering Services, Inc., Solana Beach, California.
20. Building Construction Cost Data, Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.,
Dexbury, Mass.
21. Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Construction Costs, Dodge
Building Cost Services, McGraw-Hill, 1221 Avenue of the Americas,
New York, New YOrk.
22. Producer Prices and Price Indexes; Data for October 1978. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 1978.
86
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. ESTIMATING COSTS FOR GRANULAR CARBON SYSTEMS IN WATER
PURIFICATION BASED ON EXPERIENCE IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT -
Introduction
Because the use of granular activated carbon (GAG) for the purification
of potable water in the United States' has generally been for controlling
taste and odor, there is a rather limited amount of cost data from actual
water treatment operations where the GAC is reactivated frequently.
However, GAC has been used by United States municipalities since 1965 for
the adsorption of orgamics-from pre-treated wastewater, From such
applications, complete, detailed.s and reliable cost data are available
for the construction, operation, and maintenance of complete GAC wastewater
treatment systems including carbon contact, reactivation, and transport.
These data are available from a number of sources and for a variety of
plant capacities up to 20 mgd (million gallons per day).
There are differences in the use of GAC for water purification and for
wastewater treatment, and these differences influence-cost. Some of the
differences are obvious, but others are less apparent. However, a sanitary
engineer who is informed and experienced in both fields, as well as in cost
estimating., can estimate GAC costs for water purification quite readily,
and with the same degree of accuracy (± 15 percent) which is attendant to
preliminary estimates for conventional water treatment processes. To do
this, the cost experience accumulated from wastewater operations must be
combined with the results of water treatment pilot plant task and
laboratory tests of carbon reactivation which determine allowable carbon
loadings and reactivation requirements,
GAC Systen Components
Systems utilizing granular carbon are rather simple. In general, they
provide for: (1) contact between the carbon and the water to be treated
for the length of time required to obtain the necessary removal of organics,
(2) reactivation or replacement of spent carbon, and (3) transport of makeup
or reactivated carbon into the contactors and of spent carbon from the
contactors .to reactivation or hauling facilitiest
87
-------
Selecting Carbon and Plant Design Criteria
Laboratory and pilot plant tests are a mandatory prelude to carbon
selection and plant design for both water and wastewater treatment projects,
Pilot column tests make it possible to; (1) select the best carbon for the
specific purpose based on performance; (2) determine the required contact
time: (3) establish the required carbon dosage, which,. together with
laboratory tests of reactivation, will determine the capacity of the carbon
reactivation furnace or the necessary carbon replacement costs; and (4)
determine the effects of influent water quality variations on plant
operation.
One of the principal differences in costs for GAG treatment between
water and wastewater is the more frequent reactivation required in water
purification due to earlier breakthrough of the organics of concern; In
wastewater treatment, GAG may be expected to adsorb 0.30 to 0.55 pounds
of COD per pound of carbon before the carbon is exhausted, .From the limited
amount of data available from research studies and pilot plant tests (most
of it unpublished), it appears that some organics, of concern in water
treatment may breakthrough at carbon loadings as low as 0.15 to 0.25 pounds
of organic per pound of carbon, The actual allowable carbon loading or
carbon dosage for a given case must be determined from pilot plant tests,
Costs taken from wastewater cost curves which are plots of flow in mgd
versus cost (capital or operation and maintenance costs) cannot be applied
directly to water treatment. Allowance must be made in the capital costs
for the different reactivation capacity needed, and in the operation and
maintenance costs for the actual amount of carbon to be reactivated or
replaced.
Because the organics adsorbed from water are generally more volatile
than those adsorbed from wastewater, the increased reactivation frequency
due to lighter carbon loading may be partially offset, or more than offset..
by the reduced reactivation requirements of the more volatile organics,
The times and temperatures required for reactivation may be reduced due
to both the greater volatility and to the lighter loading of organics in
the carbon.
From the limited experimental reactivations to date it appears that
reactivation temperatures may be reduced from the 1,650° to 1,750°F required
for wastewater carbons to about 1,500°F for water purification carbons.
The shorter reactivation times required for water purification carbons may
allow the number of hearths in a multiple hearth reactivation furnace to be
reduced. Also, less fuel may be required for reactivation. These fa.ctors
must be determined on a case-by-case basis, as already suggested.
Selection of the general type of carbon contactor to be used for a
particular water treatment plant application may be used on several
considerations indicating the judgement and experience of the engineering
designer. The choice generally would be made from three types of downflow
vessels?
88
-------
3.
Deep-bed, factory-fabricated, steel pressure vessels of 12-foot
maximum diameter, These vessels might be used over a range of
carbon volumes from 2,000 to 50,000 cubic feet.
Shallow-bed, reinforced concrete, gravity filter-retype boxes may
be used for carbon volumes ranging from 1,000 to 200,000 cubic
feet. Shallow beds probably will be used only when long service
cycles between carbon regenerations can be expected, based on
pilot plant test results.
Deep-bed, site-fabricated, large (20 to 30 feet) diameter, open
steel, gravity tanks may be used for carbon volumes ranging from
6,000 to 200,000 cubic feet, or larger.
These ranges overlap, and the designer may very well make the final
selection based on local factors, other than total capacity, which affect
efficiency and cost.
GAG Contactors
The advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) experience with GAG contactors
may be applied to water purification if some differences in requirements'are
taken into account. The required contact time must be determined from pilot
plant test results. Contactors may be designed for a downflow or .upflow
mode of operation. Upflow packed beds or expanded beds provide maximum
carbon efficiency through the use of countercurrent flow principles. However,
upflow beds for water treatment can be used only when followed by filtration
due to the leakage of some (.1 to 5 mg/1) carbon fines in the upflow carbon
column effluent, Downflow carbon beds probably will be used in most
municipal water treatment applications.
At the Orange County (California) Water Factory 21, upflow beds were
converted to downflow beds which suscessfully corrected a carbon fines
problem. This is one indication at full plant operating scale that carbon
fines are not a problem in properly operated downflow contactors,
Single beds or two beds in series may be used. Open gravity beds or
closed pressure vessels may be used. Structures may be properly protected
steel or reinforced concrete. In general, small plants will use steel? and
large plants may use steel or reinforced concrete.
In some instances where GAG has been used in existing water filtration
plants, sand in rapid filters has been replaced with GAG. In situations
where GAG regeneration or replacement cycles are exceptionally long (several
months or years); as may be the case in taste and odor removal, this may
be a solution. However, with the short cycles anticipated for most organics,
conventional concrete box style filter beds are not well suited to GAG
contact. Their principal drawbacks are the shallow bed depths and the
difficulty of moving carbon in and out of the beds. Deeper beds, or
contactors with greater aspect ratios of depth to area, provide much
greater economy in capital costs. The contactor cost for the needed volume
of carbon is much less. Carbon can be moved in water slurry from contactors
89
-------
with conical bottoms easily and quickly and with virtually no labor. Flat-
bottomed filters which require labor to move the carbon., unnecessarily .add
to carbon transport costs. For most, if not all, GAG installations for
precursor organic removal, or synthetic organic removal, the use of conventional
filter boxes will not be a permanent solution and specially designed GAG
contactors should be installed. Contactors should be equipped with flow
measuring devices. Separate GAG contactors are especially advantageous where
GAG treatment is required only part of the time during certain seasons,
because they then can be used only when needed and bypassed when not needed,
possibly saving unnecessary exhaustion and reactivation of GAG. In summary,
tremendous cost savings can be realized in GAG treatment "of water through
proper selection and design of the carbon contactors. The design of carbon
contactor underdrains requires experienced expert attention. Good proven
underdrain systems are available, but there have been several underdrain
failures due to poor design. Some of these same designs have failed in
conventional filter service, but they continue to be misapplied.
GAG Reactivation or Replacement
Spent carbon may be removed from contactors and replaced with virgin
carbon, or it may be reactivated either on-^site or off^site. The most
economical procedure depends on the quantities of GAG involved. For larger
volumes, on-site reactivation is the answer. Only for small quantities of
carbon will carbon replacement or off-site reactivation be economical.
Carbon may be thermally reactivated to very near virgin activity.
However, carbon burning losses may be excessive under these conditions.
Experience in industrial and wastewater treatment indicates that carbon
losses can be minimized (held to 8 to 10 percent per cycle) if the GAG
activity of reactivated carbon as indicated by the Iodine Number, is held
at about 90 percent of the virgin activity. For removal of certain organics,
there may be no decrease in actual removal of organics despite a 10 percent
drop in Iodine Number.
Thermal Reactivation Equipment
GAG may be reactivated in a multiples-hearth furnace, a fluidized bed
furnace, a rotary kiln, or an electric infrared furnace. Spent GAG is
drained dry in a screen^equipped tank (.40 percent moisture content) or in
a dewatering screw (40 to 50 percent moisture) before introduction to the
reactivated furnace. Dewatered carbon is usually transported by a screw
conveyor. Following thermal reactivation, the GAC is cooled in a quench
tank. The water-carbon slurry may then be transported by means of diaphragm
slurry pumps, eductors, or a blow-tank. The reactivated carbon may contain
fines produced during conveyance, and these fines should be removed in a
wash tank or in the contactor. Maximum furnace temperatures and time of
retention in the furnace are determined by the amount (pounds of organics
per pound of carbon) and nature, molecular weight, or volatility, of the
organics adsorbed.
90
-------
Off-gases from carbon reactivation present no air pollution problems
provided they are properly scrubbed. In some cases an afterburner may also
be required (for odor control).
Required Furnace Capacity
The principal cost differences between GAG treatment of water and
wastewater lie in the capital cost of the furnace and in the operation and
maintenance costs for carbon reactivation. As already explained, the two
principal differences between carbon exhausted in wastewater treatment
and carbon exhausted in water purification are that water purification carbons
are likely: (1) to be easier to regenerate (less time in furance and lower
furnace temperatures), but (2) more lightly loaded (greater volume of carbon
to be reactivated per pound of organics removed). Accurate estimates.of GAG
costs require knowledge and consideration of these two factors. To repeat,
it is not possible to use GAG cost curves for AWT based on mgd throughout or
plant capacity to obtain costs for water treatment. Differences in reactiva-
tion requirements must be taken into account.
Carbon Transport arid GAG Process Auxiliaries
There can be large differences in operation and maintenance costs for
GAG systems depending on the method selected for carbon transport. Hydraulic
transport of GAG in water slurry by gravity or use of water pressure is simple,,
easy, inexpensive, rapid, and uses very little labor'. Moving dry or dewatered
carbon manually or with mechanical means involving labor can be very difficult.,
time consuming, and costly. The proper use of conical bottoms in carbon
contactors, dewatering bins, storage bins, wash tanks, and the like can
minimize GAG handling costs. Efforts to use flat-bottomed structures requiring
operator or other labor to move the carbon can be costly.
SOURCES OF COST AND DESIGN DATA FOR GAG SYSTEMS
General
There are three main sources of cost information and organic adsorption
data needed to prepare cost estimates for GAG systems for production of
drinking water. These are the? (.1) EPA publications, particularly those of
recent research at the Cincinnati laboratories, (2) articles concerning the
experience with GAG in AWT, and (3) papers concerning the use of GAG in
water filtration plants.
EPA Publications
Pertinent publications of interest are;
1, Clark, Robert M,, et al., "The Cost of Removing Chloroform and
Other Trihalomethanes From Drinking Water Supplies1*, EPA 600/1-77-008,
March, 1977,
91
-------
2. Symons, James M«, "Interim Treatment Guide for Controlling Organic
Contaminants in Drinking Water Using Granular Activated Carbon",
EPA Water Supply Research Division, Cincinnati, Ohio,
January, 1978,
3. "Advanced Wastewater Treatment as Practiced at South Tahoe'',
EPA 17010ELQ08/71, August, 1971,
Reference No. 2 on page A108 gives an example of the method of converting
carbon dosage requirements for water purification into reactivation require-
ments and costs, using carbon dosage requirements obtained from the results
of pilot plant work. This example includes capital and operation and
maintenance costs.
AWT Cost Experience
Good cost data is available from operating installations at: (1) The
South Tahoe Public Utility District, South Lake Tahoe, California (13 years),
(2) the Orange County Water District, Fountain Valley, California (4 years),
(3) the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority, Manassas Park, Virginia (capital
cost data only - plant in operation for only a few months).
The South Tahoe data is summarized in two booksj (1) Gulp, R.L. and
Gulp, G.L., "Advanced Wastewater Treatment",, Van Nostrand Reinhold? New
York, 1971, and (2) Gulp, Wesner, Gulp, "Handbook of Advanced Wastewater
Treatment", Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1978.
GAG Experience in Potable Water Treatment
The experience with 12 integrated filtration^adsorption units is
summarized on pages 239^247 of "New Concepts in- Water Purification", Gulp
and Gulp, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York 1974 (see Table 1),
Industrial and Miscellaneous Municipal Carbon Regeneration Furance Installations
Some cost data is also available from the following carbon furance
installations;
Installation
Colorado Springs,
Rocky River, OH
Derry Township, PA
Vallejo, CA
Santa Clara V.W.D,
Tahoe-Truckee San.
No, Towanda, N.Y.
Nassau Co. P.U.D.,
CARBON FURNACE INSTALLATIONS
Date_
CO 1969
1972
1974
1974
1975
1976
1976
CA 1977
Use
Wastewater
Palo Alto, CA
Dist., CA
n
it
Municipal
Ii
it
II
92
-------
CARBON FURNACE INSTALLATIONS
(Continued)
Installation
So. Tahoe P.U.D., CA
Orange County (CA) Water District
Fitchburg, Mass.
Arlington Co., Va
Niagra Falls, N.Y.
Lower Potomac Plant, Va.
St. Charles, MO
San. Dist. of L.A. County
Courtland, N.Y.
Le Roy, N.Y.
Hollytex Carpet Mills, PA
BP Oil, N.H.
Stepan Chemical Co., N.Y.
Hercules, Miss.
Amerada Hess, N.J.
American Aniline, PA
American Cyanimid, N.J.
Esso Research
Republic Steel Corp.
Atlantic Richfield, Wilmington, CA
Washington Suburban S.an. Comm.
Prince Georges Co., MD (test)
Mobay Chem., New Martinsville, W. VA.
Mobay Chem., Baytown, TX
Niagra Falls, N.Y.
TRA, Irving, TX
Date
1965
1972
1972
1977
1977
1977
1977
1975
1975
1975
1969
1971
1972
1972
1973
1973
1977
1973
1974
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1976
Use
Wastewater Municipal
w
ir
1.1
ii
n
11
n
H
ti-
ll
ii
u
tt
Dye Wastewater
Wastewater Industrial
u
1.1
I.I
I.I
II
II
1,1
II
II
II
It
II
tt
II
II
II
u
It
II
V
It.
It
II
1.1
There are another 30-50 carbon furnaces installed for use in connection
with refining (decolorizing) of corn syrup and beet sugar.
APPENDIX B. GEOGRAPHICAL INFLUENCE ON BUILDING-RELATED ENERGY
Overall building-related energy requirements are greatly influenced by
the geographical location. Those components that show strong geographical
influence are heating and cooling. Whole lighting and ventilation are
relatively constant in different geographic areas. A lighting requirement
of 2 watts/ft2 is adequate for most enclosed water treatment processes or
equipment. This is equivalent to 17.5 kw-hr/ft2/year. Ventilating
requirements are also relatively constant at 2.2 kw-hr/ft2/year, based on
six air changes per hour.
An analysis was conducted of heating and cooling requirements for each
of the 21 cit.ies included in the ENR Indices. This analysis was done for
a building module of 20' x 40' x 14', an average winter indoor temperature
of 68°F, and an average summer indoor temperature of 75°F. Although it
93
-------
Table 1
Granular Carbon Installations in
•Municipal Water Plants in the United States
Water Plant Location
AWWS Co., Hopewell, Virginia
Nitro, West Virginia
Montecito Co. Water District
Santa Barbara, California
Del City, Oklahoma
Somerset, Massachusetts
Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Lawrence, Massachusetts
Piqua, Ohio
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
Granite City, Illinois
Winchester, Kentucky
Mt. Clemens, Michigan
Year
Installed
1961
1966
1963
1967
1968
1969
1969
1969
1970
1971
1970
1968
Size of
Plant (mgd)
3.0
10.0
1.5
5.25
4.5
24
10
8
4.5
7
1.5
7
Flow Rate
(gpm ft3)
2.0
1.5-2.0
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.4
2
1.7
Carbon
Bed
Depth
24 in.
30 in.
12 ft.
36 in.
11 in.
18 in.
24 in.
30 in.
18 in.
24 in.
18 in.
24 in.
24 in.
Supplemental List
Manchester, N.H.
Passaic, N.J. (Pilot)
Cincinnati, Ohio (Pilot)
Queensburg, N.Y.
Amesburg, Mass.
Goleta, CA
94
-------
certainly would not be true in many situations, electrical energy was assumed
for heating in each area. The results, expressed in terms of kw-hr/ft2/year,
are shown in Table B-l, along with the ventilation and lighting requirements.
As can be seen, building-related energy requirements range from a low
of 25.8 kw-hr/ft2 in Miami to a high of 219.8 kw-hr/ft2 in Minneapolis.
The 21-city average was 102.6 kw-hr/ft2, and this value was used to develop
the total operation/maintenance cost curves 'included in this report.
APPENDIX C. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF COST'ESTIMATING USING UNIT COST TAKEOFFS
FROM A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
For unit processes which include reinforced concrete structures, the
structural costs were determined using unit cost takeoffs for actual or
conceptual designs. To illustrate the techniques which were utilized in
this estimating procedure, this Appendix has been prepared. The example
is a 10 inch thick gang formed structural wall, a cross section of which
is shown in Figure 1.
The calculations for walls such as this were performed on the basis
of one foot of wall length. The wall under consideration is 11.88 feet
high (excluding the footing which is not included in this example).
Therefore, each foot of wall length is 11.88 square feet.
The unit costs used in the cost calculations were:
Labor - Concrete forming and placement - $210.80/100 sq. ft.
Concrete (Including forming materials) - $146.30/100 sq. ft
Steel Reinforcing Bars
#5 bars - Steel
- Labor
#6 bars - Steel
- Labor
$ 30.90/100 feet of bar
$ 21.97/100 feet of bar
$ 43.04/100 feet of bar
$ 23.12/100 feet of bar
The length of reinforcing bars per foot of wall (excluding the footing)
are 28 feet of #5 bar and 6.7 feet of #6 bar.
Applying the unit costs to the wall design the following costs were
calculated per foot of wall:
Labor - Concrete forming and placement
Concrete
Steel
Labor - Steel Placement
$ 25.04/foot of wall
$ 17.38/foot.of wall
$ 11.54/foot of wall
$ 7.70/foot of wall
95
-------
Table B-l
Geographical Influence on
Building-Related Energy
Electrical Energy (kw-hr/ft2/yr)*
City
Seattle
Salt Lake City
Omaha
Minneapolis
Chicago
New York
Boston
San Francisco
Denver
St. Louis
Las Vegas
Richmond , Va .
Nashville
Washington , B.C.
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Albuquerque
Dallas,
Tampa
Atlanta
Miami
Lighting
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
:i7.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
Ventilation
.2.2
2.2
2.2 ,
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
Heating
59.4
144.0
157.3
199.4
146.4
90.3
104.4
40.5
149.5
116.6
36.3
71.6
70.6
78.3
27.7
23.7
80.6
43.8
9.2
54.9
2.9
Cooling
0.2
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.5
1.6
2.4
2.4
1.6
2.0
1.6
0.5
2.4
•1.2
5.6
3.2
1.5
3.2
Total
79.3
164.5
177.9
219.8
166.9
110.7
124.5
60.7
170.8
138.7
58.4
92.9
92.3
99.6
47.9
45.8
101.5
69.1
32.1
76.1
25.8
Average
17.5
2.2
81.3
1.6
102.6
*Building module used was 20 x 40 x 14 ft, with a winter inside design
temperature of 68°F, a summer inside design temperature of 75°F, and a
ventilation rate of 6 changes per hour.
96
-------
o
•
*
» *
>-
•1
Z'-G,
/O"
S'-/0
?/2"r€&
C? 2L3' M/M
Figure 1. Cross section for outer wall of a typical clarifier structure.
97
-------
Using these numbers, the cost of an 11.88 foot high wall, fifteen feet
long, would be:
Concrete - $260.70
Steel - $173.10
Labor - $491.10
Similar calculations, were performed for other portions of reinforced
concrete structures, such as slabs, footings, columns, beams, elevated slabs
and floors. The additive cost for all portions of the reinforced concrete
structure give the cost of the structure itself.
Other costs in the construction cost tables, such as excavation, pipe
and valves (installation labor is included in the labor category) were
calculated using unit costs, in a manner similar to the above. Electrical
and instrumentation and housing costs were estimated from actual bids and
cost information from manufacturers. The component for manufactured
equipment includes all manufactured equipment except electrical and instru-
mentation. The manufactured equipment costs, as well as installation labor,
were obtained from manufacturers. Labor for manufactured equipment is
included within the labor category.
98
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(t'tease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPA-600/2-79-162a
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
ESTIMATING WATER TREATMENT COSTS
Volume 1. Summary
5. REPORT DATE
August 1979 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Robert C. Gumerman, Russell L. Gulp,
and Sigurd P. Hansen '
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Gulp/Wesner/Gulp
Consulting Engineers
2232'S.E. Bristol, Suite 210
Santa Ana, California 92707
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1CC614, SOS 1, Task 38
II. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2516
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Proj ect Officer; Robert M. Clark (513) 684-7488.
.
(NTIS PB28427*MS) 5 Volume 2, EPA-600/2-79-i62b; Volume 3,
and Volume 4, EPA-600/2-79-162d.
~~ - '
16. ABSTRACT
This report discusses unit processes and combinations of unit processes that are
capable of removing contaminants included in the National Interim Primary Drinking
!jef ReSulatlons- Construction and operation and maintenance cost curves are presen-
ted for 99 unit processes that are considered to be, especially applicable to contami-
nant removal. The report is divided into four volumes. Volume 1 is a summary volume.
Volume 2 presents cost curves applicable to large water supply systems with treatment
capacxtxes between 1 .and 200 mgd, as well as information on virus and asbes^oTrSoval.
Volume 3 includes cost curves applicable to flows of 2,500 gpd to 1 mgd. And Volume 4
xs_a computer program user's manual for the curves included in the report. For each
unit process included in this report, conceptual designs were formulated, and construc-
ts were^ f f /eVel°Ped usjn§ the conceptual designs. The construction cost
curves were checked for accuracy by a second consulting engineering firm, Zurheide-
Herrmann, Inc., usxng cost-estimating techniques similar to those used by general
°".1JP^Pa^n8 their bids. Operation and maintenance requirements were
xndivxdually for three categories: Energy, maintenance material, and
buildlns and the process are presented
17.
a.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Economic analysis, Environmental
engineering, Operating costs, Computer
programming, Water treatment, Cost indexes,
Water supply, Cost estimates, Cost analysis
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS [c. COSATI Field/Group
Energy costs, Cost curves
Safe Drinking Water Act,
Interim primary standards
Unit processes, Treatment
efficiency
19. SEPURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
0. SECURH
CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
99
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
111
22. PRICE
A U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 -657-146/5613
r
-------
------- |