United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA-600/2-80-008b
Laboratory July 1980
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Package Water
Treatment Plants
Volume 2.
A Cost Evaluation
-------
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-600/2-80-008b
July 1980
PACKAGE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Volume 2. A Cost Evaluation
by
Richard G. Stevie
Robert M. Clark
Drinking Water Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Contract No. GS-05S-10458
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 Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increas-
ing 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 interplay among its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that 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 (1) to prevent, treat, and
manage wastewater, solid and hazardous waste, and pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, (2) to preserve and treat public
drinking water supplies, and (3) to minimize the adverse economic,
social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is
a product of that research and is a most vital communications link
between the researcher and the user community.
One of the major problems facing the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency in meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act is help-
ing small and rural water systems in achieving compliance. This report
presents results from a study on the cost and performance characteristics
of self-contained package water treatment plants. These data should be
useful in assisting small and rural systems in providing high quality
drinking water.
Francis T. Mayo,
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Many small and rural water systems have both cost and quality prob-
lems . Their unit costs tend to be higher because of the small number of
connections they service. As shown by the Community Water Supply Survey
of 1969, many small systems have trouble meeting minimal drinking water
standards. These problems are likely to be compounded in the future as
drinking water standards are raised. The cost of building a conventional
water treatment plant to provide higher quality water for a small commu-
nity may be prohibitive. A possible alternative to a conventional water
treatment plant is a package water treatment plant. These plants are
self-contained units that can be installed for minimum cost.
Results from a study of 36 package plants in Kentucky, West Virginia,
and Tennessee show that treatment plants can provide water that meets the
turbidity requirement of the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Standards. However, as with all treatment plants, proper operation is
required. These plants, contrary to some manufacturers' claims, are not
totally automatic but require supervision. Nevertheless, when properly
maintained and operated, they can provide water that meets the Safe
Drinking Water Act's MCLs at a cost less than that associated with
conventional treatment.
The results of this study indicate two aspects. Scale economies exist
in package treatment plants under 1 mgd. The average flow rate for the
municipal systems in this study was found to be slightly less than 0.2 mgd,
implying that the average plant will be able to achieve the scale economies
that potentially exist with this technology.
Therefore, based on this study, it is felt that package plants can
be used in a cost effective manner to meet the turbidity requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, and still not impose an enormous burden on
the utility's budget.
This report (Volume 2) present the results of a cost evaluation
study for package water treatment plants. Volume 1 discusses the
performance of package plants with minimal cost evaluation.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract GS-05S-10458. This
report covers the period June 1977 to June 1979, and work was completed as
of June 1979.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ill
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vi
TABLES vii
METRIC CONVERSION TABLE ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x
INTRODUCTION 1
PACKAGE PLANT DATA ANALYSIS 2
Package Plants 2
Cost and Quality Data 2
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 6
Utility Data Analysis 6
Package Treatment Plant Data 6
EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY 29
Discussion of Methodology 29
Production Functions 29
Chemical Cost Relationships 31
EMPIRICAL RESULTS 32
Predictive Relationships 32
Quasi-Production Functions 38
Combined Chemical Costs 40
Conclusions 40
v
-------
Page
COST COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS 41
Comparative Cost Analysis 41
Conclusions 44
REFERENCES 45
APPENDIX A - Quality Data from Municipal and Recreational Plants . 46
APPENDIX B - Data Collection Guide for Package Plants 50
APPENDIX C - Cost Data from Municipal and Recreational Plants ... 59
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Operating and Capital Costs for Municipal Utilities
(Total and Percent of Total) 8
2 Operating and Capital Costs for Recreational Utilities
(Total and Percent of Total) 9
3 Operating and Capital Costs for Combined Data Set
(Total and Percent of Total) 10
4 Operating Cost Functions for Municipal Utilities
(Total and Percent of Total) 11
5 Operating Cost Functions for Recreational Utilities
(Total and Percent of Total) 12
6 Operating Cost Functions for Combined Data Set
(Total and Percent of Total) 13
7 Capital Cost Functions for Municipal Utilities
(Total and Percent of Total) 14
8 Capital Cost Functions for Recreational Utilities
(Total and Percent of Total) 15
9 Capital Cost Functions for Combined Data Set
(Total and Percent of Total) 16
10 Principal Operating Cost Components for Municipal
Utilities (Total and Percent of Total) 17
vi
-------
Number Page
11 Principal Operating Cost Components for Combined
Utilities (Total and Percent of Total) 18
12 Principal Operating Cost Components for Combined
Data Set (Total and Percent of Total) 19
13 Municipal Package Plants Operating and Capital Cost
(Total and Percent of Total) 20
14 Recreational Package Plants Operating and Capital Cost
(Total and Percent of Total) 21
15 Combined Package Plants Operating and Capital Cost
(Total and Percent of Total) 22
16 Municipal Package Plant Construction Cost Components
(Total and Percent of Total) 23
17 Recreational Package Plant Construction Cost Components
(Total and Percent of Total) 24
18 Combined Package Plant Construction Cost Components
(Total and Percent of Total) 25
19 Municipal Package Plants Operating Cost Elements
(Total and Percent of Total) 26
20 Recreational Package Treatment Plants Operating Cost
Elements (Total and Percent of Total) 27
21 Combined Package Plant Operating Cost Elements
(Total and Percent -of Total) 28
22 Total Unit Construction Costs for System and Package
Plants (Municipal Utilities 36
23 Total Unit O&M Cost for System and Package Plant
(70% of capacity) 37
24 Total Construction Cost Versus Plant Capacity 42
25 Annual Cost Versus Revenue Producing Water 43
vii
-------
TABLES
Number
1
2
3
4
Locations of Plants Studied
Utility O&M Costs by Major Cost Components (C = aQ )
Total Cost Equations (O&M and Capital) by Major
Cost Components (C = aO )
Page
... 3
... 4
... 33
... 34
5 Construction Costs for Package Plants and Total System
(C = aQb) 35
6 Substitution Elasticities Among Q, L, C, and E 39
7 Comparative Cost Analysis for 1 MGD Plant 44
viii
-------
METRIC CONVERSION TABLE
English Units Metric Equivalents
1 foot 0.305 meters
1 mile 1.61 kilometers
1 sq mi 2.59 sq kilometers
1 mil gal 3.79 thou cu meters
1 $/mil gal 0.26 $/thou cu meters
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following
individuals: Dr. Gary Logsdon, Messrs. Walter Feige, Daniel Guttman,
Jeffrey Adams, and Michael Laugle of the Drinking Water Research Divi-
sion, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, USEPA, and Mr. Carl
Schneider of PEDCO, Incorporated, Cincinnati, Ohio.
The authors would like to extend a special acknowledgement to
Mr. Larry Gray and and Mr. Steve Cordle for their encouragement and
support throughout all phases of this study.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Many studies have attempted to evaluate the costs associated with
conventional water treatment plant design and operation. ' ' Evidence
from these studies indicates that significant economies of scale exist
in construction as well as in day-to-day operation. The large expenditures
required to construct and maintain such a treatment system can place an
immense burden on small water utilities. Package water treatment plants
have been suggested as an alternative to conventional technologies, but
little is known about their costs and performance. This report evaluates
the cost-effectiveness of operating package treatment plants. It is
hoped that the information provided in this report will aid water utility
managers.
The following section contains a description of the data collected
during the study and a discussion of cost allocation procedures utilized.
In additional sections: a descriptive analysis of the data is provided;
empirical methodology is presented, which involves identifying the
relationships to be estimated; factors affecting the cost of water
supply are identified; empirical results are presented and interpreted;
and, a comparative analysis of conventional and package treatment plant
technologies is made.
-------
PACKAGE PLANT DATA ANALYSIS
PACKAGE PLANTS
Package water treatment plants are prefabricated treatment systems
requiring minimal on-site construction. Necessary installation procedures
involve assembly of prefabricated parts, a hook-up to an existing pipe
network, and the construction of a building to house the plant. Table 1
lists the types of plants visited, and Table 2 specifies their location.
The package plants studied were categorized as being either municipal
or recreational in nature. Municipal plants generally serve a stable popu-
lation and are operated year-round, while recreational plants serve a
transient population and tend to be operated sporadically.
COST AND QUALITY DATA
Data were collected in two major areas: quality and cost. Quality
data reflect the capability of package plants to purify source water in
order to meet drinking water standards. Cost data can be used to evaluate
the cost effectiveness of this type of treatment technology.
Quality information gathered for both raw and finished water included
alkalinity, hardness, pH, temperature, turbidity, coliforms, and inorganic
chemicals. Information on other selected quality variables was also col-
lected, such as the type of water source (ground, spring, free-flowing
surface, or impounded surface), level of nitrate, fluoride, free chlorine
residual, and trihalomethanes; and the input concentration of certain
chemicals: alum, polyelectrolyte, soda ash, and lime. Based on quality
data, the ability to meet the drinking water standards can be determined.
Appendix A, Tables A-l and A-2, list the quality data for both municipal
and recreational plants.
Cost and operational information was collected on numerous aspects
of individual package plants as well as for the utility as a whole. Data
forms used in the study are contained in Appendix B. Utility costs were
separated into four major components: acquisition, treatment, distribu-
tion, and support services. The first three represent functional areas
related to the physical operation of the plant. Acquisition includes
all operating and capital (depreciation plus interest) costs incurred in
collecting water for delivery to the treatment plant. Treatment costs
include operating and capital costs associated with the purification of
source water by the package plant, and distribution expenditures involve
-------
Table 1. TYPES OF PLANTS STUDIED
Sites Manufacturer
5 Neptune Microfloc
1 Permutlt
6 Neptune Microfloc
1 Intermountain Systems
3 Neptune Microfloc
7 Neptune Microfloc
1 Hungerford & Terry
1 Permutit
5 Neptune Microfloc
3 Neptune Microfloc
2 Neptune Microfloc
1 Neptune Microfloc
Model
WB-27
SB-82
60TS/PF-IF
WB-133
AQ-40
L-28
AQ-70
AQ-112
AQ-180
Concrete
Capacity
20 gpm
48 gpm
60 gpm
60 gpm
100 gpm
200 gpm
200 gpm
200 gpm
350 gpm
560 gpm
900 gpm
1000 gpm
-------
Table 2. LOCATIONS OF PLANTS STUDIED
I. MUNICIPAL PLANTS
Alderson, W. Va.
Anawalt, W. Va.
Bonde Croft Utility District, Sparta, Tenn.
Carrollton Utilities, Carrollton, Ky.
Coal River PSD, Racine, W. Va.
Franklin, W. Va.
Greenup, Ky.
Hambrick PSD, Hendricks, W. Va.
Marrowbone Plant, Regina, Ky.
Mountain Top PSD, Mount Storm, W. Va.
Mowbray Utility Dist., Soddy Daisy, Tenn.
Nettie-Levisay PSD, Nettie, W. Va.
Preston County PSD, Reedsville, W. Va.
Richwood, W. Va.
Russell Springs, Ky.
Stanton, Ky.
Thomas, W. Va.
Union, W. Va.
Winfield, W. Va.
II. RECREATIONAL PLANTS
Apple Valley Resort, Jamestown, Ky. (private)
Big Bone State Park, Union, Ky. (state)
Canaan Valley State Park, Davis, W. Va. (state)
Carr Fork Lake, Irishman Creek Rec. Area, Sassafras, Ky. (USCE)*
Dewey Lake, Prestonburg, Ky. (USCE)
East Lynn Lake, East Fork Rec. Area, East Lynn, W. Va. (USCE)
East Lynn Lake, Utility Bldg., East Lynn, W. Va. (USCE)
Fishtrap Lake, Shelbiana, Ky. (SCE)
Green River Reservoir, Holmes Bend Rec. Area, Campbellsville, Ky. (USCE)
J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Cook Rec. Area, Nashville, Tenn. (USCE)
J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Fate Sanders Rec. Area, Nashville, Tenn. (USCE)
J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Poole Knobs Rec. Area, Nashville, Tenn. (USCE)
J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Seven Points Rec. Area, Nashville, Tenn. (USCE)
Natural Bridge State Park, Slade, Ky. (state)
Norris Dam State Park, Norris, Tenn. (state)
Smith County Rest Area (Interstate 40, Tenn. (state)
Snowshoe Ski Resort, Slaty Fork, W. Va. (private)
USCE stands for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
4
-------
all costs incurred in delivery of the finished or treated drinking water
to the consumer. The fourth component, support services, is related to
the overall utility management function. Support service costs include
activities, such as billing, supervision, accounting, and general items,
not directly related to any of the other three components. In addition,
subelement operating costs (chemical, payroll, and power) were collected
for each component. These are isolated for analysis as to their
individual impact on operating expenditures as well as their productive
input into the operation of a utility. In general, the data collected
in this study had to be allocated to each component, since the original
cost records do not conform to this categorization. In many cases, this
allocation was based upon a proportion suggested by the utility manager.
Package water treatment plant costs were also collected according
to the four major categories. As with the total utility costs each
catagory was subdivided into chemical, payroll, and power costs. Capital
costs were categorized according to installation, building, and the
package plant itself and also aggregated into total cost. Installation
capital expense includes the depreciation and interest spent to make the
plant operational; building capital expense involves the annualized
construction cost of a building to house the package plant; and package
plant capital is the annualized purchase price of the plant. Many of
the utilities did not depreciate their facilities, therefore, a deprecia-
tion schedule was constructed, based on a 20-yr life and a 5 percent
interest rate. An interest rate of 5 percent was used to reflect
histrocial costs not current or incremental costs. Appendix C tables C-l
and C-2 contains all information generated (-2 indicates missing data).
Not all of the utilities were established in the same year, and not
every utility had current expenditures available. Therefore, capital
and operating costs were adjusted to a common base, using regional
consumer price indices, for 1977. The inflation factors for each utility
are listed in Table C-3. Cost figures in tables C-l and C-2 have
already been adjusted for inflation.
-------
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF DATA
In this section a descriptive analysis of the collected data is
performed at two levels. An aggregate analysis of data at the utility
level has been made as well as a more detailed analysis of the package
plants themselves.
UTILITY DATA ANALYSIS
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the relationship between O&M (operation and
maintenance costs), depreciation, and interest expenses for municipal,
recreational (which do not operate year-round), and the combined utilities.
It is obvious that for these small utilities, having an average flow rate
of .115 MGD (.195 MGD for municipal plants and 0.35 MGD for recreational
plants when operating), capital cost is a very important factor.
Figures 4 to 6 show the allocation of operating cost to acquisition,
treatment, transmission, and distribution based on the latest year of
information. In general, acquisition costs are lowest, while treatment
costs are highest. These costs result from the chemical, power, and
labor costs associated with operating the treatment plant.
Figures 7 to 9 show the allocation of capital. Distribution
capital expenditures are highest in municipal utilities, but treatment
capital is highest in recreational utilities. Municipal utilities tend
to have elaborate distribution systems with a larger number of service
connections than do recreational systems. Figures 10 to 12 present
average yearly expenditures for labor, chemicals and power. Labor cost
is the predominant factor, ranging from 67% to 71% of the total cost of
chemicals, power, and labor.
PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT DATA
The following analysis is directed toward the treatment function
specifically. Figures 13 to 15 show the average operating and maintenance
cost, depreciation, and interest for the treatment function. Capital
dominates treatment costs. As might be expected, total treatment is more
expensive for municipal than for recreational plants.
As shown in figures 16 to 18, the treatment capital costs have been
subdivided into the average construction costs for the plant itself, the
building to house the plant, and the installation cost. Housing is the
greatest portion of capital cost, amounting to over 40% of the treatment
plant construction cost. The purchase price of the prefabricated plant
-------
is significant, but the building to house the plant remains the most
important cost item, and is also the factor which can be best controlled
by the utility manager. If a utility were to construct the building
itself, some costs might be cut from total treatment expenditures.
Figures 19 to 21 show the treatment, labor, chemical and power cost
elements. Labor cost dominates, representing 50% to 65% of the total
chemical, power, and payroll expense. Treatment labor expense comprises
almost 50% of the total utility payroll. The degree of labor time
apportioned to the treatment function can affect the level of quality.
This is analyzed more closely in the empirical work to follow. In general,
from the quality analysis, it was evident that with more time devoted to
the operation of the treatment plant a higher quality of water was produced.
-------
70
00
70
60
(A
_w
"5
ฐ 50
"o
(0
o
c
CO
ง 40
0
30
20
10
_
_
00
0
C
o
(0
o
a
a>
0
(0
a>
b.
0)
+-
ฃ
_
00
O
c
o
(0
o
0)
^
a
0
CO
-------
70
14
12
(A
k.
(Q
Q 10
>*-
o
CO
"0
c
to
ซ 8
0
6
4
2
_
00
O
c
o
.2
'o
0)
Q.
o
(A
0)
0>
c
_
i
o
c
o
.2
'o
o
IM
Q.
0)
Q
(0
0)
^
0)
c
60
50 _
(Q
^i
O
ซ*-
40 ฎ
c
0)
o
Q)
f^
30
20
10
Figure 2. Operating and Capital Costs for Recreational Utilities
-------
70
70
tin
OU
M
"o
0 50
"o
(0
o
c
CD
ป 40
0
30
20
10
___
00
0
c
o
.2
'o
0
Q
I
Interest
i
00
0
c
o
(0
Deprec
,
.LJ
Interesi
60
cr\
OU _
n
O
1-
40 ฐ
c
0
u
o
30 ฐ~
20
10
Figure 3. Operating and Capital Costs for Combined Data Set
-------
JO
"5
Q
w
O
C
(0
M
3
O
14
12
10
8
1 1
Acquisition
Treatment
Distribution
Support Services
1
Acquisition
i
Treatment
c
o
'ฃ
3
.Q
i_
*
(0
Q
1
Support Services
1
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
C
0)
o
1_
0)
0.
Figure 4. Operating Cost Functions for Municipal Utilities
-------
W
O
w
o
c
to
V)
3
O
~~ c
o
5
3
a
o
c
a>
E
(0
o
I-
a
.2
2 t:
5 1 o
I -In
O CO
c
o
1
_ 3
tT
0
<
c
E
(0
r-
(0
C
o
3
.a
to
O
V
0
k.
o
CO
tr
o
a
a
3
(0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
n
+j
o
c
0)
u
Figure 5. Operating Cost Functions for Recreational Utilities
-------
o
O
w
a
c
Q
M
3
O
14
12
10
8
c
o
_ '3
CT
0
C
reatme
H
c
0
istribul
O
(0
0)
u
~ '> ~~i
k.
0)
CO
k-
o
Q.
a
3
CO
c
o
'3
_ CT
U
C
reatme
H
c
O
istribul
0
w
-------
U)
O
v>
-Q
C
(0
v>
3
O
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Acquisition
Treatment
c
o
+3
3
ฃ
'Z
H
w
Q
(0
CD
'>
ซ _
ซ 0
C 2
O CO
a '5
9- o-
3 O
CO r-<-
Treatment
Distributionn
(0
0)
Support Servic
1 1
70
60
50 _
CO
*ซ
o
40
30
20
10
c
0)
o
k.
0)
Q.
Figure 7. Capital Cost Functions for Municipal Utilities
-------
(A
is
."o
o
c
(0
(A
3
O
14
12
10
8
-
c
o
]H
.2
'5
o-
o
<
+rf
c
0
E
4->
CD
0)
CO
+rf
1.
o
Q.
Q.
3
CO
O
.2
'3
o-
o
<
itment
Vi
0
i_
H
c
o
+3
3
.fi
'Z
4-*
(A
Q
jrvices
w
CO
+
o
a
3
CO
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
CO
+>
o
c
0)
o
1_
0>
a.
Figure 8. Capital Cost Functions for Recreational Utilities
-------
70
* \j
60
50
(A
JO
"5
ฐ 40
O
ซA
C
(0
3 30
0
20
10
,
_! *-
i
Acquisi
I
c
o
Distribi
(0
0)
o
0>
CO
k.
o
Q.
Q.
3
CO
c
o
+J
Acquisii
c
-------
70
24
20
2
ฃ
0
0 16
0
n
T3
C
(0
ซ 12
o
H
8
4
(0
O
E
0
0)
o
0_
k.
o
(0
_J
(0
o
0)
o
0)
o
Q.
k.
O
^
(0
_J
60
50
ซ^^
(0
o
I-
.4
40 ฐ
c
0)
o
0)
30 ฐ-
20
10
Figure 10. Principle Operating Cost Components for Municipal Utilities
-------
70
oo
6
5
~~
S
o
Q.
O
(0
(D
0
E
0)
" o ~
^^
Q)
0
Q.
O
(0
60
50
to
+4
o
1-
40 o
c
4)
O
0>
30 ฐ-
20
10
Figure 11. Principle Operating Cost Components for Recreational Utilities
-------
70
VO
^
12
10
u>
"5
2 8
o
v>
C
to
3 6
o
.C
2
_
(0
O
ฃ
o
0
o
Q.
O
XJ
(Q
(0
O
0)
O
0)
o
Q.
O
.Q
(0
60
50
(0
0
^^
40 o
4-1
C
0)
o
0)
30 ฐ"
20
10
Figure 12. Principle Operating Cost Components for Combined Data Set
-------
70
ho
O
ฃ-\J
18
1C
ID
2
CD
"5
2 12
CO
TJ
c
(0
3 9
o
.c
00
O
O
reciati
0.
0
0
+rf
(ft
0)
h.
Q>
+
ฃ
00
O
O
reciati
Q.
0)
Q
*-
w
o
k.
V
<-
ฃ
60
50
co
**
O
ซtป
40 ฐ
^
ซ
o
0
30 ฐ-
20
10
Figure 13. Municipal Package Plants Operating and Capital Cost
-------
70
6
5
ฃ
2 *
o
ซ
D
C
(0
W Q
3 *
O
2
1
_ -
^
O
c
o
(0
o
0)
k.
0.
0
o
M
4)
k.
0
+-
ฃ
00
O
c
o
(D
o
0)
0.
V
0
*
(0
k.
0)
ฃ
60
50
CO
O
H
40 ^
c
0)
o
0)
30 ฐ"
20
10
Figure 14. Recreational Package Plants Operating and Capital Cost
-------
70
N)
24
20
CO
a
"5
0 16
s
(0
o
(B
;X it
jg 12
o
H
4
00
O
c
"ฃ
CO
'o
0)
a
0)
0
+
(0
V
a>
+ป
_c
00
O
c
"ฃ
O
40 o
V
C
0
o
0
on a.
30
20
10
Figure 15. Combined Package Plants Operating and Capital Cost
-------
70
U>
180
150
S2
.2
"o
0 120
"o
v>
o
!
| 90
0
60
30
j^^^
C
(0
Q.
O>
i
'5
CO
o
m
ra
(0
c
(0
ฃ
O)
2
'5
CO
c
o
JO
"5
(0
60
50
CO
0
1-
H-
40 o
c
0)
>_
(0
30 ฐ'
20
10
Figure 16. Municipal Package Plant Construction Cost Components
-------
70
1 W
60
50
2
"5
2 40
o
(0
o
c
(0
3 30
0
20
10
^___
C
(0
0.
o>
c
jo
'5
CO
c
o
JO
"3
(0
ฃ
C
(0
Q.
O>
C
jp
'5
CD
C
o
JO
"co
(0
_,
60
50 _
(0
o
^
40 ซ
c
o>
o
d>
30 ฐ-
20
10
Figure 17. Recreational Package Plant Construction Cost Components
-------
70
to
Cn
180
150
(A
k_
JO
O
0 120
**ป
o
(A
o
c
| 90
o
H
60
30
__
C
CO
CL
0)
c
jo
'5
CQ
C
O
CO
15
(A
C
(0
SI
O)
c
jo
OQ
c
o
JO
2
(0
c
60
50
(0
+^
o
h-
40 2
c
0)
u
0
30 ฐ-
20
10
Figure 18 Combined Package Plant Construction Cost Components
-------
70
N)
14
12
2
JO
"o
0 10
*-
o
I/I
c
(0
8
o
ฃ.
6
4
2
"5
O
_ E
o
1
0)
o
Q.
0
CO
_J
"5
u
E
0)
o
-------
70
6
5
(A
>_
JO
"5
Q 4
**-
o
OT
a
c
(0
3 3
3
o
.c
2
1
_
_
"(5
o
E
a)
O
I
0)
0
0_
k.
O
^
(D
_l
(0
U
E
0)
6
^M
Q)
O
a.
i.
o
^
(0
60
50 _
(0
*j
o
I-
ซ^
40 ฐ
+^
c
Q)
0
^
0)
Q_
30
20
10
Figure 20. Recreational Package Treatment Plants Operating Cost Elements
-------
70
S3
00
6
5
(0
0 4
"o
c
to
s 3
o
ฃ
1-
2
1
_^_
(0
O
E
0)
O
0)
o
Q.
O
5
(D
E
O
0)
o
0_
1.
o
^
(0
^^^_
^_
60
50
(0
+rf
o
H
H-
40 o
c
0
30 (L
20
10
Figure 21. Combined Package Plant Operating Cost Elements
-------
EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY
Many approaches have been used to examine the cost structure of an
industry or firm. Two are discussed by Johnston in his book on statis-
tical estimation of cost functions. According to Johnston, cost curves can
be analyzed on the basis of accounting records or through the use of key
explanatory variables. Cost curve estimation based on accounting records
reflects the production relationships involved. The use of explanatory
variables attempts to provide information on the relation between cost and
selected factors which theoretically affect cost. This study utilizes both
approaches. Accounting data were collected from municipal and recreational
water utilities which use package water treatment plants, but most empirical
relationships developed in this report are for predictive as well as explan-
atory purposes.
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
Major predictive relationships were developed to estimate costs based
upon design capacity or flow in the form of a power function, as follows:
C = AQb (1)
where Q = design capacity or flow, million gallons/year;
C = total cost, $/year;
b = cost elasticity; and
A = constant.
Separate equations were estimated for the municipal, recreational, and
combined data sets. The combined data set does not necessarily reflect the
actual proportion of municipal to recreational facilities in the population.
But some indication of the general relationships in the total population
can be determined from this data set. Results from the individual data sets
are more applicable for some predictive purposes.
PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
Production function relationships cannot be explicitly estimated,
because the usage of each input factor was not collected except for the
chemical input ratios. Therefore, the general trade-off among inputs can-
not be determined, but some indication of the substitutability among the
29
-------
Inputs can be determined by examination of the costs. The following
production function was hypothesized:
Q = f(L, P, Q, K) (2)
where L = labor units, man-hours;
P = power units, kwh;
K = design capacity, MG/yr;
Q = revenue-producing water, MG/yr.
As a variant on equation 2, total cost can be expressed as:
TC = g(Q) = g1 (L, P, C, K) (3)
A linear form of equation 3 is as follows:
TC = A + wL + mP + nC + rK (4)
where TC = total cost in $/yr;
w = wage rate in $/hr;
m = unit power cost in $/kwh;
n = unit chemical cost in $/lb;
r = capital or capacity cost in $/unit of capacity;
A = constant.
Equation 4 represents the sum of each cost input. Multiplying both sides
of equation 4 by Q/Q = 1 yields:
f o + ? ซ + f ป * f o <5>
Each of these ratios represents the unit costs of labor, power, chemicals,
and capacity, and each contains the input ratios implicitly even though
they cannot be evaluated separately. In addition, each term in equation 5
refers to the share of total expenditures incurred by that input. Because
of the separable nature of the equations, estimates may be made on the
individual segments and combined to create equation 5.
A multiplicative variant of equation 3 may also be formed as follows:
30
-------
TC = B(L1)ฐt(P1)B(C1)Y(K1)V (6)
where
L1
i
P
i
c
K1
wL
Q
mP
^
Q
nC
Q
rK
^
Q
B = constant
a, g, y> S, H* = cost elasticities
Equation 6 combines all of the relevant inputs into one equation for ease
of estimation. Empirical analysis of equation 6 will yield information
on the existence of scale economies and substitutability of inputs.
Chemical Cost Relationships
The relationship between finished water quality and chemical costs
is of particular interest. Using the approaches discussed earlier, it
is possible to formulate a chemical cost equation as follows:
CH = n (A, PL, S, LM, Q) (7)
where CH = total chemical cost, $/year;
A = alum, mg/L;
PL = polyelectrolyte, mg/L;
S = soda ash, mg/L;
LM = lime, mg/L; and
Q = revenue-producing water, million liters/yr.
Equation 7 expresses chemical cost as a function of its input.
A more appropriate method for evaluating raw water quality would be
to examine the relation of chemical costs and total treatment cost to
selected dummy variables.
For example:
CH = f (Q, X) (8)
(0 for unprotected raw water source
where X4> = ;.. , r ,
(1 for protected raw water source
An unprotected source is defined as free-flowing or impounded surface
water while a protected source is ground or spring water.
31
-------
EMPIRICAL RESULTS
This section provides the empirical estimates of the relationships
discussed previously. Results, categorized into three segments, are
reported for each data set: municipal, recreational, and combined. The
first segment presents the results for predictive relationships, while
the second segment provides empirical results for the production equa-
tions.
PREDICTIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Individual cost equations for each component of the entire water
utility acquisition, treatment, distribution, and support services
were estimated as a function of revenue/producing water. The O&M equa-
tions are presented for each data set in Table 3. For treatment and
total O&M, recreational utilities have lower cost elasticities than do
municipal plants. This should be expected, since recreational plants
operate at a lower average flow and for only part of the year. Thus,
greater operating economies may be gained by recreational plants through
expanding output than can be gained by municipal plants, which have
already achieved economies of scale. In general, the results indicate
that operating economies exist in all components as well as total O&M
for utilities that use package treatment plants.
Table 4 contains results for the total costs including capital for
each major component as well as for total system cost. Municipal cost
elasticities again exceed the recreational cost elasticity estimates, as
might be expected. Results in these tables also indicate that signifi-
cant economies prevail for total operating cost, depreciation and
interest, and total annual cost as a function of revenue-producing
water. These results imply that as output rises, economies of scale in
capital and operation drive unit costs down.
Table 5 provides the empirical results from construction cost
equations for each data set. Total construction cost is regressed
against treated water. These construction costs are for the total
utility and the complete package treatment plant (includes equipment,
building, and installation cost). As can be seen from the table,
significant scale economies also exist in construction. Figures 22 and
23 depict unit construction costs and O&M costs with respect to plant
size for package treatment plants and for a total utility. These data
are from the municipal data set.
32
-------
.b,*
Table 3. UTILITY O&M COSTS BY MAJOR COST COMPONENTS (C = aQ )
Acquisition
Treatment
Distribution
Support
Services
Total O&M
Municipal Utilities
a b R2
79.277 .716 .620
(.155)
297.526 .886 .627
(.182)
232.204 .930 .668
(.182)
129.195 .914 .212
(.488)
895.620 .862 .567
(.209)
Recreational Utilities
a b* R2
NS NS
2326.181 .218 .374
(.078)
NS NS
NS NS
4073.134 .222 .307
(.092)
Combined Data Set
a b
209.863 .399
(.103)
2044.530 .394
(.054)
425.354 .724
(.116)
329.308 .614
(.134)
3661.697 .475
(.059)
R2
.350
.646
.583
.430
.696
C = Cost in $/yr; Q = revenue-producing water in mil gal/yr; a, b = constants (values in parentheses are standard errors).
-------
b *
Table 4. TOTAL COST EQUATIONS (O&M AND CAPITAL) BY MAJOR COMPONENT (C = aQ )
Municipal Utilities Recreational Utilities
Acquisition
Treatment
Distribution
Support
Services
Total O&M
Total Capital
Total Cost
a b
432.272 .588*
(.315)
3492.074 .549
(.159)
2863.769 .713
(.344)
468.746 .608
(.374)
895.620 .862
(.209)
36761.633 .151
(.098)
7775.787 .645
(.196)
R2 a b R2
.208 NS NS
.499 10030.984 .132 .264
(.070)
.264 NS NS
.249 NS NS
.567 4073.134 .222 .307
(.092)
.122 12761.614 .241 .240
(.114)
.454 19054.451 .118 .089
(.101
Combined Data Set
a b
1460.734 .213
(.102)
9556.807 .278
(.043)
4817.522 .537
(.094)
342.561 .627
(.132)
3661.697 .475
(.059)
16006.113 .329
(.064)
17753.803 .408
(.057)
R2
.143
.639
.575
.520
.696
.443
.653
* C = Cost in dollars/yr; Q = revenue-producing water in mil gal/yr; a,b = constants. All values in parentheses are standard errors.
-------
Table 5. CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR PACKAGE PLANTS
AND TOTAL SYSTEM (C = aQ )
Data Set Total
Municipal
Total 35018.788 .610
(.256)
Treatment 12890.141 .616
(.150)
Recreational
Total 17835.462 .684
(.165)
Treatment 8470.095 .730
.251
.498
.552
.520
Combined
Total
Treatment
14289.31
10739.717
(.194)
.773
(.090)
.653
(.064)
.692
.762
C = total cost; Q = mil gal water treated/yr; a,b = constants.
(Values in parentheses are standard errors.)
35
-------
U)
c 10000
(Q
o 8000
(A
k.
JO
~o
o
6000
4000
2000
.1
.2
.3
System Cost
Package Plant Cost
o o -o-
.4 .5 .6 -7
Plant Capacity (msd)
.8
.9
1.0
Figure 22. Total Unit Construction Costs for System and Package Plants (Municipal Utilities)
-------
OJ
(A
c
a
O
c
o
0)
0.
(0
o
0
600
500
400
300
200
100
.1
.2
.3
System Cost
Package Plant Cost
.4 .5 .6 7
Plant Capacity (msd)
.8
.9
1.0
Figure 23. Total Unit O&M Cost for System and Package Plant (70% of capacity)
-------
QUASI-PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
Equation 9 provides a variation of equation 6 discussed in the
previous section. Since no productivity or production function relation-
ships can be generated due to the sparsity of data, an attempt was made
to examine the cost tradeoffs inherent in utilities using package treat-
ment plants. This analysis is conducted only for total treatment operating
costs. The estimated operating and maintenance cost equation is:
TOC - 3.561 Q-98ฐ I/612 C'^E'179 (R2 - .994) (9)
(.038) (.038) (.025) (.049)
where:
TOC = total annual treatment operating cost in $/yr;
Q = revenue-producing water, million gallons/yr;
L = payroll expense per million gallons;
C = chemical expense per million gallons; and
E = power expense per million gallons.
From this equation, it is obvious the payroll costs are a significant
factor in operating the package plant. To further examine the degree of
this impact, a set of relationships can be derived based on equation 9.
The total differential of equation 9 yields:
dTOC - 3.490 Q- L-612 C-160 E'179 dQ
2.179Q-98ฐL-388C-160E-179dL
+ .637Q-98ฐL-612C-160E-821dE (10)
Setting dTOC, dQ, and dE = 0 yields:
0 = 2.179 Q- L- C- E- dL
+ .570 Q-980 I'612 C-840 E-179 dC (11)
38
-------
Solving for gives:
.980 .612 -.840 .179
oL _ _ ->/" Q _ L C _ E _ _ _ L_
dC " " 2.179 Q-980 L-388 C-160 E-179 " C
n ,
Multiplying by to get a cost elasticity yields:
i r
-262
<13>
Equation 13 implies that a 1% increase in chemical costs must be accom-
panied by a .262% decrease in payroll costs in order to keep costs
constant. Other trade-off elasticities generated from equation 9 are
provided in Table 6. These relationships do not reflect the trade-
offs from large changes in the variables, but rather the variations in
the neighborhood of a point .
Table 6. SUBSTITUTION ELASTICITIES AMONG Q, L, C, AND E
Q
L
C
E
-.624
-.163
-.183
-1.602
-.262
-.292
-6.123
-3.817
-1.118
-5.479
-3.421
- .895
The most important factor influencing operating cost outside of Q
is payroll cost. If payroll costs increase by 1%, chemical cost must
decrease 3.817% or energy cost must decrease 3.421%. Thus, the level of
labor activity devoted to operating and maintenance of the package plant
is very important.
Chemical cost equations were developed for the combined data set
as follows:
39
-------
Combined Chemical Costs
CH = 55.037 Q'661 AL*349 (R2 = .860) (14)
(.054) (.071)
where CH = total chemical cost, $/year;
Q = revenue-producing water, million gallons /year; and
AL = alum, mg/L.
Other relationships were developed between chemical cost or total treat-
ment operating cost and selected dummy variables on source type, turbidity
standards, and drinking water standards.
Relationships were developed for chemical and total treatment O&M costs,
versus water source, meeting the turbidity standards and meeting the other
drinking water standards. These significant equations are as follows:
Combined Cost
CH = 105.109 Q'66ฐ 1.458X (R2 = .754) (15)
(.075)
CH = 125.336 Q'589 1.486T (R2 = .756) (16)
(.042)
TOM = 1939.140 0/ 1.203 (R = .781) (17)
(.042)
where TOM = total treatment O&M, $/year;
X = rl if unprotected raw water source
0 if protected raw water source
T = rl if turbidity standard met
0 if turbidity standard not met
S = /I if drinking water standards met
0 if drinking water standards not met.
A protected source is defined as ground water or spring water while
an unprotected source is a surface source or impoundment. These results
indicate that if a standard is met or if the source is unprotected, more
treatment expense is incurred at each level of output.
40
-------
COST COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presents results from a study of 36 selected water util-
ities that use package treatment plants. The study was conducted in order
to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of package treatment plants in treating
drinking water. The following section provides a comparative analysis to
the cost of conventional treatment and the general conclusions are contained
in the final section.
COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS
Package water treatment plants can produce water for small communities
that will meet the requirements of the Interim Regulations. However, the
cost of this new technology must be compared to that for conventional treat-
ment. Data on the cost of conventional treatment plants are not generally
available for plants of the size less than one mgd, prohibiting extrapola-
tion of cost estimates for conventional treatment into that range. It is
equally difficult to estimate costs for plants greater than one mgd. There-
fore, both systems were compared at the one mgd level.
Reference to figures 22 and 23 in the previous section shows the
relevant unit operating and construction costs for municipal treatment plants
and total utility cost. These figures indicate that economies of scale and
operation are achievable for package plants built and operated in a range
less than or equal to one mgd. Therefore, for the average municipal plant
size, slightly greater than .5 mgd in this data set, significant scale
economies can be attained.
Figure 24 shows total construction cost of a package plant and the
entire treatment system versus plant capacity in mgd. Figure 25 shows
the annualized cost of treatment and total utility cost versus revenue
producing water in mil gal/yr.
The construction cost for 1 mgd-plant with settling has been estimated
at $1,124,000 (see Table 7). Total construction cost for 1 mgd package plant
(includes plant, building, and installation), using the equation for
municipal treatment plant from Figure 24, is $488,236. Therefore, based
on construction cost alone, a package plant is significantly less expensive
then conventional treatment.
Total operation and maintenance cost for both technologies can also
be estimated. Using a previously developed equation for treatment O&M from
a study of small utilities, annual operating cost is estimated at $62,571.42
for conventional treatment. The equations from Table 3 estimate annual
operating costs for package plants as $40,408.55.
41
-------
2,500,000 T
NJ
w
o 2,000,000
o
o
o
g 1,500,000
+ซ
o
3
v_
4->
(0
c
o
5 1,000,000- -
CD
41
o
500,000- -
.5
1.0 1.5
Plant Capacity in mgd
Figure 24. Total Construction Cost Versus
Plant Capacity
-------
LO
300,000 +
250,000 +-
> 200,000 +
o 150,000 -h
"to
D
C
< 100,000 +
50,000 +
AnnuaM>eatment_Cost_
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Revenue Producing Water in mil gal/yr.
Figure 25. Annual Cost Versus Revenue
Producing Water
800
-------
Table 7. COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR 1 MGD PLANT7
Cost Estimate Conventional Package
Construction cost $1,124,000.00 $488,236.00
Annual treatment,
operation, and
maintenance cost $ 62,571.42 $ 40,408.55
Therefore, package plants not only can produce water for small communi-
ties that will meet the turbidity requirements of the National regulations,
but also reduce the cost impact on small systems unable to achieve scale
economies with conventional treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act may
seriously impact the budgets of small communities But it is the intent
of the Act to provide adequate water quality to the small as well as the
large utilities. As a result, this analysis was conducted to examine the
viability of using package treatment plants to meet the drinking water
standards.
The results of this study indicate two aspects. Scale economies exist
in package treatment plants under 1 mgd. The average flow rate for the
municipal systems in this study was found to be slightly less than 0.2 mgd,
implying that the average plant will be able to achieve the scale economies
that potentially exist with this technology.
As shown in Table 7, construction and operating costs are lower for
the package treatment technology than for conventional treatment processes
of the 1 mgd level. Utilities can lower their construction cost by
performing some of the installation and building work themselves. This
opportunity gives the manager a great deal of flexibility in controlling
construction costs.
Therefore, based on this study, it is felt that package plants can
be used in a cost effective manner to meet the turbidity requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, and still not impose an enormous burden on
the utility's budget.
44
-------
REFERENCES
1. Koenig, L. , "Cost of Water Treatment by Coagulation, Sedimentation,
and Rapid Sand Filtration," Journal of the American Water Works
Association, 59 (March 1967), p. 290-336.
2. Orlob, G. T., and Lindorf, M. R., "Cost of Water Treatment in Califor-
nia," Journal of the American Water Works Association, 50 (January 1958),
p. 45-55.
3. Clark, R. M., Gillean, J. I., and Adams, J. K., The Cost of Water Supply
and Water Utility Management, Vol. I, EPA-600/5-77-015a, November 1977.
4. Johnston, J., Statistical Cost Analysis, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).
5. Kmenta, Jan (Macmillan Co., New York, N. Y., 1971), Elements of
Econometrics, p. 539-550.
6. Cooper, J. P., Econometric Software Package (University of Chicago,
Chicago, 1973).
7. Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the Interim Primary Drink-
ing Water Regulations, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Water Supply Research Div., EPA-600/8-77-005, Cincinnati,
Ohio, May 1977, p. 41, Fig. 38.
8. Unpublished report on small utilities, Environmental Protection Agency,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Water Supply Research
Division, Table 17.
45
-------
APPENDIX A
QUALITY DATA
Table A-l. MUNICIPAL PLANTS
Plant
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Type of
Plant
AQ 40
(2)WB 133
AQ 40
AQ 70
AQ 40
Concrete
AQ 180
AQ 112
AQ 70
H-T
AQ 40
AQ 70
WE 133
AQ 40
AQ 112
AQ 180
Capacity
gpd
288,000
288,000
288,000
504,000
288,000
1,440,000
1,296,000
806,400
504,000
288,000
288,000
504,000
144,000
288,000
806,000
1,296,000
Plant
Output
gpd
97,000
98,500
75,000
147,350
105,500
860,000
364,000
233,000
229,000
114,000
84,300
80,000
70,000
70,000
43,200
450,000
Water
Source
Im
Gr
Gr
Ff
Im
Ff
Gr
Ff
Ff
Sp
Im
Sp
Im
Sp
Im
Ff
Alkalinity, mg/i
Raw Finished
36
180
257
55
100
'4
358
34
16
11
86
1
0
6
42
70
180
261
59
113
12
159
40
15
39
82
6
7
16
36
Hardness, mg/ฃ
Raw Finished
60
180
390
78
64
12
448
75
236
18
98
28
10
8
106
62
184
400
88
62
10
124
126
230
20
94
30
30
22
102
pH
Raw Finished
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.9
7.8
6.6
7.0
7.8
7.0
7.1
6.5
7.4
5.5
4.7
6.9
7.3
7.8
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.9
7.2
8.5
8.2
8.6
6.5
8.1
7.4
6.6
7.9
7.5
7.3
Temperature, ฐF
Raw Finished
73
55
56
70
59
58
57
69
66
56
52
50
53
57
59
59
73
55
57
71
59
60
61
69
66
60
54
52
54
60
59
59
NO, (as N), mg/ฃ
Finished
< 0.01
0.18
3.30
0.40
0.13
0.22
4.1
0.04
0.49
0.13
0.09
0.20
0.72
0.02
0.01
0.60
Water Sources: Gr
Sp
Ff
Im
Ground water
Spring
Free-flowing surface water
Impounded surface water
-------
Table A-l. MUNICIPAL PLANTS (Cont.)
Plant
No.
1
2
3
Fluoride, mg/Jl
Finished
0.10
0.18
(0.17 raw) 1.15
Turbidity,
NTU
Raw Finished
6.4
20.
7.0
0.9
0.7
0.5
Average Chemical Doses
Alum
31
13
Polyelectrolyte
0.02
0.1
0.03
, mg/Jl
Soda Ash Other
37
ferric sulfate 8 mg/Jl
Coliforms/100 mJl
Raw Finished
TNTC 0
38 23,7
780 0
Free Chlorine
residual, mg/Jl
2.5
< 0.1
1.0
Trihalome thanes
VS/H-
355.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.07
0.13
(0.05 raw) 0.80
(0.14 raw) 1.66
5.2
1.8
0.6
0.04
0.5
1.6
0.8
0.03
20
9
22
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.02
(0.05 raw) 1.11
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.07
7.0
520.
5.0
6.6
1.1
3.4
0.8
5.9
29.
0.2
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
6.0
43
52
57
11
7
37
20
14
0.3
0.04
0.5
0.4
13
17
66
52
5
9
12
fluoride 0.5 mg/Jl
lime 18 mg/Jl
lime 18 mg/Jl
fluoride 0.6 mg/Jl
sodium hydroxide 13 mg/Jl
fluoride 0.6 mg/Jl
lime 339 mg/Jl
lime
KMnO,
fluoride
lime
lime
lime
23 mg/Jl
0.2 mg/Jl
1.6 mg/Jl
22 mg/Jl
9 mg/Jl
4 mg/Jl
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
4
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
0,3
0
0
0,1
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.6
2.5
1.7
3.0
0.6
0.4
1.0
2.5
1.5
1.7
35.1
57.5
68.0
< 1.0
24.0
112.0
5.1
46.3
14.8
41.0
34.0
59.0
10.8
-------
Table A-2. RECREATIONAL PLANTS
Plant
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Type of
Plant
WB 27
ISI
WB 27
WB 82
WB 82
WB 27
Per. 48
Per . 200
WB 82
WB 82
AQ 40
WB 27
WB 27
WB 82
WB 133
Capacity
gpd
28,800
86,400
28,800
86,400
86,400
28,800
69,120
288,000
86,400
86,400
288,000
28,800
28,800
86,400
144,000
Plant
Output
gpd
1,000
5,200
2,700
3,250
4,700
1,150
6,000
50,000
1,250
6,300
12,000
13,000
3,000
3,600
33,400
Water
Source
Im
Im
Im
Im
Im
Im
Im
Ff
Im
Im
Im
Ff
Im
Im
Im
Alkalinity, mg/S.
Raw Finished
16
19
65
98
90
108
92
12
50
40
80
73
38
56
36
31
25
72
102
97
110
96
88
46
52
75
80
57
58
57
Hardness, mg/J.
Raw Finished
30
30
215
114
115
118
114
24
62
63
110
100
159
98
43
30
32
219
106
120
118
116
26
72
65
112
94
180
115
48
PH
Raw Finished
6.4
7.0
7.1
7.9
8.0
7.4
8.2
6.2
7.9
7.3
7.2
6.9
6.9
7.6
7.8
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.7
8.3
7.6
7.9
8.4
7.2
7.4
7.0
7.5
7.1
7.6
8.3
Temperature, ฐF
Raw Finished
74
72
68
75
81
79
82
48
55
64
58
59
64
59
57
73
72
72
81
84
79
82
52
61
64
58
59
63
61
59
NO (as N), mg/ฃ
Finished
0.01
0.06
0.38
0.07
< 0.01
0.04
0.03
0.17
0.31
0.21
0.26
0.27
0.20
< 0.01
Water sources: Im - impounded surface water
Ff - free-flowing surface water
-------
Table A-2. RECREATIONAL PLANTS (Cont.)
Plant
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Fluoride, mg/J. Turbidity, NTU
Finished Raw Finished
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.12
0.20
0.14
0.03
7.4
6.0
38.
2.6
28.
4.8
22.
2.8
11.
5.0
2.5
1.4
> 100.
31.
1.7
0.3
0.4
0.4
2.1
2.0
2.7
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.5
0.5
0.7
1.4
12.
0.7
Average Chemical Doses, mg/S,
Alum Polyelectrolyte Soda Ash Other
62
30
48
10
2
3
2
83
680
10
33
15
8
19
8
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
0.
9 108
7 31
2
3
5
5
88
9
8 9
0
4
16
Coliforms/100 mJ. Free Chlorine Trihalomethanes
Raw Finished residual, mg/J, Ug/ฃ
TNTC
TNTC
166
4
0
1
0
TNTC
0
25
TNTC
TNTC
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
2.5 -
1.
1.
0.
0.1 -
2.
1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
> 3.
6.
3.
4
3.0
0
0
7
0.4
0
5
2
8
5
0
0
1
9
95.0
26.0
4.7
98.0
55.0
45.0
70.3
185.0
23.6
45.0
42.8
64.0
376.0
< 1.0
132.0
-------
APPENDIX B - INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PACKAGE PLANTS
I. GENERAL
A. Date: Mo. Day Year
B. City or Owner
C. Ownership Type: Municipal ( ) Investor ( )
D. Utility Name
E. Address
F. Contact: Name of Plant Manager,
Operator, or Interviewee:
G. Population Served: Wholesaling
Retailing
H. Purchased Water Percent Amount
Raw
Treated
I. Source of water: Percent
Ground:
Surface impounded
freeflowing
J. Number of Meters:
Number of Accounts
Number of Flat-rate Accounts
K. Total Treated Water _
L. Total Billed Consumption _
M. Average price charged per unit of water
50
-------
Pg. 2
Year
Number of Meters
Number of Accounts
Number of Flat-rate Accounts
Total Treated Water
Total Billed Consumption
Average Price Charged
II. WATER QUALITY Raw Finished
A. Bacterial count (total coliform, per 100 ml)
B. Chlorine residual
C. Alkalinity
D. Hardness
E. pH
F. Temperature
H. Total THM
1. Chloroform
2. Dibromochloromethane
3. Bromoform
4. Bromodichloromethane
51
-------
Pg. 3
I. Drinking Water Regulation Constituents
1. Arsenic
2. Barium
3. Cadmium
4. Chromium
5. Lead
6. Mercury
7. Nitrate
8. Selenium
9. Silver
10. Fluoride
11. Endrin
*
12. Lindane
13. Methoxychlor
14. Toxaphene
15. 2,4-D
16. 2,4,5-TP
17. Turbidity
III. SUPPLEMENTAL QUALITY INFORMATION FROM STATE RECORDS, MANUFACTURERS'
RECORDS, OR OTHER SOURCES:
52
-------
Pg. 4
IV. CHEMICALS USED*
Point of Application Ibs/year Concentration
A. Chlorine
B. Fluoride
C. Carbon
D. Lime
E. Ammonia
F. Alum
G. Copper Sulfate
H. Soda Ash
I. Polymer
J. Iron Chloride
K. Iron Sulfate
L. Others
* If the only available data are for time periods shorter than one year,
record the flow rate along with the Ibs per time period.
53
-------
Pg. 5
V. PLANT AND SYSTEM DESIGN
A. Flow Diagram of Treatment Plant
B. Flow Diagram of Major Pipe Network and Position of Pump Stations
and Treatment Plant.
54
-------
Pg. 6
VI. TREATMENT PLANT STRUCTURE
A. Treatment Process (General)
Design
Detention
Time Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Activated
Aeration
Chlorination
Coagulation
Dechlorination
Filtration
Fluoridation
Fluoride Removal
Sedimentation
Softening
Stabilization
Others
B. Filter Media
If yes, what type?
Yes ( )
No ( )
1. Layer
Uniformity Thickness
Material Eff. size Coefficient (inches)
Top_
Intermediate (if used)
Intermediate (if used)
Bottom
55
-------
Pg. 7
2. Support Medium:
a. graded gravel d. Leopold block
b. porous plate e. Other
c. wheeler bottom
3. Chemical addition immediately prior or at filter? Yes ( ) No ( )
If no, where?
4. Brand names of chemicals:
a. , mg/1
b. , mg/1
c. , mg/1
5. How mixed?
6. Backwash practices:
Duration, 2 When used in
minutes Rate: gpm/ft or inches rise/min backwash cycle
Backwash
Surface Wash
Air Assisted
Wash
Air flow, standard cubin feet/minute_
C. Treatment Manufacturer's name and Address:
D. Package Plant Model Number
E. Expected Lifetime
F. Date of Plant Installation
G. Flow Rate at Time of Sampling
56
-------
Pg. 8
VII. Cost Information for Year
A. Plant capacity
B. Total O&M cost (all cost components)
C. Total depreciation expense (all cost components)
D. Total interest expense (all cost components)
E. Total overhead cost (includes billing, collecting,
meter reading and administrative operations)
F. Total payroll expense
G. Total man-hours
H. Total energy expense
I. Total KWH
J. Treatment
1. Total chemical cost
2. Total labor cost
3. Number of man-hours per year
a. percent of time spent on treatment
maintenance.
b. percent of time spent on treatment
operation.
4. Total energy cost
5. Total KWH
6. Laboratory expense
7. Treatment plant purchase cost
8. Plant housing cost
9. Plant installation cost
10. Reservoir and/or storage cost
11. Other O&M cost
12. Other capital cost
57
-------
Pg. 9
K. Acquisition
1. Plant investment
2. Labor expense
3. Man-hours
4. Energy cost
5. KWH
6. Other O&M cost
7. Other capital cost
58
-------
APPENDIX C
COST DATA FOR PACKAGE PLANTS
Table C-l. MUNICIPAL PLANTS
Treatment
I.D. Design Operation Acquisition
Rate O&M
1 288000 97400. 456.
2 98500. 1250.
3 75000. 1063.
4 47350. 1241.
5 2183.
6 4447.
2158.
3750.
2000.
1133.
822.
411.
Treatment
O&M
6752.
4184.
4364.
10905.
11614.
33323.
29947.
23716.
23795.
9060.
6877.
6265.
1015.
8068.
6586.
22220.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Chemical
O&M
1970.
1200.
607.
1000.
505.
6076.
8732.
7940.
3666.
300.
2832.
2174.
-2.
1648.
767.
3636.
2
-2.
-2.
Distribution
O&M
4981.
4420.
4076.
10278.
12766.
31335.
24173.
19500.
28829.
9100.
4292.
3690.
1555.
6601.
6100.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Support
Services
O&M
2069.
1053.
1028.
5039.
6301.
11550.
33193.
9202.
14181.
3473.
9072.
5024.
58.
11450.
7376.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Total
O&M
14258.
10907.
10531.
27463.
32864.
80655.
89471.
56168.
68805.
22766.
21063.
15420.
3406.
26723.
20998.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Power
2113.
4282.
5314.
6204.
9406.
18474.
7994.
18228.
8286.
5666.
4109.
2639.
3348.
3021.
4681.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Acquisition
KI
173040.
- 2.
23359.
17124.
112895.
93001.
10500.
15000.
81865.
10000.
0.
57192.
0.
38410.
21221.
12200.
25332.
50000.
4209.
3043.2
2870.2
11446.4
8004.6
33433.2
6917.7
41408.2
-------
Table C-l. MUNICIPAL PLANTS (Cont.)
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Total Treatment
KI
272593.
196645.
165031.
199347.
225785.
923415.
244841.
413850.
571440.
322025.
339325.
342662.
97710.
133600.
457995.
430996.
363934.
595965.
318067.
Plant
Equipment
KI
106593.
122652.
54180.
88565.
58700.
161203.
219533.
135000.
183201.
55000.
60893.
69440.
43970.
53440.
124749.
93071.
69663.
85000.
196881.
Treatment
Building
KI
93737.
25384.
69795.
64263.
111391.
479911.
9047.
137250.
257428.
168127.
185622.
182688.
24428.
53440.
234219.
135830.
196181.
340643.
87890.
Treatment
Installation
KI
72264.
48609.
41056.
46520.
55694.
282301.
16261.
141600.
130811.
98898.
92810.
90131.
29313.
26720.
99027.
202094.
98090.
170322.
33196.
Distribution
Storage
KI
295295.
16520.
12317.
438589.
2264095.
1610674.
1551985.
2110706.
-2.
950970.
327816.
549053.
445292.
542830.
986653.
153560.
710734.
228712.
45716.
Overhead
KI
0.
0.
0.
11340.
0.
123131.
-2.
-2.
-2.
29670.
0.
0.
-2.
-2.
0.
-2.
0.
-2.
1564.
Interest
25994.
5003.
7502.
23379.
26106.
69697.
11820.
33936.
87619.
28859.
3522.
18967.
10050.
18075.
27172.
23584.
15700.
36500.
18400.
Total
KI
740928.
213165.
200707.
666400.
2602775.
2750222.
1807326.
2539556.
653304.
1312665.
667141.
948503.
543002.
714840.
1265869.
596756.
404966.
874677.
367992.
Payroll
O&M
10175.
5425.
4610.
19180.
21000.
56105.
49640.
30000.
43080.
16800.
6415.
7020.
-2.
1664.
10335.
18584.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Treatment
Labor $
4070.
1920.
1844.
7672.
8400.
22442.
19856.
12000.
17709.
6720.
2566.
2808.
-2.
5332.
4134.
18584.
-2.
-2.
2
Ave.
348169.8
104301.7
150382.8
93458.8
724528.7
13808.7
25888.7 1045831.4
20002.2
9070.5
-------
Table C-l. MUNICIPAL PLANTS (Cont.)
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Ave.
Treatment
Energy
712.00
1064.00
1913.00
2233.00
2709.00
4805.00
1359.00
3776.00
2420.00
2040.00
1479.00
1283.00
1015.00
1088.00
1685.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
1972.1
Lab
Expense
-2.00
0.00
-2.00
-2.00
670.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
6215.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
2295.0
Total
Depreciation
37046.40
10658.00
10034.91
33320.00
130138.99
137511.23
61379.85
126978.00
32665.42
65633.00
33356.72
47425.28
27150.00
17114.16
63293.44
29837.54
20248.00
43734.00
18400.00
49785.5
CPI
O&M
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
CPI
Deprec. & KI
1.36
1.00
1.29
1.36
1.81
1.11
1.05
1.50
1.01
1.00
1.36
2.24
1.50
1.67
1.12
1.22
1.00
1.00
1.00
-------
Table C-2. RECREATIONAL PLANTS
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Design
28800.
86400.
28800.
86400.
86400.
28800.
69120.
288000.
86400.
86400.
288000.
28800.
28800.
86400.
144000.
504000.
86400.
Treatment
Operation
Rate
1000.
5200.
2700.
3250.
4700.
1150.
6000.
50000.
1250.
6300.
12000.
13000.
3000.
3600.
144000.
302400.
-2.
Acquisition
O&M
80.
147.
132.
182.
182.
182.
182.
1095.
392.
1800.
480.
396.
146.
353.
10.
-2.
-2.
Treatment
O&M
2025.
3464.
4569.
2486.
2588.
2469.
2632.
4317.
1443.
2389.
3722.
5603.
924.
1811.
4539.
-2.
-2.
Chemical
O&M
143.
186.
321.
68.
170.
52.
214.
1315.
350.
379.
170.
1050.
122.
75.
890.
-2.
-2.
Distribution
O&M
1906.
71.
52.
1617.
1617.
1617.
1617.
4754.
187.
300.
3696.
832.
307.
35.
880.
-2.
-2.
Support
Services
O&M
1127.
260.
200.
833.
833.
833.
732.
4090.
220.
100.
1392.
39.
255.
104.
485.
-2.
-2.
Total
O&M
5138.
3942.
4953.
5118.
5220.
5102.
5163.
14256.
2242.
4589.
9290.
6870.
1632.
2303.
5914.
-2.
-2.
Power
400.
352.
244.
404.
404.
404.
404.
3176.
932.
1800.
2400.
1980.
731.
882.
1795.
-2.
-2.
Acquisition
KI
2040.
2040.
13362.
10500.
13100.
16700.
12200.
-2.
97071.
59393.
10500.
5240.
80199.
14443.
6477.
213754.
3750.
Ave.
120112.9
34971.9
383.9
2998.8
366.9
1299.2
766.9
5448.7
1087.3
35048.1
-------
Table C-2. RECREATIONAL PLANTS (Cont.)
I.D.
1
2
3
4
a. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Total Treatment
KI
56100.
74800.
47237.
136500.
72050.
66800.
79300.
-2.
106405
90525.
454230.
22139.
115289.
161600.
151225.
99431.
40866
Plant
Equipment
KI
17850.
34000.
17063.
20370.
20174.
25050.
19520.
-2.
53992.
38823.
50820.
8450.
59920.
30805.
58670.
-2.
21000.
Treatment
Building
KI
20400.
6800.
12873.
77420.
34584.
41750.
42700.
-2.
38062.
37581.
268940.
5240.
40249.
87196.
51467.
-2.
13244.
Treatment
Installation
KI
17850.
34000.
17301.
38710.
17292.
0.
17080.
-2.
14351.
14121.
134470.
8450.
15120.
43599.
41089.
-2.
6622.
Distribution
Storage
KI
2040.
-2.
40898.
79800.
55020.
58450.
75640.
-2.
236617.
41111.
-2.
29344.
16100.
27427.
112885.
567035.
27892.
Overhead
KI
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-2.
1029.
0.
Interest
2111.
2696.
3697.
10617.
5105.
3963.
6605.
7
16029.
8942.
21754.
1940.
9199.
9990.
12668.
35423.
3625.
Total
KI
60180.
76840.
101497.
226800.
140170.
141950.
167140.
-2.
440093.
191029.
464730.
56723.
211588.
203470.
270617.
880219.
72508.
Payroll
O&M
4095.
3151.
4136.
4545.
4545.
4444.
3829.
6135.
758.
2410.
6720.
3840.
539.
1260.
2779.
-2.
-2.
Treatment
Labor $
1738.
3151.
4120.
2273.
2273.
2273.
2273.
2454.
758.
1410.
2688.
3840.
539.
1260.
2779.
-2.
-2.
Ave.
110906.1
31767.
51900.4
28003.7
97875.7
68.6
9647.8
231597.1
3545.7
2255.1
-------
Table C-2. RECREATIONAL PLANTS (Cont.)
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Treatment
Energy
144.00
127.26
128.00
145.44
145.44
145.44
145.44
548.00
335.32
600.00
864.00
713.00
263.00
476.00
870.00
-2.00
-2.00
Lab
Expense
250.00
252.50
100.00
101.00
101 . 00
101.00
101.00
-2.00
202.00
0.00
-2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-2.00
-2.00
Total
Depreciation
3008.32
3842.00
5074.94
11340.00
7008.50
7097.50
8357.00
-2.00
22004.07
9551.85
23236.50
2836.15
10579.52
10173.73
13530.30
29911.20
3625.00
CPI
O&M
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
CPI
Deprec. & KI
1.36
1.36
1.31
1.05
1.31
1.67
1.22
1.00
1.31
1.05
1.05
1.31
1.12
1.01
1.05
1.21
1.00
Ave. 376.7 92.9 10698.5
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-008b
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
PACKAGE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Volume 2. A Cost Evaluation
5. REPORT DATE
July 1980 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Richard G. Stevie and Robert M. Clark
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Drinking Water Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1CC614 SOS 1
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
GS-05S-10458
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Municipal Environmental Research LaboratoryGin.,OH Final - 6/77 to 6/79
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
See also Volume 1 (EPA-600/2-80-008a)
Project Officer: Robert M. Clark DWRD
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (513) 684-7488
16. ABSTRACT
Many small and rural systems have both cost and quality problems. Their unit costs
tend to be higher because of the small number of connections they service. As shown
by the Community Water Supply Survey of 1969, many small systems have trouble meeting
minimal drinking water standards. These problems are likely to be compounded in the
future as drinking water standards are raised. The cost of building a conventional
water treatment plant to provide higher quality water for a small community may be
prohibitive. A possible alternative to a conventional water treatment plant is a
package water treatment plant. These plants are self-contained units that can be
installed for a minimum cost.
Results from a study of 36 package plants in Kentucky, West Virginia, and
Tennessee show that treatment plants can provide water that meets the turbidity
requirement of the National Interim Drinking Water Standards. However, as with all
treatment plants, proper operation is required. These plants, contrary to some manu-
facturers' claims, are not totally automatic but require supervision. Nevertheless,
when properly maintained and operated, they can provide water that meets the Safe
Drinking Water Act's MCKs at a cost less than that associated with conventional treat-
ment.
This report (Volume 2) presents the results of a cost evaluation study for package
water treatment plants. Volume 1 discusses the performance of package plants with
minimal cost evaluatlnn.
7,
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Construction Costs; Cost Analysis; Cost
Centers; Cost Control; Cost Effectiveness;
Distribution Costs; Distribution Systems;
Economic Analysis; Operating Cost;
Performance Evaluation; Quality; Statisti-
cal Analysis; Regression Analysis; Utility;
Water Supply; Water Treatment
Capital Costs; Chemical
Costs; Conventional Treat-
ment; Field Evaluation;
Maximum Contaminant Levels;
Operating and Maintenance
Cost; Package Plants; Pre-
dictive Relationships; Safe
Drinking Water Act; Small
Systems; Treatment Systems
13B
14A
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
75
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R.v. 4-77)
65
> U.S. GOVEfflUIENT PRINTING OfFICE: 1980-657-165/0034
-------
EPA/600/2-80/008b
Package Water Treatment Plants
------- |