Unites States Office of Water EPA 31S-R-33-G' 5
Environmental Protection (4607) July 1398
Agency
V>EPA COST AND TECHNOLOGY DOCUMENT
FOR THE INTERIM ENHANCED
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE
-------
FINAL DRAFT
COST AND TECHNOLOGY DOCUMENT
FOR THE INTERIM
ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE
July 28, 1998
Prepared for.,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
. Prepared by:
Science Applications International Corporation
1710 Goodridge Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102-3701
and
HDR Engineering, Inc.
2211 South IH 35 - Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78741-3842
EPA Contract No. 68-C6-0059, WA No. 1-18
SAIC Project No. 01-0833-08-3554-021
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
\
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) by Science Application International Corporation
(SAIC) (Contract No. 68-C6-0059) and its subcontractor. HDR Engineering. Overall planning
and management for the preparation of this manual was provided by Stig Regli and Valerie
Blank of OGWDW and Tom Carpenter of SAIC.
EPA acknowledges the valuable contributions of those who wrote and reviewed this
document. They include: Erica Michaels and Jack Faulk, of SAIC; Adrian Huckabee, Roger
Noack and Tim Chinn of HDR Engineering; and Eric Bissonette, Jon Bender, Jeff Robichaud
and Stig Regli of U.S. EPA. EPA also thanks the following external peer reviewers for their
excellent review and valuable comments on the draft manuscript: Joe Jacangelo, PhD.,
(Montgomery Watson), Nancy McTigue, PhD., (Environmental Engineering and Technology,
Inc.), and Bill Bellamy, PhD., (CH2M Hill).
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 - INTRODUCTION • 1-1
1.1. Background • 1-2
1.2. Microbial and D/DBP Advisory Committee 1-3
1.3. Purpose of Document 1-4
1.4. Document Organization ,1-5
2. OVERVIEW OF SURFACE WATER TREATMENT CONFIGURATIONS 2-1
2.1. Conventional Treatment 2-2
2.2. Direct Filtration 2-4
2.3. Slow-Sand Filtration 2-6
2.4. Package Plants 2-6
2.5. Diatomaceous Earth Filtration . 2-7
2.6. Membrane Filtration 2-7
3. DESIGN CRITERIA AND COSTS FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES UNDER
THE INTERIM ESWTR 3-1
3.1. Basis of Cost-General . 3-1
3.1.1. Capital Costs .3-2
3.1.2. Operation and Maintenance Costs . 3-3
3.2. Basis of Cost - Process by Process 3-4
3.2.1. Chemical Addition . 3-6
3.2.2. Coagulant Improvements 3-10
3.2.3. Rapid Mixing .3-11
3.2.4. Flocculation Improvements 3-12
3.2.5. Settling Improvements ,-...! 3-14
3.2.6. Filtration Improvements 3-15.
3.2.7. Hydraulic Improvements 3-24
3.2.8. Administrative Culture Improvements 3-26
3.2.9. Laboratory Modifications 3-27
3.2:10. Process Control Testing Modifications ; • 3-29
3.2.11. OtherCosts 3-32
33. Cost Tables 3-33
4. REFERENCES 4-1
APPENDIX A. EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS V A-l
Final Draft \ Jufy28,l998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Flow Schematics for Conventional Water Treatment Plant 2-5
Figure 2-2. Flow Schematics for Direct Filtration Plants 2-5
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Cryptosporidium and Giardia Filtration Removal Efficiencies 2-3
Table 3-1. Unit Cost of Treatment Chemicals 3-4
Table 3-2. System Category Size 3-5
Table 3-3. Capital Costs (Thousand Dollars) by Treatment Option 3-35
Table 3-4. Annualized Capital Costs at 3 percent Interest Rate (Cents/I ,000 gal) by
Treatment Option ; 3-37
Table 3-5. Annualized Capital Costs at 7 percent Interest (Cents/1,000 gal) by
Treatment Option 3-39
Table 3-6. Annualized Capital Costs at 10 percent Interest (Cents/1,000 gal) by
Treatment Option 3-41
Table 3-7. Operation and Maintenance Costs (Cents/1,000 gal) by .Treatment Option .... 3-43
Table 3-8. Total Annualized Costs at 3 percent Interest Rate (Cents/1,000 gal) by
Treatment Option 3-45
Table 3-9. Total Annualized Costs at 7 percent Interest (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment
Option 3-47
Table 3-10. Total Annualized Costs at 10 percent Interest Rate (Cents/1,000 gal) by
Treatment Option 3-49
Final Draft ii Jufy28.I998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
1. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under direction from Congress, is
planning to supplement the existing 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) with three stages
of rules to further guard against waterbome disease transmission through water supply systems.
These rules are the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), the Stage 1 Long
Term ESWTR (LT1ESWTR) and the Stage 2 Long Term ESWTR (LT2ESWTR). The IESWTR
will revise and strengthen the existing SWTR, which presently contains filtration and disinfection
requirements for surface water systems and requirements for the removal of and/or inactivation of
Giardia lamblia, viruses, and bacteria. In advance of comprehensive data collection and analysis
efforts necessary to fully evaluate and develop an enhanced regulation, EPA is using currently
available information to develop the Interim ESWTR (IESWTR). The IESWTR pertains only to
community water systems serving 10,000 or more people, that use either surface water sources or
ground water sources under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). Subsequent to the
IESWTR, EPA will promulgate the LT1ESWTR that will affect community and non-community
systems serving less than 10,000 people that use surface water sources or GWUDI. TheLT2ESWTR
will address some of the key regulatory questions regarding the MCLGs and associated treatment
technique requirements for all systems. This document focuses on the technologies and costs
associated with the IESWTR.
It is anticipated that compliance with the IESWTR will generally be possible through
adjustments to existing treatment processes. However, in some cases, additional treatment processes
of other treatment technologies or enhancements (i.e., supervisory control and data acquisition
system), may be required. These enhancements may require additional staff to either operator or
maintain the new systems. It is not anticipated that systems will need to make major capital
improvements. For the purposes of this document, costs and activities associated with meeting the
IESWTR were developed for systems using existing facilities with some reconstruction and
upgrading, although some new construction options were considered (i.e., new rapid mix basin).
Systems considering major capital improvements in order to meet requirements of the IESWTR,
should conduct an optimization activity similar to the Composite Correction Program (CCP) in order
to assess the real need of construction. The CCP approach is a tool developed by EPA that can be
Final Draft 1-1 My 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
:o :uenur> and correct factors that limit a plant's performance. The CCP seeks to achieve
optimum performance from an existing water treatment facility without major modifications. CCP
experience has demonstrated that the proposed turbidity requirements may be produced from systems
that are currently meeting the SWTR without major construction (USEPA, 1990).
' This document describes treatment technologies, process modifications, and associated costs
to improve the removal of microbial pathogens in drinking water systems and to comply with the
IESWTR.
/
1.1. Background
As a means to control pathogens in drinking water, EPA promulgated the SWTR (54 FR
27486) on June 29, 1 989. The goal of the SWTR is to reduce pathogen risk to less than one infection
per year per 10,000 people (10"4). Because many pathogenic microorganisms are particles that can
be removed by sedimentation and filtration processes and can be inactivated by disinfection, the
SWTR allows the use of filtration and disinfection to achieve target removal or inactivation of
Giardia cysts and viruses. The S WTR set maximum contaminant level goals of zero for Giardia
lamblia, viruses, and Legionella and promulgated national primary drinking water regulations for
public water systems using surface water sources or GWUDI. To protect against health effects from
pathogens, the SWTR set criteria under which filtration (including coagulation and sedimentation,
as appropriate) is required, outlined procedures for states to determine which systems must install
filtration, and set disinfection requirements. The SWTR also includes certain limits on turbidity,
specifically:
Public water systems (PWSs) that use conventional treatment or direct filtration are
required to achieve a turbidity performance criterion of 0.5 NTU 95 percent of the time
over a 1 -month period based on 4-hour sampling intervals.
Systems may not exceed a maximum turbidity of 5 NTU based on 4-hour sampling
intervals. , ,
In 1990, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), an independent panel established by
Congress, cited drinking water contamination as one of the highest ranking environmental risks. The
Final Draft 1-2 . Jufy28.1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water-Treatment Rule
SAB reported chat microbiological contaminants (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, and viruses) are likely the
greatest remaining health risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers. This view was
prompted by the SAB's concern about the number of waterbome disease outbreaks in the United
States. Between 1980 and 1994,378 waterbome disease outbreaks were reported, with over 500,000
cases of disease. Most of the cases (but not outbreaks) were associated with surface water, and
specifically to a single outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee in 1993 (over 400,000 cases)
(USEPA, 1998a).
Recent investigations have demonstrated small numbers of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts
in fully treated (i.e., filtered and disinfected) water from 27 to 54 percent of the municipal treatment
plants studied, most of which met these SWTR standards (LeChevallier et al., 1991; 1995).
Outbreaks associated with filtered systems illustrate the need for an IESWTR ahead of the
LTESWTR.
1.2. Microbial and D/DBP Advisory Committee
To build consensus among stakeholders and to ensure compliance with statutory deadlines
for promulgation of the IESWTR and Stage 1 D/DBPR, EPA established the Microbial and D/DBP
Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee, established under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FAC A) on February 12,1997, consists of 20 members representing EPA, state and
local public health and regulatory agencies, local elected officials, drinking water suppliers, chemical
and equipment manufacturers, and public interest groups. This Committee was established as a
means to collect, share, and analyze new information and data, as well as to build consensus on the
regulatory implications of this new information.
The Committee has reached agreement on several major issues that pertain to the IESWTR
as noted below:
An MCLG for Cryptosporidium at zero
Requirement of a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium for surface water systems serving
more than 10,000 people that are required to filter
Final Draft 1-3 . Jvfy28. 199S
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Turbidity performance requirements
Individual filter requirements
A disinfection profile/microbial benchmarking requirement.
The Committee also recommended treatment process enhancements that may be implemented
by systems under this rule. These processes are listed in Section 1.3. The Committee's
recommendations are discussed in more detail in the November 3,1997 National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations, Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) (62 FR 59486)-
1.3. Purpose of Document
This document is one of several documents being prepared in support of the IESWTR
development and its associated Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Interim Enhanced Surface
/
Water Treatment Rule (USEPA, 1998b). This document describes treatment technologies, process
and administrative modifications, and associated costs that may be incurred by community water
systems to comply with the turbidity requirements of the IESWTR. EPA will use calculated costs
to estimate the national treatment costs for compliance with the IESWTR.
Within this document, process enhancements descriptions are divided into the following
groups:
• Chemical addition
• Coagulant improvements
' *
• Rapid mixing improvements
Flocculation improvements
• Settling improvements
• Filtration improvements
• Hydraulic improvements
• Administration culture improvements
• Laboratory modifications
Final Draft 1-4 Jufy 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Process control modifications
Other modifications.
EPA does not intend for this document to be used as an engineering tool by systems in
designing treatment solutions for compliance with the proposed IESWTR. Instead, this document
discusses technologies and associated costs only to support regulatory development of the IESWTR.
Water suppliers may find this document as a useful reference to supplement more engineering
specific guidance and literature.
Certain technologies, especially those involving large financial expenditures, should only be
implemented with appropriate engineering guidance, and should consider factors such as:
' *
• Quality and type of raw source water
• Source water turbidity
• Economies of scale and the potential economic impact on the community being served
Treatment and waste disposal requirements.
An engineering study could be conducted, if needed, to select a technically feasible and cost-
effective method to meet the unique needs of each system for improved filter effluent quality to
comply with the IESWTR. Depending on the unique circumstances of an individual system,
appropriate engineering guidance may take the form of a simple survey of needs and alternative
improvements. Some situations may require more extensive water quality analyses or bench and/or
pilot scale testing. The engineering study may include preliminary designs and estimated capital,
operating and maintenance costs for full-scale treatment
1.4. Document Organization
This document is organized into four sections and an appendix as follows:
Section 1 - Introduction: This section provides background on the IESWTR, describes
the purpose of the document, highlights the recommendations of the Committee regarding the
IESWTR, and outlines the document contents.
Final Draft 1-5 My 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Section 2 - Overview of Surface Water Treatment Configurations: This section provides
a general description of water treatment configurations for surface water systems and ground water
systems under the direct influence of surface water; This discussion focuses on existing treatment
technologies or unit operations that may be impacted by the IESWTR in addition to supplementary
treatment technologies that may be employed by community water systems to meet IESWTR
requirements. .
Section 3 - Design Criteria and Costs for Treatment Technologies under the IESWTR:
This section discusses and provides costs for 10 categories of process enhancements that water
treatment plants may have to employ to comply with the IESWTR. Where applicable, the design
criteria and assumptions specified in the Watercost model software manual are presented in this
section. This design criteria are used to estimate associated design and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs for the impacted treatment technologies for five different population categories. In
cases where the process enhancements are not in the Watercost model, current research and best
professional judgement is used to provide process descriptions, assumptions and costs. The
annualized costs at 3,7, and 10 percent interest are presented in tables at the end of this chapter, and
O&M costs are presented in the text.
Section 4 - References: This section identifies information sources used in the preparation
of this document.
Appendix A - Cost Assumptions: Appendix A presents example calculations for the
breakdown of costs for one system size as presented in Section 3.
Final Draft 1-6 Jvfy 28, 1998
-------
Zest a.-.G "ecnnoiogy Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
2. OVERVIEW OF SURFACE WATER TREATMENT CONFIGURATIONS
This section provides a general description of the existing treatment systems that may be
affected by the IESWTR as identified by the members of the Committee. The discussion includes
existing treatment systems or unit operations that may be impacted by the Rule in addition to
supplementary treatment systems or units that the Committee believes may have to be added to meet
the requirements of the Rule. The systems described include: conventional treatment; direct
filtration; slow-sand filtration; package plants; diatomaceous earth filtration; and membrane
filtration. Note that for any given treatment configuration, unique site-specific conditions may make
•
design and operation of a treatment system slightly different than another seemingly similar system.
That is, for any "typical configuration" or "range of operating parameters," variations of these
configurations and operating ranges likely exist. As such, this chapter provides only a basic
overview of these systems and does not define design specification or operating ranges. Because the
primary goal of the IESWTR is improved public health protection through the removal of pathogens
and not pathogen inactivation, chemical disinfection is not discussed in this document. Costs and
technologies for disinfection are discussed in the Technologies and Costs for the Disinfection By-
Products Rule (EPA, 1997).
Filtration of domestic water supplies is the most widely used technique for removing
turbidity and microbial contaminants (AWWA/ASCE, 1998). Filtration is defined as passing water
through a porous medium, such as a layer of sand, to remove suspended solids and pathogens.
Numerous types of filtration systems are used in water treatment plants across the country. The
selection of an appropriate system is dependent on several site-specific considerations, most notably
water quality and finished water requirements.
Filters are classified in a number of ways. Classification is usually based on loading rate or
on type of media Sand filters are classified as either slow or rapid, based on loading rate. Based
on the type of media used, filters may be classified as sand, diatomaceous earth, dual-media
(anthracite-sand), or tri-media in which a third finer and heavier sand layer is used (AWWA/ASCE,
1998).
Final Draft 2-1 Jufy28.l998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
The removal of suspended material from water using filtration occurs via physical, chemical
or biological means. Suspended matter is removed by: adsorption of the particles in the water to
the filter grains as water passes through the pores in the filter bed, sedimentation of particles while
in media pores, and coagulation (floe growth) while traveling through the pores. In the case of slow-
sand filters, removal can also occur by biological mechanisms. In membrane filters, particle removal
occurs through physical sieving of materials or adsorption of the contaminant onto the membrane.
Where rapid rate granular filters are used, coagulation of colloidal material is necessary to retain
particulates in the filter bed. Backwashing the filter beds dislodges accumulated material in the
filters. The backwash water can then be recycled, treated, and returned to the drinking water
treatment train, or sent to a wastewater treatment plant (AWWA/ASCE, 1998).
The IESWTR will require that all surface water systems using filtration that serve more than
10,000 people achieve at least 2-log removal of Cryptosporidinm. Filtration processes provide
various levels of Cryptosporidiiun and Giardia lamblia removal. Table 2-1 summarizes current data
for the removal of Cryptosporidium and Giardia for a range of filtration processes. Most of the
studies demonstrated at least a 2.0 log removal of Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia for
conventional treatment, direction filtration, slow-sand filtration, diatomaceous earth filtration and
microfiltration.
2.1. Conventional Treatment
Conventional treatment is the most widely used technology for removing turbidity and
microbial contaminants from surface water supplies. Conventional treatment consists of chemical
coagulation, rapid mix, flocculation, and sedimentation followed .by filtration. Disinfection is
provided as necessary. A flow schematic for a conventional water treatment plant is presented as
Figure 2-1. Today, many other treatment processes (such as static mixers, upflow solids-contact
clarifiers, superpulsators, and dissolved air flotation) may replace or combine a number of the
treatment steps shown in the schematic. However, these processes are not being considered in the
IESWTR and therefore are not discussed in this document
Final Draft 2-2 Jufy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Final Draft 2-3 Jvfy.28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Table 2-1. Cryptosporidium and Giardia Filtration Removal Efficiencies
Type of
Treatment
Conventional
Direct filtration
•
Slow-sand
filtration
Log Removal
Crypto 4.2 - 5.2
Giardia 4.1 - 5.1
Crypto 1 .9 - 4.0
Giardia 2.2 - 3.9
Crypto 1.9-2.8
Giardia 2.8 -3.7
Crypto 2.3 - 2.5
Giardia 2.2-2.%
Crypto 2-3
Giardia and Crypto 1 .5
-2
Crypto 2-.7-3.1
Gwrdw3.1-3.5
Copfo 2.7 - 5.9
G/ardw3.4-5.0
Crypto 1.3 - 3.8
Giardfci2.9-4.0
Crypto 2-3
Giardia and Crypto >
3
Crypto 4.5
Experimental
Design
Pilot plants
Pilot plants
Pilot-scale plants
Pilot-scale plants
Full-scale plants
Full-scale plants
Full-scale plants
Full-scale plants
Pilot plants
Full-scale plant
(operation considered
not optimized)
Pilot plants
Pilot plants
Pilot plants
Pilot plants
Pilot plants
Pilot pkmts
Pilot plants
Pilot plant at 4.5 to
16.5°C.
Full-scale plant
Researcher
Pataniaetal. 1995
Pataniaetal 1995
Nieminski/Ongerth
1995
Nieminski/Ongerth
1995
Nieminski/Ongerth
1995
Nieminski/Ongerth
1995
LeChevallier and
Norton 1992
LeChevallier and
Norton 1992
Foundation for Water
Research, Britain 1994
Kelley et al. 1995
Ongerth/Pecaroro 1995
Ongerth/Pecaroro 1995
Pataniaetal. 1995
Patania et al. 1995
Nieminski/Ongerth
1995
Nieminski/Ongerth
1995
West etal. 1994
Shuler and Ghosh 1991
Timms et al. 1995
Upon entering the treatment system, source water is treated with chemical coagulaht(s), such
Final Draft
2-4
Jvfy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
as aluminum sulfate lalum). ferric or ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride, and/or a coagulant aid to
destabilize, suspended particles and improve sedimentation. Coagulant aids promote adsorption of
the colloidal particles to the polymers, and coagulate to form a heavy floe that is easily removed in
the settling process. The flow is then subjected to rapid mixing, which blends the coagulant into the
raw water. In the flocculation step, coagulated water is gently stirred to allow particles to collide and
combine to form larger panicles. This produces a dense and readily settleable floe. The flocculated
water flows into a sedimentation basin and the dense floe settles thereby clarifying the settled water.
Sedimentation should provide a high levelof particulate removal, significantly reducing the turbidity
level. This clarified water is then filtered to remove particles or turbidity that remains after
sedimentation.
To assist with the removal and/or inactivation of pathogens, an oxidant or disinfectant is
typically used in the treatment process. Disinfectant may be added at any number of points in the
treatment process, depending on the inactivation requirements, and may potentially improve the
performance of subsequent treatment processes, including filtration.
2.2. Direct Filtration
In the direct filtration process, suspended solids are removed solely through the filtration
process (AWWA/ASCE, 1998). As depicted in Figure 2-2a, direct filtration consists of coagulation
followed by rapid mixing and flocculation. Unlike conventional treatment, the chemically
conditioned arid flocculated water is applied directly to the filters. No separate sedimentation
process is used in direct filtration.
In-line filtration is a variation of the direct filtration process. As shown in Figure 2-2b, in-
line filtration excludes the flocculation process. Instead of relying on a separate basin, flocculation
occurs in the piping or conduit between the rapid mix and filtration processes, in the water volume
above the filters, and in the filter media itself.
In both direct and in-line filtration, the filters are responsible for suspended solid, particle,
and pathogen removal. Therefore, the type of filter media is very important. Commonly, dual
media, tri-media, or deep bed mono-media are used. .
Final Draft 2-5 Jvfy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Fined Draft 2-6 My 28. 1998
-------
I
I
COAGULANTS
RAW WATER
FLOCCULATION
SEDIMENTATION
FILTRATION
Figure 2-1. Flow Schematics for Conventional Water Treatment Plant
V
RAW WATER
COAOULANT8
RAPID MIX
FLOCCULATION
FILTRATION
(a) DIRECT FILTRATION
RAW WATER
COAOULANTS
RAPID MIX
FILTRATION
(b) IN-LINE FILTRATION
Figure 2-2. Flow Schematics for Direct Filtration Plants
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
2.3. Slow-Sand Filtration
Slow-sand filtration shares many of the same characteristics as'direct filtration, yet a number
of important differences exist. In addition to a reduced flow rate, slow-sand filters: (1) function
using biological as well as physical mechanisms, (2) have smaller pores between sand particles, (3)
do not require backwashing, and (4) have longer run times between cleaning. Slow-sand filtration •
is found principally in small communities, that have a protected surface watershed and chlorinate
as the only other treatment operation. Slow-sand filters are attractive to small water systems because
they require little operator attention and no coagulant addition. However, raw water must be of high
quality (less than 10 NTU with no color problem) for slow-sand filters to be effective.
I
Disadvantages of slow-sand filters include the amount of land area required, the difficulty
of achieving good results under all raw water conditions, and the possibility of having to cover the
filters to protect against freezing in winter and algae growth in summer.
/ . •
2.4. Package Plants
Package plants are not a distinct technology in the strictest sense, but are different enough
in design criteria, operation, and maintenance requirements to be discussed separately. A "package
plant" or "package equipment" are pre-assembled, modular units that are for the most part, factory-
prepared and assembled. Ideally, package units arrive on-site ready to operate. Connecting the
system to the water lines and electrical power may be ail that is necessary to begins operation. For
purposes of this document, a package plant is defined as a complete modular treatment plant,
designed as a factory assembled, skid mounted unk generally incorporating a single, or at the most,
several tanks. A complete modular treatment plant typically consists of chemical coagulation,
flocculation, settling and filtration.
I ...
Package plants are most widely used to treat surface water supplies for removal of turbidity.
color, and microbial pathogens prior to disinfection. Additonally, package plants can also remove
many inorganic chemicals for which MCLs have been established. Recent improvements to modular
treatment systems have resulted in treatment schemes that can be effective in the removal of
pathogens, such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Most modular systems utilize high rate treatment
Final Draft 2-8 Jufy28.1998
-------
Cost and Tecnnoiogy Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
processes, and detention time in modular units is generally shorter than that of custom-engineered
conventional treatment plants.
2.5. Oiatomaceous Earth Filtration
Diatomaceous earth (DE) filtration, also known as precoat or diatomite filtration, is
applicable to direct treatment of surface waters for removal of relatively low levels of turbidity. DE
filtration was developed for the U.S. military forces during World War II to remove Entamoeba
histolytica cysts from water.
Diatomite filters consist of a precoat layer of DE about 1/8-inch thick supported on a septum
or filter element. During a filter run, the precoat layer is supplemented by a continuous-body feed
of DE material in the raw water. The body feed is used to maintain the porosity of the filter cake.
If no body feed is added, the particles filtered out will build up on the surface of the filter cake and
cause rapid increases in headless. Once a predetermined headloss is achieved, the filter is cleaned
and precoated for subsequent operation.
2.6. Membrane Filtration
Membrane filtration is a rapidly growing technology in municipal drinking water treatment
that can provide an excellent barrier to turbidity, microorganisms, and many other waterborne
contaminants. The four categories of pressure-driven membranes are based on the size of the largest
particle, colloid, or molecule that can pass through the membrane. A membrane with greater
removal capabilities than another is said to be the "tighter" membrane and, in general, the higher the
pressure is required to filter water through it The four categories of pressure-driven membranes are
as follows: .
Microfiltration (MF) removes particles at the micron or submicron level, including most
miCTObial contaminant!;
• Ultrafiltration (UF) is the next tighter category of membranes and is capable of
removing macromolecular materials including viruses
• Nanofiltration (NF) first gained interest by the water industry as a softening process, and
as such can remove a high percentage of hardness ions and microbial contaminants
Final Draft . 2-9 Jufy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Reverse osmosis iRQ) is generally applied when brackish or seawater (waters ot'high
mineral content) are used as municipal sources. RO membranes have the capability to
remove a high percentage of ionic species as -veil as other materials such as synthetic
organic compounds, natural organic matter, microorganisms, etc.
While there are four categories of membranes each designed for a specific purpose, only
micro filtration is discussed in detail within this document. In a conventional plant, the filter is the
final barrier for the removal of pathogens and suspended material. Adding microfiltration to a
conventional treatment plant can significantly enhance protection of public health by the further
removal of pathogens afforded by the new barrier. As such, membranes can be added to a
conventional treatment plant as another barrier and a final, polishing treatment step.
Final Draft 2-10 Jvfy 28. 1998
-------
Cost ana Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3. DESIGN CRITERIA AND COSTS FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES UNDER THE
INTERIM ESWTR
There are many changes that could be made to an existing water treatment plant to modify
equipment and procedures to comply with the proposed IESWTR. This section discusses and
provides costs for 10 categories of process enhancements discussed by the Committee that water
treatment plants may have to employ to comply with the IESWTR. Where applicable, the design
criteria and assumptions specified in the document describing the Watercost model, Estimating Costs
for Water Treatment As A Function of Size and Treatment Efficiency (USEPA, 1978), are presented
in this section. Capital and O&M costs for the process technologies in this section are based upon
updated costs originally presented in the EPA (1978) document with some exceptions. The updated
manual for an automated costing software program titled, W/WW Costs & Design Criteria Guidelines
2.0 by CWC Engineering Software (Watercost) (CWC, 1994) was also used as a reference for this
section. Microfiltration costs presented in this section are based on the work of Adham et al. (1996).
Best professional judgement has been used to estimate costs of administrative culture
improvements, laboratory modifications and process control testing modifications.
The design criteria have been used to estimate associated capital and O&M costs for the
impacted treatment technologies for five different population categories. In cases where the process
enhancements were not in the Watercost model, current research and best professional judgement
has been used to provide- process descriptions, assumptions and costs. For each option, the
conceptual design, and O&M requirements are presented in the text Capital costs and annual O&M
costs are presented in tables at the end of the chapter.
EPA expects that many systems may use a combination of these treatment processes to meet
the requirements of the ffiSWTR. The option selected, be it for one process or several, will depend
on site specific considerations, including plant administration, operation, and maintenance.
3.1. Basis of Cost - General
The Watercost model has been used by EPA to develop costs in Technologies and Costs for
the Treatment of Microbial Contaminants in Potable Water Supplies (EPA, 1988) and Technologies
Final Draft 3-1 Jvfy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
>.inu Coats /or Control of Disinfection By-Products (EPA, 1992). The cost information in the
software is based on information obtained from numerous sources, including several costs
documents prepared for and published by EPA (EPA, 1978, 1979,1989) as well as project specific
information available from other sources.
Construction cost information from the costing software was updated using recent
Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Indices (see Appendix). Note that the ENR
indices do not measure cost differences between cities or different parts of the country, but measure
the construction cost trend in the United States as a whole.
The construction costs are derived from equipment cost data supplied by various
manufacturers, actual plant construction projects, unit takeoffs from designs not constructed, and
published data, The construction cost for each process is presented as a function of the most
appropriate design parameter for a given process (e.g., total square feet of filter area for a filtration
process). Costs in this document are presented in 1997 dollars.
3.1.1. Capital Costs
The total capital costs presented in this report were generated by the computer model by
entering specific process inputs and cost coefficients. Table 3-3 presents the capital costs for each
treatment option. The cost coefficients selected were the program's default values and included
construction contingency (15 percent), contractor's overhead and profit (12 percent), sitework and
piping (18 percent), engineering, technical, and legal (15 percent), and interest during construction
(10 percent). Capital costs of ancillary items, such as safety equipment and secondary containment,
are included in the sitework and piping factor. The value of these factors represent an overall
average of these specific project expenses as a percentage of construction costs, based on information
obtained for numerous projects. For unique project or site specific cost factors, no consideration of
these is given in the Capital Costs.
Generally, annualized Capital Unit Costs are the Total Capital Costs amortized over 20 years
at a 3, 7, and 10 percent discount rate and are presented on a cents per 1,000 gallons average flow
basis. The 3 percent discount rate is provided for sensitivity analysis. The 7 and 10 percent discount
Final Draft 3-2 July 28. 1998
-------
Cost ana Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
raies used in this report are the estimated high and low end interest values that a municipality or
utility would be expected to pay for a bond issued to construct improvements to meet the
requirements of the IESWTR. In addition, the 10 percent discount rate provides a common basis
with the 1994 proposed D/DBP rule and associated cost analyses. For some unit processes, the
Annualized Capital Unit Costs are amortized over a shorter period due to unusual operating
conditions and expected technology advances. For example, capital costs associated with
turbidimeters and SCADA systems are amortized over 7 years, not 20 years. These differences are
noted in the cost description for those processes. Tables 3-4, 3-5 and, 3-6 present the annualized
capital costs at 3, 7 and 10 percent interest. Tables 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10 present the total annualized
e.
costs (capital and O&M costs). > '
3.1.2. Operation and Maintenance Costs
Annual O&M costs in the program's software are based on energy, maintenance materials,
labor, and chemicals. O&M requirements and associated costs were determined using existing plant
data, where possible. Table 3-7 presents the O&M costs per 1,000 gallons.
Energy requirements are divided into "Process Energy and related Building Energy in
kilowatt-hours (Kwh) per year. The energy used to operate motors for the process equipment,
controls, and instrumentation is included in Process Energy. Building Energy is an average energy
demand per square foot (102.6 Kwh/SF/YR) for lighting, ventilation, and heating of the building that
houses a treatment process. The assumed cost of electricity is 120/Kwh, which is an overall average
for the combined cost of demand charges and energy (average annual demand charge is 40/Kwh and
energy is 8^/Kwh).
The cost of periodic replacement of equipment component parts to keep the process
functioning is covered in Maintenance Material Costs. The cost of chemicals used in a specific
process is not included in Maintenance Material Costs and is a separate annual cost component,
which is an estimate of the additional cost on the existing chemical costs that a facility would incur
with the appropriate treatment technology addition or change. The unit costs of chemicals in this
report are shown in Table 3-1. For the purposes of this document, no difference in unit costs of
chemicals based on plant size or geographic region are assumed. However, plants will realize cost
savings when purchasing chemicals in bulk.
Final Draft .3-3 . Jufy 28, 1998
-------
Cost ana Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Table 3-1. Unit Cost of Treatment Chemicals
Chemical
Activated Carbon, Granular
Alum, Liquid stock
Ammonia, Anhydrous
Carbon Dioxide, Liquid
Chlorine, 1 ton cylinders
Ferric Chloride
Ferric Sulfate
Ferrous Sulfate
Lime, Quicklime
Polymer
Sodium Hydroxide, 25 percent
solution
Sulfuric Acid
Cost
$2,OoO.OO
$230.00
$300.00
$340.00
$350.00
$350.00
$350.00
$350.00
$95.00
$2.25
$200.00
$100.00
Unit
PER ton
PER ton
PER ton
PER ton
PER ton
PER ton
PER ton
PER ton
PER ton
PER Ib.
PER ton
PER ton
Labor costs are based on the man-hours required for both operation and maintenance. A
man-hour cost of $30 per hour, as an average of the municipal/utility overhead and fringe benefit
costs, is assumed.
3.2. Basis of Cost - Process by Process
Individual treatment processes to reduce combined filter effluent turbidity of a plant to the
levels potentially required by the DZSWTR are described in this Section. A conceptual design
describing the structure and equipment requirements, is provided for each treatment process option.
In addition, the O&M requirements are provided. Chemical usage, where appropriate, is also
identified.
Process descriptions are categorized into 10 process enhancement groups. The process
groups are as follows:
• Chemical Addition .
• Coagulant Improvements
Final Draft
3-4
Jvfy28. 1998
-------
Ceo: and Tecnnology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Ruie
Rapid Mixing Improvements
• Flocculation Improvements
Settling Improvements
• Filtration Improvements
• Hydraulic Improvements
• Administration Culture Improvements
• Laboratory Modifications
• Process Control Modifications.
In addition, costs are presented for performing individual filter assessments and third-party
Comprehensive Performance Evaluations since these evaluations will be required of systems not
meeting IESWTR turbidity requirements.
Costs were calculated for systems serving seven population size categories. These categories
represent the population ranges and average and design flows for drinking water systems serving
10,000 or more persons. These size and flow categories are used by EPA when identifying system
size. The categories, population ranges, and plant average and design (capacity) flows (EPA, 1989
and AWWA W1DB, 1991) are shown in Table 3-2. Note that the Population Range for Category
12 and 12a are the same, but the flows differ. The difference represents the differences between the
two databases used to determine the plant average and design flows for the given population range.
The total capital and annual costs for each process are based on plant design and average flows,
respectively.
Final Draft 3-5 Jufy 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Table 3-2. System Category Size
Category
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12a'
Population Range
10,000-25,000
25,000 - 50,000
50,000 - 75,000
75,000 - 100,000
100,000 - 500,000
500,000-1,000,000
> 1,000,000
> 1,000,000
. Avg. Flow
(mgd)
2.1
5.0
8.8
13,0
27.0
, 120.0
270.0
348.0
Design Flow
(mgd)
4.8
11.0
18.0
26.0
51.0
210.0
430.0
518.0
Note: 'The flows for Category 12a are from the AWWA Water Industry Database, 1991.
3.2.1. Chemical Addition
Evaluation of potential treatment process enhancements should start with a review of
chemicals used in the treatment process. This evaluation can identify the appropriateness of the
treatment chemicals used presently and can identify the possible use of filter aids, coagulant aids,
or ripening additives to improve filtration. This section presents some possible chemical addition
changes that may promote better turbidity removal. The four treatment process enhancements that
have been costed for chemical addition are:
• Install Coagulant Aid Polymer Feed Capability
• Install Filter Aid Polymer Feed Capability
• Install Backwash Water Polymer/Coagulant Feed Capability
• Install pH Adjustment for Enhancing Alkalinity Purposes.
3.2.1.1. Install Coagulant Aid Polymer Feed Capability
Most surface water treatment facilities use a coagulant (typically metal salts, either
aluminum-based or iron-based) to destabilize and coagulate the colloidal particles found in the water
for removal during the sedimentation process. Increasing the coagulant dosage may not improve the
Final Draft
3-6
July 28, 1998
-------
Cost ana Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
settleabiiiiy or'the flocculated water. Therefore, use of a coagulant aid (i.e.. polymeric chemicals
used to improve coagulation) may be warranted.
Conceptual Design—Cost estimates for coagulant aid polymer feed systems are based
on use of dry polymers, fed manually to a large storage hopper located on the chemical feeder.
Chemical feed equipment is based on preparation of a 0.25 percent stock solution. For this cost
estimate, no standby or redundant equipment is provided. These costs are also representative of the
types of package systems that are available for mixing and feeding both dry and liquid polymers
(USEPA, 1978; Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994). Costs assumptions include a separate line and injection
point for feeding the selected polymer. For sizing the system, calculations are based on feeding
2 mg/L of polymer at the design flow. The cost assumes that (1) the new polymer system is housed
in existing buildings on site; (2) space is available for storing an adequate quantity of polymer
between chemical deliveries; (3) the polymer is fed at the rapid mix after coagulant addition; and (4)
no additional rapid mixing facilities are needed.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day
operation of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the
general maintenance of the system as well as preparing the polymer stock solution. Chemical usage
calculations are based on a polymer dosage of 1 mg/L at average flow.
3.2.1.2. Install Filter Aid Polymer Feed Capability
To improve filtration of settled water, filter aids (i.e., typically polymeric chemicals) can be
added to increase the strength of the chemical floe and control the depth of penetration of the floe
into the filter. For maximum effectiveness as a filtration aid, the polymer is added directly into the
filter influent rather than in an upstream settling basin or flocculator.
Conceptual Design—Cost estimates for filter aid feed systems are based on use of dry
polymers, fed manually to a large storage hopper located oh the chemical feeder. Chemical feed
equipment is based on preparation of a 0.25 percent stock solution. For this cost estimate, no
standby or redundant equipment is provided. These costs are also representative of the types of
package systems that are available for mixing and feeding both dry and liquid polymers (USEPA,
Final Draft 3-7 Jvfy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
1978. Gulp Wesner Gulp. 1994). Costs include a separate line and injection point for feeding the
selected polymer. For sizing the system, calculations are based on feeding 1 mg/L of polymer at the
design flow. The cost assumes that (1) the new polymer system is housed in existing buildings on
site; (2) space is available for storing an adequate quantity of polymer between chemical deliveries;
(3) the polymer is fed at the filter influent; and (4) no additional mixing facilities are needed.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Process energy isbasedon24-hour/day
operation of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the
general maintenance of the system as well as preparing the polymer stock solution. Chemical usage
calculations are based on a polymer dosage of 0.2 mg/L at average flow.
3.2.1.3. Install Backwash Water Polymer/Coagulant Feed Capability
*
To minimize the negative impact associated with filter ripening (e.g., turbidity spikes), filter
ripening additives (i.e., polymers or coagulants) can be added to the backwash water. During the
backwash of a filter, the media is expanded to allow for the flushing out of the particles removed in
the filter. Typically, when the filter is returned to service, the filter is still in a slightly "expanded
state" that results in turbidity spikes in the effluent. With time, the filter media will settle back to
its original depth, and filter effluent quality will be at or near its best
Other data show that turbidity spikes occurring after backwash are the result of too few
available particles to act as collectors of other particles (i.e., the filter media is too "clean" and the
influent water passes through the filter). To increase the number of particles available for deposition
on the filter media and act as collectors for subsequent particles, a filter ripening coagulant or
polymer can be added to the filter backwash water.
With a filter ripening additive, more particle adsorption sites are provided in the void spaces
of the filter media, and turbidity spikes are reduced. Typically, the filter ripening additive is added
to the last two volumes of backwash water.
/
Conceptual Design—For this report, a polymer feed system is provided as the conceptual
design for the filter ripening additive. For the use of a coagulant as the filter ripening additive, the
Final Draft . 3-8 . Jufy28.1998
-------
2ost ana Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
conceptual design should be based on the normal coagulation feedrate using the design backwash
tlowrate. Cost estimates for filter ripening additive feed systems are based on use of dry polymers,
fed manually to a large storage hopper located on the chemical feeder. Chemical feed equipment is
based on preparation of a 0.25 percent stock solution. For this cost estimate, no standby or redundant
equipment is provided (USEPA, 1978; Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994). These costs are also
representative of the types of package systems that are available for mixing and feeding both dry and
liquid polymers. • ••
Costs include a separate line and injection point for feeding the selected polymer. The cost
assumes that (1) the new polymer system is housed in existing buildings on site; (2) space is
available for storing an adequate quantity of polymer between chemical deliveries; (3) the polymer
is fed in the filter backwash water; and (4) no additional mixing facilities are needed. For sizing the
system, design calculations are based on feeding 0.5 mg/L of polymer at the design backwash
flowrate of 18 gpm/sq ft with 25 percent of the filters backwashed per day (minimum of 2 filters per
day).
For a liquid coagulant chemical system design a minimum of 15 days of storage is assumed
using fiberglass reinforced polyester (FRP) tanks, or, depending on the chemical, other suitable
material. For smaller installations, tanks are uncovered and located indoors. Tanks at larger
installations will be located outdoors. Costs are based on the outdoor tanks being covered and
vented, with insulation and heating provided to prevent crystallization of the chemical, if necessary.
Dual-head metering pumps are included in the cost estimate to pump the coagulant from the storage
tanks to the point of application. A standby metering pump is also included in the installation costs.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements— Process energy is based on 24-hour/day
operation of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the
general maintenance of the system as well as preparing the polymer stock solution.. Chemical usage
calculations are based on a polymer dosage of 0.2 mg/L at average flow.
Final Draft .3-9 . My 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3.2.1.4. Install pH Adjustment for Enhancing Alkalinity Purposes
Dependine on the coagulation process and chemical used, it may be necessary to provide pH
adjustment. Several different acids or bases can be used to adjust the pH. For this report, it is
assumed that using high doses of coagulant (e.g., a metal salt, such as alum) to improve disinfection
byproduct removal will reduce pH below acceptable limits. Therefore, the pH of the water must be
raised using sodium hydroxide as the chemical of choice to enhance alkalinity.
Conceptual Design—Cost estimates are based on a25 percent sodium hydroxide solution
delivered by bulk transport. Bulk FRP storage tanks are provided and sized for 15 days of storage.
Dual-head metering pumps are used to convey solution to the point of application with a standby
metering pump provided. Since 25 percent sodium hydroxide begins to crystallize at temperatures
less than minus 5 °F, the storage tanks can be located outdoors or indoors. Toe cost estimate is based
on treating the design flow with the 25 percent solution of sodium hydroxide fed at 4 gallons pei
hour (gph) per MOD.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Process energy isbasedon24-hour/day
operation of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the
general maintenance of the system as well as handling of the chemical stock solution. Chemical
usage calculations are based on treating the average flow with the 25 percent solution of sodium
hydroxide fed at 4 gallons per hour (gph) per MGD.
; . ' .
3.2.2. Coagulant Improvements
To improve the settling of particles in the water, changing to a new coagulant and increasing
the number of coagulant application points are the proposed enhancements to existing treatment
processes. The one treatment process enhancement that has been costed for coagulant improvements
is: Primary Coagulant Feed Points, Control, and Measurement
3.2.2.1. Primary Coagulant Feed Points, Control, and Measurement
Based on past performance, a plant may determine that existing coagulant addition, is
inadequate to meet the requirements of the IESWTR, To evaluate potential changes in coagulation,
Final Draft 3-10 - My 28. 1998
-------
Ccs: and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
a series ofjar tests-are needed to evaluate various coagulant types, the need for a coagulant aid. or
to change the existing coagulant dosing point(s).
This cost estimate assumes use of a new coagulant and polymer feed system similar to that
described in Section 3.2.1.1. The location of the injection points are changed to enhance the settled
water quality and help produce a combined filter effluent meeting the requirements of the IES WTR.
In addition, instrumentation is provided to monitor water flow for proper coagulant chemical
dosages.
Conceptual Design—The same design criteria and equipment components for polymer
systems described in Section 3.2.1.1 apply to coagulant improvements.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—The same O&M requirements for
polymer systems described in Section 3.2.1.1 apply to coagulant improvements.
3.2.3. Rapid Mixing -
Research and experience has shown that the quick, adequate dispersion of coagulants) and/or
coagulant aid(s) in water improves flocculation and settling. If an existing facility is not providing
ample mixing of the coagulants and water, then improvements to this process should be evaluated.
The two treatment process enhancements that have been costed for rapid mixing are:
• Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment Only
• Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and Basin.
Process enhancements could be mechanical or equipment upgrades only or may be the addition of
a complete rapid mixing system.
Final Draft .3-11 Jufy 28. 1998
-------
Cost ana Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3.2.3.1, Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment Only
Final Draft 3-12' July 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Tecnnology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
. Rapiu mix provides complete and thorough mixing of the coagulant and water. Proper
design of the rapid mix system allows for lower coagulant doses and improved panicle aggregation
during flocculation.
Conceptual Design—For the design of the rapid mix improvements, a velocity gradient
(G) of 900 sec"1 at the design flow is used. Energy requirements are a function of G, water
temperature, and an overall mechanism efficiency of 70 percent.
Estimated costs are based on the replacement of equipment only, with no structural work
required. The model costs are for a vertical shaft mixer, variable speed turbine with 304 stainless
steel shafts and paddles, and TEFC motors.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day
operation of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the
general maintenance of the system as well as handling of the chemical stock solution.
3.2.3.2. Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and Basin
The rapid mix improvements to the plant are described in Section 3.2.3.1.
Conceptual Design—For the design of the rapid mix improvements, a G value of
900 sec'1 at the design flow is used. Energy requirements are a function of G, water temperature, and
an overall mechanism efficiency of 70 percent
Estimated costs are based on installation of concrete basins with common wall construction.
The mixer is a vertical shaft, variable speed turbine mixers with 304 stainless steel shafts and
paddles, and TEFC motors.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day
operation of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the
general maintenance of the system as well as handling of the chemical stock, solution.
Final Draft 3-13 . Jufy28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3.2.4. Flocculation Improvements
The flocculation process in a water treatment 'Mam is the aggregation or growth of
destabilized colloidal suspension or particles. As these panicles grow, they are more easily settled
out of suspension. While rapid mixing is the addition of coagulant chemical(s) to destabilize the
colloidal particles, flocculation is the step that causes the destabilized particles to form settleable
floe. The two treatment process enhancements that have been costed for flocculation improvements
are:
. • Flocculation Improvements - Equipment Only
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment and Basin.
3.2.4.1. Flocculation Improvements - Equipment Only
After jar testing, it may be determined that the existing flocculation process does not
adequately aid in the growth of floe that can be removed in the sedimentation basins. The existing
process may impart too much energy into the water causing floe shear into unsettleable small floe
or a lack of energy may prevent floe growth.
Conceptual Design—The cost estimate assumes that the existing flocculation process
equipment in the water treatment plant is inadequate and will be replaced. No structural
improvements are required. The flocculation process is designed to provide a G value of SO sec'1
at the design flow. Costs are based on vertical shaft, variable speed turbine mixers with 304 stainless
steel shafts and TEFC motors. Structural costs for vertical turbine flocculators are somewhat higher
than for the horizontal paddle type because of the required structural support above the basin. All
drive units are variable speed to allow maximum flexibility of operation. Although common drives
for two or more parallel basins are often used, the estimated costs are based on individual drives for
each basin (USEPA, 1978; Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994).
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day
operation of the system, G values of SO sec'1, and an overall motor/mechanism efficiency of 60
percent. Labor requirements are based on routine O&M of 15 minutes per day per basjn (maximum
basin volume = 12,500 cu ft) and an oil change every 6 months requiring 4 labor hours per change.
Final Draft 3-14 Jvfy2S,1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3.2.4.2. Flocculation Improvements- Equipment and Basin
The flocculation improvements to the plant are described in Section 3.2.4.1.
Conceptual Design— This cost estimate assumes that the water treatment plant does not
have a flocculation process, or the existing process is inadequate and will be replaced. The
flocculation basin(s) are designed for providing a G value of 50 sec"1 at the design flow. The costs
are based on a rectangular-shaped, reinforced concrete structure with a 12 ft side water depth and a
length-to-width ratio of approximately 4:1. The maximum individual basin size used is 12,500 cubic
feet. Common wall construction is used where the total basin volume exceeds 12,500 cubic feet and
multiple basins are required. Costs are based on vertical shaft, variable speed turbine mixers with
304 stainless steel shafts and TEFC motors. Structural costs for vertical turbine flocculators are
somewhat higher than for the horizontal paddle type because of the required structural support above
the basin. All drive units are variable speed to allow maximum flexibility of operation. Although
common drives for two or more parallel basins are often utilized, the estimated costs are based on
individual drives for each basin (USEPA, 1978; Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994).
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day
operation of the system, G values of 50 sec'1, and an overall motor/mechanism efficiency of 60
percent. Labor requirements are based on routine O&M of 15 minutes per day per basin (maximum
basin volume = 12,500 cu ft) and an oil change every 6 months requiring 4 hours per change.
3.2.5. Settling Improvements
Typically, sedimentation follows rapid mix and flocculation processes. The majority of
solids are removed through gravity settling, thereby reducing the load to the filters. The two
treatment process enhancements that have been costed for settling improvements are:
• Equipment Modification - Weirs in Influent/Effluent
Add Tube Settlers. '
Final Draft 3-15 Jufy28,1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3.2.5.1. Equipment Modification - Weirs in Influent/Effluent
The key design considerations for gravity settling basins are overflow rates, inlet and outlet
conditions, sludge removal and basin geometry. Typical problems with sedimentation basins are
inadequate overflow rates as well as inlet and outlet flow conditions. After evaluating the hydraulics
of the sedimentation basins, additional weirs/baffles are often needed on the influent and effluent
of the basins to correct short circuiting and provide uniform flow through the basin.
Conceptual Design— This cost analysis assumes that a concrete baffle or wall (or
stainless steel plates) will be constructed at the inlet to distribute the flow uniformly across the basin.
The baffle is designed to span the basin and create approximately 0.1 foot headless. For the outlet
condition, it is assumed that additional launderers would be added to increase the length of effluent
weirs. The design overflow rate for the effluent weirs is 10 gallons per minute per foot of weir.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Annual maintenance cost for cleaning
the basins will increase to accommodate the additional work needed to the area enclosed by the
baffle(s), in particular the cleaning out and handling of any sludge that has accumulated in this area.
Cleaning by pressure wash is the typical method employed.
3.2.5:2. Add Tube Settlers
The overflow rate of the sedimentation basin should normally be in the range of 350 to 550
gallons per day per square foot for conventional coagulation plants. For systems with high overflow
rates, more sedimentation surface area is needed to reduce the overflow rate within acceptable limits.
Wind can and will induce a disturbance on the surface of the sedimentation basin causing stray
currents, in the water that reduces the effective settling in the basin. One method to increase the
settling surface area and minimize stray currents caused by wind is to install tube settlers. The tubes,
typically plastic, are designed to incline at an angle greater than 45* (60* is typical), so that as solids
deposit and increase in mass on the bottom of the tube, the solids settle into the basin and are
removed.
Final Draft 3-16 Jvfy28. 1998
-------
Cost ana Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Conceptual Design—Tube modules may be applied successfully in circular or rectangular
basins of either horizontal flow or upflow design. In basins of either rectangular or circular
configuration, the tube modules are constructed of lightweight, high-strength plastic and simply
supported by light-weight structural members. Tube modules are available from numerous
manufacturers in widths of 2.5 to 3.0 ft and in lengths up to 12 ft (USEPA, 1978; Culp/Wesner/Culp,
1994). Conceptual design used in the cost estimate is based on using 280 sq ft per MGD. The basins
are sized with rise rates through the area covered by tube modules and over the entire basin of 2.5
gpm and 2 gpm sq ft, respectively. Since the hydraulic and structural requirements for tube
clarification systems are unique, the costs include tube modules, tube module supports and anchor
brackets, transition baffle, effluent launderers with V-notch weir plates, and installation.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Annual maintenance costs for cleaning
the basins will increase to accommodate the additional work needed to clean the tube settlers.
Cleaning by low pressure wash is the typical method.
3.2.6. Filtration Improvements
The filters of a water treatment plant are the last barrier to or final process for the removal
of any paniculate matter remaining in the water after sedimentation. The 12 treatment process
enhancements that have been costed for filtration improvements are:
• Filter Media Addition *
• Filter Media Replacement without Gravel
Filter Media and Support Gravel Replacement
Filter Media, Support Gravel, and Underdrain Replacement
• Backwashing - Increase Flow/Velocity
Backwash - Install Surface Wash
Post-Backwash - Sequence (Resting)
• Post-Backwash - Sequence (install additional filters))
Post-Backwash - Filter-to-Waste
• Filter Rate-of-Flow Controller Replacement
• Individual Filter Turbidimeter Installation
Final Draft • . ~ 3-17 Jufy28.l998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Microtutration.
These improvements can be added to or modified at an existing treatment plant to produce a
combined filter effluent meeting the requirements of the IESWTR. The range of improvements
include modifying the existing filters (media and underdrain modifications) to the addition of micro-
filtration membranes.
3.2.6.1. Filter Media Addition (2-6")
Over time, filters lose media, typically due to excessive backwashing. To bring the filters
back to original level and condition, filter media should be added.
Conceptual Design—The existing filters are assumed to be dual media with the media
loss in the anthracite layer. The costs include the. purchase and replacement of 6-in. of media
(anthracite coal) to bring the filters) back to the original depth. These estimates are applk •. jle to
either gravity or pressure filters. Costs are presented as a function of filter area using a filtration rate
of 2.5 gpm/sq ft at peak day demand. For filter areas between 140 and 2,000 sq ft, rail shipment in
100 Ib bags is used, and for larger filter areas, rail shipment in bulk is used. The estimated costs
include media cost, shipping, and installation. The cost of a trained technician to direct placement
of the mixed media is also included. Freight cost represents a nationwide average.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—There are no annual costs associated
with the filter media addition.
3.2.6.2. Filter Media Replacement without Gravel
*
In certain instances, sand filter media may have to be replaced to meet tighter filter effluent
requirements. In addition, it may be desirable to increase the filtration capacity to allow for
operational changes that will help to produce a better filter water effluent
Conceptual Design— This option provides an estimate of the cost to replace sand filter
media with a dual media. As a cost savings measure, the support gravel is compatible with the new
Final Draft 3-18 My 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Tecnnolcgy Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
media design and does not have to be replaced. The media replacement will increase the filtration
capacity of the plant as the coarser coal permits suspended solids penetration into the filter bed.
allowing operation of the filter beds at higher flow rates and for longer periods between backwash.
Costs include the removal of 20 inches of sand and replacement with 20 inches of anthracite coal.
The costs include labor for removing the sand from the filter with onsite disposal, material and
freight costs for anthracite coal, and installation labor. Labor costs are for manual sand removal
from filters smaller than 3,500 sq ft.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—There are no annual costs associated
with the filter media replacement without gravel.
3.2.6.3. Filter Media and Support Gravel Replacement
The filter media improvements to the plant are described in Section 3.2.6.2. In addition, the
existing support gravel may be incompatible with the new filter media design, and require
replacement.
Conceptual Design—This option provides an estimate of the cost to replace sand filter
media with a dual media and the addition of a 12-inch support gravel layer. The media replacement
will increase the filtration capacity of the plant the coarser coal permits suspended solids penetration
into the filter bed, allowing operation of the filter beds at higher flow rates and for longer periods
between backwash. The costs include purchase and placement of 30 inches of media over a 12-inch
support gravel layer. These estimates are applicable to either gravity or pressure filters, although
pressure filters are often designed with a somewhat deeper gravel support layer (USEPA, 1978;
Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994). Costs are presented as a function of filter area using a design filtration
rate of 2.5 gpm/sq ft for the existing filters. The estimated costs include media cost, shipping, and
installation. The cost of a trained technician to direct placement of the mixed media is also included.
Freight cost represents a nationwide average.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—There are no annual costs associated
with the filter media replacement with gravel.
Final Draft 3-19 Jufy 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3.2.6.4. Filter Media, Support Gravel, and Underdrain Replacement
The filter media improvements to the plant are described in Section 3.2.6.3. In addition, the
underdrain may require replacement.
Conceptual Design—This cost estimate assumes that the existing filter (media, gravel,
and underdrain) is inadequate and must be rebuilt along with the addition of a support gravel layer
and new underdrain system. With the rebuilding of the filters, it is desirable to increase the filtration
capacity of the plant (USEPA, 1978; Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994). Therefore, the existing filter media
will be replaced with dual media in lieu of sand. The costs include purchase and placement of 30-
inches of media over a 12-inch support gravel layer and a new underdrain system that is designed
for the future use of an air-water backwash system. Costs are a function of filter area using a design
filtration rate of 2.5 gpm/sq ft for the existing filters. The estimated costs include media cost, a
nationwide average shipping cost, and installation. The cost of a trained technician to direct
placement of the mixed media is also included. The estimated costs do not include the blower(s),
air piping and valving, and filter control modifications for an air-water backwash system for the
filters.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—There are no annual costs associated
with the filter media and underdrain retrofit, since the air-water backwash system is not included.
3.2.6.5. Backwash - Increase Flow/Velocity
Filters are designed for removal of any paniculate matter remaining in the water. During the
normal operation of the filter, the solids (particulate matter) accumulate on the surface and in the
pore space of the filter. The filters are cleaned and the particulate matter is removed by hydraulic
backwashing of the filter with potable water. Completely clean filters will have a longer operational
time than filters that are not If the filter is not completely clean when it is placed back into service,
the particulate matter in the media at the end of the filtering cycle can penetrate deeper into the filter
and may actually pass through into the effluent causing a turbidity spike.
Final Draft 3-20 July 28, 1998
-------
Cost ana Tecnnology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Conceptual Design—This cost estimate assumes that the backwash flowrate is less than
the optimum range and that the backwash system capacity will be increased approximately 10-20
percent. To increase the capacity of the backwash system, new, larger backwash pump(s), additional
piping and valving at the pumps and some electrical improvements are required. No major piping
improvements in either the filter gallery or outside of the Backwash Pump Station are necessary.
The largest, single pump is assumed to be 7,000 gpm, with one standby pump included for all
installations. Multiple pumps are provided where the backwash flowrate is greater than 7,000 gpm.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—O&M costs are based on a backwash
frequency of two filters or 33 percent of the total number of filters per day, whichever is greater, with
a 10-minute duration per wash. For dual-cell filters, a backwash is defined as a backwash for both
cells. Energy requirements are based on a backwash rate of 18 gpm/sq ft, a pumping head of 50 ft
TDH, and an overall motor/pump efficiency of 70 percent. Annual maintenance material and labor
requirements are provided for the general maintenance of the system.
3.2.6.6. Backwash - Install Surface Wash
Most of the particulate matter left in the settled water is removed in the first few inches of
a filter. Therefore, it is desirable to enhance the backwasbing of the filter by providing more energy
at the levels where more dirt has been trapped. There are numerous means to improve the
backwashing of a filter to help in the removal of the dirt trapped at the surface of the filter, but a
surface wash is the most common and easiest to construct Adequate surface wash improves filter
cleaning and helps prevent the formation of mudballs in the filter. Fixed surface water systems
distribute washwater from equally spaced nozzles in a pipe grid. Rotary systems consists of arms
on a fixed swivel supported from the backwash troughs about 2 inches above the surface of the filter.
The arms are fitted with nozzles and revolve from the water-jet action. Surface washes are usually
started about I minute in advance of the normal backwash and turned off a few minutes before the
end of the backwash period.
Conceptual Design—Cost estimates include dual pumps with one as standby, electrical
control, piping, valves, and headers within the filter pipe gallery. Surface wash pumps are sized to
provide approximately SO to 85 psi at the arms. Four dual-arm agitators are included for filter areas
Final Draft 3-21 My 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
of 350 to TOO sq ft. The wet well for the surface wash pumps is the same as for the backwash
pumps.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—O&M costs are based on a backwash
frequency of two filters or 33 percent of the total number of filters per day, whichever is greater, with
a 10-minute duration per wash. For dual-cell filters, a backwash is defined as a backwash for both
cells. Energy requirements are based on a backwash rate of 0.5 gpm/sq ft, a pumping head of 65 psi,
and an overall motor/pump efficiency of 70 percent. Annual maintenance material and labor
requirements are provided for the general maintenance of the system.
3.2.6.7. Post-Backwash - Sequence (Resting)
When a filter is backwashed, the media is forced to expand to allow for the flushing out of
the dirt trapped in the filter. During the initial phases of a filter run, the filter media is settling or
compacting back to its original level before the backwash and beginning to collect particles.
Typically, most turbidity spikes that occur during a filter operational run will occur during this initial
phase of filter ripening. With effluent turbidity requirements becoming increasingly more stringent,
the turbidity spikes that occur during the ripening stage of a filter should be reduced. One method
of reducing the ripening spikes, although some states may not allow it, is to rest the filter after
backwashing. When a filter is resting, gravity causes the filter media to settle to its original level.
When the "rested" filter is placed in operation, the ripening period of the filter can be reduced and
the turbidity spikes reduced. .
Conceptual Design—The resting of filters is normally an operational change requiring
little new facilities to accommodate this treatment technique. For this report, it is assumed that the
existing filters are capable of accommodating the additional flow from the filters) resting and no
major structural modifications will be required for this particular treatment technique. The cost
estimate includes some piping and control modifications to the existing filters.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements—With the resting of filters after a
backwash and increasing the loading on the remaining filters, the frequency of backwashing may
increase. The annual O&M cost reflects an increase of filter backwashing.
Final Draft 3-22 . Jufy28.199S
-------
Cost anq Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3.2.6.8. Post-Backwash - Sequence (install additional filter(s))
4
The benefits of renting filters are described above. For this treatment technique, additional
filters are required to provide sufficient capacity while the filters are resting after back-washing.
Conceptual Design—For this cost estimate, it is assumed that the filtration capacity of
the plant will have to be increased. Depending on the size of the system, filtration capacity will be
increased by approximately 50 percent for small systems to 10 percent for larger systems.
Conventional gravity filtration structure costs are based on use of cast-in-place concrete with a media
depth of 2 to 3 ft and a total depth of 16 ft for the filter box. The costs include housing of the entire
filter structure, pipe gallery, and controls. Costs for filtration structures include the filter structure,
underdrains, wash water troughs, a pipe gallery, piping and cylinder operated butterfly valves, filter
flow and headloss instrumentation, a filter control panel, and the total housing requirement.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—O&M costs are based on backwash frequency of
two filters or 33 percent of the total number of filters per day, which ever is greater, with a 10-minute
duration per wash. Energy requirements are based on a backwash rate of 18 gpm/sq ft, a pumping
head of 50 ft TDH, and an overall motor/pump efficiency of 70 percent Annual maintenance
material and labor requirements are provided for the general maintenance of the system.
3.2.6.9. Post-Backwash - Filter-to-Waste
Another means of eliminating the turbidity spikes after a backwash is to waste the filtered
water until the turbidity levels are acceptable.
Conceptual Design—For this cost estimate, the filter-to-waste improvements include the
piping, fittings, and valves in these facilities sized to convey up to 20 minutes of filtered water at an
application rate of 5 gpm/sq ft on the filter. No facilities are provided to pump filterrto-waste within
the plant. It is assumed that the filter-to-waste flow will be recycled within the plant and the existing
facilities are adequate for the additional flow. If the existing facilities are not adequate, see Section
3.2.7.1 for a discussion of the facilities required.
Final Draft 3-23 . Jufy28,1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
y
Operation and Maintenance Costs—O&M costs are based on backwash frequency of
two filters or 33 percent of the total number of filters oer day, whichever is greater. Annual
maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general maintenance of the system.
3.2.6.10. Filter Rate-of-Flow Controller Replacement
The filter rate-of-flow controller is one of the most important parts of the filter system,
controlling the flow of water through the filter. By controlling the flow through each filter, the flow,
either influent or effluent, can be evenly divided to all the operating filters. In addition, the
controller limits the maximum flow through any filter, preventing sudden surges. By controlling the
* . .
flow through the filters, the disturbances that cause increasing turbidity levels in the filter effluent
can be controlled.
Conceptual Design— This cost estimate includes the control system, flow meter, flow
control valve, and piping modifications required to change the controller. The piping and valving
are designed for a filtration rate of 5 gpm/sq ft
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation
of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system.
3.2.6.11. Individual Filter Turbidimeter Installation
Turbidimeter on each individual filter provides the ability to monitor the quality of the
filtered water continuously. Should the turbidity exceed the desired level, an alarm can be sounded
or a signal provided to initiate a backwash of the filter.
Conceptual Design—For this estimate, the installation of a turbidimeter at a filter will
include the purchase of a turbidimeter for each filter and, a tap on the filter effluent pipe, piping to
the turbidimeter, drain piping, and power. Initial training of the plant staff is also included in the
cost estimate.
Final Draft 3-24 Jufy28.I998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation
of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system, and includes calibration of the units on a monthly basis.
3.2.6.12. Microfiltration
Depending on the final treatment technique requirements for turbidity, membranes, in
particular microfiltration, were considered the best technology for meeting the most stringent filter
effluent requirement. Membranes are a pressure-driven thin-film barrier used for the removal of a
range of particles from dissolved ions to turbidity. Since turbidity is the constituent of concern to
be removed, the membrane filtration process chosen for this report is microfiltration.
Conceptual Design—This cost estimate assumes that the microfiltration system will be
installed after the existing clearwells, since it is deemed to be a polishing step to produce an effluent
water quality meeting the most stringent requirements. The membrane system is designed for an
average flux rate of 70 gpd/ft2 with the frequency and duration of the backwash set to maintain a
minimum feedwater recovery rate of greater than 97 percent after recycling of the backwash water.
Estimated capital costs include the membrane system, process equipment building, electrical
supply, final disinfection facilities, treated water storage and pumping facilities, and wash water
recovery system (Adham et al., 1996).
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Annual costs include labor, chemicals, energy,
membrane replacement, residuals disposal, and miscellaneous replacement parts.
The estimated capital and O&M costs for microfiltration were obtained from Adham et al.
(1996) and updated to reflect plants that have recently been or are being constructed.
3.2.7. Hydraulic Improvements
The sudden surge of water at the head of a water treatment plant can hydraulically upset the
treatment process significantly enough to cause excessive turbidity to be carried on to and through
Final Draft 3-25 Jufy 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
the filters. To control these sudden surges, hydraulic improvements mav be required at the plant.
The three treatment process enhancements that have been costed for hydraulic improvements are:
Recycle Flow - Account for in Process Control Decisions
Recycle Flow - Install Valving and/or Pumps to Control the Flow
Flow Distribution/Control/Measurement.
3.2.7.1. Recycle Flow - Account for in Process Control Decisions
As the cost of water rises, utilities are investigating ways to save on costs by recycling all
wasted plant waters, such as filter backwash and sludge blowdown from the sedimentation basins.
Typically, this water is returned to the head of the plant for re-treatment. The sudden surge of water
from an uncontrolled recycle flow can hydraulically upset the treatment process significantly,
causing excessive turbidity to be carried through the treatment processes to the filters. Due to
increased solids loading on the filters, effluent turbidities may rise. Therefore, the recycling of
wastewater within the plant needs to be controlled and uniform, so that this flow can be
accommodated in the treatment process.
;
Conceptual Design—For this cost estimate, it is assumed that the existing plant has no
facilities to store wastewater; therefore, major structural improvements are required to meter, recycle
flows back into the water flow at a constant rate. These improvements include flow equalization
basins, pumping facilities, piping modifications, and controls for monitoring flows to minimize the
impact of recycle flows.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation
of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system.
3.2.7.2. Recycle Flow - Install Valving and/or Pumps to Control the Flow
The recycling of wastewater in the plant is described in Section 3.2.7.1.
Final Draft 3-26 July 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Conceptual Design—For this cost estimate, it is assumed that the existing plant has
facilities to store and pump the wastewater back to the intake of the plant: However, the pumping
facilities are uncontrolled, meaning that the operation of the station is based only on the water level
in the storage facilities for wastewater. Although no major structural improvements are necessary,
improvements for pumping, valving, minor piping, some controls for monitoring flows to minimize
the impact of recycle flows, and electrical considerations to meter recycle flows back into the water
flow at a constant rate are assumed to be required.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation
of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system.
3.2.7.3. Flow Distribution/Control/Measurement
To aid in the operation of the water treatment facility, the flows within the plant should be
monitored. This allows operators to set chemical feed rates and account for all treatment decisions,
based on flows.
Conceptual Design—For this estimate, minor improvements are required to meter and
control flows within the plant. These improvements include monitoring of the and finished water
flows to minimize the impact of recycle flows.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation
of the system. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system.
3.2.8. Administrative Culture Improvements
Not all improvements at a water treatment plant need be structural or process related. Some
improvements may be Administrative. The three treatment process enhancements that have been
costed for administrative culture improvements are:
Final Draft 3-27 Jufy28.1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
• Policy and Commitment to Lower Water Quality Goals
Plant Staffing Increase (1 or 2 Persons)
• Staff Qualifications.
3.2.8.1. Policy and Commitment to Lower Water Quality Goals
Policies are developed to insure the commitment of all participants in the production of
treated water to produce a better product than that required.
Conceptual Design—For this estimate, no capital costs associated with this item are
assumed, since this a policy technique.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—The annual O&M costs are assumed to be an
annual commitment for developing policies and following up to determine compliance.
3.2.8.2. Plant Staffing Increase (1 or 2 Persons)
It is not the purpose of this document to predict the quantity of additional staff required as
a result of the IESWTR requirements. However, some facilities may need to hire additional
personnel to assist in the operation and maintenance of the treatment facilities, especially if treatment
processes are added or if monitoring is significantly intensified. To assist with cost estimation for
those facilities requiring staff increases, the assumptions described below were made.
Conceptual Design—For this estimate, it is assumed that capital costs of $5,000 per new
staff addition for office and field fixtures, computer hardware, and training. One additional staff is
costed for a system size up to 75,000 population and two additional staff is included for larger
systems.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—The O&M costs include an annual commitment
for one or two new staff members.
Final Draft 3-28 July 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3.2.8.3. Staff Qualifications
As the sophistication of the treatment facilities and regulatory requirements increase, the
educational level of the operators and maintenance must increase also. The best means of continuing
the education of staff is through local or state operator certification training.
Conceptual Design—For this estimate, it is assumed that there are no capital costs
associated with this item.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—The O&M costs include an annual commitment
for training of staff members.
3.2.9. Laboratory Modifications
Just as a typical manufacturing process has quality control checks and tests performed on a
regular basis, the operators at a water treatment facility should also periodically check the treatment
process to ensure that all processes are performing at the highest levels possible. Typically, the
operator will perform these quality control checks within the laboratory at the plant. Often, the
equipment needed to complete the quality checks is either non-functional or out-dated. The three
treatment process enhancements that have been costed for laboratory modifications are:
• Bench Top Turbidimeter Purchase
• Jar Test Apparatus Purchase
• Alternative Process Control Testing Equipment.
3.2.9.1. Bench Top Turbidimeter Purchase
Typically, every plant has a bench top turbidimeter to monitor the turbidity of the water
leaving the plant. However, some of these units are obsolete. With the increasing requirements, the
need for an up-to-date and accurate turbidimeter is needed.
Final Draft 3-29 Jufy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Conceptual De&ign—For this estimate, it is assumed that the costs include the purchase
of one new benchtop turbidimeter for process control for systems up to 75,000 population; two for
systems up to 500,000 population and three for systems serving more than 500,000 population.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Annual maintenance material and labor
requirements are provided for the general maintenance and monthly calibration of the equipment.
3.2.9.2. Jar Test Apparatus Purchase
One of the most important pieces of laboratory equipment that all water treatment facilities
should have is jar test apparatus. With this equipment, changes to the treatment process of a plant
can be checked rapidly in the laboratory. In addition, if the source water quality changes, process
changes can be evaluated to determine the optimum treatment changes at any time.
Conceptual Design—For this estimate, purchase of apparatus for one, two, or three sets
of jar test apparatus for process control is included. The number of sets of equipment is dependent
on system size.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Annual maintenance material and labor
requirements are provided for the general maintenance and calibration of the equipment.
3.2.9.3. Alternative Process Control Testing Equipment
With the tightening of water quality requirements, means to control the treatment process
automatically are helpful. The source, in-plant, or effluent water quality can be measured and
compared to a set point. If that measured value is different than the set point, a signal is sent to the
chemical feed system to change the feed rate dependent on the variation from the setpoint. Three
types of process control equipment that can be used in this situation are a Zetameter, particle counter,
or streaming current monitor.
Final Draft 3-30 . July 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Conceptual Design—The costs include the purchase of new alternative on-line test
M
\
equipment (such as particle counter, streaming current monitor or Zetameter) for process control.
The number of units is dependent on system size.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Annual maintenance material and labor
requirements are provided for the general maintenance and monthly calibration of the equipment.
3.2.10. Process Control Testing Modifications
With the implementation of the IESWTR, plant staff will need to have plant operational data
to allow for changes in the treatment process as required to meet the stricter, requirements. It is
expected that a new process control system will be installed or an existing system will have to be
upgraded arid expanded. The five process control testing modifications that have been costed for
laboratory modifications are:
• Modify/Implement Turbidity Monitoring and Recording
• Modify/Implement Process Monitoring Strategy (Other Than Turbidity)
• Process Control Facilitator
• Staff Training to Understand Process Control Strategy
• Modification of Process Control Instrumentation.
3.2.10.1. Modify/Implement Turbidity Monitoring and Recording
With the implementation of the individual filter monitoring requirements of the IESWTR,
a means of monitoring and recording the readings from the turbidimeter at each filter are needed.
The turbidimeter readings can be monitored and recorded on a data sheet by the operator on duty or
electronically through a multi-channel turbidimeter and computer data acquisition software.
Conceptual Design—This cost estimate assumes that the municipality or utility will
choose to record the data from individual filter turbidimeters electronically. One method to acquire
the output from each individual turbidimeter is to route all the data through a remote telemetry unit
(RTU) or a programmable logic controller (PLC) to a computer. Another means to acquire this data
Final Draft 3-31 Juty 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
is to use a microprocessor-based multi-channel rurbidimeter. This type of turbidimeter can obtain
the output from many turbidimeters (up to 64) and then transmit data directly to the computer.
In either case, the computer system will need to have adequate storage capacity as well as the
appropriate software (standard SC ADA program tailored to the specific plant) to manipulate the data
and generate the necessary reports. This cost estimate includes costs for using the multi-channel
turbidimeter, along with a personal computer based system with the appropriate software.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Annual maintenance material and labor
requirements are provided for the general maintenance and annual calibration of the equipment.
3.2.10.2. Modify/Implement Process Monitoring Strategy (Other Than Turbidity)
Aside from a SCAD A system for turbidity monitoring, other critical operational parameters
of a plant will be monitored. These parameters include water influent, chemical feed, filtered water
effluent, clearwell level(s), and finished water flow leaving the plant. With monitoring of these
critical points, the operator can implement'the required process control strategy to produce a
combined filter water effluent meeting the new requirements.
/
Conceptual Design—To provide the information required for the implementation of a
process control strategy, flowmeters will be installed on the water and finished water, and chemical
feed rates and clearwell level(s) will be measured. These data will then be provided to the operator
through a personal computer based monitoring system (with appropriate software, which would be
a standard SC ADA program tailored to the specific plant). Note that only monitoring and data
acquisition is provided and all process changes would have to be made by the operator.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Annual maintenance material and labor
requirements are provided for the general maintenance and annual calibration of the equipment.
3.2.10.3. Process Control Facilitator
Final Draft 3-32 Jufy 28. 1998,
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
The process control facilitator is an individual, such as a consultant, contracted by the utility
to help develop, assist with the implementation, and recommend changes to the process control
strategy for the water treatment plant to produce a combined filter effluent meeting the requirements
ofthelESWTR
Conceptual Design—There are no capital costs associated with this item.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—The costs associated with this item are assumed
to be an annual O&M commitment for hiring a facilitator.
3.2.10.4. Staff Training to Understand Process Control Strategy
As requirements become more stringent, plant staff need to better understand the operation
and maintenance of a water treatment plant. Typically, the utility will have experienced staff that
can help train new employees through on-the-job training. In addition, a certain amount of outside
training may be required to either obtain or maintain operator certification. These methods typically
require many years for the staff to obtain the level of knowledge required. However, the more
stringent rules will require a greater .degree of operator competence in a much shorter time.
Therefore, more staff training will be required.
Conceptual Design—There are no capital costs associated with this item.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—The costs associated with this item are assumed
to be an annual O&M commitment for training of all staff members.
3.2.10.5. Modification of Process Control Instrumentation
With the full implementation of the process control strategy by a SCAD A system, it is
expected that some existing field instruments will have to be replaced or updated. Also, new
instruments may have to be installed to provide all the necessary information for the automatic
control of the process.
Final Draft 3-33 Jufy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Conceptual Design—To provide the information required for the full implementation of
an automatic process control strategy through the installation of a SCADA system, flowmeters and
flow control valves on the water and finished water (if necessary), chemical feed rate monitoring
and control, and clearwell level(s) will be installed. The SCADA system provides control of the
treatment proces.s with the operator monitoring and changing the appropriate setpoints as needed.
Total capital costs include field instruments, the personal computer based system, hardware,
software, software modifications, training and calibration.
Operation and Maintenance Costs—Annual maintenance material and labor
requirements are provided for the general maintenance and monthly calibration of the equipment.
3.2.11. Other Costs
This section describes other costs that a utility may incur as a result of IESWTR
implementation. These costs include performing individual filter assessments and comprehensive
performance evaluations, both performed by third-parties.
3.2.11.1. Individual Filter Assessments
With the implementation of the IESWTR, all surface water systems that use rapid granular
filtration and serve more than 10,000 people may be required to conduct continuous monitoring of
turbidity for each individual filter and provide an exceptions report to the state on a monthly basis.
Exceptions reporting will include the following: (1) any individual filter with a turbidity level
greater than 1.0 NTU based on two consecutive measurements IS minutes apart; and (2) any
individual filter with a turbidity level greater than 0.5 NTU at the end of the first four hours of filter
operation based on two consecutive measurements 15 minutes apart. In addition to the monthly
exception report required for each exceedance of 1.0 NTU, additional requirements are triggered
when exceedances persist. If a plant reports exceedances of 1.0 NTU at one filter, based on two
consecutive measurements IS minutes apart, for 3 consecutive months, an individual filter
assessment is required.
Final Draft 3-34 . July 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatrnent Rule
In an individual filter assessment, in accordance with the appropriate sections of the
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Section of the Composite Correction Program, a filter
profile will be produced for all filters with exception reports if no obvious reason for the abnormal
filter performance can be identified. The filter profile is a graph of the filter effluent turbidity during
a complete operational cycle. For this report, individual filter assessments include the following
tasks:
• Obtain turbidity data from the data acquisition system for the appropriate filter
• Import the data into a program/software so that a graph can be prepared
• Interview operators to determine if any unusual operating conditions occurred
• Evaluate the backwashing of the filter
• Prepare a letter report of findings.
Based on these tasks, it is estimated that each individual filter assessment will take
approximately 50 man-hours to complete at a cost of $5,000 (50 man-hours at $100 per hour).
3.2.11.2. Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
With the implementation of the IESWTR, if an individual filter has turbidity levels greater
than 2.0 NTU, based on two consecutive measurements 15 minutes apart at any time in each of 2
consecutive months, the state or a state-approved third-party may be required to conduct a complete
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE). The CPE will be in accordance with an EPA issued
guidance manual. •
Based on the experience of trained evaluators and the anticipated tasks, it is estimated that
each CPE will take approximately 250 man-hours to complete at a cost of $25,000 (250 man-hours
at $100 per hour).
3.3. Cost Tables
The following tables provide the Capital Costs (Table 3-3), Annualized Capital Costs at 3,
7, and 10 percent interest rates (Tables 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6), O&M Costs (Table 3-7), and Total
Final Draft 3-35 . July 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Annuaiized Costs at 3, 7 and 10 percent interest rates (Tables 3-8 and 3-9, and 3-10) based on
average flow, of each treatment technology described in this section.
Final Draft 3-36 Jufy28. 1998
-------
"*]
I
Table 3-3. Capital Costs (Thousand Dollars) by Treatment Option*
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25 - 50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75^-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
>1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Chemical Addition
Install coagulant aid polymer feed capability
Install filter aid polymer feed capability
Install backwash water polymer/coagulant feed
capability
Install pH adjustment for enhancing alkalinity
purposes
107.2
98.4
100.0
108.6
135.6
109.9
100.0
192.6
160.5
126.2
100.0
280.8
181.1
144.1
100.0
350.7
226.2
179.8
100.0
527.6
360.4
286.8
110.2
1,259.0
456.4
363.2
136.6
1,940.4
485.2
385.')
147,6
2,172.6
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, and
measurement
205.7
245.4
286.7
325.2
406.0
647.2
819.6
871.1
Rapid Mixing
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment (only)
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and
basin
22.3
66.8
104.7
314.2
187.2
561.5
269.6
808.9
352.1
1,056.2
434.5
1,303.5
517.0
1,550.9
621.4
1,864.3
Flocculation Improvements
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment (only)
Flocculation Improvements •- Equipment and
basin
103.2
309.5
213.1
639.3
323.0
969.0
432.9
1,298.8
542.9
1,628.6
652.8
1,958.4
762.7
2,288.2
826.7
2,480.0
Settling Improvements
Equipment modification - weirs in
influent/effluent
Add tube settlers
31.0
103.2
66.9
222.9
106.5
355.2
151.8
506.1
294.5
981.7
1,072.6
3,575.5
2,140.4
7,134.6
2,563.7
8,545.6
U)
OJ
Kl
do
•o
§
-------
Table 3-3. Capital Costs (Thousand Dollars) by Treatment Option* (Continued)
oo
sS
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4,8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
17.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Filtration Improvements (continued)
Post-backwash - sequence (install additional
filter(s))
Post-backwash - filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Individual filter turbidimeter installation
Microfiltration
819.0
95.8
167.7
40.0
7,496.9
1,120.5
154.3
270.0
80.0
13,075.8
1,422.4
215.3
376.8
120.0
18,194.4
1,814.5
298.0
521.5
160.0
23,284.4
2,415.3
562.0
983.5
320.0
36,588.0
5,995.2
2,380.0
4,165.0
1,360.0
94,546.6
11,234.5
5,244.1
9,177.2
2,800.0
152,908.
6
13,533.7
6,317.3
11,055.4
3,400.0
173,250.
1
Hydraulic Improvements
Recycle flow - account for in process control
decisions
Install of valving and/or pumps to control the
flow
Flow distribution/control/measurement
99.0
20.3
64.0
217.7
45.0
140.7
352.4
77.6
- 222.2
485.0
100.8
313.4
929.8
193.1
600.9
3,909.5
808.9
2,526.5
6,841.5
1,415.6
4,421.4
11,972.7
2,477.2
7,737.5
Administrative Culture Improvements
Policy and commitment to lower water quality
goals
Plant staffing increase (1 or 2 persons)
Staff qualifications
—
5.0
—
•
5.0
—
5.0
—
10.0
—
—
10.0
—
—
10.0
—
—
10.0
—
—
10.0
...
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase
Jar test apparatus purchase •
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
10.0
13.0
10.0
13.0
- 15.0
19.5
15.0
. 19.5
15.0
26.0
O
O
(A
r*
at
3
a
-------
Table 3-4. Annualized Capital Costs at 3 percent Interest Rate (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option*
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2-1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Chemical Addition
Install coagulant aid polymer feed capability
Install filter aid polymer feed capability
Install backwash water polymer/coagulant feed
capability
Install pH adjustment for enhancing alkalinity
purposes
0.940
0.863
0.877
0.952
0.499
0.405
0.368
0.709
0336
0.264
0.209
0.588
0.257
0.204
0.142
0.497
0.154
0.123
0.068
0.360
0.055
0.044
0.017
0.193
0.031
0.025
0.009
0.132
0.026
0.020
0.008
0.115
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, and
measurement
1.803
0.904
0.600
0.461
0.277
0.099
0.056
0.046
Rapid Mixing
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment (only)
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and
basin
0.195
0.586
0.386
1.157
0.392
1.175
0.382
1.146
0.240
0.720
0.067
0.200
0.035
0.106
0.033
0.099
Flocculation Improvements
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment (only)
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment and
basin
0.905
2.714
0.785
2.355
0.676
2.028
0.613
1.840
0.370
1.111
0.100
0.301
0.052
0.156
0.044
0.131
Settling Improvements
Equipment modification - weirs in
influent/effluent
Add tube settlers
0.272
0.905
0.246
0.821
0.223
0.743
0.215
0.717
0.201
0.670
0.165
0.549
0.146
0.487
0.136
0.452
Kl
Oo
-------
•8
I
Table 3-4. Annualized Capital Costs at 3 percent Interest Rate (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option* (Continued)
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51,0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Filtration Improvements (continued)
Post-backwash - sequence (install additional
filter(s))
Post-backwash - filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Individual filter turbidimeter installation
Microfiltration
7.182
0.840
1.470
0.838
65.746
4.127
0.568
0.995
0.704
48.162
2.977
0.451
0.789
0.600
38,077
2.571
0.422
0.739
0.541
32.986
1.647
0.383
0.671
0.521
24.956
0.920
0.365
0.639
0.498
14.510
0.766
0.358
0.626
0.191
10.430
0.716
0.334
0.585
0.180
9.169
Hydraulic Improvements
Recycle flow - account for in process control
decisions
Install of valving and/or pumps to control the
flow
Flow distribution/control/measurement
0.868
0.178
0.561
0.802
0.166
0.518
0.738
0.162
0.465
0.687
0.143
0.444
0.634
0.132
0.410
0.600
0.124
0.388
0.467
0.097
0.302
0.634
0.131
0.409
Administrative Culture Improvements
Policy and commitment to lower water quality
goals
Plant staffing increase (1 or 2 persons)
Staff qualifications
—
0.044
—
—
0.018
—
.
0.010
...
—
0.014
—
0.007
—
—
0.002
—
—
0.001
—
—
0.001
—
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment
0.105
0.057
0.438
0.044
0.024
0.184
0.025
0.014
0.105
0.034
0.018
0.142
0.016
0.009
0.068
0.005
0.003
0.023
0.002
0.001
0.010
0.002
0.001
0.008
Kj
do
s
-------
a
I
Table 3-5. Annualized Capital Costs at 7 percent Interest (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option*
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75 - 100
13.0
. 26,0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
•\
348.0
518.0
Chemical Addition
Install coagulant aid polymer feed capability
Install filter aid polymer feed capability
Install backwash water polymer/coagulant feed
capability
Install pH adjustment for enhancing alkalinity
purposes
1.321
1.212
1.231
1.337
0.701
0.568
0.517
0.996
0.472
0.371
0.294
0.825
0.360
0.287
0.199
0.698
0.217
0.172
0.096
0.505
0.078
0.062
0.024
0.271
0.044
0.035
0.013
0.186
0.036
0.029
0.0 II
0.161
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, and
measurement
2.532
1.269
0.843
0.647
0.389
0.139
0.079
0.065
Rapid Mixing
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment (only)
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and
basin
0.274
0.823
0.542
1.625
0.550
1.650
0.536
1.609
0.337
1.012
0.094
0.281
0.050
0.149
0.046
0.139
Flocculation Improvements
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment (only)
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment and
basin
1.270
3.811
1.102
3.306
0.949
2.848
0.861
2.584
0.520
1.560
0.141
0.422
0.073
0.219
0.061
0.184
Settling Improvements
Equipment modification - weirs in
influent/effluent
Add tube settlers
0.381
1.271
0.346
1.153
0.313
1.044
0.302
1.007
0.282
0.940
0.231
0.771
0.205
0.683
0.191
0.635
*
-------
Table 3-5. Annualized Capital Costs at 7 percent Interest (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option* (Continued)
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MOD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000 •
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Filtration Improvements (continued)
Post-backwash - sequence (install additional
filters))
Post-backwash - filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Individual filter turbidimeter installation
Microfiltration
10.086
1.180
2.065
0.968
92.320
5.795
0.798
1.397
0.813
67.629
4.180
0.633
1.107
0.693
53.467
3.609
0.593
1.037
0.626
46.319
2.313
0.538
0.942
0.602
35.044
1.292
0.513
0.898
0.576
20.375
1.076
0.502
0.879
0.268
14.645
1.006
0.469
0.822
0.253
12.874
Hydraulic Improvements
Recycle flow - account for in process control
decisions
Install of valving and/or pumps to control the
flow
Flow distribution/control/measurement
1.219
0.249
0.788
1.126
0.233
0.728
1.036
0.228
0.653
0.965
0.200
0.623
0.891
0.185
0.576
0.842
0.174
0.544
0.655
0.136
0.423
0.890
0.184
0.575
Administrative Culture Improvements
Policy and commitment to lower water quality
goals
Plant staffing increase (1 or 2 persons)
Staff qualifications
—
0.062
—
—
0.026
—
—
0.015
—
—
0.020
—
—
0.010
—
—
0.002
—
—
0.001
—
—
0.001
—
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment
0.121
0.080
0.616
0.051
0.034
0.259
0.029
0.019
0.147
0.039
0.026
0.199
0.019
0012
0.096
0.006
0.004
0.032
0.003
0.002
0.014
0.002
0.002
0.011
.u
-------
I
Table. 3-6. Annualized Capital Costs at 10 percent Interest (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option*
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Chemical Addition
Install coagulant aid polymer feed capability
Install filter aid polymer feed capability
Install backwash water polymer/coagulant feed
capability
Install pH adjustment for enhancing alkalinity
purposes
1.643
1.508
1.532
1.664
0.872
0.707
0.643
1.240
0.587
0.462
0.366
1.027
0.448
0.357
0.247
0.868
0.270
0.214
0.119
0.629
0.097
0.077
0.030
0.338
0.054
0.043
0.016
0.231
0.045
0.036
0.014
0.201
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, and
measurement
3.151
1.580
1.048
0.805
0.484
0.174
0.098
0.081
Rapid Mixing
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment (only)
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and
basin
0.341
1.024
0.674
2.022
0.684
2.053
0.667
2.002
0.420
1.259
i
0.117
0.350
0.062
0.185
0.057
0.172
Flocculation Improvements .
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment (only)
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment and
basin
1.581
4.742
1.371
4.114
1.181
3.544
1.072
3.215
0.647
1.941
0.175
0.525
0.091
0.273
0.076
0.229
Settling Improvements
Equipment modification - weirs in
influent/effluent
Add tube settlers
0.474
1.582
0.430
1.435
0.390
1.299
0.376
1.253
0.351
1.170
0.288
0.959
0.255
0.850
0.237
0.790
Jx
u>
t
Kj
00
-------
Table 3-6. Annualized Capital Costs at 10 percent Interest (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option* (Continued)
I
K>
Oo
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MOP)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Filtration Improvements (continued)
Post-backwash - sequence (install additional
filters))
Post-backwash - filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Individual filter turbidimeter installation
Microfiltration
12.551
1.468
2.569
1.072
114.884
7.212
0.993
1.738
0.900
84.158
5.202
0.787
1.378
0.767
66.535
4.492
0.738
1.291
0.693
57.639
2.879
0.670
1.172
0.667
43.609
1.608
0.638
1.117
0.638
25.355
1.339
0.625
1.094
0.334
18.225
1.252
0.584
1.022
0.314
16.021
Hydraulic Improvements
Recycle flow - account for in process control
decisions
Install of yalving and/or pumps to control the
flow
Flow distribution/control/measurement
1.517
0.310
0.981
1.401
0.290
0.906
1.289
0.284
0.813
1.201
0.249
0.776
1.108
0.230
0.716
1.048
0.217
0.678
0.815
0.169
0.527
1.107
0.229
0.716
Administrative Culture Improvements
Policy and commitment to lower water quality
goals
Plant staffing increase (1 or 2 persons)
Staff qualifications
-'.'
0.077
---
0.032
—
—
0.018
—
—
0.025
—
0.012
—
—
0.003
—
—
0.001
—
—
0.001
—
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment
0.134
0.100
0.766
0.056
0.042
0.322
0.032
0.024
0:183
0.043
0.032
0.248
0.021
0.015
0.119
0.007
0.005
0.040
0.003
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.002
0.014
o
o
VI
»-»
Ot
3
Q.
ID
O
^
O
(Q
><
O
O
o
c
3
n
3
3-
(D
5"
^»
(D
m
3
3-
U
3
O
(D
a
01
o
at
a>
01
a
3
C
a
-------
Table 3-7. Operation and Maintenance Costs (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option*
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Chemical Addition
Install coagulant aid polymer feed capability
Install filter aid polymer feed capability
Install backwash water polymer/coagulant feed
capability
Install pH adjustment for enhancing alkalinity
purposes
3.001
1.678
1.139
11.223
2.359
1.034
0.479
11.018
2.156
0.833
0.273
10.955
2.071
0.747
0.186
10.928
1.980
0.654
0.091
10.879
1.906
0.587
0.024
10.811
1.892
0.575
0.012
10.791
1 .884
0.573
0.009
10.805
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, and
measurement
4.680
3.393
2.989
2.818
2.633
2.493
2.467
2.462
Rapid Mixing
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment (only)
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and
basin
2.363
2.363
5.839
5.839
6.071
6.071
5.974
5.974
3.774
3.774
1.051
1.051
0.557
0.557
0.552
0.552
Flocculation Improvements
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment (only)
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment and
basin
1.618
1.618
0.968
0.968
• 0.931
0.931
0.889
0.889
0.552
0.552
0.152
0.152
0.080
0.080
0.078
0.078
Settling Improvements •
Equipment modification - weirs in
influent/effluent
Add tube settlers
0.652
0.652
0.274
0.274
0.156
0.156
0.158
0.158
0.101
0.101
0.046
0.046
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
I/I
I
00
$
-------
s*
B
I
Table 3-7. Operation and Maintenance Costs (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option* (Continued)
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MOD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Filtration Improvements (continued)
Post-backwash - sequence (install additional
filters))
Post-backwash - filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Individual filter turbidimeter installation
Microfiltration
6.858
1.566
3.131
0.282
19.229
2.880
0.658
1.315
0.237
18.365
2.455
0.672
1.121
0.239
17.823
2.492
0.654
0.969
0.236
17.458
2.100
0.639
0.913
0.241
16.795
1.890
0.514
0.685
0.112
15.518
1.680
0.419
0.558
0.102
14.865
2.607
0.396
0.527
0.096
14.666
Hydraulic Improvements
Recycle flow - account for in process control
decisions
Install of valving and/or pumps to control the
flow
Flow distribution/control/measurement
1,252
0.848
0.848
0.789
0.534
0.534
0.628
0.425
0.425
0.595
0.403
0.403
0.401
0.271
0.271
0.126
0.086
0.086
0.079
0.053
0.053
0.085
0.058
0.058
Administrative Culture Improvements
Policy and commitment to lower water quality
goals
Plant staffing increase (1 or 2 persons)
Staff qualifications
0.543
5.427
0.651
0.228
2.279
0.274
0.130
1.295
0.155
0.175
1.753
0.140
0.084
0.844
0.101
0.019
0.190
0.023
0.008
0.084
0.010
0.007
0.066
0.008
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment
0.190
0.065
0.326
0.080
0.027
0.137
0.073
0.025
0.121
0.062
0.021
0.105
0.030
0.010
0.051
0.010
0.003
0.017
0.004
0.002
0.008
0.003
0.001
0.006
o
o
0)
3
o.
H
(D
n
3-
3
£
o
(O
><
o
o
o
c
3
n
01
r+
m
(D
C_
A
-------
S
Table 3-8. Total Annualized Costs at 3 percent Interest Rate (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option*
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2,1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75 - 100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Chemical Addition
Install coagulant aid polymer feed capability
Install filter aid polymer feed capability
Install backwash water polymer/coagulant feed
capability
Install pH adjustment for enhancing alkalinity
purposes
3.941
2.541
2.016
12.175
2.858
1.439
0.847
11.727
2.492
1.097
0.482
11.543
2.328
J0.951
0.328
11.425
2.134
0.777
0.159
11.239
1.961
0.631
0.041
11.004
1.923
0.600
0.021
10.923
1.915
0.593
0.017
10.920
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, and
measurement
6.483
4.297
3.589
3.279
2.910
2.592
2.523
2.508
Rapid Mixing .
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment (only)
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and •
basin
2.558
2.949
6.225
6.996
6.463
7.246
6.356
7.120
4.014
4.494
1.118
1.251
0.592
0.663
0.585
0.651
Flocculation Improvements
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment (only)
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment and
basin
2.523
4.332
1.753
3.323
1.607
2.959
1.502
2.729
0.922
1.663
0.252
0.453
0.132
0.236
0.122
0.209
Settling Improvements
Equipment modification - weirs in
influent/effluent
Add tube settlers ,
0.924
1.557
0.520
1.095
0.379
0.899
0.373
0.875
0.302
0.771
0.211
0.595
0.166
0.507
0.156
0.472
u>
it
I
8
-------
8
I
Table 3-8. Total Annualized Costs at 3 percent Interest Rate (Cents/1.000 gal) by Treatment Option* (Continued)
oo
8
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Filtration Improvements (continued)
Post-backwash - sequence (install additional
filters))
Post-backwash - filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Individual filter turbidimeter installation
Microfiltration
14.040
2.406
4.601
1.120
84.975
7.007
1.226
2.310
0.941
66.527
5.432
1.123
1.910
0.839
55.900
5.063
1.076
1.708
0.777
50.444
3.747
1.022
1.584
0.762
41.751
2.810
0.879
1.324
0.610
30.028
2.446
0.777
1.184
0.293
25.295
3.323
0.730
1.112
0.276
23.835
Hydraulic Improvements
Recycle flow - account for in process control
decisions
Install of valving and/or pumps to control the
flow
Flow distribution/control/measurement
2.120
1.026
1.409
1.591
0.700
1.052
1.366
0.587
0.890
1.282
0.546
0.847
1.035
0.403
0.681
0.726
0.210
0.474
0.543
0.150
0.355
0.719
0.189
0.467
Administrative Culture Improvements
Policy and commitment to lower water quality
goals
Plant staffing increase (1 or 2 persons)
Staff qualifications
0.543
5.471
0.651
0.228
2.297
0.274
0.130
1.305
0.155
0.175
1.767
0.140
0.084
0.851
0.101
0.019
0.192
0.023
0.008
0.085
0.010
0.007
0.067
0.008
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment
it >os
0.122
0.764
0.124
0.051
0.321
0.098
,0.039
0.226
0.096
0.039
0.247
0.046
0.019
0.119
0.015
0.006
0.040
0.006
0.003
0.018
0.005
0.002
0.014
o
o
QJ
-t
CD
O
IT
3
O^
O
(O
•<
O
o
o
c
3
A
A
5"
rt-
(0
m
3-
DJ
O
(D
O.
C
I
(D
0)
*•*•
0>
at
|
3
(F
-------
Table 3-9. Total Annualized Costs at 7 percent Interest (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option*
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Pay Demand (MGD)
10 -25
2-1
4.8
25-50
5.0
1LO
50-75
8.8
18.0
75-100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
>1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Chemical Addition
Install coagulant aid polymer feed capability
Install filter aid polymer feed capability
Install backwash water polymer/coagulant feed
capability ;
Install pH adjustment for enhancing alkalinity
purposes
4.322
2.890
2.370
12.560
3.060
1.602
0.996
12.014
2.628
1.204
0.567
11.780
2.431
1.034
0.385
11.626
2.197
0.826
0.187
11.384
1.984
0.649
0.048
11.082
1.936
0.610
0.025
10.977
1.925
0.602
0.020
10.966
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, and
measurement
7.212
4.662
3.832
3.465
3.022
2.632
2.546
2.527
Rapid Mixing
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment (only)
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and
basin
2.637
3.186
6.381
7.464
6.621
7.721
6.510
7.583
4.111
4.786
1.145
1.332
0.607
0.706
0.598
0.691
Flocculation Improvements
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment (only)
Flocculalion Improvements - Equipment and
basin
2.888
5.429
2.070
4.274
1.880
3.779
1.750
3.473
1.072
2.112
0.293
0.574
0.153
0.299
0.139
0.262
Settling Improvements
Equipment modification - weirs in
influent/effluent
Add tube settlers
1.033
1.923
0.620
1.427
0.469
1.200
0.460
1.165
0.383
1.041
0.277
0.817
0.225
0.703
0.211
0.655
fc
*
'58
-------
1
•a,
Table 3-9. Total Annualized Costs (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option* (Continued)
t/t
o
t
PC
1
Plant Population Stee Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MGD)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75 - 100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Filtration Improvements (continued)
Post-backwash ~ sequence (install additional
filters))
Post-backwash - filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Individual filter turbidimeter installation
Microfiltration
16.944
2.746
5.196
1.250
111.549
8.675
1.456
2.712
1.050
85.994
6.635
1.305
2.228
0.932
71.290
6.101
1.247
2.006
0.862
63.777
4.413
1.177
1.855
0.843
51.839
3.182
1.027
1.583
0.688
35.893
2.756
0.921
1.437
0.370
29.510
3.613
0.865
1 .349
0.349
27.540
Hydraulic Improvements
Recycle flow - account for in process control
decisions
Install of valving and/or pumps to control the
flow
Flow distribution/control/measurement
2.471
1.097
1.636
1.915
0.767
1.262
1.664
0.653
1.078
1.560
0.603
1.026
1.292
0.456
0.847
0.968
0.260
0.630
0.734
0.189
0.476
0.975
0.242
0.633
Administrative Culture Improvements
Policy and commitment to lower water quality
goals
Plant staffing increase (1 or 2 persons)
Staff qualifications .
0.543
5.489
0.651
0.228
2.305
0.274
0.130
1.310
0.155
0.175
1.773
0.140
0.084
0.854
0.101
0.019
0.192
0.023
0.008
0.085
0.010
0.007
0.067
0.008
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment
0.311
0.145
0.942
0.131
0.061
0.396
0.102
0.044
0.268
0.101
0.047
0.304
0.049
0.022
0.147
0.016
0.007
0.049
0.007
0.004
0.022
0.005
0.003
0.017
O
O
0)
3
Q.
H
n>
o
3-
3
£
O
(O
*<
o
o
o
c
3
m
3
01
3
O
in
c
3,
01
o
fl>
0)
«-*
n
(0
ft
-------
Table 3-10. Total Annualized Costs at 10 percent Interest Rate (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option*
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand ^VIGD)
Peak Day Demand (MOB)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75 - 100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Chemical Addition
Install coagulant aid polymer feed capability
Install filter aid polymer feed capability
Install backwash water polymer/coagulant feed
capability
Install pH adjustment for enhancing alkalinity
purposes
4.644
3.186
2.671
12.887
3.231
1.741
1.122
12.258
2.743
1.295
0.639
11.982
2.519
1.104
0.433
11.796
2.250
0.868
0.210
11.508
2.003
0.664
0.054
11.149
1.946
0.618
0.028
11.022
1.934
0.609
0.023
11.006
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, and
measurement
7.831
4.973
4.037
3.623
3.117
2.667
2.565
2.543
Rapid Mixing
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment (only)
Rapid Mix Improvements - Equipment and
basin
2.704
3.387
6.513
7.861
6.755
8.124
6.641
7.976
4.194
5.033
1.168
1.401
0.619
0.742
0.609
0.724
Flocculation Improvements
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment (only)
Flocculation Improvements - Equipment and
basin
3.199
6.360
2.339
5.082
2.112
4.475
1.961
4.104
1.199
2.493
0.327
0.677
0.171
0.353
0.154
0.307
Settling Improvements
Equipment modification - weirs in
influent/effluent
Add tube settlers
1.126
2.234
0.704
1.709
0.546
1.455
0.534
1.411
0.452
1.271
0.334
1.005
0.275
0.870
0.257
0.810
I
-------
1
I
Table 3-10. Total Annualized Costs at 10 percent Interest Rate (Cents/1,000 gal) by Treatment Option* (Continued)
Plant Population Size Categories (in
thousands)
Average Day Demand (MGD)
Peak Day Demand (MQPJ)
10-25
2.1
4.8
25-50
5.0
11.0
50-75
8.8
18.0
75 - 100
13.0
26.0
100-
500
27.0
51.0
500-
1,000
120.0
210.0
> 1,000
270.0
430.0
> 1,000
348.0
518.0
Filtration Improvements (continued)
Post-backwash - sequence (install additional
filters))
Post-backwash - filter-tp-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Individual filter turbidimeter installation
Microfiltration
19.409
3.034
5.700
1.354
134.113
10.092
1.651
3.053
1.137
102.523
7.657
1,459
2.499
1.006
84.358
6.984
1.392
2.260
0.929
75.097
4.979
1.309
2.085
0.908
60.404
3.498
1.152
1.802
0.750
40.873
3.019
1.044
1.652
0.436
33.090
3.85()
0.980
1.549
0.410
30.687
Hydraulic Improvements
Recycle flow - account for in process control
decisions
Install of valving and/or pumps to control the
flow
Flow distribution/control/measurement
2.769
1.158
1.829
2.190
0.824
1.440
1.917
0.709
1.238
1.796
0.652
1.179
1.509
0.501
0.987
1.174
0.303
0.764
0.894
0.222
0.580
1.192
0.287
0.774
Administrative Culture Improvements
Policy and commitment to lower water quality
goals
Plant staffing increase (1 or 2 persons)
Staff qualifications
0.543
5.504
0.651
0.228
2.311
0.274
0.130
1.313
0.155
0.175
1.778
0.140
0.084
0.856
0.101
0.019
0.193
0.023
0.008
0.085
0.010
0.007
0.067
0.008
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment
0.324
0.165
1.092
0.136
0.069
0.459
0.105
0.049
0.304
0.105
0.053
0.353
0.051
0.025
0.170
0.017
0.008
0.057
0.007
0.004
0.026
0.005
0.003
0.020
!
,°o
~-.
Xi
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
4. REFERENCES
Section 1
Brock. T.D.; and Brock, K.M. 1978. Basic Microbiology with Applications. Englewood Cliffs-
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1996. CDC Surveillance Summaries, April 12,1996.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 45 (No. SS-1):9
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1990. "Waterbome Disease Outbreaks, 1986-1988."
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 39 (No. SS-1):1-13.
D'Antonio, R.G.; Winn, R.E.; Taylor, J.P. Gustafson, T.L.; Current, W. L.; Rhodes, M.M.; Gary,
Jr., G.W.; and Zajac, R.A. et al. 1985. "A Waterbome Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in
Normal Hosts." Ann. Intern. Med. 103:886-8.
Goldstein, S.T.; Juranek, D.D.; Ravenholt, O.; Hightower, A.W.; Martin, D.G.; Mesnik, J.L.;
Griffiths; S.D.; Bryant, A.J.; Reich, R.R.; and Herwaldt,B.L.etal. 1996. Cryptosporidiosis:
An Outbreak Associated With Drinking Water Despite State of the Art Water Treatment
Ann. Intern. Med. 124:459-68.
Hayes, E.B.; Matte, T.D.; O'Brien, T.R.; McKinley, T. W.; Logsdon, G.S.; Rose, J.B.; Ungar, B.L.P.;
Word, D.M.; Pinsky, P.P.; Cummings, M.L.; Wilson, M.A.; Long, E.G.; Hurwitz, E.D.; and
Juranek, D.D. et al. 1989. "Large Community Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis Due to
Contamination of a Filtered Public Water Supply." N. Engl. Jour. Med, 320:1372-6.
Hoff, J.C. 1986. Inactivation of Microbiological Agents by Chemical Disinfectants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Publication No. 600/2-86/067.
Kaminski, J.C. 1994. "Cryptosporidiiun and the Public Water Supply" [Letter]. N. Engl. Jour.
Med. 331:1529-30.'
Korich, D.G.; Mead, J.R.; Madore, MiS.; Sinclair, N.A.; and Sterling, C.R. 1990. "Effects of
Ozone, Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorine, and Monochloramine on Cryptosporidiian parvum
Oocyst Viability." Appi Environ. Microbiol. 56:1423-8;
LeChevallier,M.W.; Norton, W.D;; Lee, R.G. 1991. "Occurrence of Giardia and Cryptosporidiian
spp. in Surface Water Supplies." Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57(9): 2610-2616.
LeChevallier, M.W.; and Norton, W.D. 1995. "Giardia and Cryptosporidiian in Raw and Finished
Water." American Water Works Association Journal 87(9): 54-68.
MacKenzie, W.R.; Hoxie, N.J.; Proctor, M.E.; Gradus, M.S.; Blair, K.A.; Peterson, D.E.;
Kazmierczak, J.J.; Addiss, D.G.; Fox, K.R.; Rose, J.B.; and Davis, J.P. et al. 1994. "A
Final Draft ' 4-1 Jufy28,1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Massive Outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium Infection Transmitted Through the
Public Water Supply." .V. Engl. Jour. Med. 331:161-7.
Pontius. F.W., ed. 1990. Water Quality and Treatment, A Handbook of Community Water
Supplies. 4th ed. American Water Works Association. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Rose, J.B.; Gerba, C.P.; 1988. "Occurrence and Significance of Cryptosporidum in Water."
A WWA Jour. 80:53-8.
Rose, J.B.; Gerba, C.P.; and Jakubowski, W. et al.. 1991. "Survey of Potable Water Supplies for
Cryptosporidium and Giardia." Environmental Science and Technology 25(8): 1393-1400.
Sterling, C.B.; Christian, B.B.; and Cope, J.O. 1995. "A Public Health Laboratory: Handling a
Parasitic Outbreak." Tennessee Department of Health (THD) Laboratory Services
Newsletter 4:1—3.
USEPA. 1989. "Drinking Water: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Filtration,
Disinfection; Turbidity, Giardia Lamblia, Viruses, Legionella, and Heterotrophic Bacteria;
Final Rule." Federal Register 40 CFI Parts 141 and 142. 54:27486-541.
USEPA. 1990. Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance with the Composite Correction
Program. Cincinnati, OH: Center for Environmental Research Information,
EPA/625/9-90/017.
USEPA. 1998a, "Cryptosporidium and Giardia Occurrence Assessment for the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule." Washington, DC: Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water.
* >
USEPA. 1998b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule. Washington, DC: Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. %.
Section 2
AWWA/ASCE. 1998. Water Treatment Plant Design. Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
AWWAJour. 1980. Committee Report: The Status of Direct Filtration 75(7):405.
Cleasby, J.L.; Hilmoe, D.J.; and Dimitracopoulos, C.J. 1984a, "Slow Sand and Direct In-Line
Filtration of a Surface Water." AWWA Jour. p. 44.
Cleasby, J.L.; Hilmoe, D.W.; Dimitracopoulos, C.J.; and Diaz-Bossio, L.M. 1984b. Effective
Filtration Methods for Small Water Supplies. EPA-600/2-84-088. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May. NTIS: PB-84-187905
Gulp, R.L. 1977. "Direct Filtration." AWWA Jour. pp. 375-278, July.
Final Draft 4-2 Jufy 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
EPA. 1997. Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Notice of Data Availability Working
Draft 2. June 13. •
Hail, T.; Pressdee, and Carrington E. 1994. "Removal of Cryptospoiidium Oocysts by Water
Treatment Processes." Foundation for Water Research. London.
Gerba, C.P. 1984. Strategies for the Control of Viruses in Drinking Water. University of Arizona,
Tucson.
Kelley, M.B., Warner, P.K.; Brokaw, J.K.; Barrett, K.L.; and Komisar, S.J. 1995. "A Study of Two
U.S. Army Installations Drinking Water Resources and Treatment Systems for the Removal
of Giardia and Cryptosporidium." AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference
Proceedings. New Orleans, LS, November 12 -16,1995.
LeChevallier, M.W., and Norton, W.D. 1992. "Examining Relationships Between Particle Counts
and Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Turbidity." AWWA Jour. 84{12):54
Leong, L.Y.C. 1982. "Removal and Inactivation of Viruses by Treatment Processes for Potable
Water and Wastewater—A Review." Water Science Technology 15:91-114.
Logsdon, G.S.; and Lijppy, E.G. 1982. "The Role of Filtration hi Preventing Waterbome Disease.'"
AWWA Jour. p. 649.
Nieminski, E.G.; and Ongerth, I.E. 1995. "Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by
Conventional Treatment and Direct Filtration." A WWA Jour. 87(9):96
>
Ongerth, J. in press. Submitted forpublication to the AWWA Jour.
Patania, N.L.; Jacangelo, J.G.; et al. 1995: "Optimization of Filtration for Cyst Removal."
AWWARF.
Shuler, P.P., and Ghosh, M.M. .1990. "Diatomaceous Earth Filtration of Cysts and Other
Particulates Using Chemical Additives." A WWA Jour. 82( 12)
Shuler, P.P., and Ghosh, M.M. 1991. "Slow Sand Filtration of Cysts and Other Particulates."
Annual AWWA Water Quality Conf.Proc.. Orlando, FL, November 10-14.
Timms, S.S., and Fricker, CJL 1995. "Removal of Cryptosporidium by Slow Sand Filtration."
Water Science and Technology 31:5-6.
West, T.; Daniel, P.; Meyerhofe, P.; DeGraca, A.; Leonard, S.; and Gerba, C. et al. 1994.
"Evaluation of Cryptosporidium Removal Through High-Rate Filtration." AWWA Annual
Conf. Prbc., June 1994. .
Final Draft . 4-3 My 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Section 3
Adham. S.: Jacangelo, J.; and Laine. J.M. 1996. "Characteristics and Costs of MF and UF Plants."
AWWA Jour. 88(5)
Culp/Wesner/Culp. 1994. W/WW Cost & Design Criteria Guidelines 2.0, Computer Software for
Estimating Water and Wastewater Treatment Costs. SanClemente, CA: CWC Engineering
Software.
*
USEPA. 1978. Estimating Cost for Water Treatment as a Function of Size and Treatment Plant
Efficiency. EPA-Contract No. 600/2-78-182, Cincinnati, OH: Water Supply Research
Division.
USEPA. 1979. Estimating Water Treatment Costs, Volume 2: Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to 200
mgd Treatment Plants. EPA- Contract No. 600/2-79-162b, Cincinnati, OH: Drinking Water
Research Division.
USEPA. 1987. Analysis of Flow Data. Cincinnati, OH: Office of Drinking Water.
USEPA. 1989. Estimation of Small System Water Treatment Costs. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3093,
Cincinnati, OH
USEPA. 1992. Technologies and Costs for Control of Disinfection By-Products. Washington, DC:
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
Final Draft 4-4 July 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
APPENDIX A. EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Estimated Capital, O&M, and Total Costs
This appendix provides a detailed look at the process calculations presented in Section 3. This
appendix provides the detailed calculations for each treatment process for one flow category. This
process was repeated for each category costed in Section 3.
I. Costing Software
The computer software used in this document is titled, "W/WW Costs & Design Criteria
Guidelines 2.0" written by CWC Engineering Software in 1994. This program is also
referred to as WATERCOST, which was developed for water treatment technologies with
design flows of 1.0 mgd and greater.
II. Factors for Updating Costs
• Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Indices
- Date: March 17,1997
, - Building Cost Index = 3315.79
- Skilled Labor = 5160.12
- Material Prices = 2000.13
• . WATERCOST is a model capable of estimating costs for a given date by inputting specific
parameters. To develop a reliable cost estimate, the process involves selecting the
appropriate unit processes, entering all required user inputs, and printing the model results
for a specific objective. The necessary values needed are in the form of cost indices, unit
costs, and cost factors.
III. Design and Average Flows
Many treatment processes aod flow categories are referenced in this document Only one flow
category is presented in this appendix as an example of calculations used to develop capital and
O&M costs.
• Design (capacity) Flow = 26 mgd
• Average Flow = 13 mgd
Final Draft A-l Juty 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
IV. Modifications
A. Chemical Addition
1. INSTALL COAGULANT AID POLYMER FEED CAPABILITY
(WATERCOST Process 43)
• . Design-Capacity: Capacity of system based on dosage (feed rate) of 2 mg/L.
- Dosage (mg/l) * 8.34 x Flow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 2 mg/L x 8.34 x 26 mgd = 434 Ibs/day
Annual O&M: Annual system usage based on dosage (feed rate) of 1 mg/L.
- Dosage (mg/l) * 8.34 x Flow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 1 mg/L x 8.34 x 13 mgd = 108 Ibs/day
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $181,100
- Annual O&M Costs = $98,300
2. INSTALL FILTER AID POLYMER FEED CAP ABILITY
(WATERCOST Process 43)
• Design Capacity: Capacity of system based on dosage (feed rate) of 1 mg/L.
- Dosage (mg/l) x 8.34 x Flow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 1 mg/L x 8.34 x 26 mgd = 217 Ibs/day
• Annual O&M: Annual system usage based on dosage (feed rate) of 0.2 mg/L.
- Dosage (mg/l) * 8.34 x Flow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 0.2 mg/L x 8.34 x 13 mgd = 32 Ibs/day
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $144,100
- Annual O&M Costs = $35,400
Final Draft . A-2 July 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
3. INSTALL BACKWASH WATER POLYMER/COAGULANT FEED CAPABILITY
(WATERCOST Process 43)
Design Capacity: Capacity of system based on dosage .'feed rate) of 0.5 mg/L at
a Backwash Flow of 11.2 mgd.
- Dosage (mg/l) *8.34 * Flo\v (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 0.5 mg/L x 8.34 x 11.2 mgd = 46.7 Ibs/day
• Annual O&M: Annual system usage based on dosage (feed rate) of 0.2 mg/L at
a Backwash Flow of 11.2 mgd.
- Dosage (mg/l) * 8.34 * Flow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 0.2 mg/L x 8.34 x U.2 mgd = 19 Ibs/day
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $100,000
- Annual O&M Costs = $8,800
4. INSTALL PH ADJUSTMENT FOR ENHANCING ALKALINITY PURPOSES
(WATERCOST Process 45)
• Design Capacity: Capacity of system based on dosage (feed rate) of 4 gallons per
hour per mgd or 74 mg/L.
\
- Dosage (mg/l) x 8.34 x Flow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 74 mg/L x 8.34 x 26 mgd = 15,974 Ibs/day
Annual O&M: Annual system usage based on dosage (feed rate) of 4 gallons per
hour per mgd or 74 mg/L.
- Dosage (mg/l) x 8.34 * Flow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 74 mg/L x 834 x 13 mgd = 7,9*7 Ibs/day
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $350,700 ;
- Annual O&M Costs = $518,500
Final Draft A-3 Juty28,1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
B. Coagulant Improvements
I. PRIMARY COAGULANT FEED POINTS CONTROL, AND MEASUREMENT
The same design criteria and equipment components for coagulant and systems
discussed in Section 3.2.1.1 apply in this section.
Design Capacity: Capacity of system based on dosage (feed rate) of 2 mg/L.
- Dosage (mg/l) * 8.34 * Flow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 2 mg/L x 8.34 x 26 mgd = 434 Ibs/day
Annual O&M: Annual system usage based on dosage (feed rate) of 1 mg/L.
- Dosage (mg/l) x 8.34 x F/ow (mgd) = Ibs/day
- 1 mg/L x 8.34 x 13 mgd = 108 Ibs/day
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $325,200
- Annual O&M Costs = $133,700
C. Rapid Mixing
1. RAPID MIX IMPROVEMENTS — EQUIPMENT ONLY
(WATERCOST Process 106)
• Design Capacity: Capacity of system based on velocity gradient (G) of 900 sec"'
at the design flow.
• Annual O&M: Annual usage based on 24-hour/day operation of the system
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $269,600
- Annual O&M Costs = $283,500
2. RAPID MIX IMPROVEMENTS — EQUIPMENT AND BASIN
(WATERCOST Process 106)
• Design Capacity: Capacity of system based on velocity gradient (G) of 900 sec'1
at the design flow. .
Annual O&M: Annual usage based on 24-hour/day operation of the system
Final Draft A-4 Jufy 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $808,900
- Annual O&M = $283,500
D. Flocculation Improvements
1. FLOCCULATION IMPROVEMENTS-EQUIPMENT ONLY
(WATERCOST Process 74)
• Design Capacity: Capacity of system based on velocity gradient (G) of 50 sec"1
at the design flow.
• Annual O&M: Annual usage based on 24-hour/day operation of the system
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $432,900
- Annual O&M Costs = $42,200
2. FLOCCULATION IMPROVEMENTS — EQUIPMENT AND BASIN
(WATERCOST Process 74)
Design Capacity: Capacity of system based on velocity gradient (G) of 50 sec"1
at the design flow.
• Annual O&M: Annual usage based on 24-hour/day operation of the system
Costs
- Total Capital Costs - $1,298,800
- Annual O&M Costs = $42,200
E. Settling Improvements
1. EQUIPMENT MODIFICATION — WEIRS IN INFLUENT/EFFLUENT
• Design Capacity: Baffle at inlet to sedimentation basin designed to provide 0.1
foot headless. Additional launderers added to increase the length of effluent
weirs. The design overflow rate for the effluent weirs is 10 gallons per minute per
foot of weir.
• Annual O&M: Annual usage based on 24-hour/day operation of the system
Final Draft A-5 . Jufy28.1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Costs.
- Total Capital Costs = $151,800
- Annual O&M Costs = $7,500
2. ADD TUBE SETTLERS (WATERCOST Process 120)
Design Capacity: The design overflow rate for the tube settlers is 2.5 gallons per
minute per square foot.
Annual O&M: Annual usage based on 24-hour/day operation of the system
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $506,100
- Annual O&M Costs = $7,500
F. Filtration Improvements
1. FILTER MEDIA ADDITION (2" - 6") (WATERCOST Process 63)
• Design Capacity: The existing filter design is assumed to be dual media
(anthracite and sand). Filter area is the major design factor for this item, which
is determined using a filtration rate of 2.5 gpm/sq ft at peak day demand.
• Annual O&M: There are no additional annual costs associated with the filter
media addition.
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $110,100
- Annual O&M Costs = $0
2. FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT WITHOUT GRAVEL
(WATERCOST Process 56)
• Design Capacity: The existing filter design is assumed to be sand media. Filter
area is the major design factor for this item, which is determined using a filtration
rate of 2.5 gpm/sq ft at peak day demand.
• Annual O&M: There are no additional annual costs associated with the filter
media replacement without gravel.
Final Draft A-6 Jufy28,1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $288,200
- Annual O&M Costs = $0
3. FILTER MEDIA AND SUPPORT GRAVEL REPLACEMENT
(WATERCOST Process 56)
• Design Capacity: The existing filter design is assumed to be sand media. Filter
area is the major design factor for this item, and is determined using a filtration
rate of 2.5 gpm/sq ft at peak day demand. Dual media filters (coal-sand) use 20
inches of 1.0 to 1.2 mm effective size anthracite coal with a uniformity coefficient
less than 1.7, and 10 inches of 0.42 to 0.55 mm effective size silica sand with a
uniformity coefficient less than 1.6. Gravel support is made up of 3 inches of
1-1/2" x 3/4- silica gravel, 3 inches of 3/4" x 3/8"silica gravel, and 3 inches of
3/16" x #10 silica gravel.
• Annual O&M: There are no additional annual costs associated with the filter
media and support gravel replacement.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $432,300
- Annual O&M Costs = $0
4. FILTER MEDIA AND SUPPORT GRAVEL REPLACEMENT AND
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
(WATERCOST Process 56)
• Design Capacity: The existing filter design is assumed to be sand media. Filter
area is the major design factor for this item, which is determined using a filtration
rate of 2.5 gpm/sq ft at peak day demand. Dual media filters (coal-sand) use 20
inches of 1.0 to 12 mm effective size anthracite coal with a uniformity coefficient
less than 1.7, and 10 inches of 0.42 to 0.55 mm effective size silica sand whh a
uniformity coefficient less than 1.6. Gravel support is made up of 3 inches of 1-
1/2" x 3/4* siKca gravel, 3 inches of 3/4" x 3/8* silica gravel, and 3 inches of
3/16" x #10 silica gravel. A new underdrain system is added that is designed for
the future use of an air-water backwash system.
Annual O&M; There are no additional annual costs associated with the filter
media and support gravel replacement
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $576,400
- Annual O&M Costs = $0
Final Draft A-7 July 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
5. BACK WASHING — INCREASE FLOW/VELOCITY
(WATERCOST Process 50)
Design Capacity: The normal optimum backwashing rate is 15 to 18 gpm/sqft.
Filter area is the major design factor for this item. The backwash flowrate is less
than optimum and that the backwash system capacity will be increased
approximately 10 to 20 percent. To increase the capacity of the backwash system,
larger backwash pump(s), and associated piping and valving at the pumps and
some electrical improvements are required. No major piping improvements in
either the filter gallery or outside of the Backwash Pump Station are necessary.
The backwash pump total dynamic head (TDH) is 50 ft and the maximum design
rate for backwash is 18 gpm/sq ft.
• Annual O&M: O&M costs are based on backwash frequency of two filters or 33
percent of the total number of filters per day, whichever is greater, with a 10-
minute duration per wash. For dual-cell filters, a backwash is defined as a
backwash for both cells. Energy requirements are based on a backwash rate of 18
gpm/sq ft, a pumping head of 50 ft TDH, and an overall motor/pump efficiency
of 70 percent. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided
for the general maintenance of the system.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $197,300
- Annual O&M Costs = $ 12,500
6. BACKWASH - INSTALL SURFACE WASH (WATERCOST Process 57)
• Design Capacity: Surface wash-pumps are sized to provide approximately 50 to
85 psi at the arms. Four dual-arm agitators are included for filter areas of 350 to
700 sq ft The wet well for the surface wash pumps is the same as for the
backwash pumps.
• Annual O&M: O&M costs are based on backwash frequency of two filters or 3 3
percent of the total number of filters per day, whichever is greater, with a 10-
minute duration per wash. For dual-cell filters, a backwash is defined as a
backwash for both cells. Energy requirements are based on a backwash rate of 0.5
gpm/sq ft, a pumping head of 65 psi, and an overall motor/pump efficiency of 70
percent. Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for
the general maintenance of the system.
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $582,600
- Annual O&M Costs = $22,700
Final Draft A-8 July 28, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
7. POST-BACKWASH — SEQUENCE (Resting)
• Design Capacity: For this report, it is assumed that the existing filters are capable
of accommodating the additional flow from the filters) resting and no major
structural modifications will be required for this particular treatment technique.
The cost estimate includes some piping and control modifications to the existing
filters.
• Annual O&M: With the resting of filters after a backwash and increasing the
loading on the remaining filters, the frequency of backwashing may increase. The
annual O&M cost reflects a 10 to 20 percent increase of filter backwashing.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $181,500
- Annual O&M Costs = $23,000
8. POST-BACKWASH — SEQUENCE (INSTALL ADDITIONAL FILTER(S))
(WATERCOST Process 54)
• Design Capacity: Based on good engineering practice, at least two filters will be
added regardless of size of plant. Conventional gravity filtration structure costs
are based on use of cast-in-place concrete with a media depth of 2 to 3 ft and a
total depth of 16 ft for the filter box. The costs include housing of the entire filter
structure; pipe gallery and controls. Costs for filtration structures include the filter
structure, underdrains, wash water troughs, a pipe gallery, required piping and
cylinder operated butterfly valves, filter flow and headloss instrumentation, a filter
control panel, and the total housing requirement
• Annual Usage: O&M costs are based on backwash frequency of two filters or 33
percent of the total number of filters per day, whichever is greater, with a 10-
minute duration per wash. Energy requirements are based on a backwash rate of
18 gpm/sq ft, a pumping head of 50 ft TDH, and an overall motor/pump efficiency
of 70 percent. Annual maintenance material- an4 labor requirements are provided
for the general maintenance of the system.
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $1,814,500
- Annual O&M Costs = $78,800
9. POST-BACKWASH — FTLTER-TO-WASTE
Design Capacity: The filter-to-waste improvements include the piping, fittings,
and valves in these facilities sized to convey up to 20 minutes of filtered water at
an application rate of 5 gpm/sq ft on the filter. No facilities are provided to pump
Final Draft A-9 Jufy28.1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
filter-to-waste within the plant. It is assumed that the fitter-to-waste flow will be
recycled within the plant and the existing facilities are adequate for the additional
flow.
Annual O&M: O&M costs are based on backwash frequency of two filters or 33
percent of the total number of filters per day, whichever is greater, per day.
Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $298,000
- Annual O&M Costs = $23,000
10. FILTER RATE-OF-FLOW CONTROLLER REPLACEMENT
• Design Capacity: The control system, flow meter, flow control valve, and piping
modifications required to change the controller are included. The piping and
valving are designed for a filtration rate of 5 gpm/sq ft.
• Annual O&M: Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation of the system.
Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $521,500
- Annual O&M Costs = $46,000
11. INDIVIDUAL FILTER TURBIDIMETER INSTALLATION
Design Capacity: The installation of a turbidimeter at a filter will include the
purchase of a turbidimeter for each filter and, a tap on the filter effluent pipe,
piping to the turbidimeter, drain piping, and power. Initial training of the plant
staff is also included in the cost estimate. Capital costs are amortized over
7 years.
• Annual O&M: Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation of the system.
Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system, which will include calibration of the units on a
monthly basis.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $160,000
- Annual O&M Costs = $11,200
Final Draft A-10 Jufy28,!998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
12. MICROFILTRATION
• Design Capacity: This cost estimate assumes that the microfiltration system will
be installed after the existing clearwells, since it is deemed to be a polishing step
to produce an effluent water quality meeting the most stringe'nt requirements. The
membrane system is designed for an average flux rate of 70 gpoVft2 at 68°F with
the frequency and duration of the backwash set to maintain a minimum feedwater
recovery rate of greater than 97 percent after recycling of the backwash water.
Estimated capital costs include the membrane system, process equipment
building, electrical supply, final disinfection facilities, treated water storage and
pumping facilities, and wash water recovery system.
• Annual O&M: Annual costs include labor, chemicals, energy, membrane
replacement, residuals disposal, and miscellaneous replacement parts.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $23,284,400
- Annual O&M Costs = $828,400 '
G. Hydraulic Improvements
1. RECYCLE FLOW - ACCOUNT FOR PROCESS CONTROL DECISIONS
• Design Capacity: It is assumed that the existing plant has no facilities to store
wastewater; therefore, major structural improvements are required to meter
. recycle flows back into the raw water flow at a constant rate. These
improvements include flow equalization basins, pumping facilities, piping
modifications, and controls for monitoring flows to minimize the impact of
recycle flows.
• Annual O&M: Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation of the system.
Annual maHJEteaaace material and labor requirements are provided for the general*
maintenance o£tbe system.
- Costs ','. '
- •'".'- Total Capital Costs = $485,000
- Annual O&M Costs = $28,200
2. RECYCLE FLOW—INSTALL V ALVING AND/OR PUMPS TO CONTROL THE
FLOW
• Design Capacity: It is assumed that the existing plant has facilities to store and
pump the wastewater back to the intake of the plant However, the pumping
facilities are uncontrolled, meaning that the operation of the station is on/offbased
Final Draft A-11 Jufy 28,
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
on the water level in the storage facilities for wastewater. Therefore, no major
structural improvements are necessary, but improvements still are necessary for
pumping, valving, minor piping, some controls for monitoring flows to minimize
the impact of recycle flows, and electrical considerations are required to meter
recycle flows back into the raw water flow at a constant rate.
• Annual O&M: Process energy is based on 24-hour/day operation" of the system.
Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $100,800
- Annual O&M Costs = $19,100
3. FLOW DISTRIBUTION/CONTROL/MEASUREMENT
• Design Capacity: It is assumed that minor improvements are required to meter
and control flows within the plant. These improvements include monitoring of
the raw and finished water flows to minimize the impact of recycle flows.
• Annual O&M: Process energy is based on 24-hdur/day operation of the system.
Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided for the general
maintenance of the system.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $313,400
- Annual O&M Costs = $19,100
H. Administrative Culture Improvements
1. POLICY AND COMMITMENT TO LOWER WATER QUALITY GOALS
• Design Capacity: It is assumed there are no capital costs associated with this
item, since it is a policy technique.
• Annual O&M: The annual O&M costs are assumed to be an annual commitment
for developing policies and following up to determine compliance.
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $0
- Annual O&M Costs = $8,300
Final Draft A-12 July 28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
2. PL ANT STAFFING INCREASE (1 OR 2 PERSONS)
Design Capacity: It is assumed that capital costs of $5000 per new staff addition
for office/field fixtures, computer hardware, and training. One additional staff is
costed for a System Size up to 75,000 population and two additional staff are
included for larger systems.
Annual O&M: The O&M costs include an annual commitment for one or two
new staff members.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $10,000
- Annual O&M Costs = $83,200
3. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS
• Design Capacity: It is assumed that there are no capital costs associated with this
item.
• Annual O&M: The O&M costs include an annual commitment for training of
staff members.
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $0
- Annual O&M Costs = $6,700
I. Laboratory Modifications
»
1. BENCH TOP TURBIDIMETER PURCHASE
• Design Capacity: It is assumed that the costs include the purchase of one new
benchtop turbidimeter for process control for systems up to 75,000 population;
two for systems upto 500,000 population and three for systems serving more than
500,000 population.
* Annual O&M: Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided
. for the general maintenance and monthly calibration of the equipment
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $10,000
- Annual O&M Costs - $2,900
Final Draft A-13 Jufy28,l998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
2. JAR TEST APPARATUS PURCHASE
• Design Capacity: The costs include the.Durchase of one, two, or three sets of jar
test apparatus for process control. The number of sets of equipment is dependent
on system size.
• Annual O&M: Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided
for the general maintenance and calibration of the equipment.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $ 13,000
- Annual O&M Costs = $ 1,000
3. ALTERNATIVE PROCESS CONTROL TESTING EQUIPMENT
• Design Capacity: The costs include the purchase of new alternative on-line test
equipment (such as particle counter, streaming current monitor or Zetameter) for
process control. The number of units is dependent on system size.
• Annual Usage: Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided
for the general maintenance and monthly calibration of the equipment.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $100,000
- Annual O&M Costs - $5,000 .
J. Process Control Testing Modifications
1. MODIFY/IMPLEMENT TURBIDITY MONITORING AND RECORDING
• Design Capacity: This cost estimate assumes that the municipality or utility will
choose to record the data from individual filter turbidimeters electronically. One
method to acquire the output from each individual turbidimeter is to route all the
data through a remote telemetry unit (RTU) or a programmable logic controller
(PLC) to a computer: Another means to acquire these data is to use a
microprocessor-based multi-channel turbidimeter. This type of turbidimeter can
obtain the output from many turbidimeters (up to 64) and then transmit data
directly to the computer.
• Annual O&M: Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided
for the general maintenance and annual calibration of the equipment.
Final Draft . A-14 Jufy28.1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $36,000
- Annual O&M Costs = $8,100
2. MODIFY/IMPLEMENT PROCESS MONITORING STRATEGY (OTHER THAN
TURBIDITY)
• Design Capacity: To provide the information required for the implementation of
a process control strategy, flowmeters will be installed on the raw water and
finished water, and chemical feed rates and clearwell level(s) will be measured.
These data will then be provided to the operator through a personal computer
based monitoring system (with appropriate software). Note that only monitoring
and data acquisition is provided and all process changes would have to be made
by the operator.
• Annual O&M: Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided
for the general maintenance and annual calibration of the equipment.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $111,100
- Annual O&M Costs = $16,200
3. MODIFY/IMPLEMENT PROCESS MONITORING STRATEGY (OTHER THAN
TURBIDITY)
• Design Capacity: To provide me information required for the implementation of
a process control strategy, flowmeters will be installed on the raw water and
finished water, and chemical feed rates and clearwell level(s) will be measured.
These data will then be provided to the operator through a personal computer
based monitoring system (with appropriate software, which would be a standard
SCADA program tailored to the specific plant). Note that only monitoring and
. data acquisition is provided and all process changes would have to be made by the
operator. Capital costs are amortized over 7 years.
• Annual O&M: Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided
for the general maintenance and annual calibration of the equipment
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $111,100
- Annual O&M Costs = $16,200
Final Draft A-15 Jufy28. 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
4. PROCESS CONTROL FACILITATOR
• Design Capacity: There are no capital costs associated with this item.
• Annual O&M: The costs associated with this item are assumed to be an annual
O&M commitment for hiring a facilitator. Depending on the size of the system,
the facilitator would be provided by an outside source or a new position within a
larger utility. It is assumed that the facilitator would be between one-quarter and
full time at the plant.
Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $0
- Annual O&M Costs =$30,000
5. STAFF TRAINING TO UNDERSTAND PROCESS CONTROL STRATEGY
• Design Capacity: There are no capital costs associated with this item.
• Annual O&M: The costs associated with this item are assumed to be an annual
O&M commitment for training of all staff members.
Costs
,- Total Capital Costs = $0
- Annual O&M Costs = $7,500
6. MODIFICATION OF PROCESS CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION '
• Design Capacity: To provide the information required for the full implementation
of an automatic process control strategy through the installation of a SCADA
system, flowmeters and flow control valves on the raw water and finished water
(if necessary), chemical feed rate monitoring and control, and clearwell level(s)
will be installed. The SCADA system provides control of the treatment process
with the operator monitoring and changing the appropriate setpoints as needed.
Total capital costs include field instruments, the personal computer based system,
hardware, software, software modifications, training and calibration. SCADA
capital costs are amortized over 7 years.
• Annual O&M: Annual maintenance material and labor requirements are provided
for the general maintenance and monthly calibration of the equipment.
• Costs
- Total Capital Costs = $716,000
- Annual O&M Costs = $16,200
Final Draft A-16 Jufy2S, 1998
-------
Cost and Technology Document for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Final Draft A-17 Juty28,I998
------- |