1 States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA '
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Package Water
Treatment  Plants
Volume 1.
A Performance
Evaluation

-------
                 RESEARCH  REPORTING SERIES

 Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
 gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
 vironmental technology. Elimination of  traditional grouping was  consciously
 planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
 The nine series are:

       1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific  and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special"  Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

 This report has been assigned  to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
 NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
 onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
 vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
 provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
 of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service,'Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                         EPA-600/2-80-008a
                                         July 1980
         PACKAGE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS

       Volume 1.  A Performance Evaluation
                       by

                 James M. Morand
                  Craig R. Cobb
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
            University of Cincinnati
             Cincinnati, Ohio  45221

                 Robert M. Clark
                Richard G. Stevie
        Drinking Water Research Division
   Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
             Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
            Contract No. GS-05S-10458
                 Project Officer

                 Robert M. Clark
        Drinking Water Research Division
   Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
             Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
   MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
       OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views  and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
                                     ii

-------
                                 FOREWOBD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of Increas-
ing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people.  Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural
environment.  The complexity of that environment and interplay among its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.

     Research and development is the first step in problem solution, and
it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems (1) to prevent, treat, and
manage wastewater, solid and hazardous waste, and pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, (2) to preserve and treat public
drinking water supplies, and (3) to minimize the adverse economic,
social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.  This publication
is a product of that research and is a most vital communications link
between the researcher and the user community.

     One of the major problems facing the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency in meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act is
helping small and rural water systems in achieving compliance.  This
report presents results from a study on the cost and performance
characteristics of self contained package water treatment plants.  These
plants can provide water that will meet the standard at a cost lower
than that of conventional treatment.  These data should be useful in
assisting small and rural systems in providing high quality drinking
water.
                                   Francis T. Mayo, Director
                                   Municipal Environmental Research
                                   Laboratory
                                    iii

-------
                               ABSTRACT
     Many small and rural water systems have both cost and quality
problems.  Their unit costs tend to be higher because of the small
number of connections they service.  As shown by the Community Water
Supply Survey of 1969 many small systems have trouble meeting minimal
drinking water standards.  Their problems are likely to be compounded in
the future as drinking water standards are raised.  The cost of building
a conventional water treatment plant to provide higher quality water for
a small community may be prohibitive.  Package water treatment plants
are a possible alternative to conventional water treatment.  These
plants are self contained units that can be installed for minimum cost.

     Results from a study of 36 package plants in Kentucky, West Virginia
and Tennessee show that these treatment plants can provide water that
meets the turbidity limits established under the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards.  However, as with all treatment plants, proper
operation is required.  These plants, contrary to some manufacturers'
claims, are not totally automatic but require supervision.  Nevertheless
when properly maintained and operated, they can provide good quality
drinking water at minimum cost.

     This volume (Volume 1) contains the performance data from the study
with minimal cost data.  It represents primarily the efforts of investi-
gators from the University of Cincinnati who participated with EPA.
Volume 2 is the in-house analysis of the cost data resulting from this
project.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract GS-05S-10458.
This report covers the period June 1977 to June 1979, and work was com-
pleted as of June 1979.
                                     iv

-------
                                 CONTENTS





                                                                  Page
FOREWORD  ............................




ABSTRACT  ............................   iv




FIGURES .............................  vii




TABLES  .............. ............... viii




METRIC CONVERSION TABLE ....................     ix




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ........................    x




     INTRODUCTION ........................    1




          The Small System Problem  ...............    1




     SCOPE OF THE STUDY .....................    4




     DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF PACKAGE PLANTS ...    6




     PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ...................    9




          Turbidity, Coliforms, Hardness, and Alkalinity  ....   10




          Trihalome thane Formation  ...............   12




          General Organics  .......... . ........   13




          Inorganic Analysis   ..................   13




     COST EVALUATION  ......................   14




          Utility Costs .....................   14




          Treatment Costs ....................   14




          Descriptive Analysis  .  ................   15




               Analysis of Utility Data  .............   15




               Analysis of Package Plant Data  ..........   20

-------
                                                                        Page




          Empirical Results 	  20




               Predictive Relationships 	  20




               Comparative Cost Analysis  	  29




     SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  	  32




REFERENCES	33




APPENDICES




     A.  Quality Data	34




     B.  Cost Data for Package Plants	38
                                      vi

-------
                                  FIGURES


Number                                                                Page

   1      Flow Diagram of Typical Package Plant .  	    7

   2      Operating and Capital Costs for Municipal and
          Recreational Utilities  	   16

   3      Operating Costs for Municipal and Recreational Utilities.  .   17

   4      Principle Operating Cost Components for  Municipal and
          Recreational Utilities  	   18

   5      Capital Cost of Municipal and Pecreational Utilities  ...   19

   6      Operating and Capital Cost Components for Municipal
          and Recreational Package Treatment Plants 	   21

   7      Treatment Plant Construction Cost Components for
          Municipal and Recreational Utilities  	   22

   8      Package Treatment Plant Operating Cost Elements
          for Municipal and Recreational Utilities  	   23

   9      Total Construction Cost Versus Plant Capacity 	   30

  10      Annual Cost Versus Revenue Producing Water  	   31
                                    vii

-------
                                   Tables
Number

   1      Distribution of Population Served by Community,
          Water Systems	    1

   2      Summary of Water Quality Evaluation 	    2

   3      Types of Plants Studied 	    4

   4      Location and Category of Plants Studied 	    5

   5      Water Sources 	   10

   6      Influent Hardness 	   10

   7      Bacteriological Results 	   11

   8      Coagulation Chemicals 	   11

   9      Plants Meeting Turbidity Standards  	   12

  10      Operating and Maintenance Cost Equations for
          Municipal and Recreational Utilities  	   24

  11      Total Cost Equation (Capital and Operating) for
          Municipal and Recreational Utilities  	   26

  12      Construction Cost Equations for Total Utility
          Investment and Treatment	27

  13      Comparative Cost Analysis for 1 MGD Plant	29
                                    viii

-------
                    METRIC CONVERSION TABLE








ENGLISH UNITS                            Metric Equivalents




  1 foot                                    0.305 meters




  1 mile                                    1.61 kilometers




  1 sq. mi.                                  2.59 sq. kilometers




  1 mil gal.                                 3.79 thou. cu. meters




  1 $ /mil. gal.                              0.26 $/thou. cu, meters
                                ix

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the
following individuals:  Dr. Gary Logsdon, Mr. Thomas Sorg,
Dr. Carnell Fowler, Mr. Walter Feige, Mr. Daniel Guttman,
Mr. Jeffrey Adams, Mr. Mike Laugle, Miss Cheryl Stafford,
of the Drinking Water Research Division, MERL, USEPA; and
Mr. Carl Schneider of Pedco Incorporated, Cincinnati, Ohio.

    The authors would like to extend special acknowledgment
to Mr. Larry Gray and Mr. Steve Cordle for their support and
encouragement throughout all phases of this study.

-------
                                INTRODUCTION
     Evidence from studies evaluating the cost and performance character-
istics of conventional water treatment plants indicate that significant
economies of scale exist in their construction as well as in their day-to-
day operation.   However, the large expenditures required to construct and
maintain a conventional treatment plant can place a significant burden on
the customers of a utility producing less than one million gallons per day
(MGD).  A package water treatment plant might provide an alternative, but
little is known about their cost and performance characteristics.  This
report presents the results of a field study designed to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of existing package treatment plants.

THE SMALL SYSTEM PROBLEM

     Many small and rural water systems have a built-in cost problem; they
cannot benefit from economies of scale as do large urban systems because
they are small in terms of the number of connections served.  Certain types
of support must be provided in a water system whatever the number of
connections — maintaining a chlorinator, for example — but if connections
are few, enough revenue cannot be collected to pay for the support.  Many
small systems cannot afford full-time operators and even have difficulty
paying for part-time operators.  The unit cost of nearly every support item
rises as the number of connections being serviced decreases.

     Most of the water systems in the U. S. serve less than 10,000 people.
Table 1 shows a tabulation of utilities by population served.   As can be
seen from the table, 90% of the systems serve 10,000 people or less and
account for only 21% of the population served by community systems.  There
may be as many as 200,000 non-community water supply systems in the U. S.

  Table 1.   DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION SERVED BY COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS2


                                              Total Popu-       Percent of
  Systems Size       Number of   Percent of   lation Served     Total Popu-
(persons served)   Water Systems  .Systems     (in thousands)  lation Served
25 to 99
100 to 9,999
10,000 to 99,999
100,000 and over
Total

7,008
30,150
2,599
243
40,000

18
75
6
1
100
1
420
36,816
61,423
78,800
177,459

0.2
20.8
34.6
44.4
100.0


-------
     Small systems tend to have more water quality problems and facility
deficiencies than do larger systems.  For example, Table 2 summarizes results
from the Community Water Supply Survey conducted in 1969.  Samples were taken
in 969 communities.  As can be seen from Table 2, 50% of the utilities serv-
ing 500 people or less did not meet the Public Health Service drinking water
standards.   As utility size increased, the percentage of utilities meeting
the standards increased.


              Table 2.  SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY EVALUATION3
                                       Population Group Served
                                                  Greater than     All
                    500 or less   501-100,000       100,000    Populations

Number of systems:       446         501               22           969

                                      Percent of Systems

Evaluation of systems:
   Met drinking water
    standards             50          67               73            59

  Exceeded recommended
    limits                26          22               27            25

  Exceeded mandatory
    limits                24          11                0            16

  Survey population
    in each group
    (in thousands)        88       4,552           13,463        18,103
     In addition to cost and quality problems, small systems face another
challenge.  While the costs of labor, equipment, and materials have been
rising due to inflationary pressures, water systems are being asked to
meet higher output standards that may require them to use even more labor
and materials.  Small systems that already have high costs may find it
difficult to pay their own bills and still maintain affordable user charges.

     Package water treatment plants, consisting of prefabricated and
largely preassembled clarification and filtration units, with minimum
on-site construction, are commonly used in some sections of the U. S.
for small supplies.  The design flow for these plants is usually less

-------
than 1,500,000 gallons per day.  It is possible that small communities,
public utility districts, and recreational areas might be able to reduce the
cost impact of compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (PL 93-523) by using package vrater treatment plants.

     These pressures have resulted in increased interest in small system
problems.  One type of technological system that holds some promise for
minimizing the cost of water treatment is the package water treatment
plant. In order to document the cost and performance characteristics of
package water treatment plants, the University of Cincinnati and the
Environmental Protection Agency initiated a field study.   Results from
this study are presented in two volumes.  The first volume presents the
performance data together with some minimal cost data.  The second
volume presents an in-depth analysis of the economic and cost data
obtained during the study.

-------
                            SCOPE OF THE STUDY


     Prior to the study described in this report, there has been no
systematic study of the effectiveness of operating package vater treat-
ment plants. In order to fill in this information gap, a field study of
operating package plants in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee was
initiated.  Visits were made to 36 plants in these states and grab
samples of untreated and treated water were taken at each site that had
a plant in operation.  Samples were analyzed for the nonradioactive
contaminants listed in the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, for trihalomethanes as listed in EPA's proposed regulations
for organic,chemicals, and for typical water treatment plant operating
parameters.

     Table 3 lists the manufacturers and capacities of the plants
visited. Most of the plants were Neptune Microfloc systems.  The package
plants investigated were categorized as either municipal or recreational,
according to their primary utilization.  Municipal plants generally
serve a stable population and are operated year-round, while recreational
plants serve largely a transient population and may be in operation only
sporadically.  Table 4 lists the location of the package plants categorized
by use.

                     Table 3.   TYPES OF PLANTS STUDIED

  Sites             Manufacturer               Model           Capacity

    5           Neptune Microfloc              WB-27             20 gpm

    1           Permutit                                         48 gpm

    6           Neptune Microfloc              WB-82             60 gpm

    1           Intermountain  Systems          60TS/PF-IF        60 gpm

    3           Neptune Microfloc              WB-133           100 gpm

    7           Neptune Microfloc              AQ-40            200 gpm

    1           Hungerford & Terry              L-28              200 gpm

    1           Permutit                                        200 gpm

    5           Neptune Microfloc              AQ-70            350 gpm

    3           Neptune Microfloc              AQ-112           560 gpm

    2           Neptune Microfloc              AQ-180           900 gpm

    1           Neptune Microfloc              Concrete         1000 gpm

-------
             Table A.  LOCATION AND CATEGORY OF PLANTS STUDIED
I.   MUNICIPAL PLANTS

     Alder son, W. Va.
     Anawalt, W. Va.
     Bonde Croft Utility District, Sparta, Tenn.
     Carrollton Utilities, Car roll ton, Ky.
     Coal River PSD, Racine, W. Va.
     Franklin, W. Va.
     Greenup, Ky.
     Hambrick PSD, Hendricks, W. Va.
     Marrowbone Plant, Regina, Ky.
     Mountain Top PSD, Mount Storm, W. Va.
     Mowbray Utility Dist., Soddy Daisy, Tenn.
     Nettie-Levisay PSD, Nettie, W. Va.
     Preston County PSD, Reedsville, W. Va.
     Richwood, W. Va.
     Russell Springs, Ky.
     Stanton, Ky.
     Thomas, W. Va.
     Union, W. Va.
     Winfield, W. Va.

II.  RECREATIONAL PLANTS

     Apple Valley Resort, Jamestown, Ky. (private)
     Big Bone State Park, Union, Ky. (state)
     Canaan Valley State Park, Davis, W. Va. (state)
     Carr Fork Lake, Irishman Creek Rec. Area, Sassafras, Ky.  (USAGE)*
     Dewey Lake, Prestonburg, Ky. (USAGE)
     East Lynn Lake, East Fork Rec. Area, East Lynn, W. Va. (USAGE)
     East Lynn Lake, Utility Bldg., East Lynn, W. Va. (USAGE)
     Fishtrap Lake, Shelbiana, Ky. (USAGE)
     Green River Reservoir, Holmes Bend Rec. Area, Campbellsville, Ky. (USAGE)
     J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Cook Rec. Area, Nashville, Tenn.  (USAGE)
     J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Fate Sanders Rec. Area, Nashville, Tenn.  (USACE)
     J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Poole Knobs Rec. Area, Nashville,  Tenn.  (USACE)
     J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Seven Points Rec. Area, Nashville, Tenn.  (USACE)
     Natural Bridge State Park, Slade, Ky. (state)
     Norris Dam State Park, Norris, Tenn. (state)
     Smith County Rest Area, Interstate 40, Tenn. (state)
     Snowshoe Ski Resort, Slaty Fork, W. Va. (private)
 NOTE:  USACE is U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

-------
           DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF PACKAGE PLANTS
     Figure 1 shows a flow diagram typical of plants encountered in this
survey.   All but one of the package plants visited were constructed in
the 1970's, and the oldest plant was 10 years old.  The majority of
plants consisted of flocculators, followed by tube settlers, and a mixed
media filter.

     Influent flow in these plants is usually maintained at a constant
rate. Equipment for adding coagulation chemicals is usually of the dry-
feed type except that any polyelectrolytes are usually added in solution.
Three of the four plants adding fluoride used sodium fluoride (NaF) and
the fourth used hydro-silicic acid (H_SiFfi).  A few plants disinfected
by adding purchased chlorine solutions.  Others disinfected by adding
dry chlorine mixed in solution, or by solution feed gas chlorinators.

     Influent water to which coagulation and disinfection chemicals are
added, flows to a mechanical flocculator.  Flocculation detention times
in the plants surveyed usually ranged between 7 and 30 minutes.  After
mixing and coagulation takes place, water flows to tube settlers. These
shallow depth (1 inch deep) nested plates, 39 inches long, inclined at
7-1/2 , allow economies in the space required for sedimentation.  Overflow
rates ranged from 120 to 375 gpd per ft  and detention times from 8 to
25 minutes.  Clarified water passed over an outlet weir onto the filters.
The multi-media filters encountered during the survey were composed of
three materials, each of different size and density:  a top layer generally
consisted of 18 inches of anthracite coal, with a specific gravity of
1.5, and an effective size of 1.0-1.2 mm; below that 9 inches of silica
sand with a specific gravity of 2.6, and an effective size of 0.45-0.55
mm; and a bottom layer of 3 inches of garnet sand, specific gravity 4.2,
with an effective size of 0.25-0.35 mm.  A few plants had filters of
these same materials, but with different depths.  The filters were
supported by 18 inches of gravel.  Filters examined during the survey
operated at surface loading rates of 2.0 to 6.2 gpm/ft  with most operating
at either 4 or 5 gpm/ft . A few plants had filters consisting of two
feet of silica sand with an effective size of 0.45 to 0.55 mm, operated
at a rate of 2 gpm/ft .  These filters were preceded by an upflow clarifier
rather than by tube settlers.

     Filtered water was collected in an underdrain system and then
pumped to storage.  Filter backwash procedures consisted of draining the
settling tubes,  with the falling water providing sludge removal, then
backwashing the filter.  This process can be initiated automatically by
head loss controls or can be started manually, but the majority of plant

-------
                                ftocculators
RAW WATER IN
       chemical feed tanks
                        to sludge  basin
                                                           mixed media
                                                               filter
settling
 tubes
                                                                                from surface
                                                                                wash supply
                                                                                 from
                                                                                 backwash
                                                                                 storage
                                                                                ==<=
                                                                       J  TREATED WATER
                    Figure 1.  Flow Diagram of Typical Package  Plant

-------
operators manually controlled the backwash interval.  Although many plants
had head loss controls, the operators chose to manually backwash before the
maximum head loss was reached.  Backwash intervals ranged from twice a day
to less than once per week, with the majority of filters backwashed between
one and three times weekly.  Backwash rates were generally 15-18 gpm/ft  for
a period of 6 to 10 minutes.  The only surface wash devices observed were
manual, such as a hand-held hose or a rake used to agitate the filter media.

     Almost all of the plants visited had adjacent outside sludge basins
designed to receive the backwash water.  Water used for backwashing
purposes in municipal plants normally accounted for less than 6% of the
plant output.  Several recreational plants used 20% or even 30% of output
water for backwashing because operators routinely backwashed on a time
schedule without regard to water demand.

     Problems of high iron concentrations from ground water sources were
handled several ways.  One community, whose source water was natural springs
impounded in a reclaimed strip mine pit, used ion exchange media in place of
a multi-media filter.  The media consisted of a 30-inch bed of manganese
green sand zeolite resting on 16 inches of supporting gravel, and operated
with a surface loading rate of just over 5 gpm/ft .  This type of plant
involves both filtration and ion exchange, with the iron and manganese in
the water being removed by ion exchange.  Potassium permanganate was added
prior to the filter.  As the raw water met the media, the iron and manganese
were oxidized into insoluble forms that were removed by mechanical filtering
action.  The plant had been in operation less than three months when visited
in the survey and the operators planned to regenerate the media with a
strong potassium permanganate solution when the treatment plant manufacturer
could assist.

     Another plant with a ground water source had been designed for
addition of potassium permanganate for oxidation and precipitation of
iron. The manufacturer apparently had computed the chemical requirements
and a supply of potassium permanganate had been purchased but never
added.

     Another plant used aeration by having a cascade in the wet well to
oxidize iron prior to entering the treatment plant.  This process was
not working effectively when the plant was visited in the survey.

     Operators of two plants stated that they sometimes added carbon to
combat taste and odor problems.  At one plant, carbon was added at the
multi-media filter and at the other it was added to the settling basin.

     One municipal plant that added lime and soda ash to soften ground
water also included a recarbonation tank, using a natural gas burner,
between the floe tank and the tube settlers.

-------
                           PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
     Samples of untreated water were taken from either the water source near
the plant Intake or from a raw water tap in the treatment plant or from an
influent line into the plant.  Finished water samples were taken from treated
water taps at each plant.  Because a survey goal was to determine how well
the treatment plants operatedt treated water samples were taken as the water
left the plant, rather than at the point of use.  Surface water quality is a
constantly changing factor, making reliance on a single analysis risky,
therefore records kept at each plant were examined to determine the repre-
sentative nature of the survey grab samples.

     The majority of sites visited had personnel who did an adequate job
of plant operation.  Tennessee state law mandates the presence of an
operator at all times that a plant is in operation.  In the other states,
operators often started up their treatment units and then proceeded to
the performance of other duties, such as meter reading and distribution
line maintenance.

     Occasionally, operators were not performing routine chemical analyses
properly.  For example, in one case an operator was incorrectly reading a
buret, causing all of his titration calculations to be off by a factor of
10.  In another example, an operator was not determining turbidity properly.

     At one plant, daily jar tests were performed to determine the optimum
coagulation chemical dosage but, at most plants, chemicals had been pur-
chased according to the manufacturers' recommendations and were used in
the same dosage every day, regardless of raw water quality.  Some operators
did vary chemical dosages according to visual observation of raw water
turbidity.  Some treatment operations had not purchased chemicals or had
not added chemicals that had been purchased.

     At one site, there were so many distribution line leaks that records
showed only about 20% of the water treated was reaching consumers.  The
operator's assigned duties at this plant consisted of starting up the plant
when needed, but he had no training in maintaining proper chemical dosages.

     Table 5 lists the various water sources utilized by the systems
visited during the study.

-------
                          Table 5.  WATER SOURCES
          Ground Water                            3

          Impounded Spring Water                  3
          Free-flowing Surface Water              7

          Impounded Surface Water                18
TURBIDITY, COLIFORMS, HARDNESS, AND ALKALINITY

     Turbidity, coliforms, hardness, alkalinity, and pH were measured at each
plant.  Samples were also mailed to the laboratory of the University of
Cincinnati Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering for analysis of
trihalomethanes as well as for inorganic contaminants and pesticides.
Data on plant type, influent source, chemical additions, and quality informa-
tion gathered are listed in Appendix A, tables A-l and A-2.
                      Table 6.  INFLUENT HARDNESS
     Hardness of source mg/L                   Number of Plants

               0-80                                   15

              81-150                                   9

             151-250                                   4
                >250                                   2
     Untreated water pH values ranged between 6.2 and 8.2 except for two
plants that had values of 5.2 and 4.7 for the grab samples.  Treated water
pH values ranged from 6.5 to 8.6.  Fluoride levels of water sources were all
<^ 0.20 mg/L.  Four plants added fluoride with measured levels in the finished
waters of 1.66, 1.15, 1.11, and 0.80 mg/L.  Only one plant practiced soften-
ing.  The only two nitrate levels over 1 mg/L (as N) found during the survey
were 4.1 and 3.3 mg/L and were from ground water sources.

     Coliforms were detected in the finished water of 3 of the 31 plants
in operation.  At two of these three plants, coliforms were present in only
one sample out of two analyzed.  The single plant where coliforms were found
in significant numbers had no measurable chlorine residual in the treated
water.  In one plant where coliforms were found in one of the two treated
water samples, a sample taken at a residential tap showed a count of 10 per
100 mL.  Chlorine residuals at this location were 0.4 mg/L at the treatment
plant and less than 0.1 mg/L at the tap sampling point.

     Only one plant did its own microbiological testing, and it was possible
to collect state bacteriological records from only seven plants.  Table 7
contains these state bacteriological results.

                                     10

-------
                     Table 7.  BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
                                  Number of                Number of
          Plant                   + Samples                - Samples

            A                         0                       18
            B                         2                       12
            C                         0                       18
            D                         1                        9
            E                         1*                       5
            F                         0                       10
            G                         0                       48
                       Total          4                      120
 Note on state report that positive sample was probably caused by "poor
 sampling technique or handling at lab."


     Of 31 plants for which turbidity measurements were made, eight did not
meet the federal standard of 1 NTU.  The survey was made during the months
of September and October which should be the time of lowest river water
turbidities.  Table 8 summarizes the types of coagulation chemicals used by
the plants.

                   Table 8.  COAGULATION CHEMICALS


Coagulation Chemicals Used                 Number of Plants

Only alum                                         12
Alum + polyelectrolyte                            16
Alum + polyelectrolyte + lime                      1
Ferric sulfate + polyelectrolyte                   1
Sodium hydroxide + potassium permanganate          1
No chemicals used                                  1


     Table 9 lists the number of plants meeting the turbidity standard for
different ranges of raw water turbidity.  One plant not meeting the standard
used no chemical coagulants at all, and is therefore not included in Table 9.
Of the plants not meeting the turbidity standard,  only one averaged more
than four hours per day in operation.

                   Table 9.  PLANTS MEETING TURBIDITY STANDARD
Turbidity of Source
NTU
< 5
6-15
16-50
51-100
> 100
Plants

14
8
6
0
2
Finished
<1 NTU
11
8
2
0
2
Water
<1 NTU
3
0
4
0
0
                                     11

-------
     Examination of past plant turbidity records at one site, with a turbid-
ity reading of less than one during the survey, showed the standard was
exceeded 9 days out of 31 (33% of the time).  Of those nine failures,
three failures followed influent values of 110 and 100 NTU on successive
days and three other unacceptable values followed an influent value of 120.
This plant satisfactorily treated influent values of 65, 50, 40 NTU
and lower.

     A state report on another plant said "turbidity constantly in excess of
accepted limits."  In this case alum was added but the dosage was not varied
according to raw water quality.

     One cannot make definite statements regarding these data because they
were obtained from grab samples taken during periods of low flow with
corresponding low turbidities.  Continuous observation over an extended
period of time, with monitoring of seasonal fluctuations in raw water quality,
is necessary to draw more definitive conclusions with regard to operating
efficiencies possible from package plants.  However some tentative conclu-
sions may be drawn from these data.  The combinations of proper disinfection
together with clarification can achieve satisfactory bacteriological results.
Although a significant number of the plants failed to meet turbidity
standards their failure was not necessarily related to raw water turbidity
levels.  Examination of Table 9 reveals the fact that the two plants treating
raw water with the highest turbidity were able to meet the finished water
turbidity limit.  Of the fourteen plants treating source water with the
lowest turbidities, three failed to meet the finished water turbidity limit.
Intermittent operation seems to have a greater affect on failure to meet
turbidity standards then does raw water turbidity.  Of the seven plants not
meeting the turbidity standards, six were averaging less then four hours a
day in operation. Based on these data and the authors' observations it was
concluded that package plants are capable when operated properly of meeting
finished water turbidity levels.  More carefully constructed studies need to
be made to support this conclusion.

TRIHALOMETHANE FORMATION

     For the samples analyzed for trihalomethanes, no attempt was made to
neutralize chlorine in the grab samples, and samples were handled so as to
allow contact times for maximum THM formation.  Chloroform was the only
trihalotnethane found in the survey, with one exception, where dichlorobromo-
methane was also detected.  No trihalomethanes were detectable in any raw
water, except at one location where the survey sampling point probably
included mixing with "backed-up" treated water.

     No trihalomethanes were detected in finished water from the three plants
treating well water.  Calculated chlorine dosages in these instances ranged
from 1.0 to 1.5 mg/L with measured free residuals of 1.0 mg/L and less.

     Finished water from the three plants treating impounded spring waters
contained chloroform with levels ranging from 5 to 34 ug/L.  Calculated
chlorine dosages for these plants were 1.3 to 5.2 mg/L and measured free
residuals were 0.4 to 3.0 mg/L.


                                     12

-------
     Of seven plants treating water from free-flowing rivers or creeks, all
contained trihalomethanes in their effluents and two exceeded the EPA pro-
posed standard of 100 yg/L.  Free chlorine residuals measured were all
2.5 mg/L.

     Eighteen plants treated water from surface impoundments.  Seventeen
of these produced trihalomethanes.  Finished water from three of these
exceeded 100 yg/L with the highest being 376 yg/L.  Other chloroform values
from this group of plants ranged from 5 to 98 yg/L with seven of the 14
values between 43 and 59 yg/L.  Free chlorine residuals of 2.5 to 3.9 yg/L
were measured.

     In total, five of the 31 sampled finished waters exceeded 100 yg/L
trihalomethanes.  All five derived their raw water from surface sources.
Most of the plants surveyed, practiced pre-chlorination and had free
chlorine residuals of more than 0.4 mg/L.  These results are consistent
with findings from the National Organic Reconnaissance Survey for
Halogenated Organics (NORS), which found higher concentrations of THM
when surface waters were the source for treatment.   These two factors
were also found by the NORS to contribute to higher concentrations of
THM. Another factor found by the NORS to accompany high THM was finished
waters with high pH values, but this relationship was not apparent in
the package plant survey.

GENERAL ORGANICS

     Determinations were made for the organic chemicals listed in the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, endrin, lindane,
methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and 2,4-5-TP Silvex.  None of these
chemicals were found in the untreated or finished waters of any of the
treatment plants.

INORGANIC ANALYSIS

     Determinations were made for the following inorganic chemicals
listed in the National Interim Primary Regulations:  arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver, and mercury.

     Cadmium was found at one municipal plant in the influent water at a
concentration of 0.06 mg/L, but was not found in the finished water.

     Silver was found in the treated waters of one municipal plant and
one recreational plant at a concentration of 0.05 mg/L.

     Mercury was detected in several plants at concentrations of less  than
1 yg/L.  At one recreational plant the influent concentration of 4.8 yg/L
was reduced to 1.0 yg/L in the treated water, a level less than the maximum
contaminant level listed in the Regulations.  At one municipal plant,  a
treated water concentration of 19.6 yg/L approached 10 times the maximum
contaminant level allowed for community water system.

     No other inorganic chemicals listed in the Regulations were found.


                                     13

-------
                             COST EVALUATION
     Cost information was collected for the individual package plants studied
and for the utility itself (Appendix B, Tables B-l and B-2).
UTILITY COSTS
     Utility operating and maintenance costs were broken into four major
components:  support services, acquisition, treatment, and distribution.
The last three components represent functional areas related to the
physical operation of the plant.  Acquisition includes all operating
costs incurred in collecting water for delivery to the treatment plant.
Treatment costs include the operating costs associated with the puri-
fication of source water by the package plant, and distribution expendi-
tures involve all operating costs incurred in delivery of the finished
or treated water to the consumer.  The fourth component, support
services, is related to the overall utility management function.  Support
services costs include activities, such as billing, supervision, account-
ing, and general items not directly related to any of the other three
components.  In addition, subelement operating costs  (chemical, payroll,
and power) were collected for each component.  These are isolated for
analysis as to their individual impact on operating expenditures as well
as for their productive input into the operation of a utility.


     Capital costs for the utility were subdivided into the above
mentioned categories and into interest and depreciation.  Total capital
costs are then contrasted against total operating and maintenance costs.
TREATMENT COSTS


      In  addition to  these  overall  utility  expenditures,  specific  package
water plant  costs were  gathered  in order to  examine  the  treatment process
in  isolation.  The costs of  each subelement  (chemical, payroll, and
power) were  collected for  treatment operating  costs, while  capital costs
were  categorized according to  installation,  building, and the package
plant itself.  None  of  the utilities visited had  their costs aggregated
in  such  a way  that easy comparisons could  be made between systems.   This
                                     14

-------
lack of comparability was particularly evident among capital costs.
Therefore capital costs were estimated from original construction costs
assuming a 20-year life and a 5% interest rate.  An interest rate of 5%
was chosen to reflect historical rates and not current or incremental
rates.  Installation capital expense includes the depreciation and
interest spent to make the plant operational; building capital expense
involves the annualized construction cost of a building to house the
package plant; and package plant capital is the annualized purchase
price of the plant itself.  Also, data on total capital cost including
interest for the treatment as well as total construction cost of the
plant and utility were collected.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
     In the following discussion, the analysis is divided into two
sections. The first section deals with total utility data, and the
second section contains a more detailed analysis of the package treat-
ment plants alone. An extensive analysis of these data is contained in
Volume II.
Analysis of Utility Data

     Figure 2 contrasts total operating and maintenance costs, depreci-
ation, and interest expenses for all the utilities  (both recreational
and municipal).  Figure 3 shows just the operating  and maintenace cost
components. This analysis for the current years is  based on average
total  expenditures and percent of expenditures.  These utilities  (treat-
ing an average  flow rate of 0.115 MGD) possess a great deal of capital
intensity on an annualized expenditure basis.  Figure A shows chemical,
power, and labor costs.  As can be seen, labor cost is the most pre-
dominant operating and maintenance cost, ranging from 67% to 71%  of the
total  cost of the three components.

     Figure 5 shows the capital costs allocated to  each of the four cost
components.  As can be seen, distribution costs tend to dominate  total
utility costs.
                                   15

-------
50
CA
jo 40

"o
Q
«*-
O
(o 30

c
(0
3
O
jf 20




10



















: 	









00
o




z
o
I-
2
o
UJ
DC
Ou
UJ
Q







l_
UJ
DC
UJ
















00
O











Z
o
i-
^
o
UJ
cc
Q.
UJ
O














h-
UJ
CC
UJ
H
_







—



50

40 -
(0
o

"o
30 «-
c
o
u
0)
Q.
20




10



Figure 2.  Operating  and Capital  Costs for Municipal and Recreational Utilities

-------
(A
o
Q
c
(0
(A
3
O
       14
       12
       10
       8
—



"~ c
o
+rf
(0
— 5
cr
— o —





c
Q)
E
CO
0)
h.





c
o

^^J
(0
Q
0)
0}
o
•£
£
CO
^
o
a
a
3
CO

c
o
+rf
(0
3
or
r*~





c
0)
E
(0
H





c
0

A
(0
O
(0
0)
o
"£
k.
CO
^J
o
a —
a
3
CO
70
60
50
40
30
                                                                                         20
                                                                                         10
      CO
      *•«
      o
      I-
      c
      9)
      U
      t.
      CD
      Q.
                Figure 3.  Operating Costs for Municipal and Recreational Utilities

-------
oo
• — r
12
10
w
JS
"o
2 8
0
w
-Q
c
re
3 6
o
4


2





__





—

—

















15
o
r '*=~"
0




Power















o
.Q
(D






























(0
o
1
Chemi
I



0)
O
Q_

















O
SI
(Q






•.•M







^•^•^



» ^
60
50
(Q
O
(—

40 °
c
V
0
^
0)

30 °-

20


10
             Figure 4.  Principle  Operating Cost Components for Municipal and  Recreational Utilities

-------
      70
      60
      50
 to
o
Q
H-    40

-------
      In general, capital costs for the treatment and distribution
functions, operating costs for treatment, and labor costs are the major
factors influencing the cost of water supply in the selected utilities.

Analysis of Package Plant Data

      Figure 6 depicts the average operating and maintenance, depreciation,
and interest cost for the package treatment process alone.  Capital costs for
the treatment process are broken into three parts, including average
construction costs for the plant itself, the building to house the plant,
and the installation cost (Figure 7).  As is evident from the figures, the
housing cost factor is over 40% of the treatment plant construction cost.
Although the purchase price of a prefabricated building is large, it is
also  the item which can be affected most by decisions of the utility manager.
If the housing is constructed by the utility, significant costs savings might
be realized.

      Figure 8 shows the principal operating cost elements for the treat-
ment  operation.  Labor costs again dominate, representing 65% to 75% of
the total chemical, power, and payroll expense.  Treatment labor accounts
for nearly 50% of the utilities payroll.  The number of labor hours
apportioned to the treatment function can affect the level of quality.
This  relationship is analyzed more closely in the empirical work to
follow.

      In summary, it appears that capital cost of the treatment housing
and labor operating costs constitute the most significant portion of the
treatment operation.

EMPIRICAL RESULTS

      In this section, empirical relationships for the economic data are
developed.  The logarithmic form of the equation (multiplicative model
Y = AX ) was used because the data become more readily normalized after
logarithmic transformation.  Each equation represents results of a
combined analysis (municipal and recreational).  Three types of rela-
tionships have been developed.  The first presents the results for
predictive type relationships; the second portion provides the empirical
results for the production equations; and, the third reports the results
from  the structural model.  Data used in the analyses are contained in
Appendix B.

Predictive Relationships

     Table 10 provides individual cost equations for each operating and
maintenance cost component in the water utility — acquisition, treat-
ment, distribution, and support services — estimated as a function of
revenue-producing water.  These results indicate that operating economies
exist in all components as well as for total O&M for these utilities.
                                    20

-------
24
20

w
to

o
0 16
"o
w
•a
c
en
« 12
o
.c
1-
8

4


— —















m^mt^m






00
O



c
o
.2
'o
0)
Q.
O
Q




c/>
0)
0)
—





00
O








c
,0
.2
'o
0)
i^
Q.
0)
Q












o
o

_




m ^
60
50
(D

O
1-

40 °
c
0)
o
0)
30 °~

20

10


Figure 6   Operating and Capital Cost Components for Municipal and Recreational
          Package  Treatment Plants

-------
ro
180
150
CA
2
CD

"5
0 120
H-
o
(A
•o
| 90

60


30

•~~ ^^_





—










—





c
JO
Q_







O>
C
33
CD






c
o
(0
ID
(0
£











c
JO
a.











0)
c
2
'3
00



___





c
o
JO
"(0
(0
c



,^^^^

r w
60
50
To
o
1-

40 o
c
0)
o
0
30 a"

20


10

    Figure 7.  Treatment Plant Construction Cost Components for  Municipal and  Recreational  Utilities

-------
                                                                                              70
CO
6


52
to
Q A
•r
<*-
O
V)
-a
c
(0
s 3
o
H
2


1










—


—



—
U
Chemi










Power















o
CD






























CO
I — o —
Chemi









Power














o
A
(U








	


—



60
50
*~
CD
o
H
4.O °
'rw
C
U
0)

30 °-


20


10
      Figure 8.  Package Treatment Plant Operating  Cost Elements for Municipal and Recreational Utilities

-------
    Table  10.  OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST EQUATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL AND




                         RECREATIONAL UTILITIES
Form C = aQ

Acquisition

Treatment

Distribution

Support Services

Total O&M

*
a b
209.863 .399
(.103)
2044.530 .394
(.054)
425.354 .724
(.116)
329.308 .614
(.134)
3661.697 .475
(.059)
R2
.350

.646

.583

.430

.696

*  Values in parentheses are standard errors.




NS-Not significant.




+  C = dollars per year; Q = mil gal per year of revenue producing water.
                                    24

-------
     Table 11 provides results for the total cos.t including capital for
each component and total system costs as well.  The results in these
tables indicate that significant economies also prevail for total
operating cost, depreciation, and interest, and total annual cost as a
function of revenue-producing water.

     Table 12 shows construction cost equations for total utility and
treatment costs, versus water treated.  The treatment cost includes equip-
ment, building, and installation cost.  As can be seen from the table,
significant scale economies also exist in construction.

Quasi-Production Relationships

     Specific operating and maintenance cost trade-offs inherent in
package treatment use were examined.  The estimated treatment operating
and maintenance cost equation is:


     TOG = 3.561 Q-980   I/612   C'160   E'179   (R2 - 0.994)         (1)
                 (.038   (.038)  (.025)  (.049)

where:

     TOG « Total annual treatment operating cost in $/yr;

       Q = Revenue-producing water, million gallons/years;

       L * Payroll expense per million gallons;

       C = Chemical expense per million gallons; and

       E » Power expense per million gallons.

For this equation, it is obvious the payroll costs are a significant
factor in operationg the package plant.

Chemical Costs

     An estimate was made of chemical cost as follows:

       CH - 55.037 Q'661  AL'349                  (R2 - .860)         (2)

where:

       CH • Annual chemical cost, $/year;

        Q » Revenue-producing water, million gallons/year; and

       AL » Alum, mg/L
                                    25

-------
        Table  11.   TOTAL  COST  EQUATION (CAPITAL  AND  OPERATING)  FOR




                     MUNICIPAL AND  RECREATIONAL UTILITIES
b+
Form C = aQ

Acquisition
Treatment
Distribution
Support Services
Total O&M
Total Capital
Total Cost
u*
a b
1460.734 .213
(.102)
9556.807 .278
(.043)
4817.522 .537
(.094)
342.561 .627
(.132)
3661.697 .475
(.059)
16006.113 .329
(.064)
17753.803 .408
(.057)
R2
.143
.639
.575
.520
.696
.443
.653
*  Values in parentheses are standard errors.




+  C • dollars per year; Q » mil gal per year in revenue producing water.
                                    26

-------
      Table 12.  CONSTRUCTION COST EQUATIONS FOR TOTAL UTILITY INVESTMENT




                             AND TREATMENT ALONE
b+
Form C « aQ

Municipal
Total
Treatment
Recreational
Total
Treatment
Combined
Total
Treatment
a b*

35018.788 .610
(.256)
12890.141 .616
(.150)
17835.462 .684
(.165)
8470.095 .730
(.194)
14289.31 .773
(.090)
10739.717 .653
(.064)
R2

.251
.498
.552
.520
.692
.762
*  Values in parentheses are standard errors.




+  C = dollars per year; Q *• total water treated in mil gallons per year.
                                     27

-------
     Relationships were developed between  chemical  cost,  total  treatment
operating  cost  and selected variables  representing  source type,  turbidity
standards  and overall drinking water standards.

     The following relationships resulted:


     CH  = 105.109   Q*66°  1.458X           (R2 =  .754)               (3)
                      (.075)


     CH  = 125.336   Q"589  1.486T           (R2 =  .756)               (4)
                      (.042)
                                  <5             7
   TOM   = 1939.140   Q'     1.203&           (IT =  .781)               (5)
                      (.042)

where:

    TOM =  Total treatment O&M in $/year

           1 if the utility derives water from  an
        _ , unprotected raw water source;
           0 if the utility derives water from  a
           protected raw water source
      „   rl if the turbidity standared is met
           0 if the turbidity standard is not met
        = rl if all the drinking water MCL's are met;
           0 if all the drinking water MCL's are not met;

     CH =  Annual chemical cost, $/year
Obviously meeting the standards when the utility has to treat water from
an unprotected source costs more than failing the standards and/or treat-
ing water from a protected source.

     From equations (4) and (5) it can be seen that it costs more to meet
the drinking water standards then it does not to meet them.  From equation
(1) it can be seen that labor plays an important role as a component of
total treatment costs.
                                    28

-------
Comparative Cost Analysis

     Figure 9 shows total construction cost for the system and for the
package plant alone (combined data set) versus plant capacity in mgd.
Figure 10 shows the annual treatment cost and annual system cost versus
system size in revenue producing water (mgd).  The cost of package plant
technology can be compared against that for conventional treatment
although data on the cost of conventional treatment plants are not
generally available for plants of less than one MGD.  This prohibits
extrapolation of cost estimates for conventional treatment into that
range. It is also difficult to obtain cost data for package plants
greater than one MGD.  But, both types of systems may be estimated at
the one MGD level.

     The construction cost for 1 MGD plant with settling has been estimated
at $1,124,000.  Total construction cost for a 1 MGD package plant (includ-
ing plant, housing, and installation), using the equation from Table 12, is
$488,236.  Therefore, based on construction cost alone, a package plant
is significantly less expensive then conventional treatment.

     Total operation and maintenance cost for both systems types can
also be estimated.  The annual treatment O&M cost is estimated as
$62,571.42 for conventional treatment.  Using the equation in Table 12
for municipal treatment plants, annual operating coats for package plants
may be estimated at $40,408.55.  (Both systems based on 20-yr life).
          Table 13.  COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR 1 MGD PLANT
Cost Estimate                  Conventional                   Package


Construction cost              $1,124,000.00                $488,236.00


Annual treatment,
operation, and
maintenance cost               $   62,571.42                $ 40,408.55
                                     29

-------
          2,500,000 T
u>
o
        en
        i_
        co
        15 2,000,000
        O
        to
        O

        O

        c 1 ,500,000


        4-»
        O
        3
        u-
        -*->
        CO
        C
          1,000,000--
        03
        •*—>
        o
            500,000- -
                            .5
1.0         1-5

 Plant Capacity in mgd
        Figure  9.  Total Construction Cost Versus

                     Plant Capacity

-------
   300,000 --
   250,000 --
>  200,000 --
8  1 50,000 -f


15
D
C

<  1 00,000 +
    50,000 - -
                             Anr.^lTrgatment Cost
100   200   300   400  500  600  700

    Revenue Producing Water in mil gal/yr.
Figure 10. Annual Cost Versus Revenue

             Producing Water
                                                 800

-------
                         SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
     Compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act may
seriously impact the budgets of small communities.  But, it is the
intent of the Act to provide adequate water quality in small as well in
large utilities.  This study was conducted to examine the viability of
using package treatment plants to meet the drinking water standards.

     The study data demonstrates that package plants can meet traditional
goals with regard to bacteriology and turbidity.  Plants that were not
meeting the National Regulations had problems caused by lack of operator
attention, e.g., not varying chemical dosage to meet changing raw water
quality, or they were not running for lengths of time sufficient to
achieve stable operation.

     Two conclusions may be drawn from this study.  First, the impact of
the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act significantly raise costs
for small utilities unable to achieve scale economies with conventional
treatment.  As this report indicates, scale economies exist in package
treatment plants under 1 MGD.

     Secondly, as shown in Table 13, the construction and operating
costs are significantly lower for package treatment technology than for
the conventional treatment.  Utilities can considerably lower their
initial construction cost for package systems by performing some of the
installation and work themselves.  Therefore utility managers have a
great deal of flexibility in controlling construction costs.

     Based on the results of this study package plants have the potential
to provide a cost-effective mechanism for meeting the turbidity and
bacteriological requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  More
extensive research and monitering is required to determine the precise
limitation and ultimate potential of package plants for satisfying all
of the Acts requirements under widely differing water conditions.
                                     32

-------
                                 REFERENCES

1.   Orlob, G.  T., and Lindorf,  M.  R.,  "Cost of Water Treatment in
     California",  Journal of the American Water Works Association,
     50 (January 1958), pp. 4555.

2.   Federal Regis£gr, Vol. 40,  No. 248, Wednesday,  December 24, 1975,
     "National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards", pp. 59582-
     59583.

3.   Community Water Supply Study:   Analysis of National Survey Findings,
     U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
     Service, Environmental Health Service, Bureau of Water Hygiene,
     July 1970, p. i.

4.   National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, U. S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Office of Water Supply, EPA-570 19-76-003.

5.   Hansen, S. P. and Conley, W. R.,  "Package Water Treatment Plants"
     Water Treatment Plant Design for the Practicing Engineer, Edited by
     Robert L.  Sanks, pp. 415-434,  Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.,
     Ann Arbor, Mich. 48106, 1978.

6.   Symons, James M., et al 1975 "National Organics Reconnaissance
     Survey for Halogenated Organics" Journal of the American Water Works
     Association^?, (11), Nov.  1976.
     ».—«'   •	—'  " • i

7.   Logsdon, Gary S., "Treatment Techniques for the Removal of Turbidity
     from Drinking  Water" Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the
     Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal
     Environmental Research Laboratory, Water Supply Research Division,
     Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-6-60018-77-005, May 1977, pp. 37-43.

8.   Clark, R.  M., Gillean, James I.,  and Adams, W.  Kyle, The Cost of
     Water Supply and Water Utility Management. Vol. I and II, Water
     Supply Research Division, Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
     tory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268,
     EPA-600/5-77-015a & b, November 1977.
                                     33

-------
APPENDIX A
QUALITY DATA
Table A-l. MUNICIPAL PLAtTTS
Plant
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Type of
Plant
AQ 40
(2)WB 133
AQ 40
AQ 70
AQ 40
Concrete
AQ 180
AQ 112
AQ 70
H-T
AQ 40
AQ 70
WB 133
AQ 40
AQ 112
AQ 180
Capacity
gpd
288,000
288,000
288,000
504,000
288,000
1,440,000
1,296,000
806,400
504,000
288,000
288,000
504,000
144,000
288,000
806,000
1,296,000
Plant
Output
gpd
97,000
98,500
75,000
147,350
105,500
860,000
364,000
233,000
229,000
114,000
84 , 300
80,000
70,000
70,000
43,200
450,000
Water
Source
Im
Gr
Gr
Ff
Im
Ff
Gr
Ff
Ff
Sp
In
Sp
Im
Sp
Im
Ff
Alkalinity, mg/J.
Raw
36
180
257
55
100
4
358

34
16
11
86
1
0
6
42
Finished
70
180
261
59
113
12
159

40
15
39
82
6
7
16
36
Hardness, mg/Z.
Raw
60
180
390
78
64
12
448

75
236
18
98
28
10
8
106
Finished
62
184
400
88
62
10
124

126
230
20
94
30
30
22
102
Raw
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.9
7.8
6.6
7.0
7.8
7.0
7.1
6.5
7.4
5.5
4.7
6.9
7.3
pH
Finished
7.8
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.9
7.2
8.5
8.2
8.6
6.5
8.1
7.4
6.6
7.9
7.5
7.3
Temperature, °F
Raw
73
55
56
70
59
58
57
69
66
56
52
50
53
57
59
59
Finished
73
55
57
71
59
60
61
69
66
60
54
52
54
60
59
59
NO (as N), mg/Jl
Finished
< 0.01
0.18
3.30
0.40
0.13
0.22
4.1
0.04
0.49
0.13
0.09
0.20
0.72
0.02
0.01
0.60
Hater Sources:  Gr
                Sp
                Ff
                Im
Ground water
Spring
Free-flowing surface water
Impounded surface water

-------
Table A-l.  MUNICIPAL PLANTS (Cont.)
Plant
No.
1
2
3


4
5
6
7


8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fluoride, mg/Jt
Finished
0.10
0.18
(0.17 raw) 1.15


0.07
0.13
(0.05 raw) 0.80
(0.14 raw) 1.66


0.12
0.20
0.12
0.02
(0.05 raw) 1.11
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.07
Turbidity, NTU Average Chemical Doses, mg/i
Raw Finished Alum Polyelectrolyte Soda Ash Other
6.4
20.
7.0


5.2
1.8
0.6
0.04


7.0
520.
5.0
6.6
1.1
3.4
0.8
5.9
29.
0.9
0.7
0.5


0.5
1.6
0.8
0.03


0.2
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
6.0
31 0.02
13 0.1
0.03


20 0.3

9 0.04
22


43 0.5
52

57
11
7
37
20 0.4
14
37





13
17


ferric sulfate
fluoride
lime
lime

fluoride


8 mg/H
0.5 mg/JZ.
18 mg/Z
18 mg/Ji,

0.6 mg/t
sodium hydroxide 13 mg/£


66


52
5
9

12

fluoride
lime

lime
KMnO.
^
fluoride

lime
lime
lime
0.6 mg/i
339 mg/fc

23 rng/4
0.2 mg/i

1.6 mg/J>

22 mg/t
9 mg/Ji.
4 rog/4
Coliforms/100 mi
Raw Finished
TNTC
38
780


TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
4


TNTC

TNTC

TNTC

TNTC
TNTC

0
23,7
0


0
0
0
0


0,3
0
0

0,1

0
0
0
Free Chlorine
residual, mg/K
2.5
< 0.1
1.0


1.5
1.5
1.0
0.6


2.5
1.7
3.0
0.6
0.4
1.0
2.5
1.5
1.7
Trihalome thanes
Pg/*
355.0
< 1.0
< 1.0


35.1
57.5
68.0
< 1.0


24.0
112.0
5.1
46.3
14.8
41.0
34.0
59.0
10.8

-------
                                              Table A-2.  RECREATIONAL PLANTS
Plant
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Type of
Plant
WB 27
ISI
WB 27
WB 82
WB 82
WB 27
Per. 48
Per. 200
WB 82
WB 82
AQ 40
WB 27
WB 27
WB 82
WB 133
Capacity
28,800
86,400
28,800
86,400
86,400
28,800
69,120
288,000
86,400
86,400
288,000
28,800
28,800
86,400
144,000
Plant
Output
gpd
1,000
5,200
2,700
3,250
4,700
1,150
6,000
50,000
1,250
6,300
12,000
13,000
3,000
3,600
33,400
Water
Source
1m
Im
Im
Im
Im
Im
Im
Ff
Im
Im
Im
Ff
Im
Im
Im
Alkalinity, mg/Jl
Raw Finished
16
19
65
98
90
108
92
12
50
40
80
73
38
56
36
31
25
72
102
97
110
96
88
46
52
75
80
57
58
57
Hardness, mg/t
Raw Finished
30
30
215
114
115
118
114
24
62
63
110
100
159
98
43
30
32
219
106
120
118
116
26
72
65
112
94
180
115
48
pH
Raw Finished
6.4
7.0
7.1
7.9
8.0
7.4
8.2
6.2
7.9
7.3
7.2
6.9
6.9
7.6
7.8
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.7
8.3
7.6
7.9
8.4
7.2
7.4
7.0
7.5
7.1
7.6
8.3
Temperature, °F
Raw Finished
74
72
68
75
81
79
82
48
55
64
58
59
64
59
57
73
72
72
81
84
79
82
52
61
64
58
59
63
61
59
NO (as N), mg/X,
Finished
0.01
0.06
0.38
0.07
< 0.01
0.04

0.03
0.17
0.31
0.21
0.26
0.27
0.20
. < 0.01
Water sources:
                Im - impounded surface water
                Ff - free-flowing surface water

-------
Table A-2.  RECREATIONAL PLANTS (Cont.)
Plant
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Fluoride, mg/S. Turbidity, NTU
Finished Raw Finished
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.12
0.20
0.14
0.03
7.4
6.0
38.
2.6
28.
4.8
22.
2.8
11.
5.0
2.5
1.4
> 100.
31.
1.7
0.3
0.4
0.4
2.1
2.0
2.7
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.5
0.5
0.7
1.4
12.
0.7
Average Chemical Doses, mg/t
Alum Polyelectrolyte Soda Ash Other
62
30
48
10
2
3
2
83
680
10
33
15
8
19
8
0.9 108
0.7 31

1.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
88
0.9
2.8 9


2.0
0.4
16
Coliforms/100 mi Free Chlorine Trihalomethanes
Raw Finished residual, mg/£ pg/i
TNTC
TNTC
166
4
0
1
0
TNTC
0
25
TNTC
TNTC
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
2.5 - 3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.1 - 0.4
2.0
1.5
0.2
1.8
1.5
2.0
> 3.0
6.1
3.9
95.0
26.0
4.7
98.0
55.0
45.0
70.3
185.0
23.6
45.0
42.8
64.0
376.0
< 1.0
132.0

-------
                                                                  APPENDIX B




                                                        COST DATA FOR PACKAGE PLANTS




                                                          Table B-l.   MUNICIPAL PLANTS
l.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8.
9
10.
11.
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Design
288000.
288000.
288000.
504000
288000.
1440000.
1296000.
806400.
504000.
288000
288000
504000.
144000.
288000.
806400.
1008000.
288000
806400
504000.
Treatment
Operation
Rate
97400.
98500.
75000.
147350.
105500.
860000.
364000.
233000.
229000.
114000.
84300.
80000.
70000.
70000.
43200.
450000.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Acquisition
O&M
456.
1250.
1063.
1241.
2183.
4447.
2158.
3750.
2000.
1133.
822.
411.
778.
604.
936.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Treatment
O&M
6752.
4184.
4364.
10905.
11614.
33323.
29947.
23716.
23795.
9060.
6877.
6265.
1015.
8068.
6586.
22220.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Chemical
O&M
1970.
1200.
607.
1000.
505.
6076.
8732.
7940.
3666.
300.
2832.
2174.
-2.
1648.
767.
3636.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Distribution
O&M
4981.
4420.
4076.
10278.
12766.
31335.
24173.
19500.
28829.
9100.
4292.
3690.
1555.
6601.
6100.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Support
Services
OiM
2069.
1053.
1028.
5039.
6301.
11550.
33193.
9202.
14181.
3473.
9072.
5024.
58.
11450.
7376.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Total
O&M
14258.
10907.
10531.
27463.
32864.
80655.
89471.
56168.
68805.
22766.
21063.
15420.
3406.
26723.
20998.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Power
2113.
4282.
5314.
6204.
9406.
18474.
7994.
18228.
8286,
5666.
4109.
2639.
3348.
3021.
4681.
-2.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Acquisition
KI
173040.
- 2.
23359.
17124.
112895.
93001.
10500.
15000.
81865.
10000.
0.
57192.
0.
38410.
21221.
12200.
25332.
50000.
4209.
Ave.    559326.3
                   195081.1
                                   1550.8
                                                  13043.2
                                                                2870.2
                                                                             11446.4
                                                                                             8004.6
                                                                                                          33433.2
                                                                                                                      6917.7
                                                                                                                                    41408.2

-------
                                                                 Table B-l.  MUNICIPAL PLANTS (Cent.)
U)
vo
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Total Treatment
KI
272593.
196645.
165031.
199347.
225785.
923415.
244841.
413850.
571440.
322025.
339325.
342662.
97710.
133600.
457995.
430996.
363934.
595965.
318067.
Plant
Equipment
KI
106593.
122652.
54180.
88565.
58700.
161203 .
219533.
135000.
183201.
55000.
60893.
69440.
43970.
53440.
124749.
93071-
69663.
85000.
196881.
Treatment
Building
KI
93737.
25384.
69795.
64263.
111391.
479911.
9047.
137250.
257428.
168127.
185622.
182688.
24428.
53440.
234219.
135830.
196181.
340643.
87890.
Treatment
Installation
KI
72264.
48609.
41056.
46520.
55694.
282301.
16261.
141600.
130811.
98898.
92810.
90131.
29313.
26720.
99027.
202094.
98090.
170322.
33196.
Distribution
Storage
KI
295295.
16520.
12317.
438589.
2264095.
1610674.
1551985.
2110706.
-2.
950970.
327816.
549053.
445292.
542830.
986653.
153560.
710734.
228712.
45716.
Overhead
KI
0.
0.
0.
11340.
0.
123131.
-2.
-2.
-2.
29670.
0.
0.
-2.
-2.
0.
-2.
0.
-2.
1564.
Interest
25994.
5003.
7502.
23379.
26106.
69697.
11820.
33936.
87619.
28859.
3522.
18967.
10050.
18075.
27172.
23584.
15700.
36500.
18400.
Total
KI
740928.
213165.
200707.
666400.
2602775.
2750222.
1807326.
2539556.
653304.
1312665.
667141.
948503.
543002.
714840.
1265869.
596756.
404966.
874677.
367992.
Payroll
O&M
10175.
5425.
4610.
19180.
21000.
56105.
49640.
30000.
43080.
16800.
6415.
7020.
-2.
1664.
10335.
18584.
-2.
-2.
-2.
Treatment
Labor $
4070.
1920.
1844.
7672.
8400.
22442.
19856.
12000.
17709.
6720.
2566.
2808.
-2.
5332.
4134.
18584.
-2.
-2.
-2.
    Ave.
                  348169.8
                                   104301.7
                                                  150382.8
                                                                 93458.8
                                                                                    724528.7
                                                                                                 13808.
                                                                                                                  25888.7   1045831.4
                                                                                                                                         20002.2
                                                                                                                                                      9070.5

-------
                                       Table B-l.   HUNICIPAL PLANTS (Cont.)
J>
o
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Ave.
Treatment
Energy
712.00
1064.00
1913.00
2233.00
2709.00
4805.00
1359.00
3776.00
2420.00
2040.00
1479.00
1283.00
1015.00
1088.00
1685.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
1972.1
Lab
Expense
-2.00
0.00
-2.00
-2.00
670.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
6215.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
-2.00
2295.0
Total
Depreciation
37046.40
10658.00
10034.91
33320.00
130138.99
137511.23
61379.85
126978.00
32665.42
65633.00
33356.72
47425.28
27150.00
17114.16
63293.44
29837.54
20248.00
43734.00
18400.00
49785.5
CPI
O&H
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00

CPI
Deprec. & KI
1.36
1.00
1.29
1.36
1.81
1.11
1.05
1.50
1.01
1.00
1.36
2.24
1.50
1.67
1.12
1.22
1.00
1.00
1.00


-------
                                                            Table B-2.  RECREATIONAL PLANTS
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Design
Flow
28800.
86400.
28800.
86400.
86400.
28800.
69120.
288000.
86400.
86400.
288000.
28800.
28800.
86400.
144000.
504000.
86400.
Treatment
Operation
Rate
1000.
5200.
2700.
3250.
4700.
1150.
6000.
50000.
1250.
6300.
12000.
13000.
3000.
3600.
144000.
302400.
-2.
Acquisition
O&H
80.
147.
132.
182.
182.
182.
182.
1095.
392.
1800.
480.
396.
146.
353.
10.
-2.
-2.
Treatment
O&M
2025.
3464.
4569.
2486.
2588.
2469.
2632.
4317.
1443.
2389.
3722.
5603.
924.
1811.
4539.
-2.
-2.
Chemical
143.
186.
321.
68.
170.
52.
214.
1315.
350.
379.
170.
1050.
122.
75.
890.
-2.
-2.
Distribution
OiM
1906.
71.
52.
1617.
1617.
1617.
1617.
4754.
187.
300.
3696.
832.
307.
35.
880.
-2.
-2.
Support
Services
OiM
1127
260.
200.
833.
833.
833.
732.
4090.
220.
100.
1392.
39.
255.
104.
485.
-2.
-2.
Total
O&M
5138.
3942.
4953.
5118.
5220.
5102.
5163.
14256.
2242.
4589.
9290.
6870.
1632.
2303.
5914.
-2.
-2.
Power
400.
352.
244.
404.
404.
404.
404.
3176.
932.
1800.
2400.
1980.
731.
882.
1795.
-2.
-2.
Acquisition
KI
2040.
2040.
13362.
10500.
13100.
16700.
12200.
-2.
97071.
59393.
10500.
5240.
80199.
14443.
6477.
213754.
3750.
Ave.   120112.9
                      34971.9
                                    383.9
                                                     2998.8
                                                                   366.9
                                                                                 1299.2
                                                                                                  766.9
                                                                                                                5448.7
                                                                                                                            1087.3
                                                                                                                                         35048.1

-------
                                                             Table  B-2.  RECREATIONAL PLANTS  (Cont.)
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Total Treatment
KI
56100.
74800.
47237.
136500.
72050.
66800.
79300.
-2.
106405
90525.
454230.
22139.
115289.
161600.
151225.
99431.
40866
Plant
Equipment
KI
17850.
34000.
17063.
20370.
20174.
25050.
19520.
-2.
53992.
38823.
50820.
8450.
59920.
30805.
58670.
-2.
21000.
Treatment
Building
KI
20400.
6800.
12873.
77420.
34584.
41750.
42700.
-2.
38062.
37581.
268940.
5240.
40249.
87196.
51467.
-2.
13244.
Treatment
Installation
KI
17850.
34000.
17301.
38710.
17292.
0.
17080.
-2.
14351.
14121.
134470.
8450.
15120.
43599.
41089.
-2.
6622.
Distribution
Storage
KI
2040.
-2.
40898.
79800.
55020.
58450.
75640.
-2.
236617.
41111.
-2.
29344.
16100.
27427.
112885.
567035.
27892.
Overhead
KI
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-2.
1029.
0.
Interest
2111.
2696.
3697.
10617.
5105.
3963.
6605.
-2.
16029.
8942.
21754.
1940.
9199.
9990.
12668.
35423.
3625.
Total
KI
60180.
76840.
101497.
226800.
140170.
141950.
167140.
-2.
440093.
191029.
464730.
56723.
211588.
203470.
270617.
880219.
72508.
Payroll
O&M
4095.
3151.
4136.
4545.
4545.
4444.
3829.
6135.
758.
2410.
6720.
3840.
539.
1260.
2779.
-2.
-2.
Treatment
Labor $
1738.
3151.
4120.
2273.
2273.
2273.
2273.
2454.
758.
1410.
2688.
3840.
539.
1260.
2779.
-2.
-2.
Ave.
             110906.1
                                31767.
                                               51900.4
                                                             28003.7
                                                                               97875.7
                                                                                                68.6
                                                                                                              9647.8
                                                                                                                        231597.1
                                                                                                                                      3545.7
                                                                                                                                                  2255.1

-------
                                  Table B-2.  RECREATIONAL PLANTS (Cont. )
I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Treatment
Energy
144.00
127.26
128.00
145.44
145 . 44
145.44
145.44
548.00
335.32
600.00
864.00
713.00
263.00
476.00
870.00
-2.00
-2.00
Lab
Expense
250.00
252.50
100.00
101.00
101.00
101.00
101.00
-2.00
202.00
0.00
-2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-2.00
-2.00
Total
Depreciation
3008.32
3842.00
5074.94
11340.00
7008.50
7097.50
8357.00
-2.00
22004.07
9551.85
23236.50
2836.15
10579.52
10173.73
13530.30
29911.20
3625.00
CPI
O&M
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
CPI
Deprec. & KI
1.36
1.36
1.31
1.05
1.31
1.67
1.22
1.00
1.31
1.05
1.05
1.31
1.12
1.01
1.05
1.21
1.00
Ave.              376.7              92.9            10698.5

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.

   EPA-600/2-80-008a
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

   PACKAGE WATER  TREATMENT PLANTS
   Volume 1.   A Performance Evaluation
                           5. REPORT DATE
                                July  1980 (Issuing Date)
                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
   James M. Morand,  Craig R. Cobb,
   Robert M.  Clark and Richard G. Stevie
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
   Department of  Civil and Environmental Engineering
   University of  Cincinnati
   Cincinnati,  Ohio   45221
                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                1 CC614   SOS  1
                            11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                GS-05S-10458
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Municipal  Environmental  Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
   Office of  Research and Development
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Cincinnati,  Ohio   45268
                            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                Final  -  6/77  to 6/79
                            14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                EPA/600/14
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
   See also Volume  II  (EPA-600/2-80-008b)
   Project Officer:  Robert M.  Clark,  DWRD,
               Cincinnati Ohio  45268   (513)   684-7488
 16. ABSTRACT

     Many small  and  rural water systems have both  cost  and quality problems.  Their
unit costs  tend  to be higher because of the small  number  of connections they service.
As shown by  the  Community Water Supply Survey of 1969 many small systems have trouble
meeting minimal  drinking water standards.  Their problems are likely to be compounded
in the future as drinking water standards are raised.   The cost of building a con-
ventional water  treatment plant to provide higher  quality water for a small community
may be prohibitive.   Package water treatment plants  are a possible alternative  to
conventional water treatment.   These plants are self-contained units that can be in-
stalled for minimum  cost.
     Results from a  study of 36 package plants in  Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee
show that these  treatment plants can provide water that meets the turbidity limits
established under the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards.  However, as
with all treatment plants, proper operation is required.   These plants, contrary to
some manufacturers'  claims,  are not totally automatic but require supervision.  Never-
theless when properly maintained and operated, they  can provide good quality drinking
vater at minimum cost.
     This volume (Volume 1)  contains performance data from the study with minimal cost
data and.represents  primarily the efforts of investigators from the University  of Cinti
who participated with EPA.  Volume 2 -\
-------